Like a good novelist, Ani Kaspar starts her non-fiction memoir "Pelicans, Coconuts & Butterflies" in the middle of the action. We first meet her in the emergency room, struggling with breast cancer and septic shock, hooked up to an IV with a temperature of 105, and struggling to breathe while an unconcerned nurse does little to help her.
While this powerful opening scene is a bit in your face, it is understandably and appropriately so. The book's style becomes gentler and more poetic as it continues, but Ani never fails to express her righteous frustration along the way, both with men who have difficulty loving her because of her illness, and with a health care system that seems more interested in making a buck than finding humane ways to fight breast cancer.
While breast cancer has long been a concern for women, this book is timely in its look at health care and insurance during the ongoing debate on health care reform. That any woman should have such inhumane and limited options as chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery, and have to pay such outrageous amounts of money to survive leaves the reader sympathetic, angry, and even fearful for his or her own medical future. Ani explains, "My medical insurance is dismal. After working since I was sixteen, succeeding in my personal and professional endeavors, after contributing to my country, to its people, to its economic stability, health insurance for me, an American woman, is wretched." By the end of the book, we learn that she has paid more than $250,000, and while her cancer now appears to be benign, it can always return. No wonder, as Ani notes, 75% of bankruptcies in the U.S. are filed as a result of medical bills.
After this startling, attention-grabbing introduction, Ani takes us back to the previous year, describing how she left working on Wall Street to move to the Southwest and live a healthy life, a life where she managed risk to keep herself safe and healthy, even having any metal fillings in her mouth removed to avoid toxicity. So how, she must ask after being so cautious about her health, could she suddenly get breast cancer?
She has many answers for this-some the fault of the government and human failure to take care of the environment, while others are the result of stress she experienced. She waged war on Wall Street, not so much as a financial advisor, or as a high-powered career-oriented person, but as a woman seeking to be treated with respect in a man's world. She won that battle, and in turn, lost her career. "Weapon-of-mass-destruction stress management is necessary to transcend such a career loss. Choose a word, any word. Meticulous tension for nine years was my life. Worth nine breast cancer spots."
Ani asked herself, now that she had cancer, what should she do. She could not agree to chemotherapy or the other violent means to cure her body by using poison to fight poison. Instead, she sought natural healing, energy healing, and alternative therapies because, "The dis-ease doesn't frighten me-it's the treatment, the horrifying, barbaric, perverse treatment that frightens me the way it does most cancer patients. And rightfully so." Ani provides a great deal of support for her decision by noting that less than 4% of women treated for breast-cancer do not see a recurrence of cancer within five years, and chemotherapy is only effective in three-percent of treatments. Furthermore, breast cancer is largely the result of earlier health care mistakes as Dr. John Goffman has explained, "Our current estimate is that about 75% of the current annual incidence of breast cancer in the U.S. is being caused by earlier ionizing radiation, primarily from medical sources."
Ani's decision to seek alternative natural healing is unusual in the United States, but she notes that in Japan, Germany, and Russia, a large percentage of cancer patients don't go through chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery but seek less invasive methods of treatment. Furthermore, she firmly believes that today's health care industry is profit-driven, while before Nixon's administration, health care was not-for-profit. Now doctors can reject patients if they can't pay, and the treatments used are often less effective than profitable. Ani refused to let her body be part of this corporate greed in the health care system:
I know natural cures exist. I know our current health care system cannot profit from them because they cannot be patented, and that's why every sector of the system pursues the invasive protocols that bring in so much money. And I also know that even our own conventional world medical community has the heart, the brilliance, and the astounding financial resources to deliver a humane cure to all cancers. Because I know these truths, I will not allow one moment of profit from my body. I refuse to allow you, the conventional medical community, to treat my body until you do it humanely.
From here, we follow Ani in her quest for natural healing, as well as her efforts to write her book, to share what she has learned, and to eliminate stress from her life while finding balance in a loving relationship with a man. She visits Lake Atitlán in Guatemala to escape the criminality of her country and a life sick with breast cancer, to heal and be at one with her soul. Her writing becomes poetic and meditative, and the beauty of the natural world around her inspires her words. At times, her style reminded me of another Anne-Anne Morrow Lindbergh and her classic meditative book "Gift from the Sea."
