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.

Turmeric: The Spice of Life


Turmeric is another one of those herbs that has powerful healing properties. It is known to be a powerful antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, as well as other properties. It’s something that you need to strongly consider adding to your supplement regimen. There are even claims that it has activity in fighting cancer. It may sound farfetched that a plant can treat or cure diseases, but you should understand that plants contain some of the most complex molecules in  nature. If plants are so worthless, then why do many Big Pharma companies send armies of researchers to find plants that they can study to try to find some that contain powerful new bio-active molecules they can isolate and then synthesize and patent to make huge profits from?

Incredible Anti-Inflammatory Advantages of Turmeric

In terms of the nutritional profile for daily recommended values (DRV), turmeric provides 26 percent of what’s needed in manganese and 16 percent in iron, along with excellent amounts of fiber, vitamin B6, potassium, vitamin C and magnesium. All of them provide benefits for better health.

Scientists believe inflammation is involved in nearly every chronic disease, including cancer, obesity and metabolic syndrome, heart disease and accompanying atherosclerosis (hardening and narrowing of the arteries), degenerative disorders and Alzheimer’s.

One component in turmeric, curcumin, has been proven so effective as an anti-inflammatory that it’s compared to prescription medications, without the toxic side effects such as ulcer formation, internal bleeding and a lowered white blood cell count.

Perhaps most importantly, curcumin battles inflammation at the molecular level, as it does other disorders. NF- κ B is a molecule that passes into a cell’s nuclei, where it can “switch on” the genes related to inflammation in a number of serious diseases, but curcumin is able to prevent the transfer.

Further, research suggests turmeric (sometimes simply referred to in studies as curcumin) may be helpful in treating inflammatory bowel diseases, joint pain relief, rheumatoid arthritis, reduced joint swelling, and greater range of motion when ingested regularly.

Besides lowering your cholesterol, turmeric is shown to be heart-protective while relieving indigestion and improving liver function.

Curcumin’s Effectiveness on Harmful Free Radicals

It’s hard to say just how much damage free radicals do to individuals in today’s atmosphere with all the pollution, chemicals in the air, water and food, not to mention stress and other factors.

Free radicals age you and can cause disease, but the curcumin in turmeric is active against disease in several ways.

Besides the inflammation fighting, antioxidants in turmeric neutralize free radicals throughout your body (including your brain, kidney, liver and heart) by its chemical structure. According to Oregon State University’s Linus Pauling Institute:

“Curcumin taken orally may reach sufficient concentrations in the gastrointestinal tract and protect the intestinal mucosa against oxidativeDNA damage.

In addition to a potentially direct antioxidant activity, curcumin can induce the expression of phase II antioxidant enzymes, including glutamate-cysteine ligase (GCL), the rate-limiting enzyme in glutathionesynthesis.

Glutathione is an important intracellular antioxidant that plays a critical role in cellular adaptation to stress. Curcumin was found to upregulate the expression of GCL through the activation of different signaling pathways (and) increases the expression of GCL and other detoxifying enzymes.”13

Turmeric May Prevent, Suppress and Kill Cancer Cells

Curcumin C3 Complex with Bioperine 30 capsulesCancer is negatively affected by curcumin, as numerous studies have demonstrated. One study (among many) showed that it may inhibit the development as well as the spread of cancer at the molecular level.

There’s also evidence that curcumin intake may prevent cancer, particularly of the digestive system, such as colorectal cancer. Large numbers of studies indicate that curcumin has the ability to:

  • Reduce the growth of new blood vessels in tumors (angiogenesis)
  • Decrease the spread of cancer (metastasis)Similar effects of curcumin on colon cancer have been seen both in the lab and in test animals. Research also showed that when 44 men with lesions in the colon, which can turn cancerous, were given 4 grams of curcumin a day for 30 days, they came away with a 40 percent reduction in the number of lesions.

    Things to Remember Regarding Curcumin

    While curcumin is the most active ingredient in turmeric, there’s only about 3 percent concentration in turmeric per weight. Authority Nutrition reported:

    “Most of the studies on this herb are using turmeric extracts that contain mostly curcumin itself, with dosages usually exceeding 1 gram per day. It would be very difficult to reach these levels just using the turmeric spice in your foods. Therefore, if you want to experience the full effects, then you need to take an extract that contains significant amounts of curcumin.”

