Taking a Hygienic Approach to Cancer

The Goldberg Clinic
Paul Goldberg, MPH,DC,DACBN

See case study below. 


See case study below. 

It has been over forty years since President Nixon declared a “War On Cancer” and signed the National Cancer Act, which allocated $1.5 billion over three years for cancer research and control. President Richard M. Nixon set a goal that Cancer would be cured by 1976. Did not happen. Others said it would be by 2000, then by 2015 and President Obama has vowed to find ''a cure'' for cancer as part of the economic stimulus package increasing federal money for “cancer research” by a third.

Since the war on cancer began, the National Cancer Institute has spent $105 billion with other agencies, universities and drug companies spending billions more. Yet, cancer rates have barely budged. Some cancers have increased. We remain a nation in which more than one out of every three people will get cancer in their lifetime. The statistics are sometimes bent to make the problem look better or worse but we know that the problem remains and is growing. Is cancer just an impossibly hard problem?

Cancer is not a single entity in my opinion. Research lurches from fad to fad -- cancer viruses, immunology, genomics, etc., and the grim facts about cancer are often lost among the messages from the media and medical centers. Then there are the volunteer groups with their charity walks and bike rides for “the cure” and by businesses who are in the “pink”, hinting that they are pressing for the cure with your financial support…if only we walk far enough, ride our bikes far enough and you give enough of your money! 

The message generally given is that cancer is preventable if you are screened regularly with things like mammograms that emit radiation that is known to cause cancer! The message continues that if your cancer is caught early your chances of being cured are high, and that if your cancer is potentially deadly new treatments may save you. As many with cancer have learned the real picture is not so glowing.

What epidemiologists have demonstrated is that the major reason cancer has become so prevalent is due to our environment…the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the chemicals in our environment including our homes, the radiation we are exposed to, the materials we spray our foods with, what we spew into our environment from a multitude of sources all interplaying with our genetics. We cannot determine who are parents will be but we can play a role in our environmental exposures. 

There is compelling evidence that avoidable environmental factors play the major role in the causation of most cases of the cancer, sometimes from one or two sources though usually from a multitude of sources. This is seen by comparing cancer incidence in different countries or sometimes simply in different communities. For a cancer that is common in one country, there is another country where the incidence is several times lower and when the people of one country go to another country they tend to develop the same incidence of the cancer in that new location. Migrant populations tend to adopt the pattern of cancer incidence typical of the host country and therefore the differences in cancer rates appear to be due to environmental, not genetic, factors. 

There are also subgroups within nations whose way of life reduces the total cancer death rate. One out of three people in the US acquire cancer but the rate of cancer among strict Mormons in Utah, for example, is only about half that among Americans in general. Cancer incidence is also low in certain relatively affluent populations in Africa. All of this again points to environmental factors i.e. the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the radiation we are exposed to and other factors pertaining to how and where we live and what we are exposed to. These factors are best demonstrated by observational studies as opposed to doing laboratory research in the artificial environments of medical laboratories using petri plate cells and hapless laboratory animals that are brutally submitted to horrendous cruelties by the millions each year all needlessly.

If indeed it is environmental factors that largely determine our risks of cancer than our emphasis should be, both in terms of prevention and the resolution of cancer, on developing the right conditions under which to encourage the growth of healthy normal cells while discouraging the conditions under which cancer cells proliferate. 

The medical approach of seeking out cancer cells and destroying them, however, does the opposite. Using “therapies” that are themselves highly toxic, e.g. chemotherapy and radiation therapy, therapies well known to be capable of inducing cancer themselves is illogical and counterintuitive, yet remains the mainstay of modern cancer therapy and research and has been for many years.

We do not pretend to have all the answers to cancer. We do however, promote living in specific ways that support healthy cellular growth i.e. provide the right conditions of health. If cancer occurs we think it is logical and wise to also promote an internal and external environment that is conducive to healthy cellular growth. This does not include bombarding our tissues with toxic chemicals and radiation despite the authority and glamour of modern medical institutions and their massive buildings, high tech machines and thousands of workers in white coats representing, supposedly, the epitome of scientific wisdom.

Our patient, Mr. Vincent Guida, interviewed in the video below was medically diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma and set upon a course of conventional chemotherapy. The side effects were so horrendous that he abandoned the chemotherapy and chose to undertake steps, under our direction, that would rebuild his health and address the chemistry of his body naturally. Having taken the initial steps, he then returned to his medical physicians to be assessed to see what his status was. These results are presented below. 

The Goldberg Clinic works with patients who have cancer but we do not treat Cancer. We have no panaceas to prevent cancer or to “cure” it. We do not claim to be invincible to cancer ourselves. We do believe, however, that our best chances for good health and for recovery from any disease are to implement the right conditions, tailored to the individual, that build and support health from a biological, mental and spiritual standpoint. This is our approach to patients coming to us with cancer. This is our approach to all patients.

Paul A. Goldberg
The Goldberg Clinic

Success Story: Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Diabetes

Patient presented to the Goldberg Clinic with Medical Diagnoses of Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Diabetes. The patient was undergoing Chemotherapy at the time of his initial visit. After just five treatments, he decided to discontinue Chemotherapy due to the onset of debilitating side effects including severe nausea, fatigue, weakness, and constipation.  At the Goldberg Clinic,  a comprehensive case history, physical examination and functional laboratory work was performed and key underlying factors were identified. Based on the data collected, recommendations were made and an individualized program was developed for the patient to follow to support his overall health and function. In just five months, the patient has shown significant improvement including increased energy and vitality, twenty pound weight loss, the normalization of his blood sugar and, most importantly, "dramatic improvement" in the appearance of cancerous lesions according to recent imaging studies (see reports below). 


