28 June 2002

Dietary Antioxidants, Supplements, and Risk of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

We've known since the late 1970's that vitamin supplements significantly impact cancer risk. That's when I cofounded a Center for Vitamins and Cancer Research at the University of Colorado School of Medicine with Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling as a sponsor. Year after year since then, clinical and epidemiology studies have been published in the major journals documenting the case. Here is another one showing radically reduced risk of ovarian cancer with Vitamin C and E supplementation at levels higher than the US Recommended Daily Allowances:

Nutrition and Cancer 40:2, 2002
Aaron T. Fleischauer, Sara H. Olson, Laura Mignone, Neal Simonsen, Thomas A. Caputo, and Susan Harlap

Several studies of dietary and serum antioxidant micronutrients (vitamins A, C, and E and beta-carotene) suggest that higher levels may be protective for ovarian cancer. None of these has examined supplements. We used a food frequency questionnaire and additional questions on supplements to study 168 histologically confirmed epithelial ovarian cancer cases, 159 community controls, and 92 hospital-based controls. Antioxidant consumption from diet or supplements was calculated in milligrams or international units per day. In multivariate analyses using only community controls, the highest levels of intake of vitamins C and E from supplements were protective: odds ratio (OR) = 0.40 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.21-0.78] and OR = 0.33 (95% CI = 0.18-0.60), respectively. Consumption of antioxidants from diet was unrelated to risk. In analyses combining antioxidant intake from diet and supplements, vitamins C ( 363 mg/day) and E ( 75 mg/day) were associated with reduced risks: OR = 0.45 (95% CI = 0.22-0.91) and OR = 0.44 (95% CI = 0.21-0.94), respectively. Results were similar, with some attenuation toward the null, in analyses combining both control groups. The levels of vitamins C and E associated with the protective effect were well above the current US Recommended Dietary Allowances. These findings support the hypothesis that antioxidant vitamins C and E from supplements are related to a reduced risk of ovarian cancer.

24 June 2002

Cimetidine increases survival of colorectal cancer patients

S Matsumoto, Y Imaeda, S Umemoto, K Kobayashi, H Suzuki and T Okamoto. Cimetidine increases survival of colorectal cancer patients with high levels of sialyl Lewis-X and sialyl Lewis-A epitope expression on tumour cells. British Journal of Cancer (2002) 86, 161 – 167.

Cimetidine has been shown to have beneficial effects in colorectal cancer patients. In this study, a total of 64 colorectal cancer patients who received curative operation were examined for the effects of cimetidine treatment on survival and recurrence. The cimetidine group was given 800 mg day71 of cimetidine orally together with 200 mg day71 of 5-fluorouracil, while the control group received 5-fluorouracil alone. The treatment was initiated 2 weeks after the operation and terminated after 1 year. Robust beneficial effects of cimetidine were noted: the 10-year survival rate of the cimetidine group was 84.6% whereas that of control group was 49.8% (P50.0001). According to our previous observations that cimetidine blocked the expression of E-selectin on vascular endothelium and inhibited the adhesion of cancer cells to the endothelium, we have further stratified the patients according to the expression levels of sialyl Lewis antigens X (sLx) and A (sLa). We found that cimetidine treatment was particularly effective in patients whose tumour had higher sLx and sLa antigen levels. For example, the 10-year cumulative survival rate of the cimetidine group with higher CSLEX staining, recognizing sLx, of tumours was 95.5%, whereas that of control group was 35.1% (P=0.0001). In contrast, in the group of patients with no or low levels CSLEX staining, cimetidine did not show significant beneficial effect (the 10-year survival rate of the cimetidine group was 70.0% and that of control group was 85.7% (P=n.s.)). These results clearly indicate that cimetidine treatment dramatically improved survival in colorectal cancer patients with tumour cells expressing high levels of sLx and sLa.

JAMA article recommends vitamin supplements for all adults

Life Extension Weekly Update, June 21 2002

The June 19 2002 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association published Scientific Review and Clinical Applications articles sharing the title, "Vitamins for Chronic Disease Prevention in Adults". The objective of the Scientific Review is to review the clinically important vitamins' effects, sources, deficiency syndromes, toxicity, and relationship to chronic disease. The review of studies published from 1966 through 2001 on nine nutrients revealed a population consisting of the elderly, alcohol-dependent individuals, vegans, and those with malabsorption who are at risk of inadequate intake or absorption of several of these nutrients. The Clinical Applications article notes that although deficiency diseases such as scurvy and pellagra are rare, insufficient vitamin intake is a cause of chronic diseases, and that suboptimal levels of vitamins, even though these levels might be well above those classified as deficient, are risk factors for osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease and cancer.

