Roundup Ready soy is now being cultivated on a massive scale across the globe, along with the exponentially increasing use of the herbicide Roundup. Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” soy beans are genetically modified to survive otherwise lethal doses of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the company’s herbicide Roundup.
It’s a win-win for Monsanto. But it’s a loss for just about everyone else.
One of the countries most affected by genetically engineered soy is Argentina, whose population is being sickened by massive spraying of herbicides across the country’s Pampas (the country’s “fertile plain”).
Argentina’s Pampas used to be dotted with dairy and vegetable farms, but now, large-scale soybean monoculture blankets most of their cultivated land, making them especially susceptible to the damaging effects of genetically engineered soy. The impact can be better appreciated by considering the following statistics:
Soy is the main income source for landowners and the state—soybeans are considered a “gold mine” by Argentinians; soy exports generate 16,000 million dollars a year
The area cultivated with soy has reached 19 million hectares, representing 56 percent of Argentina’s cultivated land
98 percent of Argentina’s soybean production is genetically modified.
190 million liters of glyphosate (the active agent in Roundup) are sprayed in Argentina annually, which is leading to not only illness among the population but to widespread deforestation, as trees are among the victims these herbicides leave in their wake of destruction.
Soya burgers are a staple of today’s Argentinian diet. Argentinian children were consuming so much genetically engineered soy that they began developing breasts from the estrogenic effects, before authorities stepped in with warnings. Studies also strongly suggest that the glyphosate that these crops are doused with can cause cancer and birth deformities; both of which are occurring at increasing rates in areas where spraying is done. Sterility and miscarriages are also increasing. Experts warn that in 10 to 15 years, rates of cancer, infertility and endocrine dysfunction could reach catastrophic levels in Argentina. But few people are listening.
“It’s Food for Today, Hunger and Cancer for Tomorrow”
The immediate symptoms are always the same for Argentinian bystanders in the spray zone: dizziness, allergic reactions and itching, mouth swelling, and general malaise that’s similar to the feeling of coming down with the flu. People are warned to stay inside when spraying is underway, but they report getting sick in spite of this confinement.
When those affected visit their physicians, they’re told it’s “all in their heads.” Authorities also turn a deaf ear—as does the government when it’s presented with scientific evidence of the dangerous effects of Monsanto’s products for their people and environment. Fortunately, increasing numbers of scientists are now starting to speak out. For example, the engineers’ school in Santiago del Estero announced that chemicals are causing 100 babies to be born with deformities every year. One of the most influential studies was conducted by one of Argentina’s leading scientists, Andres Carrasco, who works in Argentina’s Ministry of Science.
Andrés Carrasco Attacked for Exposing the Truth
Embryonic specialist Andres Carrasco decided to investigate the health effects of glyphosate for himself after hearing so many reports by desperate peasant and indigenous communities who were suffering from exposure to toxic herbicides. According to Dr. Carrasco, his studies show glyphosate exposure can cause defects in the brain, intestines, and hearts of amphibian fetuses, and these results can be applied to humans. Moreover, the amount of Roundup used on genetically engineered soy fields was as much as 1,500 times greater than that which created the defects.
According to an article in Grain, the biotech industry “mounted an unprecedented attack on Carrasco, ridiculing his research and even issuing personal threats.” In addition, four men arrived unannounced at his laboratory and were extremely aggressive, attempting to interrogate Carrasco and obtain details of his study.
“It was a violent, disproportionate, dirty reaction,” he said. “I hadn’t even discovered anything new, only confirmed conclusions that others had reached.”
The conclusions to which Carrasco is referring are those from independent researchers who have found strong evidence glyphosatecauses the following:
Carrasco’s and others’ work point to the fact that the public, in Argentina and elsewhere, is being subject to a massive biological experiment involving the effects of genetic manipulation of the food supply. Genetically engineered food products have NEVER been tested for safety—so the long-term effects are largely unknown. The warnings science has provided demand a thorough investigation into just how much glyphosate human beings and animals can safely ingest. At present, no such investigation has taken place, and most regulatory agencies choose instead to rely in industry studies claiming glyphosate is safe.
Roundup has been shown to be lethal to amphibians. Are we next? Where is the tipping point for the human race? How much more can we tolerate in the adulteration of our food supply?
Why We MUST Insist on Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods
Labeling may be the only way to stop the proliferation of genetically engineered foods in the U.S., but simple petitions will likely fail. We strongly support state initiatives, such as California’s ballot initiative to require labeling for genetically engineered foods sold in their state.
Many don’t fully appreciate the strategy of seeking to have genetically engineered foods labeled in California. The belief is that large food companies would refuse to have dual labeling; one for California and another for the rest of the country. It would be very expensive, not to mention a logistical nightmare. To avoid the dual labeling, many would likely opt to not use genetically engineered ingredients in their product, especially if the new label would be the equivalent of a skull and crossbones. This is why we are so committed to this initiative, as victory here will likely eliminate most genetically engineered foods from the US.
Powerful confirmation of this belief occurred in early 2012 when both Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo Inc. chose to alter one of their soda ingredients as a result of California’s labeling requirements for carcinogens:
“Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. are changing the way they make the caramel coloring used in their sodas as a result of a California law that mandates drinks containing a certain level of carcinogens bear a cancer warning label. The companies said the changes will be expanded nationally to streamline their manufacturing processes. They’ve already been made for drinks sold in California.”
This is a PERFECT example of the national impact a California labeling law can, and no doubt WILL, have. While California is the only state requiring the label to state that the product contains the offending ingredient, these companies are switching their formula for the entire US market, rather than have two different labels. According to USA Today:
“A representative for Coca-Cola, Diana Garza Ciarlante, said the company directed its caramel suppliers to modify their manufacturing processes to reduce the levels of the chemical 4-methylimidazole, which can be formed during the cooking process and as a result may be found in trace amounts in many foods. “While we believe that there is no public health risk that justifies any such change, we did ask our caramel suppliers to take this step so that our products would not be subject to the requirement of a scientifically unfounded warning,” Garza-Giarlante said in an email.”
Learn More about Genetically Engineered Foods
Due to lack of labeling, many Americans are still unfamiliar with what genetically engineered foods are. We have a plan to change that, and I urge you to participate and to continue learning more about genetically engineered foods and helping your friends and family do the same.
To start, please print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. You can also download a free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
Your BEST strategy, however, is to simply buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, (as these do not permit genetically engineered ingredients) or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers. The majority of the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) you’re exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you’re not inadvertently consuming something laced with altered ingredients. When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtuallyguaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues.
To learn more about genetically engineered foods, I highly recommend the following films and lectures:
Most natural health advocates know that dandelion is a good liver tonic. But now research is showing that it’s also a cancer fighter. This research discovery occurred at Windsor University in Windsor, Canada.
A Windsor University biochemist, Siyaram Pandey, reluctantly took up dandelion research from a Windsor oncologist’s suggestion. Dr. Caroline Hamm noticed a few cancer patients who had been drinking dandelion tea seemed to be getting better.
Siyaram Pandey was initially skeptical. “She said it could be coincidental but it couldn’t hurt to see if there is anything to it.” So Pandey plunged into the research by working on leukemia blood samples with their own dandelion root extract. He and Dr. Hamm were amazed to find the leukemia cells were forced into apoptosis, or cell suicide.
More amazing to them was the fact that non-cancerous cells were left alone. In other words, the dandelion root extract targeted only the cancer cells, which is not true with chemotherapy pharmaceuticals that kill everything in their paths.
They experimented with other types of cancer cells in vitro (lab cultures) and found the same results. Their initial grant of $60,000 has recently been boosted with another $157,000 grant, bringing their total funding to $217,000.
Don’t expect much from the medical monopoly
The research team has applied for Canadian authorization to proceed with phase one clinical trials. However, there is a high probability that this research will quietly vanish unless Big Pharma can figure a way to synthetically reproduce dandelion’s active cancer fighting ingredients.
This sort of disinterest has already occurred recently in Canada, so don’t expect oncologists to be pushing dandelion teas for cancer. Natural cures cannot be patented. No patent equals no big money for Big Pharma, which equals no interest.
Beyond no interest there can be outright suppression, as there was with Canadian Nurse Rene Caisse’s Essiac herbal tea that cured cancer patients and Laetrile in the USA. Thankfully, there is always knowledge and there will always be dandelions.
Perhaps one of the cancer patients Dr. Hamm noticed was John DiCarlo. He had been admitted to the hospital for aggressive leukemia treatments. All of the treatments failed and he was sent home to die. Someone recommended he try dandelion tea, and within a few months his leukemia was history. He was 72 years old when the cancer clinic pronounced him leukemia free.
Adding dandelion root powder to other natural cancer cures
Another dramatic story involved a USA Midwest farmer who cured his unremittingly painful prostate cancer with homemade dandelion root powder. He wrote up the instructions in a local newspaper, and the newspaper article was copied onto an internet news website complete with typos and all.
The farmer, George Cairns, warns that creating the powder from dandelion roots has to be done exactly according to his instructions. A half teaspoon of the powder in water or juice daily, no sodas or hot beverages, will be sufficient to take care of cancer after a few months.
As you may have noticed, there are contradictions between the two anecdotal cures. One used tea and the other said no hot beverages. That happens occasionally in the world of natural cures.
That’s why it’s important to employ two or three do-it-yourself natural approaches for dealing with cancer. Avoiding sugar, processed foods, and meat is recommended as well. The cancer diet platform is organic vegetarian with juicing.
The freshness and quality of any herbal remedy is vitally important. Inexpensive and accessible dandelion root tea or powder can be added to any natural cancer protocols for more healing potential
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
Recent research blaming sunlight exposure for the growing incidences of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, has failed to consider crucial information that could turn the entire concept on its head, according to Dr. William Grant, an epidemiologist writing for the Vitamin D Council.
One important point the research missed was that sometimes sunscreen can actually increase your risk of melanoma, especially in the Northern Hemisphere.
There are other studies showing that chronic UV (ultraviolet) light exposure may actually reduce the risk of melanoma.
Allow me to explain …
Are Rates of Melanoma Really Increasing?
The first point that needs to be addressed is whether melanoma cases are really on the rise. As Dr. Grant stated:
“Two recent papers blame increased ultraviolet (UV) exposure for the growing rates of melanoma in the UK. Not considered were other possible explanations for the rising rates of melanoma, including the use of sunscreen, especially at latitudes above 40º, and a combination of underdiagnosis in the past with over diagnosis more recently. [Melanoma mortality rates changed little in the U.S. between 1986 and 2001 while incidence rates more than doubled."
Further research published in the British Journal of Dermatologyshows that the sharp increase in melanoma rates over the last three decades may actually be "an artifact caused by diagnostic drift." Diagnostic drift, according to the study, refers to a hefty increase in disease that is being fueled by non-cancerous lesions.
During the study period from 1991 to 2004, there were nearly 4,000 cases of melanoma included in the report, with an annual increase of 9.39 to 13.91 cases per 100,000 per year. The researchers revealed that, rather than being fueled by increasing exposure to sunlight as is commonly suggested, the increased incidence was almost entirely due to non-cancerous lesions misleadingly classified as "stage 1 melanoma." Even the distribution of the lesions reported did not correspond to the sites of lesions caused by sun exposure, leading researchers to conclude:
"These findings should lead to a reconsideration of the treatment of 'early' lesions, a search for better diagnostic methods to distinguish them from truly malignant melanomas, re-evaluation of the role of ultraviolet radiation and recommendations for protection from it, as well as the need for a new direction in the search for the cause of melanoma."
Sensible Sunlight is Protective Against Melanoma
Exposure to sunlight, particularly UVB, is protective against melanoma -- or rather, the vitamin D your body produces in response to UVB radiation is protective. As written in The Lancet:
"Paradoxically, outdoor workers have a decreased risk of melanoma compared with indoor workers, suggesting that chronic sunlight exposure can have a protective effect."
A study in Medical Hypothesessuggested that indoor workers may have increased rates of melanoma because they're exposed to sunlight through windows, and only UVA light, unlike UVB, can pass through window glass. At the same time, these indoor workers, who get three to nine times less solar UV exposure than outdoor workers, are missing out on exposure to the beneficial UVB rays, and have lower levels of vitamin D. The study even noted that indoor UV actually breaks down vitamin D3 formed after outdoor UVB exposure, which would therefore make vitamin D3 deficiency and melanoma risk even worse. A number of associations between sun exposure and melanoma can be found in the medical literature, such as:
Occupational exposure, such as farmers and fishermen, and regular weekend sun exposure are associated with decreased risk of melanoma
Sun exposure appears to protect against melanoma on skin sites not exposed to sun light, and melanoma occurring on skin with large UV exposure has the best prognosis
Patients with the highest blood levels of vitamin D have thinner melanoma and better survival prognosis than those with the lowest vitamin D levels.
Vitamin D Reduces Your Risk of Cancer
This is an important point, because if you are shunning the sun for fear of skin cancer, you are, ironically, missing out on one of the most potent natural cancer protections available. Vitamin D's protective effect against cancer works in multiple ways, including:
Increasing the self-destruction of mutated cells (which, if allowed to replicate, could lead to cancer)
Reducing the spread and reproduction of cancer cells
Causing cells to become fully differentiated (cancer cells often lack differentiation)
Reducing the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones, which is a step in the transition of dormant tumors turning cancerous
A study by Dr. Grant found that about 30 percent of cancer deaths -- which amounts to 2 million worldwide and 200,000 in the United States -- could be prevented each year with higher levels of vitamin D. As he stated in the featured article, the potential lives saved from optimizing vitamin D levels through safe sun exposure (or a safe tanning bed) far outweighs the reported number of melanoma deaths:
"In 2007, there were 988 male and 837 female deaths from melanoma in the UK, and a total 71,336 male and 65,458 female cancer deaths. Thus, melanoma accounted for 1.4% of male cancer deaths and 1.3% of female cancer deaths. Assuming a 15% reduction in all-cancer incidence and mortality rates with adequate solar UVB exposure would imply 20,500 reduced cancer deaths in 2007, which is 11 times the number of melanoma deaths."
Similarly, in a review of the health effects of sun exposure, tanning beds and vitamin D, researchers again noted that the benefits of vitamin D production outweigh the potentially increased risk of melanoma:
"The overall health benefit of an improved vitamin D status may be more important than the possibly increased CMM [cutaneous malignant melanoma] risk resulting from carefully increasing UV exposure.”
Again, there’s compelling research showing that sun exposure will indeed protect you against melanoma, as a very low level of vitamin D is a major risk factor for this disease. This is, by the way, also a primary reason why using sunscreen every time you go outdoors may actually accelerate, rather than prevent, cancer.
How to Optimize Your Vitamin D While Minimizing Your Risk of Skin Damage
Sun exposure is the best way to optimize your vitamin D levels, because when you expose your skin to sunshine or a safe tanning bed, your skin synthesizes vitamin D3. I believe this is a very compelling reason to really make a concerted effort to get ALL your vitamin D requirements from exposure to sunshine, or by using a safe tanning bed. If neither of these are feasible options, then you should take an oral vitamin D3 supplement. For more information, see my recent video below on how to know if you are getting enough vitamin D from sun exposure.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
Most of us know that radiation from X-rays can be harmful to our body. High amounts of radiation exposure can increase the risk of several types of cancer. Ionizing radiation from X-rays can potentially damage the DNA. A recent study published in Cancer, Journal of the American Cancer Society, provides further evidence about the dangers of X-rays. This study shows that frequent dental X-rays are linked to brain tumor called meningioma.
Dental x-ray exams significantly increase risk of brain tumor
This research found that people who received dental X-rays frequently were more than twice as likely to develop meningioma. Meningioma is the most common and potentially debilitating type of non-cancerous brain tumor. This tumor occurs in the meninges, which is the membrane that is around the spinal cord and the brain. Some of the effects of meningioma are headaches, problems with vision, loss of speech and motor control. These tumors may not be detected for several years until the size of the tumor gets large.
Based on the research findings, the bitewing and panorex dental X-ray exams increase the risk of developing the brain tumor. Patients who received bitewing x-ray exams annually or more frequently were more than twice as likely to develop meningioma. In a bitewing exam, the X-ray film is held between the teeth.
Receiving a panorex exam annually or more frequently increased the risk even more. The individuals in the group receiving panorex exam were three times more likely than the control group to develop a tumor. Panorex dental exam is the exam in which the dentist uses an external device to take the X-ray of the entire set of the teeth.
Children under ten years old are most vulnerable to radiation
According to the study findings, children under 10 years old were the most vulnerable group. Since children are still growing, the cells in the body are more sensitive to radiation. As a result, the radiation affects them more than the adults. Children exposed to radiation from dental X-rays had five times the risk of developing a tumor.
Some critics of the study argue that the frequency of dental X-ray exams was based on what the volunteers remembered. They argue that not many people remember past events. So a better study is needed to strengthen the link between dental X-ray and brain tumor.
Challenge your dentist whether you really need the dental X-ray
So what do the research findings mean for all of us? Basically we have to be aware of the dangers of unnecessary X-rays. When you go to the dentist’s office, usually the dentist will recommend an X-ray during each visit. You can ask your dentist whether the X-ray is really necessary. Especially if you have a child who has no risk of dental cavity, you can challenge your dentist that an X-ray may cause more harm than benefits.
Dr. Keith Black, chairman of neurosurgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, wrote about the dangers of frequent dental X-rays among young children in his 2009 book , “Brain Surgeon: A Doctor’s Inspiring Encounters with Mortality and Miracles.” The main reason for his concern is that the X-rays are aimed at not only the jaw but also the lower brain. Dr. Black claims that he hasn’t had a dental X-ray in 20 years.
Skipping unnecessary X-ray exams is also a great way to save money. Some of the dental exams cost several hundred dollars and these exams may or may not be covered by insurance.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
UV light from the sun and tanning beds is the main vitamin D source for humans, and researchers have identified an astonishing number of health benefits of vitamin D in the past decade.
But since UV exposure has been suspected of causing skin cancer, many conventional health authorities still warn against it.
A recent review of studies sought to review the health effects of solar radiation, tanning beds and vitamin D.
The researchers looked at data from different time periods for populations at different latitudes, with the aim at looking at the relative risk for cutaneous malignant melanoma associated with tanning bed use, vitamin D and UV effects.
They found that increased tanning bed use was NOT associated with melanoma.
According to the authors:
“Due to the fear of skin cancer, health authorities warn against sun and sunbed exposure.
This policy, as well as the recommended vitamin D doses, may need revision.”
And:
“… The overall health benefit of an improved vitamin D status may be more important than the possibly increased [cutaneous malignant melanoma] risk resulting from carefully increasing UV exposure.”
In fact, Ivan Oransky, the editor of Reuters Health, has previously noted that the real risk of getting skin cancer from a tanning bed is less than three-tenths of one percent—and even then, this is likely only from those who habitually overexpose themselves.
Sun Exposure and Skin Cancer
The authors of the featured review state that while sun exposure is commonly assumed to be the main cause of cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM hereafter referred to simply as melanoma, the most lethal form of skin cancer—the matter is actually NOT “settled.”
The theory is still under dispute, and in their analysis, they reviewed the arguments for and against causation.
With a hint of irony, the authors state that “several factors are probably involved, as exemplified by a relationship sometimes found between gross domestic product and melanoma incidence.” They also list a number of associations between sun exposure and melanoma found in the medical literature, such as:
Intermittent sun exposure and severe sunburn in childhood are associated with anincreased risk of melanoma
Occupational exposure, such as farmers and fishermen, and regular weekend sun exposure are associated with decreased risk of melanoma
Sun exposure appears to protect against melanoma on skin sites not exposed to sun light, and melanoma occurring on skin with large UV exposure has the best prognosis
Patients with the highest blood levels of vitamin D have thinner melanoma and better survival prognosis than those with the lowest vitamin D levels.
So what about tanning beds—are they more dangerous than regular sun exposure? As you may recall, the Senate’s health-care overhaul bill now includes a 10 percent tax on tanning services to dissuade you from engaging in such “health-harming” activities; a move that is unquestionably short sighted and counterproductive considering the fact that vitamin D deficiency is rampant in the U.S.
Where tanning beds are concerned, the science is more conflicted, with some studies finding no detrimental impact from tanning beds on skin cancer rates while others have found that rates of skin cancer are higher in those using tanning beds than those who do not tan. The reason for these conflicting findings, the authors speculate, could very well be due to differences in UVA/UVB ratios and intensities between different types of tanning beds.
What Makes a Tanning Bed Safe?
I believe they’re likely correct in their speculation that the type of tanning bed may be a major factor in whether or not it will have a beneficial or detrimental impact on your cancer risk. Safe tanning beds have less of the dangerous UVA than sunlight, while unsafe ones emit more UVA than sunlight, and it is the UVA rays, which penetrate your skin more deeply than UVB, that appear to be a much more important factor in causing photoaging, wrinkles and skin cancers.
Another important factor when selecting a tanning bed is the type of ballast it employs, to avoid excessive electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure. Most tanning units use magnetic ballasts to generate light. These magnetic ballasts are well known sources of EMF fields that can contribute to cancer.
If you hear a loud buzzing noise while in a tanning bed, it has a magnetic ballast system. I strongly recommend you avoid magnetic ballast beds, and restrict your use of tanning beds to those that use electronic ballasts.
High-quality indoor tanning devices are safe if you precisely follow the simple guideline of never getting burned. Your skin should only get the lightest shade of pink after using them. The FDA has very strict guidelines that seem overly restrictive and will likely impair most people from getting enough vitamin D.
The FDA also recommends waiting 24-48 hours between doses. The reason for this is that it takes at least 24 hours for the erythema to go away. This exposure schedule can be described as CONTROLLED SUNSHINE, making it a very safe way to receive the benefits of the sun while indoors. Ideally you should do this also when you are initially exposed to sunshine. But once you have a tan you can easily and safely increase exposure to once a day.
IF Sun Exposure Increases Your Risk of Cancer, Just How Great is that Risk?
Even when looking at the research showing an increased risk for skin cancer from sun exposure, just how great is that risk? Ivan Oransky, M.D., editor of Reuters Health wrote an excellent commentary on this last year.
Each year, during the month of May, as the sun slowly begins to thaw away those winter blues, you start getting bombarded with Skin Cancer Awareness ads; all of which pitch the idea that the sun is your enemy. Many will include the statistic issued by the World Health Organization, which states that “use of sunbeds before the age of 35 is associated with a 75 percent increase in the risk of melanoma.”
Sounds horrific, but how real is this threat?
“[W]hat does that really mean? Is it 75 percent greater than an already-high risk, or a tiny one?” Oransky writes.
“If you read the FDA’s “Indoor Tanning: The Risks of Ultraviolet Rays,” or a number of other documents from the WHO and skin cancer foundations, you won’t find your actual risk. That led AHCJ member Hiran Ratnayake to look into the issue in March for The (Wilmington, Del.) News Journal, after Delaware passed laws limiting teens’ access to tanning salons. The 75 percent figure is based on a review of a number of studies, Ratnayake learned. The strongest such study was one that followed more than 100,000 women over eight years.
But as Ratnayake noted, that study “found that less than three-tenths of 1 percent who tanned frequently developed melanoma while less than two-tenths of 1 percent who didn’t tan developed melanoma.” That’s actually about a 55 percent increase, but when the study was pooled with others, the average was a 75 percent increase.
In other words, even if the risk of melanoma was 75 percent greater than two-tenths of one percent, rather than 55 percent greater, it would still be far below one percent.” [Emphasis mine.]
So, while statistically true, it’s really misleading, and incites undue fear. By only presenting the relative risk increase (the 75 percent increase) they make the risk sound rather unreasonable. Meanwhile, your absolute risk of developing skin cancer from sun exposure is still, AT WORST, below one percent! And please remember, these highly distorted scare tactics fail to mention the BENEFITS of the exposure, which radically reduce the dangers of the far more common, breast, prostate and colon cancers that are reduced.
Understanding the Difference between Relative Risk and Absolute Risk
Oransky explains the importance of understanding the difference between relative risk and absolute risk in his article:
“Absolute risk just tells you the chance of something happening, while relative risk tells you how that risk compares to another risk, as a ratio. If a risk doubles, for example, that’s a relative risk of 2, or 200 percent. If it halves, it’s 0.5, or 50 percent. Generally, when you’re dealing with small absolute risks, as we are with melanoma, the relative risk differences will seem much greater than the absolute risk differences.
You can see how if someone is lobbying to ban something – or, in the case of a new drug, trying to show a dramatic effect – they would probably want to use the relative risk. … So when you read a study that says something doubles the risk of some terrible disease, ask: Doubles from what to what?”
Tanning Beds Decrease Ten Times More Cancers than they Cause
Another important factor to keep in mind is that vitamin D, ideally from sun exposure, may decrease your risk of many other cancers and chronic diseases.
According to the featured review:
“… it can be estimated that increased sun exposure to the Norwegian population might at worst result in 200-300 more melanoma deaths per year, but it would elevate the vitamin D status by about 25 nmol/l and might result in 4,000 fewer internal cancers and about 3,000 fewer cancer deaths overall.
The lack of sunlight exposure leads to more health problems than bone disease and increased risk of cancer. Other benefits include protection against infectious diseases and non-cancerous diseases (diabetes, CVD, multiple sclerosis, and mental disorders).”
Overall, I believe the less than one percent risk of developing skin cancer from sun exposure or a safe tanning bed is well worth it, as increased vitamin D levels will protect you against so many other debilitating and lethal diseases and cancers… There’s also compelling research showing that sun exposure will indeed protect you against melanoma—the most dangerous form of skin cancer.
Sun Exposure is the BEST Way to Optimize Your Vitamin D Levels
In my view, a safe tanning bed comes in as a close second after natural sun exposure as the ideal way to optimize your vitamin D levels (as opposed to getting it from fortified food items or supplements). In a recent interview, Dr. Stephanie Seneff explained how vitamin D—specifically from sun exposure—is intricately tied to healthy cholesterol and sulfur levels, making the recommendation to get your vitamin D from the sun all the more important.
To review the details, please listen to the interview below.
<
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
The overuse of the procedure known as colonoscopies as a prophylactic for colon cancer, has not only become quite a fad in recent decades, but also a multimillion dollar industry. Every year, over 14 million perfectly healthy individuals age 50 and up, submit themselves to this invasive procedure in the hope of receiving protection from colorectal cancer. Do the benefits of this screening outweigh the risks involved?
Sometimes in this world, a treatment may be as dangerous as the disease itself. I serve as a living testament to the severity of the damages possible with this procedure. The many injuries that can be caused by colonoscopies, the anesthetics and preparation required for this procedure, is what I would like to cover in part 1 of this series.
I would like to preface this by saying that colorectal cancer is a very real, frightening and deadly disease, and I am in no way lightening that fact. But, a colonoscopy injury can be as lethal and cause as much fear and suffering as colorectal cancer itself. So, which one carries the greatest risk of actually happening to you in your lifetime? Especially between the age of fifty to sixty?
Reported in this study from 2006; “The perforation rate reported from colonoscopies was 1 in 1000 procedures, and ‘serious complications’ occurred in 5 in1000”. According The Annals Of Internal Medicine’s report on colonoscopies, an estimated 70,000 (0.5%) will be injured or killed by a complication related to this procedure. This figure is 22% higher than the annual deaths from colorectal cancer itself – the very disease the device was designed to prevent.
The average age for developing colorectal cancer is 71. The medical industry recommends screening starting at the age of 50 and as low as 45 for African Americans. So, for the first couple of decades, you are risking your life with a dangerous, invasive procedure to diagnose a disease that is far less of a risk at that age than the odds of being injured by the screening device. I could stop right there, because that should be enough to make a critical thinker forget about this barberic diagnostic tool, at least until the age of 65. But, there is more – a whole lot more to consider, which leads me to believe we should search to discover a safer and more effective tool.
Many of the related injuries associated with colonoscopies go unreported or are never diagnosed. Death from colon cancer will very rarely not be reported as the cause of death, so those are accurate predictions. But, we have no idea just how high the actual number for colonoscopy injuries and death may actually be [more]. I am living proof of that. The reason for the necrosis of my bowels was unreported because all priorities focused on saving my life, not what caused the decline. Nowhere on my medical record is the reason for what caused my organs to die reported, so I doubt that I am part of those statistics, even though I am a victim of a colonoscopy.
Typically, a patient left untreated for as long as I was will die. Had I died, the death report would say complications from necrosis of the bowels and mention nothing of the colonoscopy. Perforations and other injuries from colonoscopies can be extremely difficult to diagnose and are often of little concern when the patient is dying. We also have to consider that doctors and hospitals will rarely report an injury from a colonoscopy unless forced to. It is up to the patient to successfully prove that the procedure caused their injury or resulting infection in a civil trial before it will be reported and logged. The fact that few, if any, of these cases will see the light of day will be covered in my post “Is There Any Such Thing As Malpractice?”.
Even though statistics say that 70,000 people will be injured or killed by this procedure this year, the actual number is far greater. But even if you go by only those that have been forced to be reported, the number of injuries are still significantly higher than the incidence of colorectal cancer.
One of the more dangerous outcomes of a colonoscopy is the one I was a victim of – a perforation. Everyone considering this diagnostic procedure is required to sign a paper stating that they understand all of the injuries possible with this invasion of their organs with a mechanical device and the air pressure exerted in order to inflate the colon. The list of the horrific complications, including death, should be enough to give anyone pause. But, patients are immediately calmed when their doctors explains that these things are rare. The favorite tool of compliancy in the doctor’s arsenal is the phrase “I’m not worried about it”. They’re not the ones about to have a metal tube shoved four feet up their pooper and they also understand that by signing that paper, you have waived all rights to legal compensation if injured. Any wonder why they’re not worried? As long as your insurance checks out, they won’t break a sweat.
Other than perforations, there are other dangers, including a list of possible reactions to the general anesthesia that must be used during a colonoscopy. Though rare, they can range from deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolisms to pneumonia. No other cancer screening test requires a general anesthetic to be used. There can also be complications associated with the colon prep required for the procedure. This prep can include a 2 liter enema of synthetic laxatives administered about an hour before the procedure. This cocktail of chemicals can cause everything from deadly electrolyte imbalances (which can lead to congestive heart failure), to possible thrombosis in the mesenteric artery, to kidney damage.
If this diagnostic procedure still sounds safe to you, we will also throw in the newest discovery that has come to light in recent years. It is impossible to sterilize an endoscope! This high tech device cannot be boiled or steamed because high temperatures can destroy the sensitive electronics. There are many tiny nooks and crannies in and around the tip of the scope, which are impossible to clean, even by hand. Recent biopsies of these scopes have revealed encrustation of fecal matter, tissue, blood, and mucus imbedded from previous patients. At present, medical personnel bathe the scopes in a disinfectant solution. They’re not scrubbed. Not disassembled. Not heated. They’re rinsed in an ineffective bath of Glutaraldehyde, which if not rinsed off thoroughly, has been cited as a cause of toxic Colitis.
It is very possible, and clinically proven, that you can be infected by HPV (Human Papilloma Virus); HIV; Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Helicobacter pylori,; Hepatitis B and C; Salmonella; Pseudomonas and Aeruginosa; Flu Viruses and other common bacteria such as, E. Coli O157:H7 and Creutzfeldt- Jakob Disease. And the pathogens you may be infected with are typically going to be a hospital borne variety, which means they are strains that have been exposed to, and become immune to most antibiotics. Leading microbiologists have advocated using sterile, disposable parts for endoscopes as well as the use of a condom-like sheathes for each new patient. But, the manufacturers and health-care providers have resisted these solutions because of added costs. Isn’t that nice? These safety precautions are mandated in England, but not used here in the U.S.. The FDA even recognizes this problemhere, but acts as if their present recommendations are effective – they have been proven not to be.
Following my transplant, I was required to undergo an ileoscopy, including biopsies, weekly to check for signs of rejection. Patients are not anesthetized for this procedure because the scope is inserted into a stoma, rather than the anus, so it is painless. I was allowed to watch the procedure on a television monitor. They would fish a tool (similar to an alligator clip) through the instrument port of the scope (refer to image at the top of page), to tear off a piece of villi for a biopsy. Each time I could see a tiny injury which would begin to bleed. An open, bleeding wound near the tip of a scope encrusted with fecal matter – sounds like a real good medical practice. Each time you undergo a colonoscopy they may clip out a piece of your intestine for biopsy or snip off a polyp. There will be an open wound and mixing of your blood with whatever may be lingering on the end of that scope which has been in hundreds of other colons and is unable to be sterilized.
A few days after one of the scopes, I came down with a systemic gram negative rod infection called pseudomonas, a very deadly pathogen to immunosuppressed patients. The particular strain that I had was identified as being multi-drug resistant, meaning it was certainly a hospital borne variety. It nearly ended my life as I succumbed to septic shock and by the time the ambulance arrived at the ER, my blood pressure had dropped to 35/28 and I was given a very small chance of surviving the night. Before intubating me, they told me they would send in my wife so I could say “goodbye” to her for the last time – this is how sure they were I would never awake from the anesthesia.
It is quite obvious now that I contracted that pathogen from the scope I had just received two days before (I failed so quickly because I was so immunosupressed from the transplant). Seven months prior to that, I had been the victim of a perforation as the result of a routine colonoscopy, which ultimately cost me all of my intestines and nearly my life. That is two near death injuries on just one patient within seven months from endoscopes.
I met six other transplant patients in the last two years. Three out of those six people, adding myself (making seven), had suffered a perforation from scopes and a fourth one had suffered a perforation in a similar invasive procedure. Two of those patients died as a result of their injuries and I nearly died both times from mine. The third transplant recipient needed an emergency resection of her newly transplanted bowels because of a perforation from a scope. The baby of our transplant family, a young woman only 28 years old, is fighting a Klebsiellasepsis at this time, which was most likely transmitted via a recent scope. “Injuries and perforations from colonoscopies are rare” my ass!
Because of what happened to me and the manner in which the doctor lied to me about the rarity of these injuries is what has motivated me to study and investigate the subject for the last two years. I have discovered that perforations are not as rare as the doctors would like us to believe. But at a charge of $1,500.00 to $2,000.00 per procedure and the fact that some gastroenterologists can rush in as many as 30 -40 procedures a day, it is not hard to see a motivation to suppress the truth about the dangers and your risk of being perforated or infected by this medical fad.
From an a 2006 article in The New York Times; “… if our group is representative of an average group, you will see people (doctors) who take 2 or 3 minutes and people (doctors) who take 20 minutes to examine a colon. Insurers pay doctors the same no matter how much time they spend.” It is often about quantity, not quality and your risk of being injured increases the faster the practitioner attempts to finish your procedure, not to mention the efficiency of the cancer screening falls dramatically when hurried.
I hope that one day this killer will end up on the junk pile of quack medical devices from the Victorian Age, and I hope I can have a hand in placing it there. This will not be easy. The medical industry now has celebrities, such as Katie Couric, actively using their fame to promote this procedure as a life-saving miracle, rather than the barbaric medieval medical device it really is. They used the fact that Katie lost her husband to colon cancer and swooped in on this grieving widow and convinced her this “snake oil” medical device could have prevented it. I am sure that the fact that NBC is also owned by General Electric, a manufacturer of endoscopes, had little to do with sponsoring her televised colonoscopy and using her celebrity pitching skills to bring this killer to the forefront of common medical practices.
You may be thinking that I must have lost my mind, because after all, this procedure has effectively saved thousands of lives, or at least that’s what you’ve been led to believe by the medical industry and their advocates in the media. But is there any more truth to this than the lie that injuries are rare?
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
In part one of this series, I illustrated just how common that injuries and death are from colonoscopies, which is far greater than the doctors and the media have led you to believe. Yet, those in the medical industry and media often like to claim that colonoscopies have saved thousands of lives, so the benefits outweigh the risks. Is this anymore accurate than their claim that injuries are rare?
The two most common uses of this procedure is for cancer screening and diagnosis of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. I will cover each separately starting with:
The Efficiency Of Colonoscopies for Cancer Screening
How effective is this procedure for early detection of cancer and is polyp removal (polypectomies) successful at arresting cancer?
According to the American Cancer Society, up until 2009 “…there are no prospective randomized controlled trials of screening colonoscopy for the reduction in incidence of or mortality from colorectal cancer.”
Here we see that few studies have been done to back the ridiculous claims of thousands of lives being saved. Let’s look at a few that I could find.
The Minnesota Colon Cancer Study, which ran for 18 years and included 46,000 patients between the ages of 50 to 80, demonstrated only a 0.6% reduction in the incidence of colorectal cancer. This is a statistically insignificant amount. (If you’ve heard greater risk reductions than 0.6%, you are not being lied to, but are receiving the relative risk as opposed to the absolute risk. This is a notorious “slight of hand” used by researchers and pharmaceutical companies to make their findings appear more relevant. An absolute difference is a subtraction; a relative difference is a ratio. The difference of a 0.2% to 0.1% drop would translate to a 50% reduction in relative terms, but in reality is quite insignificant. For more on relative vs. absolute statistics read here. Once you understand that difference, you will realize just how ineffective many drugs and treatments actually are compared to what you have been led to believe.)
Here is the overall observation:
Despite tens of millions of colonoscopies performed between the years 2000 and 2007, the annual incidence of colorectal cancer in the United States INCREASED by about 30,000 more cases.
Any other product, outside of the medical industry, would be abandoned and forgotten with such a dismal rate of proven success. Yet, to hear Katie and others in the media tout this procedure as the greatest life-saver since the polio vaccine, makes my blood boil – especially being a victim in its profitable wake.
Certainly the removal of polyps have saved many from developing colorectal cancer? Look at all of the millions of polyps that have been sliced out of colons since the advent of colonoscopies. The claim is quite impressive, but how has it actually played out on the world’s stage?
From an article in the New York Times, dated 2006; “The patients in all the studies had at least one adenoma detected on colonoscopy but did not have cancer. They developed cancer in the next few years, however, at the same rate as would be expected in the general population without screening.”
Another research study published in 2006 concluded that the screened patients in all of the studies developed colorectal cancer “at the same rate as would be expected in the general population without screening” in the next few years, even though all found polyps had been removed.
If polypectomies were as effective as advertised, and given the fact that about half of americans past age fifty get screened, we would have expected to see the incidence and mortality of colon cancer dive to a 45-50% reduction in mortality. Instead, we have seen a 22% increase. This increase could well be associated with the removal of the polyps themselves. Removing a polyp releases cancer cells into the bloodstream, spreading the cancer at an accelerated rate to other organs.
The result of the Telemark Polyp Study 1 highly supports that theory. Although there was a 2% reduction in colorectal cancers in the screening group that had polyps removed, they had a 157% higher mortality from other causes than the control group. The “all cause” death rate was significantly higher in the group that was screened. So, you may die prematurely, but at least you will die knowing that you have no polyps in your colon while being embalmed. If being a polyp free corpse is all that’s important to you then, by all means, get the colonoscopy.
Most people will live their entire life with colon polyps and never develop colorectal cancer. An estimated 95% of all polyps are benign. They will never become cancers, so removing them and claiming victory over cancer is as fraudulent as cutting every mole off of everyone and boasting that you saved them from melanoma. Removing a benign polyp creates and open wound within the dirtiest organ of the human body. You might as well slice open your finger and stick it into a septic tank or gas station toilet.
The large polyps most commonly removed via colonoscopy are rarely a cancer threat. By far, the largest portion of colon cancers start from flat lesions, which are usually never found or removed with colonoscopies, even though they are considered five times as cancerous as large polyps.
The National Cancer Institute’s report suggests it is closer to ten times higher: “In a study in which endoscopists used high-resolution white-light endoscopes, flat or nonpolypoid lesions were found to account for only 11% of all superficial colon lesions, but they were about 9.8 times as likely to contain cancer (in situ neoplasia or invasive cancer) compared with polypoid lesions.”
If colonoscopies are so ineffective at discovering cancer in early stages, why would this procedure be recommended as a proven prophylactic and diagnostic tool for cancer? It can only be driven by the extreme income potential, not only to the doctors, but to the manufacturers of this device that costs in excess of $28,000.00. This should be reason enough to hear a public outrage, but add in the fact that people are being killed or left disabled (as I am) and the outcry should be deafening and I believe it would be, if the american people were given the truth.
The erroneous claims of the success of polypectomies is as much of an illusion as a psychic surgery. Doctors use this parlor trick to remove polyps commonly found in middle-aged to elderly patients and happily grabbed another $2,000.00 dollars and move to the next sucker patient. It all looks so impressive when they can show the patient high-resolution images of the polyps they discovered and removed from inside of them and claim that they saved them from cancer. When in reality, that polyp was little more threat to your life than that mole on their butt.
Even though I believe that Katie Couric has convinced herself that she is saving thousands of lives, her national endorsement of this service has most likely been responsible for the death of more people than she could possibly have saved. Katie responded in a knee-jerk reaction to her husband’s untimely passing with the promotion of this money-making scandal of the medical supply companies. I feel that Katie owes it to her viewers to broadcast stories like mine, showing the potentially deadly and life crushing effects of this service she endorses to healthy people and the rare transplant I received, which would, in fact, have been the only thing that could have saved her husband. I will not hold my breath waiting for her call.
There is a rare group of individuals who suffer from a congenital defect known as Gardener’s Syndrome. These people know who they are, because the cancer runs in their family. For them, screening at the age of 50 would be far too late, because they often develop colon cancer in their 30s. The benefits of colonoscopies does outweigh the risks in their case. But, if you are over 45 and have not developed colorectal cancer yet, you are not one of these people and the risks associated with a colonoscopy far outweigh any potential gain.
