Tag Archives: Cancer

Cancer Claims & Treatment

Posted on by

7 False Claims About Cancer by the Medical/Pharmaceutical Establishment

Posted by March 3, 2016

bowl-compressed

By Paul A. Philips | Natural Blaze

False claim 1 – The idea that cancer is a disease of the modern Western world is overplayed

Cancer has been known since ancient times. However, it has gone from a rare disease, as it was during the turn of the 1900s, to a rising global epidemic in modern times. The cancer establishment gives the impression that its true causes are unknown and plays down the idea that it is a disease of the modern Western world.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Well-documented evidence has been produced to show that cancer causes have been known for years. In recent decades, there have been a growing onslaught of DNA-changing carcinogenic circumstances.

Examples include rising numbers of: food chemicals; water and air pollutants; vaccinations; GMOs and medications.

It practically ignores the findings that isolated indigenous tribes such as the Hunsas, Karakorum or Azerbaijanis had been virtually cancer free, with evidence strongly suggesting that this was because the spoils of the Western world had been absent.

False claim 2 – The medical/pharmaceutical approach is the only real way to treat cancer

In line with the “mechanistic approach to medicine” the cancer establishment generally ignores anything outside of this health model: Little or not enough attention is given to the highly effective roles of diet, the mind-body influence, exercise and environmental toxicity…

False claim 3 – There are no natural health-based successful cures for cancer

Following on from 2, it beggars belief to me how anyone could not seriously look into the factors that address the very fabric of our being: diet, the mind-body influence, exercise and environmental toxicity … and how they influence our health. This blatant ignorance has made the cancer establishment blind to the evidence suggesting the contrary and how the natural health-based model with its principles has been highly successful.

False claim 4 – Natural health based innovators/pioneers are just quacks

Those innovators / pioneers who have taken on natural health approaches related to the above 4 factors have had quite a hard time from the cancer establishment. While there is no 100% cure for cancer, the overwhelming evidence shows that their approaches can be successful. At times, more successful than the cancer establishment; credit should, therefore, be given to these individuals where it’s due.

cache_23648412False claim 5 – There is no suppression of alternative cures

Anyone can Google a number of innovators/pioneers with their natural health approaches and see that they have had their equipment seized by the medical/pharmaceutical establishment and have been taken to court for illegal practices in spite of the fact that they had records and case testimonies to show high cure rates! The innovators/pioneers had won many court cases because cancer-cured individuals stood up and testified.

Examples of this include: Stanislaw Burzynski Antineoplaston Therapy, Harry Hoxey Herbs, Max Gerson Therapy (now headed by daughter Charlotte Gerson), Royal Rife’s cancer machine… it is indeed up to you the reader to research this then decide for yourself.

False claim 6 – The acid/alkaline dietary choice plays no major role in cancer prevention/reversal

The human body’s blood pH lies somewhere in between 7.3 – 7.45. Anything outside this range and we’d be dead. Remember, the lower the pH the more acid the blood, which in effect means less oxygen content (read Dr Otto Warburg 1920s) and has the effect of cell degeneration on an individual. Energy is sapped by the body trying to raise the blood pH back to mid-range. This is caused by eating acid junk foods… which also creates a favourable environment for disease such as cancer to set in.

The answer is to eat alkaline foods such as raw greens (spinach, broccoli and asparagus) to get the pH towards the higher figure in the range, allowing more energy available for enzyme efficiency, metabolic functioning and an environment unfavourable for disease.

False claim 7 – Survival rate and prevention claims … winning the battle

As a reaction to the rising cancer deaths Richard Nixon, US president at the time in the early 1970s, introduced a “war on cancer” and funding increased hugely. However, the illusory war that followed, in spite of the increased funding for research into cancer, the death rates continually increased over several decades! Chemotherapy, radiation and surgery have not been that effective. Much has been done to cover up or twist data interpretation related to this to make results look better. For instance, chemotherapy goes down as successful if results produce tumour shrinkage; even if it’s only for a limited time period and the tumour returns stronger (rebound phenomenon) to eventually kill the patient.

The early detection improvement claim is a myth. That’s because no one really knows if the cancer detected will turn out to be malignant or benign … a classic example of this is in mammograms. The only absolute that can be said about a mammogram is that it detects cancer.

All in all

A holistic approach would be a step in the right direction, incorporating natural health approache,s but I can’t see the cancer establishment changing their ways from the dogmas of mechanistic medicine. There’s too much money to be made from the status quo…

from:    http://consciouslifenews.com/7-false-claims-about-cancer-by-the-medicalpharmaceutical-establishment/11115005/

Sound Healing – Anthony Holland

Posted on by

Breakthrough Discovery Shows That Resonant Frequencies Can Kill Cancer Cells

Killing-cancer-with-Sound

Anna Hunt, Staff
Waking Times

An important breakthrough may prevent people from suffering from cancer or the aggressive radiation and chemotherapy treatments used to kill cancer cells.

Anthony Holland, an Associate Professor and Director of Music Technology at Skidmore College in New York, U.S., and his fellow researchers discovered that, by creating custom digital electronic signals, they can destroy cancer cells and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MSRA). In their laboratory experiments, the team used Oscillating Pulsed Electric Fields (OPEF) to induce sympathetic resonant vibrations which in a short amount of time shattered targeted cells from pancreatic cancer, leukemia, ovarian cancer, and the dangerous antibiotic-resistant bacterium MSRA. Below is an image showing the effect that the resonant frequencies had on leukemia cells.

cancer-and-resonant-frequencies
Just as various sound frequencies can shatter different types of crystal and glass, shattering microscopic organisms is possible because they have many similar properties of liquid crystals.

Holland created a device that uses pulsating plasma lights to emit the right frequency electronic signals to induce sympathetic resonant vibration in targeted microorganisms. Holland’s research showed that not only can one change the vibration of a biological living microorganism with an electronic signal, but also that different frequencies of this electronic signal can be used to target different types of microorganisms.

Below is a TED talk by Anthony Holland during which he reveals his discoveries. Starting midway through his talk, Holland shows stunning videos of how various cancer cells react to eleventh harmonic frequency combinations. It took the researchers over 15 months of trying hundreds of frequency combinations to find the ones with the potential to kill cancer cells. Holland’s goal is to create a treatment that can be used to shatter cancer cells and heal cancer patients painlessly and without toxic methods.

from:    http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/02/05/breakthrough-discovery-shows-that-resonant-frequencies-can-kill-cancer-cells/

Vitamin & Health

Posted on by

Vitamin D Found To Significantly Reduce Cancer, Yet Almost 90 Percent of The World Has Sub-Optimal Levels

by Mae Chan

There’s no doubting the magnitude of scientific evidence showing that the active form of vitamin D shuts down cancer cells. Higher levels of vitamin D are highly correlated with better chances of cancer survival and a new meta-analysis of existing data shows that increasing vitamin D status is associated with a significantly reduced risk of developing lung cancer.

“Almost every disease decreases in frequency and duration as we move towards equatorial populations, and the data shows that there is a minimum of a 1000 percent increase for many diseases in countries furthest from the equator, however we have obtained the same results based on data through populations and vitamin D supplementation,” said Dr. Anthony Petaku who studies the effects of Vitamin D2 and D3 on mutating cells.

Findings from the study, published in Cancer Causes & Control, suggest that the risk of lung cancer may be reduced by 5% for every 10 nmol/L increase of vitamin D intake.

The international research team, who worked in partnership with scientists at DSM, noted that while previous studies have suggested a link between vitamin D status and a variety of cancers, prospective observational studies examining the association between the circulating form of vitamin D, 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D), and lug have so far provided inconsistent findings.

