High-Dose Vitamin C As An Adjunct Cancer Treatment

The use of  High-Dose Vitamin C for Cancer mitigation has been studied for years. While there is little evidence to say that Vitamin C by itself will cure cancer, studies have shown it to kill cancer cells, slow the growth of cancers and greatly improve the effectiveness of other cancer treatments. According to the National Institute Of Health:

“Many laboratory studies have been done to find out how high-dose vitamin C may cause the death of cancer cells. The anticancer effect of vitamin C in different types of cancer cells involves a chemical reaction that makes hydrogen peroxide, which may kill cancer cells.

The National Cancer Institute says laboratory studies have shown the following:

  • Treatment with high-dose vitamin C slowed the growth and spread of prostate, pancreatic, liver, colon, malignant mesothelioma, neuroblastoma, and other types of cancer cells.
  • Combining high-dose vitamin C with certain types of chemotherapy may be more effective than chemotherapy alone:
    • Ascorbic acid with arsenic trioxide may be more effective in ovarian cancer
    • Ascorbic acid with gemcitabine may be more effective in pancreatic cancer
    • Ascorbic acid with gemcitabine and epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) may be more effective in malignant mesothelioma cells.
  • Another laboratory study suggested that combining high-dose vitamin C with radiation therapy killed more glioblastoma multiforme cells than radiation therapy alone.”


High-dose vitamin c for cancerThe Cancer Center at CHIPSA Research Hospital in Mexico uses high dose IV Vitamin C in conjunction with their other innovative treatments such as Coley’s Toxins to maximize effectiveness. Chipsa does not  use traditional Chemotherapy or radiation which often causes permanent or even fatal side effects.

To find out if High-Dose Vitamin C is an appropriate treatment for your cancer call 855-624-4772 or simply fill out the form to the right of this blog and one of our patient coordinators will work with you to find the best treatment.

From Foe to Friend: Viruses Show New Promise as Cancer Treatment .

Almost as long as scientists have known of the existence of viruses, they’ve dreamed of using the tiny pathogens as a weapon against cancer. Now, as a result of advances in genetic engineering and insights into the workings of the immune system, science is giving substance to the dream.

A variety of studies over the past few years have demonstrated the ability of specially modified viruses to attack and kill cancer cells – in the laboratory and, very recently, in some patients. Techniques vary from study to study, but the basic approach is to inject the viruses directly into tumors – allowing the virus to infect and kill many of the cancer cells and, equally important, to stimulate the immune system to launch its own assault on the tumor.

One high-profile example of this approach, reported recently on CBS News’ “60 Minutes,” involved researchers at Duke University who treated patients with glioblastoma with a modified polio virus. In a small, early study, 11 of 22 patients showed substantial improvement from the regimen.

Other research attracting journalistic attention is a clinical trial at the Mayo Clinic that uses the measles virus to treat patients with multiple myeloma. Investigators found that after infecting cancer cells, the virus causes them to clump together and disintegrate. The wreckage may trigger an immune system response that can prevent the disease from returning for a long period of time, researchers have suggested.

At Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, scientists have shown that reoviruses – common, benign viruses often found in the respiratory tract – can be engineered to specifically infect melanoma cells. The infection appears to prompt an immune system attack that kills not only the infected cells but also the uninfected cancer cells nearby. In early-stage clinical trials, the treatment has been shown to be effective in some patients with melanoma and, when coupled with chemotherapy, in some patients with head and neck cancers.

“There have been efforts to use viruses in cancer therapy for more than 50 years, but we now have more of a grasp of what’s going on, and why some viruses work better than others,” says Harvey Cantor, MD, chair of Dana-Farber’s Department of Immunology and AIDS. A key component to this understanding, Cantor says, is that the impact of the virus should not only kill the tumor cells, but it should also initiate a T cell immune response that destroys the primary tumor as well as metastases.

Cantor says researchers are also looking at combining this treatment approach with immune-checkpoint inhibitors, which can help “take the brakes off” the immune system and enhance the patient’s anti-tumor response.

“It’s a treatment concept that is very interesting and certainly has a lot of promise,” Cantor says.