The authors examined studies concerning the following nutrients: vitamins A, B6, B12, C, D, E and K, folate, and the carotenoids including alpha and beta-carotene, beta-cryptoxanthin, lycopene, lutein and zeaxanthin. They noted the association of low intakes of the B vitamins with elevated homocysteine levels and the corresponding increased risk of coronary heart disease disease; of low folate with neural tube defect, coronary heart disease and breast and colorectal cancer; of vitamin B6 deficiency with cheilosis, stomatitis, central nervous system effects and neuropathy; of low B12 with macrocytic anemia and neurologic abnormalities; of suboptimal vitamin E with prostate cancer; of low levels of various carotenoids with breast, prostate and lung cancer; of vitamin D with secondary hyperparathyroidism, bone loss, osteoporosis and increased fracture risk; of vitamin C with cancer in some studies, of vitamin A with vision disorders and decreased immune function, and of vitamin K with blood clotting disorders and possibly with increased fracture risk.

In the "Clinical Applications" article, Drs Fletcher and Fairfield conclude that a large proportion of the general population is at increased risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, osteoporosis and other chronic diseases because of suboptimal vitamin levels. The high prevalence of these diseases indicates the standard diet in the U.S. fails to provide sufficient amounts of the vitamins studied. They write, "Pending strong evidence of effectiveness from randomized trials, it appears prudent for all adults to take vitamin supplements." This is a significant move forward from the notion that all of one’s nutritional needs can be met by diet alone that the medical establishment has been advising for decades.

18 June 2002

FSCAN FAQ: Twitchy eyes and blurred vision

In a healthy person, twitching eyes and blurred vision can be caused by a parasite infection. My cat had a chronic eye infection that repeated prescription of antibiotics by the vet would not cure. In 1995, my eyes started twitching and occassionally I got some blurred vision.

Zapping will start parasites moving around and some of them cannot be killed without an exact frequency. Particularly in the head, the Clark herbal program will not always eliminate them.

After seeing an opthalmologist (who could find nothing) and experimenting with this infection for a couple of years I concluded that the cat and I both had the same parasite infection. My doctor concluded that I had either a psychological problem or was allergic to cats (these guys/gals are really idiots sometimes). I had an allergy clinic retest for allergies to cats which was negative.

After a few years of experimenting with the FSCAN (I did not have the expertise that I have now), I happened on a frequency, 455700 at a ski resort in Utah in 2001 that immediately cleared my eyes. I went home and cleared up the cats eyes right away. The cat was so happy, she would repeatedly ask me for more FSCAN treatments.

So I was six years with a lot of aggravation due to the limitations of modern medicine.

I also needed to identify the other frequencies for this parasite. There are typically four stages in the life cycle and all must be dealt with simultaneously or the infection reappears. Plate zapping with the optical nerve is also particularly helpful.

For those without an FSCAN and the capability to quickly identify exact frequencies, a parasite infection in the eye will often cause a fuzzy spot on eyeglasses. Eyeglasses serve as a petri dish for growing the parasite. Today, I would get a sample from the glasses and send it to the Smokey Mountain Parasitology Lab for identification rather than dealing with the average physician who is really not equipped to deal with such infections. Typical lab capabilities may be useful for getting your cholesterol readings but not capable of culturing or identifying most of the chronic infections that people are suffering from.

It is important that people with parasite problems who wear eyeglasses get a sonicator and regularly clean them in the sonicator. Some of these parasites are very contagious and simple washing of the glasses will not always eliminate them.


There are many pathogens that will not be killed with a Clark zapper because you need the exact frequency to eliminate them.

That said, I use a zapper called a Terminator II by Don Croft that is small enough to be wearable on a regular basis. It is particularly good as a protective device when in a contagious zone. Any airline flight is a contagious zone for multiple pathogens.

I have tested the effect of using a standard Clark zapper while treating with an exact frequency for a pathogen with the FSCAN. It seems to increase the efficiency of the FSCAN treatment by about 60%, i.e. if the FSCAN alone is 100%, add the Zapper and you get 160%. Treatment time needed will decrease proportionally.

