Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Quieting the heart murmur and the "nay-sayers"

After my second and more severe bout with cancer, mega chemotherapy treatments and my failure with 2 anti-cancer drugs, I was ready to try an alternative method. Megan Van Zyl came highly recommended to me and we connected. Since using her regimen to cleanse and improve my immune system, I not only feel wonderful but my thyroid TSH levels, which was at 0.04 is now 2.28 (in the normal range for the first time in a long time!!), and my heart murmur, which you could hear without a stethoscope, is hardly audible. After 4 months not knowing if the effort was achieving any significant results, I am ecstatic, to say the least, but have also quieted the “nay-sayers” in my family. All I can say, is “IT WORKS!!!” and “THANK YOU!!!!”

Bonnie Nardinger, Great Falls, MT

Bonnie came to me struggling with intense hot flashes, low thyroid function and many other side effects from conventional cancer treatment methods.  As many of my clients come, she felt awful and wanted to feel better and to gain confidence that cancer would not be coming back a 3rd time!  How someone feels during treatment shouldn't have anything to do with survival outcomes?  Let's look at a prominent study from the 1980s to understand the answer to this question.

A study in 1980 was published in The Journal of National Cancer Institute by Stanley and colleagues that should have shifted the entire philosophy and approach to cancer treatment, but has yet to be acknowledged by the vast majority of oncologists and the cancer industry as a whole.  This is truly a landmark study that deserves our attention and understanding.

In this particular study, 5,000 patients with inoperable lung cancer were tracked over a 10-year period in order to ascertain what factors would contribute to survival outcomes in poor prognosis patients. There were 77 different factors considered throughout this 10-year study including tumor size, histological type of cancer, clinical status, etc.

When this study was being conducted through 1980-1990, the NCI had a very stringent, narrow definition of positive response to a treatment.  In their definition, patients with total regression of tumors that lasted at least four weeks and a significant partial response of at least 50% tumor regression lasting at least four weeks as well.  The clinical status and survival did not account for anything, soley tumor shrinkage, even in the face of death.

Surprisingly (to some), the single most important factor was not tumor shrinkage; rather, patients who felt good and could do more things for themselves had far better survival outcomes than those who felt worse and did less for themselves.

Did this study have any impact on the NCI's definition of a positive response to treatments?  Not really.  The general approach is still to attack the cancer cells in aggressive treatments in order to shrink the tumor small enough to be removed through surgery.  However, this study from the 1980s proved that tumor shrinkage was not heavily correlated with survival outcomes.   How could the results of this study be missed by our medical establishment?

The definition and basic assumptions of what contributes to survival outcomes seems to be impairing the improvement in long-term survival outcomes for cancer patients undergoing aggressive, potentially dangerous treatments all in the effort to shrink the tumors.

Many times, I work with clients who have gone through chemotherapy and other aggressive treatments who want to detoxify and ensure that the cancer will not come back again more aggressively.  Bonnie was such a client. Through all the ups and downs, she is at a wonderful place in her health, confident that the cancer will not come back and that she has been able to address the root causes to the development of cancer in her body.  She is thoroughly confident that cancer will not be returning a 3rd time and feels compelled to share her story of healing with the world! Thanks Bonnie, enjoy your newfound health!  

If you would like to order a copy of my new book to learn more about What is Cancer and why it develops in the body, 
click http://amzn.to/2mMiHGS to purchase my book or to read over kindle/E-book.

If you are a holistic health practitioner and you want to grow in your clinical and business knowledge to be able to achieve clarity and confidence in your practice, reach out to me @ yourgreenumbrella@gmail.com.  The next Green Umbrella Professional Training Program will be starting in June 2017 and we would love to have you join! For more
information:  http://www.yourgreenumbrella.com/course.php If you or a loved one has cancer and would like to work with a Nutritional Therapist, please email me at yourgreenumbrella@gmail.com.  We are currently taking new clients.  

Disclaimer:  The Green Umbrella does not diagnose, treat, or cure any disease.  Consult your doctor if you suspect that you have a disease or need medical attention.  

