Sunday, December 1, 2013

Sea Cucumber Found to Kill 95% of Cancer Cells and Shrink Tumors


Sea Cucumber Found to Kill 95% of Cancer Cells and Shrink Tumors

 Combined articles by Don Porter for information  Dec. 1, 2013
 
Sea cucumber has been used in traditional Chinese medicine for hundreds of years, but they are relatively obscure in the U.S. This may be soon changing, however, as evidence mounts that sea cucumber extracts can kill cancer cells while stimulating the immune system.

As reported by Ethan Evers, author of “The Eden Prescription, previous research on sea cucumber has demonstrated its ability to kill lung, breast, prostate, skin, colon, pancreatic, and liver cancer cells. These extracts have also proven effective in killing leukemia and gioblastoma cells. Looks like we can add yet another food to the list of anti-cancer foods.



 
Scientists believe a key compound known as frondoside A to be responsible. Frondoside A is a triterpenoid, diverse organic compounds found in the essential oils and oleoresins of plants.

This latest study, published in PLoS One, has confirmed just how powerful frondoside A truly is. Researchers found it to kill 95% of ER+ breast cancer cells, 95% of liver cancer cells, 90% of melanoma cells, and 85-88% of three different types of lung cancer.

As Evers reports:

“But the benefits of this compound don’t just stop at directly inducing programmed cell death (apoptosis). It also inhibits angiogenesis (the ability of tumors to grow new blood vessels to get their food) and stops cancer metastasizing by impeding cell migration and invasion. Even more intriguing is the ability of frondoside A to activate our immune system’s natural killer cells to attack cancer cells. This has been shown for breast cancer in particular but may also apply to all cancers, because it involves the immune system and not cancer cells directly. This may partially explain why frondoside A was so effective at shrinking lung tumors in mice that it rivaled chemo drugs in performance.”

Source of this article: NaturalSociety

When given to mice with non-small cell lung cancer, frondoside A was found to shrink tumors by 40% in only 10 days. Traditional chemo drugs May shrink the tumors by up to 47%, but the risks of chemo treatment are far greater than any side-effects or risks of sea cucumber. (Namely because there are no known risks associated with sea cucumbers). In addition, the amount of frondoside A needed to achieve such results was miniscule—less than a single milligram for an adult weighing 165 pounds.   While sea cucumber extracts aren’t currently offered as a treatment for cancer—at least not in your traditional dr’s office—you can find dried and powdered sea cucumber in health stores. It is packaged as a solution to arthritis and similar conditions because of its anti-inflammatory properties.

Cancer Prevention Potential  -Eating sea cucumber may help prevent the growth and spread of cancer cells. This is because sea cucumbers contain high amounts of compounds known as triterpene glycosides, which have antitumor activity. According to a study by Chinese scientists published in Aug 2005 in “Cancer Biology & Therapy,” sea cucumbers also contain a compound known as philinopside E, or PE. PE inhibits the formation of blood vessels that supply nutrients to tumors. This suppresses the growth and proliferation of such tumors in your body.


Anticoagulant Activity -Blood clotting helps prevent excessive bleeding when you are injured. However, clots can also form inside your blood vessels even when you have no obvious physical injury. This can lead to potentially fatal conditions such as pulmonary embolism - - where the blood clots accumulate in lungs - - and restrict the flow of blood. Sea cucumbers contain a compound known as chondroitin sulfate. A study by Brazilian scientists published in September 1996 in the “Journal of Biological Chemistry” found that chondroitin sulfate has anticoagulant activity.


Anti-Inflammatory Activity -Sea cucumbers have potent anti-inflammatory effects, which may help alleviate pain in patients with conditions such as arthritis. A study by Malaysian scientists that was published in October 2011 in “Marine Drugs” found that sea cucumber supplements reduced inflammation in both male and female rats. This sea animal contains compounds such as mucopolysaccharides, chondroitin and glucosamine, which can help relieve arthritis disorders. Such compounds help in the regulation of the balance of certain lipids known as prostaglandins. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis usually have high concentrations of certain prostaglandins, according to a study published in 2008 in the “American College of Rheumatology.”


Wound Healing -Eating sea cucumber or its extracts may have therapeutic effects such as speeding up wound healing. It does so by facilitating the formation of new tissues within a short time -- a property that is believed to stem from the ability of a sea cucumber to regenerate its own body tissues quickly when it is injured. According to the October 2011 "Marine Drugs" study, this is believed to be facilitated by certain fatty acids, such as arachidonic acid, present in sea cucumber.


References



About the Author


Rebecca Howard has been a professional writer since 2001, with articles appearing in publications such as the "Canadian Journal of Diabetes." She is also a registered member of the Canadian Society of Nutrition Management. Howard holds a B.S. in nutrition from Ryerson Univy and an M.S in applied human nutrition from the Univ of Guelph. 