15 June 2002

Statin Drugs the New Aspirin: Buyer Beware

Uffe Ravnskov, M.D., Ph.D. has an enlightening summary of the research on cholesterol lowering drugs on the web. Statin drugs are the only ones that work, reduction in mortality is a few percent at most, reduced cholesterol is not the cause of reduced mortality, and side effects may be worse than the treatment. See his web page and a recent letter in the British Medical Journal:

BMJ 2002;324:789 ( 30 March )
Conclusions from the heart protection study were premature

With reference to the news item by Kmietowicz, in their press release the directors of the heart protection study did not mention that their results were substantially worse than in the previous Scandinavian simvastatin survival study (4S) (table).

The way the results were presented exaggerates the benefit for the individual patient. The most interesting figure is survival because most myocardial infarctions heal with minimal cardiac dysfunction, if any. Tell a patient that his chance not to die in five years without statin treatment is 85.4% and that simvastatin treatment can increase this to 87.1 %. With these figures in hand I doubt that anyone should accept a treatment whose long term effects are unknown. For example, it was claimed that the study presented uniquely reliable evidence that simvastatin is not carcinogenic. But the study went on for about five years only, just like other statin trials. It is not possible to say anything about the risk of cancer because it takes decades to disclose chemical carcinogenesis in human beings. Heavy smoking, for example, does not induce lung cancer in five years. All the statins and also the fibrates have proved carcinogenic in rodents, and it scares me that, if the new American guidelines for cholesterol treatment are followed strictly, half of mankind may take statins in a few years and for the rest of their lives.

Low cholesterol concentrations have been related to depression, cognitive impairment, and suppression of the immune system. Does a reduction of 1.7 % in mortality balance these risks? As in the previous trials, the effect of simvastatin was independent of the initial cholesterol concentration; patients with low concentrations benefited just as much (or just as little) as patients with high concentrations. The best results were seen in patients older than 75 years, an age group in which the lowest quartile of cholesterol concentration had the highest total and cardiovascular mortality.

That statin treatment works in patient and age groups in whom a high cholesterol concentration is not a risk factor for cardiovascular disease shows that the benefit is not the result of cholesterol lowering. High or low cholesterol concentrations are markers for other, more important disease factors; they are not causal factors themselves.

Uffe Ravnskov, independent researcher.
Magle Stora Kyrkogata 9, S-22350 Lund, Sweden uffe.ravnskov@swipnet.se

New England Journal of Medicine gives up finding independent doctors to write and review articles

The New England Journal of Medicine will relax its conflict-of-interest rules. But Dr. Jerome Kassirer, the former editor of the Journal, says he had no problem finding independent authors.

Conflict of Interest?
ABCnews.com, 12 June 2002

The New England Journal of Medicine will announce Thursday that it has given up finding truly independent doctors to write and review articles and editorials for it, as a result of the financial ties physicians have with so many drug companies in the United States The Journal says the drug companies' reach is just too deep. In 2000, the drug industry sponsored more than 314,000 events for physicians — everything from luncheons to getaway weekends — at a cost of almost $2 billion. On top of that, many doctors accept speaking and consulting fees that link them to drug companies.

No publication in this country influences the way your doctor treats an illness more than the New England Journal of Medicine. Since 1812, the Journal has scrutinized and published thousands of clinical studies. These "review" articles on drug therapy that can be pivotal. They tell doctors the strengths and weaknesses of new medications for everything form high blood pressure to obesity to cancer.

Now, the Journal will allow these critical evaluations to be written by people with financial ties to drug companies...

14 June 2002

FSCAN FAQ: Treating Parasites

To: fscan@yahoogroups.com
From: "jsutherland"
Date: Fri Jun 14, 2002 4:12 pm
Subject: Re: [F-Scan] Comments on FSCAN Rife/Clark frequency ranges

My standard approach at this time is to use the Aurameter to detect frequencies, treat at those frequencies, test with the Aurameter that the treatment is working, stop treating when the Aurameter indicates treatment is done, and observe that all symptomology is completely gone at end of treatment.

This works better than 95% of the time for me.

If I do not get immediate results, I will then use DIRP to identify peaks in the regions indicated by the Aurameter. I will treat at those peaks and use the Aurameter to indicate if the treatment is working. Typically, one out of several small peaks identified by the DIRP scan is the organism I am after. I rarely have any large peaks any more because I am monitoring myself on a daily basis.