Body Image After Cancer

Everyone has a picture in their mind of the way they look. Good, bad, or somewhere in between, we can’t help but feel something in connection with our body image. However, body image goes beyond our perceived level of attractiveness. How comfortable we feel in our bodies and how in control we feel over their functions play an important role in how we see ourselves. When that changes because of something like cancer, a person’s entire identity can seem to be altered as well.

In this video, produced as part of the “Moving Forward” video series by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the LIVESTRONG Foundation, young adult survivors discuss how cancer and cancer treatment has affected their bodies and their lives.

Watch the video. URL: https://youtu.be/fr4J8p2Jsno

Can Your Cancer Treatment Be Hazardous to Others?

If you are undergoing treatment for cancer, you know the medicines and procedures have side effects.

You may worry that these lifesaving treatments could somehow be harmful to your loved ones. It’s a concern that we often hear from cancer patients or their family members who call the Cancer Answer Line.

The two most common types of cancer treatment that patients and their family members worry about arechemotherapy and radiation therapy.

Radiation and radioactivity

Some cancer patients who receive radiation therapy worry that their bodies will become “radioactive” after they receive radiation treatment. Their concern is that close physical contact with others could expose them to radiation.

The general answer to this concern is that physical contact is fine. However, there are some exceptions.

The exceptions usually have to do with whether a person is receiving external or internal radiation.

External radiation is when the radiation comes from a source outside the body. A special device sends strong beams of energy to cancer cells to kill them or keep them from growing and dividing. Small doses of radiation may be administered daily over a period ranging from several days to several weeks.  The treated tissue does not continue to hold the radiation after the therapy session ends. So patients receiving external beam radiation need not worry about transmitting radiation to their loved ones.

Internal radiation means that the radiation source is put into the body.  Some examples of internal radiation are; brachytherapy, in which doctors implant a seed, ribbon or wire that contains radiation in or around a tumor, the implant emits a dose of radiation to the surrounding area that kills cancer cells.  Another example of internal radiation is radioactive iodine that is swallowed for treatment of certain thyroid conditions.

When a patient is treated with internal radiation, the radiation source may be left in the body for a short time and then removed before the patient leaves the treatment facility.  If this is the case, the treated tissue does not hold the radiation, and so contact with others is not a problem.

The situation is slightly different with internal radiation. If you have implanted radiation, your health care team likely will give you advice about close physical contact for the next few months. Much depends on the type of cancer being treated.

If the radiation source is left in place, the amount of radiation lessens over time. However, the possibility of exposure to others is present.

The radiation oncology team will instruct patients who receive internal radiation about how long and in what situations it is OK for patients to be near others.

For example, there may be no problem with sitting next to the person who is driving you home from the treatment appointment during which radioactive seeds were implanted to treat prostate cancer. But you would not hold a child, puppy or kitten under a year old on your lap, or hug a pregnant woman for at least two months after the seeds have been implanted.

Your health care team will advise you on the specifics.  Be sure to ask your team if you have any particular concerns or are unsure.

Can Your Cancer Treatment Be Hazardous to Others?

Chemotherapy safety

Some of our patients wonder whether it’s safe to have close physical contact with another person while they are receiving chemotherapy.

When we talk about being safe with chemotherapy patients, we really are talking about exposure to the chemotherapy medication. For the most part, after a patient receives chemotherapy, the medications stay in the patient’s body for about 24 hours to 48 hours.

The body clears itself of the medications through body fluids such as urine or stool, so this means avoiding contact with these body fluids.  If you are cleaning up the body fluids of a chemotherapy patient, wear gloves and wash your hands afterward.

Kissing and more intimate physical contact is perfectly fine. Male chemo patients, however, should use a condom for the first 48 hours after a chemo treatment.

Predictors of Long-Term Opioid Treatment Among Patients Who Receive Chemoradiation for Head and Neck Cancer


Introduction. The factors associated with successful opioid discontinuation after cancer treatment are not well-known. We determined the proportion of patients with advanced head and neck cancer who continued using opioids 3 months after the completion of radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy.

Methods. We included 70 patients with head and neck cancer referred to our institution’s supportive care center between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2010. Patients who no longer used opioids 3 months after the completion of radiation therapy were classified as stoppers; patients who continued using opioids were considered nonstoppers. We compared demographics, cancer-related characteristics, alcoholism, substance abuse history, use of psychoactive drugs, and opioid-related factors between stoppers and nonstoppers.