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Hidden studies & cancer breakthroughs

Dr. John Beard who first discovered that the trophoblast cells of the placenta mirrored the undifferentiated, primitive cancer cells, extensively studied the clinical use of trypsin and amylase in cancer treatment.  Trypsin was named by German scientist, W. Kuhne in 1867.  In Greek trypsin means "I wear away" to demonstrate the intense metabolic activity of this enzyme.  Trypsin was first used in treatment of diphtheria.  Diphtheria bacteria produces a thick membrane in the throat that could lead to suffocation.  Injectable trypsin digested this membrane in animals exposed to the bacteria.

Dr. John Beard explored the injectable form of pancreatic enzymes and its clinical use in cancer treatments. The therapeutic use of pancreatic enzymes was a delicate scientific process because trypsin was highly active to the point of self-destruction if extraction methods were not done with exacting precision.

In fact, because of the need for precise methods, Beard became involved in the manufacturing process of the enzymes.  He assisted Fairchild in the process necessary to extract the highest amount of pancreatic enzymes without the loss of enzymes from self-combustion.  When Beard believed that they developed the highest potency injectable enzyme therapy, he began to experiment with animals.

The Jensen mouse tumors were clinically sound and available for use in cancer research in the early 1900s.  Beard began experimenting with using injectable trypsin in isolation and in combination with amylase.  When Beard used trypsin in isolation with too high of a dose in animals with cancer, he would see the animals die quickly.  He postulated that the animals were dying because of the high amounts of toxins being released while the tumor was being digested by the enzymes.

Thus, Beard began to experiment with trypsin injections followed by injections of amylase for several days.  He found the animals thriving in their recovery as amylase helped to clear the excess toxins from the destruction that trypsin had upon the tumor mass.

In 1906, The British Medical Journal published the first successes with enzyme therapy in the Jensen mouse tumor models.  Beard attracted a lot of positive and negative reactions from his work.  In fact, he had doctors critiquing every detail of his work down to questioning whether the mice had cancer in the first place.  They were incredulous that Beard would have discovered a cancer cure. 

However, despite the attacks, Beard continued forward to research his therapy on human patients.  In the first human trial, Beard used everything he learned from study with mice on human patients that failed conventional treatments.  He used 1,000 units of trypsin and 2,000 units of amylase in the injectable form daily. Physicians who used the proper dosing and proper approach reported great results.

Because of Beard's success, drug companies between 1906-1910 created and marketed their own enzyme preparations in a very sloppy, unscientific manner. Physicians using preparations outside of the Fairchild preparations influenced by Beard himself, found little success.  Some physicians used the Fairchild preparations with the wrong dosage or without amylase.

The cancer world hotly debated Beard's work and with the new flurry of activity surrounding radiation therapy, many physicians and researchers abandoned enzyme therapy without doing due diligence and with no regard to Beard's lifelong landmark discoveries.  In 1969, The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an order to outlaw the manufacturing and clinical usage of injectable pancreatic enzymes.  It would seem that Beard's work would die without advantage in clinical use for desperate cancer patients.  However, the good news is that injectable formula's of pancreatic enzymes are now on the rise, especially in Germany.

1.  Gonzalez, Nicholas J.  Nutrition And The Autonomic Nervous System.  The Scientific Foundations of The Gonzalez Protocol.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Hidden cancer cures and the landmark studies

We will continue down the path of exploring hidden cancer cures and the landmark studies which back their significance.  Dr. Pottenger was well known for his work in comparing raw diets to cooked diets in cats.  However, he is less known for his remarkable research surrounding the autonomic nervous system and the development of disease.  Dr. Pottenger commanded great attention to detail and mastery of understanding of the physiology of the body and how an imbalance in the autonomic nervous system could lead to debilitating disease (1).

The hypothalamus is the control center in the autonomic nervous system and a key component of the limbic system:  where mind, body and soul converge.  In the posterior hypothalamus, we find the parasympathetic nervous system.  In the anterior hypothalamus, we find the sympathetic nervous system.  These systems are connected with a feedback loop through the central nervous system.

Dr. Kelly found that breast cancer patients tended towards sympathetic nervous system dominance and that calcium supplementation became dangerous to breast cancer patients because it is a stimulant for the sympathetic nervous system.  In large doses, a heart attack could be induced when their body is operating out of an overactive sympathetic state.

