Breast Cancer & Raw Food
This powerful article on breast cancer comes to us from Arnold of Arnold's Way. Arnold was extremly instrumental in my raw-food education. I am forever in his debt.
Arnold on Breast Cancer - February 10, 2002
The disease discussed in this week's newsletter should be obviously easy to prevent and obviously easy to treat. If we only knew. These words haunt me. From what I see, what I hear, and what I read, breast cancer is the disease that affects women the most. It is the disease that causes 46,000 deaths per year. There are 190,000 new cases reported and 15 million women will seek medical care this year because of concerns about breast cancer. These are scary statistics on a disease that in my opinion is easily treated and should never happen in the first place. Where does one start when writing about these figures? Do we start with the numbers, the people, or the possibilities for no disease at all?
I walk the streets, I see all these beautiful women. I see the pretty faces, the wild hair dos, the business suits, the make up, the daily lines of those waiting for their morning coffee, bagel, and cream cheese. I watch in horror as the modern day woman starts on her morning routine.
Do I scream a word of warning? I think of the book Raw Food Treatment of Cancer by Kristine Nolfi, M.D., which deals with a personal battle against breast cancer. It talks about how she became seriously ill and how she fought back not with medicine, radiation, or chemotherapy, but with food. Raw food and that's it. She was a physician whose years of training did not train her for sickness. I read her book.
I think of the statistics of women with breast cancer. I read Clinical Evidence, the international source regarding the best available evidence for effective health care. "Mestatic breast cancer is the presence of disease at a distant site such as the bone, liver, or lungs. It is not treatable by primary surgery and is currently considered incurable." In 1995 Dr. Nolfi's book was written. We look at her book; we study her background. She was a doctor with 12 years of medical training, and the point she wants to drive home is that breast cancer disappears on a raw food diet.
It is on that basis that we carefully choose this week's topic, begin our research, look for other case studies, and pass the word that will stop the tremendous seas of not only acceptance but of relishing the toxic waste that passes as real food today.
As I begin my research there are two facts that really bother me. In God's Way to Ultimate Health Dr. George H. Malkamus states that one in twenty American women were affected by breast cancer in 1960. In 1992, the figure had risen to one in eight. According to one statistic, the figure reached one in three in 1999. What does all this mean? I dare not know for anyone but myself. For I have a wife, a mother, three daughters, friends, and acquaintances who are all female. I am the passion that will set these women free with information and love shared.
If we study the words of Neal Barnard, M.D., "Researchers have found that fat in the diet especially animal fat increases the risk of breast cancer." If we continue our research we see that in God's Way states that "the average American meat eater consumes over 50 lbs of fat a year, which translates to the average American woman having 40% of her daily dietary intake being fat." This is the fat that winds up in all the wrong places and strikes fear in the average American woman during the summer time. However, that's another story for another time. This fat is ugly, hard for the body to deal with, causes all types of physical problems, and is almost impossible to get rid of once consumed. According to Doug Graham, D.C. in Nutrition and Athletic Performance, "The body has to reach a temperature of 300 degrees in order to break the chemical bonds that form during the heating process." Dr. George Malkamus teaches that the daily intake should be approximately 5% of our total caloric intake.
So we study these figures with the actual reality of 40% of our diets consisting of fat. We walk the aisles of the supermarket and we see the shopping carts loaded to the brim with so-called food. We see the potato chips, cookies, lunchmeat, red meat, white meat, fish, and soda. We step back, look at the people pushing the carts, study their children, and become aware of the statistics that 15 million women will go to their doctor due to concerns about breast cancer. According to the Merck Manual 17th Edition, the race is on. What do statistics mean to a woman who requires a radical mastectomy? What words of comfort can a doctor give? What solace can her family bring? The woman literally has become a victim of something that was never supposed to happen.
According to Dr. Neal Barnard, "Affluent women who eat meat daily have 8.5 times higher risk of breast cancer compared to poorer women who rarely or never eat meat." These are not made up numbers but rather hard-core facts. According to the surgeon general's report on nutrition and health, "The death rates for cancer of the breast, colon, and prostate are directly proportional to estimated dietary fat intake." This information should be yelled, screamed, and blasted over every mass publication possible you would think, especially since breast cancer is rampant. Unfortunately, as stated in The Food Revolution by John Robbins, "Prevention and profits don't mix." There is no money to be made by telling women to cut down their fat intake to 5% since that would mean women would be eating a diet mostly of fruit, vegetables, and grain. What are the implications?
