High cost of healthcare causing the ill to choose between medical care and bankruptcy


To me, it seems that if a treatment is going to put you in bankruptcy, beating a terminal disease diagnosis is almost like a Pyrrhic victory. You survive the disease, but you end up in bankruptcy.  And that’s not even taking into account any side effects or injuries that you may have sustained from your treatments.

I was looking at some figures for conventional cancer treatments, or mainstream cancer treatments. I say this because there are some newer developments in cancer treatment. One of the most promising from conventional oncology is immunotherapy. They appear to be getting better results from some of them. But unfortunately, there are still some serious side effects from some of them.

But even more perplexing to me was the pricing information I found about a few of them. I didn’t do an exhaustive study of immunotherapy drug pricing, but the little information I found was disconcerting, to say the least. I found that the cost for Keytruda was $150,000 per year(!).  And there was also a regimen from Bristol-Myers Squibb for a Opdivo-Yervoy combo that was (on average) $256,000 per year.

Even if we were in a great economy (which we aren’t), this is a boatload of money that most people don’t have stashed away under the mattress or in their safe deposit box. What was infuriating to me was that for that Opdivo-Yervoy combo, the extension of life by using this mix instead of chemo was 90 days of extra life expectancy.  I’m sure the chemotherapy prices are similar to these, but 90 extra days of life just doesn’t really sound like a ‘game changer’ to me. Now if they told me I had 10-20 years of extra life expectancy, now that’s something to get more excited about.  But I guess that when conventional cancer treatments don’t really do all that good, an extra 90 days of life is a big deal. There’s definitely something wrong with the oncology picture when an extra 90 days of life expectancy is a big deal.

Like I’ve always said, there’s a difference between looking for a cancer cure that works, and looking for a cancer cure that will be extremely profitable for Big Pharma. The current Big Pharma paradigm does not include any cancer treatment that:

a) isn’t highly profitable to Big Pharma,

b) isn’t under Big Pharma control,

c) would jeopardize Big Pharma profits.

So understand these points and you’ll know why they will never find anything that isn’t a pharmaceutical drug that is a treatment (or a cure) for any disease, especially something as profitable as cancer or diabetes.

Learn 8 of the best web sites for alternative cancer treatment information!

(NaturalNews) Corruption and greed have been longstanding issues within the healthcare industry. Kickbacks and rewards for doctors, along with industry monopolies, have contributed significantly to this problem. Many people avoid going to the doctor until it’s nearly too late because they are afraid they will go bankrupt just for visiting the hospital or going to their doctor’s office. Many people are not even sure they can trust their doctors to do what is actually best for them anymore.

Many of these financial forces, which are causing an uptick in care costs for everyone, are kept out of the public eye, and doctors may sometimes not even be aware of them. Dr. Cory Michael writes that many doctors in the hospital system lack a critical understanding of the mechanisms by which medical costs are generated, or how those costs get paid for. He states, “Hospitals intentionally keep doctors in the dark about these things.” Doctors within the hospital system may order a battery of tests, but often do not know how much it costs unless they have also been on the receiving end of major illness. In this instance, it is not so much the doctor who is corrupt, but rather the hospital they work for. And, as Dr. Michael pointed out, putting a patient into bankruptcy is hardly in the patient’s best interests.

Beyond that though, insurers, hospital networks and regulatory groups have managed to introduce a system of reward and punishment that can also heavily influence your physician’s decisions. These kinds of contracts “pay for performance” and encourage doctors to meet strict goals for treatment and testing. These targets are generic, population-based goals – there is no room for individual needs in a quota-based healthcare system. Many people are treated needlessly with medications that don’t even work, and they still have to pay for it.

A perfect example of these ridiculous quotas is the fact that doctors are rewarded for keeping their patients’ cholesterol levels down. And of course, one of the top ways to keep cholesterol levels down for doctors is by prescribing statins. Statins come with their own health risks though, such as an increased risk of diabetes, muscle pain and much more. A 2015 study found that the benefits of statins have also been grossly exaggerated through the manipulation of statistics. Dr. David M. Diamond, a professor of psychology, molecular pharmacology and physiology at the University of South Florida, and Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, an independent health researcher and expert in cholesterol and cardiovascular disease, who authored the paper, concluded, “Statin advocates have used statistical deception to create the illusion that statins are ‘wonder drugs,’ when the reality is that their modest benefits are more than offset by their adverse effects.”

Furthermore, a study published in 2016 revealed that cholesterol may not actually be bad for you. A group of international experts conducted an analysis of roughly 70,000 people and found that there was no link between “bad” cholesterol and premature death in individuals over the age of 60. Amazingly enough, they found that 92 percent of people with high cholesterol actually lived longer, prompting the group to suggest that treating high cholesterol with statins is actually a waste of time (and presumably, money).

So, who are doctors really serving when they continue to prescribe questionable treatment modalities without batting an eyelash? And who do you think really creates these so-called “metrics” of treatment and testing? It surely isn’t your doctor – they’re just doing what they’re told to do, so they can make more money off you.

The fact is that doctors who hit their “targets” are paid more money by the insurance companies, and they receive higher rankings on the insurers’ websites. Those who do not meet these arbitrary-at-best quotas are not paid as much money, and they receive poorer ratings on the insurers’ websites. Insurance companies aren’t just dictating how many patients a doctor needs to treat for a given condition, either.

The New York Times reports that WellPoint, a large private-payer healthcare network, has created designated treatment pathways for cancer patients. Doctors who follow these designated pathways are rewarded with $350 extra per month, per patient treated with their protocol. Insurance companies cannot, and should not, decide what the best mode of treatment is for a patient – especially a patient with a life-threatening disease.

There are many faces of corruption within the medical industry: doctors, hospitals and insurance companies. All of these forces collude together to create the most profit for themselves, while jeopardizing patient care, increasing costs and contributing to a growing distrust of the entire system. How can anyone be sure that the treatment their doctor is prescribing to them is actually for their benefit, and not just so their doctor can meet their monthly quota?

Do You Really Understand the Health Risks from Electromagnetic Radiation?


This is a scary proposition, considering how many people use devices that emit EMFs (electromagnetic frequencies) such as Wi-Fi routers, computers, cell phones, microwave ovens, smart meters and smart appliances, wireless phones in the home and office, etc.  The problems is that these this radio frequency radiation is dangerous to people. It is documented to cause a lot of health problems, including cancers.

Unfortunately, this information will not be talked about on mainstream media outlets. This is because the advertisers make too much money by selling microwave and RF devices. And the media will not risk their billions of dollars that they make from these advertisers. So if you want to learn about this type of thing, you’re going to have to do it yourself.

Companies are not in business to take care of us or to protect us from hazards. They are in business to make money. So they will not hesitate to sell you dangerous products if they are profitable. It’s your responsibility to protect yourself and your loved ones. The old saying is caveat emptor, Latin for ‘let the buyer beware.’

Here are 8 of the best alternative cancer websites on the web…

By Catherine J. Frompovich

One of the most definitive, expansive and inclusive peer-reviewed papers I’ve ever read on any subject was published July 25, 2016 online at Electronic Physician as an “open access article” that I sincerely hope everyone in the media and healthcare industries will take extremely seriously, especially those who are promoting more and more ‘smart’ appliances and devices that transmit electromagnetic frequencies and radiofrequencies—microwaves, which damage human health more than we are being told by government health agencies at all levels (local, state and national), manufacturers, employers and school districts that even mandate their uses as “new technologies” to learn and to implement.

New technologies are fine IF and WHEN they take into consideration and implement safeguards for human health, which is not the case with microwave technology, but has been the “dream warfare” technology for the United States military and other governments, so anything goes, including our being bombarded with so much microwaves, we now are experiencing more adverse health effects attributed to what’s scientifically termed “Non-thermal Adverse Health Effects.”