The majority of people are balanced in their autonomic nervous system.  However, 10-20% of people are either sympathetic or parasympathetic dominant.  The characteristics of a sympathetic system being largely in control with no inter-system homeostasis would be the following:

1.  A highly developed heart
2.  Muscles well-defined regardless of exercise schedule
3.  Strong tendency towards reliance on the left hemisphere of the brain
4.  Overactive endocrine glands

Even certain personality traits can be correlated with sympathetic dominance; including:

1.  Tendency to be anxious and irritable
2.  Moments of aggression and hostility
3.  Well-disciplined and good at routines
4.  Tendency to be thin
5.  Not dependent on high quantities of sleep, only needing 6-8 hours
6.  Poor digestion

In a strong parasympathetic nervous system and weak sympathetic, the right hemisphere of the brain dominates as the digestive tract, pancreas and liver are overly active.   Organs and glands typically regulated by the sympathetic system are sluggish including heart, muscles, endocrine and thyroid glands.  Some of the personality traits of a parasympathetic nervous system dominant person would be:

1.  Person is typically calm and emotionally stable
2.  Slow to anger and not hot-tempered like a person who expresses sympathetic dominant
3.  Prone to depression
4.  A tendency to be undisciplined and more creative
5.  Easily becomes overweight

In order to balance the autonomic nervous systems, the proper nutritional stimulants must be used to strengthen the weakness and bring homeostasis.  Magnesium acts on the autonomic nervous system through suppressing an overactive sympathetic system.  During times of high stress and trauma, supplementing high doses of magnesium could help to maintain some balance between the autonomic nervous systems.  Potassium is a mineral which acts to stimulate the parasympathetic nervous system. Calcium can be used therapeutically when a person is parasympathetic dominant and needs the sympathetic system to be triggered.

Dr. Kelly and Dr. Pottenger made significant findings in regards to treating cancer as an autonomic nervous system imbalance.  Further, Dr. Kelly acting upon the research of Dr. John Beard, found that pancreatic proteolytic enzymes were necessary to remove the negatively charged protein coating on cancer cells.

Dr. John Beard discovered that almost 2 months after conception, the fetus began to create pancreatic enzymes.  Why were they needed?  A fetus survives soley on the nutrients from the mother and technically does not need enzymes to be released by the pancreas until the first time it breast feeds outside of the womb.  Dr. John Beard discovered that the pancreatic proteolytic enzymes were necessary to stop the invasion of the trophoblast cells in the development of the placenta.  Further, he found that the undifferentiated trophoblast cells of the placenta appeared the same as cancer cells.

Through many years of extensive research, Dr. Beard boldly claimed that uncontrolled cancer growth was not so different from the growth of the placenta and that supplementing high doses of proteolytic enzymes would help to break apart a tumor.  In many studies, his work has been confirmed and yet this cure for cancer has remained hidden for the majority of the world.

A particular landmark study found that pancreatic enzymes decreased side effects of conventional treatments including nausea, digestion issues, fatigue, weight loss and restlessness.  In specifically plasmacytoma cancer patients, enzyme therapy increased response rates, duration of remissions and overall survival outcomes (2).  The outcome of this study upgraded enzyme therapy to the "orphan drug status (3)."  An orphan drug is one that is not profitable for pharmaceutical companies and only treats in uncommon diseases.  Most holistic cancer treatments have not been approved or acknowledged despite the research backing their significance.  The fact that pancreatic enzyme therapy has been recognized in this manner demonstrates the importance of enzyme therapy to positive cancer treatment outcomes.

Thus the hidden cancer cures of balancing the autonomic nervous system and supplementing high amounts of pancreatic enzymes prove to be important components of a preventative paradigm as well as a holistic treatment protocol for cancer.

1.  Gonzalez, Dr. Nicholas J.  Nutrition And The Autonomic Nervous System.

2.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19116226

3.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_drug

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Without this critical nutrient, risk of breast cancer increased by 354%

Many important studies on cancer are sitting on the shelves of research libraries collecting dust and lying dormant on the internet with no clinical application in mainstream oncology. The debate between holistic oncology and western modern oncology continues, however, many holistic treatments are backed with solid research studies.  Let's continue to explore these landmark studies and attempt to turn the Titanic of modern oncology to scientifically sound treatment options.  

