Natural Cancer Therapies: Can Having Good Friends Reduce The Chance Of Dying?
Another animal study has shown the importance of having company to prevent cancer occurring and in reducing of the likelihood of death from cancer. It is clear that for both animals and humans having good friends definitely improves the quality of life, and now, possibly, lack of friends might even be a matter of life or death. However researchers are still unsure of many of the mechanisms by which social isolation might contribute to the development of cancer.
We all know of wonderful people who have had lots of friends who socialized a good deal and who still died of cancer. I am not saying that not having friends is the one cause of cancer.
But we need to acknowledge the increasing evidence that having good friends can be a buffer to both prevent cancer occurring in the first place and if it does occur, to improve ones chances of a better outcome – either a complete recovery or a longer time till death. My own research findings also come to the same conclusions.
I have never had a doctor ask me about my relationships with friends, or even within my family, and yet there is clear evidence of their importance to health. As I work with doctors I’ve asked a few of them why this lack of interest in patients’ sociability might be. Their response was that it is not their business to interfere, or even take an interest in, a patient’s relationships. It is outside their sphere of management.
As you are unlikely to hear from your doctor that good relationships are beneficial to your health right down to the cellular and organ level then you need to take the message on board from elsewhere and take responsibility for improving your relationships as part of your overall health care.
So if you know you are short on friends don’t take it badly. Friends die. They shift away. They or you can change. Or you might just look at your current friends and decide that they no longer contribute sufficient positive aspects to your life.
One of the patients in my big study had no friends at all when she first got cancer. Apart from a loving husband and two absent children she had no positive input from people into her life. She started to deal with her cancer by paying for human contact. She paid for a masseur, for time with a homeopath, joined a healing group and slowly made progress from there.
Another loner was a farmer who lived in the outback miles from anywhere. He gave up farming and moved into the city. His situation was different because he was naturally gregarious and made friends easily.
You don’t need lots of friends, somewhere between five and nine seems to work well from a health perspective. Family can count in the friend mix, but you are looking for people who contribute positively to your well-being and you to theirs. You are looking for at least one person who makes you feel significant, one who makes you feel connected and loved, one who can be trusted to help you and gives you a sense of security and someone who gives a sense of fun, enjoyment and variety in life.
As my study showed sometimes you must adapt, even to purchase the support you need and this is a positive alternative if your natural circle of friends is missing a category of need. It makes sense to have a good group of friends. You may not be thinking in terms of your own natural cancer therapies but friendships are good and improve your quality of life. Take the time to consider what your friends add to your life and if necessary set out to increase the number of positive people around you.
Dr Harriet Denz-Penhey is an internationally recognized health researcher who has done groundbreaking research into patient self care in serious illness. The web site http://www.cancerremedies.org discusses aspects of natural cancer treatment and remedies for good general health.
Article from articlesbase.com
Filed under Natural Cancer Therapies by 
Dr Chris Kaufmann & Timothy Clark… Sharing Information about their quest and at this Stop the Zyto Annual Training Conference 2010
Filed under Natural Cancer Therapies by
Sean Holt discussing complementary therapies at Café Scientifique,hosted by the Auckland Museum Institute, Friends of the Auckland Museum on July 28, 2010 See Part 2 here: www.youtube.com Complementary Therapies for People with Cancer: Pearls in a Sea of Nonsense People diagnosed with cancer want to do everything they can to beat the disease and almost everyone will consider or try complementary therapies. Some of these therapies have been proven to work in good clinical trials, but the majority have not been tested, do not work or can be harmful. How does a person in this situation know what works and what does not? Without scientific training and the time to undertake the research it is impossible for almost everyone. There are some pearls of knowledge but they are hidden in a sea of nonsense. Dr Shaun Holt will tell you how this topic applies to people with cancer in New Zealand, what works, what doesn’t….and how to tell the difference. He is the director and founder of both Clinicanz, New Zealand’s only clinical trials Site Management Organization and The Vitamin Lab, who supply vitamins and supplements based on good scientific research. His 2008 book Natural Remedies That Really Work was a bestseller, he has a popular blog on evidence-based natural health, is the editor of the Natural Health Research Review and is on the international editorial board of the medical journal Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies. More about these events: www.aucklandmuseum …
Video Rating: 0 / 5
Filed under Natural Cancer Therapies by
Natural Cancer Therapies: Supplements and Drug Cautions
“XXX May Offer Health Benefits, But Evidence Still Limited” was the headline about a natural cancer therapy. This was in sharp contrast to an overblown television report about a new cancer drug which was reported to be the hope of all cancer sufferers for the decade.
