With CellMiner, researchers prospect for cancer discoveries

Researchers have updated a web-based application that makes a wealth of genomic and pharmacologic data obtained from a panel of human cancer cell lines available to anyone with access to a computer and the Internet.

Known as CellMiner, the publicly available application lets researchers rapidly retrieve data on the expression of more than 22,000 genes and 360 microRNAs, and the growth-inhibiting activity of more than 26,000 compounds in NCI's Human Tumor Cell Line Screen, also known as the NCI-60 panel of cell lines. 

The compounds include 102 FDA approved drugs, as well as others being studied in clinical trials.

Tapping into a Wealth of Information

The NCI-60 consists of 60 human cancer cell lines (laboratory-grown cells) derived from nine different tissues. 

These cell lines were acquired by NCI's Developmental Therapeutics Program (DTP) to screen compounds for anticancer activity. 

In addition to testing about 100,000 compounds on these cells, NCI researchers have amassed an extensive database of genomic information for these widely used cell lines.

Working with such large data sets often means dealing with unwieldy databases that make it difficult to analyze and integrate data. 

But with CellMiner, researchers can easily compare patterns of gene expression, microRNA expression, and drug activity in the NCI-60. 

By means of a novel pattern-matching tool, users can also explore relationships between these parameters and any pattern of interest they choose to input (for example, cell lines that lack mutations in the commonly mutated tumor suppressor gene TP53), enabling them to define their own questions.

Such pattern comparisons can, for example, reveal new connections between drug activity and gene expression, pick out compounds or drugs that work through similar or complementary mechanisms, or identify genes that may predict the response of cancer cells to specific drugs, noted Dr. Yves Pommier, chief of the Laboratory of Molecular Pharmacology (LMP) in NCI's Center for Cancer Research (CCR).

No Bioinformatics Expertise Needed

"Our goal is to have this database used by people who do not have bioinformatics expertise, including M.D.s and anyone else who wants to explore the database without having a bioinformatics team next to them," said Dr. Pommier, who co-authored a recent report in Cancer Research that detailed CellMiner's features and provided case examples of its use. 

The lead author and lead developer of CellMiner, William Reinhold, is a molecular biologist in LMP.

Reinhold, Dr. Pommier, and their colleagues developed CellMiner so that researchers could avoid the time-consuming data processing previously required to work with information in the NCI-60 database. The suite of web-based tools provides "a quick and easy way for people to start doing systems biology and pharmacology—which is to say, comparing big data sets of disparate types to ask scientific questions," explained Reinhold.

"Without specialized expertise, there's been a huge wall between people who want to ask these questions and the people who have access to the information," he continued. "We're trying to take that wall down."

Users of CellMiner simply input their query online and, within minutes, receive an e-mail containing the results in the form of tables and bar graphs in a single Excel spreadsheet. The application calculates the correlation between all parameters and identifies statistically significant correlations.

And, because data are provided in a spreadsheet, Dr. Pommier noted, users can archive the results and continue working on them, even without Internet access. Researchers "can use Excel tools to search and organize the data, which makes it very versatile," he added.

One-Stop Shopping

"CellMiner is a powerful tool that allows you to generate hypotheses about the ways in which different genes or patterns of gene expression can affect cell behavior [in cancer],"  said Dr. Michael Gottesman, chief of CCR's Laboratory of Cell Biology. His lab, which was not involved in developing CellMiner, is using the tool to study gene expression patterns that correlate with resistance to specific anticancer drugs.

Investigators in Dr. Susan Bates's lab, in CCR's Molecular Oncology Branch, were among the first to use CellMiner's predecessor—a computer program called COMPARE—to probe the NCI drug-screen database. Using COMPARE, they identified a drug with anticancer activity called romidepsin, which turned out to be effective against T-cell lymphoma.

Because only one-third of patients with T-cell lymphoma responded to romidepsin in clinical trials, Dr. Bates's team is using CellMiner to help find a biomarker that predicts which patients will respond favorably to the drug.

"The CellMiner program builds on compare by providing a much easier to use interface," Dr. Bates said. "

People have found it very easy to adapt to CellMiner."

Working with CellMiner "is one stop shopping, whereas, before, working with the drug screen data required multiple queries," confirmed Dr. Robert Robey, a chemist in Dr. Bates's lab who works with the tool. 

"I read the paper and within a few minutes I was pulling up drug profiles. 

The interface makes it easy to put in your own data and pull meaningful things out of it."

"Users of CellMiner need to realize that the COMPARE program on the DTP website still represents the gold standard for determining correlations using drug profiles," Dr. Bates noted. "

CellMiner provides an easy-to-use format. 

But there are limitations in terms of the results it is able to generate. 

There is a larger body of data available on the DTP website, both for compounds and for molecular characterization data."

CellMiner's Prospects

CellMiner's developers plan to continue updating and enhancing the software. 

The next version will provide access to the whole-genome sequences for all protein-coding regions, or exons, of the genome across the NCI-60, Dr. Pommier indicated. 

The team is also making the open-source software available for others to use or modify as they wish to incorporate molecular profile data on other cell lines or human tumor samples.

Cell lines from the NCI-60 panel, which are studied by cancer researchers worldwide, "have formed the basis for a lot of what scientists know about the physiology of cancer," Dr. Gottesman noted. 

But, as reported last November, research led by Dr. Jean-Pierre Gillet in Dr. Gottesman's lab has suggested that these and other cancer cell lines may have important limitations when used to identify genes associated with resistance to chemotherapy drugs in particular tumor types. 

The study showed that, in various cancer types, the expression of a specific set of genes associated with drug resistance was very different in cell lines from what it was in tumor samples representing the same cancer types.

The fact that some gene expression patterns in laboratory-grown cells such as the NCI-60 differ from those in the original tumor tissue is not surprising, researchers agree. 

However, Dr. Pommier said, "there is a vast array of genes in the NCI-60 that retain their expression pattern between the cell line and the tumor that's what is coming out of the CellMiner analyses, because now it's easy to look at those genes."

Although researchers continue to debate the extent to which cancer cell lines represent the tumors from which they originated, "there's a lot we can still learn from the NCI-60," Dr. Gottesman said, "and having a tool that allows you to gain access to the huge amount of data that's been accumulated is a very useful thing."

New blood test could detect cancer

Investigations of this method takes a team of scientists at Ben-Gurion University and Soroka Medical Center in Israel.

The new method, which is still in development would facilitate the diagnosis of cancer in its early stages through an infrared device that radiates the fluid.

The irradiation results show the presence of malignant cells, that during the initial stages of the disease are affected organs separated from reaching the bloodstream.

Through a simple blood test could diagnose cancer in its early stages in order to apply the respective treatment.

One of the advantages of the new method is the ease with which the research is conducted, which will extend its use to a large number of medical centers and hospitals.

The first clinical trials, which included more than 200 volunteers with lung cancer and ovarian cancer, were successful: in 90% of cases the diagnosis was correct.

The goal is to expand the area of ​​use of the device for diagnosing an increased number of cancers.