    Another thing to remember about turmeric is that it doesn’t absorb very well into your bloodstream, but there’s a remedy for that, too; black pepper, which contains a natural element called piperine, is able to increase absorption of curcumin by 2,000 percent! Although turmeric is considered generally safe to eat, adverse effects of turmeric may include gastric problems, nausea, diarrhea, skin reactions, and interference with your body’s ability to form blood clots.

The Science Delusion


I had a Twitter discussion with someone about cancer treatments.  I made a comment about a particular article that this person referenced with regards to quack cancer treatments. Now I’m not going to deconstruct this entire article right here, as you can find most of my writings about various problems with this article in other posts I have made on this site, some of which are What is Science and How Does It Relate to Cancer? ; Useful Idiots in Medicine and Cancer ResearchFlaws in Current Cancer Drug Discovery MethodsMedical Slavery-Paying Big Pharma for No Cures;  The Cancer Industry Owns the Media and Your Mind,  and Crapitalism Meets Big Pharma Cancer Treatments. There are others, but this is just a taste.

In my search to bring more expansive views to science, philosophy and other related disciplines (even though philosophy is the foundational science), I came across this TED Talk featuring Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, PhD speaking on a topic he calls “The Science Delusion”.  Oftentimes, most seem to get confused as to what science really is. I have covered this in an above article, but no matter how much it is covered, many people get utterly confused about it.  Dr Sheldrake references this confusion and questions whether what we call science today is truly a process that is used to minimize and identify bias in experimental investigations, or whether it is just dogma and a predetermined belief system that more closely resemble religion that is fraught with bias and unidentified assumptions.

The difference between these 2 systems is that one is expansive, answers questions, solves problems, and leads to progress in society.  The other one compounds problems, doesn’t solve problems, and leads to stagnation and the proliferation of problems in society. Science honestly pursued would lead to the solving of problems and the exponential growth of improvements in society because the more you progress in one discipline, it would lead to analogous progress in other areas due to a synergistic effect.  Likewise for a dogmatic, predetermined belief system such as the one that led to the Dark Ages in Europe. A closed belief system with logical fallacies and untrue assumptions leads us to ‘unsolvable’ problems (i.e., the National Debt, crime, drugs, the elusive cure for cancers and other chronic diseases, war, terrorism, etc.) instead of solving them. In fact, the system will actually come to support and generate problems because they protect and perpetuate the status quo!

Dr Sheldrake also speaks on what he terms the 10 Dogmas of Science that he has found are the biggest underlying assumptions that form the foundation of what is commonly called ‘modern science’.  In this video (only 18 minutes long), he identifies these assumptions. His conclusion is that NONE of these 10 dogmas are true or can stand up to rigorous analysis. He predicts that this philosophical materialism view will eventually be abandoned and that this will lead to  a scientific revolution.

The 10 Dogmas of Science are:

  1. Nature is mechanical
  2. Matter is unconscious
  3. The Laws of Nature are fixed
  4. The total amount of matter & energy is fixed
  5. Nature is purposeless
  6. Biological heredity is material (i.e., all in your DNA)
  7. Memories are stored in your brain as material traces
  8. Your mind is inside your head
  9. Psychic phenomena are impossible
  10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

Dr. Sheldrake didn’t have enough time to analyze all of these assumptions in this short video, but he does in his book.  This is very revolutionary information to people who just blindly yell about what is scientific and what isn’t. This has direct application to cancer research and their relation to ‘alternative’ cancer treatments, as well as other things. This will hopefully get you to think more expansively about things before we start putting labels on what is scientific and what isn’t because a lot of things that are being called science are closer to the opposite of science.

Get Your Free Report here-10 Things Every Cancer Patient Should Know


How a High-Fat Diet Helps Starve Cancer


I’ve talked about Dr. Otto Warburg before. He was a phenomenal researcher who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology. He was the one who discovered that cancer cells function anaerobically, on glucose metabolism instead of oxygen metabolism. I think that this is information that every cancer patient should be aware of. Most oncologists and researchers act as if this information doesn’t exist. They don’t use any of this information to their advantage in any cancer treatments.

