Cancer Fighting Foods

Scientific Review Reveals the 10 Best Cancer Killing Phytonutrients To Eat

10 Best Cancer Killing Phytonutrients To Eat

26th September 2015

By Sayer Ji

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

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

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to chemotherapy and radiation treatment, and may even increase in number and invasiveness when exposed to these outdated therapies, it is no longer ethical to continue with the conventional oncologist’s “standard of care.”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

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

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

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

  2. Curcumin: The primary polyphenol in turmeric root 

  3. ResveratrolA phytochemical found in grapes, peanuts, Japanese knotweed

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

  5. Pomegranate extracts

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

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

  8. Piperine: A phytochemicals found in black pepper

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

  10. Sulforaphane: A sulfurous phytochemical found in Cruciferous vegetables

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

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

They identified several key areas of focus for the future:

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

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

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

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

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

 

About the author:

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

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

Questioning the Validity of Medical Research

As Always – Do YOUR Research:

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

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

28th June 2015

By Carolanne Wright

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

Corruption undermining science.

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

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

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

Bad science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article sources:

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

Importance of Schumann Resonance

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

May 18, 2015 

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

by Joe Martino, CollectiveEvolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More About Professor W.O.Schumann

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benefits of Broccoli

Beyond Prevention: Chemical in Broccoli Kills Cancer Cells

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burzynski Cancer Treatment

Breaking: Burzynski Cancer Cure Finally Released By The Feds

Dr-Stanislaw-Burzynski1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by: Massreport.com

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

Health Myths

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

 

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIE #3. MEDICAL SCREENING AND TREATMENTS PREVENT DEATH

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

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

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


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

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

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

LIE #4. FLUORIDE PREVENTS TOOTH DECAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIE #7. VACCINES PREVENT DISEASE AND INCREASE IMMUNITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIE #9. THERE ARE ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF CHEMICALS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIE #12. SCIENCE IS REPUTABLE AND HONEST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Importance of Being in The Sun

Why avoiding sunshine could kill you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The research was published in The Journal of Internal Medicine.

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

That Amazing Vitamin D

Canadian Researchers Discover New Evidence That Vitamin D Shuts Down Cancer Cells

Researchers at McGill University have discovered a molecular basis for the cancer preventive effects of vitamin D, whereby its active form essentially shuts down cancer cells.

People with higher blood levels of vitamin D live significantly longer than people who have low blood levels of the vitamin.

The team, led by McGill professors John White and David Goltzman, of the Faculty of Medicine’s Department of Physiology, discovered that the active form of vitamin D acts by several mechanisms to inhibit both the production and function of the protein cMYC. cMYC drives cell division and is active at elevated levels in more than half of all cancers. Their results are published in the latest edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

For the past several years, there has been considerable interest in the role vitamin D plays in improving health and preventing disease. Previous finding show that low levels of vitamin D have been directly associated with various forms of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Stephen B. Kritchevsky, PhD, Professor of Internal Medicine and Transitional Science at the Wake Forest School of Medicine found a signficant correlation.

“We observed vitamin D insufficiency (defined as blood levels <20 ng/ml), in one third of our study participants. This was associated with nearly a 50 percent increase in the mortality rate in older adults,” said Kritchevsky. “Our findings suggest that low levels of vitamin D may be a substantial public health concern for our nation’s older adults.”

Although vitamin D can be obtained from limited dietary sources and directly from exposure to the sun during the spring and summer months, the combination of poor dietary intake and sun avoidance has created vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency in large proportions of many populations worldwide. It is known that vitamin D has a wide range of physiological effects and that correlations exist between insufficient amounts of vitamin D and an increased incidence of a number of cancer. These correlations are particularly strong for cancers of the digestive tract, including colon cancer, and certain forms of leukemia.

“For years, my lab has been dedicated to studying the molecular mechanisms of vitamin D in human cancer cells, particularly its role in stopping their proliferation,” said Prof. White. “We discovered that vitamin D controls both the rate of production and the degradation of cMYC. More importantly, we found that vitamin D strongly stimulates the production of a natural antagonist of cMYC called MXD1, essentially shutting down cMYC function”.