Katie’s husband was only 42 when he succumb to colon cancer, leading me to believe he may have suffered from this rare gene mutation (average age of colon cancer is 71, so his case is rare). A simple polyp removal would not have saved his life. Only a full multi-visceral transplant could have. I know this because the woman assigned as my mentor had Gardener’s Syndrome and required a six organ transplant at the age of 33 to rescue her. Katie’s endorsement of colonoscopies is misplaced and she should instead be endorsing intestinal and multi-visceral transplants. But how would that profit GE and her investments in their products? Starting colon screening at the age of 50 would have been little consolation to her late husband, given the fact that he died at the age of 42. Unfortunately, this leads me to believe that Katie is only endorsing what is profitable to her, not what would have truly saved her husband’s life. She is not on a crusade to save lives, but to boost her career.
The Use Of Colonoscopies For Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Besides its use for cancer screening, colonoscopies are also used by Gatroenterologist’s to diagnose Ulcerative Colitis, Crohn’s disease and other Inflammatory Bowels Diseases (IBD). This is a deadly combination. The risks of perforation are much greater in these patients. To use a device, which exerts so much pneumatic pressure within a human organ on patients who have weakened areas (ulcers and fistulas) and inflammation is irresponsible to say the least. This procedure should be completely forbidden for use on patients with severe IBD, yet doctors are using it as the tool of choice.
A sigmoidoscopy would be far less invasive and just as effective at diagnosing IBD diseases (by cellular biopsies). Sigmoidoscopy does not require the use of general anesthetics and has less than half the incidence of perforation [source].
A case study reported by the Journal Of the National Cancer Institute stated:
Overall, we found a perforation incidence of nearly two per 1000 colonoscopies, slightly more than twice the perforation incidence from sigmoidoscopy.
But, a sigmoidoscopy charges out at a fraction of the cost of a colonoscopy and takes about the same amount of time to perform. So doctors naturally opt for the colonoscopy. I was never offered the option of, nor given the information about the safety differences between the two or I would most likely still have my native small bowels. I have no idea how many Crohn’s or UC patients have been killed or damaged by these machines as I was, but I would reason to believe that the number is staggering – and of course, unreported.
I would like to give you an idea of the air pressure that can be exerted by this device. After my transplant, the technician operating the ileoscope was a Fellow, who was inexperienced at it. I began to complain of the tremendous pressure, but he ignored my discomfort and continued to pump away. Suddenly, everything in my stomach ejected from my mouth. I didn’t have nausea, nor did I wretch. The air pressure was so great that it literally pushed upward through over 20 feet of bowels and blew open 2 one-way sphincters. I was terrified of these machines after this and would only allow Attending Surgeons to perform any future ileoscopes.
Perforations are difficult to diagnose and often go undetected for several days. Every hour counts after a perforation, because the leakage of colonic bacteria begin to spread infection and necrosis throughout the visceral organs. It can be difficult to diagnose and locate all perforations which has led to the levels of damage and death I have seen in several patients because of delay in treatment. It is the x-ray and/or CT screening for the presence of “free air” in the abdomen that is the golden standard used to diagnose perforations. ”Free air” will not always be present nor easy to detect. The level of confidence that doctors instilled in this diagnostic technique is what led them to dismiss the possibility of perforation and thereby ignore my failing vitals over the next four days.
Conclusion
Because of the savior status that this deadly procedure has received in recent years and the fact that celebrities like Katie Couric have made it a media darling, it is impossible to get anyone in the media to report anything that may suggest that there is a danger with this procedure. Even though it has never been proven to be effective at diagnosing cancer, nor have we seen any decline in colorectal cancer since its implementation, these whores in the media continue to insist that it has saved thousands of lives. Where are the studies to support their claims?
The words “cancer” and “terrorist” scare Americans more than any others in the English language. What are your chances of developing colorectal cancer? Even a person in a high-risk group is 12 times more likely to die from heart disease; 10 times from any other cancer, 6 times from a medical error, 3 times from stroke, and twice as likely to die from an accident. Yet, Americans are so motivated by the word “cancer”, that they are willing to submit themselves to this ambulatory surgical procedure, even when they feel perfectly healthy. Would you submit yourself to any other invasive surgical exploration as simply a screening technique for a disease you most likely don’t have?
Of the seven intestinal and multivisceral transplant recipients I met, only two had lost their organs to a disease. Nurses told me that better than 80% of the organ recipients were the result of bariatric surgeries, liposuction and colonoscopies (in that order). I met two women who lost their organs to faulty gastric by-pass surgeries and two were the result of colonoscopies. Disease is not your worst enemy, medical procedures are. And every one of these are elective procedures undertaken by otherwise healthy people who were assured of their safety. Healthy people whose lives have now been destroyed and shortened by medical practitioners hawking unnecessary procedures for monetary gain.
I will continue to fight the battle of awareness until a much safer and more effective diagnostic tool for cancer, Crohn’s and Ulcerative Colitis is invented. Because everyone seems happy with the status quo, nothing will be done to improve this diagnostic technique or better yet, come up with a far less invasive one, unless the dangers and the ineffectiveness of its use as a cancer screening device are made common knowledge.
Modern medicine needs to start looking in new, less invasive, directions – not to simply dump more money into promoting their existing products that do not work effectively – and even worse are making people sicker or outright killing them. If half as much money went into research as is spent on the advertising and celebrity endorsement for the promotion of this outdated, crude and invasive torture device, we would have cured the damned disease by now. Curing a disease is never as profitable as treating one.
They have been quite efficient at sweeping my story under the carpet and my tiny place in cyberspace will never get this information the attention that it needs to save lives. I will continue to do whatever I can. If I can save just one person from having to live through the nightmares that I have, it will be worth the effort. But people, you to need to wake up and demand more truth about these modern “snake oil” practices.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
When it comes to skin cancer, Big Pharma offers only topical chemo creams and surgery. The chemo creams often don’t work but often do cause ugly, painful side effects. Removing skin cancer tumors surgically usually results with tumors resurfacing sooner or later. Surgeries often leave ugly scars.
However, there are inexpensive, effective, safe cures for curing skin cancer that are banned by the mainstream medical monopoly, which are not publicized by the mainstream media.
A relatively new remedy, BEC5, is a spin off from an Australian folk remedy for farm animals. It is available to anyone online. It uses the phyotonutrients extracted from eggplants. Clinical trials and anecdotal testimonies confirmed BEC5′s efficacy and safety on basal cell and squamous cell cancers.
Melanoma is the least common but most dangerous skin cancer with the highest morbidity rate. It can metastasize into internal organs. The maker and distributors for BEC5 make no claims for curing melanoma so far. But at least one person who made a homemade version that anyone can make claimed it cured his melanoma.
The homemade remedy involves a solution of vinegar and eggplant that extracts the same phyotonutrient glycocides and glycoalkaloids contained in BEC5 directly from the eggplant. The glycoalkaloids penetrate cancer cells selectively and destroy them. Normal cells are left alone.
How to make and use the homemade eggplant remedy
This is an attempt at disclosing what others report cured their skin cancers. It’s purely educational and not meant as medical advice. Some of the anecdotal reports had their skin cancer diagnosed by MDs, with subsequent cures confirmed by MDs.
Some have used white vinegar, while others recommend raw organic apple cider vinegar. Get a medium sized eggplant and grind it up. Put that into a glass jar and fill it up with the vinegar. Place the jar into the refrigerator. After around three days with the white vinegar, the liquid should turn to a brownish gold color. That indicates it’s ready to use.
Apple cider vinegar is already a similar color, but three days seasoning in a refrigerator should be enough.
Apply it directly to tumors often with a cotton ball, or secure the soaked cotton onto the tumor with tape. Treatment may take a couple of weeks or more. Both commercial BEC5 cream and the homemade version also work on warts and other unhealthy skin conditions.
One user mentioned that according to his doctor (naturopath?), if the homemade procedure is painful, then it is melanoma that’s under attack. Many of these homemade remedy users were in Australia, where Dr. Bill Cham, MD, PhD, found out about the Devil’s Apple plant used by veterinarians and farmers to cure skin cancers on farm animals.
Dr. Cham claims a high, safe cure rate with non-melanoma skin cancers from his own clinical testing. Detractors claim there are no published reports in medical journals. That could be due to the fact that Dr. Cham had to go it alone testing his cream on skin cancer patients in the UK hospital system. Dr. Cham demonstrates and explains his BEC5 cream in a video.
Mainstream medicine always attacks natural non-pharmaceutical cures and their sponsors. However, a well known physician, Dr. Jonathan Wright MD, founder of the holistic Tahoma Clinic in the Seattle Washington area, backs up Dr. Cham. Dr. Wright sells BEC5 creams and explains how it works and how it was tested within the UK system.
Dr. Cham determined that the same curative glycoalkaloids were available in eggplant. From there he went on and pioneered the development of BEC5 in London.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
New research has detected the presence of paraben esters in 99 percent of breast cancer tissues sampled.
The study examined 40 women who were being treated for primary breast cancer.
In 60 percent of cases, five of the different esters were present.
Parabens are chemicals with estrogen-like properties, and estrogen is one of the hormones involved in the development of breast cancer.
The study notes that:
“Variation was notable with respect to individual paraben esters, location within one breast and similar locations in different breasts.
Overall median values in nanograms per gram tissue for the 160 tissue samples were highest for n-propylparaben and methylparaben; levels were lower for n-butylparaben, ethylparaben and isobutylparaben…
The source of the paraben cannot be identified, but paraben was measured in the 7/40 patients who reported never having used underarm cosmetics in their lifetime.”
Sources and Dangers of Parabens
Deodorants and antiperspirants are some of the primary sources of parabens, but the fact that even those who reportedly never used them still had parabens in their breast tissue clearly demonstrates that these chemicals, regardless of what products they’re added to, can, and apparently will, accumulate in breast tissue.
It’s important to recognize that whatever you spread on your skin can be absorbed into your body and potentially cause serious damage over time, as this research demonstrates.
(To learn more about the potential toxicity of your cosmetics, I urge you to review the EWG’s extensive Skin Deep Report.) Parabens inhibit the growth of bacteria, yeast, and molds, and are used as preservatives. On the label they may be listed as:
These chemicals are commonly used in:
Studies have shown that parabens can affect your body much like the estrogens, which can lead to diminished muscle mass, extra fat storage, and male gynecomastia (breast growth). Other studies besides the one featured here have also linked parabens to breast cancer. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has linked methyl parabens in particular to metabolic, developmental, hormonal, and neurological disorders, as well as various cancers.
How to Avoid Some of the Most Common Culprits
Avoiding parabens and other harmful chemicals requires becoming an avid label reader. Beware that products boasting “all-natural” labels can still contain harmful chemicals, including parabens, so make sure to check the list of ingredients. Another alternative is to make your own personal care products. In many cases it’s much easier than you might think. Michael DeJong, environmentalist and author of books on green living has a book called Clean Cures, which is chockfull of affordable, easy, natural remedies you can prepare at home to treat ordinary ailments with items you have in your own refrigerator and pantry.
When it comes to deodorants, one option is to skip it altogether. Simple soap and water has served me quite well. For some additional odor-protection, try a pinch of baking soda mixed with a small amount of water.
Beware: There’s a Brand NEW Class of Cancer-Causing “Estrogens”…
Recent research has also confirmed the existence of a previously unknown class of cancer-causing materials that can be found in thousands of consumer products. Some of them are even added to supplements and foods as “nutrients”. These estrogen-mimicking compounds are: metals.
Yes, a broad range of metals have been shown to act as “metalloestrogens” with the potential to add to the estrogenic burden of the human breast, thereby increasing the risk of breast cancer. The following metals have been identified as being capable of binding to cellular estrogen receptors and then mimicking the actions of physiological estrogens:
According to Green Med Info:
“… [E]xposure to sodium selenite (and sodium selenate) is difficult to avoid, as it is the primary source of supplemental selenium in mass market vitamins, foods, beverages, etc. The same is true for inorganic forms of chromium, copper, nickel, tin and and vanadium, which you will find on the labels of many mass market multivitamins. Another daily source of metalloestrogen exposure for millions of consumers is aluminum-based antiperspirants.”
Cadmium Linked to Higher Breast Cancer Risk
A recent study published in the journal Cancer Research indicates that women whose diets contain higher levels of cadmium are at a greater risk of developing breast cancer. Cadmium is a heavy metal long known to be carcinogenic, and, as you can see by its inclusion on the list above, it’s also been identified as a metal that can bind to estrogen receptors, effectively mimicking the female hormone estrogen. The study found that among close to 56,000 women, those with the highest intakes of cadmium were 21 percent more likely to develop breast cancer.
Cadmium leaches into crops from fertilizers, or when rainfall or sewage sludge deposit it onto farmland. Potatoes and whole grains are a couple of the primary sources cadmium, but it’s also present in air pollution from the burning of fossil fuel, and can therefore also be inhaled. According to the Los Angeles Times:
“The study offers new evidence in a large human population that environmental chemicals that mimic the effects of the female hormone estrogen may contribute to women’s risk of certain cancers, including endometrial and breast cancers…. The finding comes just three months after the Institute of Medicine, a prestigious body of independent biomedical researchers, concluded that a host of other factors — most within a woman’s power to control, such as obesity and hormone-replacement medication — were the most important sources of breast cancer risk.
The report they’re referring to is Breast Cancer and the Environment: A Life Course Approach by the Institute of Medicine (IOM)issued in December of last year, which discusses environmental impacts on breast cancer risk.
The report is a step in the right direction, as it recognizes the need to further investigate the role environmental toxins play in the development of breast cancer. This is important, because while individuals can do their best to avoid harmful chemicals, if we really want to quell the rise in cancers of all kinds, we must remove chemicals linked with cancer from consumer products, manufacturing, and other sources of exposure. Furthermore, the IOM report also identifies ionizing radiation as one of the primary contributors to breast cancer, which of course includes mammograms…
Could More Women Be Harmed than Helped with Mammography?
Mammograms expose a woman’s body to radiation that can be 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray, which increases the risk of cancer. Mammography also compresses breasts tightly (and often painfully), which could lead to a lethal spread of cancerous cells, should they exist.
Earlier this year, the Nordic Cochrane Collaboration issued a report stating that mammography screening may cause more harm than good. Their informative leaflet, Screening for Breast Cancer with Mammography, is an important read for every woman. Even more provocative is the new book, Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy by Peter C. Gøtzsche, Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis Director at The Nordic Cochrane Centre, and Chief Physician. The very first paragraph of the book’s ad reads:
“The most effective way to decrease women’s risk of becoming a breast cancer patient is to avoid attending screening.”
While this may sound too shocking to be true for some, the available data fully supports that conclusion. According to the Cochrane Collaboration, for every 2,000 women invited for screening over the course of 10 years, just ONE woman will have her life prolonged. Meanwhile, 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed with cancer had it not been for the mammography screening, will be misdiagnosed as having breast cancer, and will be treated unnecessarily. Additionally, more than 200 women will experience significant psychological distress for many months due to false positives.
The Cancer Industry is Fraught with Corruption…
There’s plenty of damning information out there that can, and ultimately will, be used to call for a congressional hearing on the mammography cover-up. As far back as 1974, professor Malcolm C. Pike at the University of Southern California School of Medicine warned the National Cancer Institute (NCI) that a number of specialists had concluded that “giving a women under age 50 a mammogram on a routine basis is close to unethical.” In the 1990′s, Dr. Samuel Epstein warned about the dangers of mammography, stating:
“The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade’s screening… The high sensitivity of the breast, especially in young women, to radiation-induced cancer was known by 1970. Nevertheless, the establishment then screened some 300,000 women with X-ray dosages so high as to increase breast cancer risk by up to 20 percent in women aged 40 to 50 who were mammogramed annually.”
Yet despite all the evidence against the routine use of it, mammography has remained the number one recommended “prevention” strategy for all women over the age of 40. Alarmingly, there’s evidence indicating the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been negligent (to put it mildly) in their approval of a number of cancer-detecting devices. It recently became known that whistleblowerswithin the agency had been secretly monitored for two years; all of whom worked in the office responsible for reviewing medical devices, including cancer screening devices. The monitored employees had warned Congress that the agency was approving medical devices that posed unacceptable risks to patients.
Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health has repeatedly tried to take action against the employees, claiming they had disclosed information that undermined the integrity and mission of the FDA. Shuren is also the official who oversees mercury dental fillings, which they have been fraudulently referring to as ‘silver fillings.’ Shuren promised to make an announcement about dental amalgam by the end of 2011, but just before the end of the work year, the agency conceded that no announcement was forthcoming – not in 2011, and maybe not at all.
Again and again, Mr. Shuren demonstrates loyalty to industry interests rather than public health and safety… But he’s not the only one. In a 2009 letter from an unknown number of FDA employees to President Obama’s transition team, the authors clearly spell out the need for a complete overhaul of the agency due to deep-rooted systemic corruption at the highest levels. They write:
“Currently there is an atmosphere at FDA in which the honest employee fears the dishonest employee, and not the other way around. Disturbingly, the atmosphere does not yet exist at FDA where honest employees committed to integrity and the FDA mission can act without fear of reprisal. … America urgently needs change at FDA because FDA is fundamentally broken, failing to fulfill its mission, and because re-establishing a proper and effectively functioning FDA is vital to the physical and economic health of the nation.”
Mammograms No Longer Recommended for Women in Their 40′s
The US Preventative Task Force revised its recommendations on mammograms in October 2009,stating that women in their 40′s should no longer get routine mammograms for early detection of breast cancer. Instead, the panel recommended waiting until the age of 50, and only doing one mammogram every other year rather than annually. The Canadian task force followed suit in November last year.
While many cancer organizations were outraged and have shunned the task forces’ new directive, it’s important to realize that the main reasons for this change in guidelines were the documented dangers and short-comings of mammographic screening. All in all, there’s convincing evidence that mammography is not all it’s cracked up to be, and the FDA is not doing its stated job to protect your health. Instead, they’re busy catering to industry and skirting the boundaries of the law to protect a lucrative business model. This is a tragedy, considering how many alternatives there are that could help stem the tide of cancer…
There’s a wide variety of prevention and treatment strategies that appear to be both safer and more effective than conventional strategies like mammograms and the “cut-poison-burn” model of cancer treatment…
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
For many years, I have been a great fan of Suzanne Somer’s incredible courage and persistence to enlighten the people about alternative methods of treating disease, especially cancer. Before publishing her New York Times bestseller “Knockout” about cancer and the many suppressed alternative treatments for cancer, she asked me if she could quote from my book Cancer Is Not a Disease – It’s a Survival Mechanism in her new book. Given how controversial my book is in the eyes of the hardliners of conventional medicine, I felt very honored and agreed to it. While this led to a an expected defamation campaign against me, Suzanne Somers took the brunt of it; the pharma-medical establishment and hired media attacked her viciously for writing her book, which has been read by millions of people. And yet again, the undeterred Suzanne Somers, single-handedly and not taking no for answer, opened up an entire new possibility for women who have been maimed by breast surgery to regain their sense of dignity and womanhood. Bravo, Suzanne! Please share with all woman who have had breast cancer surgery.
~ Andreas Moritz
——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyperlink back to the web page
Curcumin, the bioactive compound found in the Indian curry spice turmeric and commonly referred to as ‘holy powder’, has been used for centuries in folk medicine to treat wounds, infections, and other health problems. Today researchers are using the power of the evolving science of epigenetics to reveal how curcumin is crucial in the fight against many forms of cancer, as it causes metastatic cells to undergo programmed cell death, or apoptosis.
Researchers from Michigan State University, publishing the result of a study in the Journal of Biological Chemistry have found that this amazing natural compound is able to prevent the destructive formation of alpha-synuclein proteins that are the hallmark presentation in many neurodegenerative disease such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. Curcumin is one a very select group of structures that is able to cross the delicate blood-brain barrier to affect biochemical and electrical activities in the brain. The turmeric derivative has demonstrated the unique capability to prevent clumping or aggregation leading to disease development.
Curcumin aids protein folding to prevent brain tangles and degeneration
The team lead researcher, Dr. Basir Ahmad and scientists conducting the study commented “Our research shows that curcumin can rescue proteins from aggregation, the first steps of many debilitating diseases… more specifically, curcumin binds strongly to alpha-synuclein and prevents aggregation at body temperatures.”
The team used precise lasers to study the split-second formation of proteins known as ‘protein folding’. Normally, proteins are folded at lightning fast speed at the direction of genes and DNA sequences. Damage to DNA caused by poor diet and lifestyle factors from epigenetic alterations results in mis-folded proteins and neurodegenerative disease.
Researchers found that when curcumin attaches to alpha-synuclein it not only stops clumping, but it also raises the protein’s folding or reconfiguration rate. By slowing the speed that the proteins form, curcumin effectively inhibits abnormal protein clumping to prevent tangles and damage to the nerve synapses. Chemical and electrical communications are retained that help to help prevent the early manifestation of Parkinson’s disease.
Curcumin can be added to the diet with liberal use of the Indian curry spice in meal preparation. Many people do not enjoy the taste of curry infused foods. For those individuals, nutrition advisors recommend a standardized supplement (std. to 95% total curcuminoids for maximum bioavailability) providing 300 to 500 mg daily to prevent neurodegenerative decline.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
If you’re diagnosed with breast cancer, new research suggests that one of the best strategies to improve your chances of recovery is to start a regular exercise program.
This is a radical departure from the now-outdated advice that cancer patients should rest and take it easy the way heart attack patients were treated fifty years ago.
If your oncologist is not yet up to speed on the healing power of exercise, you may want to consider finding one who is …
Exercise after Cancer Diagnosis Improves Survival
A new study has shown that breast cancer patients who start exercising regularly within six months of diagnosis can lower their chances of dying by up to 30 percent.
The researchers found a benefit among those who exercised a minimum of 2.5 hours a week for 18 consecutive months, although the best results came to those who exercised almost every day.
The physical activity supported the women’s ability to fight off the disease, improving both overall and disease-free survival.
A separate, earlier study by Harvard Medical School researchers found similar benefits … breast cancer patients who exercise moderately — 3-5 hours a week — reduce their odds of dying from breast cancer by about half as compared to sedentary women.
In fact, any amount of weekly exercise increased a patient’s odds of surviving breast cancer, and this held true regardless of whether women were diagnosed early on or after their cancer had spread.
The new recommendation — that cancer patients and cancer survivors should exercise at least 2.5 hours a week (an amount that should be easily attainable) — was buttressed in a report by Macmillan Cancer Support.As Jane Maher, chief medical officer of Macmillan Cancer Support and clinical oncologist, told BBC News:
“The advice that I would have previously given to one of my patients would have been to ‘take it easy’. This has now changed significantly because of the recognition that if physical exercise were a drug, it would be hitting the headlines.”
Ciaran Devane, chief executive of Macmillan Cancer Support, echoed these sentiments:
“Cancer patients would be shocked if they knew just how much of a benefit physical activity could have on their recovery and long term health … “
You Can Get BETTER Results with FAR Less Exercise
It is important to understand that these researchers were not aware of the superior results of using high-intensity interval Peak Fitness type exercises. That was not part of the study design, but if it were, my guess is that it would have been FAR more effective than the 2.5 hours of exercise they found to be effective. More than likely one hour per week of high intensity would be far more beneficial. But that one hour is TOTAL time including warm up, recovery and cool down. The actual amount of high intensity exercise is only TWELVE MINUTES per week, which is quite extraordinary.
The report noted that evidence is growing to support the role of physical activity at all stages of cancer, both during and after treatment:
“Physical activity is important for cancer patients at all stages of the cancer care pathway. There is evidence to support the role of physical activity for the following stages of the cancer care pathway:
During cancer treatment – physical activity improves, or prevents the decline of physical function without increasing fatigue.
After cancer treatment – physical activity helps recover physical function.
During and after cancer treatment – physical activity can reduce the risk of cancer recurrence and mortality for some cancers and can reduce the risk of developing other long-term conditions.
Advanced cancer – physical activity can help maintain independence and wellbeing.”
Exercise Can Help You Feel Like Yourself Again
A cancer diagnosis is mentally and physically exhausting, and if you are undergoing radiation or chemotherapy as a form of treatment, this can be particularly debilitating (you may want to look into some of the natural cancer treatments available, which do not cause the serious, sometimes deadly, side effects associated with conventional cancer treatment). Exercise can be invaluable here, helping to lessen your symptoms and generally improve how you feel, which means you’ll be able to get back to your normal life more quickly.
The Macmillan Cancer Support report highlighted the following ways that exercise can help you to mitigate some of the common side effects of conventional cancer treatment, including the ability to:
Why You Should Start Exercising Even if You’re Cancer-Free…
Exercise is one of the most powerful strategies available to reduce your cancer risk, so starting a program while you’re cancer-free should increase your chances of staying that way.
The notion that exercise may help prevent cancer dates back to 1922, when two independent studies observed that cancer deaths declined among men working occupations that required higher amounts of physical activity. Since then a paper in the journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise reported that “more than a hundred epidemiologic studies on the role of physical activity and cancer prevention have been published.”
In the same paper, which reviewed published epidemiologic studies on physical activity and the risk of developing cancer, it’s noted that:
“The data are clear in showing that physically active men and women have about a 30-40% reduction in the risk of developing colon cancer, compared with inactive persons … With regard to breast cancer, there is reasonably clear evidence that physically active women have about a 20-30% reduction in risk, compared with inactive women. It also appears that 30-60 min·d-1 of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity is needed to decrease the risk of breast cancer, and that there is likely a dose-response relation.”
How Does Exercise Fight and Prevent Cancer?
One of the primary reasons exercise works to lower your cancer risk is because it decreases your insulin receptor sensitivity thus lowering your insulin and leptin levels. Controlling insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risk. It’s also been suggested that apoptosis (programmed cell death) is enhanced by exercise, increasingly the likelihood that cancer cells will die. Exercise also improves the circulation of immune cells in your blood, as well as your lymphatic system, which has no “pump” other than your bodily movements. The job of these cells is to neutralize pathogens throughout your body, as well as destroy precancerous cells before they become cancerous.
According to a study published in the British Medical Journal,which explored the relationship between exercise and cancer, exercise affects several biological functions that may directly influence your cancer risk. These effects include changes in:
Tips for Exercising Safely if You Have Cancer
You may find that you’re able to take part in a regular exercise program — one that involves a variety of exercises like strength training, core-building, stretching, aerobic and anaerobic — with very little changes necessary. Ideally your fitness program should be like any other — comprehensive, providing activities that will improve your strength, flexibility, cardiovascular fitness and fat-burning capabilities with high-intensity Peak Fitness exercises.
However, you may find that you need to exercise at a lower intensity or for shorter durations at times. Always listen to your body and if you feel you need a break, take time to rest. Even exercising for a few minutes a day is better than not exercising at all, and you’ll likely find that your stamina increases and you’re able to complete more challenging workouts with each passing day. In the event you are suffering from a very weakened immune system, you may want to exercise in your home instead of visiting a public gym.
What Else Can You do to Help Prevent Breast Cancer?
It’s estimated that about 40 percent of U.S. breast cancer cases could be prevented if people made wiser lifestyle choices. This is not intended to place blame but rather to empower you to take control of your health. I believe these estimates are even far too low, and it is more likely that 75 percent to 90 percent of breast cancers could be avoided by strictly applying the following recommendations.
Eat healthy. This means avoid sugar, especially fructose, as all forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer. Also, focus on eating whole, organic foods and fresh vegetables while avoiding cancer-causing foods.
Vitamin D. There’s overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that vitamin D deficiency plays a crucial role in cancer development. You can decrease your risk of cancer by MORE THAN HALF simply by optimizing your vitamin D levels with adequate sun exposure. And if you are being treated for cancer it is likely that higher blood levels—probably around 80-90 ng/ml—would be beneficial. The health benefits of optimizing your levels, either by safe sun exposure (ideally), a safe tanning bed, or oral supplementation as a last resort, simply cannot be overstated.
Get proper sleep both in terms of getting enough sleep, and sleeping between certain hours. According to Ayurvedic medicine, the ideal hours for sleep are between 10 pm and 6 am. Modern research has confirmed the value of this recommendation as certain hormonal fluctuations occur throughout the day and night, and if you engage in the appropriate activities during those times, you’re ‘riding the wave’ so to speak, and are able to get the optimal levels. Working against your biology by staying awake when you should ideally be sleeping or vice versa, interferes with these hormonal fluctuations. It’s also important to sleep in complete darkness, as this is what allows your body to produce melatonin, a natural cancer fighter.According to Dr. Christine Horner, a board certified general and plastic surgeon: “If we, for instance, go to bed by 10, we have higher levels of our sleep hormone melatonin; there’s a spike that occurs between midnight and 1am, which you don’t want to miss because the consequences are absolutely spectacular. Melatonin is not only our sleep hormone, but it also is a very powerful antioxidant. It decreases the amount of estrogen our body produces. It also boosts your immune system … And it interacts with the other hormones. So, if you go to bed after 10 … it significantly increases your risk of breast cancer.”
Effectively address your stress. The research shows that if you experience a traumatic or highly stressful event, such as a death in the family, your risk of breast cancer is 12 times higher in the ensuing five years. So be sure you tend to your emotional health, not just your physical health.
I recently interviewed Dr. Christine Horner, a board certified general and plastic surgeon, who shared her extensive knowledge about breast cancer—its causes and its cures, and the pro’s and con’s of various screening methods. I suggest you listen to that interview now, in addition to learning about the many all-natural cancer-prevention strategies listed above.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
Intuitively, you felt something unusual, a change in your bodily functions, maybe some pain or bleeding, and you went to your family doctor. You were referred to an oncologist, a biopsy was done, and if the report was positive for cancer cells, you were given the ghastly news.
You or someone you know may have received a cancer diagnosis at some time in your life. It comes with little or no warning.
Depending on your overall health, medical history, location and the type of cancer you had, the primary methods of treatment were surgery, chemotheraphy and radiation. Even if the result was to remove the tumor, eradicate the cancer and monitor for any recurrence, you stayed hopeful, waiting for new breakthroughs, cures and methods. You moved on with your life on a wing and a prayer despite the dark arc you live under, making each day count.
The long-standing approach to cancer treatment has been to deal with a tumor as a foreign invader, removing as much as possible surgically, radiating it to reduce the size, and managing it with chemotherapy.
Although some cancers may respond to the protocol, others will not, and sometimes, conventional approaches can do more harm than good by undermining the very resources the body needs to attack the cancer.
Cancer arises from one single cell. The transformation from a normal cell into a tumor cell is a multistage process, typically a progression from a pre-cancerous lesion to a malignant tumor.
These changes are the result of the interaction between a person’s genetic factors and three categories of external agents: physical carcinogens, such as ultraviolet and ionizing radiation; chemical carcinogens, such as asbestos, components of tobacco smoke, food and water contaminants; and biological carcinogens, such as infections from certain viruses, bacteria or parasites.
Although there are dozens of cancers, all of them share two characteristics: uncontrolled cell growth and an ability to spread to other areas of the body (metastasis), which becomes the cause of death.
Who gets it
Cancer does not discriminate, nor does it care who you are.
The World Health Organization (WHO) global status reports on cancer maintain cancer as a leading cause of death worldwide, accounting for 7.6 million deaths (13 percent of all deaths) in 2008. Lung, stomach, liver, colon and breast cancer cause the most deaths each year.
Deaths from cancer worldwide are projected to continue rising, with an estimated 13.1 million deaths in 2030. Cancer causing viral infections such as HBV/HCV and HPV are responsible for up to 20 percent of cancer deaths in low- and middle-income countries—where about 70 percent of all cancer deaths occurred in 2008.
Cancer is the third leading cause of death in the Philippines after heart disease and strokes. Lung cancer accounted for almost 9,200 of the nearly 52,000 deaths from the disease in 2010, followed by cancers of the liver, with 7,000 and breast, with 4,400.
At Fuda Cancer Hospital in Guangzhou, China, treatments are based on understanding cancer as a chronic illness, and the approach is two-pronged: prevention (defense) and treatment (reform).
The current understanding of cancer treatments has led to the change from “total elimination of the cancer cells at all costs” to effective disease control, from “total confrontation till the end” to “peaceful co-existence with cancer.”
This view of cryosurgical expert professor Kecheng Xu, MD in his book “Nothing But the Truth” is shared by Andreas Moritz, author of many books on ayurveda and naturopathic and intuitive medicine.
Survival mechanism
Moritz writes, “Cancer is not a disease; it is the final and most desperate survival mechanism the body has at its disposal. It only takes control of the body when all other measures of self-preservation have failed. To truly heal cancer and what it represents in a person’s life, we must come to the understanding that the reason the body allows some of its cells to grow in abnormal ways is in its best interest, and not an indication that it is about to destroy itself.
“Cancer is a healing attempt by the body for the body. Blocking this healing attempt can destroy the body. Supporting the body in its healing efforts can save it.”
Radical? Provocative? Controversial? Nothing in life and little in medicine is entirely free of risk.
If this will open a door for others, then let them go in.
Unlike conventional therapies that can damage both cancerous and healthy tissues, targeted treatments focus solely on cancer-related molecules.
The Fuda Cancer Hospital has brought in and adapted new techniques, combining them with traditional Chinese and Western medicines and drug delivery methods. At Fuda, the use of minimally invasive ablation and biological methods is prioritized. It has been singled out by the International Society of Cryosurgery as a cryotheraphy center in the Asia Pacific region.
Also called cryoablation and cryosurgical ablation, cryosurgery involves the surgical use of an extremely cold substance to freeze malignant tumor cells, thereby destroying them. The surgical technique has anti-cancer applications internally—argon gas or liquid nitrogen freezes a probe, which in turn can freeze the cells of a tumor without doing much damage to the surrounding tissue—and externally, for skin lesions and other tumors.
Cryosurgery is a less expensive and less invasive alternative to traditional surgery, and its recovery time tends to be shorter.
Multiple applications
Cryosurgery has multiple applications in cancer treatment. According to the National Cancer Institute, cryosurgery can be used for cancers of the prostate, liver, kidney and breast, as well as various skin conditions (both precancerous growths and early-stage cancers).
Cryosurgery has also shown efficacy against very specific cancers, including the childhood cancer retinoblastoma and the AIDS-related Kaposi sarcoma
Fuda Cancer Hospital also features tailor-made individualized cancer treatments. It is famous for its CCC Treatment Model: the first C stands for cryosurgical ablation (CSA); the second C stands for cancer microvascular intervention (CMI); and the third C is for combined immunotherapy for cancer (CIC).
Based on a patient’s condition, one or more of the three Cs is used to treat the patients. The combination of several therapies in targeting cancerous tumors and cells in a more efficient way, with less toxicity for regular cells, is the forte of the hospital.
The Fuda Cancer Hospital is headed by Xu, chief executive and president, and a team of experienced oncological specialists.
New methods and treatments have to be scientifically innovative. A renowned oncologist, professor Tang Zhaoyou, proposed the China Anti-Cancer Approach. He said, “Western medicine focuses on the diseases, while Chinese medicine takes a holistic approach. Both have their own inadequacies; when the two are combined, it constitutes the Chinese anti-cancer features.”
Knowing there are many methods and options is a bright spark in the fight against cancer. No longer is the patient only on the receiving end, but is also a participant in the pursuit of a cure.
For example, in biological therapy, a patient’s own natural immunities are used to confront cancer cells. Medical specialists and researchers have found ways to multiply and strengthen immune cells, called lymphocytes, as one defense against certain cancers.
Another form of biological therapy involves ongoing advanced research into the creation of cancer vaccines from the patient’s own blood. The goal is to individualize cancer therapy so that it is suited to the person.
Today’s oncology researchers and cancer advocates all over the world, like the specialists, doctors, and medical professors of Fuda Cancer Hospital, are on the verge of life-saving discoveries.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
As unbelievable as it sounds, current law makes it illegal for food producers to share certain types of scientific information with you.
So when Diamond Food relayed health information about the omega-3 fats in walnuts on product packaging and also on their Web site, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attacked.
Even though the information was entirely true, and backed by peer-reviewed scientific research.
If a Food Can Prevent a Disease, it Must be a Drug
This is the backward thinking that goes on at the FDA, where regulations currently prohibit manufacturers of dietary supplements or producers of food from referring to any scientific study documenting the potential effect of the substance on a health condition, punishable by large fines and even jail.
Disclosure about the benefits of a dietary supplement or food, no matter how credible, places the food in the category of an “unapproved drug.”
In other words, if a product makes a medical claim, it’s automatically classified as a drug.
This is how the FDA got away with sending Diamond Food a warning letter, stating:
“… we have determined that your walnut products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.
The following are examples of the claims made on your firm’s website under the heading of a web page stating “OMEGA-3s… Every time you munch a few walnuts, you’re doing your body a big favor … “
These claims are backed by science, but it doesn’t matter under FDA rules, which are so counter to rationality and logic that it boggles the mind. The FDA letter goes on to list several health claims made by Diamond Foods regarding omega-3 fats, claims such as:
“Studies indicate that the omega-3 fatty acids found in walnuts may help lower cholesterol; protect against heart disease, stroke and some cancers; ease arthritis and other inflammatory diseases; and even fight depression and other mental illnesses.”
“[O]mega-3 fatty acids inhibit the tumor growth that is promoted by the acids found in other fats… “
“[I]n treating major depression, for example, omega-3s seem to work by making it easier for brain cell receptors to process mood-related signals from neighboring neurons.”
“The omega-3s found in fish oil are thought to be responsible for the significantly lower incidence of breast cancer in Japanese women as compared to women in the United States.”
Walnuts are “New Drugs”
Because Diamond Food dared to let consumers know that natural substances in a natural food may offer some health benefits and protections, the FDA views this as a new drug. In their eyes, only FDA-approved drugs are capable of offering such protections …
The FDA stated in the warning letter:
“Because of these intended uses, your walnut products are drugs… Your walnut products are also new drugs … because they are not generally recognized as safe and effective for the above referenced conditions. Therefore … they may not be legally marketed with the above claims in the United States without an approved new drug application.
Additionally, your walnut products are offered for conditions that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners; therefore, adequate directions for use cannot be written so that a layperson can use these drugs safely for their intended purposes. Thus, your walnut products are also misbranded… in that the labeling for these drugs fails to bear adequate directions for use… “
The FDA’s current position is that foods such as walnuts, cherries, broccoli, turmeric, green tea and the like should be subjected to the full FDA approval process. But obtaining a new drug application, as the FDA suggested, can cost billions of dollars. And let’s face it — walnut growers cannot come close to affording that!
Is it Not a Constitutional Right to Share Truthful, Scientific Information?
This is so ridiculous, as censoring a food producer’s right to inform others about scientific research is in violation of the first amendment. The American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF) states:
“The FDA ignores first amendment protections and censors the communication of valid scientific information. The agency seems to have lost sight of its mandate to protect the public and has instead come to see itself as the guardian of corporate interests.”
Can you imagine the drug companies not being permitted to tell you what their products could do for you… do you think they would roll over for that? Not a chance, but they don’t have to simply because they are the ones who can afford the FDA’s approval process. With few exceptions, it’s impossible for food producers to assume such costs for natural and therefore non-patentable products.
It’s ludicrous for the FDA to require natural products to be “vetted” the same way as drugs. In nearly every case, natural products are safer and more effective than synthetic drugs, as science has shown, time and time again. Not to mention that natural agents are much less expensive than pharmaceuticals, and can even be grown in your backyard!
It’s unfortunate that the FDA is so beholden to the drug industry that it would waste it’s time to attack a walnut manufacturer for citing scientific research while allowing Frito Lay to claim that its Lay’s potato chips are “heart healthy.”
And walnut producers are not alone. Cherry growers have also been threatened by the FDA with jail time if their websites even contain links to scientific studies from Harvard and elsewhere, outlining the health benefits of cherries for gout or arthritis pain. Green tea growers have received similar threats. As I said, it truly boggles the mind…
What Should You Know About Walnuts?
The FDA was sure worried that you might get wind of the truth — that a food might confer health benefits that drugs currently lay exclusive claim to. Walnuts are good sources of plant-based omega-3 fats, natural phytosterols and antioxidants that are so powerful at free-radical scavenging that researchers called them “remarkable.” Plus, walnuts may help reduce not only the risk of prostate cancer, but breast cancer as well.
In one study, mice that ate the human equivalent of 2.4 ounces of whole walnuts for 18 weeks had significantly smaller and slower-growing prostate tumors compared to the control group that consumed the same amount of fat but from other sources. Overall the whole walnut diet reduced prostate cancer growth by 30 to 40 percent. According to another study on mice, the human equivalent of just two handfuls of walnuts a day cut breast cancer risk in half, and slowed tumor growth by 50 percent as well. Other research has shown walnuts may:
Significantly reduce LDL cholesterol levels
Reverse brain aging in rats
Boost heart health in diabetics
Now this is the type of information that we need to hear more of as, no doubt, if people were made aware of these potential benefits, and similar ones in other whole foods, they may be tempted to snack on a handful of whole walnuts instead of a bag of potato chips or pretzels.