One particular deficiency has been studied over and over again, solidly confirmed as one of the most important nutrients in preventing the development of cancer.  This nutrient is the easiest to obtain in states like California and Florida and more difficult to obtain in Northern states and countries.  In fact, Dr. Joseph Mercola, speaker & author from the well-known blog Mercola.com, moved from Chicago to Florida in order to access more of Vitamin D. Why would a holistic doctor move from Chicago to Florida for access to the sun?
Let's explore some of the vital studies to understand the power of Vitamin D3.  At George's Hospital Medical School in London, Vitamin D production in breast tissue was found to be correlated to a reduction of risk in the future development of breast cancer (1).  In fact, women testing with low amounts of Vitamin D were found to increase their risk of breast cancer by 354% (Anticancer Research 26: 2573-80, 2006).  This is one reason why I recommend my clients with breast cancer to sunbath with their breast tissue open to the sun rays for 15-30 minutes per day.  One of my clients found a dramatic response to sun therapy.  During one sunbathing session, after 18 minutes, she literally felt her tumor revolt from the sun and shrink down into the breast tissue.  Just 400 IU of Vitamin D per day reduces the risk of pancreatic cancer by 43% (1).  

Why is there such a dramatic response such as the one of my client sunbathing?  In 1968, J.W. Blunt found the composition of Vitamin D that circulates the blood to be 25-OH-D3 (2).  Blunt and his colleagues discovered that 25-OH-D3 was created in the liver and kidneys and acts as a hormone in the body. The hormonal action of Vitamin D3 modulates the immune system and is received on receptor sites of some cancer cells specifically relegated to D3 (2).  

When an individual is exposed to Vitamin D from the sun (bare skin with no sun block and no sunglasses so that the body can register that it is in the sun), Vitamin D travels through blood into the liver where is transformed into a prohormone (5).  Next, the prohormone form travels to the kidneys where it becomes the active form, calcitriol (5).  The kidneys release calcitriol back into the blood where it regulates how the body uses calcium and phosphorus (5).

Receptors for calcitriol are found in the nucleus of cells, the brain, heart, skin, breast tissue, prostate gland and white blood cells of the immune system (6).  This is one reason why Vitamin D3 has been more critically linked to breast and prostate cancer although it does impact every type of cancer diagnosis because of its key role in balancing the immune system.  

In another clinical trial of D3, patients received a Vitamin D cream to apply on breast tumors. Professor Charles Coomes, the clinical oncologist in Charing Cross Hospital in London found 1/3 of tumors to respond effectively to this treatment (3).  A comparison study examining the lives of 133 breast cancer patients found that regular sunbathing (without burning) lowered the risk of breast cancer by 30-40% (4).    

Some may find it necessary to make the move to sun-rich states such as California and Florida in order to better access the healing therapy of the sun.  However, others may find an effective and therapeutic Vitamin D3 supplement.  Cod liver oil is a great supplemental source for Vitamin D3 and the easiest to assimilate because it is a food source.  However, not all cod livers oils and D3 supplements are created equal, so choose wisely and carefully. For example, don't buy a Walmart, GNC, or Target brand of Vitamin D3 and expect it to have a therapeutic effect.  

Learning from these landmark cancer studies, we can better prevent cancer in the lives of our families and clients.  Let us continue to press on and explore landmark cancer studies and eradicate cancer as the lifestyle onset disease that it is by reversing deficiencies, lessening our exposure to toxins and helping our body to heal and find proper balance.  