The team also applied vitamin D to the skin of mice and observed a drop in the level of cMYC and found evidence of a decrease in its function. Moreover, other mice, which lacked the specific receptor for vitamin D, were found to have strongly elevated levels of cMYC in a number of tissues including skin and the lining of the colon. The finding suggests that topical vitamin D may be just as effective as ingested to prevent cancer.

Chemoprevention Through Vitamin D Without The Side Effects

“Taken together, our results show that vitamin D puts the brakes on cMYC function, suggesting that it may slow the progression of cells from premalignant to malignant states and keep their proliferation in check. We hope that our research will encourage people to maintain adequate vitamin D supplementation and will stimulate the development of large, well-controlled cancer chemoprevention trials to test the effects of adequate supplementation,” said Dr. White.

It’s been known that vitamin D can prevent that genetic damage. When vitamin D binds to specific receptors, it sets off a chain of events by which many toxic agents including cancer cells are rendered harmless. However, if there is not enough vitamin D the system can become overwhelmed and cancer can develop. “This is one of the reasons that people living closest to the equator have a much lower incidence (or absence) of specific cancers which consequently increase in locations further from the equator.”

The link between vitamin D intake and protection from cancer dates from the 1940s when Frank Apperly demonstrated a link between latitude and deaths from cancer, and suggested that sunlight gave “a relative cancer immunity”.

Both D3 and D2 precursors are hydroxylated in the liver and kidneys to form 25- hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D), the non-active ‘storage’ form, and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D), the biologically active form that is tightly controlled by the body.

There is growing evidence that 1,25(OH)2D has anticancer effects, but the discovery that non-kidney cells can also hydroxylate 25(OH)D had profound implications, implying that higher 25(OH)D levels could protect against cancer in the local sites.

Theories linking vitamin D deficiency to certain cancers have been tested and confirmed in more than 200 epidemiological studies, and understanding of its physiological basis stems from more than 2,500 laboratory studies, according to epidemiologist Cedric Garland, DrPH, professor of family and preventive medicine at the UC San Diego School of Medicine. “This is the number one chemopreventive substance on the planet and its natural without side effects.”

Dr. Garland’s findings only lend further credence to the mountain of growing evidence that optimal levels of vitamin D are essential for your health. Here are just a few highlights into some of the most noteworthy findings:

* Some 600,000 cases of breast and colorectal cancers could be prevented each year if vitamin D levels among populations worldwide were increased, according to previous research by Dr. Garland and colleagues. And that’s just counting the death toll for two types of cancer.

* Optimizing your vitamin D levels could help you to prevent at least 16 different types of cancer including pancreatic, lung, ovarian, prostate, and skin cancers.

* A large-scale, randomized, placebo-controlled study on vitamin D and cancer showed that vitamin D can cut overall cancer risk by as much as 60 percent! This was such groundbreaking news that the Canadian Cancer Society has actually begun endorsing the vitamin as a cancer-prevention therapy.

* Light-skinned women who had high amounts of long-term sun exposure had half the risk of developing advanced breast cancer (cancer that spreads beyond your breast) as women with lower amounts of regular sun exposure, according to a study in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

* A study by Dr. William Grant, Ph.D., internationally recognized research scientist and vitamin D expert, found that about 30 percent of cancer deaths — which amounts to 2 million worldwide and 200,000 in the United States — could be prevented each year with higher levels of vitamin D.

Inflammation is likely at the root of many cases of vitamin D deficiency, and all chronic degenerative diseases.

Stay Away From Sunscreen

Skin color adapts to sunlight intensities which produce vitamin D or ultraviolet light damage to folic acid. Researchers at the University of Leeds suggest that people with very pale skin may be unable to spend enough time in the sun to make the amount of vitamin D the body needs — while also avoiding sunburn. The key is to stay away from conventional subscreen and use non-toxic alternatives to extend exposure time.

