Trip to Tijuana Mexico change my outlook forever

If I am giving cancer victims self doubt about seeking treatment in Tijuana, then I am doing what I set out to do.  How is it "unethical" let alone "rumor-mongering" to give an opinion about these Clinics south of the border that is the opinion of virtually any respected, KNOWLEDGEABLE medical professional.  How could visiting these clinics possibly change my mind?  The fact is that if I was there I would never believe a word they told me anyway.  I have never heard of one person, not ONE ever cured by these clinics.   I have heard of plenty of people who have been scammed out of their money and still ended up dying, oftentimes when real medicine could have saved their lives.  But if you have truly "investigated" these clinics, then by now you should have some idea what their secrets are, how they "cure" people that western medicine cannot cure.  So how about letting us in on those secrets?  What cancers to they cure that are incurable north of the border, and how do they do it?  And yea, I know people with cancer are "fragile, which is why I am here.  To try to be a contrary voice.  Again, I am all for "alternative" medicines so long as they are in addition to and not as a sole alternative for standard treatments that actually work.

Sorry to butt in - but I feel compelled to say, as an objective reader, I do NOT feel that Worriedhusband sounds judmental or condescending - in fact, I think he is performing a needed service here - providing newsworthy information about scams - giving a "heads-up" to all of us. The links he has provided do not "muddy the waters" from where I sit - the information appears to be an honest attempt to uncover the truth. However, I have my own negative view about Mexico - and it's not about their people. I worked for a "big-name" American pharmaceutical company right out of college - part of their business was to research, develop and sell anti-cancer drugs. The scientists would spend a lot of time in Mexico conducting studies.........because the FDA wouldn't be watching their backs. This company paid desperately poor people to be guinea pigs for their experiments - experiments that would never have been permitted in the USA. We cannot ignore the fact that greed is rampant in the business of cancer therapies. Many scientists get caught up in making big bucks - but at least in our country we have some oversight like peer-review journals and the FDA to watchdog those that would prey on the desparately ill. Back in the days when I worked for the head of the cancer-research department, the FDA caught an important doctor in California for falsifying patient records during a double-blind study for a new drug. The company lost MILLIONS of dollars spent on developing this drug............and the doctor got a slap on the wrist. So vigilance as well as compassion is required of all doctors, care-givers and patients in choosing our therapies.

No question, cancer therapy and big pharma is big business and it is greed, after all, in the financial industry that has put us on the brink of another depression.  No reason to believe that greed is not behind lots of the medical procedures done in the US, and its not only faking results done by people running these questionable studies, but its also their inside leaking of such information to those who make a killing when pharmaceutical stocks go up or down more than 50% in one day.  Even the FDA has people who leak information or who try to personally profit at a coming drug decision.  But all greed aside, what choice do we have but to assume that as a whole the medical community is doing the best it can?  And where would it be easier to commit fraud and rake in fortunes, in the totally unregulated wild west of Tijuan, or in the highly regulated US medical community?   Here is what the ACS has to say:  http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3x_Questionable_Practices_In_Tijuana.asp

worried hubby...let me get this straight....you dont have bc or know anyone who had bc but you come on here a stir up a hornet's nest anyway?.......Who the hell are you to do that to all these women who are so sick?........They have every right in the world to choose their own treatment options.(and I mistakenly at first took your side)........If any of them or I for that matter choose to go to Tiajuana or Timbuktu  what business is that of yours?????....Leave us alone and go pick on the men on the prostate site.....

1. Steve McQueen died of a heart attack a day after surgery to remove a necrotic "dead" tumor.

2. Coretta Scott King went to Mexico but died of advanced cancer before any treatment could be started.

Their deaths had nothing to do with the clinics.

Wrong, McQueen died after botched surgery at the cancer clinic.  And they closed down the clinic where King died.  What do we know about that clinic's director:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/04/mexico

The clinic's founder and director, Kurt Donsbach, was sentenced to a year in prison by a federal court in San Diego in 1997 for smuggling more than $250,000 (£141,000) worth of unapproved drugs into the US from Mexico. He was charged with introducing unapproved drugs into inter-state commerce, smuggling merchandise contrary to law and income tax evasion.

In 1988, the US postal service ordered Mr Donsbach and his nephew to stop claiming that a solution of hydrogen peroxide that they sold could prevent cancer and ease arthritis pain. Mr Donsbach was not available for comment yesterday, and no one was at the clinic's corporate offices in San Diego. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution first reported the clinic's closure.