Buy @ Amazon or Swanson

 

Monday, May 20, 2013

Cure Cancer with DJP Baking Soda Protocol May 2014

Cure Cancer with DJP Baking Soda Protocol – This creates a high ALKALINITY pH 8+, (High Alkalinity causes MORE OXYGEN into cells thereby kills Cancer Cells), has worked for me, 7+ yrs., after following a modified “Plant Based ALKALINE Diet (Macrobiotic)” to restore/re-build my immune system, as Anyone Can ! Get Alkaline - Change Acidic Cell Environment to ALKALINE  creating a  higher Oxygen content in cells !
I am not providing medical advice, simply “revealing my experiences & protocol”, resulting in eliminating Stage IV Metasticized cancer.
I Did “NO” Chemo, NO Radiation, minimum lower Testosterone.
Takes 4 mos. To change our blood, Best Do ORGANIC Plant Based Diet so Alkaline-Rebuild Immune System 1st,  as CAUSE of Cancer is OVERWORKED Immune Function. TOO MANY un-natural Chemicals in Foods! AVOID Any forms of SUGAR, Eat Organic food-for about 1 mo. then Initiate as follows:
Bating Soda  PROTOCOL:
 • 1st day- 1 Teaspoon of BS soda with & 1 cup room temp water 2x day (away from meals), 2 Teaspoons of Black Strap molasses (“BSM”) Heat @ “LOW” temp in pan for 5 min. STIR a lot to fully combine your sugar & BSM into “YOUR own Trojan Horse” to benefit your body -immune system. The molasses/maple syrup targets cancer cells (which consume 15X more glucose than normal cells) & the baking soda, (which is dragged into the cancer cell by the maple syrup/BSM), being very alkaline, is a rapid shift in pH thereby killing the cancer cells in hrs). We have 100 Trillion cells.
• 2nd day – repeat, also "DEEP breathing- 30x do 3-10x day" . OXYGEN KILLS cancer cells
• 3rd day – same Cancer cells thrive on sugar so when you use sugar it’s like sending in “your own Trojan horse”. The sugar is “not” going to encourage the growth of the cancer colonies as the alkaline baking soda (9pH) is going to kill the cells before they have a chance to grow.
• 4th day – same 2X day goal get to 8.0 - 8.5 pH -hold 4-5 days & cancer cells dormant @ pH 7.5+ & kills cancer cells @ 7.8-8.6. My pH was 8.53 on 3rd day with a blood & urine test. • 5th day - started taking the solution - 2 tspns BS & 2 Tsps BSM 2X day
• 6th day– repeat 2 Tspns BS & 2 Tspn of BSM 1 cup of water 2x a day. My pH measured 8.35. That is what happens with cesium chloride/BS done by Italian Dr. Simoncini, mild nausea is good as it means the dead cancer cells are being discarded by your body. BREATHE Deeply. 
. 7th – All ok - lips tingled- an Oxygen Euphoria from a lot deep breathing. Oxygen assists in killing ALL cancer cells! Also on day 7, increased BS to 2+ Tspns.  got a slight headache, backed off to 2 Tspns BS- I was a bit uncomfortable/nervous - had a slight headache, so I reduced it. I had slight confusion. Do 30+ DEEP breaths MANY times per day–VERY IMPORTANT Oxygen kills cancer cells
• 8th day – double dose 3x a day to get pH high- could some be health issues with too much BS Potassium 200+mg intake is IMPORTANT. Filtered water also Exercise/walk 30 min. daily.
• 9th day – A little diarrhea, a little weak feeling, really began to up my potassium intake. All experts said that high dosage of potassium (also with cesium chloride) is very important. Oxygenation euphoria all day from deep breathing. KILLING cancer cells most important ! Walk Barefoot on ground
• 10th day - Headache more persistent, body sweats SO- I cut back to a solution 2x day- not 3x.
• 11th day – down to 1.5 Tspns to control headache, bit of loose stools, slight headache - night sweats. I cut back felt overloaded- 8.35 goal achieved & I wanted to maintain pH 8.0+ for 4-5 days. • Key Points: Take BS solution 2 hrs before or 2 hrs after eating, to give stomach acids time to digest food. Eat HIGH potassium organic foods Watch blood pressure-take Potassium.  

Calcium 1,200 mg Vit. D/D3 10,000iu's, Astralagus, Filter Wtr,    Tumeric, Celery Seed ,Maitake d-fraction,    Potassium 200 mg, BREATHE Deeply,   Astaxanthin,     Sun Chlorella,    Herbal ALOE Force, Magnesium, Seek to maintain ORGANIC food, Alkaline Diet to let your Immune System rebuild from MANY years of harmful chemicals, etc, in Pkgd/Fast foods! Eat brown rice, oats, beans & lots of GREEN veggies, some fruits, NO fruit w/cancer.
Pay for Organic now or pay Drs. Later.
Take Essiac Caps from Truecanadianhealthproduct, Walk 30 min. daily. see donportercancer. Some Raw Food ok also. • Room temp filtered water, Green teas- Kukicha, Bancha-Hojicha, Dandelion Root, Pu-erh, Essiac. • Human blood pH should be slightly alkaline (7.2 - 7.45). A pH below 7.0 is acidic. A pH above 7.4 is alkaline. NO Beer/Wine/Liquor, Drugs, Dairy/Butter, Sugars, Sodas, Table Salt, Pork/Bacon/ Poultry/Beef, Easy/NO fish & related-clams-muscles-lobster, etc. Be good to your immune system - It WILL be good to you with - ORGANIC Alkaline Food WASH ALL FOOD ! NO Overcooking! Acidic creates Cancer environment - Alkaline Environment KILLS cancer cells !
Jim Kelmun 75, (truck driver), treated 200+ terminal cancer sufferers, 185 lived @ least 15 years. Jim threatened with jail unless he stoped administering his remedy – as he has no medical degree! Jim’s Remedy – Maple Syrup & BS (Baking soda). Mix 1 part BS to 1-3 parts syrup. Heat LOW HEAT, stir rigorously in a pan for 5 min. 2 tspns per day 1st week, 1 tspn per day for 2 weeks. Stop Remedy after 3 weeks.