You Can Still Support HR 1364 for Free Speech About Science
Congressmen Jason Chaffetz (R–UT) and Jared Polis (D–CO) have introduced the Free Speech about Science Act (HR 1364), a landmark legislation that would allow the flow of legitimate scientific and educational information. The new bill provides a limited and carefully targeted change to FDA regulations so that manufacturers and producers may reference legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific studies without converting a natural food or dietary supplement into an “unapproved drug.” According to Rep. Chaffetz’s website, the provisions of HR 1364 do the following:
Allow dietary supplements and healthy foods to cite legitimate scientific research
Provide a clear definition of the types of research that may be referenced by growers and manufacturers
Ensure that referencing such research does not convert a food or dietary supplement into an “unapproved (and therefore illegal) new drug”
Retain the authority of FDA and FTC to pursue any fraudulent and misleading statements
According to Rep. Chaffetz:
“It is important for individuals and families to take charge of their personal health by making the right decisions to get and stay healthy. This includes accessing information so that individuals can adjust habits, eat healthfully, and take appropriate dietary supplements to prevent and even treat health conditions.
The Free Speech About Science Act helps insure their access to legitimate scientific research to make the necessary decisions to improve their personal health and the health of their families.”
Rep. Polis adds:
“Today’s science has shown that vitamins and nutritional supplements can offer successful, natural alternatives to drugs. As we begin to reform our nation’s healthcare system, supplements are an innovative way to help reduce costs.
The Free Speech About Science Act is a common sense act that will make it easier for doctors and consumers to learn about the cheaper, healthier alternatives to costly medicines that food and nutritional supplements provide.”
As of December 2011, HR 1364 is in the first step in the legislative process and has been referred to committee. The majority of bills never make it out of committee, so we need your help.
Please lend HR 1364 your support by signing on as a co-sponsor TODAY.
Use the Alliance for Natural Health’s HR 1364 page to send a letter to your representative in support of this bill. And forward or post this article to all of your friends and loved ones who care about their health and their right to informed consent. With your combined influence we can be a powerful force for much-needed change.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
Women over age 21 are now being dissuaded from annual PAP smears.
PAP smears screen for cervical cancer typically associated with human papillomavirus (HPV), which health officials say is responsible for most cases of cervical cancer.
The USPSTF (US Preventative Services Task Force) and the American Cancer Society are now recommending women undergo PAP screening only once every three years, beginning at age 21 and ending around age 65.
The problem with this stance is that PAP smears prevent cervical cancer deaths far more effectively than the HPV vaccine ever will.
And it’s hard to compare the potential side effects of the HPV vaccine with the potential side effects of PAP tests.
I’ve never heard of anyone dying or becoming paralyzed from a PAP smear.
Now, I don’t necessarily disagree with the recommendation to reduce the frequency of PAP testing.
As Philip Castle of the American Society for Clinical Pathology states:
“If you test every year you find a lot of benign infections that would go away on their own… You end up overscreening, overmanaging and overtreating women who are not actually at risk of getting cervical cancer.”
Side effects of overtesting may include vaginal bleeding, pain, infections, risks of pre-term delivery, and psychological impacts of facing a possible cancer diagnosis.
Why Opt for the More Hazardous Option?
What I DO question is, why are cancer groups recommending getting rid of a safe and effective screening method, which we know saves lives, while vigorously advocating the clearly risky HPV vaccine?
Since the release of Gardasil into the market in 2006, many thousands of serious adverse events have been reported to the government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), including 26 deaths in the past 12 months alone. Furthermore, cervical cancer is not even in the top 10 cancers that kill American women every year. The death rate from cervical cancer in the United States is about 3 per 100,000 and most cervical cancer deaths occur in older women who have had chronic, undiagnosed and untreated HPV infection for many years.
Annual Screening Doesn’t Find More Cancer than Three-Year Screening
Despite the new PAP screen guidelines, most physicians continue to recommend annual PAP screening to their patients, mostly because they (and their patients) are in the habit of doing so. Some physicians also fear their patients will not come in for annual exams and other screening if the PAP is not required every year. But doing unnecessary testing is not the best way to convince women to get regular checkups.
Evidence shows that screening women for cervical cancer more frequently than every three years does not detect more cancer. Women, who have not been exposed to HPV, are not at risk for cervical cancer. Besides, it’s important to know that the immune response of the majority of women is strong enough to clear up HPV infection within two years without any intervention—in fact, this is what happens 90 percent of the time. Even the CDC admits to this fact on their website. Only certain varieties of HPV are high-risk. Two types (types 16 and 18) cause 70 percent of all cervical cancers. But these cervical cancers are very slow growing, which is why less frequent PAP screens are still effective.
But there is more to this story than meets the eye. The driving force behind this “new and improved” PAP schedule may have more to do with vaccine marketing than kind-heartedly saving you from stepping into the cold metal stirrups every year…
Are Women Just Pawns in the Gardasil Game?
There is a good deal of evidence that the revised PAP guidelines are part of a plan to rescue Gardasil vaccine sales, which are embarrassingly low. It’s estimated that only about one in four eligible women and girls have chosen to get all three HPV injections.
The vaccine is expensive, costing between $400 and $875 for the three-shot series. Studies show that cost-effectiveness of the vaccine is questionable, especially for women over age 20. Researchers at Harvard School of Public Health conducted a study, funded by the CDC, of the cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination. They found that the older a woman is, the less cost-effective the vaccine will be. The findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in August 2008.
The study assumes that Gardasil provides lifelong immunity against HPV. Cost effectiveness will be worse if the vaccine were actually found NOT to be as effective after 10 years, which may very well be the case… In fact, it’s a bit surprising that they would assume the vaccine would provide lifelong immunity. According to the National Cancer Institute, the vaccine has only been shown to provide protection against persistent cervical HPV 16/18 infections for up to 8 years.
The other issue is that mass use of Gardasil could put pressure on the HPV strains associated with cervical cancer that are not contained in the vaccine to become more dominant and cause cancer. One way to make the vaccine more cost-effective is to cut costs in other areas. So, the next question is, where can costs be cut?
PAP screens would be an obvious choice, and they do appear to be the sacrificial lamb in this case. In my review of the literature, I did in fact find many “versions” of the recommendation to cut back on the frequency of PAP screening in the name of making HPV vaccination more “cost-effective.”
Are Regulators Reducing PAP Smears to Rescue a Vaccine Flop?
It seems the HPV vaccine, once anticipated as the flagship vaccine of the 21st Century, has fallen flat on its face. The industry hyped it as highly effective AND cost-effective—and, in both cases, it appears to be neither. So now they’re clamoring for a rescue plan, as evidenced by the following several documents. The first document is a 2006 white paper discussing implementation strategies for the HPV vaccine, in which the following recommendation is made (p.44):
“In the longer term, the introduction of an effective vaccine will undoubtedly change the balance of costs and benefits for routine screening. Policymakers should seriously consider changing the nature of screening regimens for vaccinated women (Trimble 2005, Lowndes and Gill 2005). For example, they might reduce the frequency of screening—even to as little as once per lifetime—or shift from Pap smears to HPV DNA testing (Harper 2005a, Lehtinen and Paavonen 2003, Shaw 2005).”
The white paper also suggests that giving HPV vaccine at age 12 (and the vaccine is licensed for children as young as nine years old!) is a way to reduce cancer rates and lower overall health care costs (p.39). Further evidence for financial motivation behind the revised PAP screen schedule can be found in this 2007 report, which discusses the costs of establishing this vaccine worldwide. On page 13, it says:
“Cost-effectiveness analyses can help decision makers determine how to optimally combine cervical cancer screening with HPV vaccination. For example, in the United States, a cost-effective approach would be to combine HPV vaccination with screening starting at age 25, conducted every three years (Goldie et al. 2004).”
The third document is a CDC report from 2010 that details costs associated with HPV vaccine implementation. It shows the cost-effectiveness of vaccinating 12-year-old girls and the declining cost-effectiveness as girls (and women) age.
An analysis by researchers at Stanford University went so far as to use mathematical models to predict how various PAP screening schedules (annually, or every 2, 3, 4, or 5 years) would affect your life expectancy, assuming you were HPV vaccinated (refer to Figure 5 in Stanford report). They concluded that PAP testing every 4 years will increase your life expectancy and reduce healthcare costs, provided you are vaccinated. Just how much more life will this buy you?
Drum roll please…
You may live an extra 2.8 days.
Yes, by getting the HPV vaccine and having PAPs every 4years, you can perhaps add one “long weekend” to your life, compared to the current recommended schedule, according to Stanford’s mathematical model. You’ll not add 2 years to your life, mind you, but 2.8days. Hopefully you won’t spend that long weekend getting treated for seizures, paralysis, blindness, blood clots, stroke or cardiac arrest—which are just some of the adverse effects reported from receivers of this vaccine. Adding a few days to your life won’t necessarily add more life to your days.
The Stanford researchers also noted that the more often you get PAPS, the longer your life expectancy will be, but more frequent PAPS increases costs substantially. So what they’ve done is made the argument that cutting back on PAP tests will cut down on costs.
I think you can see that this “new and improved” PAP screen schedule may have arisen more out of concern for the financial bottom line—the bottom line for Big Pharma and their shareholders, that is—rather than from genuine concern for women’s health.
All of these mathematical models assume that the HPV vaccine confers long-term immunity. However, there is some evidence this is not the case. According to the National Cancer Institute, the vaccine has only been shown to provide protection against persistent cervical HPV 16/18 infections for up to eight years, but some evidence suggests the induced immunity may wane in as little as five years.
If this is true, then it’s possible that the cost-effectiveness picture may be even LESS rosy than the bean counters have predicted. But what about the possibility that the vaccine could actually increase your risk for cervical cancer?
Evidence that Gardasil May Actually INCREASE Your Cervical Cancer Risk
A study in the Lancet poses this as a real possibility:
“Vaccinations alone will not prevent cervical cancer unless their efficacy is longer than 15 years; if the duration of efficacy is shorter and efficient boostering is not organized, the onset of the cancer in women is merely postponed… if even more young vaccinated adolescents mature into women who willfully refuse cervical cancer screening, the population rates of cervical cancer will increase.”
And according to Merck (Gardasil’s manufacturer), if you have already been exposed to HPV prior to receiving the vaccine, Gardasil has been found to increase your risk for precancerous (or worse) lesions by 44.6 percent.
Gardasil: From Flagship to Flop
There is absolutely no proof and no clinical trials that demonstrate Gardasil vaccines confers long term protection against development of cervical cancer. The studies were not done prior to licensure.
Pre-licensure clinical trials did not follow young girls or women for decades to establish how long they were protected. In fact, in clinical trials Gardasil’s protection against cell dysplasia leveled off at four years, and clinical trial participants were given a fourth dose to boost the number of antibodies measured in the blood of those vaccinated. So the efficacy being reported by Merck is based on clinical trials using four doses of the vaccine, even though patients are being given only three.
And, according to Dr. Diane Harper, a lead researcher for Gardasil, its efficacy against genital warts is only two years.
In a slide presentation in October of 2009 at an NVIC conference, Harper made the point that early vaccination may only postpone, not prevent, future cervical cancers, and that we cannot eradicate HPV.
I believe one of the reasons many women and girls are opting out of HPV vaccines, in addition to the high price tag, is they are becoming educated about the potential risks versus the benefits. And given the high rates of adverse reactions, it’s reasonable to assume a fair number of women are having bad reactions after their first or second shot, causing them to not return for the third.
Can Gardasil Lead to New Kinds of Cervical Cancer?
Gardasil confers immunity to only two of the 15 HPV strains that are associated with cervical cancer. This prompts a troubling question. Could the mass use of Gardasil (and the other HPV vaccine, Cervarix) put pressure on other HPV strains to become more dominant and perhaps more virulent in causing cervical cancer
This is a very real possibility and federal health officials and Merck already know that other HPV strains not contained in Gardasil vaccine could become more dominant and continue to cause disease. In fact, this “replacement effect” was discussed in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2007 following the vaccine’s licensure and recommended universal use in 11-12 year old girls in 2006.
There is historical precedent that gives plenty of evidence that mass vaccination policies put pressure on infectious microorganisms to evolve and create new strains or substitute non-vaccine strains with other strains. The “replacement” effect has happened with other infectious organisms that have developed resistance to vaccines used on a mass basis, such as pertussis (whooping cough) and pneumococcal vaccines.
In effect, the mass use of HPV vaccines in the absence of adequate scientific evidence that the vaccine is safe, effective and will not lead to vaccine-resistant HPV strains, brings up this big question: Is this an uncontrolled medical experiment on young girls and women?
It seems to me that getting this vaccine is like playing “Russian Roulette” with your health. CNN Money had it right: the vaccine is a dud. And the new recommended reduced PAP screening schedule may just be the industry’s attempt to rescue it – but at what cost to the health of young girls and women in America?
Please don’t fall for the notion that an HPV vaccine of questionable safety and effectiveness can replace getting regular PAP screens. According to one of the world’s top experts on HPV, the HPV vaccine is associated with enough serious side effects that it could prove riskier than the cancer it is supposed to prevent in women, as cervical cancer is usually entirely curable when detected early through normal PAP screenings.
For More Information on HPV & Gardasil Vaccine
The National Vaccine Information Center has more information on HPV and Gardasil vaccine, including descriptions of Gardasil vaccine reactions and links to the Gardasil vaccine product manufacturer insert.
To search the federal VAERS database of Gardasil vaccine reaction reports to the federal government, see this link.
I also urge you to sign NVIC’s “Investigate Gardasil Risks Now!” petition.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
The Nordic Cochrane Center has put out a leaflet that every woman should read, explaining the potential benefits and potential harms of mammography.
They point out that recent studies suggest mammography screening is not effective in reducing your risk of dying from breast cancer.
And in fact, screening creates breast cancer patients out of healthy women who would never have developed symptoms.
Treatment of these healthy women increases their risk of dying from heart disease and, yes, cancer itself.
According to the Nordic Cochrane Center:
“It therefore no longer seems reasonable to attend for breast cancer screening.
In fact, by avoiding going to screening, a woman will lower her risk of getting a breast cancer diagnosis.”
I highly recommend reading the report in its entirety, as it contains a number of enlightening tidbits that may help you make a more informed decision.
For example, after systematically reviewing the randomized trials of mammography, the authors concluded that:
“ If 2,000 women are screened regularly for 10 years, one will benefit from screening, as she will avoid dying from breast cancer because the screening detected the cancer earlier.
Since these trials were undertaken, treatment of breast cancer has improved considerably.
Women today also seek medical advice much earlier than previously, if they have noted anything unusual in their breasts…
Because of these improvements, screening is less effective today and newer studies suggest that mammography screening is no longer effective in reducing the risk of dying from breast cancer.”
… Since it is not possible to tell the difference between the dangerous and the harmless cell changes and cancers, all of them are treated.
Therefore, screening results in treatment of many women for a cancer disease they do not have, and that they will not get. Based on the randomized trials, it appears that:
If 2,000 women are screened regularly for 10 years, 10 healthy women will be turned into cancer patients and will be treated unnecessarily. These women will have either a part of their breast or the whole breast removed, and they will often receive radiotherapy, and sometimes chemotherapy. Treatment of these healthy women increases their risk of dying, e.g. from heart disease and cancer.”
So, to recap, in order for mammographic breast screening to save ONE woman’s life:
2,000 women must be screened for 10 years
200 women will get false positives, and
10 will receive surgery and/or chemotherapy even though they do not actually have cancer
Cochrane Conclusions Confirmed…
A couple of researchers at the University of Southampton set out to “assess the claim in a Cochrane review that mammographic breast cancer screening could be doing more harm than good.”
Their findings were published in the British Medical Journal in December last year. By combining life years gained from screening with losses of quality of life from false positive diagnoses and surgery, the authors agreed with the Cochrane assessment, concluding that mammograms may indeed have “caused net harm for up to 10 years after the start of screening.”
ABC News reported on this finding:
“The default is to assume that screening must be good; catching something early must be good,” said James Raftery, professor of health technology assessment at the University of Southampton, U.K., and lead author of the review. “But if a woman has an unnecessary mastectomy, or chemotherapy or radiation, that’s a tragedy.
… “It’s difficult to balance the gain of one life against 200 false positives and 10 unnecessary surgeries,” said Raftery… The alternative is watchful waiting: delaying treatment until it’s clear whether a lump is truly a life-threatening tumor. But for woman faced with the words, “breast cancer,” watchful waiting is easier said than done…”
Have Dangerous Cancer Screening Devices Been Approved?
Based on information straight from the horse’s mouth, as it were, the answer to that question appears to be yes. Doctors and scientists at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Device Evaluation have in fact warned Congress that the agency was approving medical devices that posed unacceptable risks to patients. As early as 2007, concerned employees in this department began making internal complaints about a dozen different radiological devices about to be approved despite lack of proof of effectiveness.
They stated they were concerned that millions of patients’ lives would be put at risk from these devices.
This included three devices that risked missing signs of breast cancer, and several colon cancer screening devices that employed such heavy doses of radiation they risked causing cancer in otherwise healthy people. In the case of a computer-aided imaging device for breast cancer screening, the scientists recommended against approval no less than three times, but after the third rejection, a senior manager, Donna-Bea Tillman, suddenly approved the device.
Subsequently, over the course of two years, the FDA secretly monitored the personal e-mail of nine whistleblowers within the department of device evaluations, and tried to launch an investigation against them, accusing them of “undermining the integrity and mission of the FDA” and illegal disclosure of trade secrets. Six of the monitored scientists and doctors recently filed a lawsuit against the FDA, charging that the agency violated their constitutional rights to privacy by monitoring lawful activity in personal email accounts, and using that information to harass and ultimately relieve some of them of their positions.
One of the key players in this ongoing drama is Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, who has repeatedly requested action be taken against the employees in question. Shuren is also the official who oversees mercury dental fillings, which they have been fraudulently referring to as ‘silver fillings.’ Shuren promised to make an announcement about dental amalgam by the end of 2011, but with just minutes left in the work year, the FDA conceded that no announcement was forthcoming, and maybe never will…
The FDA’s own doctors and scientists have called for a complete overhaul of the agency due to “deep-rooted systemic corruption at the highest levels.” There’s no doubt they know what they’re talking about. And there’s a lot of damning information out there that can, and eventually will, be used to call for a congressional hearing on the mammography cover-up.
Mammograms Often Lead to Unnecessary Treatments
In 1974, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) was warned by professor Malcolm C. Pike at the University of Southern California School of Medicine that a number of specialists had concluded that “giving a women under age 50 a mammogram on a routine basis is close to unethical.”
The warning fell on deaf ears, and the long-held conventional medical advice has been for women to get an annual mammogram once they hit 40. A couple of years ago, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force decided to alter their mammogram recommendation, advising women under the age of 50 to avoid mammograms, and limit them to every other year after the age of 50. The revision caused outrage among many cancer organizations. What was overlooked, however, was the reasoning behind the Task Force’s decision to change their recommendation.
The prior advice was given in 2002, before a host of new research came out showing the problems of over diagnosis, including false positives. And as discussed above, it’s really hard to justify harming 10 women with surgery and toxic chemotherapy treatment, just to save the life of one woman…
Part of the problem is that cancer diagnosing is not really a cut and dry process. If a mammogram detects an abnormal spot in a woman’s breast, the next step is typically a biopsy. This involves removing a small amount of tissue from the breast, which is then looked at by a pathologist under a microscope to determine if cancer is present. However, early stage cancer like ductal carcinoma in situ, or D.C.I.S., can be very hard to diagnose, and pathologists have a wide range of experience and expertise. There are actually NO diagnostic standards for D.C.I.S., and there are no requirements that the pathologists doing the readings have specialized expertise…
Increase in Breast Cancer Actually Found to be Due to Over-Diagnosis!
In other recent news, a Norwegian follow-up study that looked at 14 years of mammography screening in Norway concluded that the increased incidence of breast cancer observed in that period was, again, simply due to over-diagnosis. According to the authors:
“In 2004 we wrote in Tidsskriftet that mammography screening resulted in massive over-diagnosis and over-treatment of breast cancer. Our study was criticized because we had only five years of follow-up time and did not take account of the fact that increased use of hormone replacement therapy could lead to more breast cancer.
We have now been screening women for 14 years, and during a period when the use of hormones has fallen by 70 percent.
… The number of new cases of breast cancer in the period increased from around 2,000 to 2,750. About 300 cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were also diagnosed. Today a total of some 1,050 more women have been diagnosed than before screening started. Our calculations indicate that in the absence of screening, around 800 of these women would never have become breast cancer patients. The figures from 14 years of mammography screening indicate that all increase in the incidence of breast cancer is due to over-diagnosis: findings of tumors that in the absence of screening would never have given rise to clinical illness.”
When it Comes to Cancer, Getting Second and Third Opinions is Advisable…
Once you delve into the research, you find that the issue of mammography is not as clear-cut as conventional medical wisdom would have you believe. There are many risks, and according to some studies, these risks will outweigh the potential benefits for many women. And, it appears very clear that more women are harmed by it than are saved…
In the event you do receive a mammogram and a biopsy and are diagnosed with D.C.I.S. or another form of early stage breast cancer, I recommend getting a second, and possibly third and even fourth, opinion. I cannot stress this enough, as the false positive rates are so high, and the diagnostic criteria so subjective. Before you make any decision on treatment, and definitely before you decide to have surgery or chemotherapy, make sure your biopsy results have been reviewed by a breast specialist who is knowledgeable and experienced in the field.
How to Dramatically Cut Your Breast Cancer Risk
There are a number of lifestyle changes that can help prevent breast cancer from ever becoming a reality for you. For starters, we cannot discuss breast cancer without mentioning the importance of vitamin D. Vitamin D, a steroid hormone that influences virtually every cell in your body, is easily one of nature’s most potent cancer fighters. Receptors that respond to vitamin D have been found in nearly every type of human cell, from your bones to your brain. Your liver, kidney and other tissues can convert the vitamin D in your bloodstream into calcitriol, which is the hormonal or activated version of vitamin D.
Your organs then use it to repair damage, including that from cancer cells.
Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis or cancer cell death. When JoEllen Welsh, a researcher with the State University of New York at Albany, injected a potent form of vitamin D into human breast cancer cells, half of them shriveled up and died within days!
The vitamin D worked as well at killing cancer cells as the toxic breast cancer drug Tamoxifen, without any of the detrimental side effects and at a tiny fraction of the cost.
It is my impression that it is criminal malpractice not to recommend vitamin D and aggressively monitor a breast cancer patient’s vitamin D level to get it between 70 and 100 ng/ml. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I am aware of and has no adverse effects. According to one landmark study, some 600,000 cases of breast and colorectal cancers could be prevented each year if vitamin D levels among populations worldwide were increased. And that’s just counting the death toll for two types of cancer (it actually works against at least 16 different types)!
So please do watch my one-hour free lecture on vitamin D to find out what your optimal vitamin D levels should be … and how to get them there. This is one of the most important steps you can take to protect yourself from cancer.
Other Breast Cancer Prevention Musts
A healthy diet, regular physical exercise, appropriate sun exposure and an effective way to manage your emotional health are the cornerstones of just about any cancer prevention program, including breast cancer. But for breast cancer, specifically, you can take it a step further by also watching out for excessive iron levels. This is very common once women stop menstruating, and the extra iron works as a powerful oxidant, increasing free radicals and raising your risk of cancer. So if you are a post menopausal woman or have breast cancer you will certainly want to have your Ferritin level drawn. Ferritin is the iron transport protein and should not be above 80. So if it is elevated you can simply donate your blood to reduce it.
Further, the following lifestyle strategies will help to further lower your risk:
Improve Your Insulin Receptor Sensitivity. The best way to do this is to cut as much sugar, fructose and grains as possible from your diet, and make sure you have an optimized exercise program. Please don’t make the mistake of focusing on cardio to the exclusion of everything else. You can get some ideas from reviewing my video on exercise. (Although I did not mention stretching and flexibility work, such as yoga, in the video, it is a very important part of your exercise program. It will not affect insulin receptors but it will help prevent you from getting injured and stopping your other exercise.)
Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating properly and exercising. It’s important to lose excess weight because estrogen, a hormone produced in fat tissue, may trigger breast cancer.
Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
Avoid drinking alcohol, or limit your drinks to one a day for women.
Breastfeed exclusively for up to six months. Research shows this will reduce your breast cancer risk.
Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy. Breast cancer is an estrogen-related cancer, and according to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates for women dropped in tandem with decreased use of hormone replacement therapy. (There are similar risks for younger women who use oral contraceptives. Birth control pills, which are also comprised of synthetic hormones, have been linked to cervical and breast cancers.)If you are experiencing excessive menopausal symptoms, you may want to consider bioidentical hormone replacement therapyinstead, which uses hormones that are molecularly identical to the ones your body produces and do not wreak havoc on your system. This is a much safer alternative.
Avoid BPA, phthalates and other xenoestrogens. These are estrogen-like compounds that have been linked to increased breast cancer risk
Make sure you’re not iodine deficient, as there’s compelling evidence linking iodine deficiency with breast cancer. Dr. David Brownstein, author of the book Iodine: Why You Need it, Why You Can’t Live Without it, is a proponent of iodine for breast cancer. It actually has potent anticancer properties and has been shown to cause cell death in breast and thyroid cancer cells. For more information, I recommend reading Dr. Brownstein’s book.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
According to the National Breast Cancer Foundation, 200,000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed each year in the US, making it three times more common than other gynecological cancers.
Breast cancer will claim the lives of 40,000 people this year.
In fact, the only type of cancer that claims the lives of more women is lung cancer.
Even more disturbing is the speed at which breast cancer rates have risen over the past 5 decades.
In 1960, one in 20 women was diagnosed—but today, it is one in seven.
The following are some important facts about this type of cancer:
Breast cancer is the leading cause of death for women age 40 to 55.
15 percent of all breast cancers occur in women under age 45; in this age group, breast cancers are more aggressive and have lower recovery rates.
80 percent of breast lumps are NON-cancerous.
70 percent of breast cancers are found through breast self-exams.
About 80 percent of women diagnosed with breast cancer have no family history of breast cancer.
The toxic effects of mammogram radiation are finally being acknowledged as a significant factor in the development of breast cancer. Several recent studies have clearly shown that breast cancer screenings may be causing women more harm than good.
A new study published in the British Medical Journal (December 2011) confirmed that breast cancer screening may cause women harm, especially during the early years after they start screening.This harm is largely due to surgeries, such as lumpectomies and mastectomies, and other (often unnecessary) interventions. The study highlights losses in quality of life from false positive results and unnecessary treatment.
Fortunately, we’re beginning to see the initial stirrings of change, as this latest report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) shows, which calls into question the role environmental exposure may be playing in the development of breast cancer. The IOM committee is absolutely correct in calling for more research into the risks of various environmental exposures over the course of a woman’s lifetime. Isn’t it ironic that the mammogram—the principle diagnostic test given to women to help detect and prevent breast cancer—is responsible for increasing women’s risk for developing it?
Mammogram Radiation is Much More Damaging than a Chest X-Ray
Mammograms use ionizing radiation at a relatively high dose, which can contribute to the mutations that can lead to breast cancer. You can get as much radiation from one mammogram as you would from 1,000 chest X-rays. Mammography also compresses your breasts tightly, which can lead to a dangerous spread of cancerous cells, should they exist. Dr. Samuel Epstein, one of the world’s top cancer experts, has stated:
“The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade’s screening.”
Breast Cancer Screening May Lead to Unnecessary Treatments and Surgeries that Can Actually SHORTEN Your Lifespan
Another concern is that mammograms carry an unacceptably high rate of false positives—up to six percent. False positives can lead to expensive repeat screenings, exposing you to even more radiation, and can sometimes result in unnecessary invasive procedures such as biopsies, surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. In fact, if you undergo breast screenings, you have a 35 percent increased risk of having surgery. If a mammogram detects an abnormal spot in your breast, the next step is typically a biopsy.
This involves taking a small amount of tissue from your breast, which is then looked at by a pathologist under a microscope to determine if cancer is present. These biopsies are notoriously inaccurate, often leading to misdiagnosis and unnecessary treatments, not to mention undue emotional stress.
Just thinking you may have breast cancer, when you really do not, focuses your mind on fear and disease, and the stress is actually enough to trigger an illness. It is well established that stress has damaging effects on your health. So, a false positive diagnosis can be damaging to your health from multiple angles. In a 2009 Cochrane Database Systematic Review of breast cancer screening and mammography, the authors wrote:
“Screening led to 30 percent overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent. This means that for every 2000 women screened for 10 years, one will have her life prolonged, and 10 healthy women who would not have been diagnosed if they had not been screened, will be treated unnecessarily.”
Unfortunately, the disturbing scientific findings do not end there. This means that by having these breast cancer screenings, you may beshortening your life, rather than extending it. In reference to the 2011 BMJ findings about the damage being done by breast cancer screening, SayerJi of Green Med Info wrote:
“What is perhaps most disturbing about these findings is that, while they clearly call into question the safety and effectiveness of breast screenings, the studies upon which they are based use an outdated radiation risk model, which minimizes by a factor of 4 to 5 the carcinogenicity … What this indicates, therefore, is that breast screenings are not just ‘causing more harm than good,’ but are planting seeds of radiation-induced cancer within the breasts of millions of women.”
Mammograms are NOT Really Saving Lives, Research Says
In September 2010, the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most prestigious medical journals, published the first study in years to examine the effectiveness of mammograms. Their findings are a far cry from what most public health officials would have you believe.The bottom line is that mammograms seem to have reduced cancer death rates by only 0.4 deaths per 1,000 women—an amount so small it might as well be zero. Put another way, 2,500 women would have to be screened over 10 years for a single breast cancer death to be avoided.
So, not only are mammograms unsafe, but they are NOT saving women’s lives, as was commonly thought. Past research has also shown that adding an annual mammogram to a careful physical examination of the breasts does not improve breast cancer survival rates over physical examination alone. If mammograms won’t save you, then what will?
Cancer’s Greatest Enemy: Your Immune System
Recent discoveries suggest that your immune system is designed to eliminate cancer. However, when you implement caustic medical interventions (such as radiation and chemotherapy) that damage your immune system so that it cannot respond appropriately, you are destroying your body’s best chances for healing. Unfortunately, mammograms tend to increase the likelihood that women will undertake medical procedures that interfere with this natural healing ability. There is now a great deal of scientific evidence supporting the theory that your own immune system is your best cancer weapon:
Individuals with liver or ovarian cancer survive longer if their killer T cells have invaded their tumors.
A 2005 study showed that colon cancers that most strongly attract T cells are the least likely to recur after treatment.
Another study found that 60 percent of precancerous cervical cells (found on PAP tests) revert to normal within a year,and 90 percent revert within three years.
Some kidney cancers are known to regress, even when highly advanced.
The presence of white blood cells in and around a tumor is often an indication that the cancer will go into remission—or even vanish altogether—as this New York Times article explains. And breast cancer is no exception.
Thirty Percent of Breast Tumors Go Away on their Own
According to breast surgeon Susan Love of UCLA, at least 30 percent of tumors found on mammograms would go away if you did absolutely nothing. These tumors appear to be destined to stop growing on their own, shrink, and even go away completely. This begs the question—how many cancer cures that are attributed to modern interventions like chemotherapy and radiation, are actually just a function of the individual’s immune system ridding itself of the tumor on its own? How many people get over cancer in spite of the treatments that wreak havoc on the body, rather than because of them? It is impossible to definitively answer this question.
But it is safe to say that the strength of your immune system is a major factor in determining whether or not you will beat cancer, once you have it.Nearly everyone has cancerous and pre-cancerous cells in their body by middle age, but not everyone develops cancer. The difference lies in the robustness of each person’s immune system.
Dr. Barnett Kramer of NIHsays it’s becoming increasingly clear that cancers require more than just mutations to progress. They need the cooperation of surrounding cells, certain immune responses, and hormones to fuel them. Kramer describes cancer as a dynamic process, whereas it used to be regarded as “an arrow that moved in one direction” (e.g., from bad to worse). What does this mean for you?
The better you take care of your immune system, the better it will take care of you.
One way to strengthen your immune system is to minimize your exposure to mammograms and other sources of ionizing radiation. But you can also build up your immune system DAILY by making good diet and lifestyle choices. One of the best ways to do this is by optimizing your vitamin D level.
Vitamin D: Cancer Fighter Extraordinaire
Vitamin D, a steroid hormone that influences virtually every cell in your body, is one of nature’s most potent cancer fighters. Receptors that respond to vitamin D have been found in almost every type of human cell, from your bones to your brain. Your liver, kidney and other tissues can convert the vitamin D in your bloodstream into calcitriol, which is the hormonal or activated version of vitamin D. Your organs then use it to repair damage and eradicate cancer cells.
Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis, or cancer cell death.
When JoEllen Welsh, a researcher with the State University of New York at Albany, injected a potent form of vitamin D into human breast cancer cells, half of them shriveled up and died within days.The vitamin D worked as well at killing cancer cells as the toxic breast cancer drug Tamoxifen, without any of the detrimental side effects and at a tiny fraction of the cost.
I strongly recommend making sure your vitamin D level is 70 to 100ng/ml if you’ve received a breast cancer diagnosis. You can achieve this through direct, safe exposure to ultraviolet light, or if this is not possible, by taking an oral vitamin D3 supplement. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I am aware of, without adverse effects. Please watch my free one-hour lecture on vitamin Dfor more information. For a comprehensive guide to breast cancer prevention and treatment, refer to this previous article. Some of the other research-based breast cancer fighters include the following:
Eating plenty of fresh, whole, organic vegetables, especially fermented vegetables
Avoiding all processed foods, and minimizing sugar, grains and starchy foods
Vitamin A plays a role in preventing breast cancer; your best sources are organic egg yolks, raw milk and butter, and beef and chicken liver (from organically raised, grass pastured animals)
Curcumin (the active agent in turmeric) is one of the most potent tumor-inhibiting foods; black cohosh, artemisinin, green tea, kelp, cruciferous vegetables and evening primrose oil also show promise in helping to prevent breast cancer
Getting plenty of exercise daily
If You Are Diagnosed With Early Stage Breast Cancer
In the event that you are diagnosed with early stage breast cancer, always get a second opinion—and possibly a third and fourth. I cannot stress this enough, as false positive rates are just too high and the diagnostic criteria is too subjective.Before you make any decision about treatment, and definitely before you decide to have surgery or chemotherapy, make sure your biopsy results have been reviewed by a breast specialist who is knowledgeable and experienced in that field.
The majority of breast cancer is preventable. But if you are hit with that diagnosis, don’t lose hope! There is a great deal you can do to harness your body’s own powerful healing abilities.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
The truth has once again shaken the foundation of the ‘American Tower of Babel’ that is mainstream science, with a new study out of Harvard University showing that pasteurized milk product from factory farms is linked to causing hormone-dependent cancers. It turns out that the concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) model of raising cows on factory farms churns out milk with dangerously high levels of estrone sulfate, an estrogen compound linked to testicular, prostate, and breast cancers.
Dr. Ganmaa Davaasambuu, Ph.D., and her colleagues specifically identified “milk from modern dairy farms” as the culprit, referring to large-scale confinement operations where cows are milked 300 days of the year, including while they are pregnant. Compared to raw milk from her native Mongolia, which is extracted only during the first six months after cows have already given birth, pasteurized factory milk was found to contain up to 33 times more estrone sulfate.
Evaluating data from all over the world, Dr. Davaasambuu and her colleagues identified a clear link between consumption of such high-hormone milk, and high rates of hormone-dependent cancers. In other words, contrary to what the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the conventional milk lobby would have you believe, processed milk from factory farms is not a health product, and is directly implicated in causing cancer.
“The milk we drink today is quite unlike the milk our ancestors were drinking” without apparent harm for 2,000 years, Dr. Davaasambuu is quoted as saying in the Harvard University Gazette. “The milk we drink today may not be nature’s perfect food.”
Meanwhile, raw, grass-fed, organic milk from cows milked at the proper times is linked to improving digestion, healing autoimmune disorders, and boosting overall immunity, which can help prevent cancer. Though you will never hear any of this from the mainstream media, all milk is not the same — the way a cow is raised, when it is milked, and how its milk is handled and processed makes all the difference in whether or not the end product promotes health or death.
American government seeks to further perpetuate the lie that all milk is the same with egregious new provisions in 2012 Farm Bill
Of particular concern are new provisions in the 2012 Farm Bill that create even more incentives for farmers to produce the lowest quality, and most health-destroying, type of milk possible. Rather than incentivize grazing cows on pastures, which allows them to feed on grass, a native food that their systems can process, the government would rather incentivize confined factory farming methods that force cows to eat genetically-modified (GM) corn and other feed, which makes them sick.
As it currently stands, the government already provides incentives for farmers to stop pasturing their animals, instead confining them in cages as part of a Total Confinement Dairy Model, aka factory farms. But the 2012 Farm Bill will take this a step further by outlawing “component pricing” for milk, which involves allowing farmers to sell milk with higher protein and butterfat at a higher price.
Allowing farmers to sell higher quality milk at a higher price provides an incentive for them to improve the living conditions on their farms, and milk better cow breeds. But the U.S. government would rather standardize all milk as being the same, and create a system where farmers continue to produce cancer-causing milk from sick cows for the millions of children to drink.
Hi, this is Andreas Moritz and today I would like to discuss a question from Catherine and she is asking if someone with Stage 4 gallbladder cancer is strong enough to do the liver cleanse, and she is asking if it will help with the cancer or even the side-effects of past chemotherapy treatments.
First of all, I don’t recommend anyone who has been undergoing chemotherapy to begin with the liver cleansing procedure or process unless there are at least six to eight months between the two.
Chemotherapy drugs are extremely toxic and they cause damage to many parts of the body because of inflammation of cells. As you know, chemotherapy only works because it destroys cells so it will destroy lot of cells, healthy cells, in the body just as well as it can destroy cancerous cells.
It also is a leading cause of gallbladder stones – or gallstones in the gallbladder, and gallstones in the intra-hepatic bile ducts – the bile ducts inside the liver, and so this is something we have to be very careful about, because the inflammation can be so strong in the body because of the chemotherapy that the body doesn’t have the strength and the stamina to endure a cleansing process that will eliminate lot of toxic particles that come from the previously experienced poisoning through chemotherapy.
So, a lot of these stones are filled with toxins, and they should at least stay in the liver for six to eight months before coming out so that the toxins, the poisons are properly encoated – coated and enveloped with bile – so that when they come out they don’t cause harm to the gastro-intestinal wall as they come through. So I don’t recommend at this stage then to do liver and gallbladder flushes.
The other thing is that at that late stage there can be all kinds of complications when stones actually pass through or are eliminated from the gallbladder that I don’t recommend when there is an illness an acute or severe illness like that to do the liver and gallbladder flushes.
So it would be best to focus on other things like diet, lifestyle changes, increasing the vitamin D in the body through regular sun exposure, sleeping early before ten o’clock and eating the main meal at lunch time, so whatever food is digested there is a better chance to digest the food more effectively if it’s eaten at lunch time and only have a light evening meal so that there is not a lot of undigested food lingering in the lower intestines which can put a great burden on the liver.
I have seen Stage 4 gallbladder cancers get reversed. So once she is feeling a lot better, she may intend doing liver and gallbladder flushes, but again, there should be at least six to eight months between doing that and the treatment of chemotherapy.
Thank you so much.
——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyperlink back to the web page
George Whitehurst Berry: Welcome back to another edition of ‘Crash, Are You Ready?’ This is your host George Whitehurst Berry and today we have a very special guest Andreas Moritz and Andreas has been writing a series of books, which will, in my opinion, and are already rocking the foundations of the medical establishment. I have actually done his liver and gallbladder miraclecleanse and having fabulous results, that is one of his books which I would urge all of my listeners to get a copy of, and Andreas has another book now which has a very different approach from what we see as even in the alternative to the drug culture of the medical, allopathic medical establishment, the shortcoming in my opinion, of a lot of these alternative methods is that they adapt the same framework of the germ theory of disease that the allopathic medical establishment has, the only difference being that they are using potentially less toxic herbs instead of drugs, but they’re still focused on -quote unquote- “fighting the disease”. So now Andreas has a very different approach, he has rejected the utterly ‘infamed’ in my opinion, germ theory disease and he’s written a book which is coming from a very different perspective “Cancer is not a Disease! It is a Survival Mechanism”. There is a link to Andreas’ website, on my website of course which is www.crashareyouready.com or you can go directly to Andreas’ website www.ener-chi.com and this is quite a different approach, Andreas, from the regular alternative approach. What did you mean when you made the statement that “it makes no more sense to say that germs cause disease than to say that flies cause garbage”?
Andreas Moritz: You are absolutely right there. Good morning. I’m really enjoying this already because your question is quite deep, very profound statement that’s being made there, simply because you cannot blame a bacterium for decomposing something that is already dead, or that is half dead. It is very normal for an apple that is fallen from the tree, and starts the rotting process, that there will be plenty of bacteria in that apple that will finish off the job, and once the bacteria have done their job you will see a film of like fluffy coloring which will be composed of fungi, so the fungi are there for a purpose, the bacteria are there for a purpose; they are not there to cause disease of the apple, the apple is already useless, it’s bruised and damaged and so therefore nature will deal with it and clean up and mop up the ruins basically.
So what we have in the human body, we have 90 percent of all the cells that exist are bacteria cells. So we are bacteria mostly, and we have a couple of other cells which we call the human body, but actually we are bacteria and it’s not surprising that we are all kinds of bacteria. There are hundreds of strains of bacteria in our body that all fulfill a particular purpose and some are of the destructive kinds, some are anaerobic, some are un-anaerobic that means they live without oxygen, but each one of them has a particular purpose, and to go and say that germs are bad for us like Louis Pasteur, who invented the germ theory, stated early in his career that germs are responsible for causing infectious diseases… but he had to retract that statement at his death bed because he was made to see that germs are not the cause of infection, it is the terrain, it is the environment, that attracts those bacteria to do their job, there is nothing wrong about them.
