Among "environmental" causes, one has to consider hormone mimics or hormone disrupters released into the groundwater and into the air from a vast number of sources. But one also has to include macronutrients among "environmental" causes, i.e. imbalances among ordinary food components, with high lipid intake being a risk factor for all sorts of cancers. Needless to say, the effects of all these environmental influences can be greater or lesser depending on individual genetic endowments, and life events that activate or de-activate specific genes. I trust you will read and think very carefully about treatment options. No doubt some "alternative" treatments are helpful, but I'd take with a grain of salt any advice from someone who does not even believe in "the germ theory of disease". --Frank ========================================================== --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Wendy Schroell <wendy@...> wrote: > > Thank you, Albert. All I meant by that statement was that I am sure that > so many getting breast cancer has got to be environmental. Most logical > factor to me is the food and/or the water, but maybe it's these > computers that we sit in front of for so many hours a day. I don't know, > but I do hope that people will monitor their own bodies more closely. > > Thanks for the information! > > wendy > > hobces wrote: > > > > > > Hi Wendy! > > > > I'm glad you're going to get better but I'm sad that you're saying: > > > > it is very obviously an epidemic, and we have yet to find out which > > everyday thing is causing it. > > > > I hope this doesn't mean you're buying the orthodox medicine line. If > > getting cancer means joining the mainstream, the medical establishment > > is one mainstream you don't want to join. I am surprised you don't seem > > to have heard the other side of the story. I'm not deluding myself that > > I can have any influence over you, but still I'm giving you a little of > > the real story just to show that it's not all one-sided. And I assure > > you that I'm *not* alone in this! > > > > Cancer is a metabolic disease, and there's no simple cure or cause. It > > is also an immune deficiency diesease. That's why nontoxic immune > > enhancing treatment works so much better than orthodox radiation, > > surgery and chemotherapy-- burn, cut and poison. But you won't hear > > this because your doctors won't tell you about it and because they won't > > allow it to be fairly or properly tested. > > > > I also hope you're not falling for the "heroic" idea of medicine where > > there are heroes and villains, and "magic bullets," like the War on > > Cancer! Everyone needs to be treated differently-- even for so-called > > infectious diseases-- and nontoxic physicians know this. > > > > Do you really believe that some "everyday thing" is the cause, the key, > > the magic bullet that will cure cancer? If that were so, with all the > > money that's thrown away on cancer research, we would not be losing the > > War on Cancer that was declared by President Nixon. > > > > The tragedy is that so many of these nontoxic, progressive treatments > > are far better than any the establishment can offer, but they fight > > furiously to make sure that you'll never know that. If they didn't know > > in their heart how harmful their treatments are, why would they fight so > > hard to deny even the most innocuous treatments to the public? > > > > A very helpful book is John M. Fink's *Third Opinion* 3rd Edition. I > > hope you can get a copy and see some of the excellent medically > > supervised programs that are available. Another good book is "Options" > > by Richard Walter. > > > > The nutritional Gerson Treatment is extreme in some ways, but it is > > relatively inexpensive and some very resilient people have actually > > cured themselves at home. > > > > The Nicholas Gonzalez Treatment, also nutritional, is available in New > > York or was last I heard, and is rated the most successful alternative > > treatment in the world. > > > > Pancreatic enzymes and hydrazine sulfate are both simple and inexpensive > > treatments that profoundly help cancer patients in different ways. I'm > > not suggesting that you treat yourself with either of these. > > > > It's not true as your doctor may tell you that nontoxic treatments are > > good as prevention and tonification but when you have tumors you need > > "real" medicine. Once your body starts recognizing cancer cells you can > > zap them in any numbers. Then you may need detoxification, another > > thing that is used and developed in nontoxic medicine. > > > > In fact, many people under the care of regular physicians die because > > there are so many dead cells in their body. Regular doctors don't > > recognize detoxification, so that many people die of the very poisonous > > effect of dead tissue, or detritus, being inside the body. > > > > There are good orthodox physicians and even some that care more about > > you than about their orthodox, ineffective and very dangerous > > treatments. But they are so few that it's almost not worth trying to > > find them. > > > > I'm not rattling on here to hear myself talk. I'm hoping at some point > > (not now, because you're still in some stage of shock) you'll begin to > > see there's more than one side to this story. > > > > In solidarity, > > > > Albert > > hobces (at) yahoo.com > > World Counselor for Hom�opathy > > > > --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > <mailto:NewPacifica%40yahoogroups.com>, Wendy Schroell <wendy@> wrote: > > > > > > I have already sent this note to the pnb and the kpft lsb, so if you > > are > > > on those lists, please forgive the duplicates. I feel very strongly > > > that a personal experience might help others to take the warning > > > seriously, so, here it is. > > > > > > wendy > > > > > > After almost a half century of being the most healthy person I know, I > > > had a routine physical + mammogram in January. As many of you know, I > > > have always been the one to take care of everyone else, not myself, > > and > > > the physical exams, blood tests, etc agreed with my layman's > > assessment > > > that I am Superwoman. Odd, but this year's mammogram part wanted a > > bit > > > more study to proclaim me as such. There is no family history of any > > > kind of cancer on any side of my family - surely the more study would > > be > > > just an inconvenience. > > > > > > It was, and I will tell you all that the inconvenience has by now > > > extended to a second mammogram, MRI, biopsy, CT of everything and > > > ultrasound. It's been a very busy February. By now it is quite clear > > > that the Superwoman with hardly any breasts at all has breast cancer. > > > > > > This was caught through a routine mammogram, and that is why I am > > > bothering you all with it. PLEASE, if you're a woman, do breast exams > > > monthly and mammograms once a year. No lumps does not mean everything > > > is fine. I had not had any symptoms EVER, and while my own DCIS turns > > > out to be quite extensive, it is not life threatening since we caught > > it > > > now. For awhile there it looked like it might be a lot more than > > that. > > > > > > I'm done being upset and am now just furious - it is very obviously an > > epidemic, > > > and we have yet to find out which everyday thing is causing it. For > > now, > > > you women and you who love you women, please be proactive. You don't > > have to be > > > over 40 - I'm meeting all kinds of courageous women who have gone > > through different > > > degrees of breast cancer at every age. You know yourself best and can > > > find things no one else can, but supplement with the technology that > > we > > > all love. If you don't have health insurance you can get mammograms > > and > > > people to read them for free. I can point you in this direction if > > you > > > need help, as I am now waaay into learning about things I never wanted > > > to know. So interesting that it took me so long to break into > > mainstream America. > > > > > > wendy > > > > > > > >