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.

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.

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

Green tea catechins shown to shrink cancerous tumors in humans

Green tea catechins shown to shrink cancerous tumors in humans Friday, Sept 14, 2012 by: John Phillip

I, Don Porter, LIKE this article & drink 3 cups a day 8-9 bags shown below Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037187_green_tea_catechins_cancerous_tumors.html#ixzz26kM2lrlB (NaturalNews) Natural health advocates have understood and demonstrated the potent antioxidant and anti-cancer properties of green tea consumption for decades. The Chinese have brewed the leaves of the Camellia sinensis plant for more than 5,000 years to benefit human health. Catechins such as epigallocatechin 3-gallate or EGCG are gaining prominent attention as they have been shown to halt cancerous tumor growth and improve arterial elasticity to promote cardiovascular health. Researchers from the University of Strathclyde in Scotland, publishing in the journal Nanomedicine have determined that EGCG extracted from green tea could be a powerful weapon in treatments for tackling cancer. The scientists developed a proprietary method for delivering the natural compound directly to tumor cells and found that nearly two-thirds of the tumors it was delivered to either shrank or disappeared within one month. The treatment displayed no side effects to normal tissues.

EGCG from green tea effectively shrinks or eliminates existing tumors in humans This research is significant because it is believed to be the first time that this type of treatment has made cancerous tumors shrink or vanish in response to a therapy based on a totally natural compound. The lead study author, Dr. Christine Dufes noted "These are very encouraging results which we hope could pave the way for new and effective cancer treatments." To conduct the study, the scientists encapsulated the green tea extract in vesicles that also carried transferrin, a plasma protein that transports iron through the blood. Transferrin receptors are found in large amounts in many cancers, and are known to be a viable target for many cancer therapies. Testing EGCG on two different types of skin cancer, researchers found 40% of both types of tumors vanished, while 30% of one and 20% of another shrank. A further 10% of one of the types was stabilized.

Dr. Dufes concluded "The green tea extract reduced the size of many of the tumors every day, in some cases removing them altogether... these are very encouraging results which we hope could pave the way for new and effective cancer treatments." There is no doubt that EGCG catechins from green tea are important to human health. EGCG can be consumed through standardized encapsulated supplements or by drinking two to four fresh-brewed cups of green tea daily to dramatically lower the risk of many cancer lines and to shield against an array of chronic illnesses.

Sources for this article include: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22891867 http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-08/uos-gtc082212.php http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120822071433.htm About the author: John Phillip is a Certified Nutritional Consultant and Health Researcher and Author who writes regularly on the cutting edge use of diet, lifestyle modifications and targeted supplementation to enhance and improve the quality and length of life. John is the author of 'Your Healthy Weight Loss Plan', a comprehensive EBook explaining how to use Diet, Exercise, Mind and Targeted Supplementation to achieve your weight loss goal. Visit My Optimal Health Resource to continue reading the latest health news updates, and to download your Free 48 page copy of 'Your Healthy Weight Loss Plan'. Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037187_green_tea_catechins_cancerous_tumors.html#ixzz26kLRnWox

Chemotherapy Stimulates Cancer Growth

Chemotherapy Stimulates Cancer Growth Extracellular Matrix Regulates Gene Expression & Cancer

Acidic cells & Gene mutations are part of the process of cancer, but mutations alone are not enough to cause cancer to take hold and spread, thus threatening people’s lives through domination of precious life resources (nutrition) as well as precious real estate where other healthy cells live. Genes do become damaged and sustain mutations in some cells and not others during people’s lifetimes. An oncogene—a gene that causes tumors in animals and uncontrolled growth in cells in culture—cannot in and of itself change cells from normal to cancerous. It is the cells’ surroundings, known as its microenvironment, that contribute in some way to how cancer has occurred. Cancer involves an interaction between acidic rogue cells and surrounding tissue. This is the clear message that Dr. Mina Bissell, who is the director of life sciences at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab in California (LBNL), and she is now sharing this with the world. The interactions between cancer cells and their micro and macroenvironments create a context that promotes tumor growth and protects them from immune attack or, on the other hand, prevent tumors from making any kind of beachhead so they cannot take hold or spread themselves around. Cancer cells routinely form in most people’s bodies but that does not mean they are going to succeed in capturing their host’s valuable resources so they can invade (inland so to speak) as they win their war and take our life.