Duke University is also in trials with hyperthermia.  A friend of mine went there to treat a spot on her sternum.  

Worriedhubby6 - Thanks for the link to ACS - I read the following information regarding macrobiotic diets with great interest - seems the author of "Becoming Whole", Meg Wolff, is onto something about this diet and the ACS is ready to put money behind some real studies at long last:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Macrobiotic_Diet.asp?sitearea=ETO

I'm also very interested in how insulin is related to cancer development..........estrogen does plays a big role in insulin production - it's all fascinating to me!

4. Transfer Factor

CLINICAL RESULTS

Even if some clinical reports of the ‘70s are subject to justified criticism, hundreds of studies have established the efficacy of transfer factor in treating several pathologies. Its lack of toxicity and the absence of side effects made the use of this extract appealing. Moreover, despite current scepticism, no publication has ever rejected reported clinical claims. An impressive number of clinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy of transfer factor in treating and even preventing viral infections. For instance, Steele and co-workers were able to protect leukaemic children receiving chemotherapy from varicella zoster virus infections using varicella-zoster-specific transfer factor. In the early 1980s, Viza and Dwyer described significant improvement obtained by the use of herpes-simplex-virus-specific transfer factor in treating patients suffering from recurrent genital and/or labial herpes. The clinical observations were later corroborated by experiments in a mouse model.

Other clinical studies have shown that specific transfer factor may produce a spectacular improvement in acute cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections. Moreover, in Africa, children suffering from Burkitt's lymphoma (a tumour caused by EBV) treated over a long period with EBV-specific TF showed a significant decrease in the rate of relapses. Other viral infections e.g. hepatitis B respond equally well to specific TF.

Transfer factor treatment has proven to be helpful in several neoplasias. One should cite the pioneering work of Fudenberg and that of Pizza. Osteosarcoma, melanoma, breast, lung, prostate and kidney cancer patients have benefited from TF therapy.

Parasitic infections also respond to TF therapy as the data of Sharma, confirmed by Delgado, in treating cutaneous leishmaniasis suggest. Other parasitic diseases known to respond effectively to TF are schistosomiasis and cryptosporidiosis, and several reports cite positive results obtained in treating patients with mycobacterial infections such as lepromatus leprosy, mycobacterium fortuitum pneumonia refractory to antibiotic therapy and tuberculosis. Chronic mucocutaneous candidiasis, an immunodeficiency characterized by chronically relapsing Candida albicans infections also responds well to TF treatment

Since the early 70's, transfer factor has been used more often than not successfully for the treatment of viral, parasitic, fungal infections, and also as an adjuvant treatment in autoimmune, allergic and malignant disorders. Its apparent success is of no surprise since cell-mediated immunity (CMI) plays a crucial role in the control of infectious, parasitic, and autoimmune diseases, as well as cancer.

Because the TF extract is usually obtained from the total lymphocyte population containing helper and suppressor lymphocytes, it acts as a modulator of the immune system. It boosts the immune defences when required, e.g. in infectious, malignant or genetically impaired immune disorders or it exerts a suppressing effect on a hyperactive immune system when its down-regulation is desirable, e.g. in allergic disorders.

The mechanism of action of TF remains largely unknown, its activity, in addition to the transfer of immune information, is manifested as a non-specific modulation of the immune response. It is known that the dialyzable extract containing the TF molecules also contains other low molecular weight lymphokines e.g. IMREG 1 and 2. Thus, its non-antigen-specific immunomodulating activity, which may also play a role in the regulation of humoral immunity, is due to molecules present in the dialysate, but distinct from those responsible for the transfer of antigen-specific information.

It seems that the total dialysate obtained from peripheral lymphocytes is a cocktail of molecules that provide immunoregulatory activity, in addition to the adoptive transfer of novel antigenic specificities to the immunological memory of the recipient. Hence the qualification of TF as an immunomodulator, i.e. a lymphokine with immunomodulatory activity mediating adoptive immunity, in contrast with so-called active (antibody induction by immunisation with the corresponding antigen) or passive (mediated by antibody injection) immunity.

Nonetheless, and notwithstanding encouraging clinical results, many drawbacks have impeded research in this field and fast advances in understanding the nature and mode of action of this intriguing biological entity.

