Hydrogen Peroxide / H2O2

Hydrogen Peroxide / H2O2

This is one of the oxygen therapy diets that is designed to get more oxygen to the cancer cells (cancer cells die if they get exposed to too much oxygen). It does this because Hydrogen Peroxide is really nothing but water with an extra oxygen molecule. It is one of the most used alternative treatments in the world.

EXPLORING THE O-ZONE

In the past decade, oxygen therapies like ozone, hydrogen peroxide, coenzyme Q(10), liquid stabilized oxygen and other oral supplements have gained more credibility. The escalating demand for such therapies is linked to the increased incidences of allergies, chronic fatigue syndrome, AIDS and cancer. However, oxygen therapies are extremely controversial in mainstream medicine. Many physicians and clinics offering them in Canada and the United States have been forced out of practice by various government agencies.

There is a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding surrounding the subject, For the most part, both ozone and hydrogen peroxide therapies are only available in Mexico, some Caribbean countries (the Bahamas, Cuba and the Dominican Republic) and Europe (especially Germany and eastern Europe). If you want ozone or hydrogen peroxide therapies, don't call your doctor. Call your travel agent.

As Safe as Water

Hydrogen peroxide and ozone are naturally occurring gases capable of providing oxygen to cells, tissues and organs. Both therapies have been used around the world by conventional and alternative medical doctors for nearly a century in oral, rectal, vaginal, intramuscular and intravenous forms.

If ozone is inhaled in large quantities, it can be toxic. Overdoses of either hydrogen peroxide or ozone can cause inflammation, nausea, indigestion, diarrhea, coughing, chest pain, asthma, dizziness and headaches. Combined with environmental pollutants like petrochemical hydrocarbons, ozone can irreversibly damage lung and other body tissues. The same is true of hydrogen peroxide, oxygen, water and any other nutrient for that matter. To categorically say that "ozone is toxic" or that "hydrogen peroxide is toxic" is almost as ridiculous as saying that "water is toxic."

The body manufactures its own hydrogen peroxide under certain conditions. For ozone, hydrogen peroxide, oxygen and water to become toxic, huge amounts -- far more than the recommended levels used in therapy -- would have to be consumed.

The safety of oxygen therapies is further ensured when they're used as part of a comprehensive health program that takes into account an optimal diet and antioxidant nutritional supplements like beta carotene, vitamin C, vitamin E and selenium. Beware of ozone and hydrogen peroxide promoters who claim that oxygen therapies are all you need to treat cancer or AIDS. Using these therapies in isolation from all others could lead to problems.

Hydrogen peroxide is found in the waters of many famous healing spas around the world. It's also found in several areas of the human body, including mother's milk. Our natural friendly bacterial flora, lactobacillus acidophilus, manufacture hydrogen peroxide as a defence against candida albicans and other potential pathogens. A high vitamin C intake stimulates the production of hydrogen peroxide. Our white blood cells (lymphocytes) produce hydrogen peroxide to combat invasive organisms. Hydrogen peroxide transports sugar throughout the body. It also has the ability to reverse plaque formation in arteriosclerotic disease, thereby preventing a host of heart conditions.

Deadly For Disease

Medical ozone is more bactericidal, fungicidal and viricidal than any other natural substance, including hydrogen peroxide. In fact, studies prove that ozone infused into donated blood samples can kill viruses 100 per cent of the time. It does not do any damage to healthy cells. Blood banking centers around the world are seriously considering using medical ozone in all donated samples rather than just testing blood samples for the presence of viruses. Herpes, Epstein-Barr, influenza, mumps, measles, HIV, cytomegalovirus, hepatitis and other viruses have been documented to be destroyed by ozone exposure. Atherosclerotic plaques have also been reduced by intravenous ozone therapy.

Both ozone and hydrogen peroxide break down in the body to extra oxygen. They destroy viruses, bacteria, fungi, parasites, pyrogens and, according to some, cancer cells. There is no bacterium, virus, fungus or spore that can survive in the presence of ozone or peroxide. This explains the benefit in chronic viral conditions and candidiasis.

Cancer cells are killed by ozone or peroxide, yet healthy cells are unaffected. The theory is that cancer behaves like a plant cell and can be killed by its waste product, oxygen, while non-cancerous cells are resistant to this type of destruction. An increasing volume of scientific research supports the fact that ozone or peroxide therapy can help in the successful treatment of a long list of infectious as well as degenerative diseases.

Although it's true that the legal status of ozone and hydrogen peroxide therapy in both Canada and most parts of the US is on shaky ground, there are safe, effective and legal ways of getting the benefits of oxygen in both liquid and capsule form. A number of Canadian and American companies market and sell nutritional supplements which liberate oxygen to internal organs and tissues when combined with the normally present hydrochloric acid in the stomach. The natural antioxidant supplement coenzyme Q(10) can optimize oxygen in the body.

Research indicates that these products are effective but it's unclear exactly how they compare with direct ozone and hydrogen peroxide treatments. Visit your natural health care practitioner for personalized advice on oxygen treatments, eat oxygen-rich fresh fruit and vegetables, drink freshly-pressed vegetable juice -- and exercise!

Article copyright Canadian Health Reform Products Ltd.

~~~~~~~~

By Zoltan Rona

The Prevention and Complementary Treatment of Breast Cancer

Intravenous Vitamin C

Our intravenous programs consist largely of large doses of vitamin C, minerals, glutathione, a few other vitamins and amygdalin or Laetrile, which is added at the end of the drip. Up until recently, we had been using 25 grams of vitamin C in our intravenous infusions. But, when I lectured at the Cancer Research Foundation's Adjuvant Nutrition in Cancer Conference held in Tampa in September 1995, I heard Dr. Hugh Riordan of Wichita, Kansas, describe his work with high doses of intravenous vitamin C in cancer patients. According to him, vitamin C in high enough concentrations could actually kill cancer cells by inducing the formation of hydrogen peroxide in them. Since cancer cells have a much lower concentration of the enzyme catalase compared to normal cells, the cancer cells were not able to break down hydrogen peroxide as easily and would be destroyed, whereas normal cells would break down the hydrogen peroxide and remain intact. He had demonstrated this in several cancer cell lines in tissue culture.

The level of vitamin C needed to kill almost all of the cancer cells was in the range of 30 to 40 mg/deciliter. Normal levels of vitamin C are in the range of 1 to 2 mg/deciliter of blood plasma. He also checked the blood levels of vitamin C in patients who were receiving intravenous vitamin C drips in one arm by drawing blood samples from the other. Surprisingly, he found that with some advanced cancer patients, their blood plasma vitamin C levels were close to zero while they were receiving a 50 grams or more of vitamin C infusion drip. However, when he increased the vitamin C to approximately 100 grams, he would begin to see the desired levels. At the same time, the patients did not seem to experience any adverse side effects. We have now begun to repeat his work by monitoring vitamin C blood plasma levels while we are increasing the amount of vitamin C in our drips. Although it is too early to say, we are cautiously optimistic that this method will improve our results.

At the beginning of treatment, breast cancer patients may come for these drips between one and six times per week, depending upon the severity of their illness, their proximity to the office and several other factors. Generally, the frequency is reduced after several weeks to months of treatment. Sometimes, we introduce bio-oxidative treatment directly by administering intravenous dilute hydrogen peroxide drips in place of the vitamin C drips once or twice per week. Ozone therapy should also be helpful, although we have not introduced this modality into our practice yet but hope to in the not too distant future.

Part 10-Detoxification and Hormone Balancing

I touched on detoxification when I discussed the importance of the lymphatic system in removing chemicals from the breast, avoiding bras as much as possible, doing aerobic exercise, taking saunas to help remove these same chemicals and reducing the intake of harmful chemicals by paying attention to what one breathes, eats and drinks. Additionally, the colon must be kept clean by proper bowel movements at least once and preferably two or three times daily. This is likely with the proper diet including sufficient fiber, minerals and essential fatty acids. Herbal products and cleansing enemas may also be helpful. Tests can be done to check the liver's ability to detoxify and appropriate measures may be taken to correct problems with either phase I or phase II liver detoxification. Certain herbs, such as milk thistle may help the liver to detoxify. Coffee enemas, as advocated by the late Dr. Max Gerson, often makes the patient feel better in addition to stimulating liver detoxification. Dry brush massage of the skin helps the skin to rid the body of poisons. Finally, with regard to heavy metal toxicity, the replacement of amalgam mercury fillings in the mouth, followed by the administration of the chelating agent DMPS, can help remove toxic mercury from the body. EDTA chelation therapy may be used to remove other heavy metals, such as lead or cadmium, and abnormal calcification. It may also improve circulation in cancer patients for whom this is a problem.

Hormonal balancing is another area that frequently needs attention in breast cancer patients. Thyroid hormone is sometimes needed. Low basal body temperatures, feelings of chilliness, dry skin, constipation, impaired immunity and chronic fatigue are just some of the possible indications for a therapeutic trial of thyroid hormone, even when the thyroid hormone blood tests are normal. Natural progesterone may be beneficial for breast cancer patients, as it may have a protective effect against breast cancer and certainly helps to prevent and treat osteoporosis. DHEA is a little tricky. Some studies indicate that women with higher serum levels of DHEA have a reduced risk of developing breast cancer and may have a better prognosis if they already have it. On the other hand, DHEA may be a precursor for the formation of estrogen. We have handled this issue cautiously. If a woman has a low DHEA, we may recommend low levels of replacement, after explaining this relationship of DHEA, estrogen formation and breast cancer. If the patient shows any signs of increased estrogen activity, such as increased breast tenderness, we will discontinue it. Other aspects of our alternative approach to breast cancer includes using homeopathy, acupuncture, massage and manipulation in selected cases to improve the defenses of the body against cancer, while at the same time improving the patient's sense of well being. Counseling, visualization and meditation help to round off this alternative approach.

Part 11-Useful Medications

We make use of certain drugs for our breast cancer patients. Hydrazine sulfate is a relatively, inexpensive medication, not yet approved by the FDA, which appears relatively non-toxic when administered properly. It generally improves appetite, increases the patient's sense of well being, results in a weight gain in cancer patients who have lost weight, and may contribute to a shrinkage of tumors. It works by interfering with the liver's ability to produce glucose from lactic acid, a process known as gluconeogenesis. Cancer cells thrive on glucose. They metabolize glucose to lactic acid, which enters the bloodstream and travels to the liver. The liver then converts this lactic acid to glucose, which in turn enters the bloodstream and goes back to the cancer cells, where it is metabolized, allowing the cancer to grow quickly, while normal cells in the body break down. This vicious cycle may continue, resulting in cachexia, a wasting away of the patient, until she dies. Hydrazine sulfate by interfering with gluconeogenesis inhibits the cancer while allowing normal cells to thrive, thus reversing this vicious cycle.

Breast cancer most often spreads or metastasizes to the liver, lungs and bones. Urea, a natural product of the body's metabolism of protein, along with creatine, another substance made by the body and important in muscle metabolism, may have a role in preventing and treating liver metastases from the breast, provided that the liver metastases are not too advanced. Original papers about the use of urea in regressing metastatic liver cancer were first presented in the 1970's in the Lancet. Medical writer Wayne Martin has been writing about this treatment for some time, mostly in the Townsend Newsletter. At this point, I'm not sure how well it works, but since it seems to be relatively harmless, it certainly is worth a try in patients with liver metastases from breast cancer because this condition is often difficult to treat. The dose is 15 grams of urea and 25 grams of creatine monohydrate dissolved in a quart of water or juice and sipped over the course of a day.

Finally, for metastatic bone cancer from the breast, a drug approved by the FDA for an elevated blood calcium secondary to metastatic bone cancer, may actually reduce pain and inhibit the metastatic bone cancer itself. This medication, called, pamidronate or brand name Aredia, is given as an intravenous infusion. We have found some success with this medication. A similar medication, which can be used orally and may not be quite as good, is clodronate, which has not yet been approved by the FDA.

Part 12-Surgery

In this section, I'll focus on the conventional treatment of breast cancer and how it relates to the alternative treatments I have been discussing.

As I mentioned earlier, the major conventional treatments for breast cancer are surgery, radiation therapy, cytotoxic chemotherapy and anti-hormonal therapy, mostly in the form of tamoxifen. Conventional breast cancer therapy has passed through a number of phases. It is important to understand that often in medicine a treatment is introduced and becomes the standard of care without necessarily being clearly shown to be safe and effective or even better than doing nothing, according to modern scientific standards. With regard to breast cancer, this has been the case with surgery and radiation, and to a great extent with chemotherapy as well. Within conventional medicine, breast cancer therapy has been one of the most controversial topics in all of medicine.

In the late 1870's, when breast cancer occurred, women often came for treatment in advanced stages. The treatment involved surgical removal of the cancer, but the results were poor. We don't know how long these breast cancers were present and what the survival time was from the onset of the disease. In the late 1880's and 90's, the esteemed American surgeon, William S. Halstead M.D., utilizing techniques he learned in Europe, developed the radical mastectomy procedure, which involved removal of the entire breast and its underlying pectoral muscles and as many armpit lymph nodes as possible. This operation left women with a washboard type of appearance of their chest wall, because their ribs could be seen underneath the skin, since the pectoral muscles had been removed. His results seemed fairly good and for years this became the standard of care. Challenges to this approach did not begin to emerge until after the death of Halstead in 1922. Interestingly, the rationale for this procedure was largely based on the incorrect assumption that breast cancer spread only by direct extension and that breast cancer cells did not enter the bloodstream to metastasize to distant areas of the body. Today we know that breast cancer does enter the bloodstream and spread to other organs in this way. It wasn't until the 1960's that a Columbia surgeon, Hugh Auchincloss, M.D., demonstrated that a modified radical mastectomy, which left the underlying pectoral muscles intact, was as effective as the radical mastectomy.

In 1898, Pierre and Madam Marie Curie first introduced radiation therapy into cancer treatment and by the 1920's, it had gained wide acceptance in Europe. The Curies were not aware that radiation actually caused cancer and many of the early researchers, including Madam Curie, died of cancer secondary to radiation.

Part 13-Radiation Therapy

By the 1920's, radiation therapy had been accepted in Europe as a valid treatment for cancer, as tumors would shrink when they were radiated. In 1922, Geoffrey Keynes, an English surgeon and brother of economist John Maynard Keynes, used local excision of the breast cancer and radiation therapy to treat breast cancer. Although his results were as good as the radical mastectomy, he reverted back to complete removal of the breast because he was so harshly criticized by his colleagues. Again in the 1940's and 50's this type of treatment was reintroduced. But, in the 1970's women still had trouble finding a surgeon who would carry out a breast sparing operation. Finally, in the 1980's, partially as a result of organized multi-institutional studies, women began to be given the choice of a modified radical mastectomy or a lumpectomy with radiation for breast cancer which had not metastasized beyond the lymph nodes. This is largely the case in the 1990's as well. Recent studies indicate that the two approaches are roughly equivalent.

What about women who wish to have the cancer lump removed without having any radiation? In part because of our lawsuit minded consciousness, the vast majority of surgeons will refuse to do this, in spite of the fact that no study has shown that radiation therapy to the breast area results in any improvement in 5 or 10 year survival of breast cancer patients. What the studies have shown is that women who have radiation added to their lumpectomy will have a lower rate of recurrence locally in the breast area than those who do not. But, with a reduced rate of local recurrence, one would expect an improved survival as well. This is not the case. Could it be that in spite of reduced local recurrence, radiation therapy, which is known to be carcinogenic, actually contributes to the deaths of patients? One study which has not been done yet is to take a group of breast cancer patients who have had a lumpectomy and place them on a comprehensive alternative cancer program, similar to the one I have been described. Half of them would receive radiation and half would not. Which group would fare better -- the alternative group receiving radiation or the group with the alternative treatment alone? I suspect that the alternative group not receiving radiation would do better, but I cannot prove it at this time. In my practice, several breast cancer patients have chosen this route of lumpectomy without radiation, but with an alternative treatment program. So far, the local recurrence or any recurrence seems very low, while patients are on their alternative cancer program. At this point, in helping my breast cancer patients choose which path to take, I outline all of this information, explain my personal bias and the reasons for it and encourage them to choose the path that seems right for them.

Part 14-Cytotoxic Chemotherapy

Introduced in the 1940's, cytotoxic chemotherapy or drugs to kill cancer cells, met with considerable resistance at first, but this treatment modality has gradually become more accepted. The skepticism had to do with the concept of introducing poisons into the body with the hope of killing more cancer cells than normal cells. These poisons are most effective in killing rapidly growing cells; hence, their effectiveness in killing cancer cells. However, the body has other rapidly growing cells, including the cells of the gastrointestinal system, which leads to nausea, vomiting and diarrhea in many patients receiving chemotherapy. Hair follicle cells also grow rapidly and this may lead to acute hair loss with many of these drugs. Other acute toxic adverse effects include suppression of cells in the bone marrow, leading to low red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets. This suppression of the red cells and white cells can lead to fatigue, weakness and poor resistance to infection, while low platelets may lead to bleeding.

Some commonly used chemotherapeutic drugs for breast cancer like Adriamycin may cause irreversible, permanent damage to the heart, a condition which may lead to death.

Aside from these acute conditions, chemotherapeutic drugs are mutagenic, carcinogenic and immune suppressive. That is, they may cause cancer, and cause mutations in the genetic codes of cells, resulting in some cancers becoming more aggressive. The immune suppressive effects result in a weakening of the body's defenses to fight both infections and cancer. These are some of the characteristics of the commonly used drugs to treat breast cancer.

During the 1970's, chemotherapy was used primarily to treat stage IV metastatic breast cancer, but more recently, it has been used for all stages of cancer except for perhaps stage 1. After a woman undergoes either a modified radical mastectomy or a lumpectomy followed by radiation, she is advised to have chemotherapy if one or more axillary lymph nodes are involved. Often the explanation given is that if there are any microscopic cancer cells floating around, we want to make sure we get them all. Hence, a prophylactic course of chemotherapy is given, presumably to prevent a recurrence of the breast cancer. Often women are basically told that they must do this. It is not even presented as an option. Worldwide, chemotherapy for breast cancer is quite controversial in many countries, but you would never know it if you talked to the vast number of American oncologists. Adjunctive chemotherapy is used even though there is no clear evidence of clinical cancer being present. Just how effective is chemotherapy and what might be considered in determining whether or not to undergo chemotherapy?

Briefly, the evidence indicates its not very effective at all. A 1992 article published in the British medical journal Lancet summarized 133 trials involving over 75,000 women who had been treated with adjuvant chemotherapy before 1985. It concluded: "The effect of treatment on the average duration of survival will not be known for decades, and even estimates of median survival may be unreliable." Best estimates are that chemotherapy may increase a woman's chance of surviving 5 or 10 years cider the original diagnosis by about 5 to 7 per cent.

However, even this meager percentage may be higher than it really is because of certain problems with the experimental design of the trials. For example, a woman whose white blood cells drop as a result of chemotherapy and then develops pneumonia and dies during a clinical trial is not counted as a failure of chemotherapy. Instead she is dropped from the trial and regarded as invaluable because she hasn't completed the trial. Thus, this introduces a bias into the study which makes the treatment group more successful than it actually is. Other factors which bias the trials in favor of positive results is the fact that the endpoint is often defined as the tumor shrinking by 50 per cent or more and not increased survival time. The fact that a tumor shrinks is not necessarily associated with increased survival time and really means nothing to the patient if it isn't. Even fraud has been associated with some of the important clinical trials. There are also several other factors that tend to bias the results in a positive direction, which I won't cover at this time. All aspects of chemotherapy are discussed in considerable detail in a recent book by medical writer Ralph Moss called Questioning Chemotherapy. I'd recommend this to any person considering chemotherapy for any cancer.

In summary, adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy for breast cancer is associated with many adverse side effects and evidence for effectiveness is minimal. Unfortunately, this is not the story that most breast cancer patients are given prior to the treatment. It is important therefore that women educate themselves about this issue.

Part 16-Anti-Hormonal Treatment and Summary

The anti-hormonal treatment of breast cancer involves the use of the drug tamoxifen or brand name Nolvadex. This medication has some anti-estrogen properties and has been used with some success in many breast cancer patients with advanced metastatic disease, especially involving the bones. Clinical trials in post-menopausal women indicate that it increases mean survival time, is better than adjuvant chemotherapy and is just as good as using it in combination with chemotherapy. It does not seem to be very effective in pre-menopausal women. Because of its success in some breast cancer situations, some researchers came up with the idea of using this drug prophylactically to prevent breast cancer in high risk women. Other researchers felt this was a terrible idea. Apparently, most women do too, because the researchers are have trouble getting volunteers for the trial. Tamoxifen is not an innocuous drug. It has side effects. In some women it causes hot flashes, fatigue and depression. Eye problems are not uncommon. It also tends to increase the risk of uterine cancer. So, the decision to use this drug requires careful consideration of the risks and benefits for an individual patient.

Let me now outline my major conclusions for this paper. Much more attention should be given to the prevention of breast cancer considering the well known risk factors and the lesser known factors that I discussed, such as exposure to chemicals and bra wearing behavior. All aspects of lifestyle should be examined. Early detection of breast cancer through frequent breast examinations by a health care practitioner, self breast examination and possibly mammograms or ultrasound are very important, but should not be confused with prevention. Early detection is not prevention. Prevention involves focusing on the toxic environment and cleaning it up, improving one's lifestyle with appropriate dietary measures, use of nutritional supplements, exercise and stress management. The current conventional treatment for breast cancer is not very good. Women are frequently bullied into relatively unproven conventional treatments without being made aware of non-toxic alternatives. Alternative cancer therapies should be used for breast cancer prevention and for all stages of treatment of breast cancer either alone or in combination with conventional treatments. The possibility exists that alternative cancer therapies alone or along with surgery may be more effective and less harmful than combining them with the conventional breast cancer treatments of radiation and/or chemotherapy. And, finally, all women should be made aware of this possibility.

Outcome studies looking at the results of various alternative treatments for breast cancer should be undertaken by major medical organizations. More research should be carded out using combinations of nutrients and herbs and less attention should be devoted to finding the single agent that is going to solve the cancer problem because it is unlikely that such a substance exists.

Article copyright FAIM.

~~~~~~~~

By Michael B. Schachter

Share this with your friends

OXYGEN THERAPIES

OXYGEN THERAPIES

Say "ozone" and most people think of the stratosphere that surrounds the earth at an altitude of approximately 12 miles and which is being rapidly depleted leading to increased cancer risk. They also think of smog, pollution and poison.

But to Ed McCabe, ozone is a highly effective method of oxygenating the blood and curing a variety of degenerative illnesses including cancer, AIDS, Epstein Barr, Candida and MS, to name a few.

McCabe, an investigative journalist, has spent the past five years travelling the world interviewing patients and doctors who have testified that ozone is a beneficial, inexpensive and effective medical treatment. Oxygen Therapies, A New Way to Approach Disease is the fruit of that research. It contains not only historical but technical data on how to use the various oxygen therapies, including ozone generators and hydrogen peroxide.

In 1925, Nobel Prize winning scientist Dr. Otto Warburg proved that cancer cannot grow in a high oxygen environment. Our sedentary lifestyles, poor food, lack of exercise and shallow breathing of polluted air are contributing factors that have created a chronic "low oxygen" condition in our cells.

Nature has created hydrogen peroxide as a natural way to eliminate bacteria. For example, the healing waters at Lourdes have been found to contain natural hydrogen peroxide. The Gerson and other healing diets work so well because fruits and vegetables collect the hydrogen peroxide which comes clown in the rain. It's stored in the fruits and vegetables and released when eaten.

Vitamins A and E are often labelled as "antioxidants". By this labeling, oxidation, the process of energy creation and life is thereby inferred to cause harm. We are told we must take antioxidants to stop the "toxic free radicals" McCabe thinks these should instead be called "oximodulators".

Oxygen Therapies includes formulas, medical studies, anecdotal and medical histories of former AIDS and cancer patients, as well as contacts around the world currently involved with oxygen therapies.

Article copyright Health Action Network Society.

~~~~~~~~

By Roxanne Davies