Breast Cancer: Hope Through The Struggle
Author: William Noel
By understanding what Cancer is, an individual is better prepared to fight this disease, and win!
Breast Cancer: Hope Through The Struggle
According to The American Cancer Society, in 2005, approximately 211,000 American women will be diagnosed invasive breast cancer (Stages I-IV). It is the second leading cause of Cancer deaths in women, claiming more than 40,000 lives every year.
Surprising to some, the human breast is composed of identical tissues in males and females. Knowing this, it should come as no surprised that there are approximately 1,700 men are diagnosed with breast Cancer, with nearly 1/3 dying from the disease each year.
But, what exactly is Breast Cancer? Breast Cancer occurs when a persons body produces an abnormally high amount of cells in the breast. When this growth exceeds the bodys limit of functionality, the abnormal cells continue to grow into anaplastic (less differentiated) cells. These cells, abnormal and anaplastic, continue to reproduce themselves, and eventually begin to attack normal, healthy cells. This attack leads to the spreading of the disease. This is called metastasis.
Cancer, thus, is the growth and reproduction of abnormal, unhealthy cells. Breast Cancer is this process localized in the tissue of the breast.
Cancer is often discussed in two forms, benign and malignant.
Benign Cancer is a form that has little or no detrimental effect. This type of Cancer is usually treated with various forms of medication and/or chemotherapy.
The other type of Cancer is called Malignant. As the name implies, this form of cancer is highly injurious and life threatening. Once diagnosed, Malignant forms of Cancer must be treated aggressively and for long periods of time.
As age increases, the odds of contracting Cancer increase, as well. This should not lead a younger woman to believe that she is not at risk. It has been documented that women in the early twentys have been diagnosed with Breast Cancer.
Side Note: Researcher have discovered that the longer a woman waits to have children, the higher her chances of contracting Cancer. (This may be due in part to the strain that childbirth puts on a womans body.) This fact can be traced back, in part, to an individuals personal and family health history.
Caucasian women appear to be at a higher risk of Cancer, regardless of their age. Also, women who smoke and/or are overweight, tend to have a higher risk factor, as well.
Another contributing factor directly tied to ones health, it the health history of family members. Since Cancer lives and grows in the human cells, it is logical to conclude that the cells of family members can offer a loose pattern of potential Cancerous activities. Symptoms include a lump or whats called thickening of the breast or the underarm area, ridges or pitting of the breast, redness of the nipple, discharge or upward turning of nipple and/or any changing of the size or shape of the breast. If any of these symptoms occurs, a person would be strongly advised to seek medical counsel immediately.
Although the root cause of Cancer has not been found, early detection and treatment may save your from this disease. D. Brownlee www.Breast-Cancer-Free.com
D. Brownlee is a gifted author of more than 20 years, writing on a host of topics pertaining to family, faith and finances.
Article Source: http://www.article99.com
IODINE DEFICIENCYRobert Sarver has performed his own research into the claims regarding iodine and iodide made by Dr. Brownstein and Dr. Abraham. These are Mr. Sarver's independent findings.
From: http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/iodine.htm
Iodine Deficiency
Copyright 2005 By Robert Sarver
Permission to published granted to the Vitamin C Foundation
Dr. David Brownstein has a US medical practice dealing primarily with thyroid patients. He has been quite successful treating hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism with the iodine/iodide supplement Iodoral that is available over the Internet without prescription. Dr. Brownstein believes that the usual thyroid medication prescribed by doctors is the wrong treatment because it does not deal with the underlying iodine deficiency problem. All cells in the body need iodine for proper functioning. All glands (thyroid, adrenal, etc.) especially need iodine for the production of hormones.
Dr. Brownstein believes that iodine deficiency is a major cause of breast cancer and other diseases of the reproductive organs such as ovarian, uterus and prostrate cysts and cancers. Iodine levels in US soil have fallen 50 per cent over the past 50 years and soil in the US is deficient in iodine. The Great Lakes region has some of lowest soil iodine levels in the world and this results in high levels of cancers related to iodine deficiency. Dr. Brownstein has been quite successful in treating fibrocystic breast disease (cysts in the breast) with iodine/iodine supplementation. In one case a 37 year-old woman with severe fibrocystic breast disease was completely cured after supplementing with 50 mgs of iodine a day for two months. Women with larger breasts need more iodine than women with smaller breasts. Other medical authorities agree that iodine deficiency can lead to fibrocystic breast disease and/or ovarian cysts. [1] [2] [3]
Iodine can similarly reduce uterine fibroids and one of the first conventional medical treatments for severe fibroids was to paint the uterus with iodine. [4]
Some other medical conditions associated with iodine deficiency are goiters, Graves� Disease, Hashimoto�s Disease, fatigue and impaired immune system function. Iodine deficiency during pregnancy can lead to miscarriages and reduced IQ in surviving offspring. [5]
The World Health Organization says that iodine deficiency is the largest single cause of mental retardation. Iodine also detoxifies the body by removing mercury, fluorides, chlorides, and bromides.