What nobody tells you about cancer tests

If these tests can find cancer early, why some experts say that sometimes cause more harm than good?

Read this before you make your next mammogram, PSA measurement or colonoscopy.

Suzanne Bull was always afraid of getting cancer.

In part, his fear was because he lived in Marin County (California), where the incidence of breast cancer is one of the largest in the United States.

He was so determined to avoid that ate well, exercised and each year was a mammogram.

In 2008, at age 54, received the news he feared most: an ultrasensitive digital mammogram showed a suspicious lump in her left breast and a biopsy confirmed it was malignant.

Luckily, the surgeon said, had discovered in time: it was a ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), that is, cancer still limited inside a milk duct, and according to the doctor maybe stay there because no DCIS often becomes invasive.

Everything sounded good, Suzanne account until the specialist said there was no way of knowing whether the tumor was of the type that evolves slow, safe, or invasive.

Prescribed surgical removal of the breast lump, and also advised to undergo radiation therapy and treatment with the drug tamoxifen.

After two weeks of anguish, Suzanne decided on surgery and radiotherapy.

"I had to do what he could to stop the disease," he says.

Today, after two normal mammograms, feels very fortunate: "I am glad to have had access to digital mammography, because cancer detected much earlier."

Incredibly, some researchers believe that Suzanne had no luck.

According to them, annual mammography is much less effective than they usually believe women to reduce the risk of death from breast cancer, and often leads to unnecessary treatment, especially in the case of DCIS.

As for the measurement of prostate specific antigen (PSA) in men, these researchers say it may be more harmful than helpful in men without symptoms of prostate cancer.

And other common means of cancer detection will inspire the same confidence.

This view differs markedly from the campaigns of the American Society for Cancer Control (SELC) and even the federal government of that country, according to which detect and treat malignant tumors as soon as possible is the most effective way to prevent deaths cancer.

Still, are increasingly dissident scientists (members of prestigious institutions, authors of studies in respected medical journals) for whom it is time to rethink our approach to cancer diagnosis.

So I believe that screening studies reveal many small cancers that would never cause discomfort.

"The consequence is that cancer is diagnosed tens of thousands of patients never develop the disease," says Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, a specialist in cancer diagnosis and codirector of the Outcomes Study Group Medical Center Veterans Administration in Vermont.

"Issued diagnosis, most people treated, and we know that it can hurt."

Tamoxifen, used for breast cancer, promotes clot formation in the lungs and remove operations for prostate cancer cause impotence in 60 percent of cases.

Screening tests themselves have risks: up to 0.5 percent of those who undergo a colonoscopy suffer serious complications such as bleeding and perforation of the colon.

Most people who are diagnosed with cancer definitely see these risks in the price you pay for not dying from the disease.

"The reality is not so simple," says Welch.

The diagnostics are very effective to reveal tumors that would never bother us, but not in time to discover the most lethal cancers and faster development.

"The power of diagnostic studies to reduce the risk of death has been exaggerated," said Dr. Floyd Fowler, president of the Foundation for Informed Decision Making in Health, a nonprofit organization in Boston.

How to fool cancer tests

The idea that testing can be useless or, worse, harmful, maybe you think nonsense: after all, smaller cancers are easier to remove, carry less risk of spread to other parts of the body, and this spread (metastasis) depends largely malignancy.

It is certainly possible that a localized tumor mate: the brain, for example, can wreak havoc if they grow healthy tissue compressed against the skull.

Still, most life-threatening cancers only when some cells break off and travel through the blood or lymph to another part of the body.

When this occurs, removal of the tumor and no cure, and no more aggressive chemotherapy can kill malignant cells wandering.

Doctors believed that a tumor must reach a certain size before they can metastasize, but today we know that is not always true, said Dr. Barnett S. Kramer, associate director for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health in the United States.

"Some tumors spread quickly," when they consist of a few million cells; seem much, but at this stage are less than the end point of this paragraph, undersized for detecting most of the diagnostic tests.

Once you grow enough to appear on a test, and have spread.

The reverse of the coin is that many trials will never reveal cancers that discomfort and can be left untreated.

This contradicts almost everything we thought we knew the cancer, Kramer explains, because our knowledge is based on serious tumors.

If you compare the wide variety of cancers with an iceberg, causing the symptoms represent only the portion above water, and for most of history were the only ones who learned something.

Diagnostic studies allow us to see underwater and discover even asymptomatic tumors.

We assume that eventually causing symptoms, but there is increasing evidence that not always the case.

For example, in autopsies on American women of all ages who died from causes other than breast cancer, found that nearly nine percent had undiagnosed DCIS.

In Denmark, where mammography is not as common, autopsies midlife women revealed that 39 percent had breast cancer undetected.

A 1989 study, Welch added, showed that 60 percent of men over 60 have prostate cancer without knowing it, but only three percent of male mortality due to this cause.

Therefore, screening for cancers give alarm or otherwise unimportant to heal alone (since there spontaneously disappear).

It was suspected that Brandon Connor, now seven years old, had cancer before birth.

The pregnancy was difficult and his mother, Kristin, a lawyer for 35 years in Atlanta, was subject to frequent ultrasounds.

One of them revealed what looked like a tumor in the fetal spine.

The tentative diagnosis was neuroblastoma, a cancer of the nervous system.

Neuroblastoma can be of two types, one fatal, but without a biopsy (very risky under the circumstances) it was impossible to know whether it was this cancer, and less of what type.

The Connor chose to see if the tumor grew.

Physicians predicted that, in the best case, be reduced during the first year of life of children. Not so.

After two years since Brandon had undergone more than 12 MRIs.

Eventually the doctors advised the intervention Connor, but the day before the operation the surgeon asked one last scan, and neuroblastoma had disappeared.

"We could not believe it," says Kristin. 

Today doctors know that many neuroblastomas heal spontaneously in the first years of life.

"People told us we gave thanks to God that ultrasound would have detected," says Kristin, but remembering the years of anguish clarifies: "In retrospect, it seems rather a curse."

Side effects of diagnosis

Leave aside the fact that cancer treatment is an unnecessary expense.

"Many oncologists know that some of his patients have suffered serious side effects and even died because of a treatment that may not be needed," says Dr. William C. Black, professor of radiology at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. Certainly no one intentionally prescribe unnecessary treatments, but as is often difficult to determine whether or not a patient requires care, we prefer to err on before default.

Take the case of George Brown, who was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2008, when he was 75 and still practiced as a lawyer in Denver.

Your doctor prescribed Lupron to block the secretion of testosterone, a hormone that many prostate cancers need to grow.

"I did not know that the Lupron is a chemical castration" he recalls. '

I fell into extreme depression, I came bouts of cold and heat, crying for everything. "

Radiation damaged her rectum and urinary and fecal incontinence occurred.

Soon you will have to take another testosterone blocker.

Nevertheless, Brown believes that treatment saved his life, which unfortunately can not be confirmed in cases such as yours.