“This is a significant result, as lung cancer is one of the top five cancers diagnosed among men and women, as well as being among the most common causes of death in the world,” commented ProfessorLi-qiang Qin from Soochow University in China — who led the work.

“More research is needed to determine whether a further increase has positive effects in reducing the risk of cancer, however this outcome helps us raise awareness of vitamin D health benefits.”

In a recent study, author Dr Hui Wang, said: “The results suggest vitamin D may influence the prognosis for people with breast cancer, colorectal cancer and lymphoma, in particular.”

Meanwhile, Dr Weiguo Zhang, corresponding author from DSM Nutritional Products, China, noted that 88% of the world’s population has sub-optimal vitamin D levels — adding that studies like the current meta-analysis help to understand how micronutrients affect the human body and how certain conditions can be prevented with increased and targeted intake.

“The new study adds to a larger body of evidence which demonstrates the emerging roles of vitamin D in protecting populations from developing other cancer risks, for instance, colon and breast cancer,” added Dr Manfred Eggersdorfer, Senior Vice President, Nutrition, Science & Advocacy at DSM.

Meta-analysis

Li-qiang and his colleagues performed a dose–response meta-analysis assess whether different levels of vitamin D status were related to an altered risk of lung cancer.

The team analysed data from 13 reports in ten prospective studies, totalling 2,227 lung cancer events.

The meta-analysis found evidence of a non-linear relationship between 25(OH)D and lung cancer — finding a significant 5 % reduction in relative risk of developing lung cancer for each 10 nmol/L increment in 25(OH)D concentrations.

They noted that the greatest reduction in risk was found at a vitamin D status of around 53 nmol/L, which remained protective up to 90 nmol/L.

“Further increases showed no significant association with cancer risk, but scanty data were included in the analyses of high-level 25(OH)D,” the team reported.

“This dose–response meta-analysis of prospective studies suggests that 25(OH)D may be associated with reduced risk of lung cancer, in particular among subjects with vitamin D deficiencies,” they concluded.

Supplementation

“Considering that vitamin D deficiency is a widespread issue all over the world, it is important to ensure that everyone has sufficient levels of this important nutrient,” Dr Wang said. “Physicians need to pay close attention to vitamin D levels in people who have been diagnosed with cancer.”

Professional recommendations for supplementation are made for groups at risk of deficiency including pregnant and breastfeeding women, children under the age of five not fed infant formula, people over 65 and those not exposed to much sun.

It said taking too many vitamin D supplements over a long period of time could cause more calcium to be absorbed than can be excreted, which could lead to kidney damage and softened and weakened bones.

For this reason it’s very important to take a high quality calcium and magensium supplement with vitamin D such as Life Choice Opti-Cal/Mag Complex which also contains Vitamin K2 which in itself also has been found to prevent cancer and also improve bone, cardiovascular, skin, brain, and now prostate health.

Article sources:
springer.com

from:    http://www.riseearth.com/2015/09/vitamin-d-found-to-significantly-reduce.html

Cancer Fighting Foods

Posted on by

Scientific Review Reveals the 10 Best Cancer Killing Phytonutrients To Eat

10 Best Cancer Killing Phytonutrients To Eat

26th September 2015

By Sayer Ji

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

Thirty years of research reveals 10 of the best food phytonutrients to ingest to protect against and even treat the root cause of most cancers.

A new medical model is fast emerging in line with ancient wisdom: one that aims to strike to the root cause of disease and resolve it permanently, and which some call “functional medicine.” In cancer treatment, this highly rational approach involves targeting the cancer stem cells (CSCs) at the root of cancer malignancy. Because we now know that CSCs are resistant to chemotherapy and radiation treatment, and may even increase in number and invasiveness when exposed to these outdated therapies, it is no longer ethical to continue with the conventional oncologist’s “standard of care.” Clearly, unless a cancer treatment is capable of selectively killing and/or inducing suicide programs (apoptosis) within cancer cells without harming non-cancerous cells, it is not going to produce a cure.

In light of this, we are excited to report on a review published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences titled, “Phytochemicals as Innovative Therapeutic Tools against Cancer Stem Cells,” which evaluated the evidence for what natural compounds within various foods and spices make for the most compelling treatments for targeting CSCs. (Download the review here.)

According to the review of 30 years worth of literature on the topic, the following 10 natural substances have been demonstrated to be the most effective chemopreventive dietary agents against CSCs:

  1. Epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG): A green tea extract

  2. Curcumin: The primary polyphenol in turmeric root 

  3. Resveratrol: A phytochemical found in grapes, peanuts, Japanese knotweed

  4. Lycopene: A red carotenoid found in watermelon, pink grapefruit, and tomatoes

  5. Pomegranate extracts

  6. Luteolin: A flavonoid found in peppers and various green vegetables

  7. Genistein: A phytochemical found in soy, red clover, and coffee

  8. Piperine: A phytochemicals found in black pepper

  9. Beta-carotene: An orange carotenoid found in various vegetables

  10. Sulforaphane: A sulfurous phytochemical found in Cruciferous vegetables

The researchers described the discovery that phytochemicals can selectively target CSCs as “a milestone in the improvement of cancer treatment because the synthetic anticancer drugs that are currently used are often highly toxic for healthy organs and weakens the patient’s immune system.“

They also pointed out that the phytochemicals or extracts identified above, due to their “low levels of toxicity for normal cells,” can be used in combination with other phytochemicals, “yielding powerful synergistic effects.“

They identified several key areas of focus for the future:

  • Finding a way to combine these compounds into “very active cocktails of phytochemicals” to address the multiple areas of treatment resistance often found in CSCs.

  • Compare the effects of natural phytochemicals with synthetic drugs, the latter of which they anticipate will be found to be less efficient.

  • Further research should be performed on CSCs to better understand the signaling pathways that govern their self-renewal and survival.

The authors concluded, “[T]he use of phytochemicals may be a true therapeutic strategy for eradicating cancer through the elimination of CSCs.“

If you have followed GreenMedInfo.com, you know cover the complex terrain of modern cancer treatment and its failures in various exposes on cancer overdiagnosis, the misunderstood nature of cancer, the reality of chemo and radiation resistance, the sorcerer-like power that doctors have over the health destiny of their patients, and the corrupt pharmaceutically-driven medical system that sacrifices ethics for profit. It is clear that while this is a harrowing task and topic, often fraught with darkness, the discovery that natural substances are superior to highly toxic chemotherapy and radiation in selectively killing the root cause of cancer is extremely promising and should help to usher in a new era of cancer prevention and treatment that looks at our dietary decisions as the most important factor in our health destiny.

 

About the author:

Sayer-JiSayer Ji is an author, educator, Steering Committee Member of the Global GMO-Free Coalition (GGFC), advisory board member of the National Health Federation, and the founder of GreenMedInfo.com – an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. His writings have been published and referenced widely in print and online, including Truthout, Mercola.com, The Journal of Gluten Sensitivity, New York Times and The Well Being Journal.

from:    http://wakeup-world.com/2015/09/26/scientific-review-reveals-the-10-best-cancer-killing-phytonutrients-to-eat/

Questioning the Validity of Medical Research

Posted on by

As Always – Do YOUR Research:

Leading Scientists Believe Up to Half of Research-Based Literature Is Simply Untrue

Leading Scientists Believe Up to Half of Research-Based Literature Is Simply Untrue

28th June 2015

By Carolanne Wright

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

Corruption undermining science.