The U.S. military has had a GREAT interest in keeping microwave safety standards higher than they should be and not as applicable as the science demands. Dr Magda Havas, PhD, Environmental & Resource Studies, 1600 West Bank Drive, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada, K9J 7B8 on her website published the following incriminating unclassified U.S. Army documents information as to why microwaves are not safe, nor made safer, due to U.S. military involvement with its electronic warfare techniques, which harm everything.

There are two disturbing paragraphs in the document “Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation (Radiowaves and Microwaves) – Eurasian Communist Countries (U)”. Prepared by U.S. Army Medical Intelligence and Information Agency Office of the Surgeon General and released by the Defense Intelligence Agency. Adams, R.L. and R.A. Williams. 1976. 34 pp. Unclassified, which clearly indicate the U.S. military’s perspective opposing more stringent guidelines for microwave radiation.

No. 1: “If the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavorable effects on industrial output and military function. The Eurasian Communist countries could, on the other hand, give lip service to strict standards, but allow their military to operate without restriction and thereby gain the advantage in electronic warfare techniques and the development of antipersonnel applications.” [Page vii]

No. 2: “Should subsequent research result in adoption of the Soviet standard by other countries, industries whose practices are based on less stringent safety regulations, could be required to make costly modifications in order to protect workers. Recognition of the 0.01 mW/cm2 standard could also limit the application of new technology by making the commercial exploitation of some products unattractive because of increased cost, imposed by the need for additional safeguards. [Page 24]

Below are some selected quotes from the Introduction from A review on Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and the reproductive system, which I hope my readers will take seriously and also take necessary steps to protect yourselves, your children, your pets and your home environment. This is SERIOUS stuff no one is taking as seriously as we ALL should. Those ‘smart’ gadgets’ just may be making you more sick than you can imagine. With 61 References, I think the Electronic Physician article needs to be taken seriously with revisions made to EMF/RF standards by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reflect them.


For more info, go to: www.activistpost.com

Do You Think the Cancer Industry is Trying to Put Itself Out of Business?


I think that this is a fair question. If these charities, researchers and other cancer-related organizations are really trying to cure cancer, wouldn’t they be putting themselves out of business? Isn’t that what they should be doing?

Let’s think about it. If they find a cure for cancer, there would no longer be a reason to spend many billions of dollars annually to find a cure because it would be found. And then we could use those resources (all the people working on cancer cures) and the money we spend on cancer research, treatment and support, on solving other important problems in the world.

In an earlier article, I cited a reference where the annual amount of money spent on the cancer industry was approximately $850 billion, worldwide. I don’t mean to sound like a cynic, but are we to really believe that those in the cancer industry, especially the leaders of it, are willing to put themselves out of business and let $850 billion dollars go away? And realize that this was a figure from 2008, so I’m sure that there’s more being spent today.

If you’re paying attention to how things have been going, it would appear that the more that we give to the cancer industry, the more cancer we get. Cancer rates have went from approximately 1 in 10 people being diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime circa 1900, to present day where it is projected that 1 out of every 2-3 people alive today will be diagnosed with cancer.  Is that the definition of progress, or the opposite of progress?  Or would it be more correct to say that it is progress in making more money from the existence (and proliferation) of cancer?

One big giveaway to me that demonstrates that it’s not really about cures, but about maintaining the status quo is this.  In virtually every instance that I’ve seen of a report of a person using alternative cancer treatment methods and they obtain fantastic results (i.e., eradicating/curing their cancer), NONE of the health care professionals EVER asks the patient ‘What are you doing?’  The only thing they usually say is, “Just keep doing what you’re doing.”  Now why is this?  Is it because they know about the fate of health care professionals that seek, find and/or support non-approved treatment modalities? (That fate is professional suicide because they get their licenses revoked, lose their jobs, lose their research funding, and become scorned by the Medical Establishment. And it doesn’t matter about your stellar track record, your advanced degrees, or the efficacy of the treatment(s) that you use because they won’t stop until they destroy you, or at least fight you with a iron-willed persistence.)

There is another big giveaway that proves that it’s all about the money and control.  This is the amazing, actually 100% untenable premise that we are being told to believe. After more than 70 years of intense research by armies of PhDs and MDs, and literally trillions of dollars spent, we are to actually believe that the same treatments (chemotherapy, radiation and surgery) that were used in the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s are the absolute best and most effective treatments for cancer today????  Sure, they may use some different drugs, dose them differently and come up with some newfangled delivery devices and strategies for the radiation and surgery, but it’s basically the same.  If this was the case, then why did we need to spend ridiculously enormous sums of money for this?

It would seem that the outcome has already been decided, and they just go through the motions to make it appear that this predetermined outcome is the result of the scientific method. It’s all backed by ‘science’, to hear them tell it. But it just doesn’t pass the ‘smell test’ because this result just doesn’t make any sense if you believe that they are truly looking for the cure for cancer wherever it may be.

But it DOES make sense if the goal is to find a HIGHLY PROFITABLE cure for cancer that is controlled by the Medical Establishment. Any effective cure or treatment that either doesn’t make them a lot of money and is not under their direct control would have to be dismissed, debunked, prohibited, or ‘proven’ to be non-effective.  And the people who find them would have to be dismissed, de-licensed, character-assassinated, disproven, professionally ostracized, neutralized, maligned, ridiculed, and attacked until public opinion of them was powerfully turned against them. And we’ve seen that with numerous alternative health care practitioners who were heretics that didn’t follow approved methods, procedures, and treatments. They attack anyone who steps out of the status quo like a pack of hungry, rabid pit-bulls.

So I guess that you have to ask yourself, “Does it appear that the leaders of the cancer industry are trying to put themselves out of business, or are they protecting and growing their control over industry profits?”  Because there is a definite lack of results if they’re claiming to be trying to cure cancer. Nixon declared War on Cancer in 1971 and the only thing that happened is that cancer rates exploded, money spent exploded and we’re still using the exact same treatments for cancer they were using in 1940!

And don’t start with the ‘Cancer researchers have families that suffer from cancer‘ drivel because they already have studies and polls that show that over 70% of oncologists wouldn’t undergo chemotherapy if they were diagnosed with cancer. What does that say about chemo? Do they know something that they aren’t telling the patients they’re selling and telling to undergo chemo?

Get your free book that tells you 10 things that every cancer patient should know!

Rick Simpson of “Run From the Cure” Fame, Speaks


Rick Simpson gained wide fame with his hit video Run From the Cure, which was about how he learned how to use high-THC content hemp oil to cure people of numerous diseases like arthritis, hypertension, multiple sclerosis, cancer, etc.  It was a controversial video.  Here, he tells his story about how he was targeted by the Canadian government, and what happened afterwards. This interview is approximately 45 minutes long, chocked full of great information from one of the modern pioneers with a lot of practical experience in the use of hemp oil.

This interview was conducted by Cannabis.net. Rick speaks about his experiences with cannabis, and a lot of other topics. He sounds like a very down-to-earth person who stood up for what he believes is right.  He said that he had to move out of Canada because they were just as corrupt as the United States. He decided to move to Croatia. They prosecuted him for trafficking marijuana even though the legal definition says that you must make a monetary gain to be convicted of trafficking.  But he says that he never made any monetary gain but that he was just showing others how to use and make high-THC hemp oil.

He says that nobody has the right to regulate or control cannabis because it’s been used for thousands of years, and that it is virtually harmless, especially when compared to pharmaceutical drugs. Nobody ever, in the recorded history of cannabis, has ever died from using it. It is actually regulated and banned because it represents a major threat to Big Pharma and government control over people. If people could grow their own hemp, they could wean themselves away from Big Pharma medicines, sickness and also the petrochemical industry. Everything that is currently being made from petroleum could be made from hemp/cannabis. So we have huge, powerful financial interests that do not want cannabis and hemp to replace and destroy their huge industries. He’s actually astonished that citizens of the countries allow government to use corruption, graft, and strong-arming to force them to make hemp and cannabis illegal.

Rick says that CBD and other cannabinoids may be good for disease, but in his experience, the best cannabis for using to make hemp oil has to have high THC content. He recommends a THC content of at least 25%. He says that there are numerous people out there claiming that they’re making ‘Rick Simpson Hemp Oil’, but that he doesn’t endorse anybody because he just doesn’t know the THC content of any of these people’s hemp oil. He also said that even though there are a lot of seed sellers out there, even if different strains have the same name you can’t say that they’re the same because there is a lot of genetic variation out there. There probably needs to be some sort of standardization so that people can know what they’re getting.

He also says that contrary to popular belief, even though many countries have said that they have legalized medicinal marijuana, most of them still have either outlawed or are wary of allowing people to use and make high THC hemp oil. That’s most likely because of the control and fear that Big Pharma has over the governments. Big Pharma knows that if people are allowed to make and use high THC hemp oil, their days of making many billions of dollars are over. So they are fighting hard to suppress this information, and to make sure that governments keep cannabis illegal.  They want people to use pharmaceutical drugs only. If it becomes common knowledge that cannabis could treat and cure most ailments, nobody would pay for pharmaceutical drugs.

Rick’s opinion is that eventually, people will just say ‘to hell with the government’ and start growing their own cannabis because they can’t put everybody in jail. From my perspective, they’re pricing people out of the pharmaceutical paradigm anyway. Medical bills are already the biggest cause of bankruptcy filings in America. They just want to squeeze every dime out of everybody they can. The economy has been destroyed, at least the production. So how do they expect people to continue to pay exorbitant fees for medical service and drugs?  Cannabis could actually save the economy, just as it has been such a boon for Colorado. But this happens at the cost of Big Pharma and government profits, hence the government’s resistance to legalization.

Look at how vehement the DEA is against legalization, or even taking cannabis off of the Schedule 1 narcotics list even though cannabis is nothing like opiates or cocaine. DEA, other law enforcement, and the courts all make huge amounts of money from arresting, charging and jailing people for cannabis related (victimless) ‘crimes’.  In addition, due to cannabis being illegal, governments at all levels have been using cannabis and the War on Drugs as a pretest to engage in legalized theft from people, called Civil Asset Forfeiture. This is a practice where law enforcement officers seize your property based on their belief (that doesn’t have to be supported with any evidence) that your property was acquired with illegal drug proceeds or was involved in drug trafficking. It is a blatant violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution as well as an insult to the common sense of most people. But it is so profitable that law enforcement has actually stolen more property than the so-called criminals that they are supposed to be targeting!

Rick also talks about his ‘kangaroo court’ case in Canada. The judge in his trial wouldn’t let him use any of his scientific documentation and references, nor would they let any of the people who were healed from his oils testify about their healing. In short, they only let him testify himself. He said that the judge actually admitted that Rick’s hemp oil was scientifically proven to treat diseases & that his patients had been cured too. But then they proceeded with the prosecution like those facts didn’t even matter! In short, he got railroaded because cannabis represents a mortal threat to Big Pharma, other industries and to government control. Anything that makes people more independent is viewed as a threat by government.

In short, this is an interview that you must see in its entirety. I didn’t want to try to cover everything Rick said, but I wanted to give you a synopsis of what he said here. You owe it to yourself to hear it directly from Rick himself. You’ll be able to hear the sincerity of his message in his voice. He is a gift to mankind, but you have to take his information and use it for yourself because nobody can free you except you. The information is out there but what matters is what you do with it.


Learn the 10 Things Every Cancer Patient Should Know…

FDA’s Cancer-Drug Reviewers Often Join Industry Later: The ‘Revolving Door’


This is an article directly from a mainstream medical site giving the goods on the ‘Revolving Door’ between the industry and the government employees who are supposedly regulating them. So much for industry independence when you have regulators who are getting incentivized to allow Big Pharma companies do whatever they want to maximize profits. Do you really think that this ‘Revolving Door’ is not rife with corruption and undue influence?

As I’ve stated before, there is no such thing as total objectivity. In light of this, there is no way that this is going to add to regulatory impartiality!  They’re basically passing out high-paying jobs to regulators who do the bidding for Big Pharma. Not to say that all regulators are corrupt because there are some who do have integrity and fight against this. But it appears that the controlling forces in government are on the payroll because most Big Pharma objectives are being achieved. There’s little to zero resistance to slow down or halt them from just doing whatever they want to so they can increase profits. Just think about how many drugs that have ‘passed’ safety trials and tests and released to be marketed only to later find out that they were actually unsafe (Vioxx, statin drugs, Quaaludes, Darvon/Darvocet, DES, etc.).

You might want to really be careful about blindly trusting drugs being prescribed just because the government approved them because you’re gambling with your life. You’re betting that the drug company really did the tests, told the truth about the tests and that they didn’t game the system. I don’t like this situation any more than you do, but it’s better to be safe than sorry!

According to my understanding, government officials are supposed to not even give the appearance of impropriety. Well, this is definitely over that line! Read and decide for yourself…

Click this link to get your report on the 10 Things that Every Cancer Patient Should Know…

TUESDAY, Sept. 27, 2016 — Among federal employees who review new cancer-drug applications for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, about half who leave to work elsewhere end up working for the industry they once regulated.

That’s what researchers at Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) concluded after following the career paths of 55 FDA reviewers of new blood and cancer drugs.

The findings raise concerns about regulators’ ability to make impartial decisions in the public interest, the researchers suggest.

“If you left the FDA, 57.7 percent of the time you worked for and consulted for the industry,” said Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and assistant professor of medicine.

“It’s astonishingly high,” added Prasad, a co-author of a letter that addresses the issue and was published Sept. 27 in the BMJ.

Concerns about the “revolving door” between government and industry aren’t new.

According to Dr. Michael Carome, director of Public Citizen’s health research group, “We’ve said for years … that the FDA has grown too cozy with industry.” Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer rights advocacy organization.

“I doubt this is unique to the hematology-oncology division,” Carome added.

Not that FDA cancer drug reviewers are doing anything illegal by taking industry jobs after leaving the government. As FDA employees, they must adhere to conflict-of-interest rules and violators may be subject to criminal prosecution, Carome noted.

The question, Prasad said, is whether drug reviewers are succumbing to subtle, even subconscious, pressures to approve drugs, thinking someday they might want to work for industry.

The reality is that cancer drug reviewers, whose starting pay at the FDA is “something like $170,000 to $190,000 a year,” can earn substantially more in industry, Prasad said.

Perhaps that’s so, but the FDA tries to stem that line of thinking, an agency spokesman said.

“The FDA has a strong set of rules in place to ensure that our employees are working in the public interest, not to the advantage of any company, organization or individual,” said Jason Young, acting assistant commissioner for media affairs at the FDA.

Federal laws and FDA ethics rules cover a range of issues, including conflicts, disclosures and confidentiality of information they [former employees] worked on while employees, Young said. There’s also a “cooling-off requirement” for senior employees and other “rules against switching sides, contacting former employees and contacting agency leaders,” he said.

Using the FDA drug database, Prasad and co-author Jeffrey Bien, also of OHSU, identified 55 people who reviewed new applications for cancer and blood disease treatments from 2001 to 2010.

Then using publicly available information, they matched those individuals to the jobs they subsequently held.

Roughly half stayed at the FDA and half left, the investigators found. Of the 26 who moved on, 15 landed in jobs working or consulting for the biopharmaceutical industry.

In percentage terms, that means nearly 58 percent of those who left the FDA for another job took industry positions, the findings showed.

Researchers were unable to document the whereabouts of 30 percent of the former FDA employees except to say eight no longer worked for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA.

If anything, the study authors said, the extent of the government-to-industry phenomenon is underestimated since not all reviewers’ future careers could be identified.

“They have a right to leave,” Carome said. “I don’t think that can ever be banned.”

Scientist Group Slams GMO-Pushing Nobel Laureates In Damning Letter


This is just an example of how ‘science’ has become highly politicized. This is a report of a group of Nobel laureates, reputably the best of the best in science and thought, but here they are endorsing GMOs for mass consumption. This is highly irresponsible and is either the result of these people not doing their homework, or them just doing it to ‘go along to get along’.  It’s so bad that a group of honest scientists from South American countries denounced this.

We must ask ourselves, “Why would a group of Nobel laureates put their ‘stamp of approval’ on unproven and potentially dangerous and irreversible addition of genetically modified crops into the food supply of billions of people without any extended experimental trials?”  This is unprecedented, and represents a potential for huge damage to the majority (if not all) of the people on Earth.

This genetic technology is not as precise and controlled as we have been led to believe. Scientists today are engaged in creating all types of altered organisms with no real concept of the wide-reaching ramifications of their actions.  Take for instance the use of Roundup pesticide on crops that have been genetically modified to have a resistance to it. It sounds like a great idea until you factor in the unintended consequence of the rapid proliferation of weeds that have also developed a resistance to Roundup as well. This is because genes don’t just stay put where you place them. They also move between species and throughout the environment. So now farmers are reported to have to use lots more Roundup pesticide to kill the weeds that are resistant to it than Monsanto originally projected. And this is only one such ‘unintended consequence’ of the use of genetic modification technology.

It’s pretty much analogous to a ‘bull in a china shop’ approach to genetic modification. Scientists today simply do not have enough knowledge to reliably predict all of the long-term effects and consequences of their tinkering with the genes of organisms.  The worst part is that once these genes have been unleashed into the world and into various organisms, there is no way to stop it, reverse it or remove these genes and their effects from people and the world. So it basically converts everyone on the planet into a guinea pig in a big, uncontrolled experiment, all without your consent. Preliminary tests have been causing concerns that GM crops are having the effect of reducing fertility of subsequent generations of subject animals who have been exposed to foods with GM elements inside.

This article is a bit long, but very illustrative of just how far-reaching the politicization of science has become, and just how ridiculous it can be. If the highest scholars in the world can support something as inherently dangerous as GMOs, it’s not that far of a reach to show that cancer research and treatment has also been politicized as well. In fact, you could make an argument that most ‘science’ is more marketing dressed up as science than truth.  It’s why problems in society are proliferating instead of getting solved. And this is especially for problems that lead to some people getting massive amounts of money because of the existence of these problems. In a corporately controlled society, what person or company whose profits are dependent upon the existence of a problem would actually follow through with eradicating that problem?

Get a free book-10 Things that Every Cancer Patient Should Know…


By Brandon Turbeville

In late June 2016, over 100 Nobel laureates signed a letter attacking the environmental organization Green Peace and calling on the group to end their opposition to GMOs.

The letter asks Greenpeace to end its attempt to block golden rice from being introduced into the developing world. “We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to reexamine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against ‘GMOs’ in general and golden rice in particular,” states the letter.

Spearheaded by Richard Roberts, chief scientific officer of New England Biolabs and Phillip Sharp, the 1993 Nobel Prize winner in Physiology and Medicine for the discovery of the genetic sequences known as entrons, the campaign has a website which includes a list of signatories to which it is attempting to add more names.

We’re scientists. We understand the logic of science. It’s easy to see what Greenpeace is doing is damaging and anti-science. Greenpeace initially, and then some of their allies, deliberately went out of their way to scare people. It was a way for them to raise money for their cause.

Roberts quote alone illustrates the religious nature of what has now become know as “scientism.” This means that there is a set of beliefs which must never be challenged and that there are individuals who represent the authority of these beliefs and who themselves must never be questioned unless they get out of line and go off script. It maintains the same cult-like following where masses of people obsessed with “science” believe what is handed down to them without critical thought and will lash out in righteous indignation at anyone who has dared not to outsource their brain so easily.

In fact, we can easily take Roberts words and put them in the mouth of religious leaders.

We’re pastors. We understand the Bible. It’s easy to see what the gay lobby is doing and how they are damaging society and are anti-Biblical. From the very beginning, the gay lobby has gone out of their way to scare people and it was only a way for them to raise money for their organization.

See how utterly stupid that was?

Or better yet, let’s try one that really get Americans shaking in their boots:

We’re imams. We understand the Quran. It’s easy to see what women’s rights groups are doing and how they are damaging society and stand in opposition to the Quran. From the very beginning, the women’s rights lobby has gone out of their way to scare people and it was only a way for them to raise money for their organization.

Regardless of what you think about the gay lobby and women’s rights, simply stating that you are a pastor or an imam doesn’t really prove anything. It certainly doesn’t solve the argument. Likewise, stating that you are a scientist doesn’t shut down debate on the issue of GMOs. In fact, it doesn’t even mean that your opinion is valid.

But since these scientists would like to pursue the false appeal to authority, we can produce scientists of our own. The Union of Latin American Scientists Committed to Society and Nature (UCCSN-AL) recently released a letter of their own denouncing the one produced by the Nobel laureates.

The scientists stated:

[Transgenesis] cannot be considered an advanced science anymore because it is based on fallacious and anachronistic assumptions. Its defenders have oversimplified the scientific rationale behind GMOs to the point that the technology cannot be considered valid anymore: they have discarded rigorous science. The lack of scientific ground that justifies GMOs is also the reason why its promoters deny complex systems of knowledge, such as indigenous peoples’ cultures and livelihoods. Transgenic technology is the geopolitical instrument for colonial domination of our time.

The UCCSN-AL also points out that GMOs are not necessary to feed the world’s population.

The four GM crops that are marketed massively are mainly intended for the production of biofuels and animal feed for poultry, pork and beef cattle industries: activities that consume more than 65% of the GM corn and soybean produced in the few countries that grow them, a very inefficient system from an energy point of view of agricultural production. Around these crops there is an oligopoly of transnational corporations that control the production of seeds and grains; the storage, transportation and marketing of genetically modified commodities; and the mass production of animals, which are increasingly concentrated in fewer hands. In this regard, it is clear that this model does not contribute to the goal of feeding the world, but instead competes with and overpowers traditional food production…

The problem of lack of food is not caused by low production, but by the way the world food system is designed. It has undermined the traditional systems of food production, and therefore nutrition and food sovereignty of peoples.

The scientists also question, as have many others, the claims that GMOs produce higher yields.

We question the promises made by GMOs proponents that these crops would have higher yields. Each of the countries in the Southern Cone where GM soybean is grown has different performance. The highest yields are registered in Brazil and Argentina, where the national agricultural research centres have dedicated many years to conventional breeding of this crop. On the other hand, in Ecuador, a GM free country, soybean yields are higher than in Bolivia and Paraguay.

Another example is canola or rapeseed. In Canada (where they mainly use GM seeds), yield averages between 1986 and 2010 were 1,459 kg/ha, whereas in Western Europe, where conventional seeds are used, the average yield in the same period was 3,188 kg/ha.

“Ecosystems are complex and dynamic, involving the interaction of multiple factors,” the group says.

In terms of the risks to human health, UCCSN-AL states:

Scientists who defend the safety of GM crops and food argue that it has been consistently found that GMOs are as safe (or more) than the crops obtained with any other breeding methods; that they do not produce environmental impacts and that even they increase global biodiversity. Despite these statements being repeatedly invoked by GM proponents, they are not backed by serious scientific research, and, moreover, the claims are never referenced”. In contrast, in the last years, scientific evidence supported by independent researchers has grown, showing the environmental and human health problems related with cultivation and consumption of GMOs.

UCCSN-AL also points out the health risks posed to humans of the heavy amounts of herbicide sprayed on herbicide-tolerant crops.

In the analysis of GM crops we must consider the technological package to which these crops are inextricably associated. The majority of GM crops are resistant to herbicides, mainly the questioned glyphosate. In Latin America (the region with the fastest increase of GM crop acreage), the negative impacts on human communities settled in the areas where these crops are grown are undoubted.

In the last decade, the health conditions of these populations has been depressed, there has been a significant increase of cancer, congenital malformations, genetic damage, autoimmune diseases and other health issues, associated with the pesticides and the practices that are part of the technological package of GM cultivation. It is clear that to evaluate the impacts of this technology it is impossible to analyse GM seeds individually when the main genetic modification is to make the plant resistant to a herbicide. In the environment it has been shown that water bodies are contaminated and that pollinators are declining, as well as other beneficial species that ensure the health of the soil and the local biodiversity.

Furthermore, there are millions of hectares planted with GM seeds containing a gene that
allows them to synthesize the Bt toxin, an insecticide that is produced in the GM plant, which has been incorporated to control Lepidoptera larvae. However, it has been shown that this toxin indiscriminately affects different species of insects, reducing their biodiversity and damaging human health of those who are in contact with the toxin.

“Every day there is more medical, scientific and agronomic evidence showing the impacts, risks, and uncertainties of this irrational model of production, both for the health of rural workers, peasants and farmers, as well as for these rural residents and consumers of foods produced with this technology,” the scientists add.

On the issue of golden rice, specifically, UCCSN-AL says that golden rice was originally designed “as a generic drug for malnourished children in ‘poor countries,’” and that golden rice is not even available because the groups and individuals promoting it have been unable to “reach a workable formulation for distribution.”

As GM Watch writes, “In fact the rice is not even ready for commercial production, let alone distribution, as it has failed to give sufficiently high yields in the field, as the IRRI, the body responsible for rolling out the crop, has admitted.”

On golden rice, UCCSN-AL has this to say:

The nutritional problems of a population are not related with the lack of a specific nutrient (in this case… pro-vitamin A), but with the general conditions of poverty and the loss of food sovereignty that has forced thousands of farmers communities to leave their lands or to be subordinated to agribusiness, whose only priority is to meet their voracious need to increase profits through monoculture, agroindustry and agro-export by occupying lands that used to be devoted to safe and nutritious food production. To believe that malnutrition problems will be overcome through bio-fortified genetically modified food is to ignore this reality.

In order to meet the golden rice demand, millions of hectares will need to be planted in tropical and subtropical areas, and will need to expand over territories that today are use to grow food sovereignty crops, which will face the typical problems associated with large-scale monoculture. In addition, hundreds of plant species rich in pro-vitamin A, known, gathered or cultivated for a long time by local communities in the entire world will be affected. Each community can and must choose, in a sovereign way, what to eat, according to their cultural preferences and traditions, and how to meet their nutritional needs.

Who will benefit from golden rice? As with other GM crops, golden rice will also be controlled by large agribusiness companies. The nutritional scheme based in golden rice will involve the control of agribusiness over the whole value chain: from seed to distribution. Given the fact that it is a global trend to forbid farmers to save their seeds, even if golden rice will be patent-free, the seed will be corporately controlled. What would happen then with traditional rice producers and with the thousands of peasant traditional varieties of rice that they hold?

Regarding trade, in many countries, rice producers do not have any influence in price fixation. Nationally, the price is set by local powerful groups that control both processing and distribution of rice. Internationally, the price is set at the Bangkok and Chicago Stock Exchange. The international trade of golden rice would be controlled by the same economic groups that control other GM commodities. Accordingly, golden rice will not generate food sovereignty and, on the contrary, it will increase dependence for both producers and consumers.

All the funds that would be spent in the promotion and implementation of ‘golden rice’ crops around the world could be used in the promotion of diversified crops, to promote and strengthen local and regional nutrition and food sovereignty, as well as in the recovery and adoption of healthy eating habits.

UCCSN-AL boldly questions the methodology and independence of the Nobel Prize winners that signed the letter attacking Greenpeace.

The science that is promoted by the Nobel Prize Laureates that signed the letter has been developed in a context dominated by a reductionist techno-science, that is being developed without social control, generating environmental problems and health impacts, often with catastrophic and irreversible effects.

Although formally the Nobel Prize aims to recognize and reward people who have done outstanding research, invented revolutionary techniques, or have made notable contributions to society in the areas of Medicine and Physiology (and in other fields), it has supported scientific research that encourages corporate control on productive processes, and has facilitated the privatization of knowledge and life. In the field of biotechnology, the Nobel Prize has recognized waves of scientific innovations that led to the development of genetic engineering, at the expense of technologies with wider application which are not controlled by oligopolies of transnational corporations. Several of them are signatories of the letter. Their activities have been the key to developing the biotechnology industry. Several still hold commercial interest in this area, or are involving in research funding by the industry. For example, one of the promoters of the letter, Phillip A. Sharp, is co-founder of Biogen (now Biogen Idec) Inc. and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a pharmaceutical company that develops drugs based on RNAi).

The UCCSN-AL also points out that the June letter was not the first time Nobel laureates have defended GMOs in a public statement.

Some years ago, a similar declaration was promoted by Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution (1970 Nobel Prize), who saw a second Green Revolution in agrobiotechnology, without making any critical analysis of the impacts caused by the first one.

Previously, Paul Hermann Müller was awarded with the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for the discovery of DDT as a contact poison of high efficiency against many arthropods. Ironically, due to the dramatic effects of DDT on the environment and on human health, the scientific work and citizen mobilization against pesticides began, a struggle that still continues.

Now the signatories of this letter in defence of GMOs and golden rice privilege the paradigm of corporations that genetic uniformity is needed to raise production. This is particularly serious because we know that the genetic diversity is essential to deal with hunger and is the only alternative to climate change.

With this background we wonder if the opinion of Nobel Prize laureate scientists necessarily is an irrefutable, neutral and objective opinion. The background presented here, and the lack of robust and well-founded arguments of the letter, show that this is not the case.

A[t] UCCSN-AL we believe that decision-making process on the adoption of new technologies, such as those that make possible GM crops, and others that are emerging (e.g. nanotechnology, synthetic biology and geo-engineering), should not only involve the so-called hard scientists, but it must incorporate the opinion of other fields of knowledge, as well as the opinion of social movements, civil society organizations, and of legitimate representatives of different social groups. Because scientific and technological knowledge is always part of a social process, it is crossed by tensions, conflicts and contradictory interests. Science is never neutral, absolute or definitive; it is always susceptible to changes and revisions, and must be subject[]s to permanent debate.

UCCSN-Al concludes its statement by writing:

Scientific work must be developed with ethical responsibility and it must be committed to nature and society, and because of that, we reject the concepts stated in the letter and denounce the genocidal role of industrial farming based on GM crops, and we stress the need to defend, promote, and multiply the modes of food production that were culturally developed by the peoples of our region, and therefore are vital to ensure autonomy, environmental sustainability, safety and food sovereignty.

We concur with the statement of the UCCSN-AL and would like to point out that simply being awarded the Nobel Prize does not make an individual morally or intellectually superior since previous winners have been the likes of Al Gore, Barrack Obama, and Henry Kissinger and 2016 sees the terrorist group the White Helmets being nominated for the same. The prize named after one of the largest armament manufacturers should not carry as much weight as it does in terms of public opinion and it most certainly should not be used to form public policy.

This article (Scientist Group Slams GMO-Pushing Nobel Laureates In Damning Letter) can be republished under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Brandon Turbeville, source and Natural Blaze.com.

Brandon Turbevillearticle archive here – is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies,Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 600 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

FDA Warns Ovarian Cancer Tests Not Reliable


If these ovarian cancer tests aren’t reliable, then what the heck is going on? Are they misdiagnosing people?  Is this putting people in danger? What is being done about this? Looks like another big money grab if companies are marketing these tests even though they don’t work. What do the people that are all about ‘science’ have to say about this?

As I’ve said before, ‘science’ isn’t as straightforward as many people like to claim. Everybody wants things to be proven and documented, but often people just label something as being ‘scientifically proven’ when it is really isn’t. It is sometimes just a way for people to get others to accept an unproven conclusion by just claiming that it is ‘science’.  But I’ve explained in the past that science is really not a ‘thing’ but is really a process to identify and minimize bias in experimental observations.

Contrary to many beliefs, there is no way to eliminate all bias in observations because any time you approach anything, there is inherent bias and this is true in every case. The problem with the mainstream approach is that they often approach an issue with an attitude that there is NO bias in their observations.  And that is the very definition of bias.  Unfortunately, science has become politicized (if it wasn’t always politicized).  If you think this isn’t true, ask Galileo, Copernicus, Semmelweis and others who made discoveries that conflicted with the status quo of the time.  Most were either forced to recant, or were effectively ‘excommunicated’ and/or professionally ostracized, just like they do with most people that buck the trends today, contrary to popular belief.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s the way that society usually operates.

Get your free report that shows things that every cancer patient should know…

Screening tests for ovarian cancer are not reliable and should not be used, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warns.

Despite extensive research and published studies, there are currently no screening tests for ovarian cancer that are sensitive enough to reliably screen for ovarian cancer without a high number of inaccurate results,” the agency said in its warning.

However, over the years, numerous companies have marketed tests that claim to screen for and detect ovarian cancer,” the FDA added.

But these tests may lead to delays in effective preventive treatments for high-risk women who have no symptoms, or result in unnecessary medical tests and/or surgery for those who do not have the disease, the agency noted.

According to the American Cancer Society, the most common screening test is called the CA-125 blood test. In many women with ovarian cancer, levels of this protein are high. But the problem with using it is that common conditions other than cancer can also cause high levels of CA-125, the cancer society says.

That’s why women should not rely on ovarian cancer screening tests to make health or treatment decisions, the FDA said in its warning. This is especially important for women who have a family history of ovarian cancer or the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genetic mutations, which raise the risk of both breast and ovarian cancer, the agency added.

Doctors should not recommend or use ovarian cancer screening tests in the general population, and they need to understand they are not a substitute for preventive measures that may reduce the chances of disease in high-risk patients, the FDA said.

The warning was issued after a review of available evidence from clinical trials and the recommendations of health care groups and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) said Thursday that it supports the FDA warning.

“Obstetrician-gynecologists should be aware that tests currently marketed to screen women for ovarian cancer are not based on data,” Dr. Thomas Gellhaus, ACOG president, said in a statement. “ACOG is in agreement with the FDA and recommends against using these offered tests to screen for ovarian cancer,” he added.

“Currently, it appears that the best way to detect ovarian cancer is for both the patient and her clinician to have a high index of suspicion of the diagnosis in symptomatic women,” Gellhaus noted.

“Persistent and progressive symptoms such as an increase in bloating, pelvic or abdominal pain, or difficulty eating or feeling full quickly, should be evaluated,” he said.

Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer death in women. In 2013, almost 21,000 women in the United States were diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and more than 14,000 women died from the disease, according to ACOG.

Are we really winning the war on cancer?


The short answer is, “Hell no! We’re just propping up an industry that sells poisons masquerading as medicines.”  But you’d never know it if you listen to all of the propaganda coming from the mainstream media and the prognostications of the Medical Establishment. You would think that they have numerous cures for cancer. But the truth is that they’re no closer to any cure for cancer than they were 100 years ago. Notice that 60-80 years ago, the ‘best’ treatments for cancer were chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.  And today, what do they claim are the best treatment for cancer? Chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. That’s all you need to know and you will understand the fraud known as oncology. How in the hell could chemotherapy (chemical burning poison), radiation (already well-known for being toxic), and surgery (a euphemism for butchery) be the absolute best treatments for cancer after more than 75 years of research by the ‘best & brightest’ scientific minds in the world???

I’ll tell you. It’s because the fix is in… Whether it’s Big Pharma protecting their profitable turf in the ‘war’ on cancer, or whether it’s the Mainstream Medical Establishment not wanting to admit that they’ve been getting rid of any people (doctors, alternative clinicians or laypeople) who happen to find cures for cancers (and there have been many), or the scientific community leadership ostracizing, silencing, and de-funding any researchers who identify cures for cancer (and there have been a lot of these too), the consensus from those in leadership is that there will be no cures for cancer that are cheap, readily available (i.e., not under Big Pharma and Big Medicine control) and highly effective. You’re only going to get ‘cures’ that are highly technical, very expensive and are under direct Medical Establishment control. All you have to do to understand this is to observe the direction and focus of the current research.  It’s all about personalized treatments for cancer (expensive and highly technical), genetic testing and approaches even though genetics is only responsible for a small fraction of cancers, or on some extract from a plant that has to be chemically synthesized so they can patent it.  Can’t let some $10 treatment be better than anything that the Medical Establishment controls, now can we?

I know that this sounds incredible to the average person, but that’s only because most people don’t do their homework. We’ve been led to trust the ‘authorities’, and most people don’t have the time or the inclination to really dig into the subject. And that’s exactly what those in power are banking on. That’s the only way that things can continue like this, because if lots of people started uncovering the truth about cancer, what we call ‘modern’ oncology would not be able to find any people that would blindly believe that chemotherapy and radiation are effective. People would not submit to expensive ‘treatments’ for cancer that don’t really work! And that would spell the end of this charade. But that’s what it’s going to take because the people that profit from these poisons are not going to tell you the truth! In fact, they’re going to defend it until it becomes obvious to the average person that it’s a crock of shit.

Find out the top 10 things that every cancer patient should know

(NaturalNews) There has been a lot of talk about the “war on cancer.” It’s a frightening and deadly disease, and it’s certainly something that most of us would like to see successfully conquered. However, not everyone seems to be in a hurry for a definitive cure to emerge. Unfortunately, the highly profitable cancer industry is working hard to protect its own interests.
In some ways, it’s tempting to say that we have already lost this war. One out of every 16 people got cancer in the 1940s; that figure is now one out of every three. In 2014, more than 1.6 million new cancer diagnoses and 585,720 cancer deaths were projected in the U.S. alone. You would think this would be bad news across the board, but the cancer industry is simply watching its profits grow.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) says that the medical costs of care for cancer patients totals $125 billion, a figure that is expected to rise by 39 percent to reach $173 billion at the end of this decade. The industry produces a lot of income and employs a staggering number of people.

A whopping $6 billion in taxpayer funds gets cycled through different federal agencies to pay for cancer research. Charities are everywhere you turn, collecting money for cancer patients or organizing marathons and other activities. Unfortunately, when we give our hard-earned cash to cancer charities, it often ends up being used to fund research backed by Big Pharma. In many cases, none of it will make its way to alternative research on treatment for cancer.

Lots of research and funding, but few results

The cancer cartel, which is made up of Big Pharma, the American Medical Association, a research system supporting pharmaceutical companies and various federal agencies, burns through research money at a shocking pace, and yet there is still no cure. In fact, there are only three treatments that have gained official approval for cancer in the U.S. surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy – and most of us know one or more people who were not helped by these options. No new cancer therapies have gained FDA approval in the last century.

While clinical research was once carried out largely by universities and was relatively unbiased, much of the funding started being diverted to for-profit research organizations in the 1990s. Many of these organizations are controlled to some extent by the pharmaceutical industry, which designs studies that will yield the results they want. They also have control over research publications. They even manage to ensure research on alternative medical therapies never sees the light of day in most mainstream journals, which is why those that publish independent research free from industry collusion like the Natural Science Journal are so important.

Alternative treatments largely ignored by researchers

Conventional medicine has largely ignored some interesting research that shows that cancer is more of a metabolic disease than a genetic one. After all, a genetic disease would call for individualized drugs and huge profits. Some studies have indicated that because cancer cells rely on glucose and glutamine for their survival and growth, restricting access to them can stop cancer in its tracks. Instead of a magic pill, a high-fat, low-carb ketogenic diet can essentially starve cancer cells, according to Dr. Thomas N. Seyfried. Of course, most research isn’t looking into this because there aren’t profits to be made in telling people to change their eating habits.

It’s also important to note that since the 1970s, secondary cancers have risen more than 300 percent. A document released by the American Cancer Society admits the disturbing truth that cancer treatments could be behind many of these second cancers, with radiation therapy and chemotherapy drugs both likely culprits.

It appears that the highly profitable cancer industry cannot afford to let anyone find a cure for the disease. If any alternative treatments for cancer suddenly gained approval the toxic cancer industry would come to a crashing halt, and Big Pharma simply won’t let that happen.

For more info, go to: www.naturalnews.com

Cancer Epidemic Getting Worse


This is another great article from Dr Sircus. He speaks a lot of truth about cancer and a lot of other diseases. Allopathic medicine has it totally wrong when it comes to how they approach chronic diseases.  The body is NOT a battlefield, and using chemical warfare on cancer and other diseases contributes to the destruction of your health, your quality of life, and your body. More and more people are coming down with cancer, and there’s no letup in sight if we are to believe the WHO (World Health Organization).

We’re being bombarded with poisons and toxins at every point in our lives. Poisons everywhere, and none of these companies that produce them want to acknowledge that they are poisoning us and making us sick. It’s all about convenience and profits. It appears that they think that since we’re going to die anyway, what’s the big deal about more poisons in your body? You’re happy with the convenience and they get to keep making money. But it’s not so much fun anymore when you get sick with cancer, diabetes, some autoimmune disease, obesity, or any of the host of other diseases and maladies that plague ‘modern’ society.

Worse yet, the health care industry joins in the fun and profiteering by treating, but never curing, diseases. The answer for every problem is a prescription drug, or an expensive procedure. Prescription drugs that are all just poisons masquerading as medicines that only treat, but never cure anything. The only thing you can be sure of is that you’ll be on some sort of prescription drug for the rest of your life, as no prescription drug ever cured any disease. It’s partly Big Pharma’s fault since they make huge amounts of money doing this, but worse yet, we have been acculturated to want to just take a pill for something rather than commit to changing our bad, unhealthy habits that created the disease in the first place. It’s hard to change your diet, study & learn the principles of good health, and then to take ultimate responsibility for our own health conditions, but it’s easy to think that all you have to do to get healthy is to ‘pop a pill.’  It’s deceptively easy, but will not work over the long term.

Why do you think that your oncologist or family physician won’t tell you that cancer feeds off of sugar? Or that vitamin D supplementation reduces your risk of cancer by approximately 77%? It’s partly from ignorance, partly from them being educated to believe that only pharmaceutical drugs are treatments for disease. If you don’t want to be another guinea pig for Big Pharma, you’d better start educating yourself about health and diseases. Like the old Fram oil filter commercial, you can either pay a little now in the form of study and learning about health and investing in vitamins, minerals and good foods, or you can pay later when you need triple bypass heart operations (that cost many thousands of dollars), rounds of chemotherapy and radiation (that have been known to cost six figures), or life-long rounds of prescription drugs (each with their own plethora of deleterious side effects that only get worse the longer you take them). It’s your choice. With that in mind, check out this article.

Get your free report with information that every cancer patient needs to have…

There are not many words, which can stop you in your tracks and uproot your entire life like the word cancer. In terms of real cancer in the 1990s it was one in five who contracted cancer. In the last few years it is one in three and according to the World Health Organization in 2020 it is projected to be one in two. Prepare to see many of your loved ones die unless you study what oncologists refuse to.

Cancer is responsible for over 7.5 million deaths every year, worldwide and that number keeps growing despite all the efforts of oncologists worldwide. The American Cancer Society puts the number at 8 million deaths. Since 1991, the annual number of newly documented cases of thyroid cancer in the United States has skyrocketed from 12,400 to 62,450. It is now the seventh most common type of cancer.

The population of earth are being gang raped with chemicals from every side. With Fukushima and with doctors and dentists using radiation in diagnosis and treatment, we are also being raped with increasing exposure to radiation contamination, radiation sickness and the ticking time bomb of genetic damage.

We have the worldwide contamination in our water, air and food. We have our environments and brains bathing in cell tower and phone radiation and the increasingly intensifying coverage of WI-FI everywhere. It is frustrating for there is little to nothing we can do about the vast increase in microwave transmissions. Even if we do not own a cell phone, or do not use Wi-Fi, the waves are all around and penetrating through us, especially if we live in a city where there are so many towers and so many neighbors who are using Wi-Fi.

Very few of us want to see information about cell phones, and how they increase our chances of contracting brain cancer. Dr. Bradford Weeks however says, “Cell phones are killing us. No. Correction. We are willingly killing ourselves (and our kids) with cell phones. And obfuscating cell phones companies are accomplices. We are seduced by the convenience factor of being infinitely “in touch” and we are deaf to the lethality of holding that dangerous device up to our head. Soon, we will learn that cells phones are more lethal in America than guns.”

We have dramatically increasing stress loads, as the world gets more violent and chaotic. This stress can be measured and controlled. It is important to remember that stress is one of the basic causes of cancer.

We are all breathing too fast as everything has moved forward in terms of stress and toxicity. As our breathing rate increases, we fuel the fires of cancer because we decrease the availability of oxygen the faster we breathe. Cancer is a low oxygen condition. It is also a low magnesium condition. Also a low iodine and low selenium condition. That is why supplementing all of these elements in abundance does much to help us survive cancer or not get it in the first place.

If one is worried, which one should be, the time to start treating cancer is now before it happens. It is the only treatment philosophy that makes sense. Like heading the enemy off at the pass, we have to prevent the physiological condition from occurring before bad things happen.

The good news though is cancer can be prevented and the best time to start treatments is now well before the anvil of cancer strikes our loved ones and us.

Stop the Sugar

Sugar kills. First thing to do of course is to stop with the sugar. According to the Credit Suisse Research Institute’s 2013 study, “Sugar: Consumption at a Crossroads,” as much as 40 percent of US healthcare expenditures are for diseases directly related to the overconsumption of sugar. The fact that sugar and obesity are linked to an increased risk of cancer is now becoming well-recognized.

Nearly two-thirds of obesity-related cancers, which include colon, rectum, ovary, and womb cancers — occur in North America and Europe. A more recent British report estimates obesity may result in an additional 670,000 cancer cases in the UK alone over the next 20 years.

According to a report on the global cancer burden, published in 2014, obesity is responsible for an estimated 500,000 cancer cases worldwide each year. Sugar causes inflammation and cancer is an inflammation. Sugar and inflammation lead to low oxygen conditions. Moderate carbohydrate restriction can reduce markers of chronic inflammation. According to researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, sugar poses a health risk—contributing to around 35 million deaths globally each year.

Researchers at Huntsman Cancer Institute in Utah were one of the first to discover that sugar “feeds” tumors. Since sugar is not our ideal fuel, it burns dirty with far more reactive oxygen species than fat, which generates far more free radicals, which in turn causes mitochondrial and nuclear DNA damage along with cell membrane and protein impairment. Bottom line: Cancer loves sugar even more than we do. Unfortunately, most doctors do not warn their patients about sugar.

Here is the third edition of the Treatment Essentials book. It has another ten chapters added with my newest research. This is the 600-page operation manual for the Natural Allopathic protocol, giving people all the information they need to get up and running, treating themselves with a full protocol for cancer and other diseases at home. There is also the Surviving Cancer Compendium of 2,500 pages, which gives the reader a full education about cancer and how to treat it.


More Companies Putting Poisons and Carcinogens in the Environment


The story never changes. Monsanto and other companies that manufacture poisonous, but profitable chemicals always seem to never have any problems getting away with it.  Glyphosate, now atrazine, and a whole collection of these pesticides are used on food crops. And that’s not counting all of the other thousands of chemicals that we’re being exposed to.  I’m not saying that I don’t appreciate many of the conveniences of modern society. But there has to be a better way to get things done other than fast-tracking convenient poisons into our foods and personal care products.

I see this as a metaphor and example of how and why the people that run the cancer industry would not hesitate to protect their profits even if it means suppressing or destroying cheap, effective treatments for cancer. If these leaders of society have no problem putting poisons into our foods, which is the very thing that sustains our lives, then what is the difference if they give you poisons masquerading as medicines? There is no practical difference.  Poisons in your food is basically the same as poisons for medicine. You think they’re good for you, but they really aren’t.

And even worse, when an honest scientist tries to expose the truth about anything detrimental to profits, they get suppressed, fired, ridiculed, ostracized, or some other punishment. Just like in this article. When Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., an integrative biologist at the University of California, Berkeley found in his research that atrazine was basically turning male frogs into female frogs or hermaphrodites, he was persona non grata, and Novartis (later Syngenta) tried to discredit his research but it backfired on them when his studies were confirmed by subsequent research. Although his career was not destroyed (as other researchers have experienced), it would appear that atrazine is still being used to the tune of over 70 million pounds per year.

Some environmental organizations have been working for years to try to ban the use of atrazine, but they have apparently been no match for entrenched financial interests. In fact, Monsanto is recommending that farmers use atrazine along with Roundup because of the mass proliferation of Roundup resistant weeds. They didn’t foresee that weeds would become resistant to Roundup when they came up with the idea to pair up their own GMO crops that are resistant to their pesticide. But it doesn’t matter because they have enough money and power to make sure that you now get a double dose of toxic chemicals in your foods. Whether or not this is a conspiracy doesn’t really seem to be the major issue because the bottom line is that they’re getting away with this right now while you’re pondering this information…

Get your free report entitled Things Every Cancer Patient Should Know

By Dr. Mercola

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, has been making headlines recently not only because it’s the most used agricultural chemical in history, but also because the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined it is a probable carcinogen.

Lurking somewhat below the radar, however, is atrazine, the second most commonly used herbicide in the U.S. Though it hasn’t yet achieved the notoriety of glyphosate, it is equally disserving.

Atrazine’s primary use is to control weeds in corn crops that cover much of the Midwest. This might sound strange, since that’s what glyphosate is used for too. Most of the corn crops are genetically engineered (GE) to survive Roundup for that very purpose.

But because so much Roundup has been used, weeds are growing resistant. Bring in atrazine, a known hormone-disrupting chemical manufactured by Syngenta AG. It’s already been banned in Europe, but in the U.S. about 70 million pounds are used every year.

In fact (and quite ironically), Monsanto recommends farmers mix atrazine with Roundup to control glyphosate-resistant weeds.

EPA: Atrazine Dangerous to Animals and Fish

The EPA’s risk assessment for atrazine found the chemical could cause reproductive harm to mammals, fish and birds, with the level of concern already surpassed by nearly 200-fold using real-world scenarios for mammals.

For fish and birds, atrazine exceeded the level of concern by 62- and 22-fold, respectively.

An EPA “level of concern” describes the threshold above which a chemical may be expected to cause harm. The chemical, which has previously been linked to birth defects and cancer, was banned in the European Union for its potential to contaminate water and ecosystems.

The EPA specifically cited research by Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., an integrative biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, which found atrazine may be chemically castrating male frogs, essentially turning them into female frogs.

Former Syngenta Researcher Found Atrazine Causes Hermaphroditism in Frogs

Hayes used to conduct research for Novartis, which eventually became Syngenta, but he resigned his contractor position after the company refused to allow him to publish the results of studies they had funded.

After resigning, he obtained independent funding to repeat the research, which was subsequently published and found that atrazine causes hermaphroditism in frogs. Since then, he’s built an educational website dedicated to informing the public about atrazine.

Syngenta attempted to discredit Hayes after the damaging research was released, but now he’s received well-deserved vindication. Mother Jones further reported:

“As for amphibians like frogs, the report found ‘potential for chronic risk’ from atrazine at real-world exposure levels — not rapid death, like what a roach might experience after a blast of Raid, but long-term, subtle damage, like an impeded ability to reproduce.

… ‘The science has been settled for a long time,’ Hayes [said] … ‘Now it’s politics and economics.'”

Environmental Groups Urged the EPA to Take Action Against Atrazine Years Ago

The pesticide and agriculture industries are already up in arms over the findings, with the Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA) noting that if the report is finalized, it would “effectively ban the product from most uses.”

The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) put out a report in 2009 that showed widespread atrazine contamination in drinking water, posing a “dangerous problem” that was not communicated to the people most at risk. They continued:

Some scientists are concerned about exposure for children and pregnant women, as small doses could impact development of the brain and reproductive organs.

Research has also raised concerns about atrazine’s ‘synergistic’ affects, showing potential for the chemical having a multiplier affect to increase toxic effects of other chemical co-contaminants in the environment.

… Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA has determined that an annual average of no more than 3 parts per billion (ppb) of atrazine may be present in drinking water.

One of the chief findings of the report was that this reliance on a ‘running annual average’ allows levels of atrazine in drinking water to peak at extremely high concentrations.

Given the pesticide’s limited economic value and the fact that safer agricultural methods can be substituted to achieve similar results, NRDC recommends phasing out the use of atrazine, more effective atrazine monitoring, and the adoption of farming techniques that can help minimize the use of atrazine to prevent it from running into waterways.”

What Are Atrazine’s Health Effects in Humans?

If atrazine is toxic to mammals, birds and fish, what health risks does it pose to humans? The EPA plans to release a human health assessment for atrazine sometime in 2016. However, independent scientists have previously cited evidence that the chemical may be carcinogenic, noting:

In summary, the Panel concluded that the cancers for which there is suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential include: ovarian cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, hairy-cell leukemia and thyroid cancer.”

In addition, research published in Current Environmental Health Reports found higher concentrations of atrazine in drinking water have been associated with birth defects, including abdominal defects, gastroschisis (in which the baby’s intestines stick outside of the baby’s body), and others.

Past research has also linked atrazine-contaminated drinking water with hormonal irregularities. Women who drank water with even low levels of the chemical were more likely to have irregular menstrual cycles and low estrogen levels.

Atrazine in drinking water has also been linked to premature birth and low birth weight in newborns.

The results are especially concerning given atrazine’s prevalence. Atrazine has been found in a majority of water samples taken from Illinois, Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) found atrazine in 94 percent of drinking-water samples tested.