Results. In all, 44 of 70 patients (63%) and 23 of 70 patients (33%) continued opioids 3 months and 6 months after the completion of radiation therapy, respectively. A total of 18 of 44 nonstoppers (41%) and 3 of 26 stoppers (12%) were positive for alcoholism based on the CAGE questionnaire (i.e., Cut down, Annoying, Guilty, Eye opener; odds ratio: 5.3). Demographic and clinical characteristics did not differ between stoppers and nonstoppers. The median duration of any type of opioid use of CAGE-positive patients was significantly longer than that of CAGE-negative patients (median: 261 days vs. 93 days; hazard ratio: 2.5).

Conclusion. CAGE positivity is a risk factor for opioid use beyond 3 months after the completion of radiation therapy and for duration of opioid treatment. Routine CAGE screening and meticulous follow-up are needed for these patients.

Melatonin Use in Breast Cancer Survivors.

The purpose is to examine the effects of melatonin supplementation on sleep, mood, and hot flashes in postmenopausal breast cancer survivors. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 95 postmenopausal women with a prior history of stage 0-III breast cancer, who had completed active cancer treatment (including hormonal therapy) were randomly assigned 1:1 to either 3 mg oral melatonin (n = 48) or placebo daily (n = 47) for 4 months. Sleep, mood, and hot flashes were assessed at baseline and 4 months via self-administered questionnaire using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression (CES-D), and the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) hot flash diary, respectively. Eighty-six women (91 %) completed the study and provided pre- and post-questionnaires. At baseline, 52 % of participants reported poor sleep in the month prior to enrollment. Compared to subjects on placebo, subjects randomized to melatonin experienced significantly greater improvements in subjective sleep quality as measured by the PSQI, including domains on sleep quality, daytime dysfunction and total score. For example, the mean change in PSQI score was -0.1 in the placebo group compared to -1.9 in the melatonin group (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in measures of depression or hot flashes. Sleep disturbances are common among breast cancer survivors, even after completion of active cancer treatment. This is the first randomized placebo-controlled study among breast cancer survivors to demonstrate that melatonin was associated with an improvement in subjective sleep quality, without any significant adverse effects.

The Liquid Biopsy: A Noninvasive Tumor Tracker.

To date, the “liquid biopsy,” a blood test that detects evidence of cancer in the circulation, has generated a lot of excitement in the lab but little in the clinic.

The only liquid biopsy currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for clinical use is a prognostic survival tool with no potential to guide treatment decisions (CellSearch, Janssen Diagnostics).

But research published in the February 19 issue of Science Translational Medicine shows how liquid biopsies can provide a noninvasive, ongoing picture of a patient’s cancer, offering valuable insight into how best to fight it.

Work from 2 different groups shows how liquid biopsies are being used in the lab to identify tumors at a very early stage, monitor them for metastasis, and even pick up signs of early treatment resistance.

In the future, instead of extensive imaging and invasive tissue biopsies, liquid biopsies could be used to guide cancer treatment decisions and perhaps even screen for tumors that are not yet visible on imaging.

“I think early detection is the Holy Grail of cancer research,” said Luis Diaz Jr., MD, from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. Liquid biopsies will likely offer a screening method for most cancers one day, he told Medscape Medical News.

However, this exciting potential is probably furthest from being ready for the clinic, he acknowledged; other potential applications include genotyping, detection of minimal residual disease, and detection of treatment resistance.

In their research, Dr. Diaz and colleagues show that a liquid biopsy measuring the serum level of circulating tumor (ct)DNA could one day be a very useful tool in cancer decision-making, giving clues about what type of cancer a patient has and whether it has spread.

“Mutant DNA fragments are found at relatively high concentrations in the circulation of most patients with metastatic cancer and at lower but detectable concentrations in a substantial fraction of patients with localized cancers,” they write.

The team found this to be particularly true in cases of breast, colon, pancreas, and gastroesophageal tumors, where “detectable levels of ctDNA were present in 49% to 78% of patients with localized tumors and 86% to 100% of patients with metastatic tumors.”

