In this week's and next week's newsletters I discuss research that unexpectedly brings together an old-fashioned cottage garden favorite, feverfew, and an equally old-fashioned – but suddenly highly topical and increasingly plausible – theory of cancer's ultimate origin.
It has been said, humorously, that no scientific theory gains public acceptance until it has been thoroughly discredited.
For almost a hundred years the ideas of the Scottish embryologist John Beard concerning the origin of cancer have languished in the dusty stack rooms of medical history, spurned by modern oncology in favor of newer theories. But increasingly it is becoming apparent that long before molecular biology was born, Beard may have hit upon a core truth.
In this week's newsletter I discuss new research that indicates that stem cells may ultimately lie at the root of many kinds of cancer. While Beard himself would not have been aware of the existence of stem cells, his theory concerning the origins of cancer is remarkably compatible with the concept of stem cells as the source of malignancy.
It is also curiously satisfying, in a way, that it should be an extract of the humble feverfew that researchers have found to be lethal to the malignant stem cells that cause acute and chronic myelogenous leukemia. The use of botanical extracts in medicine is as old as medicine itself, and it is encouraging to see that their potential is once again being harnessed for the benefit of cancer patients.
For thirty years I have been studying and writing about cancer treatments, both conventional and alternative. The fruit of my long career in this field is The Moss Reports, a comprehensive library of more than two hundred individual reports on specific cancer diagnoses. For cancer patients, a Moss Report represents an invaluable guide and handbook for the journey ahead.
If you would like to order a Moss Report for yourself or someone you love, you can do so from our website, www.cancerdecisions.com, or by calling Diane at 1-800-980-1234 (814-238-3367 from outside the US).
We look forward to helping you.
FEVERFEW AND CANCER, PART I
Many readers know the feverfew plant (Tanacetum parthenium), a member of the Chrysanthemum family, sometimes called bachelor's buttons. This is a cheerful-looking perennial, with a profusion of white pompon-like blooms—like a shower of tiny daisies. Feverfew is often included in mixed bouquets and, to me, is the essence of summer.
Others know this plant as a source of herbal relief. One traditional usage, as a febrifuge (or fever-reducer) is apparent from its name. It is also a well-known folk remedy for migraine. I keep a feverfew product in my medicine chest, in anticipation of the summertime visits of a friend who is prone to these massive headaches (Pfaffenrath 2002; Murphy 1988).
Now scientists at the Univeristy of Rochester Medical Center have found that an extract of feverfew is effective against a type of human leukemia. Monica L. Guzman, PhD, and Craig T. Jordan, PhD, report that feverfew extracts kill malignant stem cells like no other single therapy they have tested. The active ingredient is derived from parthenolide, one of a class of sesquiterpene lactones found in the plant. The US National Cancer Institute is sufficiently excited by this work to have accepted it into the rapid access program, which aims to move experimental drugs from the laboratory to human clinical trials as quickly as possible.
"This research is a very important step in setting the stage for future development of a new therapy for leukemia," said Dr. Jordan. "We have proof that we can kill leukemia stem cells with this type of agent, and that is good news."
A Focus on Stem Cells
What is particularly exciting is that this feverfew extract is the first agent known to destroy myeloid leukemia at the level of the stem cells. Increasingly, cancer research is homing in on these primordial cells as the source of cancer. This is the level at which malignancy is born, and unless it is attacked at this level it can rarely be controlled, much less cured.
In the 19th century there were many intimations that primitive cells, called "embryonal rests," were fundamentally connected with the development of cancer. A high point came over a century ago, when University of Edinburgh, Scotland, embryologist John Beard, DSc (1858-1924) put forward the theory that cancer was in fact caused by the malignant transformation of what he called pluripotent germ cells. It now seems almost certain that Beard was giving an early description of stem cells and their propensity to undergo malignant change. Beard's idea was initially greeted with interest, but was later marginalized, and finally all but forgotten. However, his philosophy was kept alive through the work of a few maverick biologists, such as Ernst T. Krebs, Sr. and Jr., H.H. Beard, William D. Kelley, DDS, and others.