The Breast Cancer Awareness Month, the vanguard of publishing all information that is pertinent regarding breast cancer, was began in 1987 and is continually sponsored by Imperial Chemical Industry. Believe it or not, they have approval rights for all materials that are used. According to Neal Barnard, "Imperial Chemical Industry has consistently decided not to include information that might prevent breast cancer." Let's take this one step further. If they won't allow dietary changes as a preventable measure, what do they allow? How about Tamoxifen? Coincidentally it is sold by Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, a spin off from Imperial Chemical Industry.
To add further coincidence to this amazing coincidence, the National Cancer Institute clearly states, according to the Food Revolution, "Tamoxifen has cut the occurrence of new breast cancer by 45%." These numbers sounds impressive so much so that the FDA said, "Potentially, tens of millions of women could be candidates for Tamoxifen treatment." Now we are beginning to see the dollar signs for Tamoxifen. The drug costs $1,000 a year. Multiply that by tens of millions of women, and the sales would reach tens of billions for Zeneca, for Imperial Chemical Industry as will as guarantying a sponsor for Breast Cancer awareness month which would make every woman aware of Tamoxifen.
There is only one little flaw in this cozy mix of politics and drug recommendations. According to The Food Revolution, "Tamoxifen may not deserve such acclaim." If the truth were to be based on statistical data, then according to recent data, "for every 1000 women who take the drug for 5 years, 17 breast cancers were avoided." Not bad, but not great, especially since the breast cancer was in lieu of 12 endometrial cancers, 10 potentially fatal blood clots, increases in strokes, and eye cataracts.
What does all this mean to the average consumer? NOT TOO MUCH! Zeneca Pharmaceuticals is pushing for early prevention. Besides Tamoxifen, they also recommend mammograms. They supposedly say, "Early detection is your best prevention." It's a woman's first line of defense. Once again, this all seems very logical, but it's all very wrong. Unfortunately, the words very wrong have not seeped into the medical standard practice. As of today, the standard early detection as noted and promoted by Breast Cancer Awareness is a mammogram at a doctor's office or hospital. If a tumor or indurations are noted then Tamoxifen is given. It is all very neat and in my opinion all very wrong. Besides the negative effects of Tamoxifen, which according to Food Revolution is "an off kind of prevention that calls for treating people year after year with toxic drugs," the use of mammograms is also questionable. According to Healthy Immunity, "After reviewing eight studies on mammography, Danish researchers concluded that there is no reliable evidence that mammography decreases breast cancer mortality." That statement as vague as it is still misleading. From what I, Arnold, have heard, according to Dr. George Malkamus, mammograms are not only ineffective but they are harmful to the body. I research further on the supposed benefits of mammograms. Health Action Network (888-432-4267) has collected information "on the adverse effects of mammograms used for the last several years. In 1999, a Swedish study showed no decrease in breast cancer even though mammography has been recommended since 1985." The University of Toronto study indicated that mammograms have no benefit to women between the ages of 50-59. Another article I found on mammograms, the question the author wondered if screening for breast cancer with mammography was justifiable.
So we hold these statements in a semi-mobile status. We are not quite sure whom to believe. If we once again review Breast Cancer Awareness Month, which again was founded in 1987 by Imperial Chemical Industries, we see that their trademark slogan is "Early detection is your body's best prevention. If I were an uninformed woman who did not have any health education, who believed in the media, the press, and most public statements, my initial reaction would be that the statement by Breast Cancer Awareness clearly indicates that mammograms are the way for early prevention.
I walk the streets, listen to the many women who are afraid, the many women who have fibroid tissues, and their willingness without hesitation is to do just what their doctor orders. HELLO! American women, wake up! Prevention and profit don't mix. Breast cancer is on the rise. To add another twist to an already tragic situation, the tumor that the medical field has already established as a foreign growth in a woman's body can actually be considered the body's intelligent defense mechanism against all the intake of toxic material that the average woman is consuming. The body's intelligence is always working for our highest good from the date of conception to the day of death. Indurations or tumors as stated by T.C. Fry are "an increase in the fibrous elements known as scarring and encapsulation. This process engulfs the toxic material from the rest of the body in a gel like hardened sac." According to most hygienic practitioners such as T.C. Fry, Dr. Herbert M. Shelton, and Dr. J.H. Tilden, "This is the last intelligent thing the body does in the stages of disease." If I understand this statement it means that tumors are a sign of the body's intelligence and that because of our continual intake of toxic material the body creates a gelatinous mass not only to enclose the old toxin but to enclose any new toxic material which we intake. Excellent! Women should be overjoyed at such an occurrence. The medical field should be ecstatic, honored, and overjoyed that such a wondrous thing can be created for our benefit. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
I'm in my seventh day of writing and researching, and I'm pulling my hair. I'm screeching and screaming. I feel anxious, happy, sad, and glad. All these emotions are flying within my every breath. Although I am not a woman, this week I am living the fear, reading about deaths of young women, old women, married women. Horror stories are followed by tragedy. Is there an end in sight?