The truth is that most men who are diagnosed with this cancer are subjected to invasive treatments, although statistics indicate that many could safely opt for a "watchful waiting": observe the evolution of cancer Ape measurements, and treat only if it starts to grow rapidly.

Diagnosis saves lives?

For many people, even serious side effects such as those suffered Brown would be worth if the risk of dying from cancer was reduced: do not forget that this is the purpose of testing.

However, only the Pap ever has. According to the SELC, between 1955 and 1992 this test fell 74 percent mortality from cervical cancer, which has continued to decline from year to year.

No other test has achieved so much.

It is unclear whether the measurement of Ape has significantly reduced mortality from prostate cancer.

Between 1975 and 2005 (latest year for which figures are available), mortality decreased from 31 to 24.6 per 100,000 men.

Although a significant drop, many experts doubt be attributed entirely to the test, especially if one considers the result of a "natural experiment" occurred in Seattle (Washington), and in the state of Connecticut in the late eighties.

Between 1988 and 1990 Medicare patients in Seattle turned five times more than those of Connecticut Ape measurement, and also underwent most to surgery and radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

However, a follow-up to 1997 conducted revealed that prostate cancer mortality was equal in both groups.

"Measuring your APE seems sensible, but it is ineffective," said Dr. Nortin M. Hadler, professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina and author of a book on overtreatment.

The use of mammography is also lower than assumed many patients and many physicians.

Although its effectiveness has been hotly debated, a careful analysis in 2005 indicated that only reduced by 15 percent mortality from breast cancer, says Kramer.

In other words, a woman of 60 who have a mammogram every year reduced from 0.7 to 0.6 percent their risk of dying from this cancer in the next decade.

Colonoscopy (colon observation with an endoscope) also allows the doctor to remove polyps (growths that can become cancerous) it finds.

The most favorable calculations indicate that this technique reduces mortality from colon cancer by up to 60 percent, but do not know for sure for lack of study.

The reduction seems huge, until you consider that the risk of dying from colorectal cancer is quite small: in women, 2.1 percent, and 2.3 percent in men.

Reduce by 60 percent the risk of 2.3 percent means that it decreases to 0.9 percent: an undeniable benefit, but perhaps not large enough to offset the disadvantages.

Tests done or not?

The answer depends on many factors, including your age, do you suffer diseases and health aspect of what you value most.

Dr. Dennis Fryback committee comprised of the United States Preventive Services, an expert panel convened by the government of that country to issue recommendations on screening tests.

Although the committee advises people aged 50 to 75 years performed a colonoscopy every 10 years, Fryback, 61, believes that if the test is unnecessary.

Review and, among other things, because he has no family history of colon cancer. If it did, your risk of suffering would be greater, as is your chance to benefit from the test.

He also knows that to have this test must take laxatives during the previous day to clean the colon, the procedure poses the risk of perforation, and that this risk increases with age.

Fryback weighed the potential reduction in the risk of dying from colon cancer, and other diseases.

In 2008 he suffered a heart attack and dies of suspected heart before a colon polyp might threaten his life.

For him, colonoscopy is "a very expensive lottery ticket.

Maybe earn some time, but most likely will not win anything. "

By analyzing your chances, Fryback has the advantage of being an expert in making medical decisions.

Laymen know much less health statistics, but there are documents (brochures, videos, interactive Internet programs and other support for the patient's decision-making) that can help us choose the most convenient option.

Some include interviews with cancer survivors and people considering whether to undergo screening.

Using aids decision making has not been widespread, but some medical centers and insurers and offer.

Suzanne Bull turned to one form of DVD before deciding to undergo radiation therapy for breast cancer. "Show me much good," he says.

Researchers and doctors hope to develop better screening tests, able to distinguish between cancers that should be treated and those not.

Meanwhile, say, the decision to undergo studies should be based on the values ​​of the person and their ability to cope with uncertainty.

"We are more afraid of dying of a disease that doctors too scrupulous hands," concluded Black.

To submit to testing we run two risks.

Lycopene

Since the 1920s, researchers have studied the benefits of carotenoids for cancer prevention and treatment. 

However, interest in lycopene did not really begin until the late 1980s when it was found to have twice the antioxidant activity of beta carotene.

By the late 1990s, over 70 studies had found a link between diets high in tomatoes and a lower risk of cancer.

Lycopene is an open-chain unsaturated carotenoid that imparts red color to tomatoes, guava, rosehip, watermelon and pink grapefruit. 

Lycopene has been shown to prevent prostate cancer and also to stop it from becoming more advanced. 

Cooked tomato products such as tomato sauce, juice and ketchup are better sources of lycopene than raw tomatoes, as cooking breaks down plant cell walls making the lycopene more available for absorption. 

In the body, lycopene is deposited in the liver, lungs, prostate gland, colon and skin. 

It is best known for its role in preventing prostate cancer, the second leading cause of male cancer deaths in America. 

However, consumption of lycopene is also associated with a lower risk of cancer of the breast , cervix  ,  and digestive tract.12

Curative Properties Of Lycopene

Lycopene shows special promise in preventing and treating prostate cancer . 

A study at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Ohio State University on prostate cancer in rats found that feeding the animals tomato powder(13 mg lycopene/kg) had the greatest protective effect against prostate cancer, and that supplements of much higher levels of isolated lycopene (161 mg lycopene/kg)  were of less benefit, though still better than the control group which received no tomatoes or lycopene. 

The proportions of rats dying of prostate cancer was 62% in the tomato group, 72% in the lycopene group, and 80% in the control group.

Dietary restriction also increased survival

In another study, thirty-two patients with localized prostate adenocarcinoma consumed tomato sauce-based pasta dishes for 3 weeks (approximately 30 mg of lycopene/day) before their scheduled radical prostatectomy.

Prostate tissue was obtained for biopsy before the lycopene supplementation began, and compared to tissue resected at the time of the prostatectomy. 

Examination of tissue from the resected tumors showed a decrease in tumor biomarkers, increased tumor cell apoptosis (cell death) and decreased DNA damage.14

Dutch researchers found that a low-dose combination of vitamin E and lycopene extended the lifespans of mice inoculated with human prostate cancer cells and suppressed tumor growth by 73% after 42 days,  but that high doses of lycopene or vitamin E had no effect.

However, other scientists reviewing the research feel that lycopene by itself has been shown in other studies to be effective by itself, though it can be potentiated by vitamin E.

Carbon nanotube capsule to cure diseases

Nasa has patented a carbon nanotube capsule that is implanted under the skin of the astronaut in a simple (requiring only local anesthesia) and the constant monitoring can be bearer general demand and releasing the active ingredients required to treat you.

All this without the astronaut even realize what goes on inside this "biocápsule".

Applications of this great invention are huge, even down here on Earth.

Some cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy, for example, are treated with a hormone called G-CSF.

The acronym of this hormone (which come from the Colony Stimulating Factor, Granulocyte) are synonymous with powerful remedy against infection.

The biocápsulas could well deal with G-CSF release that patients need without having to go to clinics to receive him "uncomfortable" shot.