The further you live from the equator, the longer exposure you need to the sun in order to generate vitamin D. Canada, the UK and most U.S. states are far from the equator and the logic of using sunscreen is quickly becoming illogical even in scientific circles.

Unlike fads that sizzled and fizzled, the evidence for Vitamin D’s health benefits is now strong and keeps growing. If it bears out, it will challenge one of medicine’s most fundamental beliefs: that people need to coat themselves with sunscreen whenever they’re in the sun. Doing that may actually contribute to far more cancer deaths than it prevents, some researchers think.

The vitamin is D, nicknamed the “sunshine vitamin” because the skin makes it from ultraviolet rays. Sunscreen blocks its production, but dermatologists and health agencies have long preached that such lotions are needed to prevent skin cancer. Now some scientists are questioning that advice. The reason is that vitamin D increasingly seems important for preventing and even treating many types of cancer.

  • Comprehensive scientific reviews indicate that 83% of 785 sunscreen products offer inadequate protection from the sun, or contain ingredients with significant safety concerns. Only 17% of the products on the market are both safe and effective, blocking both UVA and UVB radiation, remaining stable in sunlight, and containing few if any ingredients with significant known or suspected health hazards. The assessment is based on a review of nearly 400 scientific studies, industry models of sunscreen efficacy, and toxicity and regulatory information housed in nearly 60 government, academic, and industry databases.
  • Many products lack UVA protection. Fully 12% of high SPF sunscreens (SPF of at least 30) protect only from sunburn (UVB radiation), and do not contain ingredients known to protect from UVA radiation, the sun rays linked to skin damage and aging, immune system problems, and potentially skin cancer. FDA does not require that sunscreens guard against UVA radiation.
  • Sunscreens break down in the sun. Parodoxically, many sunscreen ingredients break down in the sun, in a matter of minutes or hours, and then let UV radiation through to the skin. Our analyses show that 54% of products on the market contain ingredients that may be unstable alone or in combination, raising questions about whether these products last as long as the label says. FDA has not proposed requirements for sunscreen stability.

About the Author

Mae Chan holds degrees in both physiology and nutritional sciences. She is also blogger and and technology enthusiast with a passion for disseminating information about health.

from:   http://themindunleashed.org/2014/02/canadian-researchers-discover-new-evidence-vitamin-d-shuts-cancer-cells.html

More Reasons to Eat Black Seed

 

Written By:

Sayer Ji, Founder

16 More Reasons Black Seed Is 'The Remedy For Everything But Death'

A year ago, we wrote an article about nigella sativa (aka black seed) titled, ‘The Remedy For Everything But Death.’ It described the research on the many ways in which black seed (nigella sativa) is a potentially life-saving medicinal food, and is one of our most popular articles, with over 225K social media shares.

Opening with, “This humble, but immensely powerful seed, kills MRSA, heals the chemical weapon poisoned body, stimulates regeneration of the dying beta cells within the diabetic’s pancreas, and yet too few even know it exists,” the article summarized the peer-reviewed and published research on 10 of the seed’s remarkable health benefits:

  • Type 2 Diabetes: Two grams of black seed a day resulted in reduced fasting glucose, decreased insulin resistance, increased beta-cell function, and reduced glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in human subjects.[ii]
  • Helicobacter Pylori Infection: Black seeds possess clinically useful anti-H. pylori activity, comparable to triple eradication therapy.[iii]
  • Epilepsy: Black seeds were traditionally known to have anticonvulsive properties. A 2007 study with epileptic children, whose condition was refractory to conventional drug treatment, found that a water extract significantly reduced seizure activity.[iv]
  • High Blood pressure: The daily use of 100 and 200 mg of black seed extract, twice daily, for 2 months, was found to have a blood pressure-lowering effect in patients with mild hypertension.[v]
  • Asthma: Thymoquinone, one of the main active constituents within Nigella sativa, is superior to the drug fluticasone in an animal model of asthma.[vi] Another study, this time in human subjects, found that boiled water extracts of black seed have relatively potent antiasthmatic effect on asthmatic airways.[vii]
  • Acute tonsillopharyngitis: characterized by tonsil or pharyngeal inflammation (i.e. sore throat), mostly viral in origin, black seed capsules (in combination with Phyllanthus niruri) have been found to significantly alleviate throat pain, and reduce the need for pain-killers, in human subjects.[viii]
  • Chemical Weapons Injury: A randomized, placebo-controlled human study of chemical weapons injured patients found that boiled water extracts of black seed reduced respiratory symptoms, chest wheezing, and pulmonary function test values, as well as reduced the need for drug treatment.[ix]
  • Colon Cancer: Cell studies have found that black seed extract compares favorably to the chemoagent 5-fluoruracil in the suppression of colon cancer growth, but with a far higher safety profile.[x] Animal research has found that black seed oil has significant inhibitory effects against colon cancer in rats, without observable side effects.[xi]
  • MRSA: Black seed has anti-bacterial activity against clinical isolates of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus.[xii]
  • Opiate Addiction/Withdrawal: A study on 35 opiate addicts found black seed as an effective therapy in long-term treatment of opioid dependence.[xiii]

Since then, the biomedical research on black seed has continued to flourish, with another 78 studies published and cited on the National Library of Medicine’s biomedical database MEDLINE over the past 11 months.

Here are 16 additional potential health benefits to add to the growing list:

  1. Prevents Radiation Damage: Nigella sativa oil (NSO) and its active component, thymoquinone, protect brain tissue from radiation-induced nitrosative stress.[i]
  2. Protects Against Damage from Heart Attack: A thymoquinone extract from nigella sativa has a protective effect against damage associated with experimental heart attack.[ii]
  3. Prevents Morphine Dependence/Toxicity: An alcohol extract of nigella sativa reduces morphine-associated conditioned place preference, an indication of morphine intoxication, dependence and tolerance.[iii]
  4. Prevents Kidney Damage Associated with Diabetes: A thymoquinone extract from nigella sativa has protective effects on experimental diabetic nephropathy.[iv]
  5. Prevents Post-Surgical Adhesions: Covering peritoneal surfaces with Nigella sativa oil (NSO) after peritoneal trauma is effective in decreasing peritoneal adhesion formation in an experimental model.[v]
  6. Prevents Alzheimer’s Associated Neurotoxicity: A thymoquinone extract from nigella sativa has protective effects on experimental diabetic prevents neurotoxicity and Aβ1-40-induced apoptosis in the cell model.[vi]
  7. Suppresses Breast Cancer Growth: : A thymoquinone extract from nigella sativa inhibits tumor growth and induces programmed cell death (apoptosis) in a breast cancer xenograft mouse model.[vii] [viii]
  8. Exhibits Anti-Psoriasis Properties: The alcohol extract of nigella sativa seeds exhibit anti-psoriatic activity, consistent with its medicinal use in traditional medicine.[ix]
  9.  Prevents Brain Pathology Associated with Parkinson’s Disease: A thymoquinone extract from nigella sativa protects cultured neurons against αSN-induced synaptic toxicity, a pathology observed in the brains of patients with Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies.[x]
  10.  Kills Highly Aggressive Gliobastoma Brain Cancer Cells: A thymoquinone extract from nigella sativa exhibits glioblastoma cell killing activity. [xi]
  11.  Kills Leukemia Cells: A thymoquinone from nigella sativa induces mitochondria-mediated apoptosis in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in vitro.[xii]
  12.  Suppresses Liver Cancer Growth: A thymoquinone extract from nigella sativa prevents chemically-induced cancer in a rat model.[xiii]
  13.  Prevents Diabetic Pathologies: A water and alcohol extract of nigella sativa at low doses has a blood-sugar lowering effect and ameliorative effect on regeneration of pancreatic islets, indicating its value as a therapeutic agent in the management of diabetes mellitus.[xiv]
  14. Suppresses Cervical Cancer Cell Growth: A thymoquinone extract from nigella sativa exhibits anti-proliferative, apoptotic and anti-invasive properties in a cervical cancer cell line.[xv]
  15.  Prevents Lead-Induced Brain Damage: A thymoquinone extract from nigella sativa ameliorates lead-induced brain damage in Sprague Dawley rats.[xvi]
  16. Kills Oral Cancer Cells: A thymoquinone extract from nigella sativa induces programmed cell death (apoptosis) in oral cancer cells.[xvii]