Tale of Two Breasts - A Cancer Story
In September of 2004 my doctor found a lump. After several ultrasounds and mammograms, the concerns outweighed my age enough to necessitate a biopsy. At 26 years old, I wasn't a likely candidate for a mammogram, let alone an open surgical biopsy.
The lump turned out to be many, but to my relief they were mostly simple fluid-filled cysts. However, it was because of those cysts that something of greater interest was discovered. The radiologist had seen several micro-calcifications that showed up as tiny white specks during my screenings.
In February, 2005, a fine wire localization biopsy was performed and a section was removed about the size of a stack of 6 toonies (a toonie is a Canadian two dollar coin). It was reviewed by the pathologist in Nanaimo and a diagnosis was unclear, so the slides were sent to a specialist at the BC cancer Agency in Vancouver for consultation. According to his review, it was "a challenging case". A month after the procedure, although I hadn't actually seen the report, I was told that it was "not cancer", but we should continue screening every 6 months to make sure nothing changed.
My experience with the BC cancer Agency; Vancouver Island Centre didn't transpire until one year later, once I was living in Victoria. I was in for a routine check up, and my new doctor requested my medical file from the previous clinic in Nanaimo. I had given him my version of the past 2 years' events, so he was a little surprised to read my pathology report from the year before stating that I had been diagnosed with Lobular Carcinoma in Situ (LCIS), among other things. He made a call on my behalf, and within hours I was contacted by someone at the cancer Agency here in Victoria.
I met with a specialist there a few days later and we went over my surgical pathology report to try to decipher exactly what it meant. He spent 3 hours with me going over the diagnosis, translating and even creating diagrams to help me understand. He was very thorough and helped put my mind at ease with the diagnosis.
Depending on who you ask, or what reports you read, LCIS is not considered cancer, as its name suggests. It has been explained to me that "in situ" means that abnormal cancer cells are present, but have not spread past the boundaries of tissues where they initially developed. LCIS is considered a red flag to allow both doctor and patient to keep an eye on things.
Essentially no invasive cancer was discovered, however several "markers" were found. Markers are indications of a heightened risk of developing invasive breast cancer in the future. There are several risk factors associated with the disease which include; age, hormonal risk factors, personal or family history, lifestyle habits and antecedent intraductal hyperplasia. Although neither my age nor lifestyle provide a heightened risk, my family history and the diagnosis of both intraductal hyperplasia, and LCIS do increase my risk significantly.
The implication of a cancer diagnosis is somewhat overwhelming, but the important message is that thanks to screenings made available through funding, I know about the risks and I am in control of my health care options.
Cancer in its early stages is difficult to detect without the use of screening tests. Thanks to concern from my doctors and a little diligence on my part, I am able to stay on top of my health concerns.
The lump turned out to be many, but to my relief they were mostly simple fluid-filled cysts. However, it was because of those cysts that something of greater interest was discovered. The radiologist had seen several micro-calcifications that showed up as tiny white specks during my screenings.
In February, 2005, a fine wire localization biopsy was performed and a section was removed about the size of a stack of 6 toonies (a toonie is a Canadian two dollar coin). It was reviewed by the pathologist in Nanaimo and a diagnosis was unclear, so the slides were sent to a specialist at the BC cancer Agency in Vancouver for consultation. According to his review, it was "a challenging case". A month after the procedure, although I hadn't actually seen the report, I was told that it was "not cancer", but we should continue screening every 6 months to make sure nothing changed.
My experience with the BC cancer Agency; Vancouver Island Centre didn't transpire until one year later, once I was living in Victoria. I was in for a routine check up, and my new doctor requested my medical file from the previous clinic in Nanaimo. I had given him my version of the past 2 years' events, so he was a little surprised to read my pathology report from the year before stating that I had been diagnosed with Lobular Carcinoma in Situ (LCIS), among other things. He made a call on my behalf, and within hours I was contacted by someone at the cancer Agency here in Victoria.
I met with a specialist there a few days later and we went over my surgical pathology report to try to decipher exactly what it meant. He spent 3 hours with me going over the diagnosis, translating and even creating diagrams to help me understand. He was very thorough and helped put my mind at ease with the diagnosis.