1.  Sardi, Bill.  You Don't Have to Be Afraid of Cancer Anymore. 

2.  Moss, Ralph W. Ph.D.  Cancer Therapy:  The Independent Consumer's Guide to Non-Toxic Treatment & Prevention.  

3.  Bartram, Thomas.  Bartram's Encyclopedia of Herbal Medicine:  The Definitive Guide.  

4.  Harkness, Richard.  The Natural Pharmacist:  Your Complete Guide to Reducing Cancer Risk.  

5.  https://www.cancertutor.com/vitamin-d-longer-breast-cancer-survival/

6.  Rubin, Alan L.  What is Vitamin D and How Does it Work?

7.  http://www.naturalnews.com/025495_Vitamin_D_brst_cancer.html

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

The Forgotten Studies

I started a series last week called the forgotten studies.  Many studies regarding cancer have been dismissed and not applied in an effective clinical manner.  In this blog, we will look at recommendations made by Cancer Treatment Centers of America compared to The Gerson Diet. Gerson Therapy was developed by Dr. Max Gerson.  Initially, Dr. Gerson developed the diet for his chronic migraines. After successfully reversing his migraines, he started to use his dietary plan with tuberculosis with much success.  In fact, at the Munich University Hospital, 446 out of 450 skin tuberculosis patients treated with the Gerson diet completely recovered.  Dr. Gerson later brought his practice to New York City and began working with cancer patients, developing a comprehensive holistic plan for cancer.  

When searching for dietary recommendations for cancer, Cancer Treatment Centers of America recommend soy milk, tofu, soybean oil, bread, cereal, canned fruit in the juice, pasta, corn, coffee and other more normal recommendations.  In fact, here is a sample menu from Cancer Treatment Centers of America compared with Gerson Therapy:  

1/2 cup cooked cereal
1/2 cup milk
1/2 cup fruit or fruit juice
1 hard-boiled egg
Beverage (coffee, tea, or water)

1/4 cup granola
1/2 cup low-fat yogurt

Sandwich:  2 slices whole-grain bread
4 ounces meat, fish, or poultry
1 tsp mayonnaise, lettuce, tomato slices
1 piece of fruit
1/2 cup carrot sticks

1/2 cup raw vegetables
2 Tbsp of peanut butter

4 oz lean meat, fish or poultry
1 cup steamed vegetables
1/2 cup grain product (pasta, brown rice)
1 tsp of butter
1 cup of milk

4 whole-wheat crackers
2 Tbsp of peanut butter

Sample Menu of Gerson Therapy:

Homemade juice:  either green juice or green apple and carrot juice with organic produce
Gluten-free, organic oats soaked in water and lemon juice to remove phytic acid served with no sweetener, soaked organic nuts and seeds and coconut oil/coconut milk

Coffee Enema

Homemade juice:  either green juice (endives, kale, spinach, green apple, red cabbage, lemon, swiss chard, cucumber) or green apple and carrot juice with organic produce

Homemade juice:  either greens juice or apple/carrot juice
Organic vegetables stir fried in coconut oil 
Organic salad with veggies, olive oil and lemon juice, soaked nuts and seeds
Organic non-GMO baked potato 
Hippocrates soup: 
1 medium celery knob or 3-4 stalks of celery
1 medium parsley root-if available
2 small leeks (if not available, replace with 2 medium onions)
1 1/2 pounds tomatoes or more
2 medium onions
1 pound of organic non-GMO potatoes
Organic Parsley   

Coffee enema

Same as lunch

Organic, fresh juices every hour, 13 times per day.  

The only coffee that is recommended in Gerson Therapy is coffee enemas. Coffee is a stimulant and adversely affects the nervous system, adrenal glands and causes the pH of the body to become more acidic than alkaline.  Soy milk, tofu and other American soy products can cause a major imbalance in hormones and congest the liver because of the toxicity and the need of the liver to process excess hormones.  Most cancer patients are unable to properly digest wheat and corn because of damage to the intestinal tract. Further, most peanut butter contains mold and contributes to the toxic, moldy environment that allowed the cancerous growth in the first place.  

Beyond comparing the diets, I want to look at a study that compared Gerson Therapy to traditional treatments for cancer.  In a 5-year survival study, 100% of Gerson Therapy patients with localized melanoma were alive after 5 years whereas only 79% of those with localized melanoma were alive after 5 years using traditional oncology treatment methods. Further, 17 patients with Stage IIIA, regionally metastasized melanoma, 82% were alive at 5 years in contrast with 39% using traditional oncology treatment methods only.  Of 18 with stage IVA melanoma, 39% were alive at 5 years with Gerson compared with 6% alive using traditional oncology treatment methods.  

As we can see from the literature, the details in the diet make a huge difference in survival outcomes. I use some treatment components from Gerson Therapy with my clients diagnosed with cancer and believe that a comprehensive, bio-individual holistic treatment plan greatly assists survival outcomes for cancer patients.  





Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Brain cancer, the monkey virus, and the study fraught with errors

In my last blog, we reviewed extensively how the SV40 monkey virus acts as a destructive carcinogenic force at the cellular level.  During this blog, we are going to examine a case study as well as potential sources of the SV40 virus.  Where could we possibly be exposed to a monkey virus?

A young boy, by the name of Alexander (1), was diagnosed with brain cancer when he was only 2 years old.  First, he endured brain surgery.  After surgery, his parents flew to see Dr. Burzynski at The Burzynski Clinic in Texas only to be told that they could not use his treatments because they were not FDA approved.  Instead, they were forced to use chemotherapy prior to using the treatments from Dr. Burzynski.  Only after completing all the chemotherapy recommended by their oncologist, could they pursue Dr. Burzynski, the treatment that they preferred as a couple.

After only 3 treatments of chemotherapy, the cancer spread and the doctors found 30 new tumors in Alexander's little body.  Thus, Alexander did not survive long enough to take the treatments recommended by Dr. Burzynski.  The research surrounding the clinical effectiveness of chemotherapy in cases of medulloblastoma resounds as an abysmal failure. Firstly, the blood-brain barrier acts as a protective mechanism in the brain and blocks the absorption of cytotoxic chemotherapy agents (2).  In a peer-reviewed study, chemotherapy was compared to not using chemotherapy, and there was no evidence of effect in regards to chemotherapy agents in medulloblastomas compared to no treatment at all (3).  In fact, in one analysis of the effectiveness of chemotherapy on 22 types of cancers, the SEER report from 2004, found that brain cancer survival rate is only 4.9% five years after diagnosis (4).

Alexander's parents were devastated to lose their only son and searched endlessly for answers.  In their research, they discovered that some tumors develop in the body because of complications from viral infections.  In medulloblastoma tumors, the ingestion period for a viral contaminant would be about 7 months.  The only thing that Alexander had been exposed to 7-8 months prior to first signs of the brain tumor was his oral polio vaccine.  Surely this could not have been the source?

A quick search on the CDC website, one can find all the ingredients of a vaccination.  Here are the following ingredients within the polio vaccine:

2-phenoxyethanol, formaldehyde, neomycin, streptomycin, polymyxin B, monkey kidney cells, Eagle MEM modified medium, calf serum protein, Medium 199 (5)

One may wonder, monkey kidney cells in the polio vaccine?  Why?  Viruses need living cells to reproduce themselves.  Thus, in preparation of vaccinations, a variety of living tissue is used to multiple the virus.  Vaccinations use a variety of cell lines in which to grow the viruses including, but not limited to, egg, monkey kidney cells (as in the polio vaccine), and aborted fetal tissue.  When the polio vaccine was first developed, the main producers of this vaccine were focused on using rhesus monkey kidney cell lines for the growth of the virus.

Polio is contracted through the mouth, nose, or shed polio virus through feces (can be infected through changing a diaper or poor hygiene).  Most polio strains are absolutely harmless and the symptoms include a mild, cold-like illness with headaches, chills, and a low-grade fever.  However, in about 2% of the cases, a virulent strain of polio can travel from the gut to the central nervous system and attack the brain and spinal cord leading to paralysis.  In 1994, America became certified polio-free and yet, 5 shots are typically required for polio immunizations.

When the polio vaccine was first manufactured, rhesus monkey kidney cells were chosen primarily because of easy access to the kidneys.  The drawback of using monkey kidneys is that they tend to be full of pathogens, bacteria, viruses, and toxins.  There is a reason why offal from kidneys are not typically consumed.  Monkey kidneys specifically are loaded with dormant viruses. The reason that monkey kidneys tend to be contaminated with viruses is because of the main role of the organ in the body.  Kidneys help to metabolize Vitamin D in the body, manufacture erythropoietin, a chemical substance that stimulates red blood cell production, and act as a sewage plant for the body's circulating blood.  In fact, 425 gallons of blood are processed daily through the kidneys.  Everything contaminated in the blood is removed by the kidneys, including parasites, bacteria, unknown viruses, and microorganisms.