George Whitehurst Berry: So in essence, then, the whole allopathic standard -quote unquote- “approach” is based on fighting nature?
Andreas Moritz: It is, it’s as if there is the enemy out there and we have to blame the enemy for invading us and we need to destroy the enemy, and so in reality, it’s quite the opposite, the antibodies considered the enemy, the bacteria, are actually the ones that are helping us to get better. What is an infection, after all? An infection involves inflammation, a response of the immune system to kick out and remove toxins that have attracted bacteria or germs, in the first place, if there is something in the body it needs, the body needs to get rid of it, if it cannot do it itself, it needs help of bacteria, fungi or even viruses.
Viruses, by the way, are not living organisms, they are just fragments of proteins so they need the body to reproduce them. The body will only reproduce them if it finds there is a need for it. It doesn’t make such crucial mistakes after having being on this planet for millions of years. We have evolved together with the germs, we are not germ-free, as I said in the beginning, we are full of germs and we have all kinds of germs. We receive germs from our mother when before we even get born, just at time of birth, the mother passes TB-bacteria on to the child… it’s in the breast milk; we get it from the breast milk, why would the mother pass TB-bacteria on to us? Although we need TB-Bacteria to destroy damaged and week cells, so that’s a part of decomposing benefit of bacteria. So instead of going out there and killing them with antibiotics, by making sure we don’t get infections, by suppressing the immune system with the help of vaccines, we are running into deep, deep trouble because we are destroying the very system that is supposed to keep us healthy and we now know that vaccines destroy, literally destroy the immune system…
George Whitehurst Berry: Therefore germs are a vital part of keeping us healthy?
Andreas Moritz: Yes, absolutely, there is a very interesting piece of research that was published a couple of years ago. It didn’t make the headlines unfortunately, but it should have, because it shows exactly what is going on. There were 151 scientific studies that were all pure reviewed studies, very profound studies, done over the last at least 100 years up to the date 2006, and what these studies showed is that children that received vaccines had a significantly increased risk of developing cancer later in life because they were vaccinated against infectious diseases, childhood diseases, that a normal child will experience usually in mild forms, sometimes severe, but typically non-eventful even. Many times we are exposed to germs, our immune system will respond, it will create antibodies and we don’t even know about it. But to go…
George Whitehurst Berry: Is it possible that these childhood diseases ‘so called’ are actually stimulating the immune system to avoid in later life potentially much more life threatening situations?
Andreas Moritz: Exactly! That’s what the study was about, to prove that suppressing the immune system with vaccines, not allowing the infections to occur, not allowing…
George Whitehurst Berry: Their natural process, there’s that music we’ll be right back after the break with Andreas Moritz…….
All right, we’re back with our very special guest Andreas Moritz, and again Andreas’ website is www.ener-chi.com and Andreas, I’d like to talk just briefly about one of my favorite books of all time, the book I’ve got in my hand right now “The liver and gallbladder miracle cleanse” and I actually did the cleanse after taking a, doing a, series of colonics, I spent several months, every lunar new month doing the liver and gallbladder miracle cleanse, and I would like to specifically zero in on the other insanity of the standard allopathic approach with an example in this book and then apply that same logic to the new book “Cancer Is Not A Disease, It’s A Survival Mechanism” and in “The liver and gallbladder miracle cleanse’, you mention the fact that the body has a logic and a wisdom of its own, so for example, when the body raises the blood pressure, the body knows what it’s doing, the standard approach is to suppress the body’s efforts to heal itself. What’s really going on when the body raises the blood pressure…
Andreas Moritz: Right, that’s very good example. You can look in nature, if there’s a pathway blocked for example, there’s a river and you put up a dam, obviously you’re building pressure against the dam wall and if the pressure exceeds the resistance that the dam wall provides, then the dam wall is going to break, so it’s just like that in body, if there is congestion building up, if the large intestine is clogged up, if the kidney pathways are clogged up with stones, you can expect high blood pressure. If the lymphatic vessels are congested, the blood pressure will go up because the lymph and blood are connected, if the liver bile ducts are clogged up, you can get hepatic hypertension, wherever there is congestion, it will add to the overall blood pressure in the body.
So when the blood pressure is going up, it’s sign that the body is doing the right thing to deliver the right amount of nutrients and oxygen to the cells in the body. Now, when you artificially lower the blood pressure, what you’re doing is… you’re basically undersupplying, you’re causing a famine among the cells of the body, and this can cause damage to vital organs, eventually the kidneys are going to fail, eventually the liver is going to fail and the heart itself is going to fail because it also needs to be supplied with oxygen and nutrients. So there are studies now to show that if you lower the blood pressure with medication, you’re actually causing the same thing that you’re trying to prevent, heart disease…
George Whitehurst Berry: That’s absolutely astonishing, that that alternative approach would not be more accepted when the overwhelming amount of empirical data supports that easily researched conclusion, and now when you have a situation where somebody might be asking the question “well, how could I be starving, I’m eating a lot of foods”, well, If I understand you correctly, what you’re saying there is that it doesn’t matter how much food you’re consuming – if you’re body is not absorbing properly, then you could literally, even though somebody is eating a lot of -quote unquote- “food”, they might be starving at the cellular level, at the cellular level the body is trying to compensate by raising the blood pressure…
Andreas Moritz: You’re right, you know the problem is partly due to what we eat, when we eat, if you eat a major meal in the evening, when the digestive ability of the body is about 10 percent of what it is at lunch time, at noon time, then obviously you’re having a lot of undigested food that is going to decompose in the intestines, which invite the bacteria, the destructive kind of bacteria to decompose it, and these bacteria produce toxins and these toxins get absorbed, they get into the blood and lymph and then they’re carried to the liver and then the liver tries to accommodate those in the bile which causes clotting or clogging up of the bile ducts with intra-hepatic gallstones, then you don’t secrete enough bile and then the bile is insufficient in helping you to digest the food that you eat, even if you eat healthy foods, and if you eat light meals in the evening and more substantial meals at lunch time, suddenly you are not going to digest all your food anymore, and the less you digest, the more deficient the nutrients supply to the cells is, so now you have a direct connection between undernourished cells and the bile duct congestion in the liver, that’s why the liver flush, the first book that I wrote and that’s still there, it’s “The Amazing Liver And Gallbladder Flush” is helpful to flush out the stones and clear the bile ducts, making sure that you produce enough bile, release the bile when it is needed to help digest foods like fats… in order to digest carbohydrates you need fats, in order to digest fats you need bile, and not making enough bile or secreting enough bile will leave these carbohydrates, also plus the protein is undigested and then you have lack of nutrients on the cellular level, then the body is congested all over because once the cells become undernourished, their metabolism drops, and then they cannot get rid of their metabolic waste products like lactic acid, uric acid, urea, ammonia…
George Whitehurst Berry: Could those lead to conditions, those facts lead to conditions like gout etc. and a host of other acidic based diseases?
Andreas Moritz: Absolutely, because then the cell environment becomes acidic and then it cannot take up oxygen well enough anymore so its literally lying in an oxygen bath, sorry, in an acid bath, and then the body becomes acidified and gradually the oxygen supply to the cells diminishes and that brings us to cancer as it has been known for a long, long time that each cancer cell is an oxygen deprived cell where the cell has learned to live without oxygen, that it can survive living without oxygen and living…
George Whitehurst Berry: In other words, are you saying that an effect of the cancer cell is a type of anaerobic cell?
Andreas Moritz: Yes, because cancer cells by their very definition are cells that live without oxygen, it’s not possible for a cancer cell to thrive on oxygen, it cannot grow on oxygen, it has changed, mutated its genes, to be able to live without oxygen, and that’s because the cell environment has changed and become toxic…
George Whitehurst Berry: Cell environment has changed and there’s that music again, we’ll continue this right after the break with Andreas Moritz…….
I’m with Andreas Moritz and Andreas, I’m holding the book the “Liver And Gallbladder Miracle Cleanse” in my hands, and as I mentioned earlier, I did the whole cleanse for several months and very painlessly and a 100 percent painlessly I was able to get out thousands of liver stones and gallstones by simply using olive oil, grapefruit juice and Epsom salts, and following the exact sequence that Andreas talks about in his book, and I will highly recommend all of my listeners to get a copy of this, not only would the information possibly save your life and that of your loved ones and friends, but also having read for years and been interested for years in alternative medicine, what I found in Andreas’ book is something that anyone, any lay person can read, because it’s not full of a lot of technical, obscure terminology, it is written so that any lay person can easily understand it, and what’s amazing about the information revealed in this book and specifically applying this to the liver and gallbladder miracle cleanse, in contrast to what I believe is the utter insanity of the standard allopathic approach, which is to remove the gallbladder and then they say that you shouldn’t eat fried food as well, as Andreas just pointed out earlier, without a gallbladder you can’t digest any food properly, now I contrast that what I believe to be utter insanity, with the fact that the body, when it raises the blood pressure is making a logical tradeoff, yes, I know that I might die down the road by raising my blood pressure, but on the other hand I might die right away from a heart attack and my cells are starving right now, so Andreas, what really, really impresses me is the fact that the body has a logic and a wisdom and it’s making a logical tradeoffs…
Andreas Moritz: You’re absolutely right, the body actually never ever makes mistakes, what we call mistakes are very sophisticated survival or protective or compensation mechanisms, and if we only read those instead of misdiagnosing them as diseases or symptoms of diseases, and if we understood what they really are and why they occur, then we can trace them back to their root causes and say okay, now lets rectify that, and let the body take care of the rest, supporting the body through an illness is far, far more efficient then trying to vilify the body and tell it that it’s making a giant mistake and it needs to be saved, the body is already saving itself when it has an illness, fever, for example, during an infection is the perfect way to increase the immune cells so that the white blood cells… so that the body can deal with it, if we suppress the fever with medication, then the body cannot do that, now the body cannot rid itself of the toxins that have accumulated that led to this infection in the first place, likewise cancer is really a toxicity syndrome, the body becomes so toxic or overburdened with carcinogenic substances that we ingest through our food, we know we have herbicides and pesticides, we have environmental toxins, we have fluoride in the drinking water, they are all carcinogens, there is aspartame which breaks into wood alcohol, there is formaldehyde like in vaccines, the vaccines have 63 carcinogenic chemicals in them. So there are so many different things that we ingest in the body, no wonder the body will have to come up with some ingenious rescue, remedy-type situations which we unfortunately deem to be diseases, whereas there are very, very calculated wise decisions the body makes on our behalf. So we should…
George Whitehurst Berry: And that is absolutely amazing, the statement you made that the body never makes mistakes, the body knows exactly what it’s doing and that is an incredible tribute to the wisdom and logic of nature, and by fighting nature, we assume that we’re smarter than nature is, and then we get the tragic results of people actually being harmed instead of benefitted, but let’s apply that logic of how the body is making logical tradeoffs, specifically to the book that you wrote about cancer. Now “Cancer Is Not A Disease, It’s A Survival Mechanism”, what logical tradeoff is the body making when it is in a cancerous state?
Andreas Moritz: Well, first of all, every person makes cancer all the time, every single day we turn over 30 billion cells, one percent of which are cancerous cells, so the immune system tracks them, makes sure that they are not proliferating, that they are not spreading, they are basically demolished. There are different methods the body uses in order to do that. Now when you have a different case scenario that is not arising from the turn over cells there because the body becomes congested, that cell groups in the body are cut off from their oxygen supply when their surrounding tissues become acidified, or the person goes through trauma that raises the stress hormones like Cortisol and adrenaline which are basically undermining or paralyzing important functions in the body, so during stress, the body cannot deal with the removal of metabolic waste products and so the tissues become acidified. In that instance the person will have to take recourse to other measures, the immune system will start sending and packing a lot of immune cells, white cells, to the area where your cancer can develop and it is actually supporting it, it is not trying to destroy these cancer cells because it knows these cancer cells they mop up toxins, they imbibe toxins, you find in every cancer cell a lot of bacteria and fungi and possibly even viruses that help to mop up like solvents and breakdown and decompose harmful substances inside the cell. Now in order for cells to do that, they will have to change the program, they have to mutate, so that it allows them to do this extraordinary job that normally cells are not supposed to do. They’re not meant for that, the body will support the growth of these cells, these extra cells and make more of them by…
George Whitehurst Berry: That’s an amazing concept; the body is actually supporting the cancer…
Andreas Moritz: Yes, tumor cells like the white blood cells, they are there, they are attached and let’s say, if you look at any tumor, 60 percent of all the tumor cells are actually white blood cells, white cells that come form the blood that these are the killer cells, the so-called killer cells that’s supposed to destroy cancer cells, but they don’t do it, they don’t act on it, it’s not that they are stupid, they are very wise, white blood cells are extremely wise, they are so complex that we don’t even understand them yet.
Now when you look at why the person is allowing the cancer to grow, then you understand that there is a deep wisdom behind cancer, it’s not an accidental occurrence, when the tumor is growing, it will start mopping up the surrounding, it will be supplied with new blood vessels, new blood vessels are forming to supply the cancer cells, to actually then increase their growth rate. Now there comes a point when the mopping up has been completed and the toxins and harmful substances are gone, then the cancer tumors will simply collapse through a massive infection which will include TB bacteria to decompose these cells, and will show up in the pee, in the urine, as extra protein, and it can happen within 24 to 36 hours…
George Whitehurst Berry: Oh that rapidly? All right, we’ll be back right after the break with Andreas Moritz…..
All right, we’re back with Andreas Moritz, and I would like to call your attention, listeners, to an article I wrote on my website, which of course is crashareyouready.com and then specifically apply that logic, that reasoning to this interview because in the article I wrote “never allow the mass media to set a false frame around an issue and then argue from within that frame of reference because if you do, your counter argument has already degenerated into a controlled opposition argument” and as I said at the beginning of this interview, that’s the problem that I see with the alternative, so many in the alternative medicine field will use a weak degenerated controlled opposition type argument to counter the allopathic standard approach which is to use toxic drugs and surgery.
So if you are arguing within that false frame of reference, you’re going to lose, and you’re going to lose every time so if somebody says we should fight cancer with toxic drugs, then you respond no, there are less toxic ways, to -quote unquote- “fight the cancer”, you already lost that argument because you are arguing within a false frame of reference, you allowed the opposition to set the frame and then you argued from within that false frame and in neuro-linguistic programming they call that ‘framing’ and the mass media with its propaganda knows all about that they have some of the best experts in the world. So, Andreas, what is the proper frame of reference for this issue, should we, in fact, be -quote unquote- “fighting the cancer” at all?
Andreas Moritz: Absolutely not, because the moment you’re going into a “fight or flight” response, you are jeopardizing the healing response, you’re rendering it impossible for the body to heal itself, so the diagnosis of cancer is a very serious death sentence that is being given to a patient with a condition, but “we can perhaps prolong your life if you do this, this and this, if you take chemotherapy, radiation, or have surgery, or all of them combined…” so you are almost blackmailing a person into submission, getting into a corner, feeling cornered, weak, becoming a victim of some sort where the person will either fight or flee, and so the “fight or flight” response will occur under severe stress ,and one of the worst kinds of stress that you can experience if some one is telling you, you have a deadly disease and you’re going to die very slowly, so what the person is taking from this, he’s going to go home, he’s going to worry about it, he’s worrying for his life, he’s scared about his family being put into a very difficult situation, he may lose his job, be unable to work, and he’s making up all kinds of… imagining all kinds of difficulties in life including dying from this vicious thing, and so what the person is undergoing is like the typical severe stress response, he goes into a shock, the shock is not allowing the person to sleep during the night because the person is producing so much adrenaline that he cannot sleep, he cannot relax, the second thing is that the digestive functions are shut down, literally shut down, because the blood vessels are constricted, the blood vessels that supply the digestive system to help digest food are restricted, they are not allowing enough blood to enter the small and large intestine and the stomach, so the food isn’t digested, the person is wasting away because the nutrients are not reaching the cells, and then the person is being told, “well, the cancer is doing all this to you and therefore we need to cut it out we need to burn it or we need to poison it…”
George Whitehurst Berry: The predisposition to all of this is that we know better than the nature, we, the body is making mistakes, and we’re going to fight nature, and we’re so much smarter then the body is…
Andreas Moritz: Yes, and once again, it’s not really cancer that has any killing qualities to it, these are cells that… if you saw a cancer cell and compared it with a normal cell, you wouldn’t see much of a difference there, it’s just that the behaviors, the responsibilities of the cancer cell is very different than a normal cell. When you get stressed, when you get frightened of something, your lungs will start producing extra cells that take up oxygen, they’re called alveoli cells and they are produced in large quantities and so if you get a diagnosis, if someone looks at your chest during the stress and says “oh my god, there is a speck of something, there is like a tumor growing in your lungs”, this is a normal situation and it will disappear again by itself, there is now research to show that actually most cancers disappear on their own, there are many people who die from natural or unnatural causes like an accident, and then they are receiving an autopsy after they die, and so what happens is that 45 or 44 percent of them had had tumors in their body, cancerous tumors, and never had a problem because of them ,and we now know that many cancer cell become inactive, they become encapsulated, if they’re not healed up they become completely harmless, don’t do anything to the body, so…
George Whitehurst Berry: That’s the kind of logic that I encounter so much, about in relation to these people that really write newsletters and about markets, and the economy, and their reasoning was completely faulty, I saw lightning, I saw a war, I saw gold go up for example, therefore the war caused the gold to go up, I saw lightning hit the ground, saw gold to go up, therefore the lightening caused the gold to go up, so again the fact that people, these autopsies, show some cancer cells… then how can they, as you just pointed out, how can they treat the cause and effect the person die from the -quote unquote- “cancer”?
Andreas Moritz: Yes, the cancer again doesn’t have killer weapons, they are no weapons of mass destruction, cancer cells don’t kill the body, they can become obstructive in certain organs and there are things one can do to alleviate that but in itself, cancer cells have no killing qualities, the wasting that results when there is a cancer is due to the worry, their ‘fight or flight’ response that can go on for months and months and months after diagnosis. When I used to see cancer patients I told them that there is something wonderful about the cancer, I completely restructured their belief system and then focused their attention on what caused the cancer, and to completely leave the cancer alone and they completely disappeared and in almost every single instance…
George Whitehurst Berry: Also, they are also changing their frame of reference from “you’re going to die” to “you’re going to live” and something you said earlier is amazing, that the completion of the healing process can occur between 24 and 36 hours…
Andreas Moritz: Oh yes, tumors can break down, I’ve seen a tumor can disappear within 15 seconds on an ultrasound comparing the original tumor and then seeing what happened during the process of healing, in 15 seconds the whole thing collapsed, disintegrated and then the person had to run to the toilet 20 times, found a massive amount of protein in the urine which was basically tumor proteins from the tumor cells. So it’s not a difficult thing for the body to do, but the body doesn’t try to do it right away, when you have had a massive buildup of extra cells, I don’t call them cancer cells, they are extra cells… they are doing extraordinary things, they are built during stressful times when the body cannot live with the regular amount of cells, they need extra cells…
George Whitehurst Berry: You said something earlier about the fact that these cancer cells are 60 percent white cells and the macrophages could easily destroy…
Andreas Moritz: Tumors… yes…
George Whitehurst Berry: The cancer cells if we choose to do so, but they don’t…
Andreas Moritz: Tumors are composed of 60 percent of white cells and 40 percent cancer cells, plus and minus, but that’s basically what the tumor is…
——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyperlink back to the web page
Daily breakfasts with bacon or sausage are still common for many who haven’t become vegetarians. Just think about the amount of breakfast burritos and McMuffins sold. Indulging in other processed meats such as lunch and dinner sausages, pepperoni pizzas, salami and corned beef sandwiches increases the odds of getting pancreatic cancer.
According to a Swedish epidemiological study conducted by Professor Sussana Larsson at the Karolinska Institute and published in the British Journal of Cancer, just 50 grams a day of processed meat, equivalent to one sausage, increases the risk of pancreatic cancer by 19 percent.
Eating 100 grams of processed meat per day increased the risk to 38 percent, according to the study that included data from 11 trials and 6,643 patients with pancreatic cancer. The importance of this study of pancreatic cancer was emphasized because although it is relatively rare, it has an extremely low survival rate, especially with conventional medicine.
As a result of this study, the UK is officially advising citizens to keep their daily processed meat level at or below 70 grams. Professor Larsson also said that while red meat in general increases the risk of colorectal cancer, there was more of link to pancreatic cancer from processed red meats.
This is not the first such research linking pancreatic cancer to processed meats. Others cite even higher risk percentages. The health ranger explains why processed meats are the worst.
Alternative cancer approaches can handle pancreatic cancer
The high, often rapid mortality rate of pancreatic cancer in conventional medicine motivated Texas small town dentist William Donald Kelley to research and create his own approach for curing his pancreatic cancer.
This was done in three phases: First he realized that a major dietary change was necessary. He avoided red meats, sugar, and processed foods while focusing on fresh whole mostly raw vegetables, grains, and fruits. Then he discovered an early 20th Century Scottish embryologist John Beard’s discovery of curing cancer by injecting pancreatic juices, which contained proteolytic enzymes.
This type of enzyme can burst open cancer cell walls. But they are also used for breaking down tough complete proteins found in meat. So heavy meat eating occupies the type of enzymes needed for any cancer. Kelly found which proteolytic enzymes worked best and added enzyme activators that he observed were lacking.
In order to eliminate dead cancer cell toxins, Kelley added daily liver cleanses with coffee enemas. Then he discovered that a handful of people needed some meat in their diet to complete their cure.
So he created a system of metabolic typing to determine the exact diets cancer patients needed. Eventually his cure rate exceeded 90%, and obviously he had cured himself.
Today, Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez carries on with Kelley’s protocol, albeit slightly modified, in NYC, despite several attempts to shut him down. He and Dr. Linda Isaacs continue their practice with funding from several different sources under the FDA’s Investigational New Drug (IND) and compassionate use guidelines.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
On October 25, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices issued the recommendation that Merck’s vaccine against the human papilloma virus (HPV), Gardasil, be given to males between the ages of 11 and 21.
They further recommend the vaccine series can be given to boys as young as nine, as well as to men up to the age of 26, especially if they engage in homosexual sex—allegedly to offer partial protection against genital warts, and cancers of the penis and rectum.
Another key part of the recommendation is the claim that reducing HPV in men will reduce transmission to girls and women, and thereby prevent cervical cancer deaths.
But according to a recent study, which is based on a mathematical study of HPV transmission, this is not an effective strategy.
Rather, the authors concluded that:
“Increasing vaccine uptake among preadolescent girls is more effective in reducing HPV infection than including boys in existing vaccination programs.
As a rule, directing prophylactic immunization at the sex with the highest prevaccine prevalence results in the largest reduction of the population prevalence.”
According to an MSNBC report:
“Because many countries have started vaccinating girls against HPV, these countries should stick to vaccinating girls, said study researcher Johannes Bogaards, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam. Only once most girls are vaccinated should efforts begin to vaccinate boys, and even then, only if there will be an added benefit to male vaccination, Bogaards said.”
There’s NO Evidence that Gardasil Reduces Cervical Cancer Incidence
Despite Merck’s claims, the question of whether Gardasil will reduce cervical cancer deaths in real-world conditions has actually never been answered. The company-sponsored studies on the subject looked at cervical changes that aren’t indicative of cervical cancer in the first place.
According to Discover Magazine:
“Merck says that in males, the vaccine is 89 percent effective against genital warts and 75 percent effective against anal cancer. On closer inspection, some of the numbers don’t just deflate, they evaporate … So how did the HPV vaccine become a multi-billion-dollar winner for Merck? Well you might not be surprised to hear that the company happily lavished money on doctors, professional societies, and over 100 legislators.”
Vanishing Efficacy Rates
In her Discover article, medical investigative journalist Jeanne Lenzer goes on to expose how misleading Merck’s stated efficacy rates really are:
“On May 10, 2007, Merck published the results of a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that claimed an astounding 98 percent efficacy in preventing changes in the cervix used as a marker for cervical cancer.
But…[to] achieve the 98 percent efficacy claim, Merck excluded from analysis anyone who “violated” the study protocol. In other words, all real-world problems that arose were excluded from analysis. Problems like girls who refused to take a second or third shot after they became sick and (correctly or incorrectly) blamed the vaccine…
To Merck’s credit, they reported that when all women in the study were analyzed, the vaccine’s efficacy dropped to 44 percent… [But the] 44 percent benefit included only those women with the two specific cancer-causing HPV strains found in the vaccine… [W]hen the researchers looked at negative cervical changes from any causes, they found that changes occurred in unvaccinated women at a rate of 1.5 events per 100 person-years, while vaccinated women had 1.3 events—dropping the benefit to 17 percent.
Moreover, most of the cervical changes tracked by the researchers weren’t even indicative of cervical cancer in the first place. Most were innocent cellular abnormalities that either disappear entirely on their own, or never progress to cancer. In fact, when they looked more closely at advanced cervical changes most likely to progress to cancer versus more innocent changes that go away spontaneously, it was the innocent changes that accounted for the decline.” [Emphasis mine]
Gardasil has already proven to be a reactive vaccine with potentially devastating side effects. In order to accept a high level of risk to your child’s health, don’t you think you deserve some pretty overwhelming proof that it is in fact worth this risk? Ultimately you need to carefully review the risk/benefit ratio of this vaccine and carefully consider this important decision.
Why Expose Millions to Potential Harm in Order to Save a Handful?
According to a recent CNN report, the cost to vaccinate 11- and 12-year old boys would be $38 million. How can this in any way be justified as cost-effective, when anal cancer, for example, has so far stricken a mere 5,820 men and women this year. The annual death rate from anal cancer is 770 individuals—300 men and 470 women!
Gardasil is claimed to be 75 percent effective against anal cancer in men, so crunch the numbers… This is nothing short of crazy. They actually want to place millions of people at risk with this dangerous vaccine in order to reduce anal cancer deaths that claims less than 300 men per year? That’s incredible! Likewise, cervical cancer accounts for less than ONE percent of all cancer deaths, so this vaccine is certainly not aimed at any major health threat, no matter which way you look at it. But it gets worse. As explained by Lenzer in the featured article:
“First off, let’s define the problem: The annual number of deaths from anal-rectal cancer among all men in the U.S. is 300. And how did Merck get its happy statistics on efficacy? Once again, they reported an idealized benefit by excluding from analysis 1,250 study violators out of 4,055 total test subjects. When the real-world analysis was conducted, the numbers plunged—right down to plum nothing. After evaluating tissue changes in male genitalia that were suggestive of a cancer precursor, Merck reported that vaccine efficacy against such lesions “was not observed.”
Believe me, this is a health emergency in the making. Please do not be deceived into giving this dangerous vaccine to your kids, regardless of their gender. As Angela Raffle, a specialist in cervical cancer screening, told the New York Timesthree years ago:
“Oh, dear. If we give it to boys, then all pretenses of scientific worth and cost analysis goes out the window.”
Gardasil Sorely Lacking in Safety
While cost-effectiveness is an important concern, I believe safety would certainly trump it. It’s important to realize that while Gardasil hasnot been proven to actually prevent cancer in the long term, there is mounting evidence showing it carries tremendous long-term health risks, including:
According to the featured article:
“… Nizar Souayah, MD, of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in Newark, says he and his colleagues found “clear evidence from our database of an increased incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome in the first six weeks, especially the first two weeks, after [HPV] vaccination.”
There’s also another important factor to take into account when discussing the potential risks versus alleged benefits of the HPV vaccine, and that is the effect the vaccine will have on other cancer-causing HPV strains. Might it actually promote more aggressive cancers? No one knows… This issue was however raised in the September issue of New Scientist:
“[W]hat effect will the vaccine have on the other cancer-causing strains of HPV? Nature never leaves a void, so if HPV-16 and HPV-18 are suppressed by an effective vaccine, other strains of the virus will take their place. The question is, will these strains cause cervical cancer?
Results from clinical trials are not encouraging. Vaccinated women show an increased number of precancerous lesions caused by strains of HPV other than HPV-16 and HPV-18. “
Why Risk Your Life to Prevent an Avoidable Disease?
Deadly blood clots, acute respiratory failure, cardiac arrest and “sudden death due to unknown causes” have all occurred in girls shortly after they’ve received the Gardasil vaccine. These are atrocious risks to potentially prevent cervical cancer someday down the road. And for boys, these are profound risks to prevent the spread of HPV to girls, and to potentially prevent 300 anal cancer deaths a year…
According to the CDC more than 6 million women contract HPV annually, yet less than 3,900 women will die from cervical cancer out of those 6 million. This is because, in 90 percent of all cases, your immune system can clear up the HPV infection on its own. Furthermore, the infection is primarily spread through sexual contact, so it is behaviorally avoidable.
The bottom line is that Gardasil is largely ineffective, potentially very dangerous, both for girls and boys, and a major waste of money. Of course, you need to do your own careful research, but I simply cannot recommend this vaccine for anyone. There are far better ways to protect yourself and your sons and daughters against HPV infection, and all potentially related cancers.
Talk to your kids about HPV. The infection is transmitted through direct skin-to-skin contact. Its main mode of transmission is sexual (genital-to-genital contact), so for sexually active persons, condoms can reduce the risk of HPV by 70 percent. Since condoms cannot offer 100 percent protection, it’s important to understand that other factors that increase your chances of getting HPV include having multiple sex partners, having a low immune system, having other sexually transmitted diseases, and using hormonal contraceptives.
Also, be aware that the vaccine doesn’t work if you’ve already been exposed to the viruses against which it protects. Health officials know this – in fact, both HPV vaccine manufacturers say this in their prescribing inserts for physicians.
Keep your immune system strong. A healthy immune system is better able to handle a heavier emotional and physical stress load. The ideal healthy habits to keep your body and mind strong are detailed in these 12 changes that will cut your cancer risk in half.
Keep Educating Yourself on Vaccines
It is becoming increasingly necessary to continue to educate yourself and your family on the issues surrounding vaccinations of all kinds. There are so many problems; no one article can possibly cover them all. You can find and search all vaccine related articles on my Latest Vaccine News page. I also recommend you familiarize yourself with the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) web site. As a leader for vaccine safety, the NVIC offers information on everything from laws to informed consent to late-breaking vaccine news.
For information about Gardasil and HPV infection, please see this fact page.
What You Can Do to Make a Difference
While it seems “old-fashioned,” the only truly effective actions you can take to protect the right to informed consent to vaccination and expand vaccine exemptions, is to get personally involved with your state legislators and the leaders in your community.
THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.
Mass vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level, and it is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.
Signing up for NVIC’s free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org not only gives you access to practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community, but when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips to make sure your voice is heard.
So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.
Contact Your Elected Officials
Write or email your elected state representatives and share your concerns. Call them, or better yet, make an appointment to visit them in person in their office. Don’t let them forget you!
It is so important for you to reach out and make sure your concerns get on the radar screen of the leaders and opinion makers in your community, especially the politicians you elect and are directly involved in making vaccine laws in your state. These are your elected representatives, so you have a right and a responsibility to let them know what’s really happening in your life and the lives of people you know when it comes to vaccine mandates. Be sure to share the “real life” experiences that you or people you know have had with vaccination.
Share Your Story with the Media and People You Know
If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please talk about it. If we don’t share information and experiences with each other, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is only presenting one side of the vaccine story.
I must be frank with you; you have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the “other side” of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.
We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies to dominate the conversation about vaccination. The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than “statistically acceptable collateral damage” of national one-size-fits-all mass vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn’t be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.
Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
I encourage you to visit the following web pages on the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) website at www.NVIC.org:
NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment by doctors or government officials for making independent vaccine choices.
Connect with Your Doctor or Find a New One that Will Listen and Care
If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don’t want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination.
However, there is hope.
At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they’re starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.
So take the time to locate a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
In 2011, it was estimated that nearly 1.6 million people would be diagnosed with cancer, and more than 570,000 would die of the disease.
With an epidemic such as this, virtually every safe preventive strategy available deserves attention.
But when a simple, and virtually free, strategy emerges that shows promise in reducing rates of not one, not two, but potentially dozens of different types of cancer, it needs to be shouted from the rooftops.
So open your ears — such a strategy does exist: Sun Exposure and Vitamin D!
Sunlight Protects Against Cancer by Stimulating the Production of Vitamin D
New research just in confirms that if you want to slash your risk of cancer, it’s essential that you spend adequate time in the sun or a safe tanning bed, or at the very least supplement with proper amounts of vitamin D3.
Specifically, researchers found that, consistently, the higher the solar UVB, the lower the incidence of 15 different types of cancer, including:
The review, based largely on three studies from the United States, one each from Australia, China, France, Japan, and Spain, and eight multi-country studies of cancer incidence rates that collectively examined more than 100 countries, concluded:
“The evidence for the UVB-vitamin D-cancer hypothesis is very strong in general and for many types of cancer in particular.”
Further, they noted that weaker evidence exists that solar UVB also leads to lower rates of cancer of the following types:
More Than 200 Studies Show Vitamin D Plays a Role in Cancer
Theories linking vitamin D to certain cancers have been tested and confirmed in more than 200 epidemiological studies, and understanding of its physiological basis stems from more than 2,500 laboratory studies, according to epidemiologist Cedric Garland, DrPH, professor of family and preventive medicine at the UC San Diego School of Medicine. Here are just a few highlights into some of the most noteworthy findings:
Some 600,000 cases of breast and colorectal cancers could be prevented each year if vitamin D levels among populations worldwide were increased, according to previous research by Dr. Garland and colleagues. And that’s just counting the death toll for two types of cancer.
Optimizing your vitamin D levels could help you to prevent at least 16 different types of cancer including pancreatic, lung, ovarian, prostate, and skin cancers.
A large-scale, randomized, placebo-controlled study on vitamin D and cancer showed that vitamin D can cut overall cancer risk by as much as 60 percent. This was such groundbreaking news that the Canadian Cancer Society has actually begun endorsing the vitamin as a cancer-prevention therapy.
Light-skinned women who had high amounts of long-term sun exposure had half the risk of developing advanced breast cancer (cancer that spreads beyond your breast) as women with lower amounts of regular sun exposure, according to a study in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
A study by Dr. William Grant, Ph.D., internationally recognized research scientist and vitamin D expert, found that about 30 percent of cancer deaths – which amounts to 2 million worldwide and 200,000 in the United States — could be prevented each year with higher levels of vitamin D.
On a personal level, you can decrease your risk of cancer by MORE THAN HALF simply by optimizing your vitamin D levels with sun exposure. And if you are being treated for cancer it is likely that higher blood levels—probably around 70-100 ng/ml—would be beneficial. Vitamin D’s protective effect against cancer appears to work in multiple ways, including:
Increasing the self-destruction of mutated cells (which, if allowed to replicate, could lead to cancer)
Reducing the spread and reproduction of cancer cells
Causing cells to become differentiated (cancer cells often lack differentiation)
Reducing the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones, which is a step in the transition of dormant tumors turning cancerous
What are You Waiting For? Why Not Start Optimizing Your Levels Now?
Many Americans simply are not getting enough vitamin D to even maintain healthy bones, much less getting enough to fight off diseases like cancer. There are two primary reasons for this, one being that many people are still worried that going out in the sun will lead to skin cancer. It’s important to understand, however, that the risk of skin cancer from the sun comes only from excessive exposure.
When used properly, sunlight exposure will help you prevent cancer.
To optimize your levels, you need to expose large portions of your skin to the appropriate amounts of sunlight. And, contrary to popular belief, the best time to be in the sun for vitamin D production is actually as near to solar noon as possible. During this time you need the shortest exposure time to produce vitamin D because UVB rays are most intense at this time. Plus, when the sun goes down toward the horizon, the UVB is filtered out much more than the dangerous UVA.
Just be cautious about the length of your exposure. You only need enough exposure to have your skin turn the lightest shade of pink. Once you reach this point your body will not make any additional vitamin D due to its self-regulating mechanism. Any additional exposure will only cause harm and damage to your skin.
Vitamin D from sun exposure or a safe tanning bed is the BEST way to optimize your vitamin D levels. Safe tanning beds have electronic ballasts rather than magnetic ballasts, which helps you avoid unnecessary exposure to health-harming EMF fields. They also have less of the dangerous UVA than sunlight, while unsafe ones have more UVA than sunlight. The second primary reason so many are vitamin-D-deficient, aside from lack of sun exposure, has to do with misinformation about supplementation.
If You Use a Vitamin D Supplement, You Need to Know This …
First, let me repeat that sun exposure or the use of a safe tanning bed are the best options to optimize your vitamin D levels. You cannot overdose when getting your vitamin D from sun exposure, as your body has the ability to self-regulate and only make what it needs. If these options are not available, a supplement can be used, but keep the following in mind:
According to the most recent findings by Carole Baggerly, founder of GrassrootsHealth, her research of nearly 10,000 people shows the ideal adult dose appears to be 8,000 IU’s a day to get most into the healthy range.
When you do supplement with vitamin D, you’ll only want to supplement with natural vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol). Do NOT use the synthetic and highly inferior vitamin D2, which is the one most doctors will give you in a prescription most of the time unless you ask specifically for D3.
Get your vitamin D blood levels checked! The only way to determine the correct dose is to get your blood tested since there are so many variables that influence your vitamin D status. I recommend using Lab Corp in the U.S.
The correct test your doctor needs to order is 25(OH)D, also called 25-hydroxyvitamin D, which is the better marker of overall D status. This is the marker that is most strongly associated with overall health.
As an aside, there is evidence that the safety of vitamin D is dependent on vitamin K, and that vitamin D toxicity (although very rare with the D3 form) is actually aggravated by vitamin K2 deficiency. So if you take oral vitamin D, ideally you should take vitamin K2 as well or use organic fermented foods that are high in vitamin K2, as you need about 150 mcg per day.
The “normal” 25-hydroxyvitamin D lab range is between 20-56 ng/ml. But, this conventional range is really a sign of deficiency, and is too broad to be ideal. In fact, your vitamin D level should not be below 32 ng/ml, and any levels below 20 ng/ml are considered serious deficiency states, increasing your risk of cancer and autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis, just to name a few.The OPTIMAL value that you’re looking for is explained in the chart below. Remember that if you were in the sun nearly every day with large amounts of your skin exposed and not taking any oral vitamin D, your level would be around 100 ng/ml.
This range applies for everyone: children, adolescents, adults and seniors. Remember, unless you get a deep dark tan, which is a pretty good gauge that your vitamin D levels are where they need to be, it is wise to get your blood levels checked; that is the only way to know for certain you have reached therapeutic levels.
Given that optimizing your vitamin D levels is one of the simplest and most profound steps you can take to improve and maintain your health, including helping you to prevent cancer, this is information that could, quite literally, save your life.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
Breast cancer is a growing epidemic among women, with just under 12 percent of women developing an invasive form of the disease during their lifetimes.
This works out to about one in eight U.S. women!
Research suggests, however, that one of the most powerful ways to lower this risk substantially is through the simple act of exercise.
New research is underway to determine just how much exercise — either 150 minutes or 300 minutes a week — is best for cancer prevention, but it’s safe to say that starting an exercise regimen, if you’re not already participating in one, is a very wise strategy to optimize your health.
Exercise May Reduce Your Breast Cancer Risk by Up to 40 Percent
The notion that exercise may help prevent cancer dates back to 1922, when two independent studies observed that cancer deaths declined among men working occupations that required higher amounts of physical activity.
It wasn’t until the 1980s that the topic received due attention once again, and since then a paper in the journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise reported that “more than a hundred epidemiologic studies on the role of physical activity and cancer prevention have been published.”
In the same paper, which reviewed published epidemiologic studies on physical activity and the risk of developing cancer, it’s noted that:
“The data are clear in showing that physically active men and women have about a 30-40% reduction in the risk of developing colon cancer, compared with inactive persons … With regard to breast cancer, there is reasonably clear evidence that physically active women have about a 20-30% reduction in risk, compared with inactive women. It also appears that 30-60 min·d-1 of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity is needed to decrease the risk of breast cancer, and that there is likely a dose-response relation.”
More recently, two other studies echoed this finding:
Women who were active at home during the day, engaging in heavy lifting or carrying rather than mostly sitting, had a 38 percent reduced risk of invasive breast cancer
Strenuous activity in teens and moderate activity after menopause also lead to a reduction in breast cancer risk
Why Might Exercise be Useful for Cancer Prevention?
One of the primary reasons exercise works to lower your cancer risk is because it drives your insulin levels down. Controlling insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risk. It’s also been suggested that apoptosis (programmed cell death) istriggered by exercise, causing cancer cells to die. Exercise also improves the circulation of immune cells in your blood. The job of these cells is to neutralize pathogens throughout your body, as well as destroying precancerous cells before they become cancerous..
The better these cells circulate, the more efficient your immune system is at defending itself against infections and diseases like cancer.
Unfortunately, many public health guidelines still focus only on the aerobic aspects of exercise, and this exclusive focus can lead to imbalances that may actually prevent optimal health. This is why it’s so important to maintain a well-balanced fitness regimen, that includes not just aerobics, but also strength training, stretching, and most importantly, high-intensity interval training (which I’ll discuss shortly).
Additionally, according to a 2000 study published in the British Medical Journal, which explored the relationship between exercise and cancer, exercise affects several biological functions that may directly influence your cancer risk. These effects include changes in:
If You Have Breast Cancer, Exercise is Also Beneficial
Many health care practitioners advise their patients to avoid exercise during and after cancer treatment. But increasing evidence is showing that this outdated advice is actually causing cancer patients harm, as regular exercise can lead to a number of health improvements for cancer patients, including:
Better aerobic fitness
Increased muscular strength
Improved quality of life
Less fatigue
Harvard Medical School researchers found patients who exercise moderately — 3-5 hours a week – reduce their odds of dying from breast cancer by about half as compared to sedentary women, so this is a very powerful strategy. In fact, any amount of weekly exercise increased a patient’s odds of surviving breast cancer. This benefit also remained constant regardless of whether women were diagnosed early on or after their cancer had spread.