One of the interesting features of carbon nanotubes are capsules that are made in addition to its strength and durability (not expired), is that they are inert, that is tolerated by the body naturally without the immune system the attack.

Moreover, its porosity, allows the active ingredients penetrate locked inside the walls to be smoothly distributed throughout the body via the bloodstream.

Here on Earth, one of the most promising fields of action for biocápsulas is the dosage of insulin to diabetes patients.

Could be implanted capsules are filled with animal pancreatic cells (10 million for a patient with a severity of medium), and supplement them with some kind of sensor blood sugar levels.

Given that diabetes patients spend at least one third of the day sleeping (when they can not monitor their blood glucose levels and insulin supplied) to the risk that this entails, the biocápsulas could be the perfect solution for diabetics could "forget" to check its status.

The cure for breast cancer is now possible

Scientists have long understood the importance of the mitochondria, a membrane enclosed organelle found in most eukaryotic cells. 

Now, the science community is now recognizing the mitochondria as the new achilles heel of breast cancer. 

Studies are showing that there are now some new goals in dealing with breast, and other types of tumors.

The mitochondria are responsible for producing energy in cells. 

This works in a negative fashion when discussing cancer cells, because their power is amplified by up to 5 times the capacity of normal cells. 

Says Dr. Michael Lisanti, of the Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, "we and others have now shown that cancer is a 'parasitic disease' that steals energy from the host your body."  

Dr. Lisanti and his team have given us the first bit of in vivo evidence that breast cancer cells engage in enhanced mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) to create large quantities of energy. 

He explains, this is the first time we've shown in human breast tissue that cancer cell mitochondria are calling the shots and could ultimately be manipulated in our favour.

" You can also check out some other oncologists in Pennsylvania doing great work!

Lisanti's research also provides support for the notion that utilizing a mitochondrial inhibitor to block such activity can actually shrink the growth of a tumor, as well as resistance to chemotherapy.

Dr. Lisanti goes on to say that, "Metabolically, the drug Metformin prevents cancer cells from using their mitochondria, induces glycolysis and lactate production, and shifts cancer cells toward the conventional 'Warburg Effect'. 

The idea is that this new method will essentially starve a cancer cell, hopefully to the point that it dies. 

And the hope is that these discoveries will drastically change the way we treat cancer patients, and foster new strategies and techniques. 

"We believe that targeting mitochondrial metabolism has broad implications for both cancer diagnostics and therapeutics, and could be exploited in the pursuit of personalized cancer medicine," says Dr. Lisanti.

Gene Therapy

Gene Therapy Brings Three Cancer Patients Back From Death’s Door; What Now?

Modified immune cells decimated chronic lymphocytic leukemia, scientists found.

What’s the News : Striking results in a very small study have got the web a-buzz about a new cancer treatment. 

With three leukemia patients at the ends of their ropes, scientists modified some of their immune cells with a gene that enabled them to hunt down cancer cells. 

Remarkably, the treatment wiped out more than two pounds of tumor tissue in each patient, and the three have now been in remission for a year.

But what weight does such a small study carry, what about the side effects, and what do these results mean for people with other cancers?

How the Heck:

First, the team removed immune cells called  T cells from each of the patients, who had chronic lymphocytic leukemia, a cancer affecting blood cells called  B cells.

They had a lab-built virus insert a gene for a protein that would recognize a specific tag appearing only on the surface of B cells, as well as genes for two other proteins involved in the process, into the T cells. 

(This kind of treatment, called  gene therapy, has been of interest in treating cancer for some time.)

The team then injected each patient’s own T cells back into their blood, where they began attacking the cancer cells, whose death the team confirmed with blood tests and other measurements.

Taking counts of the patients’ cells, they estimate that each modified T cell must have hunted down and killed a thousand cancer cells. 

Before the treatment, the ratio of cancer cells to normal cells in the bone marrow was horrifying: in one patient, 170 out of 200 were cancerous. 

Afterwards, that number was only 2 out of 200.

The modified T cells have remained in the patients, even months after the treatment, potentially contributing to the patients’ ongoing remission.

Not So Fast:

Cancer patients are routinely exposed to treatments much worse, at least in the short term, than the disease: killing cancer cells means killing a lot of healthy cells. 

With this treatment, nearly all of the patients’ B cells, healthy and otherwise, were destroyed, and even months afterwards the B cells had not recovered. 

Since this is the class of immune cells that produces antibodies, this loss could be quite serious in the long term, though all the rest of the patients’ cells were unharmed.

The team also notes that the mass murder of cancer cells provoked a serious response: the patients’ bodies were flooded with detritus from the bursting cells and inflammatory molecules produced by the immune system, some at 160 times the normal levels. 

Their kidneys were in acute distress, and at least one had to be hospitalized because of it. 

The researchers note that they are really going to have to pay attention to this when they’re designing larger studies. 

Maybe the injections will be spread out more, or maybe not as many altered immune cells are required.

Additionally, one of the most exciting things about this study that the T cells stay in circulation and may keep destroying any cancer that crops up for years makes it quite different from, and possibly riskier than, most cancer treatments, which usually are purged from your body in a matter of weeks. 

That means that the follow-up work to figure out what the T cells are doing, and whether they might be somehow dangerous in the long term, will be substantial. 

What, for instance, will the indefinite lack of B cells mean? The FDA will need serious reassurance on these points, especially since gene therapy carries a risk of causing mutations in modified cells that might eventually turn them cancerous over the patient’s lifetime.

The Future Holds :

The next step for the researchers is much, much larger studies, incorporating the points raised above. 

For all intents and purposes, this report is a case study, without the statistical power required for assessing a treatment’s usefulness in the population at large.

Researchers who focus on other cancers may also find it difficult to translate this success to their own patients: this team was able to make this work because they knew exactly what surface protein to target. 

As they point out in their report, we don’t have analogous information for many other cancers. 

And ideally, we’d find proteins that are specific to the cancer, not to the cell type, to avoid the problem this team is facing with B cells.

Fascinating new research is showing that cancer is reversible

A cloning experiment conducted on cancer cells showed that those very same cells can revert to healthy cells and result in the creation of a healthy organism, free of cancer. 

This is ground-breaking new research on cancer because it shows that malignancy is not the inevitable fate of cancer cells.

There's more to this than you might suspect. 

The official position on cancer by the National Cancer Institute and organized medicine has long been that cancer is not reversible once a person has cancer, they can never be cured. 

In fact, the word "cure" has typically been grounds for a lawsuit by the FDA (or certainly the oppression or regulation of any therapy making such a claim). 

It's a convenient position by organized medicine, because as long as they can get people to believe the idea that cancer cannot be cured, they can outlaw all anti-cancer therapies based on the idea that since there is no such thing as a cure, anything claiming to offer a cure must be quackery.

It's circular reasoning, of course, based on a faulty premise that has now been proven false by this new scientific research. 

Cancer cells can revert to healthy cells, and healthy organisms can be produced from malignant cancer cells.

You probably won't hear much about this in the popular press or from the National Cancer Institute. 