Bernice Eddy was a researcher when the polio vaccine was first released to the public.  She conducted a major experiment to determine potential side effects coming from the rhesus kidney cell extract.  She did this by freezing rhesus kidney cell cultures, grinding them up, and injecting them into newborn hamsters.  In the control group, she injected hamsters with feline and human tumor extracts.  None of the control group developed any abnormalities while 70% of the 154 hamsters exposed to the monkey kidney cells developed tumors.  Immediately, she alerted her boss to the findings of her study.  She also published her study and spoke in one conference regarding her results. Because of Eddy's research, other researchers began to conduct experiments to explore the potential carcinogenic effect of the rhesus kidney cells from the original polio vaccine.  Eventually, it was discovered that the carcinogenic affect was most likely coming from a virus that was named the SV40 virus.  In 1963, a basic population study was designed and enacted called The Fraumeni Study.  The results of this study concluded that the SV40 virus was cancerous to animals, but not to humans.

However, the study was fraught with errors and potential problems, including:
  • The study only followed children for 4 years after they had been inoculated by the polio vaccine.  Many cancers take more than 4 years to develop.  For example, cancer from asbestos exposure can take 20-40 years to develop. 
  • The study failed to detect small differences in cancer rates as caused by SV40
  • Only 3 types of cancer were surveyed:  brain, kidney, and connective tissue
  • Cancer was defined by cancer deaths, not diagnosis
  • During the 1960's, cancer was misdiagnosed many times
  • It was impossible to define who was exposed to SV40 and who was not
Even with the clear and apparent errors, this one study shoved the entire theory of the SV40 virus from the polio vaccine causing cancer under a rug for many years.  Many researchers continued to study the SV40 virus and how it could potentially link to human tumors.  In fact, there have been over 80 published studies connecting the SV40 virus to human tumors. 

In the case of Alexander, more than 30 years after the original release of the polio vaccine, his brain tumor was tested for the presence of SV40.  The testing did find SV40 within the brain tumor and found it to be cancer causing.  To find the potential source of the SV40 virus, both parents were tested for antibodies to the SV40 virus and neither matched as a potential source.  Further, the cord blood from pregnancy was also tested and found free of the SV40 virus.  The only other potential source was from the contaminated polio vaccine.

In 2000, Alexander's parents sued the Pharmaceutical company who produced the oral polio vaccine that their son received.  A leading SV40 researcher and expert, testified that the source of the SV40 was most likely from the oral polio vaccine that was given to Alexander when he was two years old. Despite all of the evidence, the court did not rule in favor of Alexander's parents.  The concern over SV40 exposure and the polio vaccine continues even today and for some researchers and SV40 experts, not enough has been done to ensure that the American public are protected against this cancer-causing monkey virus.  Justice has yet to be done.


1.  http://www.sv40foundation.org/alexander.html#_edn15
2.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/82907
3.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25879092
4.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849
5.  https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

Wednesday, January 4, 2017

How Modern Life creates cancer

In the fight to understand cancer, there are thousands of potential carcinogens to start to become familiar with in our modern world.  We are exposed to carcinogens every day of our lives.  However, in a healthy body, with a strong immune system, balanced gut flora, emotional intelligence/overcoming trauma, and a clean diet, our bodies have an amazing capacity to defend itself from daily carcinogenic exposures.

One of the potential carcinogens that I want to begin to review is the viral influence on the development of cancer in the body.  There are a handful of viruses that have been linked to cancer in research literature including, Hepatitis B and C, HPV, HTLV-1 (Human T-cell Lymphotropic virus type 1), and SV40.

Viruses have the potential of triggering a cascade of effects on the cellular level which in an immune-compromised, deficient, imbalanced host environment, can lead to the development of cancer. Viruses enter a cell and start replicating by overtaking the DNA of the cell, making literally thousands of copies of itself.  When the cell becomes so full of the virus, it may break open spilling all the contents and the viral copies into the body of the host.  A progression of viral invasion ensues with all the copies of the virus invading neighboring cells and the cycle continues.  This process will cause the person to become ill, but may not lend itself towards the development of a tumor.

