Cancer Update from John Hopkins Hospital

[snopes]

CANCER UPDATE FROM JOHN HOPKINS HOSPITAL, US - PLEASE READ

1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do
not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion.
When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells
in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to
detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.

2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person's
lifetime.


3. When the person's immune system is strong the cancer cells will be
destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.


4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple
nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental,
food and lifestyle factors.

5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and
including supplements will strengthen the immune system.

6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and
also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow,
gastro-intestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like
liver,kidneys, heart, lungs etc.

7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and
damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.

8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce
tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not
result in more tumor destruction.

9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and
radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence
the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.

10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and
become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause
cancer cells to spread to other sites.

11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by
not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply.


CANCER CELLS FEED ON:
a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one
important food supply to the cancer cells. Sugar substitutes like
NutraSweet, Equal,Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is
harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses
but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make
it white in color.
Better alternative is Bragg's aminos or sea salt.
b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the
gastro-intestinal tract.
Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off
milk and substituting with unsweetened
soya milk cancer cells are being starved.

c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid
environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish,
and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains
livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all
harmful, especially to people with cancer.

d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains,seeds,
nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline
environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh
vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and
reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance
growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy
cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including
bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes
are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).

e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine.Green tea
is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties. Water-best
to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy
metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.


12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive
enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines become putrefied
and leads to more toxic buildup.

13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from
or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls
of cancer cells and allows the body's killer cells to destroy the
cancer cells.

14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6,
Flor-ssence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to
enable the body's own killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other
supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed
cell death, the body's normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted,
or unneeded cells.

15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and
positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger,
unforgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic
environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to
relax and enjoy life.

16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising
daily, and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular
level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.

[inkrose115]

Is there a head banging smiley somewhere?

[BlushingBride]

What a load of hooey. (And, as a cancer survivor, I find it kind of offensive. "Well, if you just ate better, excercized more, and had a better SPIRIT, then you wouldn't have had cancer, would you?" Yes, I suspect I bloody would have.)

1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do
not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion.
When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells
in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to
detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.

2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person's
lifetime.

If the cells only become detectable when they reach billions (Point 1), then how can they prove Point 2?

[Buckle Up]

So all those dead people were just eating Twinkies and prime rib, resting too much, and yelling at family members. I'll be sure and tell that to my dead vegetarian friend who died of ovarian cancer.

I'm confused on - well, the whole thing, but in particular #2. "Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person's lifetime." Number 1 says everyone has them in their body, only in too small amounts to be detected. So what does #2 mean? Do they mean the cells reproduce 6 to 10 times, or what?

You know, this says it's from John Hopkins hospital...I'm guessing that's the name of some hospital patient, who just happens to own his own health food store.

[rhiandmoi]

Johns Hopkins says they aren't the source, and they don't endorse any of the statements.
http://www.hopkinskimmelcancercenter...n=showthisitem

[Pseudo_Croat]

Looks like someone took all the quack theories about cancer, put them in a blender, and turned it on real fast.

To totally debunk every statement there would take way too long, so I'll just point you to Quackwatch's extensive list of cancer quackery articles. Any of this look familiar, folks?

- Pseudo "deadly serious about woo" Croat

[Aimee Evilpixie]

e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine.Green tea
is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties. Water-best
to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy
metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.

Bolding mine. You're supposed to avoid tea, but not green tea? Also, for the record, there is no real way to know exactly how much tea is in your cup. Many, many things affect the final caffiene count, including what time of the day the tea was picked, how much you're using, what the weather was like on the day the tea was picked, the temperature of the water, and the length of the steeping. Tea does have less caffiene than coffee, though, an the other chemicals in the brew cause the caffiene that is present in the tea to be absorbed a bit more gently. Green tea really isn't that much better for you than black, other than being a bit fresher. All tea has antioxidants, and all tea is good for you. This only applies to actual tea, though. Herbal teas don't do anything but taste nice.

Why, yes, my boyfriend does work at a tea shop. However did you know?

Originally Posted by BlushingBride

What a load of hooey. (And, as a cancer survivor, I find it kind of offensive. "Well, if you just ate better, excercized more, and had a better SPIRIT, then you wouldn't have had cancer, would you?" Yes, I suspect I bloody would have.)



If the cells only become detectable when they reach billions (Point 1), then how can they prove Point 2?

I agree with your post. I am lucky to have never been diagnosed with cancer, but I worked as an impatient secretary on an Oncology ward for 2 years, and some of the patients were the healthiest (minus the cancer of course) people I have ever met. They sure ate a lot better and excersised (see I can't even spell it) more than me.
Also, of course we all have cancer cells in our bodies. Cancer cells are "regular" cells that have been infected by the cancer and mutate before mulitipling. So, it stands to reason that ANY cell in the body could potentially become a cancer cell.
I'm really relieved that john Hopkins is not endorsing these statements.