If iodine/iodide are so crucial in the body, why hasn�t there been more research studies published? Dr. Brownstein believes that because iodine cannot be patented there is no incentive for the drug companies to perform the research.
Iodized salt and the iodine supplements usually found in health food stores contain the iodide form of iodine. Dr. Brownstein has had little success treating patients with only iodide. The supplement Iodoral contains both the iodide (reduced) and iodine (oxidized) forms of iodine because the body needs both forms. The US RDA for iodine is 150 mcg. Iodoral contains 100 times (12.5 mgs) the RDA�s requirement of iodine/iodide.
It seems the conventional medical establishment again has grossly underestimated the amount of a nutrient needed for good health. According to Dr. G. E. Abraham, "Of all the elements known so far to be essential for health, iodine is the most misunderstood and the most feared. Yet, it is by far the safest of all the trace elements known to be essential for human health. It is the only trace element that can be ingested safely in amounts up to 100,000 times the RDA. For example, potassium iodide has been prescribed safely to pulmonary patients in daily amounts of up to 6.0 gm/day, in large groups of such patients for several years. It is important however to emphasize that this safety record only applies to inorganic nonradioactive iodine/iodide, not to organic iodine-containing drugs and to radioiodides." [6]
Seafood and sea plants such as kelp (seaweed) are good dietary sources of iodine but few people in the US consume enough of these foods. On a personal note, I found sellers of Iodoral on the Internet and purchased 180 tablets for $40. The usual dosage as a supplement is one tablet a da y but up to four tablets a day can be taken for medical conditions under a knowledgeable MD's supervision.
« Why Paul Krugman Is Wrong About Health Mandates Are ‘Medical Googlers’ Really A Problem? »
Health Mandates: A Talk With Obama Health Advisor David Cutler
December 1, 2007
Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama have each presented detailed proposals for health reform. The Clinton and Edwards plans include health mandates, which require Americans to obtain health care coverage or face (unspecified) sanctions.
The Obama plan does not include mandates.
Health mandates are popular among many Democratic-leaning health policy analysts. The Clinton campaign has been going after Obama aggressively on this issue. They’ve said that the absence of mandates is a basic flaw in Obama’s plan; suggested a cynical political calculus behind Obama’s position said that his position feeds a Republican narrative; and took the position that Obama’s plan is politically vulnerable while theirs (and Edwards’) is a political plus in the general election.
(The preceding positions were echoed today by Paul Krugman - see my response, “Why Paul Krugman Is Wrong …“)
I don’t support any Democratic candidate, but I do have strong opinions about health mandates. As a long-time healthcare policy analyst and health manager in the private sector, I disagree with Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein, Jacob Hacker, and others who support mandates. My differences are based on policy effectiveness, issues of fairness, and Democratic political strategy. I think mandates pose more problems than they solve, and that they could be a political loser for Democrats in the general election. I’ve been engaged in a collegial debate with Klein, blogger/consultant Joe Paduda and others on this topic for some time (see, for example, here, here, here, and here). During an exchange with Klein over the last week it became apparent that, while I had reasons to support Obama’s policy, it was unclear to me what his team’s current thinking was on the topic. The team published a rebuttal to Clinton’s campaign late today. Earlier I spoke with David Cutler about mandates. Cutler is Professor of Applied Economics at Harvard, Obama’s senior health advisor, and the principal architect of the Obama plan. ________________________
“I’d like to start with a general comment,” Cutler began. “Two possible reasons why people don’t have health coverage are usually given. One is that the uninsured are gaming the system. The other is that they can’t afford it and don’t know where to get it. Most of the literature suggests that the explanation is mostly the latter. That means the single biggest thing we can do to help the uninsured is to make coverage affordable and accessible.” “That’s why all the Democratic plans focus on removing excessive profits where they exist, improving information technology, and so forth,” Cutler continued. “All the plans do those things, although I think the Obama plan does the most.” “The mandate argument is: You must buy something – but I’m not going to tell you what it is, how much it will cost, or where you’re going to get it.” “It comes down to this,” said Cutler. “You’ll never get someone to buy something if it’s not affordable and not accessible. People just don’t do it.” That’s an area where the Edwards campaign has taken the lead. They suggest automatic enrollment whenever an American intersects with the health care system or government services. “You can enroll them,” Cutler replied, “and then forcibly collect the premiums. That’s one way to solve the problem. But it’s not necessary to do that.” “A better approach is to do everything possible to make it affordable and available. When it is, almost everyone will have it.” There are a couple of concerns about that approach. One is the problem of “adverse selection.” Sicker people – or people with a greater likelihood of becoming sick – will enroll. That will drive plan costs up, making it prohibitively expensive. “Let’s look at the level of coverage you can get without a mandate. Our estimates, based on studies in the literature, is that we can get 98% or 99% coverage without a mandate for adults. There may be some small pockets of people who choose not to buy it.” What about those people?