In a perfect world, science would have unlimited funding, free from corporations or special interest groups, where all studies would be truly objective and unbiased. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case. Financing by private companies, or those who have a vested interest in the outcome of the research, often leads to biased conclusions which favor the sponsor of the study.

Take for example a pharmaceutical company paying for a new drug to treat depression. When the track record of such research is examined, we find studies backed by the pharmaceutical industry tend to show partiality toward the drug under consideration, whereas research sponsored by government grants or charitable organizations is prone to draw more objective conclusions.¹

In a similar fashion, research financed by the food industry often favors the food under investigation compared to inquiries that are independently sponsored.²

Bad science

“Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.”³ ~ Linus Pauling, PhD, and two-time Nobel Prize winner.

Dr. Marcia Angell, physician and longtime editor in chief of the New England Medical Journal, feels that objective research has taken a turn for the worse:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”

And John P.A. loannidis, a professor in disease prevention at Standford University School of Medicine, writes that most published research findings are false, due to several criteria — including “greater financial and other interest and prejudice.” He also states that “for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”

Another critique of our current scientific method is found with Richard Horton, editor in chief of The Lancet, who states, “much of scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue,” in the April 15th, 2015 edition of the journal. He lists a a variety of reasons for this failure: studies with small sample sizes, flagrant conflicts of interest and an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance. Horton adds, “as one participant put it, “poor methods get results.”’

Moreover, ScienceDaily reports that a study at the University of Michigan found that nearly one-third of cancer research published in high-profile journals have conflicts of interest. The research team examined 1,534 cancer studies published in well-respected journals.The most frequent type of conflict is with industry funding (17% of the papers). Twelve percent of the papers were in conflict because the author was an industry employee. And randomized trials were more likely to have positive findings when conflicts of interest were present.

Reshma Jagsi, M.D., D.Phil., and author of the University of Michigan study, feels that “merely disclosing conflicts is probably not enough. It’s becoming increasingly clear that we need to look more at how we can disentangle cancer research from industry ties.”

Leading Scientists Believe Up to Half of Research-Based Literature Is Simply Untrue 2

Jagsi believes that research has become corrupted by designing industry-funded studies in such a manner that’s likely to yield favorable results. Researchers may also be more inclined to publish positive outcomes while overlooking negative results.

“In light of these findings, we as a society may wish to rethink how we want our research efforts to be funded and directed. It has been very hard to secure research funding, especially in recent years, so it’s been only natural for researchers to turn to industry. If we wish to minimize the potential for bias, we need to increase other sources of support. Medical research is ultimately a common endeavor that benefits all of society, so it seems only appropriate that we should be funding it through general revenues rather than expecting the market to provide,” Jagsi says.

When all is said and done, we may question whether privately funded research should be dismissed altogether. Most likely, no. But we can consider the advice presented in Understanding Science by the University of California at Berkeley:

“Ultimately, misleading results will be corrected as science proceeds; however, this process takes time. Meanwhile, it pays to scrutinize studies funded by industry or special interest groups with extra care. So don’t, for example, brush off a study of cell phone safety just because it was funded by a cell phone manufacturer — but do ask some careful questions about the research before jumping on the bandwagon. Are the results consistent with other independently funded studies? Does the study seem fairly designed? What do other scientists have to say about this research? A little scrutiny can go a long way towards identifying bias associated with funding source.”

Article sources:

from:     http://wakeup-world.com/2015/06/28/leading-scientists-believe-half-research-based-literature-simply-untrue/

Importance of Schumann Resonance

Posted on by

Staying In Tune With The Schumann Resonance Is Key To Our Well Being

May 18, 2015 

Staying In Tune With The Schumann Resonance Is Key To Our Well Being in5d in 5d in5d.com www.in5d.com http://in5d.com/ body mind soul spirit BodyMindSoulSpirit.com http://bodymindsoulspirit.com/

by Joe Martino, CollectiveEvolution

The law of biogenesis states that life cannot be created from nothing, it is always life that creates life. This profound statement can begin a series of questions into the scientific unknown relating to who or what created human life.

“Omne vivum ex vivo – all life is from life”

In 1952, German physicist Professor W.O. Schumann of the Technical University of Munich began attempting to answer whether or not the earth itself has a frequency –a pulse. His assumption about the existence of this frequency came from his understanding that when a sphere exists inside of another sphere there is an electrical tension that is created. Since the negatively charged earth exists inside the positively charged ionosphere, there must be tension between the two, giving the earth a specific frequency. Following his assumptions, through a series of calculations he was able to land upon a frequency he believed was the pulse of the earth. This frequency was 10hz.

It wasn’t until 1954 when Schumann teamed up with another scientist (Herbert König) and confirmed that resonance of the earth maintained a frequency of 7.83 Hz. This discovery was later tested out by several scientists and confirmed. Since then The Schumann Resonance has been the accepted term used scientifically when one is looking to describe or measure the pulse or heartbeat of the earth.

Even though the existence of the Schumann Resonance is an established scientific fact, there remain few scientists who fully understand the importance of this frequency as it relates to life. In the 1920’s another German scientist, Hans Berger, built an EEG machine himself which led to the first ever recording of frequency transmitted by the brain. While this was a profound discovery on it’s own, it is when we link it to the Schumann resonance that we see an even more profound truth.

Dr. Anker Mueller, a colleague of Hans Berger, stumbled across Schumann’s published research results in the journal `Technische Physik.’ Upon reading Schumann’s results about the earths frequency, Dr. Anker Mueller was astonished to discover that the frequency of the earth was an exact match with the frequency of the human brain. Herbert König who became Schumann’s successor at Munich University, discovered and further demonstrated a clear link between Schumann Resonances and brain rhythms. He compared human EEG recordings with natural electromagnetic fields of the environment (1979) and found that the main frequency produced by Schumann oscillations is extremely close to the frequency of alpha rhythms.

Natural electromagnetic processes in the environment (I-IV), human EEG readings in comparison. Schumann oscillations (I) and the EEG a-rhythm, as well as locally conditioned fluctuations of the electric field (II) and the EEG d-rhythm, show a noticeable similarity in their temporal variation. – Herbert König, 1979

Research carried out by E. Jacobi at the University of Dusseldorf showed that the absence of Schumann waves creates mental and physical health problems in the human body. Professor R.Wever from the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Physiology in Erling-Andechs, began a study where he built an underground bunker that completely screened out magnetic fields. He then got student volunteers and had them live in the bunker for four weeks where they were hermetically sealed in this environment. Throughout the four weeks, Professor Wever noted that the student’s circadian rhythms diverged and that they suffered emotional distress and migraine headaches. Considering that they were young and healthy, no serious health conditions presented -which likely would not have been the case with older people or people with compromised immune systems. Wever then added the Schumann frequency back into the environment and the results were astonishing. After only a brief exposure to 7.8 Hz (the frequency which he had been screening out), the volunteer’s health stabilized. This demonstrated a direct link between humans and their connection with the pulse of the earth. This was later confirmed in 2011 by Luke Montanye who stumbled upon a discovery during research of water memory.

We go back to the statement that all life must come from life. This life was always believed to come from material forms like egg and sperm or spore and cell division. The professor showed that DNA sequences communicate with each other via frequency. Further, he was able to show that the frequency communication was so advanced that it was able to organize nucleotides, which are the ingredients that make up DNA, in such a way that it could make brand new DNA. While other previous studies were able to show this, Montanye did something different that no other study had done. He removed all DNA from the water and introduced a frequency. That frequency was 7.38 Hz, Schumann Resonance. When introduced, the test tubes were producing new DNA helixes. When the frequency was not present, no new DNA formed. Thus we have a link between Schumann Resonance and the creation of life.