Depending on who you ask, or what reports you read, LCIS is not considered cancer, as its name suggests. It has been explained to me that "in situ" means that abnormal cancer cells are present, but have not spread past the boundaries of tissues where they initially developed. LCIS is considered a red flag to allow both doctor and patient to keep an eye on things.
Essentially no invasive cancer was discovered, however several "markers" were found. Markers are indications of a heightened risk of developing invasive breast cancer in the future. There are several risk factors associated with the disease which include; age, hormonal risk factors, personal or family history, lifestyle habits and antecedent intraductal hyperplasia. Although neither my age nor lifestyle provide a heightened risk, my family history and the diagnosis of both intraductal hyperplasia, and LCIS do increase my risk significantly.
The implication of a cancer diagnosis is somewhat overwhelming, but the important message is that thanks to screenings made available through funding, I know about the risks and I am in control of my health care options.
Cancer in its early stages is difficult to detect without the use of screening tests. Thanks to concern from my doctors and a little diligence on my part, I am able to stay on top of my health concerns.
Is Common Sense or Research Needed to Cure Cancer?
It is an incredible feat that organisms can begin from one cell and then differentiate and compartmentalize into the millions of diverse tissue and organ niches that represent a mature body. Why brain, fingernail, liver, intestine and bone cells ever become what they are is mystery enough. Why they stay what they have become while still retaining the full genetic information to produce an entire new body, compounds the miracle even more.
cancer is a condition in which cells lose their orientation and proliferate uncontrollably. Any cell can become cancerous. A lot of them do, but are squelched by cell death (apoptosis), the immune system or nipped in the bud by DNA repair mechanisms. Successful cancer cells escape these impediments, disregard normal cellular checks and balances and become an island unto themselves with only their own survival and self-interests at heart.
The cause of cancer is no mystery. It is our aberrant modern living context that has put us at cancer risk. When cells are forced to bathe in a milieu (the tissue soup we create with modern foods, drugs and lifestyle) entirely unlike what they are genetically programmed to expect, they revert to their most primitive directive – multiply, multiply, multiply – without regard for neighbors. It’s a sort of payback for our disregard for “neighbors” when we pollute and repudiate nature. Why should our cells be polite to their neighbors if we don’t have regard for ours? Since the immune system is compromised from the chronic stresses created by modern living, defenses are down. Couple this with the nutritionally depleted and perverted modern processed diet and you have the incubator for cancer.
Today, about one in three humans will get cancer. In pets it is worse and perhaps the leading cause of death. No evidence exists that the disease was of similar incidence before our modern era. President Nixon's "War on Cancer" (beginning in the early 1970s) is the most failed and embarrassing "military" campaign ever undertaken by any nation at any time in history. One person in 30 got cancer at the beginning of the 20th century, now almost one in two do.
Some will say that the only reason the incidence has increased is because humans and animals live longer due to modern medical measures. So when science fails in their mission to defeat cancer, they cleverly spin the failure as their success. As I have shown previously (Why Modern Medicine is the Greatest Threat to Health [http://www.wysong.net/health/post_77_061902.shtml]), this is nonsense since modern medical measures are themselves probably the number one threat to life.
The reason for cancer and most chronic degenerative diseases is modern living, pure and simple. We have subjected ourselves to an artificial environment to which we are not adapted. Nature – not exhaust, sugar, pop and plastic – is what we are designed for. Screw with Mother Nature and a price will be paid.
Whatever the inciting cause, it is known that inducement and propogation needs to be relentless and of long-standing duration. Cancer can have a latency period of decades, requiring continuous exposure to the inciting stress. Our departure from our genetic roots certainly qualifies.
If disease does not strike immediately after a bad life choice, then the conclusion is that the choice is just fine. We refuse to take the long view and make intelligent decisions now for consequences that may not emerge until years later. It's a common human failing we see replayed in every aspect of human endeavor. It's the modus operandi in government, economics, agriculture, social issues and health care. Living in the moment is what children and animals do. We should do better with the pounds of gyri and sulci resting on our shoulders.
Nevertheless, this common sense approach (returning to our genetic roots) to preventing cancer and other diseases will be ignored. Instead we will pour billions of dollars into research to discover the cure for cancer. But there will never be a cure other than respecting our genetic heritage and living, eating, breathing and drinking as we were designed to do. A pill or vaccine to save us just isn't going to happen.