In recent years, academic scientists have identified cancer stems cells in blood cancers as well as in brain and breast tumors. The work of Michael Clarke, MD, and his post-doctoral student, Mohammed Al-Hajj, PhD, at the University of Michigan, has been particularly influential. Clarke and Al-Hajj have shown that, contrary to what is generally assumed, not all tumor cells are equally capable of causing metastatic cancer. In fact, they found that in experimental breast tumors only a tiny fraction - less than one percent - of tumor cells are actually capable of causing metastasis. These highly malignant cells are identifiable as stem cells.
Research in 2005 by JeanMarie Houghton, MD, PhD, of the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, showed that in certain stomach cancers the cells that initiate the malignancy originate not in the tissues of the stomach itself, but are actually stem cells that have migrated there from the bone marrow. The initiating event in this sequence is a low-grade infection in the stomach, typically caused by Helicobacter pylori. Bone marrow derived cells (BMDCs) are sent to the stomach in response to this infection, as part of the body's attempt to heal itself. Once in the stomach, BMDCs assume the characteristics of the surrounding tissues, but under the influence of hormonal signals emitted by the inflamed tissue, they undergo malignant change.
If you read the above post, "Stem
Cells & Cancer Research," then you
learned, as I did, that the herb,
feverfew, kills the stem cells that
cause at least one kind of leukemia.
That's big news to me -- and very
good news -- because I know a child
who has leukemia. I ordered a pound
of feverfew today for her parents.
I bought mine from Mountain Rose Herbs in Eugene, Oregon. They're a
small company with an excellent
reputation. Ami Benton (Wrenn) of
CureZone, turned me on to them.
Mountain Rose charges $8.00 for a
pound of feverfew. Their website is:
Feverfew is widely available at health food stores, though usually
in capsules. If you know any parents
who have a child with leukemia, I
hope you'll mention to them that
feverfew is a safe and inexpensive
supplement that they can try.
If you read the above post, "Stem
Cells & Cancer Research," then you
learned, as I did, that the herb,
feverfew, kills the stem cells that
cause at least one kind of leukemia.
That's big news to me -- and very
good news -- because I know a child
who has leukemia. I ordered a pound
of feverfew toay for her parents.
I bought mine from Mountain Rose Herbs in Eugene, Oregon. They're a
small company with an excellent
reputation. Ami Benton (Wrenn) of
CureZone, turned me on to them.
Mountain Rose charges $8.00 for a
pound of feverfew. Their website is:
Feverfew is widely available at health food stores, though usually
in capsules. If you know any parents
who have a child with leukemia, I
hope you'll mention to them that
feverfew is a safe and inexpensive
suplement that they can try.
If you are going to fight a war it is axiomatic that you need to know your enemy. Yet even now, more than thirty years after the war on cancer was declared, the disease remains largely a mystery.
What is cancer? It may surprise you to know that scientists are far from clear on this most fundamental question. While research in the fields of molecular biology and genetics has yielded many clues concerning the way in which cancer cells grow and signal to one another, still there remains little agreement as to the exact origin - what scientists call the 'pathogenesis' - of cancer.
This week I begin a two-part discussion of a groundbreaking piece of research which has shown that one particular type of cancer, stomach cancer, arises not from the stomach lining cells themselves, but as a result of the influx of bone marrow-derived stem cells into the tissues of the stomach lining. The role of chronic inflammation caused by a pre-existing bacterial infection is also elucidated in this research. The model of cancer causation that emerges from this work could change our understanding of cancer on a fundamental level and has wide-ranging implications for the future of cancer research as a whole.
For thirty years I have been monitoring the field of cancer research and treatment, chronicling the advances and setbacks, the small triumphs and the many frustrations of the war on cancer.
The fruit of my long involvement in this field is The Moss Reports, a comprehensive library of more than two hundred individual reports on specific cancer diagnoses. For cancer patients, a Moss Report represents an invaluable guide and handbook for the journey ahead.
If you would like to order a Moss Report for yourself or someone you love, you can do so from our website, www.cancerdecisions.com, or by calling Diane at 1-800-980-1234 (814-238-3367 from outside the US).
We look forward to helping you.
A NEW VIEW OF CANCER'S ORIGINS
Gastric cancer originates from bone marrow-derived cells. So states a paper published in late 2004 by scientists at the University of Massachusetts Medical School (UMMS), Worcester, MA. This paper provides a radically different view of how stomach cancer comes into existence and may change the way we view the origin of many other kinds of cancer as well.