Even though Schumann Resonance could be confirmed by measurements at the time of discovery, it is now much harder to detect that resonance due to the fact that our atmosphere is now heavily inundated with man-made radiation and various frequencies. This suggests that our wireless technologies of today are drowning out the natural signal our mental and physical body requires to function in a healthy way. Could this be a link to the increase in cancer cases over the past few decades? Considering the importance of the Schumann Resonance as it relates to health and the creation of life, one would assume our energetically polluted air space is certainly not helping.

More About Professor W.O.Schumann

More About Professor W.O.Schumann in5d in 5d in5d.com www.in5d.com http://in5d.com/ body mind soul spirit BodyMindSoulSpirit.com http://bodymindsoulspirit.com/

Winfried Schumann was born in Tubingen, Germany, the son of a physical chemist. His early years were spent in Kassel and in Berndorf, a town near Vienna. He majored in electrical engineering at the Technical College in Karlsruhe. In 1912 he gained a doctorate with high-voltage technology as his thesis.

Prior to the First World War, he managed the high voltage laboratory at Brown, Boveri & Cie.

During 1920, he was made a professor at the Technical University in Stuttgart, where he had previously been employed as a research assistant. He subsequently took a position as professor of physics at the University of Jena. In 1924, he was made professor and director of the Electrophysical Laboratoy at the Technical University of Munich.

The Munich laboratory subsequently became the Electrophysical Institute, where Schumann continued working until retiring from active research in 1961 at the age of 73, though he continued teaching for a further two years. Schumann was 86 years old when he died on September 22, 1974.

from:    http://in5d.com/staying-in-tune-with-the-schumann-resonance-is-key-to-our-well-being/

Benefits of Broccoli

Posted on by

Beyond Prevention: Chemical in Broccoli Kills Cancer Cells

New research has identified one of the key cancer-fighting mechanisms for sulforaphane, and suggests that this much-studied phytochemical may be able to move beyond cancer prevention and toward therapeutic use for advanced prostate cancer.

Scientists said that pharmacologic doses in the form of supplements would be needed for actual therapies, beyond the amount of sulforaphane that would ordinarily be obtained from dietary sources such as broccoli. Research also needs to verify the safety of this compound when used at such high levels.

But a growing understanding of how sulforaphane functions and is able to selectively kill cancer cells indicate it may have value in treating metasticized cancer, and could work alongside existing approaches.

The new findings on the unique abilities of sulforaphane were recently published in the journal Oncogenesis, by researchers from Oregon State University and the Texas A&M Health Science Center. The work was supported by the National Institutes of Health.

“There’s significant evidence of the value of cruciferous vegetables in cancer prevention,” said Emily Ho, professor and director of the Moore Family Center for Whole Grain Foods, Nutrition and Preventive Health in the OSU College of Public Health and Human Sciences, and lead author on this research.

“However, this study is one of the first times we’ve shown how sulforaphane can affect a histone methylation and alter gene expression in metasticized prostate cancer cells,” said Ho, who is also a principal investigator in OSU’s Linus Pauling Institute. “It begins a process that can help to re-express tumor suppressors, leading to the selective death of cancer cells and slowing disease progression.”

The evidence now shows that sulforaphane should have therapeutic value against some forms of cancer, Ho said, including late-stage, metasticized disease. Its multiple impacts on metabolic processes might also make it a valuable adjunct to existing therapies, helping them to work better.

No clinical trials have yet been done to test the value of sulforaphane in cancer therapy, although a trial is under way using sulforaphane supplements in men with high risk for prostate cancer. Results from that may help demonstrate the safety of higher-dosage supplements and set the stage for therapeutic trials, Ho said.

Dozens of studies have examined the health value of cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli, cauliflower, and cabbages, and many of them ultimately focused on the role of sulforaphane, one compound found in these foods. Broccoli sprouts contain some of the highest dietary levels of the sulforaphane precursor.

The new study identified a particular enzyme in prostate cancer cells, SUV39H1, that is affected by exposure to sulforaphane. Aside from potential dietary approaches, the researchers said that this establishes SUV39H1 as a new therapeutic target, in general, for advanced cancer.

Prostate cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in the United States, and existing therapies include surgical removal of the prostate, radiation therapy, hormones or other approaches. Although often slow growing, prostate cancer can be much more aggressive if it metasticizes to other areas of the body, at which point survival rates decrease dramatically. In the U.S. it’s the fifth leading cause of cancer death.

In laboratory studies, sulforaphane has shown toxicity to a number of human cancer cell lines, including prostate, breast, ovarian, colon and pancreatic cancer, and in animal studies it decreased metastases of prostate cancer.

Press and study source: Oregon State University. Image source: US Dept of Agriculture

– See more at: http://www.naturalblaze.com/2015/01/beyond-prevention-chemical-in-broccoli.html#sthash.nb0BBiE9.dpuf

Burzynski Cancer Treatment

Posted on by

Breaking: Burzynski Cancer Cure Finally Released By The Feds

, ,
Dr-Stanislaw-Burzynski1

Houston doctor, Stanislaw Burzynski has won yet another huge victory against the medical establishment.  But, instead of the win being reported from every television and radio in the United States, it barely squeaked into existence.  Why?  Because Dr. Burzynski can cure cancer without the traditional western medical treatments and this doesn’t make Western medicine supporters happy.

Antineoplastons, combined with the remarkable new gene-targeted therapy, threaten to destroy the economy created on the traditional treatment of Cancer and the care of Cancer patients in Western Medicine.  By curing the cancers, there no longer needs to be excessively costly treatments and support given the patient.  Patients don’t need additional medicine to treat the symptoms created from the traditional treatments.  By curing the cancer, the money dries up.

Just recently, the Burzynski Research Institute, Inc (BRI) sent a press release to the media alerting them to the lifting of a two-year partial clinical hold on an investigational new drug that had been submitted for Antineoplastons A10/AS2-1 Injections.  These allows for Phase 3 trials to begin for patients who have just learned they have cancer.  For now, the Phase 3 trial will be dealing with Diffuse Instrinsic Brainstem Glioma.

1384204509000-Dr-Stanislaw-Burzynski-story1551 michael stravato for USA TODAY
Dr.  Stanislaw Burzynski
Photo: Michael Stravato for USA TODAY)

There are four phases of clinical trials in cancer treatment.  Each of the phases focuses on a different purpose.  The data gathered provides the FDA with scientific data they claim will prove the worth and potential success of the treatment:

  • Phase One: Safety determination of new treatment
  • Phase Two: Response determination of a certain cancer to new treatment
  • Phase Three: Verify that standard treatment  is less effective than new treatment
  • Phase Four: Find more specific information about the new treatment after it has been approved  for human use

In addition to prescribing Antineoplastons, Dr. Burzynski’s clinic analyzes 24,000 different genes and then prescribe petro-chemical based medications and diet changes based on their individual needs.  This is in direct contrast to the traditional treatment a Western Oncologist would prescribe.  These and other doctors are trained to prescribe medicines which are the most likely to work for most people.  The individual treatment Burzynski gives his patients have become much easier now through advancements in study of the human genome.

Recently US Government agents, members of the big pharmaceutical companies and other individuals worked with one of Burzynski’s own research scientists to file eleven patents on the very research of Antineoplaston medical technology.  One must wonder if Dr. Burzynski’s practice is such quackery, as the mainstream would have us believe, why would these individuals seek to patent the integral part of the treatment?  The patents were not awarded to the individuals attempting to hijack them, but only after a Grand Jury found no reason to bring criminal proceedings against Burzynski.  This was the establishment’s fourth witch hunt.  They’d tried to incarcerate him three other times for using the same technology they were quickly trying to patent.

