IP6 as a treatment for breast cancer

Do you have breast cancer Zara, or personally care for someone who does?  This is your first post after joining today and looks suspiciously like advertising so I guess I should report it but I'll give you the opportunity to delete it and introduce yourself first if you indeed do have breast cancer.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Edited to apologise for suggesting this was anything but genuine. I have heard good things about IP6 but have been bugged on other sites and by people who think they have "the" answer, also by oncologists who told me they know everything about cancer but none of them have any idea what it's like to have cancer themselves.  

Just having a bad hair day I guess. (What hair?)

See my later posts.

Zara, If you've just started searching here are some comprehensive sites in case you haven't found them yet which look at many alternative methods.

http://alternativecancer.us/#Chemo

http://www.cancerfightingstrategies.com/index.html

http://cancertutor.com/index.html

http://www.beating-cancer-gently.com/aboutme.html

 A book called Anti-Cancer, by David Servan-Schreiber, MD, PhD, a Dr who overcame brain cancer is essential reading, and I have found "Definitive Guide to Cancer" by Lise Alschuler,ND and Karolyn A. Gazella to be an excellent reference. I always get books from the library before deciding whether to spend money on my own copy.

 Also see threads on this CAM forum for iodine, CoQ10 and DIM which are more specifically for breast cancer.  I'm sure there is more but I'm burnt out at the moment from too much research and the constant juicing and preparing of foods, weeding the veggie garden, exercising, trying to get early nights for natural melatonin production, dealing with the almost bald head and hollow chest while also dealing with mine and other people's anxiety about this illness.  Plus the usual life concerns about family, money etc.

 I did the same as you when some of my relatives got cancer many years ago. They were not open to alternative suggestions but I felt I needed to be educated in case I ever had a diagnosis as I knew it would be hard doing the research at the same time as making important treatment decisions.

The problem is that very little alternative research is done that is acceptable to the medical establishment as it would require patients to take the alternative therapies thereby not taking chemo, radiation etc. otherwise there is no way to know what worked, the conventional treatment or the alternative.

I guess this means that the pharmaceutical companies have a hold on cancer treatments like a bulldog that is hard to break. One daren't break away from the "established standard of care", even if almost eveyone that dies of cancer has used that so called standard and it's failed them.  Mammograms and ultasounds failed to show even a hint of my 4cm tumour and the Dr assured me it didn't feel like cancer but fortunately he referred me to a BS for a biopsy.  After the diagnosis the tumour failed to show up on a CT scan which showed oedema at the site. So how am I supposed to know if it's spread?

So after all my pre-cancer research, when I got the diagnosis myself the research did help but didn't prepare me in any way for the sheer brutality of the diagnosis and the effect on my life.  Nor was I prepared for the fact that there is no way to monitor any alternative treatments or to know if the cancer may return after 6 months, a year, 2, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, I've seen 22 years on this board with the same cancer returning.  So while I'm waiting to see if this thing returns I have no way of knowing whether I'm taking enough CoQ10 or other foods and supplements, or if they are doing any good at all.  We are never free of the fear.  So I'm stuck with forever watching what I eat, drink, think, how I sleep and constantly researching since I can't trust the professionals to do anything that is not endorsed by the pharmaceutical companies. 

I had a double mastectomy and 9 nodes affected so I know what's ahead for your friend.

So please forgive me if I'm a little cranky.   I do wish you luck with your friend and we sure can do with friends who are open to alternative therapies so thank you for being there for her. 

Sheila, I am sending you pleasant thoughts and gentle hugs.

 I also read the anti cancer book which you mention and another lady on this board says it was suggested to her at the Boston, treatment center where she goes.

Another book that I found very helpful was You Can Heal Your Life, by Louise Hay.  It is also available in a movie form, though I have not seen the movie.  Louise Hay has been featured on Oprah and many seminars.  I normally tell people, I I didn't read that book, I wouldn't be here!  

I am a firm believer that any "dis" ease is body, mind and spirit.  Our bodies want to be healthy.  when we are at "dis" ease, our bodies can allow unhealthy things to manifest.