Let me give some examples of recent research findings that reveal the obvious. First there is the "discovery" that fresh fruits and vegetables contain anti-cancer nutrients such as antioxidants, vitamins and flavanoids. Why would they not be anti-cancer, they are the natural food of humans? No research is necessary to discover that!
Then there is the "discovery" that cancer preferentially feeds on glucose, diverting it from body use and inefficiently metabolizing it by glycolysis into lactate and a couple ATP energy molecules. (Glucose normally yields 38 ATP.) The body then has to reconvert the lactate back, via the Cori cycle, into glucose (at an energy cost). The net result is that the cancer acts like an energy sink resulting in cachexia, a pathetic condition of severe muscle wasting and debilitation. Modern diets are laden with sugar and starches that not only provide the perfect food for cancer but the perfect acidic medium in tissues. Processed sugar and starch is not a natural human food. No research is needed to discover that!
Research has also shown that a low carbohydrate, high protein, high arginine (meat amino acid), low omega-6 fatty acid and high omega-3 fatty acid diet is useful for both preventing and treating cancer. Tumor cells do not do well on fats or protein. But they love that sugar. The natural, raw diet for humans and their pets is high in fat (the preferred energy source) and protein, high in omega-3 fatty acids (fish, wild meat, some seeds and vegetables) and low in omega-6 fatty acids (grains, grain-fed meats and most oils), and is alkalinizing. This is no scientific discovery. It's common sense.
But companies are clamoring to patent versions of natural diets and crediting their science for discovering the obvious. Examples are new patented, "cancer-fighting" foods featuring high fat, high omega-3 fatty acids, low carbohydrates, and high protein and arginine. Finally, feeding people and pets what they should have been getting all along (as, I hate to say, I have been arguing for decades) is so novel that it is patentable!
It is the edge-of-the-map science that is responsible for this sorry state of affairs. Like the ancient mariners who believed the world ended where their maps left off, science has assumed that calories, regardless of their source, were the edge of their map. Their nutritional world ends with calories and percentages of known nutrients. Science has insisted that if a human or animal requires X calories per pound each day, it matters not whether those calories come from fresh, real foods or Twinkies. That's why hospital patients paying a thousand dollars a night dine on Registered Dietician Jell-O, diet pop and instant potatoes.
What has been ignored is that calories are not the edge of the map; ships do not drop off the Earth when they disappear over the horizon. Now the world beyond the edge of conventional medicine and nutrition is slowly being rediscovered. The world is round... and people and animals require their natural, genetically programmed diet that lies beyond the edge of science’s calories. Quality of calories do matter and is a whole new world promising health.
So, to increase the chance of having cancer, or to speed its progression, eating the standard modern fare is the way to go. Get lots of sugar and lots of grain-based foods such as pasta, bread, cereal, bagels, donuts (which convert to sugar after consumed) and lots of vegetable oils. Increase carbohydrates, eat oleo and look for low-fat foods. Drink very little water and instead enjoy acidified pop and municipal acidic water. Tumors thrive on this banquet.
You can wait for “research” to prove that natural foods and natural living (fresh air, exercise, sunlight, loving relationships) prevent and reverse cancer, or you can be a thinking person and apply this obvious wisdom beginning today.
cancer is a condition in which cells lose their orientation and proliferate uncontrollably. Any cell can become cancerous. A lot of them do, but are squelched by cell death (apoptosis), the immune system or nipped in the bud by DNA repair mechanisms. Successful cancer cells escape these impediments, disregard normal cellular checks and balances and become an island unto themselves with only their own survival and self-interests at heart.
The cause of cancer is no mystery. It is our aberrant modern living context that has put us at cancer risk. When cells are forced to bathe in a milieu (the tissue soup we create with modern foods, drugs and lifestyle) entirely unlike what they are genetically programmed to expect, they revert to their most primitive directive – multiply, multiply, multiply – without regard for neighbors. It’s a sort of payback for our disregard for “neighbors” when we pollute and repudiate nature. Why should our cells be polite to their neighbors if we don’t have regard for ours? Since the immune system is compromised from the chronic stresses created by modern living, defenses are down. Couple this with the nutritionally depleted and perverted modern processed diet and you have the incubator for cancer.