Now there are some alternative cancer treatments that take advantage of the cancer cell’s anaerobic metabolism, and its proclivity to preferentially use much more glucose than normal cells. As mentioned in the article, most contemporary cancer research and theory totally ignores Dr. Warburg’s contributions to the body of knowledge about cancer cells. This is another bit of evidence that shows that there is a disdain for any research or information that contradicts the ideas and theories that have already been mainstreamed.  And we wonder why they can’t cure cancer. This is a demonstration of how dogma and politics trump the truth about cancer.

Get your free report-“10 Things Every Cancer Patient Should Know”

In 1931, Dr. Otto Warburg won the Nobel Prize Physiology or Medicine for his discovery that cancer cells have a fundamentally different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells.

Most experts consider him to be the greatest biochemist of the 20th century. His lab staff also included Hans Krebs, Ph. D., after whom the Krebs cycle1 was named.

The Krebs cycle refers to the oxidative reduction pathways that occur in the mitochondria. So just how does the metabolic inflexibility of cancer cells differ from healthy cells?

A cell can produce energy in two ways: aerobically, in the mitochondria, or anaerobically, in the cytoplasm, the latter of which generates lactic acid — a toxic byproduct. Warburg discovered that in the presence of oxygen, cancer cells overproduce lactic acid. This is known as The Warburg Effect.

Mitochondrial energy production is far more efficient, capable of generating 32 times more energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) than anaerobic energy generation.

Warburg concluded that the prime cause of cancer was the reversion of energy production from aerobic energy generation to a more primitive form of energy production, anaerobic fermentation.

To reverse cancer, he believed you had to disrupt the energy production cycle that is feeding the tumor, and that by reverting back to aerobic energy metabolism you could effectively “starve” it into remission.

Although he was never able to conclusively prove it, he maintained this view until his death in 1970. One of his goals in life was to discover the cure for cancer. Sadly, as so typically happens in science, his theories were never accepted by conventional science despite his academic pedigree — until now.

The New York Times2 recently published a long, detailed article about the history of modern cancer research, including Warburg’s theories on cancer, which are now becoming more widely accepted.

Sugar Feeds Cancer

Another simpler way of explaining Warburg’s discovery is that cancer cells are primarily fueled by the burning of sugar anaerobically. Without sugar, most cancer cells simply lack the metabolic flexibility to survive. As noted in the New York Times (NYT) featured article:

“[T]he Warburg effect is estimated to occur in up to 80 percent of cancers. [A] positron emission tomography (PET) scan, which has emerged as an important tool in the staging and diagnosis of cancer works simply by revealing the places in the body where cells are consuming extra glucose.

In many cases, the more glucose a tumor consumes, the worse a patient’s prognosis.”

Unfortunately, Warburg’s theories quickly vanished into obscurity once scientists turned their attention toward genetics. Molecular biologists James Watson, Ph. D., and Francis Crick, Ph. D., discovered DNA in 1953 and from that point on, cancer research began to primarily focus on genetics.

The gene hypothesis gained even more momentum once Dr. Harold Varmus and Dr. Michael Bishop won the Nobel Prize in 1976 for finding viral oncogenes within the DNA of cancer cells.

At that point, the attention fell squarely on genetic mutations, and the theory that cancer cells are simply distorted versions of normal cells began to take hold.

The Warburg Revival

It would take another 30 years before the next major revision to the reigning cancer hypothesis. In 2006, the Cancer Genome Atlas project, designed to identify all the mutations thought to be causative for cancer, came to an astonishing conclusion — the genetic mutations are actually far more random than previously suspected.

In fact, they’re so random it’s virtually impossible to pin down the genetic origin of cancer. Some cancerous tumors even have NO mutations at all. Rather than offering the conclusive evidence needed to put an end to cancer, the Cancer Genome Atlas project revealed something was clearly missing from the equation.

With time, researchers began pondering whether cancer development might in fact hinge on Warburg’s theory on energy metabolism. In recent years, scientists have come to realize that it’s not the genetic defects that cause cancer.

Rather mitochondrial damage happens first, which then triggers nuclear genetic mutations. As noted by The New York Times:

“There are typically many mutations in a single cancer. But there are a limited number of ways that the body can produce energy and support rapid growth. Cancer cells rely on these fuels in a way that healthy cells don’t.