CANCER CURE? 1931 Dr. Otto Warburg, 2X Nobel Prize Winner PROVED that all forms of cancer are characterized by 2 basic conditions: acidosis & hypoxia (lack of oxygen). “Cancerous tissues are acidic, healthy tissues are alkaline. Cancer can't survive in an alkaline cell or in Oxygen. All people with Cancer have a pH that is too acidic. High pH kills cancer cells ! 99% of terminal cancer victims are 1,000x more acidic than normal. A Few Related “GOOD”Internet Searches & Authors to read of 100,000+-- I researched: • Dr. Caldwell B Esselstyn, Jr, Heart • Cesium Chloride, Forks over Knives • http://sanjayguptamd.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/29/sanjay-gupta-reports-the-last-heart-attack/ • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wZendyXhU4 • The pH Miracle–R. Young, Dr. Sanjay Gupta-CNN, Bill Clinton, Dr. Essesltyn, Search - donportercancer • Dr.Otto Warburg cures Cancer Http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/gupta/site/2011/08/29/sgmd.last.heart.attack.cnn
        http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/09/24/tsr.blitzer.clinton.doctors.cnn

Dr. Esselstyn- Zero cardiovascular events have occurred in Dr. Esselstyn's 25 year study. There is no mortality, no morbidity, no expense from following a plant-based diet--if you eat in a way that makes the cap over your plaque super strong. "Some people think the "Heart diet" is extreme. Half a million people a year will have their chests opened up and a vein taken from their leg and sewn onto their coronary artery. Some people would call that extreme 

CAUSES- IGNORED. . Drs. - AMA are treating the symptoms- NOT the Cause. A NO HEAL NO CURE AMA policy to Max Revenues; Organic Alkaline Food is the BEST Medicine. Try Farmers Markets. STOP chemicals from entering our bodies & OVERWHELMING OUR IMMUNE SYSTEMS, Creating ACIDITY, allowing many diseases, EAT a strict ORGANIC Alkaline Plant Based Diet to Maximize your Health. Food is The Best Medicine ! No Pkgd. or Fast Foods. Lots of Deep Breathing. Drink Aloe - Heals
Remember Drs. PUSHING SMOKING  Now Drugs, Chemo, Operations, Radiation, etc.

Disclaimer: I am not a doctor; thus, I have not been formally “miseducated.” I am not certified in medicine; therefore, there is no certificate or diploma disgracing the interior of my home or office and no monument to the biggest revenue generating fraud ever perpetrated on human kind. This Blog/website/Protocol is for educational purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for the diagnosis, treatment, or advice of a qualified, licensed medical professional. The facts presented are offered as information only, my experiences in beating Stage IV caner, not medical advice, and in no way should anyone infer that I am practicing medicine. A conscious effort has been made to present information on my experiences that are both accurate and truthful. Much is based on Dr. Otto Warburg.My statements regarding alternative treatments for cancer have not been evaluated by the FDA.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Cancer (Chemotherapy, etc.) is Revenue Driven