The scientists, headed by Prof. JeanMarie Houghton, MD, PhD of UMMS's Gastroenterology Department, discovered an unexpected link between stomach cancer and a type of undifferentiated stem cell that originates in the bone marrow.
They found that an infection with Helicobacter felis (a bacterium related to infectious Helicobacter pylori in humans) leads to an influx of bone marrow-derived stem cells (BMDCs), as the body tries to repair the injury caused by the infection. Prof. Houghton and her colleagues showed that this transformation of BMDCs is the event that actually sparks malignant tumors of the stomach.
In the past, when trying to isolate the source of stomach cancer, scientists focused on damaged cells in the stomach lining. They naturally assumed that stomach cancer was caused by the transformation of normal gastric lining cells into malignant cells. And, indeed, when pathologists look at stomach cancer cells under the microscope, they see something that resembles a misshapen version of normal stomach cells.
However, Prof. Houghton and her colleagues showed that it was these BMDCs, not the stomach cells themselves, that gave rise to cancer. This was an unexpected finding, and might cause a shift in thinking about the formation and progression not only of stomach cancer, but of several other kinds of cancer as well.
"We have known for years that chronic inflammation causes cancer, yet we did not know precisely how," said Prof. Houghton. "Tissue stem cells, which are long-lived cells within organs that act to repair and replenish cells, have long been thought of as targets for carcinogens and the source of cancer. We show that bone marrow-derived stem cells attempt to participate in repair but, under conditions of inflammation, are unable to behave normally and instead progress towards cancer. This dramatically changes the way we think about cancer. If this model applies to human cancer, we will need to revise our approaches to prevention and treatment."
Like other stem cells, BMDCs are pleuripotent – that is, they have the ability to develop into many tissue types. To do so in a normal manner, they require the right environment and the right signals. In an infected stomach, however, the environment itself is diseased; therefore, BMDCs mutate and begin to progress towards cancer.
BMDCs have other cancer-like properties, including:
* the capacity for unlimited growth
* the ability to avoid apoptosis (programmed cell death) signals
* an altered requirement for growth factors
These properties give them a significant growth advantage, says Prof. Houghton, making them difficult to control once they have mutated.
Daring New Model
The authors propose what is a daring new model for the development of at least one major form of cancer.
First, the Helicobacter organism infects the stomach lining and establishes a chronic infection, attended by inflammation. The local immune system is unable to cope successfully. This leads to repeated cycles of injury and repair. The body finally uses up the local supply of stem cells, which normally reside in tissues to cope with just such emergencies. These are in time overwhelmed and compromised by the infection (Anderson 2001)
This exhaustion of the local "police force" calls forth a reserve of special "national guard" cells that have their base camp in the bone marrow. They are specially designed to deal with such persistent threats to health. These are the cells that Dr. Houghton has identified as the BMDC stem cells. They are drawn to, and then engraft themselves into, the beleaguered tissue. But the BMDCs, depending on environmental cues for development and differentiation, encounter an abnormal environment of conflicting growth signals. There follows a downward spiral of metaplasia (the conversion of normal to abnormal tissue); dysplasia (emergence of a precancerous growth); and finally carcinoma (frankly malignant cancer, capable of metastasizing).
Elegant Experiment
In these elegant experiments, scientists used the well established C57BL/6 mouse model of gastric cancer to test their hypothesis. In this experiment, C57BL/6 mice, which are susceptible to Helicobacter induced gastric cancer, had their native bone marrow destroyed by a lethal dose of irradiation. They were then rescued through transplantation of bone marrow from other mice.
This new bone marrow had been genetically engineered to display one of two markers: a protein which fluoresces green, or a distinctive bacterial enzyme called beta-galactosidase which appears blue when stained. No other cells in the mouse's body would pick up this distinctive stain. Additionally, male bone marrow was transplanted into female mice allowing cells to be tracked using detection of the male specific Y- chromosome.
The stomachs of these mice were then infected with a strain of Helicobacter. After six to eight weeks, there was intense die off (apoptosis) of many of the mice's stomach cells, and after about 20 weeks the glands lining the stomach started to stain blue. The number of such blue-staining cells increased dramatically and at one year, 90 percent of the cells within the area of the stomach where cancer forms had been replaced by blue-staining cells. These cells were abnormal, showing signs of metaplasia, dysplasia or outright cancer.