With any luck, Phase Three will proceed quickly and effectively.  Lives will be saved.  Less money will be spent and cancer can finally be beaten.  After all, getting rid of such a killer is Dr. Burzynski’s lifetime focus.

Written by: Massreport.com

– See more at: http://massreport.com/breaking-burzynski-cancer-cure-finally-released-by-the-feds/#sthash.KG8ih1dr.dpuf

Health Myths

Posted on by

The Top 15 Lies You’re Being Told About Health and Mainstream Medicine

 

Valued sources of information are hijacked by much bigger interests than you can imagine

The Top 15 Lies You're Being Told About Health and Mainstream Medicine

Do you ever question what doctors, nutritionists, institutions and even science tells you about your health, food, environment and lifestyle? You should, because we live in an era of deception and duplicity where the most trusted and valued sources of information are hijacked by much bigger interests than you can imagine. The internet is one of the last frontiers for truth, informing and educating billions on why our systems of health, agriculture, medicine and many other areas we depend on are failing us. The reason they’re failing us is because corrupt governments, corporations and the media are constantly feeding us lies on a daily basis, which through repetition, the public eventually accepts as truth.

LIE #1. GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMOs) CAN FEED THE WORLD
A lot of food that we eat today contains genetically modified ingredients and usually without our knowledge. Supporters of this technology maintain that it ensures and sustains food security around the world as the population increases. As well as scientific debates on the merits of genetically engineered food, there are equally, if not more important, debates on the socioeconomic ramifications of the way such science is marketed and used.

The dangers of GMO foods can no longer be denied. Researchers havelinked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto’s GM maize.

Biotechnology companies erroneously claim that their manipulations are similar to natural genetic changes or traditional breeding techniques. However, the cross-species transfers being made, such as between fish and tomatoes, or between other unrelated species, would not happen in nature and may create new toxins, diseases, and weaknesses. When genetic engineers insert a new gene into any organism there are “position effects” which can lead to unpredictable changes in the pattern of gene expression and genetic function. The protein product of the inserted gene may carry out unexpected reactions and produce potentially toxic products. There is also serious concern about the dangers of using genetically engineered viruses as delivery vehicles (vectors) in the generation of transgenic plants and animals. This could destabilise the genome, and also possibly create new viruses, and thus dangerous new diseases.

Unlike chemical or nuclear contamination, genetic pollution is self-perpetuating. It can never be reversed or cleaned up; genetic mistakes will be passed on to all future generations of a species.

LIE #2. ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND WIRELESS RADIATION ARE NOT HARMFUL TO HUMANS

The danger of magnetic, electric, wireless, radio (microwave), ground current, and high frequency radiation is that it is mostly invisible until great damage is done – like the increased risk of some brain tumors in long term cell phone users.

Sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation is a very big health problem of our youngest generations. The media and medical community dismiss it, but it is imperative health practitioners, governments, schools and our entire society learn more about the risks because the human health stakes are significant.

Studies suggest that women briefly exposed to very high-intensity EMFs have an increased risk of miscarriage, especially EMFs emitted by power lines and electrical appliances.

A growing percentage of people are now heeding the advice of holistic health experts and disposing of their microwaves due to the dangers of microwaved food.

The effect of EMFs on biological tissue remains controversial. Virtually all scientists agree that more research is necessary to determine safe or dangerous levels. It’s like one big human experiment which we won’t know the results of for several decades. Now, with the increasing proliferation of wireless handheld and portable devices, it is literally impossible to escape EMFs in any major city.

What they do know is that iron, which is necessary for healthy blood and is stored in the brain, is highly affected by EMFs. The permeability of the cell membranes of nerves, blood vessels, skin and other organs is also affected, as well as the intricate DNA of the chromosomes. Every bodily biochemical process involves precisely choreographed movement of EMF sensitive atoms, molecules, and ions.

Not only do EMFs impact your own health and that of your children and pets, but also the Earth as a whole, as our overuse of electricity contributes greatly to pollution from coal-fired electricity plants. Those who are wise will heed the warnings of the electrically sensitive and reduce the EMF radiation in their homes through good design and reduction of dependence on electric appliances.

LIE #3. MEDICAL SCREENING AND TREATMENTS PREVENT DEATH

Even though the medical community advocates for regular screenings for those with illnesses, they may bring little benefit and may actually pose harm to your health. This applies to almost every type of medical screening for cancer and several other diseases. Medical screening carries an immense risk in itself, not only due to the damage inflicted by screening techniques on the human body, but by the very nature of medical follow-up protocols. These protocols usually encourage patients to enter deeper into more invasive techniques, which further cripple health and lead to a very high percentage of fatalities.

Doctors are often criticized for prescribing unneeded tests and procedures that harm more than they help and add to medical costs that could otherwise be avoided. 12 medical tests and procedures now being questioned worldwide as unnecessary and potentially cause — sometimes harmful results to patients.

Radiation-induced cancers have tripled in the last two decades and diagnostic imaging has been already been admitted as a cause by the U.S. government.


There is a secular trend between breast cancer mortality and screening programs specifically medial diagnostic techniques such asmammography. In a Swedish study of 60,000 women, 70 percent of the mammographically detected tumors weren’t tumors at all. These “false positives” aren’t just financial and emotional strains, they may also lead to many unnecessary and invasive biopsies. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer.

A prostate (PSA) blood test looks for prostate-specific antigen, a protein produced by the prostate gland. High levels are supposedly associated with prostate cancer. The problem is that the association isn’t always correct, and when it is, the prostate cancer isn’t necessarily deadly. Only about 3 percent of all men die from prostate cancer. The PSA test usually leads to overdiagnosis — biopsies and treatment in which the side effects are impotence and incontinence. Repeated biopsies may spread cancer cells into the track formed by the needle, or by spilling cancerous cells directly into the bloodstream or lympathic system.

News coverage of many diseases focus too much on treatments and not enough on prevention, a trend that could prove risky in the long run for most people who don’t understand how to take care of their health.

LIE #4. FLUORIDE PREVENTS TOOTH DECAY

A growing number of communities are choosing to stop adding fluoride to their water systems, even though the federal government and federal health officials maintain their full support for a measure they say provides a 25 percent reduction in tooth decay nationwide.

There are now serious facts and health risks regarding fluoridation which can no longer be ignored and the practice itself is being questioned by most of the world.

Austrian researchers proved in the 1970s that as little as 1 ppm fluoride concentration can disrupt DNA repair enzymes by 50%. When DNA can’t repair damaged cells, we get old fast.

Fluoride prematurely ages the body, mainly by distortion of enzyme shape. All systems of the body are dependent upon enzymes. When fluoride changes the enzymes, this can damage every system and function of the body.

Dr. Paul Connett, PhD stated “When historians come to write about this period, they will single out fluoridation as the single biggest mistake in public policy that we’ve ever had.”

David Kennedy, DDS President International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology said that “water fluoridation is the single largest case of scientific fraud, promoted by the government, supported by taxpayer dollars, aided and abetted by the ADA and the AMA, in the history of the planet.”