This scientific finding is incompatible with the commonly held beliefs of those in charge of cancer research and cancer propaganda. 

And, as is common in modern medicine, any scientific evidence that is incompatible with their current beliefs is simply tossed aside and ignored. 

See, modern medicine isn't really about the search for scientific truth; it's about the search for selective truth any sort of truth that agrees with their current belief systems and supports their financial interests. 

In that sense, modern medicine is more like a religion. 

It is based on a series of dogmatic beliefs that don't hold water under scientific scrutiny. 

The hard science says that cancer cells can revert to healthy cells, but the industry says cancer cannot be reversed.

This is not new information for naturopathic physicians, 

Chinese medical practitioners, and holistic nutritionists we've known for a long time that cancer is reversible. 

In fact, cancer is one of the diseases that is the easiest to reverse. 

And because this website does not sell any products whatsoever, under free speech guidelines, 

I can tell you the truth about cancer, and state without qualification that there are many cures for cancer that are both well proven and readily available to those suffering from this chronic disease.

These cures are, of course, outside the control of mainstream medicine and they are all labeled "quackery" by the National Cancer Institute and most Western doctors. 

Such cures include Amazon herbs (like graviola), licorice root, oxygen therapy, sunlight therapy, the injection of phytochemicals from spirulina directly in cancer tumors, the use of fucoidan supplements (which are extracted from sea vegetables), antineoplastins (pioneered by Dr. Burzynski), phytochemicals found in apricot pits (laetrile) and a long list of other natural therapies that both prevent and reverse cancer in many forms.

The bottom line is that science is now proving that cancer is reversible, thereby verifying something that the natural healing community has both known and practiced for literally thousands of years. 

In time, perhaps western medicine will pull its head out of the dark ages and come to recognize that the human body is a remarkable healer. 

It can conquer cancer and other chronic diseases if simply given the chance and the proper nutrients. 

The cure for cancer exists right now, today, and it is available to those who are willing to recognize it.

New cancer treatment reprograms immune system

A small medical study out today is generating a huge amount of excitement among cancer researchers. 

For the first time, scientists have been able to successfully target cancer cells by using cells from a patient's own immune system.

CBS News medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook reports that that the small study produced what researchers call "proof of concept." 

It's a whole new way, of treating cancer.

Researchers engineered a patient's own immune cells to treat a type of blood cancer called chronic lymphocytic leukemia, or CLL.

CLL affects nearly 15,000 men and women a year and more than 4,000 will die from it.

For years, researchers have been trying to figure out a way to kill cancer cells using a patient's own immune system. 

On Wednesday, Dr. Carl June and his team at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine claimed a victory in that effort.

"This is a form of what I would call ultimate personal therapy. 

That's a wave of the future," June says.

CLL is a type of blood cancer. 

The only known cure is a bone marrow transplant, which is risky, and only effective in about half of patients.

In this new approach, scientists used the patient's own T-cells - white blood cells that help fight infections such as bacteria. 

Scientists remove the T-cells, genetically reprogram them to attack leukemia cells, and inject them back into the patient.

Researchers treated three patients with CLL. In two, the cancer cells were completely gone six months after the immune therapy.

"The clinical doctor involved in this was astonished and so were the patients that a single infusion of the cells could have such pronounced anti-tumor effects in the patients," Dr. June says.

This new treatment does have significant side-effects. 

The most common is a very bad flu-like illness, but so far all 3 patients who had incurable leukemia and no other options are doing well about a year after treatment.

This form of treatment is like giving a scent to a bloodhound. 

These T-cells have been given the scent of the leukemia cells and go hunt them down. 

The hope is to give T-cells the scent of colon cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer and train them go out and kill all kinds of cancers.

A Cancer Cure Diet

A cancer cure diet does exist.

At least it will for a lot of sufferers of the terrible scourge.

It's often goes on the name of "raw food diet," or "living food diet.

" And it works wonders among many who apply the growing body of evidence that a diet comprising all (or mostly raw foods) can help the body heal itself.

The medical community as a whole still rejects this idea. I've assume this rejection has to with reasons such as professional pride, business/profit ties to industries such as the pharmaceutical market, and a "cultural consensus" embedded within the medical community itself.

For example, most doctors immediately prescribe drugs when treating chronic disease.

Such treatment is firmly established as protocol within the medical community, not because it's effective, but because this how the practice of medicine has evolved.

For most physicians, prescribing drugs to fight illnesses, including cancer and chronic diseases, is as natural as the air they breathe.

This is an incredibly difficult mindset to question or challenge, especially for the sick person who is currently battling illness, hasn't gone to medical school, and is largely unknowledgeable about alternative health approaches.

More individuals are discovering, however, the nutritional approach for defeating disease.

Does this mean patients should always shun medical doctors? Of course not.

Does the nutritional path "always" work? No, of course not.

But nutrition is often a far better route to health than simply filling one's body with toxic drugs in order to simply mask any symptoms of illness ... or kill healthy cells, right along with unwanted cancer cells.

So what does a cancer cure diet look like?

Cancer is a disease that is very much associated with pH level in the body.

The less "alkaline" the pH level is the more likely cancerous cell mutations will thrive.

But the more a body attains an alkaline pH level, the less likely cancerous cells can survive.

The notion a certain diet can affect alkalinity in the body is dismissed by many doctors.

One even went so far as to write an article about this concept on the "Quackwatch" website:

"You should not believe that it matters whether foods are acidic or alkaline, because no foods change the acidity of anything in your body except your urine.

Your stomach is so acidic that no food can change its acidity. ...

Dietary modification cannot change the acidity of any part of your body except your urine." - 1

But one research scientist countered on his website with the following response, "I would suggest [name of doctor refer to the following books: 1) Understanding Acid-Base, by Benjamin Abelow, M.D., lecturer in Medicine at Yale School of Medicine, and 2) Clinical Physiology of Acid-Base and..., by Burton David Rose, MD, Clinical Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, and Theodore W. Post, MD, Deputy editor, Nephrology.

It is apparent that [name of doctor doesn't have an understanding of endogenous acid production, which includes, gastrointestinal acid production, respiratory acid production, cellular degeneration acid production and finally metabolic acid production.

His statement that, "you should not believe that it matters whether foods are acidic or alkaline, because no foods change the acidity of anything in your body except your urine," is a statement of pure ignorance on the subject!" - 2

In my own reading I've discovered many of the natural substances in plant foods (along with their nutritional benefits to the human body) haven't really been discovered yet.

This fact, combined with the reality that human physiology is incredibly complex, means there are a great many things physicians and clinical researches do not yet know about the benefits of eating a mostly raw, plant-based diet.

So while the massive amounts of clinical data skeptical doctors keep demanding may not yet exist, they should at least admit that time and experience may yet turn the tables of opinion.

The benefits of a plant-based diet in relation to bodily self-healing are hinted at in the experiences of tens (or even hundreds) of thousands all around the world.

After switching to a mostly raw, plant-based diet their diseases simply went away.