Until 1974, the only source of transfer factor was pooled leucocytes from blood donors, which limited material supplies, whereas the biological potency and specific activity of the extract varied from one preparation to another. Indeed, the precise antigenic specificity of the various batches of material used was practically unknown, but presumably large, since each batch reflected the collective immune experience of several individuals. For this reason, these preparations were improperly called "non-specific", indicating multiple but unknown specificities.

Thus, despite several encouraging reports in the early 1970s, the clinical use of transfer factor was curtailed by the dearth of material with standardised and consistent activity. Similarly, biochemical studies were virtually impossible for lack of sufficient raw material for purification. In 1974, Viza and co-workers reported that TF with known specificities could be replicated in tissue culture, using a lymphoblastoid cell line. In the late 1970s, the same group and other investigators presented evidence that specific TF obtained from mammals after immunisation with a given antigen was also active in humans.

Nevertheless, in spite of the resolution of the supply problem, the controversy relating to this molecule was to grow. There are several reasons for this, and they pertain mainly to its unusual characteristics.

Nearly fifty years after Lawrence's original observations, transfer factor remains an elusive and controversial entity, despite enormous laboratory efforts and several clinical studies with encouraging and sometimes spectacular results. Biochemical studies have already produced evidence that the molecule responsible for the transfer of the antigenic specificity is a small peptide with a molecular weight of approximately 5000 DA, and it has been suggested that two to three ribonucleotides are attached to the peptide. Unfortunately, attempts at sequencing the peptide have failed, because of the presence of a blocked amino terminus.

The transfer of antigen-specific CMI information by this extract is thought provoking, for it apparently contravenes essential tenets of immunology and molecular biology. However, since the experimental evidence supporting the antigen-specific transfer is uncontested, various hypotheses for understanding its mechanism have been proposed, but so far none has proven totally acceptable.

The specificity issue thus remains one of the essential problems. TF dialysates contain non-specific immunoregulatory molecules which can usually enhance and, in certain cases, down-regulate CMI. Two such molecules named IMREG I and IMREG II were identified by Gottlieb and his co-workers. Nevertheless, such moieties could play a role in enhancing a weak response to a ubiquitous antigen and thus provide false evidence of specific transfer. Studies undertaken with such rare antigens as coccidioidin or keyhole limpet haemocyanin (KLH) preclude non-specific enhancement of "lapsed" immunological memory. Several human and animal studies have established that TF is capable of transferring CMI to rare antigens that the recipient is unlikely to have encountered by chance.

The overall picture became more complex when two types of antigen-specific activity were described within the dialysates: a) inducer or helper activity, which is the activity of the conventional transfer factor and b) anti-transfer factor or suppressor activity. The distinctive properties of the two entities are as follows: transfer factor binds to its related antigen, suppressor factor binds to the related antibody (IgG); inducer factor is absorbed by T suppressor cells and macrophages, whereas suppressor factor is absorbed by T-helper cells and macrophages; inducer factor derives from T-helper cells, suppressor factor from T-suppressor cells.

Be that as it may, TF's characteristics (low molecular weight, undefined chemical structure, unconventional mode of action, protein-like nature but resistant to most proteolytic enzymes) together with its biological properties (non-species specificity, transfer of antigen-specific information) have generated more opponents than supporters. And the frustration resulting from unsuccessful attempts to solve this multi-faceted riddle, especially the failure so far to unravel the molecular structure, apparently due to a blocked amino terminus of the peptide forbidding its sequence by conventional methods, has led scientists to doubt its very existence.

Despite promising results and hundreds of publications, failure to explain TF's mechanism of action and define its molecular structure aroused doubts about its very existence. And even though recent work by Kirkpatrick has partially determined an amino-acid sequence (LLYAQDLEDN), thus giving some biochemical reality to the elusive moiety, no further publication has confirmed and complemented these data since.

Moreover, the pharmaceutical industry did not pay sufficient attention to this moiety because of the prohibitive costs of bringing a new medicine onto the market and the lack of patent protection (the impossibility of filing patents after decades of published academic work). In addition, the difficulties involved in production made commercialisation unviable. And a compound producing such astounding results as those described in the scientific literature, and which has not been on the market for so many years, gradually begins to lose its credibility. As for the commercial preparations obtained from colostrums and today sold via the internet, they definitely decrease the credibility of the product. Their acclaimed effects have never been tested or confirmed independently, neither in vitro nor in vivo, and the alleged clinical improvements cannot thus be differentiated from a placebo effect.