What this means is that the surrounding cells and the surrounding extracellular matrix interact to shape cancer cell behaviors such as polarity, migration and proliferation. The microenvironment includes a complex scaffolding on which cells grow and develop, called the extracellular matrix. The microenvironment is what actually surrounds a cell. The extracellular matrix (microenvironment) has been shown to regulate gene expression so it has more to do with the state of cancer than the cancer cells themselves.

“If tissue architecture and context are part of the message, then tumor cells with abnormal genomes should be capable of becoming ‘normal’” if grown in a healthy microenvironment. Dr. Bissell and her students tested that hypothesis with some malignant cells, growing them on a healthy scaffolding. And yes, they were able to revert the malignant phenotype to a normal one. They could even inject the cells into mice where they didn’t cause tumors, unlike malignant cells, which would cause cancer. This, says Bissell, indicates that there is another way to look at cancer—that cancer genes are regulated by the environment around them. Dr. Bissell’s basic idea is that cancer cells cannot turn into a lethal tumor without the cooperation of other cells nearby. It is not just the other surrounding cells but also the interstitial environment, which of course would include pH and nutrient levels being supplied by the blood. That may be why autopsies repeatedly find that most people who die of causes other than cancer have at least some tiny tumors in their bodies that had gone unnoticed. According to current thinking, the tumors were kept in check, causing no harm.

“Think of it as this kid in a bad neighborhood,” said Dr. Susan Love, a breast cancer surgeon and president of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation. “You can take the kid out of the neighborhood and put him in a different environment and he will behave totally differently.” She added, “It’s exciting. What it means, if all this environmental stuff is right, is that we should be able to reverse cancer without having to kill cells. This could open up a whole new way of thinking about cancer that would be much less assaultive.” Dr. Bissell is now hailed as a hero, with an award named after her. “You have created a paradigm shift,” the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology wrote in a letter announcing that she had won its 2008 Excellence in Science award. Dr. D. W. Smithers, then at Royal Marsden Hospital in London, argued that cancer was not a disease caused by a rogue cell that divides and multiplies until it destroys its host. “Cancer is no more a disease of cells than a traffic jam is a disease of cars,” Dr. Smithers wrote. “A lifetime of study of the internal-combustion engine would not help anyone understand our traffic problems.”

The death rate has barely budged for most cancers, and the gene mutation strategy so far has been a failure—a senseless one that has been used to reinforce the insane and very deadly form of medicine contemporary oncologists practice. Dr. David Agus, a conventional oncologist, agrees that cancer treatments have a shortsighted focus on individual cells. In a yet to be published essay titled, “Catching Cancer Cells in a Deadly Crossfire,” I talk about supercharging the micro and macroenvironments with life force making it more impossible for the cancer cells to survive. In that chapter I use military terminology and imagery and we know what happens when we reinforce the troops that surround an enemy.

Cells that are in harmony move and work together to create and work toward the conditions necessary for overall health. We can turn to physics and remember what happens to a bunch of grandfather clocks on the wall. They can all be swinging in wide opposition to each other but come back a while later and they will all be swinging together. Our cells are like that, all the many trillions of them. There is coherence to the entire colony of cells until what we call cancer occurs and then that coherence begins to break down. Chemotherapy Provokes More Not Less Cancer Chemotherapy can cause damage to healthy cells, which triggers them to secrete a protein that sustains tumor growth and makes cancer more resistance to any further treatment. We are beginning to see clinical evidence across the board show that what happens to healthy cells during cancer treatment determines much if not the entire outcome of treatment. “Cancer cells inside the body live in a very complex environment or neighborhood. Where the tumor cell resides and who its neighbors are influence its response and resistance to therapy,” said senior author Dr. Peter S. Nelson, a member of the Hutchinson Cancer Center’s Human Biology Division. “Our findings indicate that the tumor microenvironment also can influence the success or failure of these more precise therapies.” In other words, the same cancer cell, when exposed to different “neighborhoods,” may have very different responses to treatment. Researchers at the center tested the effects of a type of chemotherapy on tissue collected from men with prostate cancer, and found “evidence of DNA damage” in healthy cells after treatment, the scientists wrote in Nature Medicine in August of 2012.