LIE #5. FOCUS ON LOWERING BAD CHOLESTEROL TO PREVENT HEART DISEASE

Perhaps one of the biggest health myths propagated in western culture and certainly in the United States, is the misuse of an invented term “bad cholesterol” by the media and medical community. Moreover, a scientifically-naive public has been conned into a fraudulent correlation between elevated cholesterol and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Cholesterol has not been shown to actually cause CVD. To the contrary, cholesterol is vital to our survival, and trying to artificially lower it can have detrimental effects, particularly as we age.

We have become a culture so obsessed with eating foods low in cholesterol and fat that many health experts are now questioning the consequences. Could we really maintain a dietary lifestyle that was so foreign to many of our ancestral populations without any ill effects on our health? Many researchers are now concluding that the answer to that question is “NO.” Current data is now suggesting that lower cholesterol levels predate the development of cancer. Scientific papers prove that people with high so-called “Bad” LDL cholesterol live the longest.
The ‘noddy-science’ offered by marketing men to a generally scientifically-naive public has led many people to believe that we should replace certain food choices with specially developed products that can help ‘reduce cholesterol’. Naturally this comes at a price and requires those who can afford it to pay maybe four or five times what a ‘typical ordinary’ product might cost. But is this apparent ‘blanket need’ to strive towards lowering our cholesterol justified? And, indeed, is it healthy?

The cholesterol itself, whether being transported by LDL or HDL, is exactly the same. Cholesterol is simply a necessary ingredient that is required to be regularly delivered around the body for the efficient healthy development, maintenance and functioning of our cells. The difference is in the ‘transporters’ (the lipoproteins HDL and LDL) and both types are essential for the human body’s delivery logistics to work effectively.

Problems can occur, however, when the LDL particles are both small and their carrying capacity outweighs the transportation potential of available HDL. This can lead to more cholesterol being ‘delivered’ around the body with lower resources for returning excess capacity to the liver.

We need to reform education on what really causes heart disease and why cholesterol, whether high or low, is not an evil process in the body, but a natural part of our biology. When we stop listening to medical doctors, suddenly we start listening to what our bodies crave… to be the healthiest version of ourselves.

LIE #6. SUNLIGHT IS HARMFUL AND SUNSCREEN IS YOUR BEST DEFENSE

Sunscreen is full of some of the most toxic chemicals known. Yet both the cancer and sunscreen industries insist on their use to ironically prevent cancer from “bad” sunlight. People still fall for this nonsense, slather on the sunscreen in hopes to protect against a non-existent foe. If the sun was really that harmful, we’d all be dead long ago. Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence shows that blocking the sun’s rays from reaching our skin dramatically influences our optimal vitamin D levels, leading to higher mortality, critical illness, mental health disorders and ironically, cancer itself. Here’s why you need to make your own sunscreen.

There are well over 800 references in the medical literature showing vitamin D’s effectiveness–both for the prevention and treatment of cancer.

Blocking the sun’s rays from reaching our skin dramatically influences our optimal vitamin D levels, leading to higher mortality, critical illness and mental health disorders. Ironically, sunscreen itself causes cancer.

Exposure to sunlight and ultraviolet light has been repeatedly shown to NOT be the cause of skin cancer. Scientists from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center reported UVA exposure is unlikely to have contributed to the rise in the incidence of melanoma over the past 30 years.

The idea that sunscreen prevents cancer is also a myth promoted by pharmaceutical companies, conventional medicine and the mainstream media for one purpose…profit. The sunscreen industry makes money by selling lotion products that actually contain cancer-causing chemicals. It then donates a portion of that money to the cancer industry through non-profit groups like Cancer Societies which, in turn, run heart-breaking public service ads urging people to use sunscreen to “prevent cancer.”

LIE #7. VACCINES PREVENT DISEASE AND INCREASE IMMUNITY

The term “immunization”, often substituted for vaccination, is false and should be legally challenged. Medical research has well established that the direct injection of foreign proteins and other toxic material (particularly known immune-sensitising poisons such as mercury) makes the recipient more, not less, easily affected by what he/she encounters in the future. This means they do the opposite of immunize, commonly even preventing immunity from developing after natural exposure. There are 5 phases of awakening to the dangers of vaccination and many lie in different phases.

The actual frequency of health problems has been estimated by authorities to be possibly up to 100 times, or more, greater than that reported by government agencies. That difference is due to the lack of enforcement or incentive for doctors to report adverse effects. With the anti-vaccination movements now exposing the truth on the internet, the medical community is now on high alert, defending their claims and being told by vaccine manufacturers that they must never let their patients (or parents) think that the risks could outweigh the benefits, when in reality, it is precisely the opposite that is true.

Convincing evidence is finally coming forward from peer reviewed studies which show that the rapid increase in the number of vaccines given to children is creating synergistic toxicity and a state of immune overload in the majority of vaccine recipients manifesting in related health issues including epidemics of obesity, diabetes, and autism.

The benefit risk ratio is an important decision in anyone deciding whether to vaccinate or not. Contrary to popular belief and marketing, childhood diseases in a developed country are not as dangerous as we are led to believe. Catching a particular disease does not mean you will die from it. Vaccines were actually introduced at a time when diseases had already declined to a low risk level. This fact is proven, scientifically.

The main advances in combating disease over the last 200 years have been better food and clean drinking water…not vaccines. Improved sanitation, less overcrowded and better living conditions also contribute. This is also borne out in published peer reviewed research which prove that vaccine did not save us. The is irrefutable evidence which shows that the historical application of vaccines had no health benefit or impact on prevention of infectious disease.

All vaccines contain sterility agents, neurotoxins, immunotoxins, and carcinogenic compounds. Some examples include formaldehyde, a carcinogen found in almost every vaccine, neurotoxins such asmonosodium glutamate, potassium chloride, thimerosal, sterility agents such as Triton X-100, octoxynol-10, polysorbate 80, and immuntoxins such as neomycin, monobasic potassium phosphate,sodium deoxycholate to name a few of many.

It is no coincidence that the more educated you are, the less chance you will vaccinate which contradicts the misconceptions of many health professionals who profess that parents don’t vaccinate because they are under-educated, poor or misinformed. Those who become fully informed of the dangers of vaccines never see them in the same light again, as their motives then become clear.

LIE #8. CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE AND THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM HELPS SICK PEOPLE

Perhaps the biggest health myth today is the public’s misconception that mainstream medicine and the healthcare system helps sick people. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Why do people follow medical authorities who prescribe toxic vaccinations, medications and treatments which only serve as a detriment to human health?

The freedom of people to choose natural healing, alternative medicine and methods of disease prevention could soon be threatened by corporate lobbyists who will do anything to protect their wealth at the expense of your health.

90 percent of all diseases (cancer, diabetes, depression, heart disease, etc.) are easily preventable through diet, nutrition, sunlight and exercise. None of these solutions are ever promoted by conventional medicine because they make no money.

No pharmaceuticals actually cure or resolve the underlying causes of disease. Even “successful” drugs only manage symptoms, usually at the cost of interfering with other physiological functions that will cause side effects down the road. There is no such thing as a drug without a side effect.

There is no financial incentive for anyone in today’s system of medicine (drug companies, hospitals, doctors, etc.) to actually make patients well. Profits are found in continued sickness, not wellness or prevention.

The main error of the biomedical approach is the confusion between disease processes and disease origins. Instead of asking why an illness occurs, and trying to remove the conditions that lead to it, medical researchers try to understand the biological mechanisms through which the disease operates, so that they can interfere with them. These mechanisms, rather than the true origins, are seen as the causes of disease in current medical thinking and this confusion lies at the very centre of the conceptual problems of contemporary medicine.