They evaluated 136 metastatic tumors in 14 different tumor types, and found that “most patients with stage III ovarian and liver cancers and metastatic cancers of the pancreas, bladder, colon, stomach, breast, liver, esophagus, and head and neck, as well as neuroblastoma and melanoma, harbored detectable levels of ctDNA. In contrast, less than 50% of patients with medulloblastomas or metastatic cancers of the kidney, prostate, or thyroid, and less than 10% of patients with gliomas, harbored detectable ctDNA.”

In addition to offering clues about stage and spread, liquid biopsies can be used to monitor the effects of cancer treatment, give an early warning about possible recurrence, and offer clues to the reasons for treatment resistance.

A second team of researchers used liquid biopsies in colorectal cancer patients to show that early resistance to treatment with epidermal growth-factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors could be identified by the presence of certain mutations in the blood.

In their research, Sandra Misale, a PhD student from the Department of Oncology at the University of Torino in Italy, and colleagues showed that this resistance can be overcome by concomitant treatment with mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK) inhibitors.

“We reasoned that tissue biopsies would only offer a snapshot of the overall tumor mass and might therefore be ill suited to capture the multiclonal feature of the resistant disease,” the researchers note, explaining that liquid biopsies are “more likely to capture the overall genetic complexity of tumors in patients with advanced disease.”

In fact, Dr. Diaz’s team found the same mutations in treatment-resistant colorectal cancer patients, suggesting a future clinical application for liquid biopsies. “These data therefore strongly suggest that patients being considered for treatment with EGFR blockading agents should be tested for these additional mutations,” they advise. Patients harboring such mutations “are unlikely to benefit from these agents and would be better served by other therapeutic approaches.”

Tissue Biopsy Can Be Challenging

There is good reason to want to learn about cancer through the blood, said Terence Friedlander, MD, from the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco. “For most tumors, a tissue biopsy is quite challenging, in that it’s costly, painful, and potentially risky for the patient,” he explained.

The research by both teams illustrates that there is “a lot of reason to be excited” about liquid biopsies, he told Medscape Medical News. “Together, both of these papers show that you can detect resistance as it’s happening in real time.”

Although the current FDA-approved liquid biopsy measures intact circulating tumor cells (CTC) to give a prognosis of overall survival, the potential predictive value of ctDNA is much more exciting, he said.

“Predictive markers are better because they help guide treatment decisions. In a sense, the ctDNA liquid biopsy allows us to understand specifically what kind of molecular changes are happening in the tumor in real time, which is a very big step beyond where CTCs are today, clinically.”

Chemo and Radiation Actually Make Cancer More Malignant.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the developed world, and yet we are still in the dark ages when it comes to treating and understanding it.

The colossal failure of conventional cancer treatments reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what cancer – the “enemy” – actually is.  For one, chemotherapy and radiotherapy are both intrinsicallycarcinogenic treatments. The only justification for their use, in fact, is that they are highly effective at damaging the DNA within cells – with the hope that the cancer cells will be more susceptible to being harmed than the healthy ones (sadly, not always true).

The reality, however, is that the “collateral damage” from treatment is inevitable; it is not a matter of “if,” but to what degree the damaging side effects will occur. As in real modern warfare, the decision to strike is often based on deciding how much collateral damage to “civilian” populations is deemed acceptable. This is not unlike the fixation in toxicological risk assessments for drugs, environmental pollutants, food additives, etc., where determining “an acceptable level of harm” (a rather horrible oxymoron) to the exposed population is the first order of business.

Chemo Agent Classified by the WHO as Carcinogenic

The DNA-damaging, or genotoxic effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, according to the prevailing wisdom, are the #1 cause of cancer initiation and promotion. This is known as the “Mutational Theory” of cancer, and has been the dominant explanation for half a century. Therefore it is absolutely disconcerting that the standard of care in cancer treatment today is still the use of genotoxic agents versus substances that are able to selectively harm the “bad” cells, leaving the “good” ones intact; which is also known as “selective cytotoxicty,” and is a property characteristic of natural anti-cancer compounds and whole plant extracts. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the case of fruit-derived compounds, such as graviola, where research indicates that fruit extract may be up to 10,000 times more effective at killing certain cancer cells versus adriamycin (not so affectionately named the “red devil” for its lethal side effects) and is highly selective in which cells it kills.