Cancer Doctors Say Their Income Tied to Treatments A survey of cancer doctors finds that some believe they get paid more when they administer their patients' chemotherapy and other drugs, raising concerns about conflict of interest and the potential for over treatment. Researchers found that oncologists, surgeons and other cancer specialists who get paid based on the number of services they provide were seven times more likely to say their pay increases when they oversee their patients' chemotherapy treatments, compared to doctors who are paid a flat rate or salary. "I think there is evidence out there that doctors are very responsive to financial incentives... So I think some patients should realize that doctors who are prescribing chemotherapy may be benefiting financially," said Dr. Nancy Keating from Boston's Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital, the study's senior author. According to Keating and her colleagues, who published their study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology on Wednesday, some cancer doctors offer chemotherapy and other therapies in their offices. Indeed, the researchers note, previous studies have found that as much as 65%t of an oncologist office's income typically comes from administering treatments. The rest comes from evaluating and managing patients' cancers. There are some advantages to patients in getting treatments at their doctors' offices, such as not having to travel to a hospital, but some observers worry the practice gives doctors incentive to prescribe more chemotherapy or more expensive drugs because they'll make more money. In the last decade, the U.S. government tried to reduce the profit margin doctors were able to make by administering chemotherapy to their patients, but Keating told Reuters Health that didn't solve the problem. "I think there is some evidence out there that doctors just started prescribing more profitable drugs. So this is still an issue," she said. While the study could not determine whether patients received any unnecessary treatments, the researchers wanted to see whether doctors believe their pay is tied to their ability to give patients chemotherapy. The researchers used a survey from 2005 through mid-2007 of 480 oncologists, who treated patients from across the country. Overall, most participants said their income would be unaffected by prescribing chemotherapy or other drugs, or by referring patients to other specialists or hospices. But 27% of the drs said their pay would increase based on how much chemotherapy they administered and 25% said they'd get paid more if they administered more growth factors, such as so-called hormonal drugs, that regulate cell growth. Doctors who were in some way paid based on how many services they provide - known as fee for service - were about seven times more likely to say their incomes would increase if they administered more chemotherapy or growth factors, compared to doctors who got a flat salary. Doctors who had their own practices or were part of a smaller oncology group were about nine times more likely to say their income would increase if they administered their patients' chemotherapy, compared to those who worked in a hospital. "It really is pretty substantial differences. And often, I don't think people pay that much attention to where their doctor works, but I think it does make a difference," Keating said. But Dr. Yu-Ning Wong of the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia cautions that the new study only looks at whether the doctors believed their pay would increase if they could administer chemotherapy or other treatments. "It didn't say it actually did," said Wong, who wrote a commentary accompanying the study. She also told Reuters Health that she would not want cancer patients thinking they are receiving unnecessary care or treatments based on this study. Still, Keating and her fellow researchers say, there needs to be a new way to pay doctors "to counter or eliminate these incentives to decrease unnecessary care and ensure that health care resources are used most effectively." Until then, Keating said patients should feel free to ask doctors whether they'll benefit financially from their treatments. "It's certainly something I would want to know," she said. "But I agree it's not an easy thing to ask, but I do think it's something to be aware of and I think it's a fair question to ask." Source: www.reuters.com

Friday, February 1, 2013

Banned DANGEROUS Ingredients that Are Still Legal in the U.S.