This paper, published in the influential journal Science, thus offers a new model for the origin (pathogenesis) of epithelial cancer. This is not inconsequential, for epithelial cancer is another name for carcinoma, the kind of cancer that affects any tissue covering bodily surfaces and cavities. This category includes not just stomach cancer, but breast, pancreas, colon, etc. – in other words, about 90 percent of all cancers.
Many features of cancer cells become much clearer when viewed within the context of this new model, including their undifferentiated nature; their ability for self-renewal; their resistance to programmed cell death; and their tendency to metastasize and spread quickly. These are some of the key characteristics shared by stem cells and cancer cells.
CAM Perspective
From the perspective of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), this paper is extremely provocative. Let me offer a few observations:
In their first sentence, the authors state that "the link between infection, chronic inflammation, and cancer has long been recognized." But the theory that cancer can be caused by bacterial infection has not always been accepted so readily by medical authorities.
In fact, many of the researchers in this field suffered instances of "intellectual suppression, particularly when they developed clinical applications," according to Prof. David Hess of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, in his excellent book, Can Bacteria Cause Cancer? (1997).
According to Prof. Hess, "This theory was supported by a rich alternative research tradition that involved at least fifty scientists and clinicians in a number of countries. Popular during the nineteenth century, the theory received continued support during the twentieth century as a minority tradition. Although the quality of the research is very uneven, some of the best of the research has been published in recognized, peer-reviewed scientific journals." (ibid.) There were some fine scientists in this group - such as William B. Coley, MD, Virginia Livingston, MD, and Eleanor Alexander-Jackson, PhD - who provided rigorous demonstrations of the links between various bacteria and cancer.
But the medical establishment essentially banished this theory from the conventional universe of shared ideas. For instance, the concept was severely criticized by Memorial Hospital pathologist James Ewing, MD, the most influential American pathologist of his day. In the first edition of his seminal work, Neoplastic Diseases (1919), Ewing wrote:
"The parasitic [i.e., microbial] theory...appealed to the ancients, was tacitly accepted throughout the Middle Ages, was definitely argued by modern observers, and reached the height of its popularity as a scientific theory about 1895, but during the last fifteen years it has rapidly lost ground, and today few competent observers consider it a possible explanation" of cancer's origins.
Dr. Ewing rejected outright the work of Dr. Peyton Rous of the Rockefeller Institute, who showed, as early as 1911, that sarcoma in chickens could be transmitted by a virus. It took another 55 years for Peyton Rous to finally receive his well deserved Nobel Prize in Medicine precisely for this work.
Similar skepticism greeted Dr. Barry J. Marshall of Perth, Australia, when he argued in the 1980s that Helicobacter could cause gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), dyspepsia and stomach ulcers. (It is now understood to also contribute to some forms of stomach cancers.) Marshall's argument was repeatedly rejected out of hand. According to his wife, "The vast majority of the medical profession, not only in Australia but worldwide, considered Barry to be a quack and really were extremely dismissive for a number of years."
It is encouraging that a younger generation of scientists now regards the causative connection between microbes and cancer as non-controversial. But it also needs stating that for many decades, all theories of bacterial involvement in cancer were suppressed and only found refuge within the precincts of the CAM movement. This resulted in damage to the reputations of many fine researchers, a wrong that still needs to be corrected in the historical record.
What is cancer? Is it one disease, or many? It may surprise you to know that scientists are far from clear on these most fundamental questions.
Last week I reported on a 2004 experiment at the University of Massachusetts Medical School (UMSS), showing that some stomach cancers are caused by microbes and actually originate in bone marrow derived stem cells (BMDCs). I conclude the article this week.
The model of cancer causation that emerges from this work could change our understanding of cancer on a fundamental level and has wide-ranging implications for the future of cancer research as a whole.
For thirty years I have been monitoring the field of cancer research and treatment, chronicling the advances and setbacks, the small triumphs and the many frustrations of the war on cancer.
The fruit of my long involvement in this field is The Moss Reports, a comprehensive library of more than two hundred individual reports on specific cancer diagnoses. For cancer patients, a Moss Report represents an invaluable guide and handbook for the journey ahead.
If you would like to order a Moss Report for yourself or someone you love, you can do so from our website, www.cancerdecisions.com, or by calling Diane at 1-800-980-1234 (814-238-3367 from outside the US).
We look forward to helping you.