The scientists found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B, which boosts cancer cell survival. The researchers observed up to 30-fold increases in WNT production! “The increase in WNT16B was completely unexpected,” said Dr. Nelson. The protein was taken up by tumour cells neighboring the damaged cells. “WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumor cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy,” said Nelson. Rates of tumor cell reproduction have been shown to accelerate between chemotherapy treatments. “Our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells... may directly contribute to enhanced tumor growth kinetics,” wrote the team. The researchers said they confirmed their findings with breast and ovarian cancer tumors. Dr. Nelson describes the normal insanity/methods of chemotherapy saying, “In the laboratory we can ‘cure’ most any cancer simply by giving very high doses of toxic therapies to cancer cells in a petri dish. However, in people, these high doses would not only kill the cancer cells but also normal cells and the host.” Therefore, treatments for common solid tumors are given in smaller doses and in cycles, or intervals, to allow the normal cells to recover. This approach may not eradicate all of the tumor cells, and those that survive can evolve to become resistant to subsequent rounds of anti-cancer therapy. What mainstream researchers are failing to find is that we can approach cancer treatment from a completely different and opposite angle to chemotherapy. Instead of trying to kill the cancer and harm the surrounding cells we imprison the cancer in a solid wall of healthy cells, thus that area being strengthened as opposed to being weakened by treatments. We create the conditions where we first limit the ability to grow and then send in some cruise missiles that directly target the cancer cells, choking the life out of them with waves of increased alkalinity and oxygen.

How to avoid deceptively 'healthy' junk foods while shopping

How to avoid deceptively 'healthy' junk foods while shopping Saturday, August 25, 2012 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036950_junk_foods_shopping_food_labels.html#ixzz24aNGLQwW (NaturalNews) An increasing number of "junk" food items are now being repacked and rebranded as health food items, with claims that they contain things like added vitamins and minerals, or no trans-fats. But oftentimes such items are still just junk foods with deceptive labels, and consumers need to be aware of this when browsing the grocery store aisles in search of foods that are truly healthy for them and their families. Just because a box of sugar-filled, artificial color-laden cereal, for instance, says it is an "excellent source of fiber" or "made from 100 percent whole grains" does not necessarily mean that the product is healthy. Even if the cereal has been enriched with "eight vitamins and mineral," it more than likely was so highly processed in the first place that the manufacturer had to go back and add in synthetic nutrients just to make the product edible. Most added vitamins and minerals are synthetic, do not absorb well in the body Cereals, crackers, chips, cookies, juices, fruit snacks, and many other junk foods marketed primarily towards children often bear labeling that claims they are rich in certain vitamins, or that they contribute to a healthy and balanced diet. But what many parents do not realize is that the added nutrients in such products are typically synthetic, which means they are not easily absorbed by the body. Refined flour-based products are almost always fortified with synthetic vitamins and minerals, for example, because these nutrients have been fully stripped out during processing. But the type of vitamins and minerals that are added back in have been concocted in a lab rather than in nature, and tend to provide little or no benefits when consumed.

Many so-called healthy brands are also guilty of this deception, as they, too, fortify their flour-based snack products with vitamins and minerals that would have been naturally present had heavy processing not been a part of the production process. This is typically the case with crackers and breakfast cereals, most of which undergo intense processing and cooking protocols. A good way to tell whether or not a food product has been synthetically fortified with vitamins and minerals is to look for them spelled out individually in the ingredients list. If you see these additives listed out, there is a pretty good chance that the product has been highly processed and is nutritionally inadequate, requiring the addition of at least some nutrients back into the product. Autolyzed yeast extract, GMOs, and soy Another additive to watch out for is autolyzed yeast extract, which is basically just another name for the brain damaging chemical monosodium glutamate, or MSG. Flavored snack chips, crackers, meats, food bars, and many other items that appear healthy often contain it, despite the fact that, just like MSG, autolyzed yeast extract can cause headaches, reproductive problems, endocrine disruption, nervous system disorders, and other harm. (http://www.naturalnews.com/020426.html)