Banned "DANGEROUS" Ingredients that Are Still Legal in the U.S. Jan 16, 2013 by Cristina Goyanes & Don Porter
WAKE UP AMERICA - USA is the SICKEST COUNTRY IN the WORLD !! CHEMICALS IN OUR FOODS !! Skip these ingredients!You think the FDA has your back? Sure, they recently proposed two new regulations to up food safety measures, specifically how food processors and farmers can work better to keep their fresh products free of dangerous bacteria (remember that killer cantaloupe outbreak from 2011?). But while it may seem like the government is out to protect us from bad-even fatal-food-borne illnesses, which cause some 3,000 deaths a year, they don't completely have our best interest-or health-in mind.
"For numerous suspicious and disturbing reasons, the U.S. has allowed foods that are banned in many other developed countries into our food supply," says nutritionist Mira Calton who, together with her husband Jayson Calton, Ph.D., wrote the new book Rich Food, Poor Food due out this February. During a six-year expedition that took them to 100 countries on seven continents, the Caltons studied more than 150 ingredients and put together a comprehensive list of the top 13 problematic products that are forbidden by governments, outside the U.S., due to their detrimental effects on human health.
"If you see any of the following ingredients listed on the nutrition label, don't buy the product," Calton warns. "Leaving these banned bad boys on the shelves will speak volumes to grocery stores and food manufactures about what informed consumers simply won't tolerate." RELATED: 7 Foods a Nutritionist Would Never Eat Ingredients: Coloring agents (blue 1, blue 2, yellow 5, and yellow 6)
 Found In: Cake, candy, macaronic and cheese, medicines, sport drinks, soda, pet food, and cheese
 Why the U.S. Allows It: We eat with our eyes. "Recent studies have shown that when food manufacturers left foods in their natural, often beige-like color instead of coloring them with these chemical agents, individuals thought they tasted bland and ate less, even when the recipe wasn't altered," Calton says. This may explain why the use of artificial dyes-the most popular being red 40, yellow 5, and yellow 6-have increased five-fold since 1955.
 Health Hazards: Back in the day, food coloring came from natural sources, such as saffron and turmeric. "Today most artificial colors are made from coal tar, which is also used to seal-coat products to preserve and protect the shine of industrial floors," Carlton says. "It also appears in head lice shampoos to kill off the small bugs."
Ingredient: Olestra (aka Olean) 
Found In: Fat-free potato chips
 Why the U.S. Allows It: Procter & Gamble Co. took a quarter century and spent a half a billion dollars to create "light" chips that are supposedly better for you, Calton says. They may need another half a billion bucks to figure out how to deal with the embarrassing bathroom side effects (including oily anal leakage) that comes with consuming these products. 
Health Hazards: "This fat substitute appears to cause a dramatic depletion of fat-soluble vitamins and carotenoids, robbing us of the vital micro-nutrients," Calton says, adding that many countries, including the U.K. and Canada, have banned it. Ingredient: Brominated vegetable oil (aka BVO)
 Found In: Sports drinks and citrus-flavored sodas 
Why the U.S. Allows It: BVO acts as an emulsifier, preventing the flavoring from separating and floating to the surface of beverages, Calton says.
 Health Hazards: "Because it competes with iodine for receptor sites in the body, elevated levels of the stuff may lead to thyroid issues, such as hypothyroidism, autoimmune disease, and cancer," Calton says. That's not all. BVO's main ingredient, bromine, is a poisonous chemical that is considered both corrosive and toxic. It's been linked to major organ system damage, birth defects, growth problems, schizophrenia, and hearing loss, which explains why it's been nixed in more than 100 countries.
Ingredient: Potassium bromate (aka brominated flour)
 Found In: Rolls, wraps, flatbread, bread crumbs, and bagel chips
 Why the U.S. Allows It: This flour-bulking agent helps strengthen dough, reducing the amount of time needed for baking, which results in lowered costs, Calton explains.
 Health Hazards: Made with the same toxic chemical found in BVO (bromine), this additive has been associated with kidney and nervous system disorders as well as gastrointestinal discomfort. "While the FDA has not banned the use of bromated flour, they do urge bakers to voluntarily leave it out," Calton says. Ingredient: Azodicarbonamide
 Found In: Breads, frozen dinners, boxed pasta mixes, and packaged baked goods 
Why the U.S. Allows It: While most countries wait a week for flour to naturally whiten, the American food processors prefer to use this chemical to bleach the flour ASAP.
 Health Hazards: It's not enough to just ban this product in Singapore. You can get up to 15 years in prison and be penalized nearly half a million dollars in fines for using this chemical that's been linked to asthma and is primarily used in foamed plastics, like yoga mats and sneaker soles.
Ingredients: BHA and BHT
 Found In: Cereal, nut mixes, gum, butter, meat, dehydrated potatoes, and beer 
Why the U.S. Allows It: "Made from petroleum [yummy!], these waxy solids act as preservatives to prevent food from becoming rancid and developing objectionable odors," Calton says. A better solution may be natural rosemary and sage. In a 2006 study, some organic herbs and spices proved to be efficient at preventing oxidative decay in meat, which ultimately could improve the shelf-life of these products. 
Health Hazards: California is the only state that recognizes the U.S. National Institute of Health's report that BHA may be a human carcinogen, a cancer-causing agent. Ingredients: Synthetic hormones (rBGH and rBST)
 Found In: Milk and dairy products
 Why the U.S. Allows It: Gotta keep moo-ving things along. Dairy farmers inject cows with genetically-engineered cow growth hormones to boost milk production by about 10%, according to Calton.
 Health Hazards: "Cows treated with these synthetic hormones often become lame, infertile, and suffer from inflamed and infected udders," Calton says. Humans, who consume these cows byproducts, are in no better shape, she adds: "The milk is supercharged with IGF-1 (insulin growth factor -1), which has been linked to breast, colon, and prostate cancers." RELATED: 3 "Healthy" Foods that Aren't so Healthy
Ingredient: Arsenic 
Found In: Poultry
 Why the U.S. Allows It: Big brother FDA permits arsenic in chicken feed to promote growth, improve efficiency in feeding the birds, and boost pigmentation. "The arsenic affects the blood vessels in chickens and turkeys, causing them to appear pinker and, therefore, fresher," Calton says.
 Health Hazards: The European Union has outlawed the use of arsenic since 1999, Calton says, and the Environmental Protection Agency classifies inorganic arsenic as a "human carcinogen." Take matters into your own hands by sticking to organic birds only.