Patients receiving the biggest boost from exercise were those most sensitive to estrogen, the most commonly recognized hormone-sensitive form of breast cancer. (Previous research has shown exercise lowers estrogen levels, which can fuel the growth of breast cancer cells.) However, it’s reasonable to assume that exercise would likely be beneficial for many types of cancer patients.
Often, you will be able to take part in a regular exercise program — one that involves a variety of exercises like strength training, core-building, stretching, aerobic and anaerobic — with very little changes necessary.
However, you may find that you need to exercise at a lower intensity or for shorter durations at times. Always listen to your body and if you feel you need a break, take time to rest. Even exercising for a few minutes a day is better than not exercising at all, and you’ll likely find that your stamina increases and you’re able to complete more challenging workouts with each passing day. In the event you are suffering from a very weakened immune system, you may want to exercise in your home instead of visiting a public gym.
How to Optimize Your Exercise Program to Achieve the Most Benefits
As mentioned, ideally your fitness program should be comprehensive, providing activities that will improve your strength, flexibility, cardiovascular fitness and fat-burning capabilities with high-intensity “Peak Fitness” exercises.
During ‘peak fitness exercises,’ you raise your heart rate up to your anaerobic threshold for 20 to 30 seconds, followed by a 90-second recovery period. You repeat this cycle for a total of eight repetitions. Peak exercises are particularly beneficial because this type of interval training triggers the natural production of human growth hormone (HGH), also known as “the fitness hormone.” HGH plays an integral role in maintaining youthfulness and strength. (For an in-depth explanation of my Peak Fitness regimen, please review this past article.)
Another boon of Peak Fitness exercises is the amount of time you save. Including a three-minute warm up and two-minute cool down, your total time investment is a mere 20 minutes as opposed to your regular hour-long treadmill session, and you are really only exerting yourself for four minutes.
Generally, a 20-minute session about three times a week is all you need to stay fit, along with your strength-training, flexibility, stretching and so on, on alternate days.
Other Important Breast Cancer Prevention Strategies
I recently interviewed Dr. Christine Horner, a board certified general- and plastic surgeon, who shared her extensive knowledge about breast cancer—its causes and its cures, and the pro’s and con’s of various screening methods. I suggest you listen to that interview now, in addition to learning about the many all-natural cancer-prevention strategies below.
In the largest review of research into lifestyle and breast cancer, the American Institute of Cancer Research estimated that about 40 percent of U.S. breast cancer cases could be prevented if people made wiser lifestyle choices. I believe these estimates are far too low, and it is more likely that 75 percent to 90 percent of breast cancers could be avoided by strictly applying the following recommendations.
Eat healthy. This means avoid sugar, especially fructose, as all forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer. Also, focus on eating whole foods and fresh vegetables while avoiding cancer-causing foods.
Vitamin D. There’s overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that vitamin D deficiency plays a crucial role in cancer development. You can decrease your risk of cancer by MORE THAN HALF simply by optimizing your vitamin D levels with adequate sun exposure. And if you are being treated for cancer it is likely that higher blood levels—probably around 80-90 ng/ml—would be beneficial. The health benefits of optimizing your levels, either by safe sun exposure (ideally), a safe tanning bed, or oral supplementation as a last resort, simply cannot be overstated.
In terms of protecting against cancer, vitamin D has been found to offer protection in a number of ways, including:
Regulating genetic expression
Increasing the self-destruction of mutated cells (which, if allowed to replicate, could lead to cancer)
Reducing the spread and reproduction of cancer cells
Causing cells to become more highly differentiated (cancer cells often lack differentiation)
Reducing the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones, which is a step in the transition of dormant tumors turning cancerous
To learn the details on how to use vitamin D therapeutically, please review my previous article, Test Values and Treatment for Vitamin D Deficiency.
Get proper sleep both in terms of getting enough sleep, and sleeping between certain hours. According to Ayurvedic medicine, the ideal hours for sleep are between 10 pm and 6 am. Modern research has confirmed the value of this recommendation as certain hormonal fluctuations occur throughout the day and night, and if you engage in the appropriate activities during those times, you’re ‘riding the wave’ so to speak, and are able to get the optimal levels. Working against your biology by staying awake when you should ideally be sleeping or vice versa, interferes with these hormonal fluctuations.According to Dr. Horner: “If we, for instance, go to bed by 10, we have higher levels of our sleep hormone melatonin; there’s a spike that occurs between midnight and 1am, which you don’t want to miss because the consequences are absolutely spectacular. Melatonin is not only our sleep hormone, but it also is a very powerful antioxidant. It decreases the amount of estrogen our body produces. It also boosts your immune system… And it interacts with the other hormones. So, if you go to bed after 10… it significantly increases your risk of breast cancer.”
Effectively address your stress. The research shows that if you experience a traumatic or highly stressful event, such as a death in the family, your risk of breast cancer is 12 times higher in the ensuing five years. So be sure you tend to your emotional health, not just your physical health.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a new cancer drug that allegedly treats the deadly side effects caused by another popular cancer drug. The new drug, Voraxaze (glucarpidase), is said to expel methotrexate, a commonly prescribed and highly toxic chemotherapy drug, from the body. But Voraxaze comes with its own set of harmful side effects, which shows that approving drugs to treat the side effects of other drugs is an endless, but highly profitable, cycle of toxicity.
Methotrexate’s known side effects include kidney and liver destruction, skin rashes, mouth sores, damaged intestines, and death. The drug often lingers in the body following cancer treatments, as weakened organs become increasingly incapable of expelling it from the body. So to “fix” this problem, the FDA has decided to approve another drug that it says breaks down methotrexate and eliminates it from the system.
But Voraxaze, which is made from genetically-modified (GM) enzymes, carries with it harmful side effects of its own, including hypertension, arrhythmia, allergic dermatitis, nausea, and vomiting. And these are just the short-term side effects observed among a small clinical trial group of just 290 patients, which is the only trial that has been conducted evaluating the safety of Voraxaze.
Worse, Voraxaze received “fast-track” approval from the FDA based on a single clinical study of just 22 patients, which allegedly evaluated the drug’s effectiveness. By all reasonable scientific standards, a single study with this ridiculously small amount of participants can hardly be considered a valid indicator of a drug’s efficacy.
Contrast this with mainstream medicine’s rejection of at least 24 separate studies, all with much larger sample sizes, that have identified a clear and definitive link between fluoride consumption and disease in recent days. “Further research” is always necessary when the issue involves proving fluoride’s toxicity, or proving the benefits of an herbal or dietary supplement. But when a new drug is up for approval, one small, industry-funded study is enough for regulators.
So thousands of cancer patients who become poisoned by methotrexate, which is also used to treat psoriasis and arthritis patients, will also now receive an intravenous dose of GM enzymes that have never been definitively proven either safe or effective. Leave it to the FDA to once again pander to Big Pharma at the expense of public health.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
According to a recent report in USA Today, cases of thyroid cancer have risen 6.5 percent over the past several years, and many medical experts are at a loss for explaining why this is occurring. But mainstream science is ignoring all the most obvious factors that contribute to the disease — fluoride chemicals added to drinking water; excessive medical x-rays; and radiation from cells phones, computers, naked body scanners, and nuclear disasters like Fukushima.
Perhaps one of the most misunderstood organs in the body, the thyroid gland purifies the blood and detoxifies the body by taking up iodine nutrients and using them to cleanse the blood, which in turn lowers the amount of toxins run through the liver. But the thyroid gland’s iodine receptors also take up harmful radiation like the kind emitted from modern communication devices, x-rays, and nuclear accidents, as well as toxic fluoride chemicals added to drinking water supplies across the country.
The causes of thyroid disease are all around us
It is truly amazing, in the most negative sense, that the medical profession is unable or unwilling to properly connect the dots between thyroid disease and these toxic factors. Fluoride chemicals, for instance, have been shown to impair thyroid function by replacing iodine in the body. Fluoride, after all, comes from the same chemical family as iodine.
X-rays, and particularly dental x-rays, are another major factor in thyroid problems that most in the medical community fail to address. Most dentists, for instance, will not provide their patients with neck shields while administering dental x-rays. The thyroid gland is located in the neck area, and every time this area is blasted with ionizing radiation, the thyroid gland absorbs it.
Then, there are the more obvious sources of radiation exposure like the Fukushima nuclear disaster, which sent plumes of deadly radiation across the globe. Fukushima emitted one toxic radionuclide in particular, iodine-131, that is known to absorb directly into the thyroid gland. This is why many experts recommend taking high doses of nutritive iodine during a nuclear emergency in order to displace radioactive iodine in the thyroid gland.
Mobile phones, laptop computers, compact fluorescent (CFL) light bulbs, and now US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) naked body scanners are all daily radioactive threats as well. It is more than likely that regular and repeated exposure to these smaller doses of radiation is also contributing to thyroid cancer.
This sampling of thyroid cancer contributors just goes to show that modern medicine, which denies any awareness of what could be causing an uptick in thyroid cancer, has its head in the sand about this important issue. But the question still remains whether this denial is deliberate and willful, or whether it is birthed out of pure ignorance.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
If you have a relative or friend who has cancer and is considering any conventional cancer treatment to achieve tumor shrinkage, you may want to pass this newsletter on to them. It discusses top-notch research just-published in the prestigious medical journal Cancer Cell, which proves aggressive tumor shrinkage is responsible for making cancers deadly and spreading them to other parts of the body.
For the past 20 years, I have been making the ‘outrageous’ claim that common cancer treatments, including chemotherapy medications, radiation therapy, and angiogenesis inhibitors used to shrink cancerous tumors are largely responsible for making them more aggressive and develop in other parts of the body (erroneously called “metastases”) as well.[1] Over the years I have received a fair amount of ridicule, defamatory comments and outright death threats for publishing my unrelenting stance on the subject.
The National Cancer Institute states on its web site: “Angiogenesis inhibitors are unique cancer-fighting agents because they tend to inhibit the growth of blood vessels rather than tumor cells. In some cancers, angiogenesis inhibitors are most effective when combined with additional therapies, especially chemotherapy.” However, a 2012-study which was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), sheds new light on why the ‘effectiveness’ of these cancer-fighting drugs is actually short-lived and can turn into a frightening scenario with possibly fatal consequences. The new research shows that aggressive treatment (used to shrink or remove even relatively small, slow-growing or encapsulated, harmless tumors) may create a situation where the entire body is riddled with highly aggressive cancers.
This study, published in the January 17, 2012 issue of Cancer Cell,[2] finds that a group of little-explored cells that are part of every primary cancerous tumor likely serve as important gatekeepers against cancer progression and metastasis. A relatively new class of anti-cancer drugs, known as angiogenic inhibitors, diminishes or destroys these cells, called pericytes, by cutting off the blood supply to the tumors.
Scientists and oncologists from around the world made the shortsighted assumption that by cutting off a tumor’s life support system consisting of a tumor’s blood vessels they could achieve a successful and permanent tumor regression. Little did they know that this would open a Pandora’s box and create a cancer nightmare.
Cancer’s Wisdom in Action
Seen from a holistic and truly scientific perspective, the above assumption is critically flawed. I have frequently made the argument that cancer is one of the body’s final healing attempts to return to a balanced condition (homeostasis), and this new research clearly illustrates cancer constitutes one the body’s most highly evolved and sophisticated protective mechanisms.
The study found that therapies–which shrink cancer by cutting off tumors’ blood supply–may be inadvertently making tumors more aggressive and likely to spread. Said differently, to help prevent a cancer from getting out of control and invading other parts of the body, the body tenaciously and purposefully grows extra blood vessels. Why would the body do such a thing, you might ask?
Well, all cancer cells are normal cells that have turned anaerobic, meaning that they are so oxygen-deprived (due to congestion-caused oxygen deficiency) that they must mutate in order to survive and produce energy without having to use oxygen. To increase the oxygen supply to these congested cells and to support the action by pericytes’ to prevent cancer progression and metastasis, the body needs to grow new blood vessels. Thus, the currently applied medical approach of destroying these blood vessels is therefore counterproductive and must be considered dangerous. It destroys the very system the body uses to make sure a particular cancerous tumor remains an isolated and curable event and does not escalate into a widespread, uncontrollable, and self-perpetuating disease process.
To make this very clear, cancer drugs don’t just destroy cancer cells but also cancer-protective cells and blood vessels transporting oxygen to both cancer cells and normal cells. Ionizing radiation and cancer drugs are outright carcinogenic, and thus, they can cause new cancer cells to develop almost anywhere in the body.
Controlling Tumor Growth Makes Cancer Spread More
There is no doubt that chemotherapy drugs, angiogenic drugs, or radiation therapy can achieve significant tumor regression, but not without paying the hefty price of producing a multitude of new cancers. Besides the billions of corpses of dead cancer cells and pericytes this biological genocide leaves behind, there are also billions of inflamed or otherwise damaged cells and blood vessels that greatly increase the chances of developing any number of new, aggressive, deadly cancers.
Most of these cancers are too small, though, to be detected right away by diagnostic instruments, and doctors can get away with the proud expression “we got it all,” at least for a while. Yet within a year or two these cancers almost inevitably become larger and detectable, and the same doctors then tell their patients that their cancer not only has “returned,” but has metastasized to other parts of the body.
The above study provides us with the unexpected finding that may actually prove current cancer treatments, including chemotherapy, angiogenic therapy and radiation therapy, to be the greatest contributors to developing aggressive, terminal cancers and significantly lowering one’s chances of survival.
In this investigation, senior author Raghu Kalluri, MD, PhD, Chief of the Division of Matrix Biology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School (HMS), had actually intended to find out if targeting of pericytes could inhibit tumor growth in the same way that other drugs inhibiting blood vessel growth to tumors can. After all, pericytes are an important part of tissue vasculature[3], covering blood vessels and supporting their growth. What Kalluari and his team stumbled upon instead was both startling and extremely disturbing.
In an article titled, “Study Shows How A Group of Tumor Cells Prevent Cancer Spread – Paradoxical discovery finds that pericyte cells help prevent metastasis,”[4] Bonnie Prescottat Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, describes the dire implications of the study in some greater detail.
When applied to breast cancer, “Kalluri and his colleagues found that by depleting pericyte numbers by 60 percent in breast cancer tumors they saw a 30 percent decrease in tumor volumes over 25 days,” writes Prescott.
Since such significant tumor shrinkage will prevent or slow the growth of the targeted cancer, conventional ‘medical wisdom’ dictates that this would be a favorable effect, and oncologists have hailed this approach to be a breakthrough in cancer treatment. However, the researchers also discovered that by destroying pericytes by 60-70 percent the number of secondary lung tumors increased threefold, indicating that the tumors had metastasized.
“If you just looked at tumor growth, the results were good,” says Kalluri. “But when you looked at the whole picture, inhibiting tumor vessels was not controlling cancer progression. The cancer was, in fact, spreading.”
“We showed that a big tumor with good pericyte coverage is less metastatic than a smaller tumor of the same type with less pericyte coverage,” says Kalluri, who corroborated these findings in multiple types of cancer by repeating these same experiments with implanted renal cell carcinoma and melanoma tumors, writes Prescott.
All this questions the very argument pushed on unsuspecting cancer patients by medical professionals that treatment-caused tumor regression is a desirable objective. Just imagine you were diagnosed with a cancerous tumor and your doctor told you that his proposed treatment could reduce the size of your tumor by 30 percent but at the same time increase your chances of developing secondary tumors by a whopping 300 percent!
Beware of Conventional Cancer Treatments
The history of conventional anti-cancer therapies is replete with cases where the treatment turned out to be far more devastating than the disease itself. This single piece of research provides us with the understanding that the body isn’t reckless or irresponsible when it actually builds new blood vessels to support tumor growth. On the contrary, it is well equipped with the superb wisdom and physical means to pursue the best possible routes of survival, regardless of the circumstances such as toxicity, congestion, and emotional stress.
Attacking the body’s tumor cells is still an attack on the body, which is exacerbated when doctor and patient simplistically perceive cancer cells to be evil monsters that must be destroyed at any cost. Cancer diagnosis and treatment are severely stressful, violent acts against the body and will evoke a powerful fight or flight response that affects every part of the body. The death fright triggers continuous releases of stress hormones into the blood–powerful enough to shut down the digestive system and immune system, and to constrict important blood vessels, including those that support the cancer-protective pericytes.
As this new study has demonstrated, the destruction of pericytes goes hand in hand with a dramatic increase in the number of secondary tumors in other parts of the body. The body is not a machine but a living being, and it responds with emotions and biochemical changes to everything you think, feel and expose yourself to. Threatening the body on any level jeopardizes its healing abilities.
Cancer has a deeper meaning or purpose than purely random destruction, and ignorance about the true purpose of cancer is at the root of these misdirected cancer treatments. The body uses its own built-in survival and healing programs to keep cancer under control and to let the cancer do its job of mopping up accumulated toxins and waste products and to keep itself from spreading or showing up in other parts of the body.
After examining 130 breast cancer tumor samples of varying cancer stages and tumor sizes and comparing pericyte levels with prognosis, the scientists found that samples with low numbers of pericytes in tumors correlated with the most deeply invasive cancers, distant metastasis and 5- and 10- year survival rates lower than 20 percent.
To understand the exact mechanism behind the drastically increased risk of metastasis that follows drug treatment, I recommend you check out their study, which I consider to be one of the most important pieces of cancer research ever done. I am certainly not the only one to share this belief.
“These results are quite provocative and will influence clinical programs designed to target tumor angiogenesis,” says Ronald A. DePinho, president of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. And for Kalluri and his team, the new discoveries suggest that certain assumptions about cancer must be revisited. “We must go back and audit the tumor and find out which cells play a protective role versus which cells promote growth and aggression,” says Kalluri. “Not everything is black and white. There are some cells inside a tumor that are actually good in certain contexts.”
Cancer’s Lessons To Us
To me, it makes no sense at all to use cancer-causing drugs and ionizing radiation to shrink malignant tumors in the short term while causing existing cancers to become deeply invasive and deadly and new cancers to show up in parts of the body distant to the original tumor. The shortsightedness of this approach seems obvious, and millions of people have fallen into the trap of gaining a little, but losing everything.
With regard to chemotherapy drugs, scientists at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Comprehensive Cancer Center and UAB Department of Chemistry are currently (2012) investigating the suspected possibility that dead cancer cells left over after chemotherapy spark cancer to spread to other parts of the body (metastasis). “What if by killing cancer cells with chemotherapy we inadvertently induce DNA structures that make surviving cancers cells more invasive? The idea is tough to stomach,” Katri Selander, M.D., Ph.D., an assistant professor in the UAB Division of Hematology and Oncology and co-principal researcher on the grant, said in a statement to the media. Dead cancer cells have already been found to activate a pathway in the body mediated as a protein dubbed toll-like receptor 9, or TLR9, that is present in the immune system and in many kinds of cancer. “If TLR9 boosts metastasis, then researchers will work on finding targeted therapies that block or regulate this molecular pathway,” Dr. Selander stated.
Angiogenic therapy has already been implicated with causing deadly metastasis, and chemotherapy is almost certainly following in the same track for the same and additional reasons.
A few years ago, a leading oncologist in the U.S. contacted me and asked me if liver flushes could help his wife who suffered from terminal lung cancer. He told me that during the past six years they had tried all the most advanced chemo drugs, to no avail. After each round of chemotherapy, more and more malignant tumors had developed in the lungs and spread to her liver and bones (now we know why). I told him that at this advanced stage, she had nothing to lose, but could turn the situation around by ridding the liver, blood and tissues of accumulated toxins. This would make tumor growth unnecessary.
The oncologist personally monitored and recorded the results of his wife’s first liver flush. He reported back to me that she had released an astonishing amount of at least 2,500 gallstones which kept pouring out of her over a period of three days (something that is almost unheard of). Four weeks later, this oncologist informed me that the tumors in his wife’s liver and bones had completely vanished and there was only one tiny speck of tumor left in her left lung. I recommended that she continued doing the liver flushes until all stones were gone. He also told me that she became like a new person since she did the flush. A life-long constipation was gone, her skin rejuvenated and was no longer pale and grayish-looking. She said she had regained the energy she used to have 20 years ago and the deep depression she had suffered from since her first cancer diagnosis had completely lifted.
I have personally seen cancer patients who successfully and naturally reversed their cancers but were then talked into taking a round of chemotherapy just to be sure to “get it all.” They all died within a day or two of the first treatment.
The methods of modern medicine don’t fight disease, they fight the body. Disease is the body’s way of healing itself, and modern treatment is a sure way to impair or even destroy this ability.
When natural health advocates warn against mainstream medicine’s arsenal of weapons used to fight cancer, including chemotherapy and radiation, their concerns often revolve around how these therapies can weaken and damage a person’s body in numerous ways. But scientists are finding other reasons to question some of these therapies. It turns out that while chemotherapies may kill or shrink tumors in the short term, they may actually be causing malignancies to grow more deadly in the long term.
For example, NaturalNews previously reported that scientists at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Comprehensive Cancer Center and UAB Department of Chemistry are currently investigating the very real possibility that dead cancer cells left over after chemotherapy spark cancer to spread to other parts of the body (metastasis). And now comes news that a little-explored specific cell type, the pericyte, found in what is called the microenvironment of a cancerous tumor actually may halt cancer progression and metastasis. And by destroying these cells, some anti-cancer therapies may inadvertently be making cancer more aggressive as well as likely to spread and kill.
A study just published in the January 17 issue of the journal Cancer Cell concludes that anti-angiogenic therapies (which shrink cancer by cutting off tumors’ blood supply) may be killing the body’s natural defense against cancer by destroying pericyte cells that likely serve as important gatekeepers against cancer progression and metastasis. Pericytes cover blood vessels and support their growth.
For the new research, Raghu Kalluri, MD, PhD, Chief of the Division of Matrix Biology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School (HMS), investigated whether targeting pericytes could inhibit tumor growth in the same way that other antiangiogenic cancer drugs do.
Dr. Kalluri and his research team worked with mice genetically engineered to support drug-induced depletion of pericytes in growing tumors. Next, they removed pericytes in implanted mouse breast cancer tumors, decreasing pericyte numbers by 60 percent.
Compared with control animals, there was a 30 percent decrease in the size of cancerous tumors over 25 days. But there was a serious catch to these results. Contrary to conventional mainsteam medical wisdom, the scientists discovered the number of secondary lung tumors in the engineered mice had increased threefold compared to the control mice, indicating that the tumors had metastasized.
How cancer drugs can spread cancer cells
“If you just looked at tumor growth, the results were good,” Dr. Kalluri said in a press statement. “But when you looked at the whole picture, inhibiting tumor vessels was not controlling cancer progression. The cancer was, in fact, spreading. This suggested to us that without supportive pericytes, the vasculature inside the tumor was becoming weak and leaky — even more so than it already is inside most tumors– and this was reducing the flow of oxygen to the tumor.”
That change, he explains, makes cancer cells more mobile, so they can travel through those leaky vessels to new locations. It also makes cancer cells behave more like stem cells, so they are better able to survive.
Because cancer therapies such as Imatinib, Sunitinib and others are known to decrease pericytes in tumors, the scientists next carried out the same experiments in mice with primary tumors. Only this time, they used the chemotherapy drugs Imatinib and Sunitinib instead of genetic programs to decrease pericyte numbers. Both Imatinib and Sunitinib caused 70 percent pericyte depletion — and they also increased metastasis threefold.
In order to see if their findings are relevant to human patients, the research team examined 130 breast cancer tumor samples of varying cancer stages and tumor sizes and compared pericyte levels with prognoses. The result? The samples with low numbers of pericytes in tumor vasculature correlated with the most deeply invasive cancers, distant metastasis and five to ten year survival rates less than 20 percent.
“These results are quite provocative and will influence clinical programs designed to target tumor angiogenesis,” Ronald A. DePinho, president of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, said in a press statement. “These impressive studies will inform and refine potential therapeutic approaches for many cancers.”
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
For the most part, we remain in the Dark Ages with regard to true healing. According to independent reports by the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, a wing of the American Congress, and the World Health Organization (WHO), 85-90 percent of all medical procedures used by today’s medical establishment are unproved and not backed up by scientific research. This includes almost every diagnostic procedure and treatment modality that is offered to you in your doctor’s office or by your local hospital – most notably, the use of chemotherapy drugs and radiation.
If your car has engine trouble, would you entrust it to a mechanic who offered you a 10 percent guarantee of fixing it? I don’t think so. You would more likely take your car to someone who is properly trained to look for and repair the causes of the malfunctioning engine rather than making a couple of superficial adjustments. Suffering from a disease means that there is something gone awry with the human ‘engine’, if you will. Our medical practitioners, however, are not trained to deal with the root causes of chronic illness. Their training is dedicated instead to alleviating or shutting down the symptoms that indicate the body is trying to deal with an underlying imbalanced situation. Removing the symptoms actually suppresses the body’s (and the mind’s) attempt to deal with the real problem. The medical industry has brainwashed the masses to believe that their symptoms are actually diseases, and by suppressing or removing the symptoms, the diseases will vanish along with them.
The symptom-oriented approach to treating disease generates a tremendous number of potential symptomatic side effects that, in turn, require further treatment. Since none of the chosen treatment modalities are cause-oriented, there are bound to be continuously escalating complications in the future.This guarantees that there will always be enough patients who need medical attention and medical insurance. This trend, of course, will continue only for as long as the masses remain ignorant of their potential self-healing abilities.
It is not in the best interest of the medical industry, including the pharmaceutical companies, to find a real cure for cancer or for any other chronic illnesses, for this would make the treatment of disease symptoms obsolete. Removing the cause(s) of an illness almost never requires a separate approach that deals with the symptoms of the illness, for these would disappear on their own once the underlying causes are addressed. Unless used for emergencies, costly methods of medical intervention, such as allopathic drugs, complex diagnostic procedures, radiation, and surgery are unnecessary. They also deceive patients and are potentially harmful to their health.
At least 900,000 people die each year in the United States alone because of side effects caused by these symptom-suppressing, alleviating approaches. Since our present healthcare system promotes and encourages the treatment of symptoms of disease rather than the prevention of disease, it is one of the most clever and profitable investment schemes ever devised. The system lures unsuspecting people into having their symptoms treated, promising them relief while actually ensuring that the side effects from these treatments will almost certainly turn them into patients for life. The result is a permanent and ever-increasing source of income for drug companies, shareholders, medical institutions and medical practitioners.
——————————
This is an excerpt from my book CANCER IS NOT A DISEASE! – IT’S A SURVIVAL MECHANISM
——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyperlink back to the web page
People started gaining weight ever since life became more and more convenient. When modern amenities were introduced, life became sedentary and we simply got less exercise. But that’s stating the obvious, isn’t it? Unfortunately, it is much more subtle than that. While a ‘fatty’ or sedentary lifestyle directly contributes to weight gain, the enemy is subtler than sheer laziness.
Modern conveniences often come wrapped in toxins, both literally and metaphorically. They’re everywhere: in tap water, bottled water, bottled drinks, product packaging, the hundreds of chemical additives in processed foods and beverages, medical drugs, harmful low-grade radiation, and even the paint in toxic toys.
Toxins enter our bloodstream from the air we breathe, pesticides in fruit and vegetables, abnormally high levels of antibiotics and hormones in the meat of cattle, and chemical waste ingested by the fish we eat.
It is not possible to be free of toxins; neither do we need to be. A healthy body is designed to handle moderate amounts of toxic agents. However, most of us choose to live toxic lifestyles or are exposed to dangerous toxins without really being aware of it. And the human body was never meant to process the levels of toxins it is now subjected to.
The developed world is suffering from a toxicity crisis and we’re paying a very heavy price. But how is a toxic lifestyle linked to being overweight?
The Unholy Triad
Researchers are calling it the Unholy Triad. I call it The Big Three – the link between toxicity, cancer and obesity – a connection that is still at the cutting edge of medical research.
The root of obesity often leads to an organ of your body you are least likely to associate with fat – the liver. The liver is the second-largest organ of the body, after the skin, and is responsible for – hold your breath – more than 500 functions.
Before we discuss the details, let me make the connection between toxicity and obesity. The body is an extremely complex yet wonderfully synchronized machine, and an imbalance in one area may impact on an organ or a set of tissues that seem unrelated. Toxic chemicals and other poisonous compounds may affect organs and systems without always leading to weight gain. Hence, not everyone exposed to a high degree of toxicity is overweight.
When they enter the bloodstream, poisons are stored in weak and vulnerable organs and tissues because they cannot fight back. The weakened organ becomes weaker, damaged, and diseased and eventually begins to malfunction. This results in conditions ranging from cysts, insulin resistance, metabolic disorders, lung disease, kidney diseases, gall stones, immunological disorders (65 percent of your immune system is located in your intestines), chronic inflammation, hormonal imbalances, to cancer.
But the reverse is always true. Overweight and obese individuals are necessarily suffering from a ‘toxicity crisis’, a state where the body cannot handle the toxic overload.
So how does it work? Fat tissue is basically used as a safe-house for toxins. It is your body’s way of keeping excess metabolic waste and other toxins out of harm’s way. Storing them in fat cells, which have a low metabolic rate, keeps poisons out of the bloodstream so that they don’t reach other tissues and organs.
There is no doubt that individuals who are obese harbor a severely toxic and polluted internal environment. This leads to congestion of other organs and systems. Consequently, the entire body slows down and begins to malfunction.
Have you ever wondered why some people find it difficult to lose weight? After shedding those initial extra pounds, the fat just doesn’t seem to budge! This is because a toxically overloaded system, or morbidly obese body, causes all your organs to become sluggish. As they begin to lose their natural ability to function as they were meant to, they also lose their ability to metabolize and process fat effectively.
This also makes it easier to understand why individuals who are overweight suffer from a host of health issues and diseases. There’s a river of toxins – chemicals introduced to the body as well as those produced by the body in reaction to external pollutants – constantly circulating in the blood, tissues and organs. This ultimately kick starts a vicious cycle, where toxic overload leads to obesity, and excessive fat and cellulite build-up blocks metabolism, which leads to further weight gain.
One type of toxic chemical pollutant in particular merits mention in the context of weight gain because of its notoriety. It is a group of substances called organochlorines which are used in pesticides. Organochlorines enter the body when we eat plants sprayed with insecticides that contain these substances – DDT was banned in the US a long time ago but several other organochlorines are still widely used – and by eating animal products that contain them as cattle feed.
The problem is that organochlorines are difficult to break down and are easily attracted to fat and stored in fat cells, where they can remain for several years. If the levels of organochlorines in your body are very high, you are likely to store fat so that it can safely hide away the toxins. No wonder obese bodies are very reluctant to letting go and losing weight.
Traditional slimming techniques gauge weight loss reducing calorific intake and increasing the body’s metabolic rate. This ranges from crash diets to tweaking dietary habits. It also involves rigorous exercise regimens that simultaneously burn fat quickly.
However, a vast majority of individuals also regain the weight they lose, unless they continue with stringent weight-reduction exercise programs. This ultimately exhausts and wears out the body as you are constantly working against its tendency to gain weight!
A holistic approach, on the other hand, recommends cleansing and detoxification of the body. This process removes years of toxic build-up and gradually repairs and restores the organs to their optimal level of functioning. When this happens, the body also returns to its normal weight.
——————————
This is an excerpt from my book FEEL GREAT, LOSE WEIGHT
——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyperlink back to the web page
They are added to everything from shampoos and deodorants to processed foods and pharmaceutical drugs in order to inexpensively extend shelf life and improve product stability. But a new study out of the University of Reading (UR) in the UK has found that, based on tests conducted, nearly every single woman with breast cancer has one or more paraben chemicals in her breast tissue, suggesting a possible link between the chemical and the disease.
According to the UK’s Daily Mail, Dr. Philippa Darbre and her team from UR gathered tissue samples from 40 women who were undergoing mastectomies for breast cancer between the years of 2005 and 2008. The team took four different tissue samples from each woman at separate times, which collectively totaled 160 samples, and performed an extensive analysis on each of their contents.
In the end, the group found that 99 percent of the breast tissue samples contained at least one type of paraben, while 60 percent contained at least five. And while the presence of parabens in cancer-infected breast tissue does not necessarily imply that the chemicals are responsible for causing the disease, it sure does lend suspicion to the notion that parabens could be a potential culprit.
“The intriguing discovery that parabens are present even in women who have never used underarm products raises the question: where have these chemicals come from?” asked Dr Darbre after observing that even women who did not use typical paraben-containing products still had the chemical in their breast tissue. “The fact that parabens were present in so many of the breast tissue samples does justify further investigation.”
In a separate study, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that nearly every human urine sample tested contained parabens. This is particularly concerning, since research compiled by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) suggests that parabens are linked to causing organ system toxicity, reproductive and fertility problems, birth and developmental defects, and endocrine (hormone) disruption.
When shopping for personal care products and food, be sure to read all ingredient labels carefully to avoid unnecessary exposure to parabens. High-quality personal care products, for instance, will often contain helpful labels indicating that they do not contain parabens.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
Dr. Christine Horner began her career as a board certified general- and plastic surgeon, performing breast reconstructive surgeries on women who’d had full mastectomies due to breast cancer.
In this interview, she shares her extensive knowledge about breast cancer—its causes and its cures, and the pro’s and con’s of various screening methods.
Her interest in breast cancer began while she was still in college, when her mother developed the disease.
Thirteen years later, when her mother’s cancer returned, Dr. Horner became very active with the American Cancer Society.
For a time, she was a vice-president and the Kentucky state spokesperson for the American Cancer Society on breast cancer issues.
“We were trained to say that we don’t know what causes breast cancer and we have no known cures; the best things that women can do are breast exams and mammograms,” she says.
“… In my practice, I was watching women get younger and younger when I was doing breast reconstruction on them.
Finally, I was doing women in their 20s. I thought something is way wrong with this picture.” I thought why don’t we just look through the medical literature and see if there’s anything that research shows that women can do, that’s within our control that will lower our risks. I had no idea what I was going to find… But when I looked, I instantly found thousands of studies that show exactly why we have a cancer epidemic…”
What’s Causing the Cancer Epidemic?
What Dr. Horner discovered was that there are a number of habits we’ve stopped doing in our modern culture that are highly protective. We’ve dramatically altered our diets—shunning our native, whole-foods cuisine for highly processed fare—and engage in very little physical activity, for example.
“We’re telling women that all they can do is mammogram [screening], and it’s extremely disempowering,” Dr. Horner says. “You feel like you have no control over it. But if you look at epidemiological studies… we know that people that live in Asia have a very low incidence of breast cancer or prostate cancer… [W]e have the studies showing that if an Asian woman moves to the United States and adopts our American diet and lifestyle, within one generation her risk will match that of an American woman’s. It’s like “Hello? What are we doing or not doing that they’re doing or not doing that’s making such a big difference? “
Dr. Horner was eventually introduced to the system of Ayurvedic medicine, and the more she learned about it, the more she felt there were answers therein that needed to be shared with people on a wider scale.
‘[T]here are so many really simple things people can do that can have a dramatic effect on their health,” she says. “Basically, the more you learn about natural medicine, the more you’ll realize that we’re just telling our patients lies– not on purpose, but from what we have been taught from the pharmaceutical companies and so forth.”
She pitched the idea to television stations in Cincinnati to let her talk about complementary and alternative medicine, and ended up being the first syndicated segment on the news related to complementary and alternative medicine, which ran from 1999 through 2002. At that point, she decided to quit her surgery practice to focus on teaching people how to become and stay healthy naturally, and wrote the book: Waking the Warrior Goddess: Dr. Christine Horner’s Program to Protect Against and Fight Breast Cancer, which contains all-natural approaches for protecting against and treating breast cancer. Dr. Horner’s book won the IPPY award in 2006 for “Best book in health medicine and nutrition.”
“[W]e have the answers to the breast cancer epidemic,” she says. ”We truly do– and it’s very simple. If you have a terrible diet and lifestyle and you do just one thing, you cut your risk in half. You do more than one thing and they will multiply up together. They don’t add up together. They multiply up together, so it becomes extremely easy to dramatically lower your risk of breast cancer.”
It’s worth mentioning that the same strategies apply for other types of cancer as well. Prostate and colon cancer tumors, for example, are similar to breast cancer tumors, as certain hormones cause them all to grow. Hence, protective strategies that are effective against breast cancer also work on these other types of cancer. Cancer prevention strategies will also virtually eliminate most other chronic disorders.
The Problem with Conventional Cancer Screenings
While diagnostic screenings have their place, some cancer screens are just about worthless… The wisdom of using the PSA test, for example, which checks for prostate cancer, has recently been questioned. Ditto for mammograms.
“Looking at the diagnostic tests that are currently available, none of them are perfect,” Dr. Horner says. “Everything has its pros and cons… [M]ammography produces radiation, which has been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer. It’s like, “Why are you doing the test to look at a disease when it’s actually causing the disease, too?” … It does pick things up at earlier stages, but the problem is that it’s not very specific. So when it looks and it sees something… that looks suspicious, it is wrong 80 percent of the time. In the United States, there’s roughly a million breast biopsies done per year, and 800,000 of them are unnecessary.”
One of the best cancer screening methods is self-examination. But you need to make sure you’re doing it correctly. For more information about how to do a breast self exam, please see this previous article.
MRI’s, which do not use ionizing radiation, are not a practical tool as they are very expensive, and, like mammograms, MRI scans are not very specific. Ultrasound is another technique used in Western medicine. The traditional ultrasound can see whether a mass is cystic or solid. But while a solid mass is generally considered to be something that might be of concern, this is not 100 percent certain either, as cancer tumors can sometimes have cysts in them.
“Now there’s a relatively new ultrasound that uses a color mode,” Dr. Horner says. “It’s called elastography. But there aren’t very many centers in the United States that use it. I go to the Center of the Hoxsey Clinic, to Dr. Arturo Rodriguez at Tijuana. It has a color scale that measures the elasticity of the cell membranes. Cancer cells are very stiff, whereas normal cells have more fluidity to them. It’ll show up as red if it has a lot of stiffness to it, as a cancer cell, or blue if it has elasticity… It’s a very good tool.”
On Thermography
Another form of cancer screen, which is still considered controversial in conventional medicine, is thermography, which gives you an infrared image of your body. By looking at heat and blood vessel patterns you can determine whether there are areas of concern.
“[B]efore you even get a tumor formation, the very first thing that happens is new blood vessels start to grow into the area where the tumor may form. Those blood vessels grow abnormally. They grow an abnormal amount of patterns and they produce an abnormal amount of heat. That’s what thermography is checking for,” Dr. Horner explains.
As with most new technologies, thermography hit some snags in its earlier stages, and fell out of favor in the early 70s. However, the technology has gotten a lot more sophisticated over the years, and is now computerized; eliminating the need for highly trained technicians to evaluate the results.
“The problem we still have today with thermography is that we don’t have standardization,” Dr. Horner explains. “We don’t have a uniform way that people are tested and trained with uniform equipment, and so forth… But there’s definitely a movement… to do standardization, and to get that technology available for women, because this is a technology that has no health detriments associated with it. It does not use radiation or anything harmful to your body.”
Unfortunately, the advocates of mammography perceive thermography as a threat to their business model. So there’s tremendous pressure against it, including from the federal regulatory agencies.
“It’s unfortunate,” Dr. Horner says, “but our country is run by big business. It’s just is, so anytime we want to shift anything culturally like that, and we’re going against established business, we have trouble because it’s all about money.”
For example, many of the presidents of the American Cancer Society were members of the Radiological Association, which is the industry supporting the mammography component. The entire medical field is littered with massive conflicts of interest.
‘We can see that everywhere. You look in the FDA—there are people from Monsanto that work in the FDA. Unfortunately, people think, “the United States is not very corrupt.” But actually, it’s extremely corrupt,” she says.
Still, there are many good reasons for considering thermography. To ensure you’re getting the highest standard of care, Dr. Horner recommends using a practitioner certified by the International Academy of Clinical Thermography, an independent non-profit organization that provides objective, third-party certifications. Their website lists qualified thermography centers across the US, Canada, and some other countries, such as France, Trinidad, and Zambia.
Most Natural Prevention Strategies Can Reduce Your Cancer Risk by Half…
Through her research, Dr. Horner has gathered a large number of cancer-prevention strategies—about 50 in all! Even more astounding is the rate of effectiveness of many of these strategies.
“[I]f you look at the studies, virtually every single thing that has an influence [causes] almost a 50 percent reduction in cancer risk… and if you combine them, like I said, you’ll get these synergistic results where they’ll multiply up as far as their effect is concerned.
I’d say the most important thing is what you do or do not put in your mouth… because you can have huge influences by the foods you consume– the spices, the herbs, and so forth. And, the things that you avoid, that’s going to give you the biggest results. … Vitamin D cuts your risks in half. Turmeric and anti-inflammatories cut your risk in half. I could go through each thing—and I’m telling you the research shows that there’s about 40 to 50 percent reduction [in risk]—so… to say that one is necessarily better than anything else, that’s a really hard thing to claim.”
The Top Four Cancer-Promoting Foods
Dr. Horner brings up an excellent point, and that is that in order to be effective, you must first STOP doing that which is promoting cancer growth (or poor health in general), and then all the other preventive strategies have the chance to really have an impact. Addressing your diet should be at the top of your list, and rather than adding certain foods, you’ll want to eliminate the most dangerous culprits first.