A NEW VIEW OF CANCER'S ORIGINS – PART II
Unitarian Theory?
Conventional thinking states that cancer is a group of 200 or so different diseases, each of which has its own distinctive features and causes. In this widely accepted model, lung cancer arises from normal bodily (or somatic) cells of the lung, those of the liver from normal liver, and so forth.
In this UMMS experiment, however, Dr. Houghton and her colleagues clearly demonstrated that the cancer developing in the stomachs of the experimental animals - despite every appearance to the contrary - is not really stomach cancer at all. It is caused by the transformation of bone marrow-derived stem cells, which come rushing to the scene in order to help, but are then themselves overwhelmed.
Why then do they look so much like malignant stomach cancer cells that they could fool almost any pathologist who looked at them under the microscope? Probably because these cells develop within the distinctive hormonal "microenvironment" of the organ.
To repeat, these "stomach cancer" cells are masquerading, making themselves appear to be gastric in origin. But their true nature has now been unmasked: they are in reality stem cells that have been transformed under the influence of local infection and inflammation.
It may also turn out that other kinds of carcinoma come about in the same way. In fact, it is possible that this will develop into a model for cancer in general, and that in the future we will no longer be able to talk meaningfully about "stomach," "liver," "breast," or other kinds of carcinoma, but all cancers will be found to have a common origin.
Is cancer then many diseases or one disease with many manifestations? This is one of the oldest debates in oncology. There have been advocates of the single origin (or 'unitarian') theory of cancer, even in conventional medicine. My old boss at Memorial Sloan-Kettering, Lewis Thomas, MD, believed that cancer would eventually be proven to be a single disease. But for a long time, it has been the CAM movement that has provided a refuge for such single-etiology theories.
The classic example of a single, or unitarian, worldview is the trophoblastic theory of cancer. This was essentially propounded in 1902 by the Scottish embryologist John Beard, DSc, and then revived more than half a century ago by Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., and two colleagues. They proposed that all cancer was identical in nature, and that its origin was in generally distributed primordial 'diploid totipotent cells,' which are similar to what are now called stem cells.
Here is what Krebs wrote at mid-century:
"It is veritably impossible to find, among the hundreds of valid experimental contributions to our knowledge of cancer made during the past half century, an experimentally established datum that would controvert the thesis of the basic biological uniformity characterizing all exhibitions of cancer." (Krebs 1950)
This seemed overblown at the time, but more recent work on stem cells at the University of Michigan has shown that it is indeed stem cells, not ordinary somatic cells, that cause Breast Cancer in another experimental system. Only a tiny minority of cells in these human tumors (growing in immune-deficient mice) are capable of inducing new cancers; the rest are relatively harmless.
"These tumor-inducing cells have many of the properties of stem cells," said Michael F. Clarke, MD, the Michigan professor of internal medicine who directed a 2003 study. "They make copies of themselves - a process called self-renewal – and produce all the other kinds of cells in the original tumor." These really malignant cells have a unique configuration of surface markers: all express a protein marker called CD44, in addition to having either very low levels, or no levels, of another marker called CD24.
It will certainly be interesting to see if there is a relationship between Dr. Houghton's BMDCs and Dr. Clarke's malignant stem cells. One tell-tale sign would be the presence of these CD44+/CD24- cells. Another would be the expression of chorionic gonadotropin, the characteristic hormone of pregnancy.
These are truly exciting times for cancer research. Investigations of stem cells in many laboratories is homing in on their connection to the origin of cancer. If such modern discoveries could be combined with the rich history and practical experience of the CAM movement, this could lead to a scientifically valid theory of cancer.
Could a cure for cancer be far behind?
Signature
--Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
References:
Anderson DJ, Gage FH, Weissman IL. Can stem cells cross lineage boundaries? Nat Med. 2001;7:393-5.
Balkwill F, Mantovani A. Inflammation and cancer: back to Virchow? Lancet. 2001;357:539-45.
Couzin J. Medicine. Tracing the steps of metastasis, cancer's menacing ballet. Science. 2003;299:1002-6.
Houghton J, Stoicov C, Nomura S, et al. Gastric cancer originating from bone marrow-derived cells. Science. 2004;306:1568-71.
Krebs, ET, Jr., Krebs ET, Beard HH. The unitarian or trophoblastic thesis of cancer. Medical Record 1950;163:149-174.