Almost all the “prevention” programs you see today (such as free mammograms or other screening programs) are nothing more than patient recruitment schemes designed to increase revenue and sickness. They use free screenings to scare people into agreeing to unnecessary treatments that only lead to further disease.

Nobody has any interest in your health except you. No corporation, no doctor, and no government has any desire to actually make you well. This has served the short-term financial interests of higher powers in the west very well. The only healthy, aware, critically thinking individuals are all 100% free of pharmaceuticals and processed foods.

LIE #9. THERE ARE ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF CHEMICALS

The levels are “acceptable” by industry and regulatory standards, but our exposure to other “acceptable levels” of toxic chemicals that then interact with each other and dance with our cells within our bodies is never taken into consideration.

We have over 200 synthetic chemicals in our bodies right now. Our exposure to toxins is that pervasive. Most of us do not detect their presence every moment of every day, but we have to wonder–how are they affecting us? What does this mean for future generations? This is all ignored by all industries.

Chemicals account for an annual $3.7 trillion in sales across the globe–the United States makes up almost 19 percent. Many jobs rely on this industry, yet 85 percent of the chemicals in commerce today have not been tested. How are the products containing those chemicals impacting our health? What’s the impact on those who work or live near the chemical plants?

Is it really that hard for most people to believe that we are being assaulted on a daily basis by chemical terrorism? Genetically modified foods, artificial flavours, colors, preservatives, emulsifiers, and sweeteners all made with toxic chemicals, all of which are proven toxic to human health.

Artificial sweeteners, preservatives, nitrates, artificial colors, MSG…if it’s processed, chances are it contains one or more of these ingredients. Sodium benzoate and potassium benzoate are preservatives that are sometimes added to sodas to prevent mold growth, but benzene is a known carcinogen. Butylated Hydroxynaisole (BHA) is another preservative that’s potentially cancer-causing. Reading labels is an easy solution–if you don’t recognize an ingredient, don’t buy the food product.

There are no acceptable levels of any chemicals that belong in our foods and it’s time we get the chemical industry out of our foods.

LIE #10. DISEASE CAN’T BE REVERSED WITHOUT DRUGS

Many combinations of natural products are as effective as man-made drugs, but without the side effects when acting against specific diseases. For empirical evidence, look no further than the indigenous tribes and cultures which still use many formulations pre-dating the historical record and with great success. A comprehensive study and first of its kind published in PLoS One assessed 124 natural product combinations and found that in the right combinations, they can match drug level potency.

Plants are better than drugs on many levels. Specific herbs, fruits and vegetables have been found on many instances to work better than medication for specific diseases. For example, Soursop Fruit has been found to kill cancer up to 10,000 times more effectively than strong chemotherapy. Consuming apples daily has been found in some studies to be more effective than statin medications at reducing heart disease.Cranberry juice, garlic and turmeric are just three of dozens of other foods which beat drugs in treating and preventing disease.

There are herbs that boost and heal the lungs, others which increaseenergy and vitality, many that stabilize the thyroid and even lower blood pressure.

** The 7 Most Prescribed Drugs In The World And Their Natural Counterparts **

Despite the medical model which relies on pharmaceutical intervention for every known illness, there are well over one hundred common diseases that can be reversed naturally. That’s the difference between treatment for profit and healing for wellness. Arthritis (both rheumatoid and osteo) diabetes (both Type I and Type II), hypertension and cancer are all reversible with proper herbal strategies, nutrition and exercise.

LIE #11. THE BEST WAY TO TREAT CANCER IS WITH CHEMOTHERAPY AND RADIATION

Doctors and pharmaceutical companies make money from it. That’s the only reason chemotherapy is still used. Not because it’s effective, decreases morbidity, mortality or diminishes any specific cancer rates. In fact, it does the opposite. Chemotherapy boosts cancer growth and long-term mortality rates. Most chemotherapy patients either die or are plagued with illness within 10-15 years after treatment. It destroys their immune system, increases neuro-cognitive decline, disrupts endocrine functioning and causes organ and metabolic toxicities. Patients basically live in a permanent state of disease until their death. The cancer industry marginalizes safe and effective cures while promoting their patented, expensive, and toxic remedies whose risks far exceed any benefit. This is what they do best, and they do it because it makes money, plain and simple.

The reason a 5-year relative survival rate is the standard used to assess mortality rates is due to most cancer patients going downhill after this period. It’s exceptionally bad for business and the cancer industry knows it. They could never show the public the true 97% statistical failure rate in treating long-term metastatic cancers. If they did publish the long-term statistics for all cancers administered cytotoxic chemotherapy, that is 10+ years and produced the objective data on rigorous evaluations including the cost-effectiveness, impact on the immune system, quality of life, morbidity and mortality, it would be very clear to the world that chemotherapy makes little to no contribution to cancer survival at all. No such study has ever been conducted by independent investigators in the history of chemotherapy. The only studies available come from industry funded institutions and scientists and none of them have ever inclusively quantified the above variables.

LIE #12. SCIENCE IS REPUTABLE AND HONEST

The pursuit of truth in modern scientific query is marred by greed, profit and only a concept of truth built on the assumption of an unexamined good. While pharmaceutical drug approvals, genetically modified foods and various other controversial technologies may appear to be based on “science”, corporate interests and profits often interfere with the true meaning of what science represents to both academics and the public.

The primary methodology of science is to prise apart reality into its component parts in order to better understand how the whole functions. Cartesian logic began with the separation of mind and matter and the scientific method depends upon the separation of the observer from the observed. The absolute separation between mind and matter has now been shown to be entirely fictitious the importance of objectivity within the scientific method remains undiminished.

There is little real science to be found in the common practice of mainstream medicine. Rather, what passes for “science” today is a collection of myths, half-truths, dishonest data, fraudulent reporting and inappropriate correlations passed off as causation. Correlational studies can NOT prove causation, yet the end result of most scientific studies in mainstream medicine make a causal claim without any proof and then pass those suggestions to the public to sell the medical model to the public.

Advertisers and product manufacturers have certainly used this inherent cognitive bias towards trusting “scientific facts” in order to market products which they claim have a scientific basis in their effectiveness. The same is of course true within ideologies and politics. While many choose to focus on the large scandals such as the drug research fraud, countless fraudulent scientific claims are made every day in advertising, often with no repercussions.

LIE #13. THERE ARE SAFE DOSES OF CHEMICALS IN MEDICATIONS

Ask any scientist in the field of health and safety and they will tell you that toxicity is all about the dose. Not really. While you can die from anything taken in excess, even water, you can also run into serious fatal complications from any poison at any dose if you take it long enough. There is no safe dose of a poison because the body recognizes even the smallest dose and immediately creates inflammatory cascades and immune responses to combat these foreign entities. Toxic chemicals are now invading every facet of our lives from our schools to our workplaces. They are gradually deteriorating every single system in our bodies and causing so many diseases, that it’s now difficult to isolate exactly which chemicals are causing each disease.

The chemical testing we currently do to establish if a chemical is safe may not be sufficient. In particular, we may not be targeting nor understanding the effects of extremely low levels of chemical contaminants during critical phases when the organism is “listening” for chemical messengers. This occurs, for example, during fetal development and during changes that occur in puberty. The first question we need to be asking is: does this chemical mimic any of the messenger chemicals that organisms depend upon for survival?

What most of these chemical management companies, their regulatory agencies and scientists do not apprecite, is what a delicately balanced organism we are especially at the molecular level. At this level, chemicals act more like a handshake than like that third pint of beer.