Naturally, processed foods and soft drinks do not belong in a cancer-preventive diet…
Dr. Horner, believes red meat from animals reared in confined animal feeding operations (CAFO’s) is also a MAJOR contributor to cancer. These animals are given antibiotics, growth hormones and other veterinary drugs that get stored in their tissues. Additionally, cooking the meat over high heat creates heterocyclic amines, which further add to its carcinogenic effect.
While I do recommend eating meat, I agree that there is absolutely NO benefit to eating CAFO beef. The ONLY type of meat I recommend is organically-raised, grass-fed meats. It’s hard for a lot of people to grasp the difference between CAFO and organic meat, but truly, they are like two different species in terms of their nutritional content. One is health harming while the other is beneficial.
So when we’re talking about the detrimental impact of red meat on your health, especially in terms of feeding cancer, please understand that we’re talking specifically about CAFO beef, aka “factory farmed” meat. Next on the list of cancer-promoters is sugar (this includes ALL forms of sugar, including fructose and grains).
“To me, sugar has no redeeming value at all, because they found that the more we consume it, the more we’re fuelling every single chronic disease,” Dr. Horner says. ”In fact, there was a study done about a year ago… and the conclusion was that sugar is a universal mechanism for chronic disease. It kicks up inflammation. It kicks up oxygen free radicals. Those are the two main processes we see that underlie any single chronic disorder, including cancers. It fuels the growth of breast cancers, because glucose is cancer’s favorite food. The more you consume, the faster it grows.”
Next is the type of fats that you consume. It’s important to remember that every cell membrane is made out of fat, as is your brain. According to Dr. Horner, bad-fats in the diet are a major contributor to ill health and cancer. On the list of fats to eliminate are:
Animal fats from CAFO-raised animals
Trans fats
Partially hydrogenated or hydrogenated fats
Healthy fats of particular importance for cancer prevention are omega-3 and omega-9. According to Dr. Horner, omega-3 in particular serve to effectively slow down tumor growth in estrogen-sensitive cancers such as breast-, prostate- and colon cancers. Fourth on the list of cancer promoters is ANY item that contains xenoestrogens (chemicals that mimic estrogen). This can become a rather long list once you start including any food contaminated with such estrogen-mimicking chemicals, such as BPA, found in the linings of canned goods and in plastics. The list gets truly unwieldy when you include personal care products that contain such chemicals as well…
“There are case reports of five- and six-year-olds going through secondary sex characteristics because of the shampoo that they were using… There are all sorts of different sources where we’re exposed to these chemicals from our foods and from the products that we use.
What we’re seeing is younger and younger puberty. Around the world, the average age is about 16 years old. In the United States, it’s 10 years old now, and sometimes even younger. The problem is that with each menstrual period there is a surge of estradiol, which is the strongest, most abundant form of estrogen, and the one that’s most associated with breast cancer. If you start your period very young, you’ll have more periods in your lifetime than what a person would have, obviously, if they started at an older age.
In addition to that, when a girl goes through puberty, her breast cells become really sensitive to environmental toxins, radiation, and so forth. They’re considered immature. They haven’t differentiated– as a more scientific term for it– so there’s a longer period of time that they’re exposed to these toxins where they have a greater sensitivity.”
Dr. Horner reviews a number of other important factors that influence your cancer risk, so for more details, please listen to the interview in its entirety, or read through the transcript.
Eating for Cancer Prevention
According to Dr. Horner, the research clearly shows that the one food that is the most important for optimal health is plant foods.
“Plants are packed full of nutrients, vitamins, and minerals that are crucial for our health. They also have hundreds of phytochemicals in them. These don’t have any nutritional or caloric value, but they are like natural medicines, and some of them behave exactly like chemotherapy,” she says.
“Every plant has some anti-cancer properties to them. There are some that are standouts. Cruciferous vegetables are something that I really recommend. They’re a family of vegetables that include broccoli, cauliflower, kale, collards, and Brussels sprouts…
All of them have several different chemicals in common. They’ve got indole-3-carbinol, Calcium D-glucarate, and sulforaphane. They have big anti-cancer properties to them, and they inhibit the growth of breast, prostate, colon cancer and a variety of other ones. Of all the families of vegetables to consume, [cruciferous vegetables] are the ones to be aware of, so you can make sure you’re including that in your diet frequently.”
Naturally, you’ll want to make sure the vegetables are fresh, and ideally locally grown and organic. Besides cruciferous veggies, another standout plant for cancer-prevention is flax seed. The lignans in flax seed inhibit the growth of cancer in about a dozen different ways, including the exact same mechanism as the anti-cancer drug Tamoxifen and Arimidex, which shut down an enzyme in fat cells called aromatase that converts androgens into estrogens.
“I hear from patients, “Oh! My oncologist told me not to take flaxseeds, because they’re estrogenic,”" Dr. Horner says.”They don’t understand how plant estrogens or “phytoestrogens” work.
There are all sorts of different strengths to estrogens. Let’s say estradiol, which is the strongest, most abundant form– if it hooks on to the estrogen receptor, it may cause a thousand cell divisions. But if a plant estrogen hooks on, it may cause one. When you flood your system with these plant estrogens, I’d say it’s kind of like a game of musical chairs. There are only certain numbers of receptors, and whoever gets their first, gets it. They’re blocking the strong estrogens from getting on, so that’s why it has an inhibitory effect.”
Other Lifestyle Factors that Influence Your Cancer Risk
Other lifestyle factors that have been found to have an impact on chronic disease and cancer include:
Vitamin D—There’s overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that vitamin D deficiency plays a crucial role in cancer development. As mentioned earlier, you can decrease your risk of cancer by MORE THAN HALF simply by optimizing your vitamin D levels with sun exposure. And if you are being treated for cancer it is likely that higher blood levels—probably around 80-90 ng/ml—would be beneficial. The health benefits of optimizing your levels, either by safe sun exposure (ideally), a safe tanning bed, or oral supplementation as a last resort, simply cannot be overstated. In terms of protecting against cancer, vitamin D has been found to offer protection in a number of ways, including:
Regulating genetic expression
Increasing the self-destruction of mutated cells (which, if allowed to replicate, could lead to cancer)
Reducing the spread and reproduction of cancer cells
Causing cells to become differentiated (cancer cells often lack differentiation)
Reducing the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones, which is a step in the transition of dormant tumors turning cancerous
To learn the details on how to use vitamin D therapeutically, please review my previous article, Test Values and Treatment for Vitamin D Deficiency.
Getting proper sleep: both in terms of getting enough sleep, and sleeping between certain hours. According to Ayurvedic medicine, the ideal hours for sleep are between 10 pm and 6 am. Modern research has confirmed the value of this recommendation as certain hormonal fluctuations occur throughout the day and night, and if you engage in the appropriate activities during those times, you’re ‘riding the wave’ so to speak, and are able to get the optimal levels. Working against your biology by staying awake when you should ideally be sleeping or vice versa, interferes with these hormonal fluctuations. According to Dr. Horner:“If we, for instance, go to bed by 10, we have higher levels of our sleep hormone melatonin; there’s a spike that occurs between midnight and 1am, which you don’t want to miss because the consequences are absolutely spectacular. Melatonin is not only our sleep hormone, but it also is a very powerful antioxidant. It decreases the amount of estrogen our body produces. It also boosts your immune system… And it interacts with the other hormones.So, if you go to bed after 10… it significantly increases your risk of breast cancer.”
Effectively addressing your stress: The research shows that if you experience a traumatic or highly stressful event, such as a death in the family, your risk of breast cancer is 12 times higher in the ensuing five years.
Exercise—If you are like most people, when you think of reducing your risk of cancer, exercise doesn’t immediately come to mind. However, there is some fairly compelling evidence that exercise can slash your risk of cancer.One of the primary ways exercise lowers your risk for cancer is by reducing elevated insulin levels, which creates a low sugar environment that discourages the growth and spread of cancer cells. Additionally, exercise improves the circulation of immune cells in your blood. Your immune system is your first line of defense against everything from minor illnesses like a cold right up to devastating, life-threatening diseases like cancer.The trick about exercise, though, is understanding how to use it as a precise tool. This ensures you are getting enough to achieve the benefit, not too much to cause injury, and the right variety to balance your entire physical structure and maintain strength and flexibility, and aerobic and anaerobic fitness levels. This is why it is helpful to view exercise like a drug that needs to be carefully prescribed to achieve its maximum benefit. For detailed instructions, please see this previous article.Additionally it is likely that integrating exercise with intermittent fasting will greatly catalyze the potential of exercise to reduce your risk of cancer and stimulate widespread healing and rejuvenation.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
Early detection through x-ray mammography has been the clarion call of Breast Cancer Awareness campaigns for a quarter of a century now.
However, very little progress has been made in making the public aware of the crucial differences between non-malignant lesions/tumors and invasive or non-invasive cancers detected through this technology.
When all forms of breast pathology are looked at in the aggregate, irrespective of their relative risk for harm, disease of the breast takes on the appearance of a monolithic entity that you either have, or don’t have; they call it breast cancer.
The concept of a breast cancer that has no symptoms, which cannot be diagnosed through manual palpation of the breast and does not become invasive in the vast majority of cases, might sound unbelievable to most women.
However, there does exist a rather mysterious clinical anomaly known as Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS), which is, in fact, one of the most commonly diagnosed and unnecessarily treated forms of ‘breast cancer’ today.
What women fail to understand — because their physicians do not know better or have not taken care to explain to them — is that they have a choice when diagnosed with DCIS.
Rather than succumb to aggressive treatment with surgery, radiation and chemo-drugs, women can choose watchful waiting.
Better yet, a radical lifestyle change can be embraced focused on eliminating exposure to chemicals and radiation, as well as improved exercise and nutrition.
Unfortunately this choice is not being made in most cases because the medical community is not informing their patients that there is one.
This article aims to fill the information gap in order to educate and empower women who, by accident or design, have been or are at threat of being misdiagnosed and consequently mistreated (in more ways than one) by the medical establishment.
Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: Breast Cancer or Benign Lesion?
Up to 33 percent of new breast cancer diagnoses obtained through x-ray mammography screenings are classified as Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS). DCIS refers to the abnormal growth of cells within the milk ducts of the breast forming a lesion commonly between 1-1.5 cm in diameter, and is considered non-invasive or “stage zero breast cancer,” with some experts arguing for its complete re-classification as a non-cancerous condition.
Because DCIS is almost invariably asymptomatic and has no palpable lesions, it would not be known as a clinically relevant entity were it not for the use of x-ray diagnostic technology.
Indeed, it was not until the development and widespread application of mammography in the early 1980s as the central push behind National Breast Cancer Awareness campaigns that rates of DCIS diagnosis began to expand to their present day epidemic proportions. It is no wonder, therefore, that the United States, which has one of the highest x-ray mammography rates, also has the highest level of DCIS in the world.
As of January 2005, an estimated one-half million U.S. women were living with a diagnosis of DCIS.
Proponents of breast screenings claim they are “saving lives” through the “early detection” and treatment of DCIS, regarding it as a potentially life-threatening condition, indistinct from actually invasive cancers. They view DCIS a priori as “pre-cancerous” and argue that, because it could cause harm if left untreated it should be treated in the same aggressive manner as invasive cancer.
The problem with this approach is that while the rate at which DCIS progresses to invasive cancer is still largely unknown, the weight of evidence indicates that it is significantly less than 50 percent — perhaps as low as 2-4 percent.
Indeed, the 10-year survival rates of patients with DCIS (96 percent-98 percent) post-treatment speaks volumes to the relatively benign nature of the condition. Another study found that at the 40-year follow-up period, 40 percent of DCIS lesions still had no signs of invasiveness. Adding even more uncertainty, another study showed that coexisting ductal carcinoma in situ independently predicts lower tumor aggressiveness in node-positive luminal breast cancer, indicating its possibly protective role.
Is Watchful Waiting the More Intelligent Approach?
A solid argument can be made that watchful waiting is the most appropriate response to the diagnosis of DCIS, and that in many cases DCIS would be better left overdiagnosed and under-treated.
As one paper discusses:
“The central harm of screening is overdiagnosis—the detection of abnormalities that meet the pathologic definition of cancer but will never progress to cause symptoms.”
A solid body of evidence has emerged suggesting that when DCIS is left undiagnosed and untreated rarely will it become malignant. DCIS was in fact poorly named from the outset, as it is does not behave like most carcinomas (cancers). Cancer, like the constellation named after it, derives from the Greek word for CRAB, indicating the manner in which is expands outward in uncontrolled growth. In situ means exactly the opposite, “in place.” An unmoving cancer is therefore a contradiction in terms. These problems with classification have not gone unnoticed in the medical journals:
“Despite the presence of the word “carcinoma,” ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is the poster child for this problem (a senior pathologist involved in developing classification systems confided to one of us that he regretted the use of the term carcinoma in DCIS).
No one believes that DCIS always progresses to invasive cancer, and no one believes it never does. Although no one is sure what the probability of progression is, studies of DCIS that were missed at biopsy and the autopsy reservoir suggest that the lifetime risk of progression must be considerably less than 50 percent.”
The true irony here is that while participation in x-ray mammography is considered by the public a form of breast cancer prevention and “watchful waiting,” it has become — whether by design or accident — a very effective way of manufacturing false breast cancer diagnoses and justifying unnecessary treatment.
This is not unlike what has been seen with prostate cancer screenings that track Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA); the aggressive treatment of lesions/tumors identified through PSA markers may actually increase patient mortality relative to doing nothing at all. Women diagnosed with DCIS are simply not given the option to decline treatment. The problem is illustrated below:
“Because the “best guess” is that most DCIS won’t progress to invasive cancer, the risk of overdiagnosis would be expected to be greater than 50 percent. The problem with overdiagnosis is that it leads to overtreatment. Because it is impossible to determine which individuals are overdiagnosed, almost everyone gets treated as if they had invasive cancer.”
Overdiagnosis is a huge problem, discussed in greater depth here:
“Overdiagnosis plays havoc with our understanding of cancer statistics. Because overdiagnosis effectively changes a healthy person into a diseased one, it causes overestimations of the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of screening tests and the incidence of disease. As the MLP and a recent analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)1 data illustrate, overdiagnosis also markedly increases the length of survival, regardless of whether screening or associated treatments are actually effective.
However, overdiagnosis does not reduce disease-specific mortality because treating subjects with pseudodisease does not help those who have real disease. Consequently, disease-specific mortality is the most valid end point for the evaluation of screening effectiveness.”
Ultimately DCIS overdiagnoses contribute to the appearance that conventional breast cancer screenings and treatments are more successful and less harmful than they actually are, while at the same time making the industry far more profitable than otherwise would be the case.
Groundbreaking New Finding: Many Invasive Breast Tumors Spontaneously Regress When Left Untreated
A new study published in The Lancet Oncology describes the natural history of breast cancers detected in the Swedish mammography screening program between 1986 to 1990, involving 650,000 women.
Due to the fact that breast lesions and tumors like DCIS, and even so-called “invasive” breast cancers, are aggressively removed and/or treated before they can be determined with any certainty to be a clear and present threat to health, there has been little to no research on what happens when they are left alone, i.e. their natural history. This study shows for the first time that women who received the most breast screenings had a higher 6-year cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer than the control group who received far less. The study concludes:
“Because the cumulative incidence among controls did not reach that of the screened group, we believe that many invasive breast cancers detected by repeated mammography screening do not persist to be detected by screening at the end of 6 years, suggesting that the natural course of many of the screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress.”
Should we be so surprised?
Given that breast cancer is not caused by a lack of breast screenings, surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, it should not be so difficult to understand that if the body is given an opportunity to heal itself, it will often do so. And what better way is there to promote healing than to AVOID unnecessary diagnostic and surgical procedures and chemical and radiation exposures?
New Study Shows Experts Agree that Annual Mammograms Radically Increase False Diagnosis
New research funded by the National Cancer Institute and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine actually revealed that getting an annual mammogram leads to an increased risk of false-positive results and unnecessary biopsies compared to getting a mammogram every other year.
After analyzing more than 386,000 mammograms from about 170,000 women over a 10-year period, the study found 61 percent of those who received annual mammograms would be called in for a follow-up at least once when in fact they did not have cancer. An additional 7-9 percent would receive an unnecessary biopsy. This is compared to 42 percent and 5-6 percent of the women, respectively, who had a mammogram every other year.
Further, the research showed that annual mammograms were not more effective at identifying late-stage cancers compared to the every-other-year group … The overall results led lead researcher Rebecca Hubbard to say that false positives are simply “part of the process of screening mammography.” Unfortunately, this also means many women are exposed to increased stress as well as potentially invasive and potentially harmful treatments for absolutely no reason.
(Mis)treatment of DCIS
For most of the twentieth century mastectomy was the first line treatment for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS), with younger patients more likely to undergo the procedure. Even after lumpectomy and radiotherapy were shown to be at least as effective for invasive cancer, still in 2002, 26 percent of DCIS patients were still receiving mastectomy.6
The most common scenario today following diagnosis of DCIS is for the oncologist to recommend lumpectomy, followed by intrinsically harmful radiation and hormone suppressive therapies such as Arimidex and Tamoxifen.
The tragedy here is that women are not being made to understand the nature of DCIS or the concept of “non-progressive” breast cancers. There is still the black and white perception out there that you either have cancer, or do not have cancer. In a poll on DCIS awareness published in 2000, 94 percent of women studied doubted the possibility of non-progressive breast cancers.7 In other words, these women had no understanding of the nature of DCIS.
And why should they?
Major authorities frame DCIS as “pre-cancerous,” implying its inevitable transformation into cancer. When the standard of care for DCIS is to suggest the same types of treatment used to treat invasive cancer, very few women are provided with the information needed to make an informed decision.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
Health authorities are constantly haranguing the public to get screened for breast, prostate, cervical, colorectal and many other forms of cancer because they say early detection is the best way to help avoid dying from the disease. But cancer screenings often lead to false diagnosis, which was the case recently with Cristina Fernandez, President of Argentina, who was sent home from the hospital cancer-free after having already had her thyroid gland removed.
According to reports, Fernandez had undergone surgery on January 4 to have her thyroid gland removed after doctors diagnosed her with thyroid cancer following initial tests. But tests conducted on her thyroid tissue after the fact revealed that there was actually no cancer at all. Needless to say, the “false positive,” as it is often referred to, will now require Fernandez to take thyroid hormone replacement therapy for the rest of her life as she no longer has a functioning thyroid gland in her body.
“This result was always within the realm of possibility. It does not mean that the original diagnosis was mistaken,” said Eduardo Faure, a thyroid cancer expert out of Buenos Aires, to Reuters about the situation. Apparently in Faure’s world, diagnosing a person with cancer when they really do not have cancer is still an accurate diagnosis.
To the rest of the rational world, however, Fernandez’ original diagnosis was, indeed, incorrect. And while some experts say this type of scenario is rare, it is actually quite common among potential thyroid cancer patients. According to Dr. Glenn Braunstein, director of the Thyroid Cancer Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, doctors commonly remove the thyroid gland if they suspect even as little as a 20 percent chance that cells in the gland might be cancerous.
In 2010, a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found that cancer “overdiagnosis,” as they are more politely calling it, is a growing problem that is hardly being addressed by mainstream medicine. The researchers involved with that study found that at least one-quarter of all mammograms and about 60 percent of all prostate cancer screenings come up with false positives, which result in needless surgeries and life-altering treatments.
However, there is little evidence that cancer screenings in general provide any benefits at all. Some of them actually cause harm, including mammograms which blast the breasts with high doses of cancer-causing, ionizing radiation.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com
Mammograms are widely promoted as a “life-saving” tool for helping women detect breast cancer in its earliest stages.
The message has so thoroughly saturated the public mind that nearly 68 percent of women over the age of 40 have had a mammogram in the past two years — and most of these women believe doing so will help them avoid dying from breast cancer.
Unfortunately, women have largely been sold a false bill of goods, as the science tells a very different story about the ability of mammograms to save lives.
In Most Cases, Mammograms Don’t Save Lives
Considering that mammograms are regarded as the “gold standard” for breast cancer prevention in the conventional medical establishment, you may have assumed they save lives.
Well, researchers from Dartmouth College had a novel idea — they decided to determine how often lives were actually saved by mammography screening vs. breast cancer industry generated statistics and their marketing propaganda.
And what they found should make even the staunchest mammography proponent give pause.
Using breast cancer data from The National Cancer Institute and The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers calculated a 50-year-old woman’s likelihood of developing breast cancer in the next 10 years, the odds the cancer would be detected by mammography, and her risk of dying from the cancer over 20 years.
They found that a mammogram has, at best, only a 13 percent probability of saving her life, and that the probability may actually be as low as 3 percent. No matter what analyses they used, including considering women of different ages, the probability of a mammogram saving a life remained below 25 percent.
Researchers concluded:
“Most women with screen-detected breast cancer have not had their life saved by screening. They are instead either diagnosed early (with no effect on their mortality) or overdiagnosed.”
This bears repeating:
Mammograms often diagnose tumors that may never threaten a woman’s life. They also often result in false positives that lead to over-treatment, i.e. misdiagnosed women often undergo unnecessary mastectomies, lumpectomies, radiation treatments and chemotherapy, which can have a devastating effect on both the quality and length of their lives.
Up to 50 Percent of Breast Cancer “Diagnoses” are Not Actually Cancer
As Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo.com, explained in a recent article, between 30-50% of new breast cancer diagnoses obtained through mammography screenings are classified as Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS), which may not be cancer at all.
DCIS refers to the abnormal growth of cells within the milk ducts of the breast forming a calcified lesion commonly between 1-1.5 cm in diameter, and is considered non-invasive or “stage zero breast cancer” — with some experts arguing for its complete re-classification as a non-cancerous condition.
Many conventional physicians view DCIS as “pre-cancerous” and argue that, because it could cause harm if left untreated it should be treated in the same aggressive manner as invasive cancer; however the rate at which DCIS progresses to invasive cancer is still largely unknown, with the weight of evidence suggesting it is significantly less than 50% — perhaps as low as 2-4%.
Amazingly, there are no diagnostic standards for DCIS, and there are no requirements that the pathologists doing the readings have specialized expertise.
Dr. Shahla Masood, the head of pathology at The University of Florida College of Medicine in Jacksonville, told the New York Times:
“There are studies that show that diagnosing these borderline breast lesions occasionally comes down to the flip of a coin.”
The New York Times also reported on several other concerning findings about the frequency of misdiagnosis of DCIS:
A 2006 study funded by Susan G. Komen for the Cure estimated that in 90,000 cases where women were diagnosed with DCIS or invasive breast cancer, they either did not have the disease or they received an unnecessary treatment due to a pathologist’s error.
A 2002 study at Northwestern University Medical Center found that nearly 8 percent of 340 breast cancer cases “had errors serious enough to change plans for surgery.”
Dr. Lagios, a pathologist at St. Mary’s Medical Center in San Francisco, reviewed nearly 600 breast cases in 2007 and 2008 and found discrepancies in 141 of them.
The Times stated, “Dr. Lagios says that based on his experience, microscopic core needle biopsies of low-grade D.C.I.S. and benign lesions, called atypical ductal hyperplasia, or A.D.H., may be misread 20 percent of the time.”
So, if you are a woman considering going in for a mammogram, you need to be aware of the fact that mammograms often detect breast abnormalities (lesions) that — while being diagnosed as “early cancer” and treated as if aggressive, invasive cancers — will often never progress to actual cancer if left to run their natural course.
In fact, groundbreaking new research published in The Lancet Oncology shows that many actually invasive breast cancers spontaneously regress when left underdiagnosed and untreated. The authors of the study concluded:
We believe that many invasive breast cancers detected by repeated mammography screening do not persist to be detected by screening at the end of 6 years, suggesting that the natural course of many of the screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress.
When you consider that mammography screenings often result in the diagnosis of what may be an inherently benign breast lesion, DCIS, and that the diagnosis itself may come down to a “coin’s flip” worth of certainty – and then, you add in the fact that even so-called ‘invasive breast cancer’ may “spontaneously regress,” the entire justification for mammography screening seems to fall apart.
After all, is exposing the breast to carcinogenic radiation once a year really a wise decision, given that the screening process itself is so obviously inaccurate and misleading? Also, considering that self-examination, examination by a trained professional and screening with radiation-free thermography provide sound alternatives, it is important that women at least be provided with an informed choice.
Annual Mammograms Increase Your Risk of False Positives, Unnecessary Biopsies
Research funded by the National Cancer Institute and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine revealed that getting an annual mammogram leads to an increased risk of false-positive results and unnecessary biopsies compared to getting a mammogram every other year.
After analyzing more than 386,000 mammograms from close to 170,000 women over a 10-year period, the study found 61 percent of those who received annual mammograms would be called back in for a follow-up, at least once, when in fact they did not have cancer. An additional 7-9 percent would receive an unnecessary biopsy. This is compared to 42 percent and 5-6 percent of the women, respectively, who had a mammogram every other year.
Furthermore, the research showed that annual mammograms were not more effective at identifying late-stage cancers compared to the every-other-year group. The overall results led lead researcher Rebecca Hubbard to say that false positives are simply “part of the process of screening mammography.”
Unfortunately, this also means many women are exposed to increased stress as well as potentially invasive and potentially harmful treatments for absolutely no reason.
Even still, The American Cancer Society (ACS) advises women age 40 and older to undergo a mammogram screening every year, and continue to do so for as long as they are in good health, despite updated guidelines set forth by The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which state that women in their 40s should NOT get routine mammograms for early detection of breast cancer.
ACS’ role in the promotion of mammography is far from altruistic, of course, as they have numerous ties to the mammography industryitself.
Mammograms Expose You to Serious Cancer-Causing Radiation
False positives, lack of life-saving results and overdiagnosis aside, there’s yet another reason why you may want to carefully analyze your decision to receive a mammogram, and that is the serious health risks associated with diagnostic radiation exposure.
A mammogram uses ionizing radiation which, in and of itself, can contribute to the development of breast cancer. In fact, mammograms expose your body to doses of radiation that can be 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray, which we know poses a cancer risk.
What is so confusing is that the type of X-rays used in mammography are called “low-energy,” radiating at around 30 Peak kilovoltage (kVp) vs. 200 kVp and above for “high-energy” radiation.
Commonsense would seem to dictate that “low-energy” means lower harm. Indeed, It has become conventional wisdom within radiobiology and radiology that the “lower energy” rays used in x-ray mammography are far less dangerous to DNA than those associated with the spectrum of radiation released by atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki – so-called “high energy” X-rays. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.
An accumulating body of clinical evidence indicates that the 30 kVp range of “low-energy” radiation used in breast screenings is up to 400% more damaging to the DNA – and therefore 400% more carcinogenic – than the “high energy” radiation it is often compared to.
Making Sense of All the Radiation Numbers
What this means is a potential sea change for the breast screening industry, which will no longer be able to justify its already horrible track record of “early detection” and “saving lives,” nor its industry-friendly and highly skewed risk-benefit analyses — based as they are on a completely inaccurate radiation risk model which minimizes the risk at the expense of women’s health.
Keep in mind that The Cochrane Database Review determined in 2009 that for every woman whose life is prolonged through mammography screening diagnosis 10 women are “unnecessarily treated,” i.e. their life is shortened.
What is so tragic is that this does not take into account the fact that the “low-energy” radiation being used in x-ray mammography, is planting the genetic seed for invasive breast cancer in countless women who would not have otherwise developed cancer, had they not been exposed to the radiation through screening in the first place.
It is already commonly accepted by the medical establishment that x-ray mammography screenings do cause breast cancer – they just do not realize, or are not willing to admit, how severe the problem is.
For example, research published in The Journal Radiology showed that annual mammography screening of 100,000 women from age 40-55, and biennial screening after that to age 74, would cause 86 radiation-induced cancers, including 11 fatalities and 136 life years lost. If we adjust for the new radiation risk model, required by acknowledging the difference between “low” and “high” energy radiation, we must multiply the harms caused by a factor of four to get a more realistic estimate of the iatrogenic damage: namely, 344 radiation-induced cancers, including 44 fatalities and 544 life years lost.
And remember, research has already been performed clearly showing that adding an annual mammogram to a careful physical examination of the breasts does not improve breast cancer survival rates over getting the examination alone.
So it comes down to an assessment of risk versus benefit, and even the mainstream press is beginning to report researchers’ sentiments that:
“It’s generally a really close call.”
As Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, told TIME:
“Women need to understand their trade-offs here. The reason to be screened isn’t because you’ve heard a lot of survivor stories. Some of those women have not benefited [from screening].”
And, as was revealed by a study in the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, breast cancer screening using x-ray mammography led to 30 percent overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent!
What Really Will Reduce Your Risk of Dying from Breast Cancer?
Breast cancer is the most common cancer among U.S. women, and one in eight will be diagnosed with it during their lifetime. Unfortunately, the aggressive push for mammography has many women equating actual preventive measures (e.g. lifestyle, diet and nutrition changes, as well as avoiding chemical exposures) with annual breast screenings, which do nothing to prevent cancer, and may actually contribute to it.
Unfortunately, medical organizations like The American Cancer Society do very little to spread the word about the many ways women can help prevent breast cancer in the first place.
A healthy diet, regular physical exercise, and an effective way to manage your emotional health are the cornerstones of just about any cancer prevention program, including breast cancer.
The following lifestyle strategies will also help to further lower your risk:
Radically reduce your sugar/fructose intake. Normalizing your insulin levels by avoiding sugar and fructose is one of the most powerful physical actions you can take to lower your risk of cancer. Unfortunately, very few oncologists appreciate or apply this knowledge today. The Cancer Centers of America is one of the few exceptions, where strict dietary measures are included in their cancer treatment program. Fructose is especially dangerous, as research shows it actually speeds up cancer growth.
Optimize your vitamin D level. Ideally it should be over 50 ng/ml, but levels from 60-80 ng/ml will radically reduce your cancer risk. Safe sun exposure is the most effective way to increase your levels, followed by safe tanning beds and then oral vitamin D3 supplementation as a last resort if no other option is available.
Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising using high-intensity burst-type activities like Peak Fitness. It’s important to lose excess weight because estrogen, a hormone produced excessively in fat tissue, may trigger and/or feed breast cancer.
Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as those from krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
Avoid drinking alcohol, or limit your drinks to one a day for women.
Breastfeed exclusively for at least six months. Research shows this will reduce your breast cancer risk.
Watch out for excessive iron levels. This is actually very common once women stop menstruating. The extra iron actually works as a powerful oxidant, increasing free radicals and raising your risk of cancer. So if you are a post-menopausal woman or have breast cancer you will certainly want to have your Ferritin levels drawn. Ferritin is the iron transport protein and should not be above 80. If it is elevated you can simply donate your blood to reduce it.
Avoid charring your meats. Charcoal or flame broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide—a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted or fried—has been found to increase breast cancer risk as well.
Avoid unfermented soy products. Unfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
Many conventional health experts believe the hormone testosterone causes prostate cancer — but research actually suggests that estrogen may be the more likely culprit.
Like women, men also make estrogens such as estradiol, although (usually) in much lower amounts than women.
Even the characteristically “male” hormone testosterone can be converted into estradiol via the hormone aromatase – which is found in higher concentrations in fat tissue.
While this process of testosterone-to-estrogen conversion is necessary for proper bone density and quality in men, for instance, it may also contribute to prostate growth and malignancy.
Fortunately, testosterone is also antagonist to estrogens like estradiol, which may explain why men with low testosterone are at greater risk of prostate cancer.
It may be, also, that men are being exposed to hidden sources of estrogen from the environment.
Estrogen-mimicking chemicals such as bisphenol-A, PFOA and phthalates are disturbingly widespread; as are soy foods that contain high levels of phytoestrogens, which are capable of mimicking estrogens and/or disrupting their cellular receptor sites.
Not only that, but a wide range of heavy metals have been identified to have powerfully estrogenic properties.
These “metalloestrogens,” as they are called, include aluminium, antimony, arsenite, barium, cadmium, chromium (Cr(II)), cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenite, and tin. Recently, an interesting new theory has been proposed that suggests another route of estrogen exposure in men: water contaminated by women’s birth control pills. Could this be the culprit in the rising number of prostate cancer cases?
Drug Residues Common in Drinking Water
Many waterways in the United States contain residues of birth control pills, antidepressants, painkillers, and many other chemical compounds. This has been known for many years now.
Most of them enter water supplies from human and animal waste that enter rivers from sewage treatment plants, leach into groundwater from septic systems, or run off into groundwater. Even drugs thrown into the trash can wind up in your drinking water, as when it enters a landfill its contents can and do mingle with other trash and its surrounding environment, including water supplies.
The drug industry, while admitting that pharmaceuticals are clearly contaminating water supplies, maintains that the levels are too low to cause any harm. Yet, it’s known that drugs in waterways can harm fish and other aquatic species, and laboratory studies show human cells do not grow normally when exposed to even trace amounts of certain drugs.
Many drugs in the water supply are known to have dangerous side effects when taken in normal prescription doses, not to mention that some people are now exposed to traces of multiple drugs at one time, in addition to other harmful metals and chemicals in their water. Further, people are now being exposed to combinations of drugs that should never be combined, leading to unknown consequences.
Birth Control Pills in Water Supply Linked to Men’s Prostate Cancer
Using data from the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the United Nations World Contraceptive Use report, which spanned 100 countries, researchers analyzed rates of prostate cancer and prostate cancer deaths, as well as oral contraceptive use among women.
The report concluded that the areas with a high rate of oral contraceptive use also had a high rate of prostate cancer. In addition, the researchers speculated that higher environmental levels of estrogen — and by implication, higher cumulative estrogen exposures in men — may be to blame.
In the United States alone, over 82 percent of women aged 15-44 have used oral contraceptives, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Typically, hormonal birth control methods like The Pill work by releasing estrogen and progestin into a woman’s body, preventing her ovaries from releasing eggs.
While it’s argued that only a small amount of additional estrogen is excreted by a woman using this form of contraception, this “small amount” is compounded by millions of women, many of whom use the pill for long periods of time. Also, synthetic estrogen and progesterone (progestin) – being unnatural – does not biodegrade as rapidly and is far harder to remove through conventional water purification systems – resulting in greater accumulation in the environment.
While this latest study did not prove cause and effect — that is, it did not prove that environmental estrogen from women’s oral contraceptive use causes prostate cancer in men — it did find a significant association between the two that deserves further investigation, especially in light of estrogen’s well established role in a wide range of cancers.
Estrogen Already Proven to Cause Breast Cancer
The guidelines for preventing and treating prostate cancer are almost identical to those for treating breast cancer (more on those shortly), which is why it’s worth noting that causative factors — like estrogen — may also be similar. It is, in fact, already known that breast cancer is closely tied to estrogen exposure.
According to a study published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates for women dropped in tandem with decreased use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which exposed women to synthetic estrogen. In Canada, between 2002 and 2004 HRT use dropped by 7.8 percent. In fact, it was no coincidence that, during that same time, breast cancer rates also fell by 9.6 percent.
However, after remaining stable at around 5 percent between 2004 and 2006, breast cancer rates then began to rise again, even though HRT use remained lower. The researchers claim this is an indication that HRT simply speeds up tumor growth, as opposed to directly causing it.
It’s also important to consider that you are exposed to a large number of estrogen-like compounds daily, called xenoestrogens. Estrogen pollution is increasingly present all around you, from plastics to canned food and drinks, food additives, household cleaning products, and pesticides. And estrogen levels are rising in our waterways, not only as pollution from birth control use but as a result of the runoff from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs).
So whether it’s a promoter or a causative factor (likely it’s both), there’s a wealth of evidence supporting excess estrogen exposure as a risk factor for cancer.
What’s All the Buzz About Saw Palmetto and Prostate Cancer?
As we age, testosterone levels decline. One reason why this occurs is because of the overexpression and/or overactivity of an enzyme known as 5-alpha reductase. This enzyme converts testosterone into dihydrotestosterone (DHT), a process which simultaneously lowers the amount of testosterone in the body and contributes to both the benign (BPH) and malignant (cancer) growth of the prostate gland.
While the pharmaceutical companies have already capitalized on this biological fact by producing a class of drugs which inhibit 5-alpha reductase activity, thereby blocking the conversion of testosterone to DHT, these drugs come with a significant set of risks, including – no joke! – increasing your risk of developing prostate cancer.
Unlike the laughably inept pharmaceutical approach, which typically creates greater malignancy than improvement in the organ it is “treating,” i.e. suppressing symptoms in, natural substances like saw palmetto provide a viable alternative. It is, in fact, through this same mechanism of DHT inhibition that saw palmetto works and can make a big difference in your cancer risk.
According to Dr. Rudi Moerck, drug industry insider and an expert in chemistry, the medical literature contains as many as 100 clinical studies on saw palmetto. (One of the first prostate drugs on the US market was actually saw palmetto, released by Eli Lilly Company back in the early 1870s.)
He says:
“The mechanism of action of saw palmetto is not fully clear. We are certainly not making any drug claims, but the anecdotal evidence suggests that there is a reduction in the conversion of testosterone into the dihydrotestosterone, and therefore, men that take saw palmetto will have slightly higher levels of testosterone in their body…That’s a good thing…
It turns out that if you don’t have enough testosterone in your body it can cause all kinds of problems like gaining weight, breast enlargement in men, and problem with urinating. So saw palmetto alone, or with pumpkin seed or lycopene is an interesting proposition … It’s something that you should definitely try.”
Additionally, research sourced from The National Library of Medicine shows that saw palmetto may have therapeutic benefits over pharmaceutical 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors, alleviating symptoms far beyond that of simply an enlarged prostate:
Androgenic Alopecia (Hair Loss)
Prostate Cancer
Low Testosterone
Chronic Prostatitis
Beyond taking saw palmetto, another thing you may want to do is to have your testosterone levels checked to ensure they’re in a healthy range. For an interesting article that contains more elaborate information on this topic, read Dr. Morgentaler’s report Destroying the Myth About Testosterone Replacement and Prostate Cancer. It explains how unfortunate assumptions have led to a dogmatic belief that testosterone replacement increases your risk of prostate cancer — a belief that may be preventing many men from optimizing their health. If you are indeed low in testosterone you may want to consider trans rectal DHEA cream. I personally use about 50 mg twice a day, and it has done wonders to optimize my testosterone levels, as DHEA is converted to testosterone in your body.
Smart Solutions for Prostate Cancer Prevention
Like virtually all cancers, your risk of prostate cancer can be influenced by lifestyle changes, with diet having a huge impact on prostate health.
Given the potential risk of drug-contaminated drinking water, filtering your water is a smart choice. The best solution would be to install a whole house water filtration system. This not only protects your body (inside and out, from drinking water and exposure during showers), but also your appliances as well. There’s just one water line coming into your house. Putting a filter on this is the easiest and simplest strategy you can implement to take control of your health by ensuring the water in your house is as clean as possible.
I recommend systems that use at least 60 pounds of filter media and can produce eight or more gallons a minute. When you are running two different showers, the dishwasher and the kitchen sink at the same time, you’ll find out why these minimum levels are so important. This recommendation covers a home or apartment up to 3200 sq./ft. If your home is larger than that, you may need two whole house water filtration systems.
I also recommend looking for a whole house water filter that has three separate stages of contamination removal:
Stage one removes sediment
Stage two removes chlorine and heavy metals
Stage three should be a heavy-duty carbon filter for removing hormones, drug residues, chemicals, pesticides, and herbicides
You want to look for granular carbon in the carbon filter, not a solid block of carbon. The granular carbon allows for better water flow, which translates to more water pressure and better filtering properties as well.
Next, you’ll want to eat as much organic (preferably raw) food as possible. Foods that support prostate health include vegetables and fruits rich in vitamins, carotenoids, and lycopene (animal studies have shown that of all the carotenoids, lycopene accumulates in the prostate of male animals, and this likely holds true for humans as well).
One 2009 study identified the following foods as being particularly beneficial against prostate cancer:
Other nutrients that have been found to offer significant protection against prostate cancer are animal-based omega-3 fats and vitamin K2. For more information about K2, please refer to this previous article. Although I don’t typically recommend many supplements, animal-based omega-3 fats and vitamin K2 are two of the supplements you may want to seriously consider because many people don’t get nearly enough of them on a daily basis through the foods they eat.
Limiting carbohydrates like sugar, fructose, and grains as much as possible is also important to maintain optimal insulin levels, which will help reduce your cancer risk in general. Highly processed or charcoaled meats, pasteurized dairy products, and trans fats correlate with an increased risk for prostate cancer as well, and should also be avoided.
For more research on the dietary aspects of prostate cancer prevention GreenMedInfo.com contains a list of over 150 natural substances with potential value, backed by solid clinical research. Other important factors include:
1. Optimizing your vitamin D levels
Evidence suggests that vitamin D may be one of the most potent variables associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer.
Thankfully, vitamin D’s impact on your cancer risk is becoming increasingly well-documented, and there are now well over 800 scientific studies confirming the link between vitamin D deficiency and multiple types of cancers, including prostate cancer.
For example, according to a 2005 study, men with higher levels of vitamin D in their blood were half as likely to develop aggressive forms of prostate cancer as those with lower amounts. Another study published two years ago found that men with higher levels of vitamin D in their blood were seven times LESS likely to die from prostate cancer than those with lower amounts.
Testing your vitamin D levels is done by a simple blood test. Anything below 20 ng/ml is considered a serious deficiency state, which will increase your risk of breast and prostate cancers, as well as autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis. In most cases, the OPTIMAL value that you’re looking for is between 50-70 ng/ml; however, maintaining a slightly higher level of 70 ng/ml may be ideal for cancer prevention.