Normile D. Cell proliferation. Common control for cancer, stem cells. Science. 2002;298:1869.
UMMS Public Affairs. Bone marrow-derived stem cells linked to gastric cancers. New thinking on the source of gastric cancer. Nov, 25, 2004. Accessed Feb. 16, 2005. Available at: http://www.umassmed.edu/pap/news/2004/11_25_04.cfm
**NOTE** To view this page in a more printable format, please CLICK HERE.
First I'd like to say I respect Dr. Moss. He's a great Dr. who's always looking for alternative treatments, and knows the current treatments are worthless at best, and is willing to stand up against the current medical system and call B.S. The one thing about Dr. Moss is, he limits himself to scientific studies. No studies, no opinion, no recommendation. This is how he operates, like a doctor, or scientist. This can be a handicap.
Science always complicates the simple things it seems. The cause for all diseases can always be traced back to one or two things, or a combinations of the two things. Lack of proper nutrition and too many toxins. Nutrition involves a lot of things, and so do toxins, but don't get lost from these two things.
The bottom line is ALL unhealthy cells lack 4 enzymes that protect them from oxidation, and ALL healthy cells have these enzymes. Apply singlet oxygen to a unhealthy cell, it will die. Apply it to a healthy cell, it will use it for energy to operate properly. It doesn't mater what caused the cell to be unhealthy, ozone will oxidize it. It can be a cancer cell of any type, a virus, or bacteria. Any type. They all are primitive life forms that can only live in a low, or no oxygen environment. They have never been able to evolve for 3 billion years and live in oxygen. Ever since oxygen covered the planet they have had to hide in plants, under ground, or in bodies. Throw them out in the open air, & most will die within 24 hours.
Anyway, the key to health in any case, is like an oil change. Remove the bad oil, (toxins) put in a new filter, (cleanses) and put good oil back in. (good nutrition)
Good nutrition includes PLENTY of oxygen. It's the most important thing we need. Without it we die within 7 minutes. Have you ever noticed you never hear of heart cancer? Doesn't exist.
Please don't get lost in the scientific maze. Curing cancer is like curing a cold, no difference. The cure is always the same no matter what the problem is, just like the cause. It's always traced back to those two things.
Take Care,
Gaylen
Unlike the common cold (which has yet to be cured), cancer will not go away in a few days. If curing cancer with ozone was so easy, then Oasis of Hope would have 100% cure rates. They use IV ozone, as well as ozonated water for drinking, along with vigorous nutritional therapy. One can't get any more ozone than this. Please explain this discrepency, or my misunderstanding.
Hi David,
The cure for a cold, flu, anthrax, aids or what ever virus, or bacterial disease there is, is the same. Ozone. They can only live in a low oxygen, or no oxygen environment. That's why most die within 24 hours when out of the body. These things have had to hide in places like plants or animals or under ground ever since the world was filled with oxygen billions of years ago and they still have to.
Think about this also. Some place where they are looking for a cure for SARS over in Japan back when it first started, use a ozone tent to walk through when they're done doing their testing for the day to kill the virus that might be on them. I don't know if you saw that article a couple of years ago. But they have the answer is in their hands, but they were worried about what the EPA says about ozone, and were following their guide lines and only had 3-5 parts per million of ozone in that tent. But just that small amount killed the virus.
Ok first of all I have never said cancer can be cured in a few days. A few months? Yes that's possible, but it could take 10 months. It varies for each person. Also ozone alone won't cure everyone. It will cure some, or maybe a lot, just like juicing, just like hte Budwig diet, or just like aloe vera, but just these alone won't cure everyone. Like I said in the post I think you're responding to, it's a three step process. Remove the toxins, do the cleanses & put good nutrition back in, which includes ozone in all three steps. I've read some on the Oasis of Hope and don't remember them doing all that. Also remember good nutrition or removing toxins can have different meanings. To me, good nutrition means no processed foods of any kind, avoiding the 5 whites, lots of raw foods and juicing.
One other thing I was saying is the reason for all disease is the opposite of the cure. Lack of good nutrition, lack of oxygen, plugged organs, and too many toxins. Look at any disease you want and that is the reason. So the cure to them all is fixing those problems.
Take Care,
Gaylen
Images Description Cancer Recommended Books Cancer Homepage Rules
Home
Stem cells and the cancer connection-Moss Report 