The same goes for hidden ingredients of genetically-modified (GM) origin such as soybean and canola oils. Many of the so-called healthy products sold at health food grocers like Whole Foods Market , for instance, contain canola oil, a highly toxic oil that studies are now showing actually promotes heart disease and disease-causing inflammation in the body. Soy ingredients, which are often found in many "health" foods as well, are also problematic. Besides being of GM origin unless otherwise specified, soy ingredients can seriously alter hormone levels in the body, and many soy derivatives are created using a highly toxic solvent chemical known as hexane. (http://www.naturalnews.com/026303_soy_protein_hexane.html)

Articles Related to This Article: • The Honest Food Guide empowers consumers with independent information about foods and health • Interview with "Kevala" Karen Parker, master raw foods chef • A Conversation With Larry Trivieri Jr, Co-Author of The Acid-Alkaline Food Guide • The Acid-Alkaline Food Guide: Interview with the Author • The raw foods diet: The taste alone is worth it! • Why I'm thankful for Whole Foods Market stores Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036950_junk_foods_shopping_food_labels.html#ixzz24aN0Z8Kf

55-yr-old former model battles breast cancer with diet changes; refuses chemo and surgery

55-year-old former model battles breast cancer with diet changes; refuses chemo and surgery

Augu16, 2012 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036830_breast_cancer_dietary_changes_recovery.html#ixzz23hfXvu6l (NaturalNews) The story of former model Jessica Richards' battle with cancer is a remarkable one, especially because it has defected from the use of conventional treatments like chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery. In her book The Topic of Cancer, Richards explains how following a strict metabolic diet and receiving high-dose intravenous injections of vitamin C has helped successfully reverse the progression of her breast cancer, to the shock of many conventional doctors. It is a story you will likely never hear from the mainstream media, at least not from the perspective of being taken seriously, and yet it is one that people desperately need to hear. Rather than follow in the footsteps of the millions of others who have lost their lives as a result of all the cutting, burning, and poisoning, Richards made the personal, informed decision to naturally fight breast cancer by feeding her body a plethora of cancer-fighting nutrients, and cutting out a host of cancer-causing foods and substances.

After learning that she had an unusually large tumor in one of her breasts, Richards was told by her doctors that she would need to begin an aggressive treatment protocol that involved removing the breast, having it reconstructed, and undergoing an intense series of radiation and hormone treatments to keep it at bay. Knowing a bit about the toll this would take on her body, Richards decided to take a different route. "The cancer consultant who'd done my ultrasound scans said my tumor was so large I'd need accelerated chemotherapy for several months," writes Richards about her initial diagnosis. "He said I would almost certainly need a mastectomy or at least a large lumpectomy with significant reconstruction, my lymph nodes removed, radiotherapy and five years of hormone-altering drugs after that."

After researching alternative options, Richards decided to eliminate all dairy and sugar from her diet, including most fruits, and instead eat lots of vegetables and take high doses of vitamin C intravenously. After just three weeks of starting this regimen, which many said she was crazy to undertake at the expense of conventional treatments, scans showed that Richards' tumor had essentially "gone to sleep," and was in the process of regressing. Almost immediately after beginning the protocol, in fact, Richards began to see drastic improvements. "I switched from a generally healthy diet to a metabolic one, focusing on alkaline over acid foods and cutting out all sugars," adds Richards. "I also cut out all grains and most fruit, which are broken down into sugars. Instead, I concentrated on leafy green vegetables, short grain rice, quinoa and linseeds, and cut out all dairy, which is pumped with artificial hormones. I also had regular high-dose infusions of vitamin C, a natural form of chemotherapy." With the help of alternative cancer specialists, Richards has all but completely cured her cancer

After several months of adhering to her strict diet, which she admits has not always been easy, Richards was told by her consultant radiologist that her tumor was effectively breaking down in the same way as it would with intensive chemotherapy, except without all the organ damage and other deadly side effects. A little over a year after first being diagnosed with cancer, Richards was able to stop her intravenous vitamin C injections -- and not long after that was told that she was completely healthy, and would not have to return for a checkup for another year. Today, Richards is healthier than ever, and has never once had to be blasted with radiation, poisoned with chemicals, or had a knife cut her skin.

ANYONE CAN BEAT CANCER see google donportercancer You can also check out her website at: http://www.jessicarichards.co.uk/ Sources for this article include: http://www.thesun.co.uk Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036830_breast_cancer_dietary_changes_recovery.html#ixzz23hfO1zMs