‘Poisonous herbicide is invading the food chain’, experts warn – as traces found in popular breakfast foods


Our environment is constantly and consistently being polluted by these corporations like Monsanto. Once they release these poisons, there’s virtually no way that their spread can be controlled. It’s the same thing with GMO’s as well. But this article here verifies that our food chain is being contaminated, this time by Roundup, generic name glyphosate. Glyphosate is a proven carcinogen, and not only is it being found in the food, but it’s also being doused over many of the crops that we eat, organic or not.  Now how can Monsanto get a pass on contaminating our food supply as well as getting regulator approval on using a cancer-causing herbicide on plants that people are eating? Think about it…

It is the most important meal of the day, or so the saying goes. But, while enjoying your favorite breakfast, experts warn you may be eating more than you bargained for.A new series of tests by the Alliance for Natural Health-USA has revealed popular breakfast foods including eggs, bagels, wholewheat bread and coffee creamers include ‘alarming’ levels of a widely-used agricultural herbicide.

Ten of the 24 foods – both organic and regular – tested contained traceable levels of glyphosate.

It is the active ingredient in the world’s most widely used herbicide, Roundup, developed by Monsanto and first released in 1974.

Increasing scientific studies point to glyphosate residues being ubiquitous in the environment, raising fears it could be common in foods.

Last year, the World Health Organization moved to classify glyphosate a probable human carcinogen.

It has been linked to a number of cancers, including breast, thyroid, kidney, pancreas, liver, bladder and myeloid leukemia.

Gretchen DuBeau, executive and legal director of ANH-USA, said: ‘Glyphosate has been linked to increases in levels of breast, thyroid, kidney, pancreatic, liver and bladder cancers and is being served for breakfast, lunch and dinner around the world.

‘The fact that it is showing up in foods like eggs and coffee creamer, which don’t directly contact the herbicide, shows that it’s being passed on by animals who ingest it in their feed.

‘This is contrary to everything that regulators and industry scientists have been telling the public.’

Researchers purchased regular and organic versions of 12 popular breakfast foods and breakfast food ingredients, totaling 24 items for testing.

The categories tested were: flour, corn flakes, instant oatmeal, bagels, yogurt, bread, frozen hash browns, potatoes, cream of wheat, eggs, non-dairy creamers and dairy based coffee creamers.

The tests revealed 10 of the 24 items contained traceable levels of glyphosate.

Breakfast food Glyphosate level (parts per billion)
EPA allowable daily intake is 75 ppb
1. Instant oatmeal – strawberries and cream 1,327.1
2. Wholewheat bagels 491.9
3. Organic multi-bagels 151.5
4. Wholegrain bread – wholewheat 403.0
5. Organic killer wholewheat bread 136.4
6. Hot cereal – wholegrain 260.6
7. Large eggs 102
8. Organic cage-free, antibiotic-free large eggs 169
9. Organic coffee creamer 104
10. Organic soy creamer (non-GMO) 86
Source: The Alliance for Natural Health USA

The presence of glyphosate in eggs and dairy products supports the fear that the chemical is accumulating in the tissue of these animals, and therefore presumably also in human tissue, via a process called bioaccumulation.

Ms DuBeau said they decided to carry out the tests to see ‘how ubiquitous this toxin has become in our environment’.

‘We expected that trace amounts would show up in foods containing large amounts of corn and soy,’ she said.

‘However, we were unprepared for just how invasive this poison has been to our entire food chain.’

Furthermore, experts warned, testing for glyphosate alone does not even portray the full picture.

The amounts detected by the tests undertaken do not include any analogs of glyphosate, such as N-Acetylglyphosate, which is used by DuPont in its GMO formulations.

These analogs may also be present in food and would add to the amount of glyphosate accumulated in human tissue.

Glyphosate and its analogs are known endocrine disrupters for humans.

Ms DuBeau and her colleagues conclude that clearly Americans are consuming glyphosate on a daily basis.

The true safety of this chemical, just last year identified as a probably carcinogen by the WHO, is unknown.

Current EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) standards have not been rigorously tested for all foods and all age groups.

Evidence linking glyphosate with the increased incidence of a host of cancers is reason for immediate reevaluation by the EPA and FDA, the ANH-USA said.

More Doctors Confessing To Intentionally Diagnosing Healthy People With Cancer To Make Money


This is horrible, but it happens a lot more than the average person would think. I guess that it’s tough to get physicians to admit to doing this when it’s pretty much a standard practice. In all fairness, doctors are indoctrinated in medical school to think in terms of treatment for cancer as only consisting of radiation, chemotherapy and surgery. Also, they risk the loss of medical license if they stray away from these conventional methods of treating cancer.

But one would think that they would endeavor to learn the truth about how poisonous these treatments are for cancer, and that there are actually other ways to treat it. Even if they didn’t want to treat, you would think that they would emphasize prevention a lot more. There really is no true strategy from the major cancer organizations to promote prevention. They actually claim to not have a clue about what causes cancer, which is disturbing when you consider that they claim to be the experts in oncology.

You are always advised to be knowledgeable about your disease. So you should be studying whatever you can about it. Be able to talk intelligently about whatever disease you think you may have. That way, your doctor is less able to just tell you something that isn’t true. As in business, you can trust your doctor, but you’d better also be able to verify the things that he says. The doctor can always get another patient, but you can’t get another life!

It happens more often than you can imagine, but more Doctors are finally getting caught in the act of misrepresenting their oath and fraudulently diagnosing healthy patients with cancer to turn a quick buck from kickbacks on chemotherapy poisons.

Why shouldn’t Doctors lie when the entire cancer industry is one gigantic fabrication from start to finish? Is it any wonder that cancer societies worldwide put a far greater financial initiative on chemotherapy and radiation research than disease prevention techniques? Preventing disease doesn’t make money, but treating disease certainly does. Take Dr. Farid Fata, a prominent cancer doctor in Michigan who admitted in court one year ago to intentionally and wrongfully diagnosing healthy people with cancer. Fata also admitted to giving them chemotherapy drugs for the purpose of making a profit. Were his patients shocked? You bet they were. Who would ever suspect a Doctor of faking a diagnosis to collect money. It’s unconscionable. Yet it happens with cancer and almost every disease that medical doctors can generate income through kickbacks and commissions based on the volume of patients treated with specific pharmaceuticals. Like anything people are used as a commodity. “Many of these unscrupulous Physicians are like businessmen without a conscience. The only difference is they have your health and trust in their hands–a very dangerous combination when money is involved,” said Dr. Sayed Mohammed, a retired Oncologist who admits seeing the trend more than a decade ago. “It is my choice,” Fata said on Tuesday of his surprise guilty plea, which included rattling off the names of numerous drugs he prescribed for his patients over the years. In each admission, he uttered these words:

“I knew that it was medically unnecessary.” Fata was charged with running a $35-million Medicare fraud scheme that involved billing the government for medically unnecessary oncology and hematology treatments. The government says Fata ran the scheme from 2009 to the present, through his medical businesses, including Michigan Hematology Oncology Centers, with offices in Clarkston, Bloomfield Hills, Lapeer, Sterling Heights, Troy and Oak Park.

According to the government, Fata had a patient load of 1,200 people and received $62 million from Medicare; he billed for more than $150 million.

Lying with Statistics Prostate cancer is another great example which doctors falsely give prognoses about without giving patients the facts. 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 lymphatic system. More than 90% of Doctors who encourage cancer treatment for prostate cancer will generate a commission from each treatment the patient receives. It proves risky and often deadly in the long run for most people who don’t understand how to take care of their health and are persuaded by false statistics. Dozens of excellent large studies have been done on men who have had cancer discovered in their prostate with a biopsy. In over 97% of the cases this cancer either never spreads outside of the gland to cause harm or the patient dies of something else long before any evidence of cancer spreading outside of the prostate occurs. In that 3% where cancer is aggressive and harms the patient, it has already spread beyond the limits of surgical resection long before discovery; thus, these men are not helped by surgery either. After at least seven years of post-college graduate medical education on the emotional, mental, and physical condition of the human being, you would expect a physician to be a powerhouse of goodwill for his or her patients. Unfortunately, too many doctors fail to keep the welfare of their customers at the forefront, as their main concern. The needs to boost their own egos, self-preservation, and the quest for more money often result in inappropriate care and harm to the patient. Most women are often told that hysterectomies lead to many different cures for cancer and other ailments. This is misrepresenting the truth. The research done so far has demonstrated no improvement in survival regardless of the aggressiveness of many of these unnecessary treatments. Breast cancer screenings also result in an increase in breast cancer mortality and fail to address prevention. Despite no evidence ever having supported any recommendations made for regular periodic screening and mammography at any age, malicious recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) and the American College of Radiology (ACR) on breast cancer screening are now suggesting that breast cancer screening should begin at age 40 and earlier in high-risk patients. Published in the Journal of the American College of Radiology (JACR), the recommendations released by the SBI and ACR state that the average patient should begin annual breast cancer screening at age 40. They also target women in their 30s if they are considered “high risk” as they stated. The rate of advanced breast cancer for U.S. women 25 to 39 years old nearly doubled from 1976 to 2009, a difference too great to be a matter of chance and more about diagnoses. A disturbing study published in the New England Journal of Medicine is bringing mainstream attention to the fact that mammography has caused far more harm than good in the millions of women who have employed it over the past 30 years as their primary strategy in the fight against breast cancer. It always has been and always will be about the money. It is not time to recognize the trend?

Chemotherapy Does Not Heal The Body–It Slowly Destroys It 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. Why? Money, greed and profits run the cancer industry–nothing else. The cancer establishment must retreat from the truth to treat cancer because there will never be any profit for them in in eradicating the disease. There is no governing body in the world that protects consumers from being subjected to these toxic therapies or even known carcinogens in our foods our environment, because that too, will prevent the profits from rolling in. It’s a business of mammoth proportions and must be treated as such. The most powerful anti-carcinogenic plants in the world such as cannabis(which we wrote about here and here) must be demonized and be made illegal because they are so effective at killing cancer cells without side effects. Cannabinoids are so efficient at treating disease, that the U.S. Government patented them in 2003. If a “magic bullet” were used FIRST by orthodox medicine, meaning the cut/burn/slash/poison treatments were avoided, a 90% true cure rate would be easy to achieve. But the fact is that the leaders in the medical community have absolutely no interest in finding a “magic bullet.” A “magic bullet” would cost the drug companies hundreds of billions of dollars, and patients would have less hospitalization and less doctor visits, etc. You might ask your oncologist why your chances of survival are only 3% (ignoring all of their statistical gibberish such as “5-year survival rates” and deceptive terms like “remission” and “response”), when your chance of survival would be over 90% if they used something like DMSO. Actually, bring up DMSO to any oncologist and most of them won’t even talk to you about it. Why? Because DMSO is a natural product, , cannot be patented and cannot be made profitable because it is produced by the ton in the wood industry. Dr. Farid Fata is only a consequence of the system. Like him there are thousands of legally practicing Doctors and oncologists in the United States and abroad who are guilty of the same crimes, but because they fly below the radar, they are never caught. As we continue playing this charade of making the public believe that poisons treat cancer, people will continue to die, and Doctors will continue to make money up to the day of their patient’s death. Every once in a while, we may catch a few (of the many) like Dr. Fata, who self-destruct due to their own greed. We will claim they are outlaws, banish them and tarnish their reputations based on a perception that a healthy person should never be unnecessarily subjected to chemotherapy for money. So we can harshly judge and legally prosecute the Doctor who falsely prescribes poison to a healthy person for money, but we proudly accept the Doctor who prescribes poison to an unhealthy person for money. I find that truly mind blowing.

The Cancer Industry Owns The Media And Your Mind


We’ve been subjected to intense social engineering all along.  This is evident in the way that we are being bombarded by cancer industry, Big Pharma, Medical Establishment propaganda.  If you follow the money, you’ll see the reasons why there is no cure for cancer being offered by them.  The cancer ‘gravy train’ is based on treating people with poisons masquerading as medicines, and a cure always being ‘just around the corner’ as it has been for the last 75+ years.  Nobody that makes money from the cancer ‘gravy train’ wants a cure for it, especially if it won’t make even more profits than what they’re making already.  You must read the article below to get more of the story that none of the mainstream media will dare touch.


In what can only be described as the latest cancer industry propaganda push, mainstream news outlets are declaring triumphantly “More than 1.5 million cancer deaths averted in last two decades” (CBS), “Cancer death tolls fall, millions saved” (ABC), and “A 22 Percent Drop in Cancer Mortality Saved 1.5 Million People.” (Science World Report).

Really? What is this based on?

These media flourishes are supposedly based on a report just published in the journal CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians titled, “Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014,” which analyzed cancer treatment data from 3 sources: the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB), the SEER-Medicare linked database, and the SEER*Stat database.

However, if you actually take the time to read the research itself and read between the lines you will find it in no way justifies these optimistic characterizations; to the contrary, the national cancer outlook looks exceedingly bleak.

In the abstract summary of the results, the first line reads:

“The number of cancer survivors continues to increase due to the aging and growth of the population and improvements in early detection and treatment.”

‘Early detection’ here refers to national screening programs such as x-ray mammography for breast cancer and PSA screening for prostate cancer, which we now know have not resulted in reduced mortality despite dramatically expanding ‘cancer diagnoses’ in the past few decades: a sure sign that the ‘cancers’ being diagnosed were never life-threatening and did not ‘save’ anyone from premature death; to the contrary, breast and prostate screenings have been the subject of great controversy because they have left behind millions of necessarily treated (read: harmed) individuals without resulting in any significant reductions in breast- and prostate-specific cancer mortality (prostate cancer mortality has actually increased!) — which is the only true measure of whether they are of benefit to the mostly asymptomatic populations being continually pressured through ‘awareness campaigns’ to undergo screening. An increasingly indubitable body of research shows that screening programs have dramatically increased the quantity of cancer diagnoses in healthy individuals, resulting in the illusion that they have been ‘saved’ through early detection, when in fact they have survived overdiagnosis and overtreatment and not cancer itself. This has falsely inflated the number of people ‘saved,’ which is reflected in the aforementioned outrageously distorted mainstream media headlines, while simultaneously obscuring the significant number of lives that have been lost due to the ineffectiveness of conventional treatment.

Consider that a ‘cancer survivor’ is anyone who was diagnosed with cancer who is still alive 5 years later.

Whether or not a newly identified prostate or breast cancer case was a victim of overdiagnosis is nowhere accounted for in these statistics. In other words, if a person who was identified through ‘early detection’ to have life-threatening cancer actually had a benign lesion, and then went on to be ‘treated’ anyway, they are not surviving cancer but rather the unnecessary surgery, chemotherapy and radiation they received. And yet they are lumped into the ‘survivor’ category nonetheless, even if they should be considered a victim of iatrogenesis and medical abuse.

Last year a study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine revealing that in the past three decades 1.3 million women in the U.S. were wrongly diagnosed with breast cancer when in fact they had a benign condition known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). DCIS lesions rarely if ever progress to cause harm nor death, but this was not factored into the data analysis of the latest report in question. The report stated that “14.5 million Americans with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2014,” but it did not qualify the statement by acknowledging the great burden of cancer diagnoses that are now known to be intrinsically benign, e.g. ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) “breast cancers” and high-grade intraepithelial prostatic neoplasia (HGPIN) “prostate cancer” were identified in 2012 by a National Cancer Institute commissioned expert working group to be misclassified as “cancer” and which they recommended should be reclassified as benign lesions of epithelial origin, presumably better left untreated. This reclassification of certain ‘cancers’ to benign growths also encompasses so-called papillary carcinomas of the thyroid, a fundamentally harmless nodular growth the conventional medical establishment still calls thyroid cancer and treats aggressively.

What this essentially means is that instead of taking responsibility for the medical-induced harm (iatrogenesis) that breast, prostate and thyroid screening incurs, the conventional medical establishment counts these overdiagnosed cases as treatment successes (‘live saving’), despite the untold harm, physical and psychological, these diagnoses and subsequent unnecessary treatments exacted on their victims. This unethical ‘oversight’ resulted in expanding the number of ‘cancer survivors’ far beyond those who were actually ‘saved from cancer.’

The report stated:

“The 3 most common prevalent cancers among males are prostate cancer(43%), colorectal cancer (9%), and melanoma (8%), and those among females are cancers of the breast (41%), uterine corpus (8%), and colon and rectum (8%).”

Considering that the primary cancers afflicting women (breast) and men (prostate) are the most overdiagnosed, the truth is that this report falsely represented the data, essentially covering up the medical tragedy, or worse, malfeasance that still goes on daily in thousands of hospitals around the world. After all, the profit generated by diagnosis and treatment of ‘cancer’ far exceeds most other disease diagnoses.

“The 5-year relative survival rate for women diagnosed with localized breast cancer is 98.6%”

Why is that? One view is that localized (i.e. ductal carcinoma in situ) isn’t breast cancer at all, and therefore the relatively high 98.6% survivorship reflects the fact that these woman aren’t surviving cancer at all, rather, they survived an unnecessary treatment for an intrinsically benign condition. They are, in essence, surviving medical abuse motivated by shameless profiteering (e.g. breast cancer industry and cancer drug manufacturer funded pinkwashing campaigns to promote ‘early detection’ via mammography screening that result in converting healthy women into patients without proper biological justification).

The propaganda evidenced by this report, and the mainstream media amplifications of it, are extremely misleading. Trillions of dollars of liability rests on the shoulders of the conventional cancer industry for falsely diagnosing and (i.e. abusing) women and men with cancers they never had. Additionally, those who have fallen victim to unnecessary treatment often suffer from Stockholm syndrome, identifying with their aggressors, and then becoming willing brand ambassadors of ‘early detection’ via pinkwashing styled fund-raising campaigns (e.g. Susan G. Komen marches) to fear, for instance, other healthy, asymptomatic women into subjecting their breasts to highly carcinogenic x-ray wavelengths in the interest of ‘finding cancer early.’

In a world dominated by what can only be described as violent, almost pornographic marketing copy, e.g. Susan G. Komen sponsored PINK fracking drill bits, and KFC ‘Buckets for the Cure,’it is the responsibility of all of us to take back control of our health and read behind the increasingly absurd mainstream news headlines. If you believe your breasts, prostate, thyroid, or whatever body part is increasingly targeted for cancer screening, are more than just an inevitable locus of carcinogensis, please join the growing movement to take back control of your health, starting with acknowledging that with clean food, water, and air, health is obtainable and your birthright.

Learn about authentic cancer solutions by watching the Functional Forum video (2 hour long) on ‘The Evolution of Oncology,’ featuring a panel discussion with our founder, Sayer Ji, at 48:00:

The transatlantic drugs divide: Patients in the US pay THREE TIMES more for drugs than those in the UK


Just more evidence showing that Big Pharma is really sticking it to patients in the United States.  The only reason is profits.  I can’t think of any other reason.  Big Pharma has too much influence over government regulators.  This is the result.  People also need to step up more and fight against this.  Or better yet, people may want to just say no to Big Pharma drugs.  They’re not that great anyway.


The price of the world’s 20 top-selling drugs are, on average, three times more expensive in the US, than Britain, it has emerged.

The findings underscore a transatlantic gulf between the price of treatments for a range of diseases, from breast, lung and kidney cancer to diabetes and arthritis.

And it comes as industry critics, including Democratic presidential candidate Hilary Clinton, demand lower drug costs in Amercia.

The analysis, carried out for Reuters, shows the 20 medicines, which together account for 15 per cent of global pharmaceuticals spending in 2014, are a major source of profits for companies.

Those firms benefitting include AstraZeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Roche and AbbVie.

Researchers at the University of Liverpool also found US prices were consistently higher than in other European markets.

Elsewhere, US prices were six times higher than in Brazil, and 16 times higher than the average in the lowest-price country, which was usually India.

In the US, pricing is left to market competition.

As a result drugs’ prices are higher than in nations where governments directly or indirectly control medicine costs.

This means the country is by far the most profitable market for pharmaceutical companies.

It has prompted concerns that Americans are effectively subsidising health systems in other countries.

Manufacturers say decent returns are needed to reward high-risk research and prices reflect the economic value provided by medicines.

They also point to higher US survival rates for diseases such as cancer and the availability of industry-backed access schemes for poorer citizens.

Top 20 drugs by 2014 (drugs firm) Price ($bln) What they treat US vs UK list price multiple
1. Humira (AbbVie) 11.8 arthritis, Chron’s disease 2.6
2. Lantus (Sanofi) 10.3 diabetes 5.7
3. Sovaldi (Gilead) 9.4 hepatitis C 1.6
4. Abilify (Otsuka) 9.3 schizophrenia, bioplar disorder and depression 2.4
5. Enbrel (amgen) 8.7 rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and plaque psoriasis 2.3
6. Seretide (GSK) 8.7 asthma, COPD 5.7
7. Crestor (AstraZeneca) 8.5 high cholesterol 7.2
8. Remicade (J&J) 8.1 rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis 1.2
9. Nexium (AstraZeneca) 7.7 heartburn, stomach ulcers 3.2
10. MabThera (Roche) 6.6 lymphoma 2.2
11. Avastin (Roche) 6.1 brain tumours, cancers of the kidney, colon, rectum and lung 1.9
12. Lyrica (Pfizer) 6.0 diabetes, shingles, fibromyalgia 3.0
13. Herceptin (Roche) 5.6 breast cancer 2.7
14. Spiriva (Boehringer) 5.5 emphysema, chronic bronchitis, or COPD 5.8
15. Januvia (Merck) 5.0 type 2 diabetes 6.0
16. Copaxone (Teva) 4.8 multiple sclerosis 3.0
17. NovoRapid (Novo) 4.7 diabetes 7.5
18. Neulasta (Amgen) 4.6 chemotherapy drug 3.4
19. Symbicort (AstraZeneca) 4.5 asthma, COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis 6.2
20. Lucentis (Roche) 4.4 age-related macular degeneration 7.5
Median – 3.1
Source: Andrew Hill, University of Liverpool; IMS Health

In recent years, the price differential has been exacerbated by above-inflation annual increases in US drug prices at a time when governments in Europe have capped costs or even pushed prices down.

In fact, US prices for top brand-name drugs jumped 127 per cent between 2008 and 2014, compared with an 11 per cent rise in a basket of common household goods, according to Express Scripts (ESRX.O), the largest US manager of drug plans.

In Europe, meanwhile, the impact of austerity on health budgets since the financial crisis has led industry executives to complain of single-digit percentage annual price declines.

The U.S. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) says international comparisons are misleading because list prices do not take into account discounts available as a result of ‘aggressive negotiation’ by US insurers.

These discounts can drive down the actual price paid by US insurance companies substantially.

However, similar confidential discounts are also offered to big European buyers such as Britain’s National Health Service.

Holly Campbell, PhRMA’s director of communications, said: ‘The US has a competitive marketplace that works to control costs while encouraging the development of new treatments and cures.’

PhRMA also argues that while Americans may pay more for drugs when they first come out, they pay less as drugs get older, since nearly 90 per cent of all medicines prescribed to US patients are now cheap generics.

In Britain, generics account for just over three-quarters of prescriptions and that level is lower in other parts of Europe.

Still, the United States is slower to see the arrival of generic competition to some top-selling drugs, which explains some of the differences in pricing for certain medicines on the top-20 list.

Overall, the analysis found that price differentials were slightly smaller for complex antibody-based drugs, which are used to treat conditions like cancer and rheumatoid arthritis.

Many of the biggest differences were evident for older drugs, reflecting the fact that prices are typically hiked each year in the United States, said University of Liverpool drug pricing expert Andrew Hill.

‘It shows the US drug pricing situation isn’t just a matter of isolated cases like Turing Pharmaceuticals,’ he said.

The latest furor over US drug costs was prompted by the decision by unlisted Turing to hike the cost of an old drug against a parasitic infection to $750 a pill from $13.50.

It has since promised to roll back the increase.

The same medicine is sold in Britain by GlaxoSmithKline for 43p (66 cents).

Medical slavery: Paying 5 and 6-Figures a Year to Big Pharma and Still No Cures


This is unfathomable and tragic.  How can some people be paying tens of thousands of dollars a year for failed treatments?  No cures, but being charged as if you’re actually getting a cure?  Is there something wrong with this picture?  What is the rationale for paying this much money while you or your loved one  die painful, agonizing deaths anyway?  This is extremely infuriating, and people need to stop buying the BS that Big Pharma and the Medical Establishment are selling.  Only then will they stop tricking people out of their money for the hope of longer life and effective treatments.  We can see that human decency obviously doesn’t have any place in this industry.


(NaturalNews) Many Americans soak up the pharmaceutical advertisements on the television and magazines and refuse to question where their health really begins. The cuffs of the medical system dig deep into the wrists of so many Americans, who are chained down by a philosophy of disease management and bankrupting, unthinkable drug costs.

New data revealed by Express Scripts finds that over a half million Americans pay at least $50,000 for prescription drugs. The 2014 stats also reveal that a staggering 100,000 Americans pay more than $100,000 yearly for prescriptions! These prices have tripled from the previous year. Overall, drug spending increased by 13 percent in 2014 alone. Cancer drugs have become the most enslaving, often costing more than $100,000 a year for patients who have been misled on the causes of cancer. A pill to manage hepatitis C was listed at $1,000 per pill. The study found that a cholesterol-lowering drug cost patients $14,000 a year, and drug for cystic fibrosis boasted a cost exceeding $250,000.

Presidential hopeful Hillary R. Clinton thinks the rising price of prescription drugs is motivated by profit. Her anti-capitalist views on the medical system and her belief that government should price control the drugs would only perpetuate the dominance of an already controlling, restrictive medical environment that favors pharmaceuticals. Clinton wants to set a $250 monthly cap for those who rely on pharmaceuticals. This extension of the Affordable Care Act sounds compassionate, but the bloated costs are only passed on to to everyone who pays federal income tax. In essence, the shortcomings of this drug-driven system are forced onto everyone as a whole, perpetuating the problems with the medical system.

True modalities of healing — nutritional therapies; holistic lifestyles; energy work; herbal formulas; organic, plant-based diets; and integrative practices for restoring the mind, body and spirit cannot be sold in a prescription bottle and therefore don’t conform to today’s interventionist, non-prevention disease management based medical system. The failure of most drugs to heal should not be a reason to blame free market capitalism. The failure of pharmaceuticals should open the doors to a more decentralized network of true healing modalities. For example, hospitals and doctors shouldn’t be taking money from drug companies and pushing more pills. They should be coordinating at the local level with people who have firsthand experience in the healing arts. Why doesn’t the health care system try to improve itself by following the example of people who have activated their body’s innate healing abilities?

Medical slavery is so commonplace because Americans are taught to look for health in intervention instead of listening to their own bodies and understanding the causes of their health imbalances. The more the government gets involved in controlling health care, the more they endorse the pharmaceutical industry and redistribute their prices and failures, leading more Americans into perpetual medical slavery.

For example, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has commanded that people purchase health insurance so everyone can collectively pay for the bloated and enslaving prices of the medical system. The government program tries to ease the cost of health care for all but at the same enslaves all to the mandate while legitimizing the entire system. Health insurance is an elaborate scam because it locks people into taking pharmaceuticals instead of encouraging preventive lifestyle factors such as Vitamin D absorption, juice cleanses, or consumption of clean water that is free from heavy metals and pesticides. Health insurance plans hardly ever cover anything tied directly to health, such as organic diets or medicinal herbs. The ACA simply subsidized the pharmaceutical industry and created a monopoly for people to be trapped in the drug-driven paradigm.

If the US was truly a Constitutional Republic – as it should be – harmful, deadly pharmaceuticals would be put on trial and the pain these drugs inflict would be put to an end. If this rule of law took precedence, drug makers would be convicted time and time again for causing the deaths of people around the world. If Republic law was real, most pharmaceutical drug companies would be shuttered. Until that happens, medical slavery will persist. It doesn’t matter how much the government intervenes to control the greed of the pharmaceutical industry; legislation and executive action will always perpetuate the influence that pharmaceutical companies have on the people.

For example, how is the criminal organization Merck and Co still around today after being responsible for the deaths of people whose lives were devastated by their drug Vioxx? The list of faulty drugs is long yet the companies are still in business. They pay fines as a form of justice, but these fines are tiny morsels compared to money they make hurting people continuously.

Numerous Toxic Vaccines to Be Forced on Our Youth in the Near Future?


I found it hard to believe when I first saw it, but I’m not surprised by this.  Big Pharma companies and the Medical Establishment love vaccines because they insure a steady, dependable stream of customers.  That’s just a way to say that vaccines actually cause many more diseases than they are likely to prevent, if any.  This is why they are so ‘gung-ho’ about the vaccine paradigm.  Vaccination is a way to directly introduce numerous poisonous chemicals and animal viruses into the body. The worst part is that the injection bypasses the body’s normal immune response, and gains access to the innermost parts of the body.

Many of the diseases and health problems that vaccines cause take some years to manifest.  This is why it’s often hard for people to make the connection.  But some have documented this.  And there are confirmed cases of vaccines being contaminated with cancer-causing animal viruses.  So it’s not as far-fetched as you may think.  Personally, I try to stay away from vaccines.  There are other ways to protect yourself from pathogens that are much safer.


(NaturalNews) Children born in America today are subjected to at least 56 doses of 14 different vaccines before the age of 18, an incredible number compared to what children received back in the 1950s and 1960s. But the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is gleefully awaiting the arrival of some 271 more vaccines which, when they become commercialized, will generate an additional $100 billion for vaccine companies by the year 2025.

Vaccines for allergies, autoimmune disease and even cancer are all making their way through the development pipeline, where they could one day end up on the “mandatory” vaccine schedule that children are required to receive, unless they opt for an exemption, before being allowed to attend school. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., warns parents about this in a new paper entitled Children at Risk — Vaccines, Government & Big Pharma’s Dirty Money.

It’s all about making money and serving special interests, Kennedy says about the vaccine agenda. And the CDC is in on the scam, as evidenced by at least four federal studies that paint the CDC as “a cesspool of corruption, mismanagement and dysfunction with alarming conflicts of interest suborning its research, regulatory and policymaking functions.”

Kennedy also warns of Judas goats like Paul Offit from Philadelphia Children’s Hospital, who sneak their way onto CDC vaccine advisory boards in order to push their own vaccines, or the vaccines of their employers. In Offit’s case, this pediatric charlatan recommended that his own vaccine for rotavirus be added to the CDC vaccination schedule, which later earned him $182 million in profits after he sold the patent for his rotavirus vaccine to Merck & Co.

It’s a revolving door between industry and government, in other words, and it’s having devastating consequences on our children. Autism rates are already higher than they’ve ever been, with one in 68 children now diagnosed somewhere along the autism spectrum, according to the CDC. Chronic disease rates are also skyrocketing, which many attribute to the injection of neurodamaging toxins like mercury and aluminum, as added to many childhood vaccines. Natural News’s Health Ranger Mike Adams broke the story last year about mercury still being used in vaccines as a preservative.

“In a typical example, Offit in 1999 sat on the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee and voted to add the rotavirus vaccine to CDC’s schedule, paving the way for him to make a fortune on his own rotavirus vaccine,” writes Kennedy. “Offit told Newsweek, ‘It was like winning the lottery!'”

Depending on which source you look at, there could be as many as 395 new vaccines in the development pipeline, VacTruth.com reports. A 2010 News Medical article explains that vaccine industry scientists are busy testing all sorts of experimental vaccines on poor folks living in the Third World, with groups like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation leading this vaccine crusade.

This exploitation of largely children living in developing countries has been taking place since at least the 1970s, with the least among us serving as human guinea pigs in a global vaccine experiment that embodies the very definition of humans rights abuse. And in America, many of these same vaccines are being administered to children, with no legal recourse at their disposal should they be harmed by these chemical cocktails.

“Vaccine industry money has neutralized virtually all of the checks and balances that once stood between a rapacious pharmaceutical industry and our children,” Kennedy adds, noting that vaccine industry immunity from lawsuits means there’s no such thing as a safe vaccine.

Find out the truth about vaccines at Vaccines.News

You can also read more about vaccine fanaticism here.

Cancer-causing PCB chemicals found contaminating food supplies


Big Pharma and the chemical companies produce harmful chemicals all the time.  Then they try to deny their toxicity and other harmful health effects.  The story about PCB chemicals is one of these.  The corporations have a directive to make money, and no other considerations are more important to them.  The health effects on people is not important to them. Unfortunately, these PCB chemicals have found their way into the food supply and are now in all of our bodies.  The massive proliferation of man-made chemicals in our environment is probably another factor in the rising rates of cancer.


(NaturalNews) Decades after being banned, cancer-causing PCBs continue to contaminate our food and our bodies, according to a study conducted by Spanish and Danish researchers and published in the journal Science of the Total Environment.

The researchers found, specifically, that the chemical PCB-153 was found in the body fat of both men and women, and that higher levels increased the risk of cancer in men.

PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) are synthetic chemicals that were once widely used in pesticides and plastics, as well as industrial equipment ranging from electric transformers, hydraulic systems, industrial condensers and sealing agents. Their manufacture was discontinued after evidence emerged that they cause serious damage to human and environmental health.

Unfortunately, PCBs are incredibly resistant to destruction, meaning that most of the PCBs ever produced still exist today. This, along with their tendency to accumulate in living tissue (particularly fat), classifies them as persistent organic pollutants. They damage the human immune, nervous and reproductive systems, along with mimicking and disrupting the action of hormones in the body and causing cancer.

The new study was conducted by researchers from the University of Granada, the University of Granada Hospital, the Andalusian School of Public Health, CIBER in Epidemiology and Public Health, the Granada Cancer Register and Denmark’s Bispebjerd University Hospital. The researchers analyzed the PCB-153 levels in the body fat of 368 adults, then followed them for nine years. In that time, men with the highest PCB-153 levels were significantly more likely to develop cancer.

“Our preliminary findings suggest a potential relationship between the historical exposure to persistent organic pollutants and the risk of cancer in men,” the researchers wrote. They are planning to continue following the same participants, as cancer often takes years or even decades to develop.

According to the scientists, prior studies have suggested several mechanisms by which PCBs might cause cancer, including interactions with sex hormone receptors, free radical production or direct damage to DNA.

The researchers note that PCB levels in the bodies of the participants were significant even though the chemicals have been banned in Spain since the 1980s. Sources of exposure include not just the continuing use of obsolete equipment manufactured with PCBs, but also the chemicals’ persistence in the environment, especially the food supply.

“We believe that fat food is the main source of exposure to PCBs among the general population, and consequently high levels of PCBs could be, in part, the result of a fat-rich diet,” principal investigator Juan Pedro Arrebola said.

Because pollutants tend to accumulate in the ocean, a major source of PCB exposure is fatty seafood such as tuna, swordfish or farmed (but not wild) salmon.

Recent research has shown that in addition to directly disrupting bodily systems, PCBs can actually cause changes in gene expression that can be passed down to future generations (“epigenetic changes”). Indeed, researchers have found that PCBs and other persistent organic pollutants, such as DDT or certain pesticides, can actually cause health effects down to six generations.

For example, a 2014 study conducted by researchers from Washington State University and published in the journal PLOS ONE found that when rats were exposed to the pesticide methoxychlor, the risk of ovarian cancer, obesity and kidney disease increased in four successive generations of their offspring, even though the descendents themselves were never exposed to the chemical. Shockingly, the risk was actually higher in each generation than it had been in the last.

Although methoxychlor was banned in the United States in 2003, it has also been revealed to be a persistent organic pollutant and may persist in the environment for decades or even centuries.

Cannabis Safety for Chronic Pain


Although this study was performed on non-cancer patients using cannabis for chronic pain, there are also some anecdotal reports of cancer patients using cannabis to combat chemotherapy and radiation side effects like nausea, vomiting and cachexia.  There are opinions that are for and against the use of medical marijuana.  It would seem fair to allow people to take whatever they want to get relief.  Since when do others have the right to tell you what you can and cannot put into your body?  Do they own you?


According to the American Academy of Pain Medicine, 1.5 billion people worldwide suffer from chronic pain. Medical cannabis has shown promising potential as a daily treatment for managing chronic pain. A new study published online in The Journal of Pain testifies that medical cannabis, when monitored carefully and given daily, is overall safe and doesn’t increase the risk of serious adverse events.

The study, conducted by a Canadian research team from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre (RI-MUHC), is the first to examine medical cannabis safety when taken long term for pain management. Researchers followed 431 patients participating in a nationwide study launched in 2004: Cannabis for the Management of Pain: Assessment of Safety Study (COMPASS). The study incorporated seven expert pain management centers across Canada.

The treatment group consisted of 215 adults who used medical cannabis daily to manage their non-cancer chronic pain, at an average of 2.5 grams a day either smoked, vaporized, or eaten. Patients received herbal cannabis with 12.5% THC from a licensed cannabis producer and dispensed by their hospital pharmacy once a month after a required visit and tests. Doctors measured for side effects with lung function and cognitive tests, and patients were asked about their pain levels, moods, and quality of life every month for a year. Many patients also underwent complete panels of blood tests that checked routine biochemistry, liver and kidney function, and selected hormone levels.

Results were compared to those of the control group, which was made up of 216 chronic pain sufferers who did not use medical cannabis to manage their pain. Patients who smoked medical cannabis daily exhibited no greater risk of experiencing serious adverse side effects than non-cannabis users. Tests also showed no deleterious effects on brain function. There was, however, a notable lessening in pain severity and symptom distress, and an overall improvement in quality of life compared to patients in the control group.

But, and depending on the patient this could be a big but: daily use of medical cannabis did increase the risk of non-serious side effects, including headaches, nausea, sleepiness, dizziness, and respiratory problems linked to smoking.

It’s also important to stress that cannabis use was carefully monitored, and that the patients for the most part were experienced users. Lead researcher Dr. Mark Ware explains, “What we are seeing is that it appears to be a relatively safe drug when used by people who have already determined that it helps them. We cannot draw conclusions about safety issues of new cannabis users.”

Marijuana extract doesn’t reduce postoperative nausea, vomiting


Notice here that researchers used a marijuana extract.  Now most of the anecdotal reports on successful use of marijuana to combat cancer patient nausea and vomiting were from people that were using marijuana, not a marijuana extract!  It appears that the researchers were working according to Big Pharma rules, which means that they have to extract something from the whole marijuana plant because they can only make money off of the extract and not the entire plant.

If the whole plant is what gets the results, why not use it instead of trying to figure out which chemical component of the plant works?  Isn’t it just easier to just use what works and not try to ‘reinvent the wheel’?  It does if the goal is to find a great treatment, but it doesn’t if the goal is to make money off of the plant.  This scenario is repeated over and over again.  Profit is job number one, and all other considerations are strictly secondary, at best.

In fact, this study would appear to say that marijuana doesn’t work for post-op nausea and vomiting.  Marijuana is said to work to help cancer patients who undergo radiation therapy and chemotherapy reduce their side effects.  Maybe these studies should be ran on people using whole marijuana plants.  Remember that the marijuana plant is said to contain over 400 chemicals.  Maybe it’s the combination of chemicals that have a synergistic effect.  But it looks like they’re hellbent on trying to identify, isolate and extract the chemicals that create the beneficial effects, no matter how long it may take.


The marijuana extract tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) isn’t effective in preventing nausea and vomiting after surgery in patients at high risk of this common complication, reports a study in Anesthesia & Analgesia.

Intravenous THC had a “negligible” effect on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), as well as “unpredictable psychotropic and sedative side effects,” according to the clinical trial by Dr. Lorenz G. Theiler and colleagues of University of Bern, Switzerland. At a time of growing interest in the uses of medical marijuana, the results suggest that marijuana compounds (cannabinoids) aren’t a good option to prevent PONV.

No Benefit of Medical Marijuana for PONV

The study included patients undergoing surgical procedures (gynecological or breast surgery) associated with a high risk of PONV. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a “relatively high” dose of intravenous THC or an inactive placebo. Both treatments were given toward the end of surgery, before emergence from general anesthesia.

Rates of PONV were compared between groups. The original study design called for enrollment of about 300 patients, to detect a “clinically significant” 25 percent relative reduction in PONV — the estimated effect of current medications to prevent nausea and vomiting (antiemetics).

However, the trial was halted after the first 40 patients because of “clinically unacceptable” side effects of THC, as well as questionable effects on PONV. In both the THC and placebo groups, about 60 to 70 percent of patients experienced PONV during the first 24 hours after emerging from anesthesia.

The relative risk reduction with THC was just 12 percent — well under the clinically significant cutoff point. The effect was even weaker after adjustment for differences in anesthesia time.

Meanwhile, there were major problems with side effects. Patients receiving THC took longer to emerge from anesthesia, were more sedated after emergence, and tended to remain in the recovery room longer. The THC group needed less pain medication for the first few hours, possibly because of their increased sedation.

Mental or mood (psychotropic) side effects were “unpredictable in both quantity and quality” in the THC group. “Patients’ satisfaction varied enormously from ‘best anesthesia ever’ to ‘worst experience of my life,'” the researchers add.

Nausea and vomiting after surgery is a common problem that can lead to serious complications. Current antiemetic drugs can reduce but not eliminate PONV. Past reports have suggested that marijuana compounds (cannabinoids) may prevent nausea and vomiting during cancer chemotherapy.

Marijuana extracts have also been suggested for prevention of PONV, but the evidence is “very limited and inconclusive.” Most previous studies have used synthetic oral cannabinoids, with conflicting results.

Dr. Theiler and colleagues conclude, “Due to an unacceptable side effect profile and uncertain antiemetic effects, intravenous THC administered at the end of surgery prior to emergence from anesthesia cannot be recommended for the prevention of PONV in high-risk patients.” The researchers note several limitations of their study, including questions about the best dose and timing of THC administration.

Artemisinin – A Cancer Smart Bomb


This is another promising alternative cancer treatment.  It has been out for a while, but I’m not sure why people haven’t moved on it.  But I’m not surprised that the FDA or ACS or any other Big Pharma company has moved on it.  It must work because they’re not talking about it.  But with this study being done on it in Canada, maybe it will actually be reported on. But I wouldn’t hold my breath on that, especially if it actually works.


Now there is a natural herbal “Cancer Smart Bomb” that has been discovered, called Artemisinin. Life Sciences, Cancer Letters and Anticancer Drugs have published research on Artemesinin, which is a derivative of the wormwood plant commonly used in Chinese medicine. The research confirms that Artemisinin can kill off cancer cells, and do it at a rate of 12,000 cancer cells for every healthy cell. 1

Despite the favorable results in treating cancer with this all natural herb, there are still only two approved treatments for cancer, which are radiation and chemotherapy. However, there may come a time when the medical community will be forced to open up to new options such as Artemisinin therapy, when it comes to cancer treatment.

Especially in view of the fact that scientists have discovered that chemotherapy fuels cancer growth and kills the patient more quickly.

Henry Lai and his team of researchers from the University of Washington synthesized the compound, which uses a cancer cells appetite for iron to make them the target. The great thing about Artemisinin is that alone it can selectively kill cancer cells while leaving normal cells unharmed.

By itself, artemisinin is about 100 times more selective in killing cancer cells as opposed to normal cells. Artemisinin is 34,000 times more potent in killing the cancer cells as opposed to their normal cousins. So the tagging process appears to have greatly increased the potency of artemisinin’s cancer-killing properties.” – Henry Lai

So even though the Artemesinin compound is licensed to Holley Pharmaceuticals, it has yet to be used for cancer treatment in humans.

We call it a Trojan horse because the cancer cell recognizes transferrin as a natural, harmless protein. So the cell picks up the compound without knowing that a bomb (Artemisinin) is hidden inside.” – Henry Lai

Artemisia (a wormwood extract) was used many centuries ago in China for healing purposes. Fortunately, even though the treatment became lost over time, it has now been rediscovered thanks to an ancient manuscript containing medical remedies. As it kills 12,000 cancer cells for every healthy cell, this means it could be turned into a drug with minimal side-effects.

Artemisinin is currently FDA approved for the treatment of malaria, it’s very safe and easy to use. It’s inexpensive and works on all cancers, but has yet to find its way into the mainstream. It’s really time to move beyond just radiation, surgery and chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer.

How Does Artemisinin Destroy Tumors?

Some seven years ago, Dr. Lai, aware of the high accumulation of iron in cancer cells and his colleague, Dr. Singh, conducted experiments in laboratory documenting a 100% kill rate of breast-cancer cells in just hours. More importantly, it left normal breast cells and white blood cells unscathed. It has an intermediate half-life, is very safe, and also can cross the blood-brain barrier, which is very important in treating Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), the most common and most aggressive malignant primary brain tumor.

Cancer cells have an unusual high-level of iron and in order to reproduce, cancer cells need more iron than normal healthy cells. Artemisinin works well in an iron rich environment. Artemisinin works by releasing an avalanche of free radicals when exposed to an oxidizing agent like iron. The free radicals attack and kill iron-rich cells.

Since cancer cells tend to contain much more iron than normal cells do, they are particularly attractive to Artemisinin. When exposed to cancer cells Artemisinin gets activated and sends out free radicals that attack those cells, destroying the cancer in the process. When the artemisinin products contact the iron – boom! A huge burst of free radicals is unleashed, virtually blowing up the cell harboring the free iron and destroying the malaria parasite and cancer virus.

Dr. Singh is currently following many cancer patients. While not reporting remissions or apparent cures, he says all patients are responding and have at least stabilized. He has found no type of cancer unresponsive to Artemisia derivatives in his studies.

Dr. Hoang recommends treatment for two years. Cancer could be like the malaria parasite. If just one cell remains, it can find its way back. Thus, as in malaria, although the parasite is cleared in a few days, prolonged treatment best prevents relapse. And, the beauty of this treatment is that it is non-toxic, so you can continue taking it indefinitely with no expected sided-effects.

The mechanism works something like this: Cancer cells use iron to grow, so they tend to hoard it (malaria parasites do this as well). Cancer cells have been known to store up to a thousand times as much iron as normal cells. When Artemisia plant extracts come into contact with iron, their two joined oxygen atoms separate. This chemical reaction leads to free radicals, which are essentially charged atoms that attack cells. It’s like Artemisinin contains a tripwire that cancer cells trigger, leading to their death.

Therefore, if a person has cancer it is highly recommended to first get a basic iron level (ferritin) test to make sure your iron levels are normal. A ferritin test is often done with other tests to check the amount of iron in the blood. If you are iron deficient take ½ cup (125ml) of liquid chlorophyll for 1 week and then start on the artemesia therapy.

Artemisinin – put 6 drops 2 times a day and hold for 30 seconds. Best to take at the same time as you consume the Flaxseed Oil and Cottage cheese mixture. Take for 4 days and then 3 days rest. Artemisia works when the iron levels are normal. We recommend a blood test for iron or the VEGA iron test.

Product Concerns

Due to the increasing popularity of this product, the consumer should exercise extreme caution and buy only from the most reputable supplier. Not all Artemisinin supplements are ‘created equal’ and therefore only the ones that have been tested and approved will give the proper results. We have tested several formulas in capsule and liquid form. We are now able to offer the most potent mixture, but not too strong to cause intolerance.

Only genuine and pure artemisinin should be used, and only buy from sources you are familiar with. There is tremendous variation in the potency of the herb warns Dr. Lai.

Since the herb comes from China and South-east Asia, proper quality assurance on purity and standardization is of tremendous importance. High-grade Artemisinin must always be confirmed by independent laboratory analysis on a batch by batch basis to ensure consistence and purity. Not all Artemesia Herbs work.

Please note that many Artemesia herb products are not the same as the concentrated forms of the derivatives we are talking about in this report. The highest concentration of artemisinin (the active agent) in the raw herb under the best conditions does not even get beyond one half percent.

Furthermore, there’s concern by Dr. Singh that unscrupulous dealers will label Artemisinin content without performing a proper analysis. Apparently some products have only 10 to 20% of anticancer activity against cultured cancer cells compared to pure Artemisinin.

Although Artemesia is offering very promising results, remember there is no ‘silver bullet’ that will miraculously cure cancer. Always a ‘comprehensive and holistic approach‘ is needed such as the Dr. Budwig Flaxseed oil and cottage cheese/Quark, Detoxification (herbal formulas, coffee enemas, saunas, Rebounding), PH Acid/Alkaline Balancing, Essential oils to enhance the vibration of the cells and immune system, selected supplements based on a full body VEGA (Bio Resonance) test, proper diet, exercise, rest and emotional healing as in EFT (Tapping). When all these incredible therapies and remedies are used together it creates a synergistic power house in stopping cancer in its tracks and destroying tumors in the shortest time possible!