Imaging study: Piedmont Hospital, February 2nd 2015


Hemoglobin A1C Before/After

HEMOGLOBIN A1C (BLOOD SUGAR READING) HAS NORMALIZED IN JUST 5 MONTHS. THE PATIENT (PREVIOUSLY DIABETIC) IS NOW NO LONGER IN THE DIABETIC RANGE. THE PATIENT IS DRUG FREE. 

                                                                        

                                   
                                    


Heartfelt Letter from Patient's Mom 8 Years Later

Dear Dr. Goldberg,

I want to update you on our daughter. When she came to you in 2006-7, she was suffering from Psoriatic Arthritis. She had quit dating, thinking she would never have a life. Today, I am happy to tell you, she is wonderful. She finished her PhD program at University of Texas (pharmaco-epidemiology) and is married (see picture attached). I have wanted to write you for years. She continues to follow your advice.

You gave her back her life and I will be forever grateful. 

Thank you and may God continue to use you.

Kathi Hodges

PS. Her first appointment with you was on June 12, She called in early September, crying, saying, " Mom, I don't hurt! I don't hurt!" I still cry when I think about it.

Study: Long Term Use of Birth Control Pills Linked to Higher Risk of Brain Tumors

01SM-022315GC-birthcontrol_FB.png

Story from Fox News
Excerpt from article below. 

Taking certain forms of birth control for over five years more than doubles the risk of developing a rare brain tumor, a study led by a Danish neurologist has found.

The study, due to be published Thursday in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, says that women who take hormonal contraceptives showed higher rates of glioma, a tumor that affects around five people in every 100,000.

The study examined the contraception methods over 317 women with glioma aged 15 years to 49 years and compared them to a control group. The researchers found that those who used contraceptives containing only progestin for more than five years had a risk that was 2.4 times higher than the control group. Those who used other types of birth control saw their risk for glioma raised, but not quite as high.

Overall, women who had used hormonal contraceptives at any point for any length of time had a 50 percent higher of developing the tumor than those who had not.

Click here for a PDF version of the research paper from the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

Dr. Tener’s Comments:

Nearly 80% of women have used birth control pills at some point in their life, yet few are aware of or even consider the very real and sometimes very dangerous side effects of these synthetic hormones. This is a tragedy in my opinion, as the “pill’s” major benefit—convenience-- is largely outweighed by an increased long-term risk of cancer, blood clots, osteoporosis and heart disease. Not to mention the less serious, often immediate side effects: weight gain, yeast infections, breast tenderness, mood swings, migraines and nausea.

Most women are first introduced to the pill in adolescence and it is common for many to begin taking it for reasons other than birth control (usually acne and painful, irregular menses). Many take the pill throughout their teenage years and into their twenties until they decide they want to get pregnant and start a family. Most are discouraged to find that getting pregnant after taking the pill for so many years isn’t as easy as flipping a switch. We have seen this repeatedly with many of our female patients.

Dr. Goldberg and I encourage our female patients to consider the delicacy of their reproductive and hormonal system and work to establish balance with the proper heath promoting behaviors rather than resort to potentially dangerous forms of hormone replacement (both birth control and HRT). For those willing to work hard with us and make the necessary changes, the results are often very positive: 
http://www.goldbergclinic.com/hormone-weight-issues/

Recent Success Story

Case #2 Elevated Cardiovascular Disease Risk, Diabetes, Weight Gain, Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, Menstrual Abnormalities, Hypothyroidism, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome | September 2014

Patient presented with Diabetes, Weight Gain, Hormonal Imbalances, Hypothyroidism and Menstrual Abnormalities.The patient's workup revealed elevated blood sugar and an elevated HsCRP which indicates heightened cardiovascular disease risk.  Based on the data collected, an individualized program was developed for the patient to follow. After just four months, the patient reports 90% improvement in her symptoms. Patient lost 30 pounds and her blood work normalized (see below). She is now drug free. 

HSCRP IS A STRONG INDICATOR OF HEART ATTACK RISK:
 0-1 =  LOW RISK        1-3 = MILD RISK        3+ = HIGH RISK 
BEFORE/AFTER: PATIENT'S RISK FOR HEART ATTACK WAS ELEVATED INITIALLY AT 4.7 (HIGH RISK) AND REDUCED SIGNIFICANTLY TO 1.1 (LOW RISK)

HEMOGLOBIN A1C IS A MEASURE OF BLOOD SUGAR REGULATION. NORMAL <6.
THE PATIENT'S RESULT REDUCED FROM 7.5 (DIABETIC RANGE) TO 5.9 (NORMAL) IN JUST 4 MONTHS. THE PATIENT IS DRUG FREE

One Nation, Under a Buzz.

The Pitfalls of Coffee, Energy Drinks and Other Forms of Stimulation

David Tener, DC
Associate Doctor, The Goldberg Clinic 

Studies report that over 90% of adults in America consume some form of caffeine on a daily basis, making it our nations most widely consumed drug. Whether it’s a steaming mug of morning coffee or an afternoon pick me up soda, Red Bull or 5 Hour Energy Shot, our population has become addicted to its caffeine comforts. What effect does this have on our overall health and well-being? Surprising to many people, the effects can over time be significant.

Read More