Saturday, January 5, 2013

5 Most Repeated Health Myths That Medical Doctors Have No Intention on Abandoning - ALL About Money

The 5 Most Repeated Health Myths That Medical Doctors Have No Intention on Abandoning
Medical Ind. Is About MAX REVENUE Posted: 04 Jan 2013 03:41 PM PST By MARCO TORRES There are more health myths propagated by the media and conventional medicine today than there ever have been throughout history. In large part, this is due to a lack of public education and a broadening of the corporate powers who promote myths to achieve very specific and malicious goals all in the name of profit. Myth #1 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. 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. Promoters of conventional medicine claim that all the drug studies, approvals, surgical procedures, all other treatments are based on scientific evidence. But is it really science? What passes for “science” today is a collection of health myths, half-truths, intellectual dishonesty and fraudulent reporting to help serve higher interests. Science is not really science anymore.
90% 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. 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. Mammography is a very good example. Chemotherapy is another. 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. MYTH #2 Vaccines prevent diseases 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. 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.
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. 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. MYTH #3 We must all focus on lowering bad cholesterol. 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.
It's ALL about Revenue 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. MYTH #4 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. 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 over-diagnosis — 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. The biggest single type of story we usually hear about on the news involves treatment, and narratives lend themselves much better to that kind of story. Stories about prevention, about people exercising and eating right, just don’t make great copy. If our current treatment approach to health continues, hundreds of years from now, mankind may look back at today’s “modern medicine” and think: “How could they have been so primitive in ideology and so wrong? What lack of humanitarianism in government allowed the medical industries to kill people with economically driven false beliefs and ideas? Why didn’t government stop them? Who were the people in charge of protecting those citizens?
Preventive education demands increased funding for research into new dietary, physical activity, behavioural, socioeconomic, environmental and medical approaches for the prevention of chronic disease. Children who grow into teenagers and then adults require more accountability for their own well-being through health conscious decisions which are motivated by proper practical and theoretical applications. They need to know that treatment modalities and pharmaceutical applications may not save their health in the future. Substantial political and financial contributions are also imperative to invest in prevention more effectively to regulate revisions and mandate policies which affect the governing bodies of health and education. Any procrastination or failure to resolve these matters in the next decade will only lead to the further deterioration of human health and healthcare systems. Proper leadership and effective communication regarding these preventive measures may still reverse screening/treatment trends and consequently reverse this thinking to ultimately promote a healthier aging population. MYTH #5 Fluoride prevents tooth decay.
Water fluoridation is a hoax. Drinking any amount of fluoride is dangerous to your health and has NEVER been proven to prevent tooth decay. It’s actually the biggest scientific fraud ever to be promoted by national and international Governments. Fluoride has been linked to osteoporosis, cancer, auto-immune diseases, and even very small concentrations can disrupt DNA repair enzymes by 50%. The fluoride added to our water is a waste product of aluminum and phosphate fertilizer processing. And it’s not even calcium fluoride that appears naturally in water, but sodium fluoride, which is a whole different thing–and loaded with bad news. In fact, sodium fluoride has no good news. Except for a few suspect reports by the people selling the stuff, study after research study proves that sodium fluoride does not protect our teeth, and it does a number on our bones. And on other body parts, too, including our thyroid gland. - Fluoride was found to be an equivocal carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute Toxicological Program. - Drinking fluoridated water will double the number of hip fractures for both older men and women. - Infertility in women was found to increase with water fluoridation. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists reported a close correlation between decreasing total fertility rates in women between ages of 10 and 49, and increasing fluoride levels. - Fluoride has never been found to effectively reducing tooth decay by any notable margin. No causation or even correlation was found between the level of fluoride in water and dental caries in any study. - Fluoride also attacks the pineal gland. The pineal controls our inner clock, provides good sleep, works with our adrenal glands to handle stress, keeps the thymus gland fed and cared for, and communicates 24/7 with the rest of the endocrine system about how things are going. Fluoride calcifies our pineal gland into a non-functioning rock. - The government classifies sodium fluoride as environmentally hazardous waste. Anybody handling it must wear HazMat protective gear. Dumping it into rivers is a crime. Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide “evidence useful in litigation” against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show. It seems that the healthiest people on the planet right now are those that have deviated from the norms of conventional medical quackery, and have migrated towards natural health. The proof is in the pudding. Find the healthiest 5 people you know and you’ll find they typically don’t subscribe to the health myths promoted by mainstream medicine. Your longevity and aging gracefully depends on it.

Friday, December 14, 2012

Is SUGAR a Poison ? Feed Cancer ?