The hope of scientists at the forefront of the Warburg revival is that they will be able to slow — or even stop — tumors by disrupting one or more of the many chemical reactions a cell uses to proliferate, and, in the process, starve cancer cells of the nutrients they desperately need to grow.

Even James Watson, Ph.D. one of the fathers of molecular biology, is convinced that targeting metabolism is a more promising avenue in current cancer research than gene-centered approaches …

‘I never thought … I’d ever have to learn the Krebs cycle,’ he said, referring to the reactions … by which a cell powers itself. ‘Now I realize I have to.'”

Optimizing Mitochondrial Function Is Key for Cancer Prevention and Treatment

We’re now starting to realize that mitochondrial dysfunction is at the core of virtually all diseases — cancer especially — and your lifestyle has everything to do with this situation. Hence strategies that support and optimize mitochondrial function, such as nutritional ketosis (achieved by a high-fat, low-net carb diet), intermittent fasting and high-intensity exercise are all part of the solution.

One of the basic reasons why a high-fat, low-net carb diet works so well is because it drives your inflammation down to almost nothing. And when inflammation disappears, your body can heal. It will also take the proverbial foot off the gas pedal of aging. Sadly, my guess is that over 99 percent of the population is not receiving the benefits of this approach simply because they either haven’t heard of it or don’t understand it.

It’s not just stem cell research that’s overhyped— medical science spin is a widespread problem


Just as how every week we hear about another revolutionary, groundbreaking discovery in cancer research, this article below says that the problem is widespread in all medical research.  It’s gotten so bad that medical committees are actually admonishing scientists for hyping up their mundane research results. Every minor item is inflated into a Nobel Prize-worthy breakthrough. It’s really bad if research overseers and administrators are taking note.

In addition to inflating claims for what researched treatments can do, researchers are also minimizing the coverage on negative results from tests and studies. It’s like everybody wants to be a top researcher even if their results are mundane, or even negative. Everything is being spun into a big deal. And scientists have been known to alter hypotheses to better fit theories and models, after the experiments have been done.

One thing they don’t cover in this article is the Big Pharma focus on the ‘drugs’ that can treat disease. There is no research being done on anything outside of a drug that can be patented. And much of the ‘research’ that is done on natural compounds is just to identify the most active ingredient so they can isolate it, patent it and then turn it into a profitable drug. No consideration that ‘the whole plant may be greater than the sum of its parts’ because they must profit off of it.  This is just a shortcoming of the business of drugs. If it’s bad for profits, it’s going to be suppressed even though it may be good for people. And that’s the big problem with Big Pharma and the ‘profits are the number one priority’ paradigm. The very business model dictates that they can’t look for, find, or allow anyone else to massively publicize any cheap, readily available, effective treatment or cure for any disease that’s profitable to treat endlessly.

Free Report-10 Things Every Cancer Patient Should Know

Would you read a story if this was the headline: “New study raises questions about an experimental treatment that might not work and won’t be ready for a long time.”

That description would apply to most medical studies that make the news but would be unlikely to generate the clicks, taps, likes and shares that propel a story through cyberspace and social media.

What gets clicks? Words like “breakthrough,” “groundbreaking,” “game changer” and “lifesaver.” And that’s how much of medical news is described.

In one week last June, researchers counted 36 different cancer drugs being described using those superlatives.

But when they took a closer look at the actual drugs, half were not yet approved as safe and effective, and some hadn’t even been tried on humans.

PR machine feeds the hype

So, who’s hyping the science? Everybody, it turns out.

Seeds of hype have been found in many of the press releases sent out by universities and research organizations.

And there’s evidence of that hype being routinely amplified by reporters, scientists and scientific journals.

This hyper-optimism has been measured by examining the words scientists use when they write their research papers. Since the 1970s, the use of positive words in scientific abstracts increased by 880 per cent, according to a study last December in the British Medical Journal.

And now, the world’s stem cell scientists have been told to stop the hype.

The International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) issued new guidelines last week that urge scientists to dial back their enthusiasm when talking publicly about their research.

The ISSCR represents more than 4,000 scientists in 60 countries, all investigating the promise of stem cells, which have the potential to develop into any tissue in the body.