Fla Lady, I have been trying to find info that backs up my belief in the value of diet and exercise, but it is not easy. I have my own proof that it works because when I was dx, the mammo, ultrasound and mri all measured my tumor at 1.8. I was so afraid that it would grow because they told me that at 2.0  they would probably recommend chemo, so I started eating nothing but fruits, veggies and oatmeal, and walking every day for the next 3 weeks, while waiting for surgery. I also started taking a mulit, coq10, vit e and omega 3. After surgery, I was told my tumor was 1.6. In three weeks, I shrunk it!! That got me thinking that I was on to something. I have not looked back! It is interesting that you found that link about heat, because I just went to a demo today on theraputic sauna's. I really want one of these. It is proven that cancer cells die from heat. Imagine having one in our homes and being able to detox every day.

Hey LindaMemm,

I'm looking for the Diet also...I know that it work's also.  I have met a couple people with hormone positive bc and early stage treat it with diet only. I know I lowered by cholesterol and blood pressure with diet alone. I also do not have any fatigue while in treatment.  Go for the Sauna...what I would if I could.

Flalady

 7. High Dose VI C

A new study found that high dose injections of vitamin C can reduce cancerous tumors by half. Researchers at the National Institutes of Health said the treatment does not harm healthy cells, meaning there are fewer difficult side effects.

Arlindo Olivera said when doctors found out his lung cancer had spread to his brain, they told him there was nothing they could do -- and that he should go home and die. But the 59-year-old is currently cancer free.

"My pulmonary doctor told me, 'Whatever you are doing, keep doing it,'" Olivera said.

He said he believes his cancer is gone because of vitamin C treatment.

"It's working on me, from what the doctor says," Olivera said.

Dr. Scott Greenberg of the Magaziner Center for Wellness in Cherry Hill, N.J., said he has successfully treated many people with vitamin C infusions, including Olivera.

"One patient I had had a breast mass from breast cancer. It was literally protruding out of her chest, and after a few months of treatment, the mass shrunk and went away, and it's been over five years now to where she doesn't have any sign of cancer whatsoever," Greenberg said.

Some doctors said they believe vitamin C treatment works by killing the cancer cells. Researchers at NIH said it may also work as an antioxidant protecting cells from the damage of free radicals.

"How intravenous vitamin C works for cancer cells is it produces hydrogen peroxide, just like chemotherapy does, and that hydrogen peroxide will help and cause oxidative damage to the cancer cell, thus destroying it," Greenberg said.

The NIH study treated mice with aggressive brain, ovarian and pancreatic tumors. Tumor growth and weight was reduced by 41 to 53 percent and the brain cancer stopped spreading, researchers said.

Greenberg said it only works in very high intravenous doses and can be used along with traditional chemo and radiation. He said it's a valuable option for those who don't respond to other treatment.

"It's not going to work on everybody, just like chemo or radiation is not going to work on everybody. But when you have cancer, it's certainly worth the effort to do this treatment," Greenberg said.

The treatment is not covered by insurance but costs considerably less than standard chemotherapy or radiation, health officials said. Each treatment costs about $125.

8. Here is basic info on diet

Only 1 in 20 cancer survivors meet diet advice Most fall far below recommendations for food and fitness, study finds Reuters updated 4:55 p.m. ET, Fri., May. 16, 2008

Just 5 percent of U.S. cancer survivors are meeting experts' recommendations on diet, physical activity and cigarette smoking, a new survey shows.

But the more recommendations a cancer survivor did meet, the better his or her health-related quality of life (HRQoL), Dr. Christopher Blanchard, of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, and colleagues found.

"It appears that meeting multiple lifestyle recommendations may not only be beneficial from a cancer recurrence/mortality perspective, but also from a HRQoL perspective," they write in the May 1 issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In 2006, the American Cancer Society issued three recommendations on healthy lifestyle behaviors for America's more than 10 million cancer survivors: get at least 150 minutes of moderate-to-strenuous exercise, or an hour of strenuous physical activity every week; eat at least five servings of fruits and vegetables daily; and quit smoking. But research done in the U.S. and Australia has shown that many cancer survivors do not follow these recommendations.