As for treatment in the Rife range <10000HZ, I get the same effects. However, consistent with some of Dick Loyd's comments, if I treat in the Clark range for parasite's, I seem to get quicker effect, perhaps because the frequency is more specific.

However, there is an anomaly here. Treating at one octave does not eliminate resonance at another octave according to the Aurameter. In fact, the only way I have found to completely eliminate candida from my system is to treat at all the octaves of the organism until the Aurameter indicates there is none remaining at every octave.

For parasites, I have recently gone to treating in both the Clark range and the Rife range simultaneously. For example, this afternoon I had a cold cup of Starbucks mocha on my desk and took a sip. It bothered my stomach (which is not unusual for a cold cup of Starbucks). I suspected bacteria (usually there is bacteria in the milk) and tested with the Aurameter and found a parasite (I have seen some nasty parasites infections in the past from the milk in Starbucks coffee). Parasites in milk are very nasty if they have gone through the pasteurization process because heat (and a microwave) will not kill them. They have evolved heat resistance. On the other hand, this may have been passed on by a Starbucks employee and presumably be not as virulent. In any event, I want it gone now.

The Aurameter immediately identified a typical four-stage parasite:
475757, 378648, 277571, 157324

I then divide by 512 to get frequencies in the Rife range:
307, 542, 740, 929

I am currently treating for 20 minutes each at:
475757, 378648, 277571, 157324, 307, 542, 740, 929

If you recall previous posts of mine on the Rifers list, the adults are at the high frequency and eggs at the low. I go down frequencies to eliminate body burden. I then go up to eliminate eggs, then larva, and then adults before they can produce more eggs.

All symptomology is gone as I write so I expect to be free of the parasite by the end of treatment. I've thrown away (sigh) the remains of a good cup of Starbucks mocha.

Why didn't I use DIRP? Well in this case, my FSCAN is attached to my home computer and I am at my office some miles away. The leads to the FSCAN are running under the input wells of two BioPhoton Integrators with my photos in the output slot. I connected over the internet using www.gotomypc.com to my home computer and set up the FSCAN software to run the treatment and broadcast via the BioPhoton Integrators.

This works so well and so consistently (all symptoms are gone and stay gone) that I use this approach for almost all treatment. For a really nasty infection I fire up my EM6+ and blast it locally, then use the broadcast approach to finish the job.

When I get home tonight I may hook myself up and run a DIRP scan.

Jeff Sutherland

04 June 2002


William Campbell Douglass II, M.D. Daily Dose. June 4, 2002

Mayo Clinic physician Dr. Mostafa Fatemi often wondered why unborn babies tended to flinch violently at the instant their ultra-sound portraits are taken. He found out by placing a tiny hydrophone inside a woman's uterus during the procedure. The device registered NEARLY 100 DECIBLES-as loud as a subway train or a jet!

Fatemi says clinicians may want to aim their ultrasound probes more carefully, away from the child's ears so as to avoid this obvious trauma. I'm not sure how they're supposed to accomplish this, since unborn babies are encased in fluid which would make such a sound carry equally throughout the womb.

For years, I've been arguing that ultrasound threatens the health of a developing fetus. But the incidence of ultrasound has increased and it is now standard procedure in almost every pregnancy. Nowadays, it would be considered downright negligent not to perform it. After all, what if the little tadpole had a deformed ear lobe or something even worse, such as six toes on one foot (like Marilyn Monroe!). Under those "extreme" circumstances, the parents would certainly opt for murder-excuse me, termination of pregnancy-right? Just think, without ultrasound, they wouldn't have known the "awful" truth...

Both of my children have hearing that's less acute than mine. Since they were born in the 50s, I can't blame ultrasound. I blame immunizations (and rock-n-roll). But my grandchildren are a different matter. If their childhood hearing is off only ten percent, that's enough to cause problems that may be interpreted as "learning disabled"-a euphemism for stupidity. This small, early deficit in hearing will almost certainly lead to early presbycusis-a hearing problem associated with old age that might now happen at 40, not 70. If even one person in ten develops this disability, it will be a tragedy of immense proportions.

Ultrasound is so universal that most physicians don't bother to question its safety. However, 40 years after its introduction, disturbing questions are being asked, while the perpetrators of this tragedy remain silent. Three independent studies in 1993 alone have cast doubt on the safety of the procedure. Lancet, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and the New England Journal of Medicine have all sounded the alarm. At best, routine scanning makes no difference in the health and well-being of babies and, at worst, could do significant harm...