In their updated guidelines on the research and development of stem cell therapies, they’ve created a special section about communication that advises researchers to stop exaggerating, oversimplifying and overpromising how soon patients will benefit from their research.

Because people are getting hurt.

Last December, the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. issued a warning letter to a U.S.-based company offering stem cell therapies for a range of diseases, including autism, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease. And a U.K. newspaper claims its undercover investigation lead to the closure of a controversial clinic in Germany where a child died after having stem cells injected into his brain.

“We recognize that there is essentially an industry already out there that is marketing unproven therapies directly to patients,” said George Daley, a member of the ISSCR and a professor at Harvard Medical School.

“It is part of the concern that has raised the alarm and part of the impetus behind having these guidelines.”
Read The 5th Wave, now a major motion picture! Only $5.99 in hardcover!

Downplaying negative findings

To help the public better understand the uncertainties and risks inherent in stem cell science, the ISSCR is calling on its scientists to do a better job of managing expectations.

The guidelines warn that some study findings are being “spun” by scientists who “change the goalposts” when their findings fall short, downplaying their original research targets when they don’t achieve statistical significance and highlighting secondary outcomes that do meet the statistical threshold.

Another problem? Overly optimistic predictions that stem cell treatments are just around the corner.

One recent study showed that when media report timelines, they usually predict a drug will be ready for patients within five to 10 years, or even sooner.

The reality is much less optimistic, because, in the end, many of those promising treatments fail.
Click now to save!!

“We may be afraid to break the bad news that many studies do not result in statistically significant or clinically meaningful effects,” the BMJ authors wrote.

That can lead to the “file drawer” effect, where negative results end up being tossed aside and never published, even though it can be just as important to know what doesn’t work.

And there’s evidence that a publication bias has emerged that is distorting the scientific record because only the positive results are ending up in print.

Publish all results — not just the positive

That has prompted a campaign to liberate the lost data, with scientists demanding that all clinical trials be published and all data be made available.

In the new guidelines, the ISSCR advises its researchers to promptly publish “results regardless of whether they are positive, negative or inconclusive.”

And if the results look promising, the guidelines warn, scientists should keep any predictions about future benefits accurate, circumspect and restrained.

“No doubt, the path forward will be fraught with setbacks, and not all of the clinical trials will work,” said ISSCR president Sean Morrison.

But the scientists are not discouraged by the realities of their world.

The Cancer Pink Ribbon Marketing Scam


We’re literally ‘pink bombed’ and ‘pinkwashed’ by all of these different cancer organizations. One that most people can readily identify is the Susan G. Komen Foundation, but there are plenty others like the American Cancer Society, the Lung Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and so on, ad infinitum.  So what are we really getting for our donations?

Most of these organizations have been begging for money for decades. And how much closer to a cure are we really?  In fact, many doctors and related professionals say that it is impossible to cure cancer. Now some people will nit-pick and say that since there are a lot of different cancers, it’s unrealistic to expect that there will be one single cure for all of them. In a way that’s correct, but in another way it isn’t.  This is because although cancer may strike in different places, most of the etiology is similar. It appears to me that most of the complexity surrounds the cancer issue is due to an incomplete, faulty understanding of what cancer is and how it works. This is evident from the mainstream cancer treatment approaches that do not result in a cure.  If they really understood cancer, they would already have cured it, every single type of cancer!  The very fact that they have not cured it means that they either don’t understand it, or they are purposefully hiding or concealing a cure if they have one.

The most disturbing part of this scenario is that most mainstream oncologists and the major medical institutions are not the least bit interested in any approach or theories outside of their status quo treatments and theories, even though they have failed for many decades. Chemotherapy, radiation and surgery are always found to be the best, most effective, most rational , most scientifically proven cancer therapies. They expend huge amounts of energy to insure that these 3 treatments always come on top. It’s a very unscientific way to conduct oncology, unless the priority is to protect conventional oncology from any other treatment methods or theories. If you consider that, then their behavior makes perfect sense. In fact, a religious fervor would be necessary to protect inferior treatments and theories from being replaced with those that are more effective because a climate of fear, intimidation and dogma would be the only thing that could keep better treatments from being identified and used for cancer treatment.