To investigate the percentage of U.S. cancer survivors who followed the recommendations, and see if doing so had a relationship to health-related quality of life, the researchers surveyed 9,105 survivors of six different types of cancer.

Roughly 15 percent to 19 percent were eating at least five servings of fruit and vegetables daily, the researchers found, while 30 percent to 47 percent were getting the recommended amount of exercise. From 83 percent to 92 percent had quit smoking.

Overall, 5 percent were meeting all three requirements, while 12.5 percent were meeting none. Fewer than 10 percent of survivors of any of the six cancer types were meeting two or more recommendations.

Among breast, prostate, colorectal, bladder, uterine and melanoma survivors - all of the cancer types the researchers looked at - health-related quality of life rose steadily with the number of lifestyle recommendations met.

In the general U.S. population, the researchers note, an estimated 49 percent meet physical activity recommendations, 24 percent meet the 5-A-Day requirement, and 79.5 percent do not smoke - the one area where cancer survivors in this study were doing better.

"This suggests that a cancer diagnosis may have greater potential to be a 'teachable moment' across several cancer groups in terms of changing smoking behavior, but it may be less effective in changing physical activity and fruit and vegetable consumption," the researchers say.

MD Anderson website of Diet

Cancer risk can be reduced, and diet can play a protective role
Depending on what we eat, diet can either increase or decrease our risk of getting cancer. Still, experts estimate that between 30% and 40% of all cancers could be prevented if people ate the proper foods, exercised enough and maintained appropriate body weight. According to the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR), at least 20% of all cancers could be prevented by adopting relatively simple eating habits.

Back to Top

A plant-based diet offers some of the best protection
At least 150 studies conducted since the early 1980s have suggested that people who consistently consume large amounts of fruits and vegetables are half as likely to develop cancer as people whose diets lack fruits and vegetables. Different types of cancer appear to respond differently to dietary factors; however, one study estimated that up to one-third of all cancer deaths might be caused by improper diet.

M. D. Anderson recommends that people follow the dietary guidelines set by the American Cancer Society and the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR). These guidelines are consistent with dietary recommendations for warding off other diseases, including heart disease and diabetes. The recommendations include the following general suggestions:

• Eat a plant-based diet high in fruits, vegetables, whole grains and legumes
• Eat at least five servings of fruits and vegetables every day
• Limit your intake of red meat
• Limit your intake of fat, especially saturated (animal-based) fats
• Limit your consumption of alcohol, if you drink at all
• Eat a variety of fruits, vegetables and starchy plant foods (such as rice and pasta)

Back to Top

Plant foods are packed with disease-fighting power
Why are plant foods so good for us? Because they contain numerous nutrients, the chemicals we need to stay healthy and ward off disease. Vitamin C is an example of a nutrient. Plants also contain fiber, which promotes health.

Other plant chemicals -- called phytochemicals -- are not essential for good health (as nutrients are), but they do have disease-fighting properties. Phytochemicals give plants color and flavor. They also protect plants from insects, disease and harsh environmental conditions.

Research is growing on the number of phytochemicals that defend against cancer. Studies suggest these protective molecules work at all stages of the cancer process. Most of the research on phytochemicals has been done on animals and in laboratory studies. The next challenge is to perform clinical trials to determine whether similar health effects occur in humans.

Back to Top

A well-balanced diet is the best nutritional approach
Because of the suggestion that plant ingredients might protect against cancer and other diseases, many people are turning to vitamin and mineral supplements, or to special diets. However, there is little evidence that any pill or special diet decreases cancer risk more than eating a variety of plant-based foods.

Health experts widely believe that obtaining the proper nutrients from whole foods is more effective than obtaining them from supplements. A single fruit or vegetable may contain scores of nutrients and beneficial chemicals. These chemicals may act together to fight disease. It's also unlikely that a person could receive dangerously high doses of any single plant chemical if that chemical is obtained from food sources rather than from a pill or other supplement.

I am also very interested in diets that may keep my estrogen cancer from coming back. Now this topic has gotten interesting and hopefully those of us interested, will start to learn what we are here to learn.

For those of you that don't know this....Worriedhubby 1,2,3,4,5,6?? (he's been logged in with all numbers) has been kicked off of other boards by Moderators Tami and Melissa for stirring the pot on subjects he has nothing to do with. He will escalate to name calling if given the chance to get himself all worked up. Please report him if he manages to irritate any of you, seeing as this seems to be his goal in life.