Today, about one in three humans will get cancer. In pets it is worse and perhaps the leading cause of death. No evidence exists that the disease was of similar incidence before our modern era. President Nixon's "War on Cancer" (beginning in the early 1970s) is the most failed and embarrassing "military" campaign ever undertaken by any nation at any time in history. One person in 30 got cancer at the beginning of the 20th century, now almost one in two do.
Some will say that the only reason the incidence has increased is because humans and animals live longer due to modern medical measures. So when science fails in their mission to defeat cancer, they cleverly spin the failure as their success. As I have shown previously (Why Modern Medicine is the Greatest Threat to Health [http://www.wysong.net/health/post_77_061902.shtml]), this is nonsense since modern medical measures are themselves probably the number one threat to life.
The reason for cancer and most chronic degenerative diseases is modern living, pure and simple. We have subjected ourselves to an artificial environment to which we are not adapted. Nature – not exhaust, sugar, pop and plastic – is what we are designed for. Screw with Mother Nature and a price will be paid.
Whatever the inciting cause, it is known that inducement and propogation needs to be relentless and of long-standing duration. Cancer can have a latency period of decades, requiring continuous exposure to the inciting stress. Our departure from our genetic roots certainly qualifies.
If disease does not strike immediately after a bad life choice, then the conclusion is that the choice is just fine. We refuse to take the long view and make intelligent decisions now for consequences that may not emerge until years later. It's a common human failing we see replayed in every aspect of human endeavor. It's the modus operandi in government, economics, agriculture, social issues and health care. Living in the moment is what children and animals do. We should do better with the pounds of gyri and sulci resting on our shoulders.
Nevertheless, this common sense approach (returning to our genetic roots) to preventing cancer and other diseases will be ignored. Instead we will pour billions of dollars into research to discover the cure for cancer. But there will never be a cure other than respecting our genetic heritage and living, eating, breathing and drinking as we were designed to do. A pill or vaccine to save us just isn't going to happen.
Let me give some examples of recent research findings that reveal the obvious. First there is the "discovery" that fresh fruits and vegetables contain anti-cancer nutrients such as antioxidants, vitamins and flavanoids. Why would they not be anti-cancer, they are the natural food of humans? No research is necessary to discover that!
Then there is the "discovery" that cancer preferentially feeds on glucose, diverting it from body use and inefficiently metabolizing it by glycolysis into lactate and a couple ATP energy molecules. (Glucose normally yields 38 ATP.) The body then has to reconvert the lactate back, via the Cori cycle, into glucose (at an energy cost). The net result is that the cancer acts like an energy sink resulting in cachexia, a pathetic condition of severe muscle wasting and debilitation. Modern diets are laden with sugar and starches that not only provide the perfect food for cancer but the perfect acidic medium in tissues. Processed sugar and starch is not a natural human food. No research is needed to discover that!
Research has also shown that a low carbohydrate, high protein, high arginine (meat amino acid), low omega-6 fatty acid and high omega-3 fatty acid diet is useful for both preventing and treating cancer. Tumor cells do not do well on fats or protein. But they love that sugar. The natural, raw diet for humans and their pets is high in fat (the preferred energy source) and protein, high in omega-3 fatty acids (fish, wild meat, some seeds and vegetables) and low in omega-6 fatty acids (grains, grain-fed meats and most oils), and is alkalinizing. This is no scientific discovery. It's common sense.
But companies are clamoring to patent versions of natural diets and crediting their science for discovering the obvious. Examples are new patented, "cancer-fighting" foods featuring high fat, high omega-3 fatty acids, low carbohydrates, and high protein and arginine. Finally, feeding people and pets what they should have been getting all along (as, I hate to say, I have been arguing for decades) is so novel that it is patentable!
It is the edge-of-the-map science that is responsible for this sorry state of affairs. Like the ancient mariners who believed the world ended where their maps left off, science has assumed that calories, regardless of their source, were the edge of their map. Their nutritional world ends with calories and percentages of known nutrients. Science has insisted that if a human or animal requires X calories per pound each day, it matters not whether those calories come from fresh, real foods or Twinkies. That's why hospital patients paying a thousand dollars a night dine on Registered Dietician Jell-O, diet pop and instant potatoes.