The best way to get vitamin D is by exposing your bare skin to natural sunlight on a regular basis. If you can’t get regular sun exposure, you may want to consider using a safe tanning bed or, as a last resort, an oral vitamin D3 supplement. However, be aware that when using a supplement, recent research suggests most adults need 8,000 IU a day to maintain therapeutic levels.
2. Exercising
Exercise is another important factor for prostate health. You need to exercise, especially as you get older, and this includes not only high-intensity exercises like Peak Fitness but also using physical intimacy to exercise your prostate directly.
Dr. Moerck advises:
“… have sex on a regular basis, which involves exercising your prostate. It’s a difficult thing to talk about… [and] in older people [it can] become an issue because of lack of a partner and those things. But it’s something that every man should think about… I recommend sex on a regular basis… No matter what your age. My recommendation is a minimum of once a week. Probably two times a week for older people.”
One of the reasons for why regular sex promotes male health is that not only does it exercise the prostate, but when a man does not have regular sexual activity, the sperm and other fluids must be reabsorbed into his body. Eventually, that can cause certain immunological issues.
Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in U.S. men, but it is a disease that can be managed and oftentimes prevented … if you make the appropriate lifestyle modifications. Ideally, you’ll want to pay close attention to your prostate health early on — avoid waiting until you’re in your 60′s, because even though you may be able to reverse damage that’s been done, ideally you’ll want to prevent these problems from occurring in the first place.
Women, Looking for Alternative, Drug-Free Contraceptive Options?
While women’s use of birth control pills may indeed be contributing to growing prostate cancer rates in men, there are other reasons why artificially controlling your menstrual cycle with synthetic hormones may not be a wise option.
In exchange for the convenience of preventing pregnancy (which you can do naturally just as well, and I’ll explain how below), you are putting yourself at risk of:
In fact, the biomedical literature bears testimony to over 25 adverse effects associated with the use of oral contraceptives.
Many women opt for hormonal contraceptives not simply because they’re unaware of the health risks, but because they are unaware of the other effective birth control methods out there. The following options, which include both natural family planning and barrier methods, are effective ways to prevent pregnancy without damaging your health.
Male condoms: Condoms have a 98 percent effectiveness rate when used correctly. A water-based lubricant will increase the effectiveness; do not use an oil-based lubricant, however, as they break the latex and often contain harmful petrochemicals.
Female condoms: These thin, soft polyurethane pouches fitted inside the vagina before sex are 95 percent effective. Female condoms are less likely to tear than male condoms.
Diaphragm: Diaphragms, which must be fitted by a doctor, act as a barrier to sperm. When used correctly with spermicidal jellies, they are 92 to 98 percent effective.
Cervical cap: This heavy rubber cap fits tightly against the cervix and can be left in place for 48 hours. Like the diaphragm, a doctor must fit the cap. Proper fitting enhances the effectiveness above 91 percent.
Cervical sponges: The sponge, made of polyurethane foam, is moistened with water and inserted into the vagina prior to sex. It works as a barrier between sperm and the cervix, both trapping and absorbing sperm and releasing a spermicide to kill them. It can be left in for up to 24 hours at a time. When used correctly, the sponge is about 89-91 percent effective.
Aside from these barrier methods, there are also natural family planning (NFP) tools that a woman can use to track her ovulation. Many women feel empowered by NFP because it allows them to get in touch with their fertility cycle.
Some of the most popular NFP methods include:
Calendar Method: Abstention from sex during the week the woman is ovulating. This technique works best when a woman’s menstrual cycle is very regular. However, it may not work very well for couples who use it as the sole means of contraception, as its success rate is only around 75 percent. You can boost its effectiveness by combining it with the temperature and mucus methods described below.
The Temperature Method: This is a way to pinpoint the day of ovulation so that sex can be avoided for a few days before and after. It involves taking your basal body temperature (your temperature upon first waking) each morning with an accurate “basal” thermometer, and noting the rise in temperature that occurs after ovulation.Beware that illness or lack of sleep can change your body temperature and make this method unreliable by itself, but when it is combined with the mucus method, it can be an accurate way of assessing fertility. The two methods combined can have a success rate as high as 98 percent.
The Mucus Method: This involves tracking changes in the amount and texture of vaginal discharge, which reflect rising levels of estrogen in your body. For the first few days after your period, there is often no discharge, but there will be a cloudy, tacky mucus as estrogen starts to rise. When the discharge starts to increase in volume and becomes clear and stringy, ovulation is near. A return to the tacky, cloudy mucus or no discharge means that ovulation has passed.
As you can see, there are many alternatives to The Pill and other hormonal contraceptives out there, and my advice to women is to seriously evaluate the risks versus benefits — not only for yourself but potentially for the environment as well — before taking any type of birth control pill.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
Prostate cancer is the most common non-skin cancer and second most common cause of cancer related death in men in the United States. Nearly one in five men will develop the disease during their lifetime. New research demonstrates that increased consumption of ground beef or processed meat is positively associated with aggressive prostate cancer, according to a study published in the journal PLoS ONE. Researchers found a strong correlation between well cooked, grilled or barbequed red meat and processed meats and the development of prostate cancer. Health-minded individuals will want to severely limit and review cooking methods for red and processed meat consumption to limit this prostate cancer risk factor.
The result of a study conducted at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), offers solid evidence of a link between aggressive prostate cancer and meat consumption. Scientists found prostate cancer growth is driven largely by consumption of grilled or barbecued red meat, especially when it is well-done. Senior study author, Dr. John Witte set out to explain the result of prior studies and to establish a scientific basis for increased prostate cancer risk with red and processed meat consumption.
Well Cooked Red and Processed Meats Dramatically Increase Prostate Cancer Incidence
Researchers used a cohort of 470 men with aggressive prostate cancer and contrasted them against 512 matched controls that did not have prostate cancer. All the men completed questionnaires that enabled the researchers to assess not only their meat intake for the previous 12 months, but also the type of meat and how it had been prepared. Researchers placed special emphasis on the “doneness level”, ranging from rare to well-done.
The study authors used pre-established levels of carcinogens from the National Cancer Institute’s CHARRED database, which contains the mutagen content for each type of meat by cooking method and doneness. Compiling the data obtained from the participants allowed the researchers to determine the consumption levels of chemicals that have the potential to transform into cancer-causing compounds including heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The study established the following conclusions:
“Higher consumption of any ground beef or processed meats was positively linked with aggressive prostate cancer, with ground beef showing the strongest association.”
“The main driver of this link was intake of grilled or barbecued meat, with more well-done meat tied to a higher risk of aggressive prostate cancer.”
“Men who ate high levels of well or very well cooked ground beef had twice the odds of developing aggressive prostate cancer compared to men who ate none.”
Dr. Witte and his team were able to make a conclusive link between well cooked and processed meats and incidence of prostate cancer. Of particular importance was the degree of cooking and use of high heat cooking methods that add carcinogens to the surface of the meat. Most health-conscious people avoid regular meat consumption. This study provides further evidence that limiting or eliminating meat from the diet and utilizing proper cooking practices for all types of food can help prevent prostate cancer and many chronic illnesses.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
Life on earth would not be possible without infectious bacteria, fungi and viruses. Their existence and endless, continuous interactions with humans and animals over millions of years have trained and evolved into what today we refer to as the immune system. Our ability to live in harmony with our external environment is, in fact, rooted in our life-long relationship with these germs.
Even though we have many times the number of germs inside our body than we have cells, we have been taught to be afraid of them and fight especially those that are considered pathogenic (disease-causing). Nobody has told us, though, that acute infection can be a desirable event, even a necessary one if we want to make it through life without incurring a major life-threatening illness. A viral infection that causes mumps in a child at the age of 7 to 10, for example, is part of nature’s vaccination program to boost natural immunity, especially if it is too weak.
Each new encounter with a germ and a possible, resulting infection further strengthen the immune system until it is fully developed and capable of living in complete harmony with the natural environment. This doesn’t mean, though, that a child must become sick in order to develop a healthy immune system. Most infections actually occur ‘silently’, without the person ever developing the symptoms of illness. Since mass vaccination was introduced around the world, nearly every child is now being infected with different viruses by injection from the day of birth until at least age 15. Sometimes, the child gets injected with three different viruses at the same time (through the Mumps/Measles/Rubella vaccine).
Vaccinations crudely interrupt or even inhibit the natural immunization program devised by nature itself. This unwise intervention can have unexpected and potentially devastating consequences throughout a person’s life. Ever since it was discovered that the presence of infectious agents, like e. Coli bacteria in our gut are a prerequisite for having a healthy gut immune system, some of us have begun to respect these germs as friends, not enemies. But isolating such germs from their natural environment, breeding them and manipulating them in a test tube, and then injecting them into the blood of humans, can turn these otherwise highly beneficial infectious agents into deadly weapons against which the body is defenseless.
A newborn animal or child can become blind by depriving it of light for an extended period of time. Likewise, a child’s cellular immune system is rendered useless unless it becomes exposed to the germs that inhabit our environment.
Vaccines Contribute to the Emergence of Superbugs
Modern vaccination programs are increasingly turning these useful, intelligent germs into mutated monsters that lack the natural interaction with the human body; a relationship that took millions of years to develop. I have already discussed the spreading of antibiotic-resistant organisms in my recent newsletter, “Superbugs – Mankind’s Greatest Health Threat?” Repeatedly injecting almost the entire child population with antibiotics which are added to all vaccines to kill off bacteria is taking its toll.
The spreading of superbugs due to mass vaccination makes the human body increasingly defenseless to even the most harmless bugs. Those who take additional antibiotics for other infections are the most susceptible to become infected with a superbug, such as the new anti-biotic resistant strains of E. Coli bacteria that are currently sickening people and taking lives in Europe. In addition, if someone eats meat from animals that were also treated with antibiotics (a normal practice), or vegetables that were fertilized with the excrements from these animals, one may be infected by such superbugs. According to a newly released study, 48 percent of all meat products are contaminated with antibiotic resistant superbugs.
It would normally take hundreds or thousands of years for the human immune system to develop a purposeful relationship with these new organisms that never existed before in the Earth’s history. We now have a population that depends on immunization, not the immune system. But immunization is not only saving us from anything, but it is turning harmless gut bacteria into powerful killers. Even though vaccine-producers keep coming up with new vaccines against newly evolving or mutating germs all the time, this war cannot be won. By allowing our bodies to become vaccinated, we declare war on our immune systems.
With each vaccine received, our immune system becomes suppressed further. There are two parts to the human immune system. The book, Vaccine-nation, provides the scientific evidence that shows vaccination suppresses the primary immune system located in the gut, also called cellular immune system. Vaccines bypass this essential part of the immune system and merely provoke the secondary immune response, also called the anti-body response. However, while activating the anti-body response, vaccines automatically shut down the primary immune system, which poses a long-term health risk. A normal exposure to pathogens always begins in the nasal, ear, throat, and respiratory passages, never through injection. Once primary immunity has been established by going though an infection, the antibody response follows. This allows the immune system to grow stronger and learn to bestow natural and permanent immunity to an ever-increasing number of pathogens.
Just evoking an antibody response without first establishing primary immunity has serious consequences, one of which is that the primary immune system is actually being prevented from having a healthy, normal immune response. That’s why the vaccinated population has a much higher rate of infections than the non-vaccinated population. For example, research shows that vaccinated versus unvaccinated children suffer: - five times more asthma - nearly three times more allergies - over three times more ear infections - over four times more apnea and near miss cot death - nearly four times more bouts of recurring tonsillitis - ten times more hyperactivity Vaccinated children also have 317% more ADHD, 185% more neurologic disorders and 146% more autism than non-vaccinated children.
Just last week, a report out of Pakistan showed that 78 percent of children afflicted with polio are fully vaccinated against it. Many parents are now worried that the polio vaccine causes paralysis of their children, for good reason. The polio vaccine has been the main reason behind polio outbreaks in recent history.
Bottom line, a sabotaged immune system lies at the basis of nearly every illness that plagues humankind, polio and cancer included. Vaccines injure the liver, kidneys, digestive system, brain, and foremost, the immune system. Those with the weakest immune systems suffer the most from artificial immunization.
Why Infections Can Save Lives
Infection is one of the greatest cures there can be. In fact, infection can prevent cancer and other illnesses, and yes, cure them. In a 2005 epidemiological study covering over 151 previous studies, researchers from the Department of Health Care and Epidemiology, University of British Columbia found an inverse association between acute infections and cancer development. According to the abstract of this study, entitled, “Acute infections as a means of cancer prevention: Opposing effects to chronic infections?”, exposures to febrile infectious childhood diseases were associated with subsequently reduced risks for melanoma, ovary, and multiple cancers combined, significant in the latter two groups.
Furthermore, epidemiological studies on common acute infections in adults and subsequent cancer development found these infections to be associated with reduced risks for meningioma, glioma, melanoma and multiple cancers combined, significantly for the latter three groups. Overall, risk reduction increased with the frequency of infections, with febrile infections affording the greatest protection. In other words, children who experienced all the typical childhood infections were most protected from developing cancers in adult life.
At a time when cancer is going to affect one in every two people, this finding should have made national news, and it should be taught at medical schools. National health policies should have been alternated radically, but nothing ever happened. We are still being told that having mumps in children must be avoided at all costs. Never mind that the temporary inconvenience of a largely harmless infection could protect a person from developing a devastating form of cancer 20 or 30 years later, which, in turn, is typically attacked with potentially deadly methods of treatment (chemotherapy, radiation and surgery).
The discovery that acute infections are clearly antagonistic to cancer helps us understand why artificially induced fever has been successfully used for the treatment of cancer in European countries, especially in Germany. Of course, many doctors now treat fever as it were a disease and often prescribe toxic pharmaceuticals to put out the ‘dangerous fire.’ Yet, since fever is the body’s natural way of healing and eliminating pathogens such as infectious viruses and bacteria, squashing it with medication practically prevents any effective healing in the body. Fortunately, some good researchers now stand up for the body’s innate healing tactics, which our mothers and grandmothers had known about all along.
French microbiologist Dr. Andre Lwoff has discovered that fever cures even incurable diseases. One of the world’s leading cancer specialists, Dr. Josef Issels, wrote along these lines: “Artificially induced fever has the greatest potential in the treatment of many diseases, including cancer.” And Oxford professor Dr. David Mychles and his research team have independently proven the effectiveness of induced fever for treating disease, including cancer. There is further historical evidence that infection prevents cancer in the population. For example, Rome (Italy) used be surrounded by swamps that bred malaria mosquitoes, infecting many in the city. The fever that Romans developed from time to time, though, kept their cancer rates well below the average found in the rest of Italy. Then the government decided to drain the swamps, but soon Rome’s cancer rate increased dramatically to the normal rate in Italy. If you piled up kitchen garbage in one area of your house, it would attract a lot of flies and bacteria, and this would generate a foul-smelling odor. You would certainly not blame the flies and bacteria for the stench. They are just trying to digest some of the garbage. Likewise, those microbes that are attracted to or are produced inside unhealthy cells are not part of the problem; they are part of the solution to the problem. An infection, if properly supported by natural approaches of cleansing and nourishment, can practically prevent the genetic mutation of aerobic cells into cancer cells.
Cancer and infection share some of the same original causes. For this reason, a significant number of cancer patients who suffer a major infection such as the chickenpox go into total remission and are subsequently found cancer-free once the infection has passed. According to these 151 studies conducted in the past 100 or more years, spontaneous tumor regression has followed bacterial, fungal,viral, and protozoal infections. During episodes of fever, tumors literally break up, and the cancer cells are promptly removed via the lymphatic system and other organs of elimination. During such a major infection—which is nothing but an appropriate healing response initiated by bacteria and the immune system—a considerable amount of toxic waste is broken down and removed from the body. This, once again, permits oxygen to reach the oxygen-deprived cells. Upon contact with the oxygen, the cancer cells die or otherwise mutate back into normal cells. The tumors have no more reason to be there, hence, the occurrence of spontaneous remission of cancer in these patients. In some cases, brain tumors as large as the size of an egg have literally disappeared in this way within 24 hours.
The standard approach of suppressing infection and its resultant fever among hospital patients is medical malpractice and stands responsible for the loss of millions of lives that could easily have been saved by letting nature do its job. Fever is one of the prime reasons that parents call their children’s doctors, and it is true that any fever in an infant younger than 3 months is cause for major concern, as there is a risk of serious bacterial infections. Also, a child who has a seizure with fever should be checked by a physician, at least the first time. In most cases, though, these infections follow exposure to the cocktail of poisons and foreign DNA material contained in vaccines. However, fever is actually a signal that an immune system is working well and in older children who do not appear to be particularly distressed, fever is a very positive sign. It is evidence that the child has an active immune system. Fever does not harm the brain or the body, although it does increase one’s need for fluids. You can find more information about how to nurture a child through an illness in my book, Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation.
The main message here is to learn to trust in the wisdom of the body. Instead of believing those who claim the body makes mistakes and germs are out to harm us, you may just as well adopt the belief that both actually collaborate to keep us alive and healthy for a long time. In good health, Andreas Moritz
You may recall reading about the importance of acute infections in cancer prevention & cure in my book, Cancer is Not a Disease. I have just received the translation of an excellent paper on this subject, recently published in a Dutch journal. Science: Increase in cancer cases as a consequence of eliminating febrile infectious diseases If you know anyone with cancer, please pass it on to them. It contains all the references to the scientific studies that support the claims I’ve made in my article and book.
P.S. You may wish to check out my new EnerchiTV page for new educational videos I will be posting there, at least one each week: http://www.youtube.com/user/enerchiTV
——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page
Research in the UK suggests that the number of new cancer cases could rise 45 percent by 2030.
Cancer Research UK, which funded the study, says that the National Health Service must act immediately to avoid being “overwhelmed”.
The research looked at 23 different types of cancer, and found an expected cancer increase of 55 percent for men and 35 percent for women.
BBC News reports:
“The rate of breast cancer is projected to fall by 7 percent.
The authors attribute this to a recent reduction in the use of hormone replacement therapy, which is a risk factor for the disease.
However the rates of malignant melanoma and kidney cancer are forecast to rise sharply in men and women.”
The primary reason for the rise in cancer cases is attributed to population growth in the UK and an increased ageing population.
Interestingly, while paying lip service to the necessity to create stronger initiatives for smoking, drinking, and obesity reduction.
England’s Department of Health is planning to invest more than £750 million over the next four years to promote earlier cancer diagnosis and “better access to the latest treatments.”
So in essence, they’re going to throw millions of pounds into an already broken system—the Cut, Poison, Burn paradigm—that does nothing to actually prevent cancer…
No wonder cancer rates are projected to rise by 45 percent in the UK over the next 20 years!
New Study—Cost of Cancer Rapidly Becoming Unsustainable
Cancer now surpasses heart disease as the number one killer of Americans between the ages of 45 to 74. The odds are quite high that you or someone you know has cancer, is dying or has already died from it.
While life cannot be measured in dollars and cents, the financial burden of cancer is truly staggering. Currently, 12 million people worldwide are diagnosed with cancer each year, costing $286 billion annually in medical costs and lost productivity. By 2030, that number could increase to 22 million people each year, with a similar rise in costs.
According to anew report from a panel of 37 experts, the cost of cancer is rapidly becoming unsustainable in many developed countries. The report was published in the journal Lancet Oncology in September, and was covered in Time Magazine that same month.
According to the authors of the report:
“The burden of cancer is growing rapidly… This is not simply due to an increase in absolute numbers or need for optimized treatments, rather it relates to the unsustainable rate of increase in expenditure on cancer within health-care systems.
What are the drivers and solutions to the so-called cancer-cost curve in developed countries? How are we going to afford to deliver high-quality and equitable care? In this Commission and the linked Comments, expert opinion from health-care professionals, policy makers, and cancer survivors has been gathered to address the barriers and solutions to delivering affordable cancer-care in high-income countries.”
The report wisely questions the value of expensive new therapies that prolong patients’ lives by mere months. Some cancer drugs, such as Avastin, for example, can cost upwards of $100,000 per year. At that price, even with insurance coverage, your co-payments can easily run as high as $20,000 a year. This despite the fact that studies show the drug prolongs life by just a few months at best, and more recent studies have suggested the drug might be less effective against cancer than the FDA believed when it was approved. It also has potentially lethal side effects that might speed up your ultimate demise.
When the Treatment is Worse than the Disease…
Perhaps more importantly, most conventional cancer treatments tend to add insult to injury by doing more harm than good — a fact that has been largely swept under the rug by the medical industry.
Meanwhile, the real culprits—the underlying causes—are completely ignored, and that is, I believe, the root of the problem. The cancer industry has become a massive for-profit business that is doing everything in its power to maintain the status quo. It is, quite simply, not interested in truly reducing cancer rates; it’s interested in treating cancer. From that perspective, the more cancer cases the better…
This sordid reality has been well-documented in films such as Cut, Poison, Burn, and Burzynski: The Movie.
Getting to the Root of the Problem
Ignoring the fact that cancer is for the most part a disease triggered primarily by exposure to industrial toxins, the now well-trod path of the Cut-Poison-Burn model is taking us ever further AWAY from the solution. The pharmaceutical researchers would like you to believe they’re doing everything they can to come up with a solution. Yet most of the cancer research is directed towards expensive drugs that target late stages of the disease and greatly enrich the drug companies but simply do not prevent cancer.
Clearly they’re not digging close enough to the root of the problem, because if they did, they’d touch on some of the lifestyle issues I’ll review below.
If ever there was an area in which an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure it is cancer. I firmly believe that if you’re able to work your way up to the advanced health plan, that you will virtually eliminate the risk of most cancers.
From my perspective, you ignore lifestyle factors at your own peril, as environmental- and lifestyle factors are increasingly being pinpointed as the primary culprits fueling our cancer epidemic. An exhaustive list of contributing factors would be exceedingly long, but some of the more obvious ones are listed below. For more information about each, follow the hyperlinks provided, and for specifics on consumer products implicated as contributors to cancer, take a look at the Cancer Prevention Coalition’s “Dirty Dozen” list.
In the last 30 years the global cancer burden has doubled, and as predicted in the featured study, we’re looking at further dramatic increases—unless people begin to take cancer prevention seriously. I believe we can turn this trend around, but to do so the medical community must stop overlooking the methods that can actually have a very real and significant impact.
Three cancer advancements in particular merit special mention, and I will summarize them below. These advancements have not yet been accepted by conventional medicine, and they must be.
Vitamin D Plays a Crucial Role in Cancer Development
There’s overwhelming evidence indicating that vitamin D deficiency plays a crucial role in cancer development. Research has identified a number of vitamin D’s protective mechanisms against cancer, including:
Regulating genetic expression
Increasing the self-destruction of mutated cells (which, if allowed to replicate, could lead to cancer)
Reducing the spread and reproduction of cancer cells
Causing cells to become differentiated (cancer cells often lack differentiation)
Reducing the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones, which is a step in the transition of dormant tumors turning cancerous
Researchers within this field have estimated that about 30 percent of cancer deaths could be prevented annually simply by optimizing the vitamin D levels in the general population. On a personal level, you can decrease your risk of cancer by MORE THAN HALF simply by optimizing your vitamin D levels with sun exposure. And if you are being treated for cancer it is likely that higher blood levels—probably around 70-100 ng/ml—would be beneficial.
If the notion that sun exposure actually prevents cancer is still new to you, I highly recommend you watch my one-hour vitamin D lectureto clear up any confusion. It’s important to understand that the risk of skin cancer from the sun comes only from excessive exposure. Meanwhile, countless people around the world have an increased risk of cancer because their vitamin D levels are too low due to utter lack of sun exposure.
Why We Need to Re-Embrace Sun Exposure
I strongly recommend optimizing your vitamin D levels with appropriate amounts of sun exposure because when your skin is exposed to the sun, in addition to creating vitamin D3 it also synthesizes high amounts of vitamin D sulfate and cholesterol sulfate—both of which are very important for heart- and cardiovascular health. In fact, research by Dr. Stephanie Seneff suggests that heart disease may be a symptom of cholesterol sulfate deficiency, and healthy cholesterol and sulfur levels are both highly dependent on your vitamin D levels…
Vitamin D sulfate is a water soluble form of sulfur that can travel freely in your blood stream, making it readily available, while oral vitamin D3 is unsulfated, and therefore needs LDL (the so-called “bad” cholesterol) as a vehicle of transport. Dr. Seneff’s suspicion is that the simple oral non-sulfated form of vitamin D may not provide as much of the same heart-healthy benefits as the vitamin D created in your skin from sun exposure, because it cannot be converted to vitamin D sulfate, and therefore will not improve your sulfur status.
Furthermore, sulfur deficiency also promotes obesity and related health problems like diabetes, so all in all, the importance of getting regular sun exposure simply cannot be overstated.
If you can’t get enough sun exposure during certain parts of the year, I advise using a safe tanning bed to allow your body to produce vitamin D naturally. Safe tanning beds have electronic ballasts and produce less UVA than sunshine.
A third option is taking a high-quality vitamin D supplement. According to the most recent findings by Carole Baggerly, founder ofGrassrootsHealth, her research of nearly 10,000 people shows the ideal adult dose appears to be 8,000 IU’s a day to get most into the healthy range. Just remember to get your vitamin D levels tested regularly if you take an oral supplement.
World’s First Breast Cancer Prevention Study Underway!
While virtually all cancer organizations ignore cancer prevention, focusing primarily on early detection instead, Grassroots Health is now in the process of initiating the world’s first breast cancer prevention project and study, to investigate and evaluate vitamin D as a preventive strategy for breast cancer.
If you would like to sign up as a participant in this groundbreaking study, or make a donation to support this project, you can do so here. This project is only for women who are:
60 years of age and older
have no current cancer
are not currently being treated for cancer
Your Insulin Levels have a Direct Bearing on Your Cancer Risk
The second cancer prevention strategy that everyone needs to be aware of is the importance of normalizing your insulin levels. Aside from optimizing your vitamin D levels, normalizing your insulin levels is one of the most powerful physical actions you can take to lower your risk of cancer. Unfortunately, very few oncologists appreciate or apply this knowledge today. The Cancer Centers of America is one of the few exceptions, where strict dietary measures are included in their cancer treatment program.
High levels of insulin can cause major damage to your body. The most recognized of these is diabetes, but cancer is another common side effect. The good news is that controlling your insulin levels is relatively straightforward:
First and foremost, limit your intake of processed foods, grains and sugars/fructose as much as possible, and
Exercise regularly especially Peak Fitness exercises
Exercise is Slowly Becoming More Recognized for its Cancer Prevention Potential
While exercise might not be at the top of most people’s lists of cancer prevention or treatment strategies, there is actually compelling evidence suggesting that exercise can indeed slash your cancer risk and improve recovery.
For example, physically active adults experience about half the incidence of colon cancer as their sedentary counterparts, and women who exercise regularly can reduce their breast cancer risk by 20 to 30 percent compared to those who are inactive. Furthermore, Harvard Medical School researchers found that breast cancer patients who exercise moderately — 3-5 hours a week — reduce theirodds of dying by about half as compared to sedentary women. In fact, any amount of weekly exercise increased a patient’s odds of surviving breast cancer.
One of the primary ways exercise lowers your cancer risk is by reducing elevated insulin levels, which creates a low sugar environment that discourages the growth and spread of cancer cells. Additionally, exercise improves the circulation of immune cells in your blood, which is your first line of defense against all disease, including cancer.
The trick though is understanding how to use exercise as a precise tool. It can be helpful to view exercise like a drug that needs to be carefully prescribed to achieve its maximum benefit.
You’ll want to include a large variety of techniques in your exercise routine, such as:
High-intensity, burst-type exercise, such as Peak 8. (Peak 8 are exercises performed three times a week, in which you raise your heart rate up to your anaerobic threshold for 20 to 30 seconds, and then you recover for 90 seconds)
Strength training
Aerobics
Core-building activities
Stretching
Other Cancer-Prevention Strategies
Please understand that you can do a lot, right now, to significantly decrease your cancer risk. Even the conservative American Cancer Society states that one-third of cancer deaths are linked to poor diet, physical inactivity, and carrying excess weight. So making the following healthy lifestyle changes can go a very long way toward ending the failure-streak and becoming one less statistic in this war against cancer:
Focus on fresh, whole organic foods, forgoing as many processed foods as possible. Aim to consume at least one-third of your food raw. Only 25 percent of people eat enough vegetables, so by all means eat as many vegetables as you are comfortable with.Cruciferous vegetables in particular have been identified as having potent anti-cancer properties.
When eating meat, make sure it’s grass-fed. Avoid CAFO beef and ALL processed meats, which have been clearly linked to increased cancer risk.
Get appropriate amounts of animal-based omega-3 fats.
Have a tool to permanently erase the neurological short-circuiting that can activate cancer genes. Even the CDC states that 85 percent of disease is caused by emotions. It is likely that this factor may be more important than all the other physical ones listed here, so make sure this is addressed. My particular favorite tool for this purpose, as you may know, is the Emotional Freedom Technique.
Maintain an ideal body weight. For my top 10 guidelines for normalizing your weight, please see this previous article.
Get enough high-quality sleep.
Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, household chemical cleaners, conventional personal care products,synthetic air fresheners and air pollution.
Reduce your use of cell phones and other wireless technologies, and implement as many safety strategies as possible if/when you cannot avoid their use.
Boil, poach or steam your foods, rather than frying or charbroiling them.
To view the original article click here. To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
The breast cancer scare has women everywhere racing to get a mammogram in hopes that breast screening will safe their lives. But a new research report says breast screening harms as many women as it supposedly benefits. Researchers from the United Kingdom say women, who get regular mammograms, are at a high risk for false positives, meaning they will be rushed into cancer surgery for malignant cancer they don’t even have.
Countless Women Subjected to Needless Breast Surgery
In 1986, breast screening was recommended for preventative care in the U.K. due to the Forrest report, which predicted screening would reduce deaths from breast cancer by one third. But criticism of breast screening has increased in recent years as research points to it being less beneficial – and possibly far more harmful – than previously thought.
James Raferty, professor of health technology assessment at the University of Southampton, led the study. He and a team of colleagues analyzed findings to determine the real results of breast screening. They found that false positives and unnecessary surgeries may make mammography more dangerous than beneficial.
Their report, published on Dec. 8 in the online version of the British Medical Journal, includes data from eight trials involving 100,000 women over the age of 50 who have had breast screening. When researchers took into account the harm of false positives and needless surgery caused by breast screening, the benefits of screening dropped to less than half what was predicted in the Forrest report.
“The meaning and implications of overdiagnosis and overtreatment need to be much better explained and communicated,” researchers write in their report.
Raferty also adds, “There are lots of women around who have had surgery who (falsely) believe their lives were saved.”
Health departments and cancer charities dismiss the findings and continue to insist women be subjected to annual breast cancer screening. Even though the American Cancer Society previously admitted breast screening benefits are overstated, they continue to push the idea that mammograms save lives. One can only wonder how much research needs to be done before these organizations get the wake up call they so desperately need.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
“The chief, if not the sole, cause of the monstrous increase in cancer has been vaccination” – Dr. Robert Bell, once Vice President International Society for Cancer Research at the British Cancer Hospital
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – Have you been rushing out to get a yearly flu vaccine or diligently taking your children for the 40 or so mandated childhood vaccines?
That’s really a shame because you have unwittingly been trading a run-of-the-mill flu or just the measles, for loading up your or your children’s bodies with cancer and other deadly viruses, a destructive bacteria, a chemical selected to damage fertility, and with synthetic DNA that threatens to damage your own DNA – the biologic code for your existence.
Who is saying the vaccines are contaminated?
None other than the (now deceased) head of vaccines at Merck, Dr. Maurice Hillerman, who on camera admitted that Merck’s Hepatitis B vaccines, contaminated with a virus, caused the AIDS epidemic in the US. He went on to say that all of Merck’s vaccines are contaminated with cancer and other viruses. (The US government has conceded the HEB B vaccine causes Lupus. That vaccine is mandated for every infant in the US on the day of birth, and is associated with MS as well.)
(That vaccine is mandated for every infant in the US on the day of birth, and is associated with MS as well.)
For Jews who have almost religiously believed in medical authorities about vaccines and poo-pooed those worried about the safety of vaccines, they might want to notice that Hillerman was Jewish.
Or they might recognize that so is Dr. Larry Palevsky, a board certified NY pediatrician, who for ten years routinely gave vaccines to his patients until he noticed them losing eye contact and then began looking into the vaccines he had blindly trusted. He found that they are ALL contaminated with viruses that are so small they can never be removed. He no longer gives any vaccines. He now treats his young patients for autism and other neurologic injuries from vaccines.
Donald W. Scott, the editor of The Journal of Degenerative Diseases and the co-founder of the Common Cause Medical Research Foundation, links vaccines to AIDS (as did Hillerman) and to US bio-weapons research, and says they are contaminated with mycoplasma, a primitive bacteria that takes apart cell walls.
Perhaps the highest scientific authority saying vaccines are contaminated is Garth Nicolson. He is a cell biologist and editor of the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Metastasis, and the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry. He is one of the most cited scientists in the world, having published over 600 medical and scientific peer-reviewed papers, edited over 14 books, and served on the editorial boards of 28 medical and scientific journals. He is not just saying that vaccines are contaminated with mycoplasma but is warning the US that they are. Nicolson goes further and says that we are all being damaged by them and contracting chronic degenerative diseases that.
That damage translates into lifelong patients (and thus life-long profit) for the pharmaceutical industry making the vaccines and he says doesn’t appear to be accidental.
According To CIA Statistics: As Shots Increase, U.S. Lifespan Is DECREASING
1980: 9 vaccines, autism is rare
2009: 36 vaccine$ before age 5
2010: 55 vaccine$ before age 6
All the vaccines mandated to children and many other vaccines as well, including the seasonal flu vaccines being mandated to health care workers, are contaminated with polysorbate 80, the central ingredient in a pharmaceutical industry patent to damage fertility. The pharmaceutical industry has a long history of of seeking a vaccine that would covertly sterilize whole populations So, in addition to being contaminated with cancer and other viruses, and with the bacteria mycoplasma, vaccines are intentionally “contaminated” with a chemical as well, which is, given the patent, a “patently” sought-after sterilizing agen
Beyond containing polysorbate 80 and cancer and other viruses, and likely mycoplasma, the Gardasil vaccines are contaminated in an additional way. It and all the new vaccines are contaminated with genetically engineered DNA. It can contaminate people’s DNA, just a genetically engineered crops can contaminate normal crops. Gardasil itself is contaminated with a man-made version of the HPV DNA, the very virus it was supposed to protect against, which now it threatens not only altering kids’ healthy DNA with synthetic DNA (!) but with a diseased version.
Gardasil was suspended in India after 4 girls died but the killing has gone on in the US despite the confirmed deaths of 100 girls. and now the CDC, with special ties to Merck, its maker, wants all boys to take it, too.
Informed consent is the core of the Nuremberg Code that was created by the Nuremberg Tribunal to keep the pharmaceutical industry from ever again committing the hideous “medical” abuses it did during the Holocaust. In California, Jerry Brown is dismantling informed consent in order to get these deadly vaccines associated with infertility, into all school children. And it was during the Holocaust that the pharmaceutical experimented on Jewish women prisoners at Auschwitz to develop a vaccine that sterilized covertly. Henry Kissinger recommended the development of covertly sterilizing vaccines in a major report to the US government and as late as 2009 a Finnish Health Minister said he was behind the H1N1 vaccine that was meant to lower population.
Jerry Brown has just signed into law a bill that will allow children as young as 12 to decide whether to take a vaccine for sexually transmitted disease. Parental consent is not needed and parents will not even be allowed knowledge as to whether the child has taken the vaccine. Merck’s Hepatitis B vaccine is one that is included, as is another Merck vaccine, Gardasil, allegedly for ovarian cancer. A Gardasil researcher says there is no evidence it works. “This raises questions about the CDC’s recommendation that the series of shots be given to girls as young as 11-years old. ‘If we vaccinate 11 year olds and the protection doesn’t last… we’ve put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit,’ says Dr. Harper. ‘The benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers … ‘ “
Current Data for Gardasil up to AUG 12, 2011
Disabled 763
Deaths 103
Did Not Recover 4777
Abnorm. Pap Smear 430
Cervical Dysplasia 157
Cervical Cancer 41
Life Threatening 444
Emergency Rm. Visit 9115
Hospitalized 2307
Extended Hosp. Stay 201
Serious 3111
Adverse Events 23388
But these figures are based on statistics from medical professionals who do not wish to be sued. In reality, “less than 10% of deaths, seizures, paralysis, etc., are being reported as caused by the vaccinations that doctors gave in their office.
The following real-world estimates are based on reports from a law firm:
840 young girls and 2 boys have died after receiving the Gardasil HPV Vaccine 201,010 young girls have suffered debilitating events such as fatigue, seizures, paralysis, etc. after receiving the Gardasil HPV Vaccine.
The California law even approves in advance, ALL yet-to-be made (and completely untested) vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases, though of the two current Merck vaccines they are pushing on children, one Merck vaccine caused AIDS and causes Lupus and the other Merck vaccine is contaminated in multiple ways and proving highly lethal. Children will be the ones decide whether to take the vaccines, and they will make that decision after being forced to see videos of people dying terrible deaths from cancer. Not only would the vaccine be given without parental consent, but parents are denied knowledge that the vaccine is going to be given or that it was given. If the child has a seizure or dies afterward, parents may not see their own children’s medical records.
This is what is left of the “informed consent” meant to provide human rights to protect the world from pharmaceutical industry abuses against mankind.
After World War II, it was Merck which received the flight capital of the pharmaceutical industry indicted for crimes against humanity, human enslavement and mass murder.
In the case of children, rather than their facing childhood diseases of insignificant threat, they are, by legal mandate, being bombarded repeatedly throughout their childhood with viruses that cause diseases (including cancer), a cell-destroying bacteria, a a threat to the very integrity of their DNA, and a chemical specifically chosen to impair fertility. And laws are being written to add to the already long list of vaccines they must take, including two mandated Merck vaccines. One is an old Merck vaccine that caused AIDS and is causing Lupus. The other is a Merck vaccine claiming to prevent cervical cancer though girls have little chance of contracting it in the first place (and boys, none!) and it can easily be detected by pap smear and treated successfully and there is NO evidence the vaccine prevents it. Meanwhile, it is killing children.
Contamination of the polio vaccine and the continuing effects
FACT: Before the Polio Vaccine, there had never been a virus from another species deliberately injected into humans.
FACT: 61% of all human tumors (at autopsy) now contain the SV40 monkey virus, traceable to the Polio vaccine of the 1950s and 60s
FACT: CUTTER vaccine division and WYETH produced a deadly Polio vaccine with a live virus that actually gave the recipient POLIO
FACT: All above information was withheld from the public for years to avoid a public panic and to prevent a loss of faith in vaccines. polio was a very rare infectious disease that presented little risk to the public, but the risk was greatly exaggerated by the Polio Foundation before the introduction of the polio vaccine, the miracle vaccine – contaminated with a monkey virus which has been the cause of soft tissue cancers for decades since.
Though facing no serious health risk, people are paying to have their bodies contaminated by contaminated vaccines. In taking vaccines, they are trading the minimal risk of even contracting common diseases and which themselves are rarely dangerous and can be treated if contracted – for the absolute certainty of loading their bodies with
1. cancer and other infectious viruses, 2. a destructive bacteria, and 3. a fertility impairing chemical.
They are doing this because they are being terrorized by their own government with false information on the risks of various diseases and denied critical information on the scientific risk of the vaccines.
Those vaccines without a doubt threaten their own and their children’s fertility, and their very lives.
Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States.
In fact, the incidence of skin cancer cases each year is higher than all other cancer combined, and has risenmore than 300 percent since 1992.
There are now more than 3.5 million nonmelanoma skin cancer cases diagnosed every year in the United States, bringing numbers well into epidemic proportions.
Clearly Americans’ well-intentioned efforts to cover up with sunscreen are not doing the trick, and I’ll explain some of the reasons for this below, but first I want to share with you a ground-breaking, completely natural substance that research shows can cure non melanoma skin cancers.
It’s called Solasodine rhamnosyl glycosides (BEC), which is a fancy name for extracts from plants of the Solanaceae family, such as eggplant, tomato, potato, Bell peppers, and tobacco.
Eggplant and Similar Plant Extracts Used for Treating Cancer Since 1825
There are reports that extracts of plants from the Solanaceae family of vegetables are effective for treating cancer dating back nearly 200 years to 1825, according to natural health pioneer Dr. Jonathan Wright. However, it wasn’t until much later, after the 1950s, that they were formally studied.
The leading researcher in this area today is Dr. Bill E. Cham, who reported as early as 1991 in Cancer Letters that:
“A cream formulation containing high concentrations (10%) of a standard mixture of solasodine glycosides (BEC) has been shown to be effective in the treatment of malignant and benign human skin tumors.
We now report that a preparation … which contains very low concentrations of BEC (0.005%) is effective in the treatment of keratoses, basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) and squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) of the skin of humans. In an open study, clinical and histological observations indicated that all lesions (56 keratoses, 39 BCCs and 29 SCCs) treated with [the preparation] had regressed.”
A subsequent study by separate researchers also noted that a 0.005% mixture of solasodine glycosides called BEC5 is a “safe therapy for basal cell carcinoma, with a cure rate of 66% at 8 weeks and 78% at 1 year follow-up.”