Take the cancer drug tamoxifen, for example. It is classified by the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society as a human carcinogen, and has been documented to cause over two dozen health-destroying side effects, and yet it is still being used as a first line treatment for certain types of breast cancer. Does that really make sense?  Even if tamoxifen was effective (which increasingly it is not), does it really matter if it “cures” breast cancer only to cause endometrial or liver cancer (which is often far more deadly than breast cancer) as a direct result of the treatment? Tamoxifen and chemotherapy resistance is increasingly a problem. In the same way that certain pathogenic bacteria become resistant to antibiotics – even becoming stronger after being challenged with them – drug resistance and multi-drug resistance to chemoagents is the canary in the coal mine, indicating the entire paradigm, hinged as it is on patented, highly toxic chemicals, is rearing to collapse.

Radiation Therapy Known To Cause Cancer & Enhance Malignancy

Similarly, radiotherapy is known to induce secondary cancers, along with a wide range of serious adverse effects. A woman whose breast is irradiated is more likely to develop lung cancer, for instance. But its effects may actually be far worse on the primary cancer it is being used to treat…

When a breast tumor is exposed to radiation, the cells within that tumor are not uniform, but have great heterogeneity. Some of the cells are fast-replicating, whereas some are slow-replicating and benign. Some cells are older, technically senescent, and by their very existence are keeping neighboring cells within the tumor and with greater potential for malignancy from breaking out into invasive growth. There are also cancer stem cells, which are technically slower-replicating and therefore less likely to be destroyed by chemotherapy or radiotherapy, and yet which are responsible for re-seeding and fueling the growth of the tumor itself with a theoretical limitless resupply of daughter cells.

Radiotherapy has been shown to increase the survival and self-renewing capacity of these breast cancer initiating cells by up to 30-fold, which means that while a radiation treatment may initially regress a tumor’s volume/mass, it may actually be selecting out the more radiation-resistant and aggressive subpopulation of tumor cells which ultimately lead to higher malignancy. This promotion of self-initiating cancer cells is also true for chemotherapy, of course. Incidentally, the low-dose radiation used to diagnose breast cancers in x-ray mammography is likely causing far more cancers in women over time than it is said to prevent. If you read the actual peer-reviewed medical literature on the subject you may be surprised to find that the low-dose ionizing radiation is actually far more carcinogenic (3-4 fold higher) than the high-dose radiation it is often compared to in radiation risk assessments. In fact, one of the most well known breast cancer associated genes, namely, BRCA1/BRCA2, confers greater susceptibility to radiation induced breast cancer in those who have it.  In other words, staying away from medical radiation, diagnostic or therapeutic, may be essential to avoid the cancer it is being used to both “prevent” and “treat.”

Why Conventional Treatment Fails & Will Continue To Do So

The failure of chemotherapy can work in the same way. When you expose a diverse population of breast tumor cells to a highly toxic agent, a normal response is to become damaged to the point of dying. But cancer may not be a strict random mutation process, but an ancient survival program unmasked; that is, the cancer cell may be drawing from a far more ancient evolutionary and genetic “tool kit” which enables it to survive far harsher cellular environments, e.g. chemical exposure, low oxygen, higher availability of glucose/fructose, acidic pH, etc. and therefore the addition of highly toxic chemotherapy-type chemicals will selectively kill the weaker, and technically healthier (more benign) cells within a breast tumor, while creating the very conditions within which the malignant and more chemoresistant cancer cells may thrive. Multidrug-resistance genes and proteins are involved. When attacked by a chemical (xenobiotic) the cancer cell may “regress” and activate the genetic equipment that enables it to efficiently push out (efflux) the chemoagent being used, surviving, while its neighboring weaker (though technically more normal and healthier) cells die off.

Can you see, then, how radiotherapy and chemotherapy may be responsible for driving a cancer into greater malignancy, at the very moment that it is harming the rest of the body, compromising the immune system (damage to the bone marrow and direct harm to the immune cells)? The incurability of pancreatic cancer vis-à-vis chemotherapy and radiation, therefore, may reflect how the standard treatments themselves are driving the patient into premature death. When the average pancreatic cancer patient (using most chemo and radiation protocols) lives no more than 6 months, do we say that the cancer killed them, or the treatments?