[Dr. Dave]

Originally Posted by Buckleupp

You know, this says it's from John Hopkins hospital...I'm guessing that's the name of some hospital patient, who just happens to own his own health food store.

Great point. Just to remind (or inform) everyone, the name of the institution in Baltimore is Johns Hopkins. Not John and not John's. The benefactor's first name was Johns. He was a Quaker and his given name was a relative's last name. So anything claiming to be from John Hopkins or John's Hopkins is obviously bunk, or at least not from the place it is hoping you will think it is from.

As for the OP, there is a grain of truth in many of the first 11, but all are twisted and taken out of context (just like the name of the institution, I guess) I'll go through them in the next post.

Dr. "I'm so vain, I think this OP is about my alma mater" Dave

[Dr. Dave]

Here is my take of the OP claims. The OP is copied, and my comments are in bold.

1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do
not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to
detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.
At any given momment, I suppose many peaople have some cells in their body that are precancerous or otherwise damaged, but usually they are repaired or die (the cells, not the person) before becoming cancer. The last sentence is probably true of someone who had a cancer diagnosis and is being tested after treatment. Usually the phrase is "in remission."

2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person's
lifetime.
Like others who have posted, I cannot make sense of this sentence.


3. When the person's immune system is strong the cancer cells will be
destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.
The corrolary of this is true for some cancers, that a damaged or dysregulated immune system makes one more susceptible to some cancers.


4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple
nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental,
food and lifestyle factors.
Ah, here we go. I'll bet the next one makes an offer of information and/or supplements to help mitigate these factors.

5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and
including supplements will strengthen the immune system.
I win the bet (what, you meant no one took it? ). "And for only $39.95 you can receive the book detailing all of this, plus one months supply of..."

6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and
also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow,
gastro-intestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like
liver,kidneys, heart, lungs etc.
Sadly, this is true of many conventional chemotherapies.

7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and
damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.
Ditto.

8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce
tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not
result in more tumor destruction.
Yet, in statement 1, they sort of told us why the treatment would need to continue at least a bit past the "can't see it on the MRI anymore" phase.

9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and
radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence
the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.
Sadly, this is also true of some chemotherapeutics. Any patient or family member can tell you about neutropenia.

10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and
become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause
cancer cells to spread to other sites.
True in principle, but taken out of context. Improper chemotherapy can cause selection of resistant cells. In theory surgery can release cells.

11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by
not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply.
I don't really understand this one either. Cancer cells are not themselves organisms.

{End of OP quoting}

Anyway, to summarize, it appears to be a collection of partial truths, as well as some legitimate short-comings of the presently available cancer treatments, leading to the "read my book and buy my supplements" conclusion, bolstered(?) by slapping on the like-sounding name of a well-known medical school.

-Dr. "If only my parents had named me 'Harvard'..." Dave

[geminilee]

I personally like this one:

Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one
important food supply to the cancer cells. Sugar substitutes like
NutraSweet, Equal,Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is
harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses
but only in very small amounts.

So cancer feeds on sugar, but honey is ok? They are both sucrose. And why on earth do all of these things think that sugar is not natural?

[Sister Ray]

Originally Posted by geminilee

I personally like this one:


So cancer feeds on sugar, but honey is ok? They are both sucrose. And why on earth do all of these things think that sugar is not natural?

It's commonly expressed among alties that "white sugar" is bad for you, along with "white flour". I'll concede the last doesn't fall completely off the mark, but the first is still a mystery to me.

Sister "although molasses can make darn good cookies" Ray

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by inkrose115

Is there a head banging smiley somewhere?

First column, row 4:

[Meka]

Originally Posted by snopes

e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine.Green tea
is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties. Water-best
to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy
metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.

I'll buy the part about filtered water being better for you than water straight from the tap, but the part about distilled water sounds like somebody mis-remembering Chem 101. Water can act as both an acid and base, as it has both H+ and OH- ions, but in completely distilled water, these would be in equal concentration - pH 7, and therefore neutral.

[queen of the caramels]

Originally Posted by daisys747

I agree with your post. I am lucky to have never been diagnosed with cancer, but I worked as an impatient secretary on an Oncology ward for 2 years,

Bolding mine. I thought these secretaries existed only in UL and bad sit-coms

[Meka]

Originally Posted by BlushingBride

What a load of hooey. (And, as a cancer survivor, I find it kind of offensive. "Well, if you just ate better, excercized more, and had a better SPIRIT, then you wouldn't have had cancer, would you?" Yes, I suspect I bloody would have.)

I sympathize. I've lost two friends to cancer; both were avid athletes before being diagnosed. And I also have to wonder how this would apply to someone like Mario Lemieux or Lance Armstrong - are we supposed to believe they didn't exercise enough?