Genetic factors play a role in the development of cancer.  Tumor suppressing genes must be mutated and oncogenes must be expressed for cancer to develop in the body.  One vital tumor suppressing gene is p53.  In fact, it has been estimated that 50-60% of all cancers involve damage, mutation, or inactivation of the p53 gene.  If p53 is not functioning properly, a cell with altered DNA may undergo mitosis instead of dying and the cell may start to reproduce wildly.  The p53 gene regulates mitosis, the process of cellular division.  During cellular division, if damage to the DNA is detected, mitosis is paused while the damage is fixed.  If the damage cannot be repaired, the cell undergoes apoptosis or programmed cell death.  If the damage is repaired, then the cell will reproduce a daughter cell before going through apoptosis.  Rbs is another important regulatory gene which is involved in protecting the cell from becoming oncogenic by acting as the final gatekeeper in cellular division.  If p53 does not express properly during the potential mitosis of a damaged cell, Rbs becomes the last line of defense to stop the damaged cell from dividing.

During cellular division, another control mechanism to dissuade the cell from becoming an immortal cancer cell is telomeres.  Telomeres were first discovered by Leonard Hayflick in the 1960s and the lifespan of the cell became known as the Hayflick limit.  Telomeres are microfibers at the end of chromosomes and shorten each time the cell divides.  When a cell divides, part of the telomere shortens and after many cellular divisions, the cell must go through apoptosis.  This protects the body and inhibits the cell from becoming immortal, one characteristic of a tumor cell.

For a virus to have a bigger impact than simply weakening or distracting the immune system and causing the person to be sick, fundamental changes in the genetic expression of the cell must be influenced by other carcinogenic factors.  The following environment must be created:  p53 must be inactivated, tumor oncogenes must be activated such as Notch-1 and Met, chromosomal damage must be induced, and telomerase must be stimulated.  Telomerase is an enzyme which allows telomeres to be lengthened every time the cell divides instead of becoming shortened, which leads to the immortality of the cancer cell.

One virus that I want to delve into today would be the impact of SV40 or Simian Virus 40.  SV40 was first discovered in a rhesus monkey kidney cell.  SV40 has been shown in molecular research to be a carcinogen that can act alone in initiating cancer in the body.  Most carcinogens need to act in tandem whereas SV40 is able to do the following in one fatal swoop:  1.  Blocks Rbs and p53 tumor suppressor genes  2.  Activates Notch-1 and Met oncogenes  3.  Alters/damages DNA  4.  Induces telomerase activity to allow immortality of the cells influenced by SV40.

Carbone is an Italian researcher that has extensively tested tumors for the presence of SV40, finding it in some cases.  He also discovered how a large T-antigen molecule within SV40 strangles p53 and other tumor suppressor genes in mesothelial cells.  Mesothelial cells contain very high amounts of p53, 4-5 times the amount within fibroblast cells.  Thus, the SV40 virus acts differently within fibroblast cells and does not lead to the development of cancer.  Within the p53-rich mesothelial cells, the large T-antigen binds with p53 and slows the pace of the SV40 replication which keeps the cell intact and the mesothelial cells can start dividing uncontrollably as all the other factors are triggered by SV40:  p53 and Rbs are switched off, oncogenes are turned on, DNA becomes damaged, and telomerase activity becomes stimulated.

There have been 25 new studies from 1997-2003 demonstrating SV40 in human pleural mesotheliomas (a rare lung cancer).  Further, there have been 80 published studies total connecting SV40 to human tumors, including brain, lymphoma, bone, lung, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.  Butel is a well-known researcher and did a meta-analysis of all the studies done on cancer and the SV40 virus and found the following odds ratio:  Lymphomas:  5, Brain:  4, Mesotheliomas (lung):  17, Bone:  25.  A meta-analysis of smoking and cancer demonstrated the odds ratio of 10 when all the studies where analyzed.

Exposure to viral carcinogens such as SV40 can take many years to express, depending upon the age of the person exposed.  For example, a child who is exposed to SV40 may develop a tumor within 7 months whereas an adult who is exposed may not develop a tumor for many years.  In my next blog, I will explore a case study of exposure to SV40 as well as potential sources of exposure to the SV40 virus.







Bookchin, Debbie & Schumacher, Jim. The Virus and The Vaccine.  2004.