“If there are free riders, Obama is open to mandates. But what he is saying is ‘Look, mandates seem like a panacea, but that’s not where the hard work needs to be done.’ Auto insurance is a mandate, too, and not everyone has that. You’ve got to prove to the public that you’re willing to do the hard work.’”
Would mandates be considered at that point?
“He hasn’t ruled anything out. It’s a matter of priorities. The fact is, the policy differences on the mandate issue aren’t that large at all. Sen. Obama believes they’re an option down the road, if other approaches don’t work.” And yet Sen. Clinton made another speech about mandates and universal coverage yesterday. And the Clinton had ( Clinton Campaign Manager) Patti Solis Doyle and (Policy Director) Neera Tanden talk about health care differences with reporters this morning.** And Paul Krugman weighed in on the pro-mandate side of the debate, too. “I know the arguments,” said Cutler, “but look at the evidence.
What really matters is: Can they afford the coverage?”
Part of the debate involves political communications: Is the mandate issue a winner for Democrats in the general election, or a liability? “I don’t get involved in the politics of it.”
What about the concern – which I and others share – that insurance premiums are an inherently regressive form of ‘taxation.’ The state of Massachusetts has had to waive the mandate for 20% of the uninsured as a result. All the campaigns have been forced to create fairly complex subsidy structures in an attempt to offset that regressivity, but paying for some portion of health insurance out of general tax revenues – either for a public system or some type of voucher – would be less regressive. What about taxation as a funding mechanism? “That doesn’t seem to be on the table now for any of the candidates.” Then the devil is in the details, isn’t it? What would premiums costs? Who would get a subsidy, and for how much? Nobody is debating these issues with any specificity, and yet that’s where – arguably – the real debate should take place. “That’s why we’re suggesting that we lower costs first. Otherwise, you’re saying you want to force people to buy something, but we don’t know how much it will cost or what you’ll get in return.” There’s been talk that a consensus is forming among policy analysts that 10% of income is the right number for total out-of-pocket health costs, including premiums, copays, and deductibles. But that’s a very high number for lots of people. “Well, healthcare is 16% of the GDP now. Some of that cost is being borne through taxes already. So it depends what you want to count.”
But 10% for whom? $4,000 for a family of four with income of $40,000 is a devastating figure. Whereas there are probably very few people in the top 2% of income who spend 10% on healthcare. “That’s where the subsidy debate comes in, and is another reason to address the cost issue first.” ____________________ Overall, Prof. Cutler had a clear and well-articulated response to many of the objections raised to the plan. Since he is not part of the campaign’s communication strategy, I did not ask him about the Clinton campaign’s accusation that Obama had been misleading in suggesting he had a universal coverage plan. He did make it clear that he feels a 98% enrollment level is possible without mandates, and that if that fails Obama will consider their use.
In my opinion, both the Clinton and Obama campaigns could have communicated their points more clearly - and with less heat. It was for this reason that I contacted Prof. Cutler. I have asked him for more background on that 98%-99% enrollment estimate. He says its an “internal calculation,” and it seems quite high to me. I’ll provide any further information as I receive it. From: http://sentineleffect.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/health-mandates-a-talk-with-obama-health-advisor-david-cutler/ __________________