When we hear about research results from the media we need to become aware of the types of language that is being used to describe the findings of the studies. In medical reports findings tend to be cautious unless it has been written by one of the pharmaceutical company ghost writers.
When the media reports on a positive finding about a natural product doctors are wheeled out and asked to provide a “balanced” report, discussing why it isn’t as great as it seems and everything that could go wrong by way of possible negative side effects. The doctors are very obliging.
However when the report is about a new drug that patients have trialled, the drug company provides the television reporter with a number of very happy patients who did well on the drug. In these cases I do not remember ever seeing a cautious doctor being paraded in front of the camera to provide warnings, nor to decode the company statistics which if done would show that the results are nowhere near as good as the drug company marketing would suggest. Cautions are only provided for a product that drug companies cannot make a huge amount of money from.
Not all natural products are worth taking, of course. There are a lot of natural plants and derivatives of plants which are poisonous, and a common sense approach is always needed.
However any plant which has been in our diet for generations and any mineral which is scientifically shown to be essential to the health of humans can be safely taken by most of us without concern. Where research has shown that an item like tea (black, white, or green) is likely to be beneficial to health then there is no need to be concerned. If you like it, drink it. Whether it is has been proven to medical standards to work for a particular inflammatory condition is irrelevant. One positive research finding can be sufficient to reasonably add it to your diet.
The same can be said about selenium and cancer. Selenium is an essential mineral and has been shown in a range of studies to be beneficial both in the prevention and treatment of a range of cancers, despite many cancer societies saying the evidence is not yet in to say so. As each person requires selenium anyway then taking the small amounts in a supplement is likely to do more good than harm.
I get very irritated about those professionals who gravely inform the public about the supposed dangers of supplements and the problems they can cause. I understand that there has only been one possible death in the last years that might have been attributable to an overdose of a supplement. Please note these qualifications as it wasn’t actually proven.
However properly prescribed drugs are the third highest cause of deaths in the US. That is, drugs prescribed in hospitals kill more people than all accidents and respiratory diseases. Only cardiovascular diseases and cancer cause more deaths than legal drugs prescribed in hospital. Note the “in hospital” component of the statement. Deaths from properly prescribed drugs taken outside hospital are additional, as are medical mistakes and patient mistakes.
There is a strong media bias both in medical journals and in the mainstream media against natural health products. It is time for us all to become educated to interpret what is being said.
Any drug which is not identical with what the body needs (i.e. as a food or natural supplement) is treated by the body as a toxin, a poison. This is not sensationalism. It is just a fact. When a toxin is given the immune system swings into action to remove it from the body.
There are occasions when it is useful to have drugs, such as painkillers after a car crash, or antibiotics for bacterial meningitis and in cases such as these, plus many lesser conditions, we may well decide to take the drugs on offer. However it is important to know that even these drugs are toxins and require to be removed from the body thus putting pressure on the immune system. Some drugs have the potential to really improve a person’s quality of life. All drugs have the potential for nasty side effects. It is drugs that we have to be very careful of, not natural products.
Dr Harriet Denz-Penhey is an internationally recognized health researcher who has done groundbreaking research into patient self care in serious illness. The web site http://www.cancerremedies.org discusses aspects of natural cancer treatment and remedies for good general health.
Article from articlesbase.com
Filed under Natural Cancer Therapies by
Natural Cancer Therapies: Comparing Like With Like
The media often deals harshly with a person who has cancer who turns down medical treatment, turns to natural cancer therapies and subsequently dies. The success of a natural cancer treatment is measured on whether the person who is ill survives a natural lifespan. But this is not the case for medical treatments. Medical treatments such as surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy often use much “softer” evidence of success.
When comparing results it is important to make sure that like is compared with like.
Success in radiotherapy and chemotherapy is often measured, not in terms of improved longevity but in terms of the regression of the tumor. There is an assumption that if the tumor reduces in size that the patient must do better in the longer term. This idea seems to be common sense, but it has not been proven to be the case.
It is clear that those who respond to chemotherapy do better than those who do not. But there is no research which shows that a reduction of tumor size is linked to improved longevity when compared to those who are not treated. And radiotherapy and chemotherapy treatments cannot be said to be effective if this case is not made.
Would the patient (and his family) feel that regression of the tumor was a “successful outcome” if he still died in the same time frame as if he was not treated, and if he suffered terribly from side effects of the treatments during the process?
A second measurement is the number of people who survive to five years. A doctor who gets more patients to the five year mark than his colleagues might feel a personal triumph but the family whose mother dies at five years and three days will feel just as devastated as if the mother dies three days prior to the five years. In the first case the patient is designated as having a successful outcome and in the second as a less successful one. But for the family it is the same.
A third definition the medical profession use is the length of apparent tumor-free time until metastases appear. They call this disease free time, but if the disease commonly returns it seems disingenuous to pretend that the treatment made the patient disease-free. However the point as issue here is whether tumor-free time is a success if the patient then goes on to die in the same time frame as they would if they had not been treated?
Many medical professionals get very anxious and often very annoyed if you ask for evidence that the recommended treatment works. They may well spray around wonderful sounding percentages to “prove” that their recommendations will give a better chance.
However there have also been many a time when the doctor (reluctantly) hands over the research only to find that the patient or a member of their family dissects the research to find that the wonderful percentage improvements relate not to longevity but to tumor regression or to increased tumor-free time.
So if your doctor is making percentage claims of success for a particular treatment ask what this means in terms of additional years of survival. If he will not tell you or cannot tell you, then the probability is that the research does not show such an increase. If he does claim years of increased longevity then ask him for a copy of the research that says this. After all he is asking you to undertake treatment with potentially horrendous side effects (not to mention the cost to the family).
If the increased longevity is measured in only a few months then only you will know if the six to twelve months of treatments and side effects is worth two to four months of extra life, remembering of course that you might be one of the group of people who do not get that extra time.
If longevity with a high quality of life is your aim then think carefully as to how much the offered medical treatment may increase your longevity alongside the high cost of treatment side effects. It is a perfectly valid choice to decide against medical treatment for the time being and to choose to work with natural cancer therapies instead.
Remember that while natural cancer therapies have not been proven to work to the satisfaction of the medical profession neither have their own treatments (except in a few cases) been shown to be effective in treating cancer. This means that those tens of thousands of cases who recover may well have recovered anyway. Self healing is a natural process, built into our bodies.
Therefore any natural cancer therapies which support an improved immune system and a happier, more satisfying quality of life must be worthy of consideration.
Dr Harriet Denz-Penhey is an internationally recognized health researcher who has done groundbreaking research into patient self care in serious illness. The web site http://www.cancerremedies.org discusses aspects of natural cancer treatment and remedies for good general health.
Article from articlesbase.com
Find More Natural Cancer Therapies Articles
Filed under Natural Cancer Therapies by
Immunologic Revitalizer PLUS
- Powerful immune system activator/booster.
- Helps to prevent infections and combat viruses.
- 100% NATURAL
- No side effects – No contraindications
- Dietary Supplement
Our Immunologic Revitalizer Plus ® is a potent combination of high quality and extremely pure enzymes, oligo-elements and vitamins that work by producing intracellular enzymatic catalysis and the hydrolysis of the immune system. It activates the immune system in patients with chronic viral infections and autoimmune imbalances such as allergies, infections, and blood disorders, HIV and related immune disorders, and many degenerative diseases such as cancer that also fall into this category.
The
List Price: $ 299.00
Price: $ 299.00
Filed under Natural Cancer Therapies by