Cancer & Sugar - REALITY
Strategy for Selective Starvation of Cancer Cells According to researchers at the Univ of California, San Francisco, sugar poses a health risk—contributing to around 35 million deaths globally each year. So high is its toxicity that it should now be considered a potentially toxic substance like alcohol and tobacco. Its link with the onset of diabetes is such that punitive regulations, such as a tax on all foods and drinks that contain “added’’ sugar, are now warranted, the researchers concluded. They also recommend banning sales in or near schools, as well as placing age limits on the sale of such products. Sugar does not stop at diabetes, metabolic syndrome, hyper- and hypoglycemia, GERD and heart disease. Sugar and cancer are locked in a death grip yet oncologists often fail to do what’s necessary to stop their patients from feeding their cancers with sweets.
But mainstream medicine insists on promoting the belief that the link between certain types of food with an increased risk of cancer is “weak” or only “nominally significant.” They believe that research “linking foodstuffs to cancer reveals no valid medical patterns.” We find such superficial attitudes promoted in the medical press—all of which lack any kind of medical depth. An increasing number of medical scientists and many alternative practitioners know that the most logical, effective, safe, necessary and inexpensive way to treat cancer is to cut off the supply of food to tumors and cancer cells, starving them with a lack of glucose. The therapeutic strategy for selective starvation of tumors by dietary modification is one of the principle forms of therapy that is necessary for cancer patients to win their war on cancer. NO SUGAR
Researchers at Huntsman Cancer Institute in Utah were one of the first to discover that sugar “feeds” tumors. The research published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said, “It’s been known since 1923 that tumor cells use a lot more glucose than normal cells. Our research helps show how this process takes place, and how it might be stopped to control tumor growth,” says Don Ayer, Ph.D., a professor in the Department of Oncological Sciences at the University of Utah.
Dr. Thomas Graeber, a professor of molecular and medical pharmacology, has investigated how the metabolism of glucose affects the biochemical signals present in cancer cells. In research published June 26, 2012 in the journal Molecular Systems Biology, Graeber and his colleagues demonstrate that glucose starvation—that is, depriving cancer cells of glucose—activates a metabolic and signaling amplification loop that leads to cancer cell death as a result of the toxic accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS).[1]
Refined sugars are strongly linked to cancer, not only as a cause of it but also as something that feeds the cancer cells once a person has the disease—Nothing could be more important to consider in the attempt to improve the outcome of cancer treatments. The kinds of sugar so prevalent in today’s standard American diet lead to cancer directly by causing inflammation throughout the body but in some places more than others depending on the individual and their constitution. Listen to this video and hear how simple this all really is. Once cancer cells are established in the body, they depend on steady glucose availability in the blood for their energy; they are not able to metabolize significant amounts of fatty acids or ketone bodies,[1]. so they need sugar.
Suppress/ Delay/ Slow/ Kill Cancer Carbohydrates of one of the three macronutrients—the other two being fats and protein. There are simple carbohydrates and complex carbohydrates. Simple carbohydrates include sugars found naturally in foods such a fruits and fruit juices, sodas, some vegetables, white bread, white rice, pasta, milk and milk products, most snack foods, sweets, etc. But let us not forget the simple sugars added to foods during processing and refining that we may have no awareness of. It’s the simple sugars that get most of the credit for causing the insulin response and thus inflammation that can lead to cancer. Thus by reducing the amount of simple carbohydrates in the diet, the emergence of cancer can be suppressed or delayed, or the proliferation of already existing tumor cells can be slowed down, stopped and reversed by depriving the cancer cells of the food they need for survival. Drs. Rainer Klement and Ulrike Kammerer conducted a comprehensive review of the literature involving dietary carbohydrates and their direct and indirect effect on cancer cells, which was published in October 2011 in the journal Nutrition and Metabolism, concluding that cancers are so sensitive to the sugar supply that cutting that supply will suppress cancer.[3] “Increased glucose flux and metabolism promotes several hallmarks of cancer such as excessive proliferation, anti-apoptotic signaling, cell cycle progression and angiogenesis.” Eating white sugar (or white anything) causes magnesium mineral deficiencies because the magnesium has been removed in the processing, making sugar a ripe target as a major cause of cancer because deficiencies in magnesium are not only pro-inflammatory but also pro-cancer. More Ways to Cause Cancer with Sugar Is Sugar Toxic? NY Times Apri 13, 2011
High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) causes cancer in a unique way because much of it is contaminated with mercury due to the complex way it is made. High fructose corn syrup causes selenium deficiencies because the mercury in it binds with selenium, driving selenium levels downward. Selenium is crucial for glutathione production and its deficiency in soils tracks mathematically with cancer rates. Selenium and mercury are also eternal lovers having a strong affinity to bond with each other. Already touched on briefly, excess sugar spikes insulin levels and insulin’s eventual depletion. High insulin and insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) are needed for the control of blood sugar levels that result from chronic ingestion of high-carbohydrate meals (like the typical American diet, that is full of grains and sugars). Increased insulin levels are pro-inflammatory and pro-cancer and can directly promote tumor cell proliferation via the insulin/ IGF-1 signaling pathway. Dr. Christine Horner has a lot to say to women about insulin and breast cancer: When it comes to breast cancer, insulin is no friend. One of the biggest reasons is due to the fact that both normal breast cells and cancer cells have insulin receptors on them. When insulin attaches to its receptor, it has the same effect as when estrogen attaches to its receptor: it causes cells to start dividing. The higher your insulin levels are, the faster your breast cells will divide; the faster they divide, the higher your risk of breast cancer is and the faster any existing cancer cells will grow. There’s also another detriment that high insulin levels can inflict. It makes more estrogen available to attach to the estrogen receptors in breast tissue. Insulin regulates how much of the estrogen in your blood is available to attach to estrogen receptors in your breast tissue. When estrogen travels in the blood, it either travels alone seeking an estrogen receptor, or it travels with a partner, a protein binder, that prevents it from attaching to an estrogen receptor. Insulin regulates the number of protein binders in the blood. So, the higher your insulin levels are, the fewer the number of protein binders there will be and therefore the more free estrogen that will be available to attach to estrogen receptors.