Find whatever speaks to your heart and know that you are worthy to be healed and it IS possible!

Sheila, I am also familiar with the Hicks.  All good material.  You have to do whatever makes sense to you .  For everyone that may be different and that is OK.  At least you are doing something!

You are right, it is body, mind and spirit.  The breasts represent nurturing and as women, so many of us tend to put ourselves last which can lead to allowing "dis" ease to manifest.

One of the things my Reiki lady says to me w/ each therapy and I find so helpful, is" Release all of the old thoughts and feelings..... they no longer serve you"  For me, it allows for much peace.

Hugs sent your way!

Carol

Here is a detailed article from the Journal of Nutrition:

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/11/3778S

SheilaEchidna, you wrote:

"...One daren't break away from the "established standard of care", even if almost eveyone that dies of cancer has used that so called standard and it's failed them.  Mammograms and ultasounds failed to show even a hint of my 4cm tumour and the Dr assured me it didn't feel like cancer but fortunately he referred me to a BS for a biopsy.  After the diagnosis the tumour failed to show up on a CT scan which showed oedema at the site. So how am I supposed to know if it's spread?..."

Your story sounds so much like mine, and so much like the story of thousands of other women facing down cancer. I am not surprised that your 4cm tumor was never seen coming: neither was my 3cm one, despite 10 years of dutifully enduring mammography every single year.

It is so sad that Research remains confined to the "same old, same old, same old" despite the fact that you are pointing to: that most of the people treated the conventional way will eventually die of cancer. But the medical establishment won't change anything. They won't go out the beaten paths and look in another, innovative direction. Fran Visco, President, National Breast Cancer Coalition Fund, did write: "...exciting research does not pay". No, it doesn't.

Hi Zara,

There have been several discussions regarding the accuracy/reliability of NaturalNews as a resource, so it's usually best to check multiple sources for anything you read there or elsewhere (especially if the information is coming from a site that sells supplements).  It seems that IP6 is very promising, but at the moment it hasn't been successfully tested in humans, so it seems a bit premature and sensationalistic to say the anticancer effects of IP6 are "nothing short of astounding."

Sloan Kettering has this to say about IP6:

To prevent and treat cancer
Laboratory studies show that inositol hexaphosphate slows the replication of isolated cancer cells, but there is no proof from clinical trials that this effect occurs in humans. 

The MD Anderson site itself seems to have a much more conservative writeup than NN:

IP-6

Background and Health Claims
IP-6, also known as inositol hexophosphate or phytic acid, is a sugar molecule with six phosphate groups attached. Naturally present in whole grains and high fiber foods, IP-6 recently has gained popularity as a cancer fighter. Experts feel that it also may play a role in the prevention and treatment of heart disease, kidney stones and liver disease.

At this time, the exact mechanism through which IP-6 works is not known. It may decrease the proliferation of cancer cells, act as an antioxidant, enhance the immune system by boosting the activity of natural killer cells (which destroy abnormal cells), or influence cells' ability to dedicate themselves to a particular function.

Much of the scientific research completed with IP-6 has been done by Abulkalam Shamsuddin, a scientist at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. Several of Dr. Shamsuddin's animal and human cancer cell line studies have shown promising results with colon, prostate, liver and breast cancer. Epidemiological studies show that people who eat lots of foods that contain IP-6 have lower incidences of cancer of the breast, colon and prostate. Foods that are significant sources of IP-6 include soybeans, rice, sesame, beans, legumes, corn and cereals.

Precautions
IP-6 reduces platelet activity; therefore, people with low blood cell counts, or who are taking aspirin or other blood thinning medications, may want to avoid using IP-6. Because of its antioxidant properties, IP-6 may not be appropriate for patients receiving radiation or chemotherapy. Supplemental forms of IP-6 may also bind with calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc and should therefore not be taken with food.