What has been ignored is that calories are not the edge of the map; ships do not drop off the Earth when they disappear over the horizon. Now the world beyond the edge of conventional medicine and nutrition is slowly being rediscovered. The world is round... and people and animals require their natural, genetically programmed diet that lies beyond the edge of science’s calories. Quality of calories do matter and is a whole new world promising health.
So, to increase the chance of having cancer, or to speed its progression, eating the standard modern fare is the way to go. Get lots of sugar and lots of grain-based foods such as pasta, bread, cereal, bagels, donuts (which convert to sugar after consumed) and lots of vegetable oils. Increase carbohydrates, eat oleo and look for low-fat foods. Drink very little water and instead enjoy acidified pop and municipal acidic water. Tumors thrive on this banquet.
You can wait for “research” to prove that natural foods and natural living (fresh air, exercise, sunlight, loving relationships) prevent and reverse cancer, or you can be a thinking person and apply this obvious wisdom beginning today.
Cancer is an Opportunity For Change
Cancer is 'an opportunity for change' -If you have cancer then it's your body's own way of telling yourself this: That you cannot, of course, go on the way you are forever... Now, with the realisation that a real change is needed you have to ask yourself: 'How committed are my to making the vital and necessary changes needed to bring about a health transformation in my life and beat the cancer?' You see, as Doctor Larraine Day once said: 'Some people chose to die rather than change their habits or lifestyles.'
Maybe you're someone who could change their lifestyle pretty quickly, knowing that there is something so greatly at stake...but for many, their detrimental habits need to be changed slowly and trickle by trickle over appropriately lengthy time periods, with no going back to the old habits. A useful tactic to employ in your resolve to beat cancer would be to declare to someone your intentions about taking control over your health and lifestyle, so that they can encourage and watch over you. That is, someone to hold yourself accountable to in your fight to beat cancer.
The American cancer Research, like all cancer research based institutions is based on disinformation: All the money for cancer research goes to the greedy pharmaceutical companies who don't want you to know that there are cheap, natural and non-toxic methodologies that may cure and they have no intentions of letting to know about this. Think of the money they would stand to lose if this were well known to the public at large: So it would be natural for them to give you a fatalistic mindset...
-Get wise folks. The main answer lies in nutrition and dealing with toxicity and stress. This includes solutions like: Vitamin B17 nutritional therapy using apricot kernels as this food source and other forms of good nutrition which would act synergistically, Bob Beck's electromagnetic technologies, exercise and a commitment to having a positive outlook in life and not sinking into victim consciousness.
Do profoundly realise, your health is really up to you. It is not in the dictates of some white-coated individual who, by the way, had only received around four hours of training in nutrition during medical school days. Nor is your health determined by some genetics. Maybe you have genetics dormant in you that can serve as a cancer health preventative measure if you had the willingness and resolution to activate it.
Maybe you're someone who could change their lifestyle pretty quickly, knowing that there is something so greatly at stake...but for many, their detrimental habits need to be changed slowly and trickle by trickle over appropriately lengthy time periods, with no going back to the old habits. A useful tactic to employ in your resolve to beat cancer would be to declare to someone your intentions about taking control over your health and lifestyle, so that they can encourage and watch over you. That is, someone to hold yourself accountable to in your fight to beat cancer.
The American cancer Research, like all cancer research based institutions is based on disinformation: All the money for cancer research goes to the greedy pharmaceutical companies who don't want you to know that there are cheap, natural and non-toxic methodologies that may cure and they have no intentions of letting to know about this. Think of the money they would stand to lose if this were well known to the public at large: So it would be natural for them to give you a fatalistic mindset...
-Get wise folks. The main answer lies in nutrition and dealing with toxicity and stress. This includes solutions like: Vitamin B17 nutritional therapy using apricot kernels as this food source and other forms of good nutrition which would act synergistically, Bob Beck's electromagnetic technologies, exercise and a commitment to having a positive outlook in life and not sinking into victim consciousness.
Do profoundly realise, your health is really up to you. It is not in the dictates of some white-coated individual who, by the way, had only received around four hours of training in nutrition during medical school days. Nor is your health determined by some genetics. Maybe you have genetics dormant in you that can serve as a cancer health preventative measure if you had the willingness and resolution to activate it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