LIE #14. PEOPLE ARE HEALTHIER TODAY THAN IN PREVIOUS GENERATIONS
Life expectancy at birth rose by a few years for both men and women in the last two decades of the 20th century. This has come at an enormous cost in the quality of life of our elders, for they are suffering with more pain and greater disability than ever before in last 15 years of life. People globally are living longer but chronic debilitating conditions are becoming more prevalent.

A recent Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 involved 486 authors in 50 countries who aimed to offer a comprehensive update on diseases and injuries since the last such report in 1990. It found the leading risk factor accounting for the disease burden in most developed nations is diet.

Perhaps most worrisome is the medicalization of childhood which is leading us to illness if adulthood. If children cough after exercising, they have asthma; if they have trouble reading, they are dyslexic; if they are unhappy, they are depressed; and if they alternate between unhappiness and liveliness, they have bipolar disorder. While these diagnoses may benefit the few with severe symptoms, one has to wonder about the effect on the many whose symptoms are mild, intermittent or transient.

Each successive generation is sicker and more diseased than its predecessor. Autism, learning disabilities, ADHD, asthma, diabetes and many other diseases continue to skyrocket. No government agency has ever done, or will ever do anything about it except continue to compile statistics.
LIE #15. THERAPEUTIC PLANTS ARE DANGEROUS DRUGS

The reason cannabis is so effective medicinally is directly related to its ability to interact with receptors in the body which inhibit inflammation and prevent disease. Cannabis does this so well, that few drugs can compete with its level of potency which come essentially with no side effects. Consquently cannabis is labeled a threat to mainstream medicine.

The question is no longer which disease cannabis can cure, but which disease can’t it cure? A study published in Nature Reviews-Cancerprovides an historic and detailed explanation about how THC and natural cannabinoids counteract cancer, but preserve normal cells.

It’s no surprise that the United States has decreed that marijuana has no accepted medical use use and should remain classified as a highly dangerous drug like heroin. Accepting and promoting the powerful health benefits of marijuana would instantly cut huge profits geared towards cancer treatment and the U.S. would have to admit it imprisons the population for no cause. Nearly half of all drug arrests in the United States are for marijuana.

According to MarijuanaNews.com editor Richard Cowan, the answer is because it is a threat to cannabis prohibition “…there really is massive proof that the suppression of medical cannabis represents the greatest failure of the institutions of a free society, medicine, journalism, science, and our fundamental values,” Cowan notes.

Many researchers have noted that there was “inadequate” data for decades to determine whether smoked marijuana was safe or effective in treating symptoms of pain and preventing disese. The primary reason for the s lack of data had to do with the National Institute on Drug Abuse, or NIDA, which was the only source of cannabis for research and they were blocking the most meaningful studies due to close ties with pharmaceutical companies.

This view was supported by Dr. David Bearman, the executive vice president for the Academy of Cannabinoid Medicine/Society of Cannabis Clinicians. “Part of the problem in the United States is that the NIDA has blocked almost all meaningful studies on cannabis,” Bearman said. Bearman argues that while synthetic cannabis pills do offer pain relief, marijuana is cheaper, has fewer side effects and can be more effective.

Now decades of propaganda is being reversed as scientists and the public are being exposed to the true potential of cannabis and its ability to both heal and prevent disease.

Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy. 

from:    http://www.newrealities.com/index.php/articles-on-health/item/3379-the-top-15-lies-you-re-being-told-about-health-and-mainstream-medicine

The Importance of Being in The Sun

Posted on by

Why avoiding sunshine could kill you

Researchers followed 30,000 women for 20 years and found that those who avoided the sunshine were twice as likely to die

Too little sunshine dramatically increases the risk of dying from all causes because the body is deprived for vitamin D, scientists have found

Too little sunshine dramatically increases the risk of dying from all causes because the body is deprived of vitamin D, scientists have found Photo: REX FEATURES

By , Science Correspondent

Women who never sunbathe during the summer are twice as likely to die than those who sunbathe everyday, a major study has shown.

Researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden claim guidelines which advise people to stay out of the sun unless wearing sunscreen may be harming the population, particularly in countries like Britain.

Exposure to ultraviolet radiation from sunlight is often cited as a cause of skin melanoma. The NHS currently recommends avoiding overexposure to the sun to prevent all types of skin cancer.

But the new research, which followed nearly 30,000 women over 20 years, suggests that women who stay out of the sun are at increased risk of skin melanomas and are twice as likely to die from any cause, including cancer.

“The results of this study clearly showed that mortality was about double in women who avoided sun exposure compared to the highest exposure group,” said lead author Dr Pelle Lindqvist.

“Sun exposure advice which is very restrictive in countries with low solar intensity might in fact be harmful for women’s health.

“The mortality rate was increased two-fold among avoiders of sun exposure as compared to those with the highest sun exposure habits.”

It is thought that a lack of vitamin D may to be blame. Vitamin D is created in the body through exposure to sunshine and a deficiency is known to increase the risk of diabetes, tuberculosis, multiple sclerosis and rickets.

Cases of rickets have risen fourfold in the last 15 years as sunscreen has increased in popularity.

Previous studies have shown that vitamin D can increase survival rates for women with breast cancer while deficiencies can signal prostate cancer in men. Low levels of vitamin D have also been linked to more aggressive forms of skin cancer.

Prof Dorothy Bennett, Professor of Cell Biology at St. George’s, University of London, said: “The findings support the consensus that the ideal amount of sun exposure for Northern Europeans is ‘a little’, rather than zero.

“As the authors comment, our bodies need sunlight to make essential vitamin D, which can help us resist some cancer types. Those who normally avoid the sun and/or cover most of their skin are advised to take vitamin D supplements.”

The study looked at 29,518 Swedish women who were recruited from 1990 to 1992 and asked to monitor their sunbathing and tanning salon habits.

After 20 years there had been 2,545, deaths and researchers were surprised to find that women who never sunbathed during the summer months were twice as likely to have died from any cause.

1.5 women in a 100 who had the highest exposure to UV were found to have died, compared with 3 in 100 for women who had avoided sunbathing.

Women who sunbathed in the summer were also 10 per cent less likely to die from skin cancer although those who sunbathed abroad were twice as likely to die from melanoma.

Public Health England says it would be considering the research carefully.

A spokesman said: “Public Health England constantly reviews scientific research and our experts will consider this paper along with other peer reviewed research into this issue as part of that process.”

Dr Andrea Darling, Post-doctoral Research Fellow from the University of Surrey, said there was still strong evidence that skin cancer is caused by sunbathing.

“The findings from Dr Lindqvist’s team are interesting, but it is possible that the women in the study who had high sun exposure differed from the women who had low sun exposure in ways that may explain their reduced cancer risk.”

Yinka Ebo, senior health information officer at Cancer Research UK, said striking a balance was important.

“The reasons behind higher death rates in women with lower sun exposure are still unexplained, as unhealthy lifestyle choices could have played a part,” she added.

“Overexposure to UV radiation from the sun or sunbeds is the main cause of skin cancer.

“We all need some sunshine to make vitamin D for healthy bones. Enjoying the sun safely while taking care not to burn should help most people strike a good balance.”

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: “Skin cancer can have devastating consequences and it is vital that people take steps to protect themselves.

“However, we also recognise the importance of Vitamin D for good health. Most people in the UK can get enough vitamin D from sunlight, but those at risk of vitamin D deficiency should take daily supplements.

“We are working to raise awareness of the symptoms of cancers through the Be Clear on Cancer campaigns. Anybody concerned about symptoms should visit their GP.”

The research was published in The Journal of Internal Medicine.

from:    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10811734/Why-avoiding-sunshine-could-kill-you.html