Standard operating procedures is to write off the patients death as being “caused” by an “exceptionally aggressive” form of cancer, rather than to admit that the very treatments may have transformed a relatively slow growing tumor into a rapidly proliferating and invasive one. Think of it this way: if you were being blasted with chemicals and radiation, and you were seeing your neighbors dropping like flies, would you relocate? Can you, therefore, blame a subpopulation of tumor cells, having survived chemotherapy and radiotherapy while it’s neighboring cells did not, moving to another tissue – say, bone, or brain – in order to survive? Cancer, after all, is something our body does (and likely to survive) and not something that happens to it, as if the genes in our body just went off one day like a cancer time-bomb, fatalistically predetermined by the less than perfect genes we inherited from our predecessors.

Given the likelihood that the conventional cancer industry is often not only failing to improve the quality and length of the lives of those who it treats, but quite the opposite, reducing the quality and length of their lives, the time has come to look for safe, effective, affordable, inexpensive and accessible alternatives to patented chemicals and ionizing radiation in the prevention and treatment of cancer. And the solution may be as close to us as our kitchen spice racks:

The Case For Turmeric

While US law presently forbids the medicinal use of natural substancesturmeric has been used in ancient Indian medicine for thousands of years, and curcumin, which gives the spice its golden hue, is one of the most extensively studied natural compounds of all time, with 4,588 references to studies performed on it on the National Library of Medicine’s bibliographic database known as Medline [as of 2.25.2012]. Yet, despite having been shown to have therapeutic value in more than 500 diseases in animal and test tube studies, it still has not been the subject of extensive human clinical trials.  As a public service GreenMedInfo.com has indexed curcumin’s anti-cancer properties in more than 50 cancers, with the top 10 most compelling cancers applications in cancer prevention and treatment listed below:

What Has the Actual Research Shown?

Type of Cancer Curcumin Has Potential Value In Preventing or treating Number of Peer-Reviewed Studies Supporting Its Therapeutic Properties
Breast Cancer 58
Colorectal Cancer 23
Colon Cancer 51
Prostate Cancer 42
Pancreatic Cancer 24
Cancers: Drug Resistant 40
Lung Cancer 37
Liver Cancer 27
Cancer Metastasis 32
Skin Cancer 15

Sources: curcumin

As one can see by the density of research referenced above, curcumin holds great promise. First, it has an exceedingly high margin of safety relative to conventional drugs.  As an example, the dose at which it will acutely kill 50% of the animals given it is 2,000 mg/kg, whereas it only takes 115 mg/kg of 5-fluorouracil (conventional chemo agent) to produce the same effects. What is even more amazing is that it  has been repeatedly demonstrated to possess  both chemoprotective and chemosensitizing properties, which means that it will both enhance the positive cancer-killing effects of conventional chemotherapy, while at the same time protect healthy cells which may be susceptible to being harmed by chemotherapy.  GreenMedInfo.com contains 57 studies on its chemosensitizing properties and 70 on its chemoprotective properties for reference.  As if this wasn’t impressive enough, it also has profound radioprotective and radiosensitizing properties.  Radioprotective substances protect the healthy cells in the body from being damaged by radiotherapy, and radiosensitizing substances help the radiation kill the cancer cells, making them “more sensitive” to the radiation treatments.  GreenMedInfo contains 15 studies on curcumin’s radiosensitizing properties and 23 studies on its radioprotective properties.

Given this growing and compelling body of research, should not curcumin be considered for use in cancer treatment? And if not as a first-line treatment,  then at the very least as an adjuvant in integrative cancer care?

Related posts:

  1. Does Chemo & Radiation Actually Make Cancer More Malignant?
  2. Chemo Therapy or Poison? Shouldn’t Cancer Treatment Kill Cancer Without Killing You?
  3. Beating Cancer with Nutrition – Turmeric Slows Spread of Breast Cancer
  4. Effect of Your pH on the Development and Growth of Cancer
  5. Woman Stuns Researchers by Overcoming Cancer with Turmeric Spice

Source: wakingtimes.com