The findings are exciting, to say the least, because while basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas — the two most common types of skin cancer — are highly curable even by conventional medical standards, there are serious disadvantages with the common treatments. As Dr. Cham reported, the treatment and management of nonmelanoma skin cancers cost more than $1.4 billion per year in the United States, a number that is increasing exponentially each year and quickly becoming unsustainable.
Further, the common treatments, surgery and radiation therapy, pose the following problems:
Surgery may not remove all cancerous cells
Painful with slow healing
Scarring often occurs, which can be cosmetically unappealing, especially if the cancer is on your face
Serious health risks of radiation therapy
High recurrence rates have been reported following conventional treatment
That affordable eggplant extract appears to rapidly cure cancerous lesions with absolutely no scarring and only minor itching and burning as side effects is impressive.
Two Skin Cancer Case Studies Show Amazing Results With Eggplant-Extract Cream
Dr. Cham’s latest study was published in the International Journal of Clinical Medicine this year. The paper includes two impressive case reports of 60-something men who were suffering from large basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), which had plagued them for years. The results upon treatment with a cream formulation of BEC (eggplant extract) twice a day are astounding, and you can view the pictures here:
In the first case, treatment with the eggplant-extract cream resulted in rapid break down of the tumor. After two weeks, the lesion was reduced to about half its original size, and after 14 weeks the cancer was clinically eliminated with no scar tissue formation. Even the hairs had regrown where the tumor was originally.
In the second case, after six weeks of treatment with eggplant-extract cream the large skin cancer lesion appeared “cleaner” and some of the cancerous tissue had been replaced with normal tissue. In another three weeks, the lesion was much smaller and more normal tissue was apparent. After a total of 14 weeks, the lesion was completely eliminated with no scar tissue present.
Interestingly, the BEC, and the specific formulation BEC5, which has been used successfully on more than 80,000 patients according to Dr. Cham, appears to impact only cancerous cells leaving normal cells alone. Dr. Cham explains:
The mode of action of SRGs [glycoalkaloids solasodine rhamnosy glycosides (BEC)] is unlike any current antineoplastic [anti-tumor] agent. Specific receptors for the SRGs present only on cancer cells but not normal cells are the first step of events that lead to apoptosis in cancer cells only, and this may explain why during treatment the cancer cells were being eliminated and normal cells were replacing the killed cancer cells with no scar tissue being formed.
The two cases presented here are large and anatomically difficult to treat lesions. There is little doubt that the cosmetic end result of this type of treatment is at least, or more likely, superior to other available treatments. At the completion of treatment, it could not be distinguished where the tumors once were!”
Unfortunately, simply eating eggplant, tomatoes, peppers or similar veggies, while beneficial for many reasons, will not induce this same effect because the active components are not able to effectively penetrate your cells. This requires the addition of glycosides, molecules with various simple sugars attached to them that can latch on to receptors found on skin cancer cells.
Dr. Wright explains:
“BEC5 is a name for a mixture of 1/3 solasonine and 1/3 solamargine in the “triglycoside” form, and 1/3 “diglycosides and monoglycosides” of these two basic molecules. Solasonine and solamargine themselves are actually very similar (but not identical to) human cholesterol and steroid molecules.
By themselves, solasonine and solamargine don’t have anticancer activity because they can’t penetrate into cells, cancerous or normal. That’s why just eating the foods that contain these compounds won’t eliminate your skin cancer or even reduce your risk of getting it. In order for them to be effective, they need to be able to get into the cells. That’s where the glycosides come in. Glycoside is a term used to describe molecules with various simple sugars attached to them.
One of these simple sugars, called rhamnose, selectively latches on to receptors present only in skin cancer cell membranes and in actinic keratosis. When you combine the solasonine and solamargine with rhamnose, they can get into the cells where they cause cancer cell death by destroying cell components called lysosomes. Normal cells escape any harm, since the BEC5 can’t get into them.”
Lack of Sunlight Increases Your Risk of Melanoma Skin Cancer
What’s even better than an inexpensive, safe and natural cure for skin cancer is, of course, preventing it in the first place. And to do that you’ve got to get your mind around this fact: In fact, doing this will actually increase your risk of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, because it will decimate your vitamin D levels.
Avoiding the sun and slathering on sunscreen is NOT the best way to prevent skin cancer!
Your organs convert the vitamin D in your bloodstream into calcitriol, which is the hormonal or activated version of vitamin D. Your organs then use it to repair damage, including damage from cancer cells and tumors. Exposure to sunlight is the optimal way to maintain therapeutic blood levels of vitamin D, so if you’ve been shunning the sun, or applying sunscreen, which blocks your body’s ability to produce vitamin D, you’re likely deficient and missing out on these anti-cancer benefits.
Vitamin D’s protective effect against cancer works in multiple ways, including:
Increasing the self-destruction of mutated cells (which, if allowed to replicate, could lead to cancer)
Reducing the spread and reproduction of cancer cells
Causing cells to become differentiated (cancer cells often lack differentiation)
Reducing the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones, which is a step in the transition of dormant tumors turning cancerous
A study by Dr. William Grant, Ph.D., internationally recognized research scientist and vitamin D expert, found that about 30 percent of cancer deaths — which amounts to 2 million worldwide and 200,000 in the United States – could be prevented each year with higher levels of vitamin D!
Several studies have also confirmed that appropriate sun exposure actually helps prevent skin cancer. In fact, melanoma occurrence has been found to decrease with greater sun exposure, and can be increased by sunscreens. One such study revealed that melanoma patients who had higher levels of sun exposure were less likely to die than other melanoma patients, and patients who already had melanoma and got a lot of sun exposure were prone to a less aggressive tumor type.
Another Italian study, published in the European Journal of Cancer, also confirmed and supported earlier studies showing improved survival rates in melanoma patients who were exposed to sunlight more frequently in the time before their melanoma was diagnosed.
Melanoma is actually more common in indoor workers than in outdoor workers, and is more common on regions of your body that are not exposed to the sun at all. UVB radiation has been found to delay the appearance of melanoma if you are genetically predisposed or prone to skin cancer.
Why Most Sunscreens Will Not Protect You Against Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer
Aside from their impact on your vitamin D levels, most sunscreens are worse than useless because they provide inadequate UVA protection. There are two primary types of UV rays from sunlight that you need to be concerned with, the vitamin-D-producing UVB rays and the skin-damaging UVA light.
Both UVA and UVB can cause tanning and burning, although UVB does so far more rapidly. UVA, however, penetrates your skin more deeply than UVB, and may be a much more important factor in photoaging, wrinkles and non-melanoma skin cancers.
However, if you think your sunscreen is protecting you from UVA, you’re likely being deceived, as a 2011 Environmental Working Group analysis found that more than 60 percent of sunscreen products reviewed provide inadequate UVA protection, and are actually so ineffective that they would not be approved in the European market.
Since UVA’s are inherently more damaging AND persistently high during all daylight hours, wearing a sunscreen that doesn’t protect you from UVA is going to give you virtually no benefit and be detrimental to your overall health. So it’s important to understand that if you’re using sunscreen, you need to be certain you are actually getting UVA protection.
Europe is taking a far more stringent stance to ensure that consumers are protected against the damaging UVA light when they use sunscreens, but in the United States sunscreen standards fall short.
As EWG reported:
” … Europe’s proposed standards for UVA protection are far more stringent than FDA’s. The agency has spent years finalizing a rule that would merely require disclosure of UVA protection levels, while Europe has proposed that sunscreens provide UVA protection at a level at least one-third as strong as the sunburn protection level (SPF).
This means the minimum UVA protection in Europe would be roughly equivalent to FDA’s proposed three-star protection level. Requiring balanced protection across the UVB and UVA spectrum has the secondary effect of limiting sky-high SPF values, ensuring that sunburn protection isn’t out of step with protection from other health problems, such as free radical damage and skin cancer.
Very few sunscreens on the U.S. market would meet the baseline UVA protection standards proposed in Europe.”
Using the Sun for Skin Cancer Prevention
The key to effectively using the sun for skin cancer protection is to find a healthy balance between getting enough natural sunlight to maximize your vitamin D production and maintain your optimal health, while at the same time protecting yourself from damage that occurs from overexposure to the sun.
A good rule of thumb to follow is once your skin turns the lightest shade of pink (if you’re Caucasian), it’s time to get out of the sun. Past this point of exposure your body will not produce any more vitamin D and you’ll begin to have sun damage — and sunburn anywhere on your body is not good for your health.
You should seek to use natural sunlight as your primary source of vitamin D, but during the winter a safe tanning bed (one that uses electronic, not magnetic, ballasts and has lower levels of UVA than even the sun does, as most non-safe beds have higher UVA levels than the sun) is the next best alternative.
If neither of these options are available to you then you can use an oral vitamin D3 supplement, but keep in mind you may miss out on all of the benefits, and researchers have found that daily intakes of vitamin D by adults in the range of 8,000 IU are needed so your blood levels are in the therapeutic range. You can find out more about how to use vitamin D therapeutically to protect your health here.
Your Diet Can Also Protect You from Skin Cancer
Consuming a healthy diet full of natural antioxidants is a useful strategy to ensure your body is primed to have the best defense against overexposure to the sun’s harmful UVA rays at all times.
Fresh, raw, unprocessed foods deliver the nutrients that your body needs to maintain a healthy balance of omega-6 and omega-3 oils in your skin, which is your first line of defense against sunburn. Fresh, raw vegetables also provide your body with an abundance of powerful antioxidants that will help you fight the free radicals caused by sun damage that can lead to burns and cancer. As Wright also recommends, some of the most important foods and nutrients to focus on for skin-cancer prevention include:
The recently appreciated highly beneficial carotenoid called astaxanthin has also piqued the interest of researchers due to its ability to reduce signs of aging by helping protect your skin from sun damage. Astaxanthin is extracted from marine algae in response to exposure to UV light. This is the way the algae protects itself from UVB damage, so it makes perfect sense that this deeply pigmented substance would have the capacity to “shield” you when it is taken in appropriate quantities for a sufficient time (usually several weeks) to saturate your body’s tissues.
Cyanotech Corporation funded a study through an independent consumer research laboratory to measure the skin’s resistance to both UVA and UVB light before and after astaxanthin supplementation. The result was that in only three weeks of taking 4 mg per day subjects showed a significant increase in the amount of time necessary for UV radiation to redden their skin. You can find more information on how to use astaxanthin to help protect your skin from sun damage here.
Your body is made to be in the sun, and, when done properly, sun exposure will be one of the best ways you can help reduce your risk of skin, and many other forms of, cancer. In the event you do develop non-melanoma skin cancer, talk to your holistic health care practitioner about all the treatment options available, including the potentially least expensive and least invasive ones, like eggplant extract.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
For more than thirty years, Western researchers have known that the occurrence of solid tumor cancers is far less in countries where populations consume large amounts of green tea. Cultures that are endowed with a long tea tradition have much to contribute to individual and global health. However, this applies only to green tea. Regular black tea, presently very popular almost everywhere, has not much to do with real tea. Real tea is derived from the tea plant Thea sinensis or Thea asoncica, not to be confused with herb teas such as peppermint, chamomile or fennel.
Both black and green teas originate from the same tea plant, but their methods of processing are different. The breaking of the leaves of the plants and exposing them to the oxygen of the air produces black tea. The resulting natural fermentation process destroys the most important biological ingredients of the tea – the tannins. By contrast, during the production of green tea, the leaves are stabilized through exposure to both humid and dry heat. This eliminates fermentation-producing enzymes and safeguards the nutrients.
Due to fermentation, black tea assumes drug-like qualities. Since tannins and other important nutrients are no longer present in the tea, its caffeine appears in free and unbound form. The stimulating effect of the quickly released caffeine causes the addictive effect of black tea. It triggers a ‘fight or flight’ response in the body. Since the body treats the ingested caffeine as a nerve toxin, the adrenal glands naturally respond by secreting the antidote adrenaline. This defense response by the body has a stimulating and enlivening effect. However, as the effects of the caffeine and adrenaline diminish, the body starts feeling tired and may end up exhausted.
Green tea works in a different way. The large amounts of tannins in green tea make certain that the caffeine is taken to the brain in only small and well-dosed amounts, which actually harmonizes the energies in the body. Unlike black tea, the original green version of the tea makes the body’s own energy-use more efficient. This helps the consumer of green tea improve his vitality and stamina without having to experience the ‘up and down’ effect so often accompanied with the consumption of black tea.
The value of tannin has been studied for centuries all over the world. Besides its ability to bind caffeine, it also has healing properties. Green tea is particularly helpful with intestinal disorders and high blood pressure. It has been shown to be 20 times more effective in slowing the aging process than vitamin E. Studies have demonstrated that the success rate of green tea in reducing oxidants in the body (considered responsible for aging) is 74 percent compared to 4 percent with vitamin E. The vitamin C content of green tea is four times higher than in lemon juice and it contains more B-vitamins than any other known plant. This makes green tea useful for facial skin conditions such as rosacea/acne. Apart from drinking green tea, you may apply it directly to the skin before bedtime and after washing your face in the morning.
Since green tea is highly alkaline it naturally helps combat hyperacidity. People who drink green tea also suffer less from arteriosclerosis. It also keeps the blood thin and prevents coronary heart disease, heart attacks and strokes. Furthermore, researchers from the University of Osaka, Japan, have been able to prove that green tea kills microbes responsible for cholera and tooth decay; it also destroys salmonella germs before they even have the chance to enter the stomach. A substance called ‘EGCG’ has been found to retard tumor growth. The Botikin Hospital in Moscow reported that green tea is more effective against infection than antibiotics, without producing any harmful side effects.
Green tea has over 100 ingredients that have been found useful for a number of conditions, it inhibits cell mutations leading to cancer, reduces blood fats, balances serum cholesterol levels, prevents high blood pressure, increases heart efficiency, improves brain functions, enhances metabolism, improves vision, supports secretion of saliva, increases growth of hair, reduces body fat and weight, stimulates digestion and helps clear urinary tract obstructions.
In a study testing the preventative action of green tea, a team of researchers from the Department of Preventive Medicine at the University of Southern California (U.S.C.) found that green tea prevented breast cancer in women by 30 percent if they consumed about half a cup per day. If they drank more than that, their risk of developing breast cancer was further reduced. Women who regularly drank black tea, on the other hand, didn’t have a reduction in their breast cancer risk. The good news is that this study revealed that you don’t need to drink buckets full of green tea to benefit from it.
The best green tea comes from the Shizuoka area in Japan; it grows organically and has no additives. People living in this area have a much lower cancer rate than those living in other areas of Japan. A reliable brand is Sencha sold by Kurimoto Trading Co., Japan. With over 130 ingredients, it is the richest of all green teas. Other brands are Ocha or Bancha; you should be able to find at least one of them at a good health food store.
Note: The effectiveness of green tea depends on how you prepare it. Take 1½ teaspoons of green tea for 2 cups of tea. Bring water to a boil and turn the heat off. Put the tea into a pot and pour the boiled water over the tea as soon as the water has stopped bubbling. After no longer than 35-45 seconds, pour the tea through a sieve into a teapot, otherwise the tea loses much of its effectiveness. You may use the same leaves a second time by applying the same procedure.
Does Green Tea Contain Toxins?
Some web sites on the Internet claim that tea is very high in fluoride content. Fluoride in tea is supposedly much higher than the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) set for fluoride in drinking water. Another site confirms that information, adding that the typical cup of tea exceeds one milligram of fluoride, which is well over the recommended amount for fluoridated drinking water. On yet another site, it says that fluorine and its compounds in food are entirely different from chemically-produced sodium fluoride. It states that once an element is extracted from the soil and incorporated into plant life, its properties change greatly. All this can be greatly confusing for those concerned about fluoride poisoning.
Yes, fluoride is found in tea and also in mother’s milk. This applies also to areas where there is no fluoride in the drinking water or air. Numerous plants contain naturally occurring fluorine or fluoride compounds. The hideous version of fluoride that is added to drinking water in so many parts of the world is the poison we ought to protect ourselves against. “Fluoride, once touted as an osteoporosis treatment, is, in fact, toxic to bone cells,” says John R. Lee M.D. Thankfully, the American Dental Association, which has for many years been one of fluoride’s biggest advocates, changed course when it alerted its members in 2006 that parents of infants younger than a year old “should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride” when mixing baby formula.
If the naturally occurring fluoride in green tea were even remotely toxic (like the fluoride added to drinking water), it would not have shown to have such a wide range of preventive and curative effects. The body’s immune system would reactively respond to it and become weakened in the process, yet quite the opposite is true. Green tea inhibits cell mutation, stimulates digestion and enhances brain functions. Synthetic fluoride has the exact opposite effects.
The fluoride – or fluorine – that occurs naturally in tea and other foods is so volatile that most of it evaporates in the heating process. The synthetic sodium fluoride added to water, on the other hand, remains stable when heated. So the sodium fluoride in your cup of tea is of much greater concern than the natural fluoride in the tea itself. Excessive fluoride intake can lead to hyperthyroidism. If you have been diagnosed with this disorder you should consult with a doctor of Ayurveda, Chinese Medicine or an ND (doctor of naturopathic medicine) who is knowledgeable about nutrition and its effects on the body’s endocrine glands.
——————————
This is an excerpt from my book TIMELESS SECRETS OF HEALTH & REJUVENATION
——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page
Sunlight is possibly the most powerful natural broad spectrum drug.
The medical doctor and author, Dr. Auguste Rollier, was the most famous heliotherapist of his day. At his peak, he operated 36 clinics with over 1,000 beds in Leysin, Switzerland. His clinics were situated 5,000 feet above sea level.
The intensity of ultraviolet light increases by 4 percent for every 1000 feet of elevation above sea level. So at 5000 feet, the sun’s UV intensity is increased by a whole 20 percent. The strategically placed clinics allowed his patients to catch a lot more UV light. Dr. Rollier used this UV light to treat diseases such as tuberculosis (TB), rickets, smallpox, lupus vulgaris (skin tuberculosis), and wounds.
He followed in the footsteps of the Danish physician Dr. Niels Finsen, who won the Nobel Prize in 1903 for his treatment of TB using ultraviolet light. In a span of 20 years, more than 2,000 cases of surgical (bone and joint) tuberculosis were treated, and more than 80% were discharged as cured at Dr. Rollier’s clinics.
Rollier found that sunbathing early in the morning, in conjunction with a nutritious diet, produced the best effects. The patients (many of them children) were gradually exposed to the sun’s rays until the whole body could be bared. In winter the whole day could be spent in the sunshine and dry, cold air. In summer however, exposure was limited to the morning hours only.
More than 100,000 lives were lost each year from tuberculosis, the ‘White Plague’, as it was then called. The miraculous complete cures of tuberculosis and many other diseases made headlines at that time.
What surprised the medical community most was the fact that the sun’s healing rays remained ineffective if the patients wore sunglasses. [Sunglasses block out important rays of the light spectrum which the body requires for essential biological functions. Note: your eyes receive these rays even if you are in the shade] By the year 1933, there were over 165 different diseases for which sunlight proved to be a beneficial treatment.
However, with the death of Rollier in 1954 and the growing dominance of the pharmaceutical industry, heliotherapy sadly fell into disuse. The gentle effectiveness of cure by sunlight was ignored and soon forgotten.
By the 1960s, manmade ‘miracle drugs’ had replaced the medical fraternity’s fascination with the sun’s healing powers. By the 1980s the public was increasingly bombarded with warnings about sun-bathing and the risks of skin cancer from exposure to sun. People were alarmed and even terrorized by the strong lobby of the sunscreen industry that put financial gains far above social health and wellbeing.
Today, the sun is considered the main culprit precipitating skin cancer, certain cataracts leading to blindness, and aging of the skin. Only those who take the ‘risk’ of exposing themselves to sunlight find that the sun actually makes them feel better, provided they do not use sunscreens or burn their skin by way of overexposure.
——————————
This is an excerpt from my book HEAL YOURSELF WITH SUNLIGHT
——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page
In the United States alone, about 15 million women are taking the contraceptive pill. The Pill seems to be the easiest method of preventing an unwanted pregnancy, but it is also one of the most risky ones. Although natural methods of contraception have at least the same success rate and are a fraction of the cost or free, they are rarely publicized. Despite warnings by an increasing number of health officials about the strong side effects of the drug, it is still regarded as the “best and safest” method of contraception.
Women who continually use contraceptive pills are more likely to develop circulatory problems, liver tumors, headaches, depression and cancer than those who don’t use them. The risk increases with age. Women taking the Pill who are between 30 and 40 have a three times higher risk of dying from a heart attack than women of the same age group who are non-users. Women who are over 40 and still using the contraceptive pill have a 6 times higher risk of developing high blood pressure, a 4 times higher risk of having a stroke, and a 5 times higher risk of developing thrombosis and embolism, a condition where a blood clot may form and then lodge in an artery close to the heart. The risk of suffering thrombosis is greatest among short-term users.
In August, 1996, newspapers were awash with the shocking story that the Pill has a “time bomb” effect in causing breast cancer. A four-year study of the Pill, carried out by the Imperial Cancer Research Fund in Oxford, England, reanalyzed epidemiological evidence on the Pill from more than 150,000 women. The results show that all users face an increased risk of breast cancer, even for up to 10 years after they stop taking it. According to the study, published in 1996 in the Lancet, women on the Pill faced a 25 percent increase in the risk of breast cancer, and that risk was still 16 percent for up to 5 years after the medication was discontinued. Another large study conducted at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, also published in the Lancet, showed that girls who started taking the Pill before the age of 20 were three and a half times more likely to get breast cancer.
Among women over 36 who took the Pill for less than 4 years, the risk of developing breast cancer increased by 40 percent. What is very disturbing is that 97 percent of the women younger than 36, who had contracted breast cancer, had taken the Pill at some point in their lives, even for a short period of time. This raises a lot of questions, such as: “Is taking the Pill by a large portion of the female population responsible for the continuous breast cancer epidemic?” Klim McPherson, arguably the most experienced British epidemiologist on HRT and the Pill, estimates that up to 1 in 4 long-term Pill users, who start on it early in life, will wind up with breast cancer. More studies are surfacing almost every other month. Another major Pill study, which concluded in September, 1996, determined that women who have taken the Pill at any time have a 60 percent increased risk of cervical cancer.
Caution about vaccination to protect against cervical cancer: If you have a teenage daughter and are concerned about vaccinating her to protect her against cervical cancer, consider the following finding by the New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 356, 19 May 2007. New information about the human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil has raised serious questions about its effectiveness. Although Gardasil blocked almost 100 percent of infections by two strains of HPV, it only reduced the incidence of cervical cancer precursors by 17 percent. Gardasil may, by blocking only specific strains, allow other varieties of HPV to flourish. The vaccine’s manufacturer, Merck, has said that the vaccine reduces the number of pre-cancerous lesions caused by HPV. But some have pointed out that Merck’s study was not long enough to demonstrate the vaccine’s effectiveness; it only lasted 3 years, although it was examining a disease that can take decades to develop. The U.S. state of Ohio is now considering making this vaccine mandatory.
The repeatedly used medical argument that the risk of developing breast cancer with the Pill is outweighed by its benefits of protecting women against endometrial and ovarian cancer is no longer valid. In any event, risking one type of fatal cancer to prevent another type of fatal cancer is a very questionable conclusion. Because the Pill causes breast cancer and other diseases, it is outright dangerous and should not be sold to unsuspecting women. The intrauterine device (IUD), also known as coil or loop, is not a safe method of contraception either. The IUD has been associated with a number of debilitating side effects. A 1974 report by the Lancet showed that women who have an IUD fitted and become pregnant nevertheless are 50 percent more likely to have a miscarriage as opposed to a 17 percent rate of miscarriage for those using any other kind of contraceptive. Pelvic inflammatory disease is also common among users. Other problems include cramping, backaches, the risk of an ectopic pregnancy, perforation of the uterus, a greater incidence of tubal infertility, skin rashes, and increased susceptibility to infection.
If you consider a potential pregnancy, which is not a dangerous illness, to be less of a disadvantage than risking your life by developing breast cancer, cervical cancer, a stroke or thrombosis, you are better off avoiding the Pill or any of the other highly invasive contraceptive methods such as Inject-and-go contraception and IUDs. I personally recommend mental birth control, the most ancient method of conception choice, as the preferable method for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy. It is very effective, cost-free, and without any side effects. The method can be learned within a few minutes from the little book Mental Birth Control by Mildred Jackson (it costs less than $1). There are other approaches teaching mental birth control, such as a self-hypnosis (tape) by Barrie Konicov. (Do a Google search for mental birth control)
Other methods include ‘Fertility Testers’ which can determine the days of the month in which a woman is fertile. All that is required is a drop of her saliva. ‘Persona’ is another new method of contraception. Through simple urine testing, a small, computerized device informs a woman of the days she is at risk for becoming pregnant. ‘Persona’ is 93-95 percent reliable when used according to the instructions, which makes it as dependable as the condom. It is readily available at all ‘Boots’ stores in the U.K.. In any case, the condom remains an option as well.
Caution about the new birth control pill: Lybrel recently launched Wyeth Pharmaceuticals’ new birth control pill that eliminates women’s periods. Women on the new pills do not menstruate, unlike those on the original oral contraceptives, which include a week of placebo pills at the end of the cycle to bring on menstruation. Since the drug has only been tested for one year (I wonder why), there is no way of knowing what the long-term side effects will be. Considering the serious side effects that have resulted from the use of traditional oral contraceptives, the new drug will most likely cause the same harm as the old ones, if not more.
Women who menstruate shed the thick lining of the uterus that builds up during the cycle. Although those on the new pill may not produce such a thick lining of the uterus, eventually, not discarding the thinner lining can lead to uterine diseases. In addition, menstruating women naturally remove excessive iron and protein from their blood, which greatly reduces their risk of cancer and heart disease. Not having this opportunity increases their chances of serious illness in the future. As always, a short-term gain may actually turn out to be a long-term loss.
Being able to interfere with the body’s natural design in such a drastic way is not an indication of scientific advancement but of poor judgment and short-sightedness that will once again (mis)lead millions of people into the abyss of sickness and suffering. For Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, it will mean a $250 million profit for the first year and many more to come.
——————————
This is an excerpt from my book TIMELESS SECRETS OF HEALTH & REJUVENATION
——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page
Overall, since the beginning of the new millennium, each year one million Americans are being diagnosed with some form of skin cancer. There are millions of sufferers now, all of whom have been made to believe that the depleting ozone has rendered sunlight dangerous. This has lead people to believe that the sun is the main culprit for their skin diseases. It is a sad and unfortunate and even harmful misconception.
Since UV radiation is actually decreasing every year and skin cancers were extremely rare 100 years ago when UV intensity was much higher and people spent much more time outdoors, what other factor could be held responsible for causing skin cancer?
If it is not the sun and not the earth that have turned hostile to life, the only other precipitating factor must lie in a changed behavior of man himself. What could this change in man be? We do know that is not a physiological or anatomical change. So, it has to be a change in our behavior, our actions.
Our skin is susceptible to damage from sunlight. But skin damage occurs only from overexposure to sunlight. There is a limit to which our skin can tolerate strong sunlight. Beyond that limit, our body signals out for respite. The obvious signs of sunburn appear. If we follow these signals and seek shelter, we eliminate chances of skin damage in a natural instinctive way. It is only by ignoring or suppressing these signals that we subject our skin to harm from overexposure.
Some of us consciously ignore the evident signs of sunburn on account of certain obligations. An appropriate example would be that of a farmer working in his fields or an athlete spending long hours on the tracks.
Yet others choose to suppress the innate indications of injury to the skin from overexposure to the sun by the use of certain suppressive applications. An apt example is that of a holiday-maker on the beach, sunbathing after applying an arbitrary amount of a sunscreen. This man, in all probability, may be unaware that the sunscreen is suppressive by nature.
Let us take the two examples of the ignorant farmer and the holiday-maker who is suppressing the body’s normal response to overexposure. Both the farmer and the holiday-maker may be overexposed to sunlight to the same extent. Yet the holiday-maker who is suppressing his natural reaction, is at a greater risk of disease. This is because he is upsetting his physiology and not allowing his body to function the way it normally should. He is creating an unnatural condition for himself by applying sunscreen which his own body has not created and cannot recognize.
We are born with a natural sunscreen in the form of the pigment melanin. Any additional interference by the use of artificial sun-blocks totally unsettles the body’s natural mechanism of coping with the overexposure to sunlight. The suppression gives wrong signals to the body which then fails to understand and reacts abnormally.
Our ancestors never applied sunscreen. What I am trying to reiterate is that, it is neither the sun nor the earth that is responsible for promoting the occurrence of skin cancer. It is man’s changing lifestyle, his desire to find artificial substitutes that actually deprive him from leading a normal, natural, healthy life.
——————————
This is an excerpt from my book HEAL YOURSELF WITH SUNLIGHT
——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page
Over 300,000 women a year get breast implants. Having breast implants and undergoing mammograms can endanger your health. I have received many letters from women who have or had silicone breast implants that ruptured.
One woman had this to say: “… I have had them for 23 years with no problems. Then they started to leak. The way I knew was I had pain in my chest and numbness and tingling down my arms. I got them out as quickly as possible and did not replace them. The doctor told me that it was a bad rupture and I had silicone in my lymph nodes and chest, and he could only clean up so much of it because it is like glue.”
There are many other ingredients in the implants, heavy metals such as aluminum and platinum are used as catalysts to turn the liquid to silicone gel. Silica is used as a filler; it is deadly if it gets into the lungs.
If you are concerned about getting breast cancer, it is best to avoid anything that is as unnatural as the above substances/chemicals. Women can actively contribute to a carefree future by taking care of their bodies’ daily needs and requirements.
Another frequent question I am asked is “What about Saline Implants?” Saline implants aren’t much better than silicone implants. Plastic surgeons like Susan Kolb, M.D., Atlanta, have seen the implants turn black, darkened by a fungus. The fungus can easily migrate into the blood causing severe symptoms of illness, including suicidal tendencies.
The risks are real and serious, and the complication rate is extraordinarily high. And it makes sense why this danger exists. The labels on 1-quart bottles of saline IV solution recommend storage at 77 degrees and include a discard date of about 18 months. With implants, the saline is stored in the body at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit degrees for years, which naturally makes it a perfect medium for fungi and other microbes to grow. Many women have had their saline implants for 10 or more years, and are suffering from unexplained symptoms of illness and sub-clinical infections. Women with saline implants complain about the same autoimmune problems that those with silicone-gel sacs experience.
——————————
This is an excerpt from my book TIMELESS SECRETS OF HEALTH & REJUVENATION
——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page
All events in life that appear to be negative are in fact unique opportunities to become more complete and whole inside, and to move forward in life. Whenever we need to give ourselves more love, time and appreciation, but fail to fulfill these essential needs, there will be someone or something in our life that pushes us in that direction. Feeling rejected by or being disappointed and angry with another person highlights a lack in taking responsibility for the negative things that happen to us. Blaming someone else or oneself for an unfortunate situation results in the feeling of being a victim of sorts and is likely to manifest as disease.
Moreover, if we cannot understand its accompanying message we may even have to face death to appreciate life or living. Cancer, in an unconventional way, is a way out of a deadlock situation that paralyses the heart of a person. It helps to break down old rigid patterns of guilt and shame that keep it imprisoned and bound by constant poor self-worthiness. The current medical approach does not target this major issue behind cancer, but the ‘disease process’ does, provided it is allowed to take its course.
Chemotherapy, radiation and surgery encourage a victim mentality in the patient and are unlikely to heal the root causes of this affliction. Miracle cures happen when the patient frees himself/herself of the need for victim-hood and self-attack, and when external problems fail to have a major impact on the person’s inner wellbeing and self-acceptance. Just removing the external problems in life may not be sufficient to induce a spontaneous remission. The patient needs to make room for enjoyment and pleasure, and take time for himself, for meditation, for self-reflection, for being in nature and sensing the joy and energy it is able to evoke in us.
Cancer cells are cells fighting to survive in a ‘hostile’, toxic environment. Letting go of the need to fight in life reprograms the DNA of the body, changing its course of warfare and eventual annihilation to one of healthy reproduction. Not needing to fight for their survival gives the cancer cells a chance to be accepted again by the entire ‘family’ of cells in the body. Cancer cells are normal cells that are rejected by what they consider home. They are deprived of proper nourishment and support. In their desperation to survive, they grab everything they can find to live on, even cellular waste products and toxins. This practically turns them into ‘outcasts’.
However, just as we want to be loved, cancer cells also need to know that they are loved. Cutting them out of the body through surgery, or destroying them with poisonous drugs or deadly radiation just adds even more violence to the body than it already has to deal with. To live in health and peace, we especially need to be friends with the cells of the body, including cancer cells. The saying, “love thy enemy” applies to cancer cells just as it applies to people.
Oftentimes, the cause of cancer is a lack of self-appreciation, a feeling of not being loved and wanted and not being worthy or good enough.If we could only see that what we call disease is a perfect representation of our inner world, we would pay more attention to what is going on inside rather than trying to fix something that does not really need fixing.
Cancer, as hard as this may be to understand, has profound meaning to it. Its purpose is not to destroy but to heal what is not whole anymore.
——————————
This is an excerpt from my book CANCER IS NOT A DISEASE! – IT’S A SURVIVAL MECHANISM
——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page
Many cancer patients have devoted their entire lives to helping and supporting others. Their selfless service can be very a noble quality, depending on the motivation behind it. If they sacrifice and neglect their own well being to avoid facing any shame, guilt or unworthiness within them, they are actually cutting off the very limb they are hanging on. They are ‘selflessly’ devoted to please others so that, in return, they may be loved and appreciated for their contributions. This, however, serves as an unconscious acknowledgment of not loving oneself. This may lock up unresolved issues, fears, and feelings of unworthiness in the cellular memory of organs and tissues in the body.
“Love your neighbor as yourself” is one of the most basic requirements for curing cancer. This phrase means that we can only love others as much as we are able to love and appreciate ourselves, no less and no more. To be able to truly love someone without cords of attachment and possessiveness, one has to fully accept oneself with all the flaws, mistakes and inadequacies one may have. The degree to which we are able to care about the well-being of our body, mind, and spirit determines the degree to which we are able to care about other people, too. By being critical of ourselves, or disliking the way we look behave, or feel, we close down our heart and feel unworthy and ashamed. To avoid exposing our shadow self (the part of us we do not like) to others out of fear of rejection, we try to win over the love of others by pleasing them. This way, we assume, we can receive the love we are unable to give to ourselves.
However, this approach fails to work in the long term. Your body always follows the commands given by your mind. Your thoughts, emotions, feelings, desires, beliefs, drives, likes, dislikes, etc., serve as the software your cells are programmed with on a daily basis. Through the mind/body connection, your cells have no other choice but to obey the orders they receive via your subconscious or conscious mind. As DNA research has recently proved, you can literally alter your DNA’s genetic setting and behavior within a matter of a moment. Your DNA listens to every word you utter to yourself and it feels every emotion you experience. Moreover, it responds to all of them. You program yourself every second of the day, consciously and unconsciously.
If you choose to, you can rewrite the program in any way you want to, provided you are truly self-aware. Once you know who you truly are you cannot help but love yourself. You can no longer judge yourself for making mistakes in life, for not being perfect, for not always being how others want you to be. Seeing yourself in this light, you send a signal of love to your cells. The bonding effect of love unites differences and keeps everything together, including the cells of your body. When love, which should not be confused with neediness or attachment, is no longer a daily experience, the body begins to disintegrate and become sick.
It is the expansion of love that is the main purpose of our existence here on earth. Those who love themselves are also able to love others and vice versa. These two aspects of love always go hand in hand. People who accept themselves fully have no real fear of death; when their time comes to die, they leave peacefully without any regrets or remorse in their hearts.
Whenever we close our hearts to ourselves, we become lonely, and the body begins to become weak and diseased. It is known that widows and people who are socially isolated, or have nobody to share their deepest feelings with, are the most prone to developing cancer.
Your body cells are the most intimate ‘neighbors’ you can have and they need to feel your love and self-acceptance, to know that they are a part of you and that you care about them. Giving yourself an oil massage, going to sleep on time, eating nutritious foods, etc. are simple, but powerful messages of love that motivate your cells to function in harmony with each other. They are also messages that keep elimination of toxins flawless and efficient. There is nothing unscientific about this. You can go around a number of hospitals and ask all the patients whether they felt good about their life prior to falling ill. The overwhelming response would be a “no.” Without being a medical researcher, you would have conducted one of the most important research studies anyone could ever do. You would have stumbled over the most common cause of ill health, which is ‘not loving yourself’, or, to use a different expression, ‘not being happy about how your life turned out to be’.Not being happy or satisfied in life is perhaps the most severe form of emotional stress you could possibly have. It is, in fact, a major risk factor for many diseases, including cancer.
A recently published study suggests that severe emotional stress can triple the risk of breast cancer. One hundred women who had a breast lump were interviewed before they knew that they had breast cancer. One in two who had the disease had suffered a major traumatic life event, such as bereavement, within the previous five years. The effects of emotional stress or unhappiness can severely impair digestion, elimination, and immunity, thus leading to a dangerously high level of toxicity in the body. Just ridding the body of cancer through ‘weapons of mass destruction’ doesn’t remove the unresolved emotional pain behind it.
——————————
This is an excerpt from my book TIMELESS SECRETS OF HEALTH & REJUVENATION
——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page
According to the laws of quantum physics, in any scientific experiment the observer (a researcher) influences and alters the object of observation on a very fundamental level (observer-observed relationship). This fundamental principle of physics applies to you just as much. After all, your body is composed of molecules that are made of atoms; these atoms are composed of subatomic particles, which in turn, are made of energy and information. There is actually not even a trace of matter in what we consider physical creation. Although something may appear to be as solid and concrete as a rock, there is nothing solid about it; only your sensory perception makes it appear so.
Your thoughts also are merely forms of energy and information that influence other forms of energy and information, including the cells of your body. For example, if you are sad about something that happened to you, your body posture changes and your eyes lose their luster. Eye cells, like all other cells in the body, respond to your thoughts as a soldier follows the orders of his superior.
Therefore, if you believe strongly enough that you have cancer or if you are afraid of it, you face a significant risk of manifesting it in your body.
The placebo effect can work both ways. The belief that you have a deadly disease can be just as powerful as the belief that a certain medical drug can heal you. In an instant, the energy of your thoughts and beliefs delivers the information they contain to every cell in your body. The energy and information that make up the atoms, molecules, genes, cells, organs and systems in your body have no agenda of their own. They are certainly not malicious. All they do is follow orders. You manifest both what you like and what you do not like. In other words, you are what you believe. Furthermore, what you believe is determined by the way you see or perceive things. Clearly, your interpretation of cancer as a disease will likely turn it into a disease for you. Otherwise, cancer would just be a survival mechanism or a signal for you to take care of those aspects of your life that you have neglected thus far.
If you believe that cancer is a disease, you are more likely to be inclined to fight against it, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. If you are strong-willed and the weapons you are using are powerful, you may be able to subdue this ‘enemy’ of yours, at least for a while. In such a case, you will be proud of having ‘beaten’ the cancer and, perhaps, you will praise the doctors or the medical treatment you endured for having saved your life. If you are weak and you use these same weapons in an attempt to destroy the cancer, you are likely going to succumb to what you would consider a malicious enemy. The doctor will express with regret that your body did not sufficiently ‘respond’ to the treatment (the weapons), claiming that he tried everything and that nothing more could be done. He will neglect to inform you that the weapons he has put into your body can be deadly.
Chemotherapy is so poisonous that leaking a few drops of the drug onto your hand can severely burn it. If drops fall on a concrete floor, they can burn holes into it. Spilling any chemotherapeutic drug in the hospital or anywhere en route is classified as a major biohazard and it requires specialists with space-suits to dispose of it.
Just imagine the holes chemotherapy creates inside your blood vessels, lymphatic ducts, and organ tissues when you undergo infusion after infusion! I have looked at the irises of patients (using iridology) who have gone through chemotherapy, and I saw the considerable erosion and damage of tissues throughout the body. Yes, this drug destroys cancer cells, but along with them, many of your healthy cells, too. Your entire body becomes inflamed. For this reason, your hair falls out when you undergo chemotherapy or radiation, and you cannot digest food anymore. Many patients develop anorexia – the loss of appetite or desire to eat. But this is not the only risk you can expect from modern cancer therapies. “Chemotherapy and radiation can increase the risk of developing a second cancer by up to 100 times,” according to Dr. Samuel S. Epstein ~ Congressional Record, Sept. 9, 1987.
Given the extreme suffering cancer patients are being subjected to by undergoing cancer treatments, people like Jackie Onassis were fortunate to have died quickly, although unnecessarily. Tim O’Shea wrote in To The Cancer Patient: “…Chemo drugs are some of the most toxic substances ever designed to go into a human body, their effects are very serious, and are often the direct cause of death. Like the case of Jackie Onassis, who underwent chemo for one of the rare diseases in which it generally has some beneficial results: non-Hodgkins lymphoma. She went into the hospital on Friday and was dead by Tuesday.”
I have personally seen cancer patients who successfully and naturally reversed their cancers but were then talked into taking a round of chemotherapy just to be sure to “get it all”. They all died within a day or two of the first treatment.
The methods of modern medicine don’t fight disease, they fight the body. Disease is the body’s way of healing itself, and modern treatment is a sure way to impair or even destroy this ability.
——————————
This is an excerpt from my book CANCER IS NOT A DISEASE! – IT’S A SURVIVAL MECHANISM
——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page