For most of these individuals, it didn't happen right away. But it did happen.

A diet rich in mostly raw vegetables, fruits, nuts and freshly made vegetable juices and green smoothies can bring about pH changes within a body's tissues and bones.

This would be one reason why those who turn to such a diet often see cancer disappear.

World Without Cancer

Thirty one years ago, a man wrote a book exposing the politics involved in cancer therapy.

It painted a picture of a world in which an effective control for cancer existed but was outlawed because it couldn't line the pockets of the powerful pharmaceutical industry.

In 31 years, little has changed.

G. Edward Griffin's 1974 book World Without Cancer is as poignant today as the day it was written, and in some circles, just as controversial.

That's because Griffin tells the story of a powerful substance that, despite its potential to aid in the fight against cancer, few cancer sufferers will ever know about, and that their doctors certainly will not offer them.

That substance is vitamin B-17, also called Laetrile, and it is a naturally-occurring substance that has been banned for use in the control of cancer in the United States.

Griffin was first introduced to the subject of vitamin therapy for cancer control while on a fishing trip with San Francisco physician John Richardson, he said in a telephone interview.

Dr. Richardson told Griffin he had seen great success in treating his cancer patients with vitamin B-17, but he faced opposition from local medical authorities who, when they caught wind of what he was doing, balked at the fact he was using a treatment that was not FDA-approved.

In an effort to protect his right to administer a therapy he had seen work on so many patients, Dr. Richardson turned to Griffin for help in advancing his cause, and thus was the beginning of World Without Cancer.

Griffin, who knew nothing of the science of cancer when he began his project, soon learned plenty. His research led him to the conclusion that naturally-occurring Laetrile is indeed an effective treatment for cancer.

In fact, from the time he started his research to today, Griffin says he has seen literally thousands of people benefit from treatment with Laetrile.

He also learned that cancer is a disease linked directly to a deficiency of vitamin B-17, which is found in high amounts in apricot kernels.

However, perhaps the most important and most troubling thing he learned was that Laetrile and its health potential were being kept out of doctors' hands for political not scientific reasons.

According to Griffin, the 1953 California Report continues to be the basis of most scientific or legal opposition to vitamin B-17 today.

The report, written by Dr. Henry Garland and Dr. E. M. McDonald of the California Medical Association's Cancer Advisory Commission, claims there is no proof Laetrile is an effective control for cancer.

(It should be noted that these two particular doctors were at the time also insisting there was no link between smoking and lung cancer.)

However, Griffin writes in World Without Cancer that Garland and McDonald actually falsified information from Laetrile experiments cited in the California Report.

In fact, 10 years after the report was published, original documents surfaced that proved information had been falsified.

Although the report was subsequently updated, additional problems such as insufficient vitamin dosages used in the experiments persisted, and the conclusions of the original California Report remained embedded in the literature and minds of many.

Additional studies conducted by well-known groups like the Sloane-Kettering Institute have proven the effectiveness of Laetrile, according to Griffin.

However, those study results have not been publicized.

"When you dig into the facts, and you read the reports by the people themselves inside those institutions, you find out they found in their testing that Laetrile was highly effective, but they received directives from the top to suppress that information," Griffin said.

So why would the "powers-that-be" work so hard to suppress information that could benefit thousands of people dying of cancer?

"They do that because they're trying to make a buck, and something that is found in nature, like Laetrile, cannot be patented," says Griffin.

But the story doesn't stop there.

The Hitler / Pharma connection

World Without Cancer is divided into two parts, and in the second half of the book, Griffin goes on to reveal some disturbing information about an international drug cartel that came into being in the years before World War II that he says played a significant role in shaping the field of medicine in this country.

This powerful cartel was created, Griffin argues, when I.G. Farben, a German-based chemical company and financial backer of Adolf Hitler, joined together with Standard Oil of New Jersey, founded by American business tycoon John D. Rockefeller, in an agreement not to compete.

The partnership was largely concealed, since neither company wanted their countries to know about the relationship in the event of an inevitable second world war. In a lecture, Griffin once referred to the Farben-Rockefeller merger as "the largest and most powerful cartel the world has ever known, even though most people have never heard about it."

And so the extremely influential Rockefeller came to be interlocked with the drug industry, and under the guise of philanthropy, began donating large sums of money to America's faltering medical schools.

Of course, the catch was that such schools were told the money had to be used for drug research, which would create a great profit for Rockefeller interests.

In their time of need, medical schools readily complied.

"When they accepted the money, they had to follow the dollar, and they designed their curricula so it favors pharmacy (and) pharmaceutical drugs," says Griffin.

This effectively gave birth to the conventional medical care system we know today, which is based almost entirely on prescription drugs and knows little to nothing about basic nutrition.

"The medical schools of the United States now teach the students everything there is to know about their product, which is drugs," Griffin says,

 "And so [doctors] come out as highly trained drug salesmen, and they don't even know it!"

Even doctors are kept in the dark about B-17

It's no wonder then that natural treatments like vitamin B-17 remain banned or widely unknown in the United States; there is a long line of profit and power ensuring they stay that way.

That's why doctors will not offer cancer patients vitamin therapy with vitamin B-17, and why most doctors, if asked about Laetrile, will say it has been proven ineffective.

However, Griffin doesn't blame the doctors for conventional modern medicine's focus on drugs, noting, "They're kind of victims of this whole system as much as the rest of us, and they and their families die of cancer just like everyone else.

So it's clear that they're not holding back a control for cancer that they know works.

If they knew about it, they would use it, just like Dr. Richardson.

It's just that they're pretty well sheltered from that information, and they rely very strongly on the prestigious sources at the top."

Since Griffin's book hit shelves in 1974, awareness of natural health has increased, but little has changed in terms of the availability of Laetrile in the United States. It remains illegal for doctors to prescribe or sell Laetrile as a control for cancer.

According to Griffin, however, some clinics continue to quietly use the substance, often only after the patient has obtained it.

Many other patients travel to Mexico for treatment.

Griffin worries that vitamin B-17 is not the only natural treatment for serious disease being suppressed because of political and financial reasons.

"I'm convinced, and this is just my opinion now; I can't back this up with facts, but on the basis of what I've seen, I think this whole AIDS field is just a rubber stamp of the cancer field," Griffin states.

He adds, "I am sure that you'll find this thing all over the medical field because they follow the buck. They have to have something that's patented to do that, and patented medicines are usually toxic."

Today, Griffin says writing World Without Cancer dramatically changed his views and may have saved his life.

"It is like night into day," he says. "I am firmly convinced that had I not done this research and learned what I did, I probably would have been dead today because I was living the lifestyle of the typical American fast foods, no exercise (and) no awareness of the fact that I had any responsibility for my health."

The politics of cancer therapy

On the first page of his book, Griffin openly acknowledges that what he writes is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, American Medical Association or the American Cancer Society and says that they in fact would call it "fraud and quackery.

" That is because, as Griffin has often said, the politics of cancer therapy are far more complicated than the science of cancer therapy.