Dose
Although Dr. Shamsuddin indicates that further research must be completed before making more specific dosage recommendations, he gives the following guidelines: 1-2 g of IP-6 daily for cancer prevention, 4 g daily for people with an increased cancer risk, and up to 8 g daily for those with cancer. Patients who are considering an IP-6 supplement should consult with their physician or dietician.

Obtaining IP-6 from natural food sources is likely very safe. The following table shows the amount of IP-6 in various foods.

Orange, if you're referring to my comment, you've misread it:

"One daren't break away from the "established standard of care", even if almost everyone that dies of cancer has used that so called standard and it's failed them. "

Probably 99% or more who die from breast cancer have been through the standard treatment.  Of course that doesn't mean that most people diagnosed with BC will die.  Your USA figures of 1 in 5 are the same here in Australia, less cases but same ratio. It's the actual stage (not the artificial diagnostic stage) when treatment starts and the aggressiveness of the cancer that decides the outcome. And of course the primary tumour needs to be dealt with or it will inevitably proceed to end stage disease.

I suspect there is a "point of no return" where the primary cancer sets up some way of reproducing itself independently of the primary tumour.  Once that point has come, surgery, chemo and other treatments may kill tumours, shrink or slow them down but unless the means of distant reproduction (such as stem cells) are killed or disarmed then it will come back. 

I hope I've explained it better this time.

Can you give a source for that statistic please?

That link doesn't provide the 80% you claim. That link is for the BCO organization????

I'm familiar with the SEER database and that's not the way they keep stats.

Could you provide a specific published peer review citation for the 80%?

Thanks so much.

Hi, thenewme:

I was going to ask you this same question, but Lucy88 already did:

--------------

13 hours ago lucy88 wrote:

Can you give a source for that statistic please? [statistic according to which 80% of patients survive breast cancer]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

80% of patients survive with conventional treatments? Our highly conventional web site here, breastcancer.org, does not seem to concur, in this article they posted quite a while ago, entitled:

Breast Cancer often not Ultimate cause of Death:

Please see the last sentence in boldface, below

Of course, what they are talking about in this article is the fact that older women diagnosed with breast cancer usually end up dying of other causes. GREAT finding : most of us could have told them about this decades ago.

Anyway, going back to the question of dying of breast cancer, I feel it is pretty safe to assume that they are referring to people treated the conventional way (ultimately dying of cancer anyway), or did I get  something wrong?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Older women treated for a common type of breast cancer and who survive past the five-year mark will probably not die from the disease, a new study shows.

"For those ladies that fall into that category, it's wonderful news," Dr. Judith-Anne W. Chapman, the study's lead author, told Reuters Health. "They are essentially, most of them, surviving their breast cancer and having very low toxicity" from cancer treatment, she added.

Understanding mortality due to other causes among breast cancer patients is becoming increasingly important as survival improves, Chapman, with the National Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group at Queen's University in Toronto, and her team point out in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

"Usually the perception has been up until now that if you had breast cancer ultimately you would die of breast cancer," Chapman said. "More and more reports are coming out now that if you are older, you have a better chance of dying of something else."

Sorry, thenewme:

I am sure I have made things more confusing. The part that really caught my eye is the sentence in bold.

For the longest time, I have felt that research (but not all treating doctors) does not even think in terms of long-term survival (the newest drugs presented like "miracle" drugs often offer a matter of months of survival; even 1 extra month of survival is presented like a "huge" victory over cancer). Hence my reaction to this particular sentence.

Thank you for the survival rates table above. I believe this is extracted from documents similar to the ones we receive from most of our oncologists?

It usually goes something like this: [surgery alone: --% survival; surgery and chemo: --% survival (higher); surgery plus chemo plus hormonal treatment: --% survival (still a higher figure in those tables)]......Beautiful. But when one starts looking into some of the lingo used in those same documents (such as "disease-free survival", "time to progression", etc....), is when one might start asking more questions. Those are all relative figures, I totally agree with your document on that one.

From time to time, of course, some little sentence, somwhere, might cause us to wonder.

Ah, OK, Thanks, Timothy.

Inositol is in my multi, I will have to check how much.