Why is such a powerful seed not yet on the radar of most medical and nutrition communities? We know sesame seed can beat Tylenol in reducing arthritis pain and can reduce cardiovascular disease risk factors in a manner that makes statin drugs envious, and we know flaxseeds shrink breast and prostate tumors, but black seed’s benefits are still largely under reported and underutilized.

Interestingly, despite this blind spot, and as if to confirm black seed’s immense potential as a healing agent, Nestlé, the Switzerland-based global food giant, filed a patent on patent on the use of nigella sativa to “prevent food allergies” in 2010 (Nestlé’s international patent publication WO2010133574). This obvious attempt to appropriate traditional knowledge and use claimed the plant seed or extract should be Nestlé’s intellectual property when used as a food ingredient or drug.  According to a Third World Network Briefing Paper from July, 2012:

“The Swiss giant’s claims appear invalid, as traditional uses of Nigella sativa clearly anticipate Nestlé’s patent application, and developing country scholarship has already validated these traditional uses and further described, in contemporary scientific terms, the very medicinal properties of black seed that Nestlé seeks to claim as its own “invention”.

“Nestlé claims any use of an opioid receptor-stimulating compound to treat or prevent allergies, specifically thymoquinone and, more specifically, administration of thymoquinone in the form of Nigella sativa plant material (seeds).3 The type of food allergy of greatest focus is upset stomach and diarrhea.”

The good news is that no such patent has yet to win approval, and for now, this food is still freely available. For additional research updates, simply go to Pubmed.gov, and sign up for an automatic email update for the keyword “nigella sativa,” and you’ll be one of the first to learn about the new research being done on this amazing seed as it comes directly through the biomedical research pipeline.

from:    http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/16-more-reasons-black-seed-remedy-everything-death2

Questioning Cancer Diagnoses

Millions Wrongly Treated for ‘Cancer,’ National Cancer Institute Panel Confirms

Wednesday, July 31st 2013 at 7:00 am

Written By:

Sayer Ji, Founder

Millions Wrongly Treated for 'Cancer,' National Cancer Institute Panel Confirms

A devastating new report commissioned by the National Cancer Institute reveals that our 40-year long ‘War on Cancer’ has been waged against a vastly misunderstood ‘enemy,’ that in many cases represented no threat to human health whatsoever.

If you have been following our advocacy work on cancer, particularly in connection with the dark side of breast cancer awareness month, you know that we have been calling for the complete reclassification of some types of ‘breast cancer’ as benign lesions, e.g. ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), as well as pointing out repeatedly that x-ray based breast screenings are not only highly carcinogenic but are also causing an epidemic of “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment” in US women, with an estimated 1.3 million cases in the past 30 years alone.

This week, a National Cancer Institute commissioned panel’s report published in JAMA online confirmed that we all – public and professionals alike – should stop calling low-risk lesions like DCIS and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) ‘cancer.’

There are wide-reaching implications to this recommendation, including:

  • Millions of women in this country have been diagnosed with DCIS, and millions of men with HGPIN, and subsequently [mis]treated. Are they now to be retroactively reclassified as ‘victims’ of iatrogenesis, with legal recourse to seek compensation?
  • Anyone engaged in a cancer screening will now need to reconsider and weigh both the risks and benefits of such a ‘preventive’ strategy, considering that the likelihood of being diagnosed with a false positive over 10 years is already over 50% for women undergoing annual breast screening.
  • The burgeoning pink ribbon-bedecked ‘breast cancer awareness’ industry will be forced to reformulate its message, as it is theoretically culpable for the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of millions of US women by propagating an entirely false concept of ‘cancer.’