Get Your Free Report “The Ten Things Every Cancer Patients Should Know”

If you are living in America, chances are you’re familiar with the little pink ribbons. They seem to be plastered on everything — from makeup and jewellery to gardening tools and even buckets of fried chicken. But at least they are for a good cause. If we see this symbol and purchase these products, that means we are supporting breast cancer research, right?

Well, surprise, surprise — that is exactly what you are meant to believe and an example of marketing at its finest. It is truly sad to realize how much power marketing and advertising campaigns have over us.
300x250 Goal Mastery

Considering that about 1 in 8 women will develop breast cancer in her lifetime, the Breast Cancer Foundation represents a noble cause that certainly deserves money for research and treatment. Unfortunately, their efforts only appear honourable on the surface; in reality, the multi-million dollar company behind those pink ribbons — the Susan G. Komen Foundation — puts less than a dime of each dollar toward actually finding a cure for breast cancer. And that’s just the beginning of the problem.

Where Does The Money Actually Go?

The Komen Foundation’s assets total over a staggering $390 million. According to Charity Navigator, the foundation reported a total revenue of nearly $312 million in the fiscal year ending in March 2010. In an article published on AlterNet, however, Emily Michele breaks down how this money was actually spent, showing that only 20.9% of the funds are actually going to breast cancer research, despite the heavily marketed “search for the cure” being their most publicized mission. So where else does the money raised go?

  • 13% for health screening
  • 5.6% for treatment
  • 10% for fundraising
  • 11.3% for administrative costs
  • 39.1 for public education

On the surface, these percentages seem reasonable, but there is more to these statistics than meets the eye. Take public education, for example: while it seems like an important component of the prevention and early detection of breast cancer, that isn’t necessarily what’s being taught. Michele writes:There are no mentions of eating healthy foods, getting proper levels of cancer-preventing Vitamin D, or cutting out sugar — the substance that feeds cancer cells — in any of its “public health education” efforts. Even though these are scientifically proven ways to prevent cancer. . . .One thing that doesn’t quite compute with me is how Komen’s mission of finding a “cure” — after all, that is its name — is congruent with putting over half its money toward promoting awareness and screening, for early detection of breast cancer. It’s not curing breast cancer to be aware that you could get it, nor is finding out that you have cancer and treating it in the early stages in hopes of entering into remission. That’s not a cure. Yet that is Komen’s largest promoted focus.The first thing that you see while visiting the Pink Ribbons website is the statement:

“The best protection is early detection.”

This statement is simply not true; the best protection would be to avoid getting breast cancer in the first place and to make healthy lifestyle choices.

Pink Ribbons Make Money, They Don’t Cure Cancer

It is horrifying that this corporation is preying on the emotions of men and women whose lives have been affected, either directly or indirectly, by breast cancer. When you consider how much this charity has raised, through donations from people who believe they are helping to support a cause and directly assist in finding a cure, it becomes downright sickening.

If you think about it, plastering pink ribbons everywhere is a brilliant way for the Komen Foundation to advertise for itself. As Michele explains:

The pink-ribbon-plastered “awareness” and”education” campaigns are often little more than a highly effective form of advertising — which in turn, brings in Komen’s millions. In other words, a way to raise funds for itself, while getting a pat on the back for its efforts to “save lives.”


The term pinkwashing has been coined to describe the deceptive trend of companies joining the fight against breast cancer even when their own products, which proudly display the pink ribbon symbol, have been known to be carcinogenic. These products include cosmetics, fragrances, alcohol, yogurt, deodorant, and many other personal care products. Talk about backwards. Yet this is the essence of the problem: so little effort is put toward researching and educating people about preventative measures that many are simply unaware of what things are carcinogenic in the first place.

Pink Ribbons Inc.

There is an excellent documentary on this topic called Pink Ribbons Inc. (available on Netflix) which is based on a 2007 book titled Pink Ribbons Inc: Breast Cancer and the Politics of Philanthropy, written by Queen’s University professor Samantha King. The film explains the difference between the reality of the disease and the high-profile public perception of it, delivering eye opening interviews from the chairman of the Susan G. Komen Foundation, Nancy Brinker, as well as women who have terminal breast cancer. It exposes the Run For The Cure fundraising event and brings up important points about the fear and suffering events such as these create. In an interview, one woman from a terminal cancer support group says, “The message is that if you just try really hard, you can beat it, while those who died, weren’t trying very hard.”