In other words, when your insulin levels are up, free-estrogen levels are up, and both of them speed up cell division. That’s why high insulin levels increase your risk of breast cancer so much. Eating sugar increases your risk of breast cancer in another way. It delivers a major blow to your immune system with the force of a prizefighter.
Dr. Horner talks about a study conducted by Harvard Medical School (2004) that found that women who, as teenagers, ate high-glycemic foods that increased their blood glucose levels had a higher incidence of breast cancer later in life. “So, encouraging your teenage daughter to cut back on sugar will help her to lower her risk of breast cancer for the rest of her life,” she said. Sugar, Inflammation, Angiogenesis & Cancer Sugars and the inflammation and acidic environments they create are important constituents of the local environment of tumors. In most types of cancer inflammatory conditions are present before malignancy changes occur. “Smoldering inflammation in tumor microenvironments has many tumor-promoting effects. Inflammation aids in the proliferation and survival of malignant cells, promotes angiogenesis and metastasis, subverts adaptive immune responses, and alters responses to hormones and chemotherapeutic agents.”[4]
The entire subject of inflammation, angiogenesis, sugar and cancer is crucial to understanding the links between cancer and the foods we eat and is covered separately in the following chapter. When we begin to zero in on inflammation and the acid conditions caused by excessive consumption of simple sugars, including fructose and high-fructose corn syrup, we begin to see more clearly how food and cancer are intimately connected.
In July 2012 a leading U.S. cancer lobby group urged the surgeon general to conduct a sweeping study of the impact of sugar-sweetened beverages on consumer health, saying such drinks play a major role in the nation’s obesity crisis and require a U.S. action plan. In a letter to U.S. Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the American Cancer Society’s advocacy affiliate called for a comprehensive review along the lines of the U.S. top doctor’s landmark report on the dangers of smoking in 1964. The ruckus is about the growing connection between high sugar intake, mineral depletion, dehydration, diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Sugar causes cancer because the tendency of high-carbohydrate consumers tends toward dehydration, which is pro-inflammatory and thus pro-cancer.[5]
Pancreatic cancer cells use the sugar fructose to help tumors grow more quickly.[6] Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways, a team at the University of California Los Angeles found. Their findings, published in the journal Cancer Research, helps explain other studies that have linked fructose intake with pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest cancer types. Researchers concluded that anyone wishing to curb their cancer risk should start by reducing the amount of sugar they eat. This is the first time a link has been shown between fructose and cancer proliferation. “In this study we show that cancers can use fructose just as readily as glucose to fuel their growth,” said Dr. Anthony Heaney of UCLA’s Jonsson Cancer Center, the study’s lead author. “The modern diet contains a lot of refined sugar including fructose and it’s a hidden danger implicated in a lot of modern diseases, such as obesity, diabetes and fatty liver.” While this study was done on pancreatic cancer, these findings may not be unique to that cancer type, Heaney said. “These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation.”
It has been known for decades that cancer cells thrive on glucose. Moreover, foods that cause a sharp rise in blood glucose (i.e. foods with a high-glycemic index ranking) trigger the secretion of insulin and insulin growth factor (IGF-1), two hormones that also promote cancer growth. Researchers using rats have found that a low-carbohydrate high-protein diet reduces blood glucose, insulin, and glycolysis, slows tumor growth, reduces tumor incidence, and works additively with existing therapies without weight loss or kidney failure.[7] Such a diet, therefore, has the potential of being both a novel cancer prophylactic and treatment.
Dr. Otto Warburg’s 1924 paper, “On metabolism of tumors,” stated, “Summarized in a few words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar.” If you’ve ever made wine, you’ll know that fermentation requires sugar. The metabolism of cancer is approximately eight times greater than the metabolism of normal cells. Doctors have known for a long time that cancer metabolizes much differently than normal cells. Normal cells need oxygen. Cancer cells despise oxygen. (Dr. Otto Warburg 1931 Nobel Prize Winner) Warburg’s hypothesis was of course that cancer growth was caused when cancer cells converted glucose into energy without using oxygen. Healthy cells make energy by converting pyruvate and oxygen. The pyruvate is oxidized within a healthy cell’s mitochondria, and Warburg theorized that since cancer cells don’t oxidize pyruvate, cancer must be considered a mitochondrial dysfunction. Most, if not all, tumor cells have a high demand on glucose compared to benign cells of the same tissue and conduct glycolysis even in the presence of oxygen (the Warburg effect). In addition, many cancer cells express insulin receptors (IRs) and show hyperactivation of the IGF1R-IR (IGF-1 receptor/ insulin receptor) pathway. Evidence exists that chronically elevated blood glucose, insulin and IGF-1 levels facilitate tumor genesis and worsen the outcome in cancer patients. Treating diabetic patients, A. Braunstein observed in 1921 that in those who developed cancer, glucose secretion in the urine disappeared. One year later, R. Bierich described the remarkable accumulation of lactate in the micromilieu of tumor tissues and demonstrated lactate to be essential for invasion of melanoma cells into the surrounding tissue. One year after that Warburg began his experiments that eventually ended for him with a Nobel Prize. Sugar turns the body into a suitable breeding ground for viruses, bacteria, fungi and cancer by devastating the immune system. Knowing that one’s cancer needs sugar, does it make sense to feed it sugar? Does it make sense to have a high-carbohydrate diet? Of the four million cancer patients being treated in America today, hardly any are offered any scientifically guided nutrition therapy beyond being told to “just eat good foods.” Oncologists have no shame about this, insisting that diet has little to do with cancer.
Cancer patients should not be feeding their cancers like they would feed cotton candy to their grandchildren. As long as this cancer cell can get a regular supply of sugar—or glucose—it lives and thrives longer than it should. Now imagine oncologists getting enlightened and they start to advise their patients to starve the cancer instead of bombing it to smithereens with chemotherapy and radiation treatments all the while feeding the cancer with sugar Is sugar actually poisonous? Researchers say the sweet stuff is fatal for our health PUBLISHED:15:48 EST, 2 April 2012| UPDATED:15:49 EST, 2 April 2012 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2124212/Is-sugar-actually-poisonous-Researchers-say-sweet-stuff-fatal-health.html#ixzz2F2DGqVI4 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook