He is now working on a lifestyle program with a strong emphasis on nutrition to reverse prostate cancer. The results of the study are not available yet, but the statistical trends up to now are very favorable for reversal of cancer.

Dr. James S. Gordon, M.D., Harvard Medical School graduate and president of the Center for Body-Mind Medicine in Washington, D.C., is on the Cancer Advisory Board for the National Institutes of Health and was recently appointed Chairman of the President’s Commission on Complimentary and Alternative Medicine Policy. He is also author of “Manifesto for a New Medicine.” Dr. Gordon has now authored a new book, “Comprehensive Cancer Care, Integrating Alternative, Complimentary and Conventional Therapies.”

Dr. Gordon was recently interviewed by Dr. Jeffrey Bland in the October 2000 issue of Functional Medicine Update. He points out that striking evidence of effectiveness of nutritional and other “alternative” therapies for cancer is continually growing. He emphasizes that nutrition affects the genes involved in cancer development. He urges that studies need to be done to evaluate whole programs for treatment that include many therapies, not just one treatment by itself.

Dr. Gordon advocates that when it comes to treatment, patients do not have to “put all their eggs into one basket,” but need to be fully informed at the outset, when the diagnosis of cancer is first made, of the many therapeutic choices that are available, not just after radiation and chemotherapy have failed, as is so often the case.

The areas of body-mind medicine, group support, exercise, nutrition, Chinese herbal medicine and many other therapies have already shown their effectiveness in improving well-being and survival time.

Dr. Gordon advocates a model for the future of cancer care in which drugs and surgery are peripheral and self-care is central to decisions made in a partnership between patients and physicians. Now too often, patients are told what they need to have done, and they fearfully follow orders, or they surreptitiously do alternative therapies on the side. Now 70 percent of cancer patients already do some alternative therapies, whether they inform their oncologists or not.

Some of the most outstanding programs that Dr. Gordon notes as successful are those of Dr. Nicholas Gonzales and of Dr. Stanislov Brudzinsky.

Dr. James Gordon is promoting the growth of good solid research to prove the effectiveness of many of the complimentary and alternative treatments so that in the future these treatments will be integrated into whole programs right from the start.

This trusted, reliable and affordable cheap pharmacy here to offer your loved ones and you high quality prescription drugs without prescription.

DDT is the least expensive and most effective pesticide ever known. It halted a potential typhus epidemic spread by lice after World War II. Through its use in the global battle against mosquito-borne malaria, experts estimate that DDT had saved over 500 million lives by 1970. PCBs are chemicals used in the production of electrical transformers, capacitors, and adhesives, among other products. PCBs and DDT were both banned in the United States in the 1970 s because of alleged threats to the environment and to human health.

Despite little credible scientific evidence, these chemicals have been blamed for a host of health problems in humans. PCBs and DDT belong to a family of chemicals called organochlorines, which tend to persist in the environment. Some researchers claim organochlorines have hormonal activity similar to estrogens.

One of the most common accusations against both PCBs and DDT is that they cause breast cancer. In 1993, in response to these claims, 5 studies funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences evaluated the risk of breast cancer in relation to PCB and DDE levels (DDE is a breakdown product of DDT). The studies included women from the northeastern United States and Maryland, and compared the blood levels of PCBs and DDE in women who developed breast cancer with those who did not.

None of the 5 studies found an association between either chemical and breast cancer. However, some of the studies suggested that an association may exist among specific subgroups of women (such as those who had children but did not breastfeed), but the studies were too small to support a firm conclusion.

In order to increase the power of the individual studies and look for an association between breast cancer and PCBs and DDE in subgroups of women, a group of scientists led by Francine Laden, Sc.D., of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, performed a combined data from of the 5 previous studies. The combined study included 1400 breast cancer patients and 1642 healthy subjects, providing the statistical power needed to examine subgroups of women.

Laden and colleagues found that the results of the combined study confirmed conclusions from the individual studies, i.e. that there was no overall association between breast cancer and PCB or DDE. Further, the pooled results yielded no evidence of a significant association between these chemicals and breast cancer in any subgroup, including mothers who never breastfed their children.

These results support not only the conclusions of the component studies, but also conclusions drawn from scientists performing similar investigations in the US and abroad. The authors say, “the majority of studies published to date do not support the hypothesis that elevated exposure to DDT and PCBs increases the risk of breast cancer.”

The authors conclude that “exposure to DDE and PCBs, as measured in adult women, is unlikely to explain the high and increasing rates of breast cancer experienced in the northeastern United States.” Dr. Gilbert Ross, medical director of the American Council on Science and Health, commented that “the results of this study should help lay to rest the unreasonable fear that trace levels of environmental chemicals are a cause of breast cancer.”

Once again it appears that claims that environmental exposure to DDT and
PCBs cause serious adverse health effects in humans are false. The very groups which propagate these scares are same groups that are now pushing for a world-wide ban on DDT, and for 500 million dollars to be spent to remove PCBs from the Hudson River. Policy makers should rely on more than mere speculation before signing legislation that will not only cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but also leave hundreds of millions of people unprotected from the devastating consequences of malaria.

This website recommends risk free no prescription online pharmacy. Don’t hesitate to order safe, effective medications, remedies from this famous, inexpensive suppliers.

DALLAS, John Rutherford, diagnosed with prostate cancer this spring, went in to have his prostate removed at Zale Lipshy University Hospital on a Friday afternoon. By Sunday afternoon, he was back at home.

A UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas surgeon removed his cancerous prostate using only a few small incisions and a tiny video camera. The new procedure, called laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, reduced Rutherford’s pain and recovery time and made his hospital visit as short as a weekend getaway.

A retired maintenance supervisor, Rutherford, 69, enjoys fishing and spending time on land he owns in West Texas. A lengthy hospital stay and recovery weren’t part of his retirement plans.

“I read about the laparoscopic procedure, and I found a doctor doing it,” he said. “My health is my top priority, but if I can make surgery easier I will.”

Only a few physicians in the state do laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. Doctors performing the surgery at UT Southwestern received special training to perform the procedure, which was developed in France.

Dr. Jeffrey Cadeddu, Rutherford’s surgeon, says the procedure eliminates much of the pain and recovery time commonly associated with prostate removal.

“In the laparoscopic procedure, only a few small incisions are necessary,” said Cadeddu, assistant professor of urology. “A traditional prostatectomy requires a long incision in the abdomen and much more pain for the patient.”

Recovery time for a traditional prostatectomy can last up to eight weeks, and patients spend two or three days in the hospital

In the laparoscopic procedure, a tiny video camera is inserted in one incision, and the prostate is removed through the other incisions while the surgeon is guided by use of a video monitor. Patients are back to normal activities in two to four weeks and typically spend less than two days in the hospital.

Ultimately, Cadeddu said, the laparoscopic procedure could become the surgery of choice for prostate cancer patients.

For Rutherford, the surgery was a total success.

“I could have driven home myself on Sunday afternoon if they’d let me,” the Fort Worth resident said. “Everything went just as I’d hoped.”

And with his prostate now gone, the cancer should be gone as well.

One in six men develop prostate cancer in their lifetime. It is the most common form of cancer in American men, only to skin cancer, and it is the leading cause of cancer death in American men behind lung cancer.

Prostate cancer, however, is a highly treatable disease. With early detection facilitated by yearly checks of the prostate specific antigen (PSA) level in the blood, almost 75 percent of prostate cancers are discovered while still confined to the prostate. The five-year survival rate for prostate cancer caught while still confined to the prostate, like Rutherford’s, is almost 100 percent.