As reported by Medscape:

The practice of oncology in the United States is in need of a host of reforms and initiatives to mitigate the problem of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of cancer, according to a working group sanctioned by the National Cancer Institute.

Perhaps most dramatically, the group says that a number of premalignant conditions, including ductal carcinoma in situ and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, should no longer be called “cancer.”

Instead, the conditions should be labeled something more appropriate, such as indolent lesions of epithelial origin (IDLE), the working group suggests. The Viewpoint report was published online July 29 in JAMA.

Fundamentally, overdiagnosis results from the fact that screen-detected ‘cancers’ are disproportionately slower growing ones, present with few to no symptoms, and would never progress to cause harm if left undiagnosed and untreated.

As you can see by the graph above, it is the fast-growing tumors which will be more difficult to ‘detect early,’ and will progress rapidly enough to cause symptoms and perhaps even death unless treated aggressively. But even in the case of finding the tumor early enough to contain it through surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiation, it is well-known that the minority subpopulation of cancer stem cells within these tumors will be enriched and therefore made more malignant through conventional treatment. For instance, radiotherapy radiation wavelengths were only recently found by UCLA Jonnsson Comprehensive Cancer Center researchers to transform breast cancer cells into highly malignant cancer stem-cell like cells, with 30 times higher malignancy post-treatment.

hat this means is that not only are millions of screen-detected abnormalities not ‘cancer’ in the first place but even those which can be considered fast-growing are often being driven into greater malignancy by the conventional chemotherapy, radiation and surgery-based standard of cancer care itself.

Our entire world view of cancer needs to shift from an enemy that “attacks” us and that we must wage war against, to something our body does, presumably to survive an increasingly inhospitable, nutrient-deprived, carcinogen- and radiation-saturated environment, i.e. Cancer As An Ancient Survival Mechanism Unmasked.

When we look at cancer through the optic of fear and see it as an essentially chaos-driven infinitely expanding mass of cells, we are apt to make irrational choices. The physiological state of fear itself has been found to activate multidrug resistance proteins within cancer cells, explaining how our very perception of cancer can influence and/or determine its physiological status and/or trajectory within our body.

The NCI panel report opined:

“The word “cancer” often invokes the specter of an inexorably lethal process; however, cancers are heterogeneous and can follow multiple paths, not all of which progress to metastases and death, and include indolent disease that causes no harm during the patient’s lifetime.”

For more details on what our founder Sayer Ji calls the “Cancer Malignancy Meme,” see his video presentation at the Mind Body Week DC conference, wherein he discuss the ‘Rise of Biomedicine’ within the context of the mind-body connection, and breast cancer overdiagnosis in particular.

Sayer Ji, Mind Body Week D.C., Cancer Lecture

We must keep in mind that this proposed redefinition of cancer is no small academic matter, but will affect the lives of millions of women. Consider that every year, approximately 60,000 women in this country are diagnosed with DCIS, a diagnosis so traumatic that it results in significant psychiatric depression 3 years after even a ‘false positive’ diagnosis. For those less fortunate women, numbering in the millions over the past 30 years, who were told they had ‘cancer’ and needed to undergo lumpectomy, radiation, chemotherapy and/or mastectomy, the NCI panel’s recommendation is a hard pill swallow after the damage has already been irrevocably done.

So, what’s the solution? There is a growing movement towards the use of thermography as a primary diagnostic tool, as it uses no ionizing radiation, and can detect the underlying physiological processes that may indicate inflammation, angiogenesis, cancer-specific metabolic changes, etc., many years before a calcified lesion would appear within an x-ray mammogram. Also, the mainstay of any truly preventive strategy against cancer is diet, nutrition, exercise and avoiding chemical and radiation exposures – the things that we can do  in our daily lives to take back control of and responsibility for our health.

For related research read ‘Hidden Dangers’ of Mammograms Every Woman Should Know About

from:    http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/millions-wrongly-treated-cancer-national-cancer-institute-panel-confirms?page=2