Loren Lockman, director of the Tanglewood Wellness Center, relates the story of Barbara (not her real name) who at the age of 40 was diagnosed with breast cancer. She knew not of Kristine Nolfi, M.D. who beat breast cancer with raw food. She knew not of Lorraine Day, MD who also beat breast cancer with raw food. She did not read the stories of Eydie Mae who wrote How I Conquered Cancer Naturally. Instead she trusted her doctors. Whatever they said she did. In my opinion, everything that happened to her could have been completely avoided if only she checked out other possibilities rather than depend so much on her primary doctor. They too can become blinded by what is truth and what is lie. Needless to say, what happened, happened. Barbara was diagnosed with breast cancer. She went the traditional route of medical treatment. She underwent 14 months of chemotherapy as well as a radical mastectomy (i.e., removal of her breast, lymph nodes). All these procedures were done under the guise of prevention and stopping the cancer growth. If this would have squashed the cancer growth then Barbara could have somehow justified these procedures. Unfortunately, she was diagnosed with a tumor on her other breast. Luckily for Barbara she studied, she educated herself, she sought relief, and she learned to become a warrior rather than a victim. She learned about raw food, she learned about fasting. She learned about her body's wisdom. What is truth, what is false? Barbara decided to go on a 40-day water fast at Tanglewood Wellness Center. She allowed her body to heal itself without drugs, without chemotherapy, and even without food (see fasting article). Barbara's body with her internal forces not being used up by the digestive process instead directed its energy to eat up the toxic material that was in her body. Sounds wild. Sounds easy. Sounds too hard to believe, but in 40 days Barbara had last 40 pounds, lost her bitterness about her breast removal, and best of all lost her tumor.
So we rejoice in this story. We share Barbara's story.
Why breast cancer, and what are the options? These questions have been 40 years in the making. There is a whole infrastructure of research, hospitals, doctors, schools, medical books, pharmaceuticals, and words of gibberish that have created this insistence for continual confusion.
It is on this understanding of not understanding that a simple guy like
myself, with no financial backing, no schooling, no team of financial
resources, and believe it or not, not even a desk, who has discovered
what so many have known but don't realize they know. Breast cancer is
not only preventable, but it doesn't even have to exist and only then
in rare circumstances. So I thank myself (the researcher), my wife (my
financial stability who makes my newsletter writing possible, my nights
all seven of them, my hours of total work, and Toby (my editor who
takes this printed gooblegash, edits, types, and transforms this into
something readable, holding all that I have written as close to the
truth as possible). I urge, I demand, I beg, I plea to all readers
both men and women, to pass this copy to as many people as possible
through email, newspapers, schools hospitals, whatever means possible.
There are 15 million women who want to know the Breast Cancer Answer.
I thank you for your time,
- Food for Life by Neal Barnard, M.D.Merck Manual 17th Edition
- How I Conquered Cancer Naturally by Eydie Mae
- Raw Food Treatment of Cancer by Kristine Nolfi, M.D.
- Cancer Answer by Albert E. Carter
- Food Revolution by John Robbins
- Clinical Evidence 5th issue 2001 United Health Foundation
- Alternative Medicine Presented by Burton Goldberg
- Mammogram Benefit Questionable, article from Healthy Immunity
- God's Way to Ultimate Health by Dr. George H. Malkamus
- Nutrition and Athletic Performance by Douglas Graham, D.C.
- Self-Healing Powers by T.C. Fry
- Women Take Back Your Life by Stor Morningstar
- Health Report by Victoria Bidwell
- Loren Lockman, Director of Tanglewood Wellness Center 301-320-9249
- Special Inspiration: Anna Inez, Director of Health and Education Center in Pines Grove, PA, 570-739-2940
- Videos by Lorain Day, M.D.: Drugs Never Cure Diseases, Believing is Seeing
319 West Main St. Store # 4 Rear
Lansdale, PA 19446