This core problem, according to Griffin, cannot be solved until we get the politics out of a lot of other areas as well. In the meantime, it is up to each individual consumer to take responsibility for his or her own health and wellbeing.

"I think it's important for people to understand that government, in most cases, is not the solution; it's the problem," Griffin warns.

"As long as people think that the government is supposed to take care of them and protect them and that they can trust their politicians as long as they think that, they're in deep trouble.

And, in fact, we are all in deep trouble because of that kind of thinking."

Gerson Therapy

Gerson Therapy is proven to work.

There are scientific documentary that strongly supports how cancer and other diseases can be cured.

Gerson therapy was founded by Max Gerson, M.D. who was born in Germany in 1881.

His initial experimentation with dietary therapy to cure his headaches developed further into healing skin tuberculosis, type II diabetes, heart disease, kidney failure, and finally cancer.

He became good friends with Nobel prize winner Albert Schweizer, M.D. by curing his wife from lung tuberculosis after all conventional treatments had failed.

In 1938. Dr. Gerson passed his board and was licensed to practice in the state of New York.

For twenty years, he treated hundreds of terminally ill cancer patients who were left to die after their conventional treatment failed.

In 1946, Gerson demonstrated recovered patients before the Pepper-Neely Congressional Subcommitte, during hearings on a bill to fund research into cancer treatment.

Although few peer reviewed journals were receptive to Gerson's then "radical" idea that diet could effect health, he continued to publish articles on his therapy and case histories of healed patients.

He has achieved more than seemed possible under adverse conditions.

After his death in 1959, his daughter Charlotte continues to carry her father's mission to heal and treat people with the power of healthy diet.

The Gerson Way

Gerson Therapy is a safe and proven natural treatment, consisting of eating healthy organic foods, juicing, coffee enemas, detoxification and natural supplements to activate the body's ability to heal itself.

Over the 60 years, thousands of people used it to recover from "incurable" diseases such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease and arthritis.

It is very important to follow the diet and daily plan to achieve the goal.

I was very happy to watch this documentary video taken by Stephen Krosochel who has been Awarded Honorable Mention in the Feature-Length Documentary Category 2006 New York International independent Film and Video Festival Filmmaker.

"Dying to Have Known" a great documentary film shows cancer survivors, biased doctors, supportive doctors, and evidence from around the world. I recommend everyone to watch it.

Antineoplastons

Stanislaw R. Burzynski, M.D., has given the name "antineoplastons" to substances he claims can "normalize" cancer cells that are constantly being produced within the body.

He has published many papers stating that antineoplastons extracted from urine or synthesized in his laboratory have proven effective against cancer in laboratory experiments.

He also claims to have helped many people with cancer get well.

A 1992 analysis concluded that none of Burzynski's "antineoplastons" has been proven to normalize tumor cells.

In 1988, Burzynski got a tremendous boost when talk-show hostess Sally Jesse Raphael featured four "miracles," patients of Burzynski, who she said were cancer-free.

The patients stated that Burzynski had cured them when conventional methods had failed.

In 1992, "Inside Edition" reported that two of the four patients had died and a third was having a recurrence of her cancer. (The fourth patient had bladder cancer, which has a good prognosis.)

The widow of one of Raphael's guests stated that her husband and five others from the same city had sought treatment after learning about Burzynski from a television broadcast and that all had died of their disease.

In 1995, a federal grand jury indicted Burzynski for mail fraud and marketing an unapproved drug.

The indictment charged that he had billed insurance companies using procedure codes for chemotherapy, even though his treatment was not chemotherapy.

He was tried in 1997 but not convicted.

In 1998, the Texas Attorney General secured a consent agreement stating that Burzynski: (a) cannot distribute unapproved drugs in Texas; (b) can distribute "antineoplastons" only to patients enrolled in FDA approved clinical trials, unless the FDA approves his drugs for sale; (c) cannot advertise "antineoplastons" for the treatment of cancer; and (d) on his website and in promotional material and ads must place a disclaimer that the safety and effectiveness of "antineoplastons" have not been established.

The agreement also called for Burzynski to pay $50,000 to reimburse the Attorney General's office and the Texas Health Department for the cost of their investigation.

The Cancer Letter subsequently noted that although Burzynski has set up many "clinical trials," they do not conform to usual standards.

Cancer can be cured and prevented naturally and scientifically

Have you ever wondered why 100 years ago cancer was a rare disease but today, there are many kinds of cancer and it is estimated 1 out of 4 people will get cancer in their life!

This is not just someone's opinion about cancer but, facts that have been proven in scientific labs, by doctors and, the most important test is from the people that have cured cancer from their own bodies !!!

Vitamin B17 was the subject of great controversy over 20 years ago when some of the world's top scientists claimed that when consumed, the components of certain raw fruit seeds make it 100% impossible to develop cancer and will kill existing cancer in most cases.

The pharmaceutical companies pounced on this claim immediately and demanded that FDA studies be conducted.

The results of these studies are found in a book called "World Without Cancer", by G. Edward Griffin.

Vitamin B17, also known as Laetrile and Amygdalin is found in most fruit seeds, namely apricot seeds. The apricot seed was claimed as the cure for all cancers over 35 years ago.

It was even more strongly claimed that when one eats about 7 apricot seeds per day they can never develop cancer, just as one can never get scurvy if they have an orange every day, or pellagra if they have some B vitamins every day.

The pharmaceuticals companies together with the medical establishment pushed the FDA into making it illegal to sell "raw" apricot seeds or vitamin B17 with information about its effects on cancer.

Even to this day, you can't get raw apricot seeds in your health food store, only the sun dried ones which have all the important enzymes killed off.

Pharmaceutical companies only conduct studies on patented chemicals they invent so that at the end of their study, if the drug gets approved, they have sole rights on its sale.

(They make back tons more than the mere 250 million that they invested)

They never do studies on foods that can't be patented and that can be sold by any supermarket.

The information on this site is not just for preventing cancer, it is for those that have cancer now and are on chemo or radiation at this moment, as well as for those who have cancer but haven't started any conventional methods yet.

Most of the people that already have cancer clusters in their body, who eat the apricot seeds and/or take the vitamin b17 in tablet form show near to complete tumor regression.

Although cancer patients may get rid of their cancer, they also have the problem of the organ damage that the cancer has caused.

This is another issue where other herbs and remedies are necessary for proper organ regeneration.

Of course when a person's body is completely eaten up by cancer, the raw apricot seeds and its extract (laetrile and vitamin b17) would only prolong their life many times longer than chemotherapy and might not completely save them.

However in many cases high levels of the injectable vitamin B17 "laetrile" will help a great deal with the pain.

The information that you're about to read will guide you in how you can guarantee a nearly cancer free life or help your body get rid of cancer if you have it.

Vitamin B-17 is found in most fruit seeds.

Its components make it vital for our survival without cancer. Seeds are for everyone to eat.

Don't wait and see if you develop cancer to start eating the seeds.

Vitamin B17 is found in seeds such as the apple, peach, cherry, grapes, and apricot. It is found in some beans and many grasses such as wheat grass.

The hard wooden pit in the middle of the apricot or peach for example, is not supposed to be thrown away.

In fact, the wooden shell is actually a strong armor protecting one of the most important foods known to man, the seed. It is one of the main courses of food in cultures such as the Navajo Indians, the Hunzakuts, the Abkhazians and many more.

Cultures such as these have never had a reported case of cancer when eating their traditional foods!

We don't need to make the seed a main course in our diets, but we do need the equivalent of about seven apricots seeds per day.

This will nearly guarantee a cancer free life. Other foods that contain vitamin B-17 are: bitter almonds, millet, lima beans and more.

Apricot seeds have the highest content of B-17 on earth.

They are chewable and bitter and a necessity in our diet. Although apricot seeds are bitter, they must be integrated into our diets.

They may be added to food or chopped up and swallowed with a teaspoon of honey or applesauce.

The seeds may be used in combination with the Laetrile Cancer Therapy. 

As a preventative, Dr. Krebs (the scientist who discovered B-17) asserts that 7 or more apricot seeds per day will make it impossible to develop cancer in one's life time.

One or two of the B-17 tablets (100 mg) is an acceptable supplemental dosage per day.

Stores do not sell "raw" apricot seeds because of the raids the FDA made on those stores with vitamin B17 and the apricot seeds years ago.

In nearly all cases when the B-17 is taken in high doses the tumors shrink.

Now one is faced with the confusion of staying on the chemotherapy or stopping the chemo, due to the unclearness of what shrunk the cancer.

Those that continue on with the chemotherapy have a relatively poor outcome. 

We understand that once an individual is caught in the vacuum cycle of chemotherapy, radiation and operations, it is very difficult to pull away from this higher authority (principalities, prestigious doctors and hospitals) and say "NO" to more chemotherapy.

My friend Jason still has a small tumor in his kidney and would not let Dr. Nagler of Beth Israel Hospital remove his kidney despite his certified "scare" letters sent to his house over and over again.

Hundreds of people make the wrong decisions because they were expecting their tumor to disappear. ( This is one of the things you have to know.)

When it shrinks down that's it, start rejoicing and continue on your natural regimen. Do not stop eating the seeds.

The tumor doesn't disappear.

Most doctors will still see a tumor and continue to give a person chemotherapy (until they're dead) in attempts to make it disappear.

Malignant (cancerous) tumors are only a small percent cancer and when the cancer part starts dying off, the tumor only shrinks down the percent that the tumor was cancerous.

In other words, if a kidney tumor is 10 percent cancerous the tumor will shrink down only 10 percent.

So if you get a CAT scan, which one should never get (with 6 CAT scans there is over 60% more of a chance of one developing Leukemia; MRI's are much safer as they use magnetic imaging and not radiation) a 10 percent shrinkage will be concluded as "NO CHANGE" by a doctor.

If you have cancer and would like some information on how to take the B-17 as well as foods to eat and foods that you should not eat, keep reading.

Here are some helpful tips on improving your health and preventing cancer.

Note : Let your body get used to the new changes and start everything at a low dosage and gradually build up or you may get sick.

If you do not have cancer and you want to prevent it, eat 7 to 10 apricots seeds daily (start out at a low dosage, such as 1 or 2 at a time and work up to 7 to 10), stay away from refined sugar (sugar feeds cancer), caffeine (very bad for your liver and kidneys), and white flour (easily changed to sugars).

Read your food labels and educate yourself on ingredients that are listed.

Try to eat more raw foods and stay away from the processed food.

If it has a warning label on it, you know what to do, right?

If you have cancer now, after finishing this page please read the link on the left labeled "Protocol". I have reworded the info here as a short version of what is there.

At least 21 days of the injectable B-17 at 9 grams per day or up to 6 seeds per hour.

Start the seeds at a low dosage (such as 1 or 2 at a time) as they must go through your digestive tract and can cause nausea. The injectable needs to be put into a vein.

(OR)

Up to eighteen 500 MG tablets per day or up to 6 seeds per hour for the seeds (start out with a low dosage and build up).

Your digestive system must have time to accommodate the dosage.

Plus there is a pancreatic enzyme that helps breaks down the protein wall around a cancer cell.

You can get this enzyme by eating raw organic pineapple or you can order a product called "Megazyme Forte" from the same place you got the seeds.

Eat just a helping or so of pineapple per day with the seeds.

Start taking a low dosage of vitamin C every day (about 500 to 1000 MG) and slowly build your way up to 10,000 to 25,000 MG per day.

This will take some time to get your body used to such levels so don't be too anxious about getting to the higher dosages right away.

Some symptoms of too high a dose could be headaches, nausea, diarrhea, etc. This does not mean that the product is not working.

On the contrary, it means that your body is being detoxified too fast so you need to back off on the dosage.

You want to detox your body at a slow rate so you won't get the symptoms described above.

Regardless if you have already torn down you immune system with chemo or radiation, you will want to build it up as much as you can.

One way to do this is with a product called AHCC. AHCC helps build your immune system up to the level that is needed to fight cancer and other diseases.

Drink a lot of pure water. Microwater is the best. 

Juicing is good for your liver.

You can get some beets and juice them with other vegetables. It is very important that you start slow on this as it could make you feel sick at first.

Drink a small amount at first (such as 1/4 cup) and slowly build up to higher amounts.

The beet juice will cause your liver to dump toxins into your system as it is a very good liver cleanse.

A lot ( about 8 to 10 eight ounce glasses of water per day) of pure micro water will help you rinse the toxins out.

Now for the foods you should not eat...

Refined sugar (sugar feeds cancer), use Spenda™ or Stevia, caffeine (very bad for your liver and kidneys), white flour (easily changed to sugars), and try to eat very little meat during this time.

You can have meat but meat takes away from the digestive enzymes that help tear down the protein wall that is around the cancer cell.

As for anything new that you do or take, always start out at a low dosage and build your way up.

That way you can monitor what your body is telling you.

Now if you feel sick when you start doing any of these things you have never done, it does not mean it is not working.

It may be that you are taking too much too fast.

Some natural products will detox your system and if you do it too fast, it can make you feel sick, (flu like symptoms). Just reduce the dosages of any new thing you are doing for awhile and slowly increase from that point.

Most importantly, pray in faith and ask God for wisdom, help, and for His healing power. James 1:5-8 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

As you continue looking through the pages ayou will find; Biological and chemical descriptions of the destruction of a cancer cell by the components of a seed (B-17), politics of cancer, as well as doctors and scientists that are 100% sure that cancer is a direct result of a deficiency in B-17.

Remember how scurvy, rickets, pellagra and Beri Beri were results of deficiencies in vitamins B & C. It took decades and killed millions before the kings and medical industry of the time accepted the simple vitamin solutions.

Today, we are in a nearly identical situation concerning cancer.

We strongly suggest that you start prevention now and do not wait for cancer to develop before you take action.

The FDA will not allow vitamin B-17 and information about vitamin B-17 to be sold together.