Alternative Cancer Treatments

Another issue with pretty much all big name cancer charities is their dismissal of alternative cancer treatments. They put little-to-no money toward funding promising studies of this kind. There are so many potential cures available to us, but the researchers conducting these important studies find it nearly impossible to obtain the funding necessary to have them peer-reviewed.

If a fair percentage of the money donated to cancer charities worldwide was allotted to researching these lesser-known treatments and preventative measures, I think we would see a significant improvement in cancer statistics in the years that followed. As things stand right now, the motto is clearly “Profits before people.” After all, it is the cancer industry…

Big Pharma-Profits Determine Which Drugs are Developed


We must remember that Big Pharma companies are businesses first! Profit is their first priority. They call it ‘maximizing stockholder equity’ in business school, which is a fancy way of saying they are focused on making the most money for owners as possible. So if we are to extrapolate a bit, we know that any Big Pharma company is going to work to produce drugs that make the most money.

This is why they will never, ever announce or promote anything as a treatment for cancer (or any other disease) outside of a drug they can patent and make billions of dollars off of. Big Pharma companies are not in the altruism business. They’re not in business for the good of humanity, or to find cures for diseases. They make a lot more money treating diseases than they ever could curing or eradicating diseases!

And they’re not financing medical education in medical schools, or research studies, or paying mass media television stations to promote or lead to messages or information about cures and treatments that would reduce or eliminate their profits. So you’re never going to hear much about natural cures or treatments for diseases. Those things are bad for profits, regardless of whether or not scientists and lobbyists have families that contract these diseases. It doesn’t matter whether or not the researchers and other people in the industry are good people. Ever hear the saying that ‘nice guys finish last’?  Well, when there’s many billions of dollars at stake, honest researchers get steamrolled, or even killed.  When the chips are down, the people that run these institutions are ruthless about protecting their profits. Profits at any cost. No lie is to big to tell, no truth is too big to suppress, no researcher is too big to attack, malign or destroy.  It isn’t personal; it’s just business.

With that said, you must really read this article below and grasp the concept here. It’s time to wake up and stop buying the mantra that only drugs can treat disease. It’s a message that’s all about making Big Pharma huge sums of money. Regardless of what they say, no disease was ever caused by a drug deficiency!


Pharmaceutical manufacturers are businesses, not healthcare companies. Their business is making profitable drugs that will be widely prescribed by doctors and used by as many consumers as possible. As business people, their primary loyalty is to their shareholders. All decisions on which compounds to develop into drugs and which to bring to market are driven by profit, the competitive landscape, and speed to market.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet

There are several key therapeutic areas that are dependable money makers and have the potential to produce possible blockbusters: drugs to treat cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and central nervous system disorders. Many of the diseases that these drugs treat are lifestyle related illnesses. If many of these symptom sufferers led a healthy lifestyle, they could reverse and/or prevent many of these diseases. But Pharma is not in the disease prevention business. They are in the disease treatment business. Doctors are not taught to promote wellness and prevent disease, they are taught to treat disease. So, prescriptions are dispensed as first line therapy for most symptoms.

When consumers feel they can control their symptoms and ultimately, their health, by just popping a pill, they mistakenly believe that they are also overcoming their disease. But by not changing their lifestyle, they are just masking the symptoms. For example, in the case of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes, by not choosing a healthier diet and by retaining extra weight (especially abdominal body fat), patients remain prone to other diseases and will subsequently require more medications. Patients who take daily medication are also unknowingly taxing their organs incrementally. It is in Pharma’s best interest that you not make lifestyle changes, but instead choose to take their drugs to treat your symptoms. Your disease may stabilize, but it will not reverse. If you will not change your disease-causing lifestyle, you will become dependent on the drug to manage your symptoms. Any side effects of the drug will lead to more drugs to treat those symptoms. It’s a vicious cycle that keeps Big Pharma profitable.

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.” – (source)(source)Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal

So how do pharmaceutical companies choose which drugs to develop? They look at what have been blockbusters (big sellers) in the past and make more of those. Hypertension is great example of a blockbuster gateway drug. The Framingham Heart Study, under the direction of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), began studying cardiovascular disease (CVD) in 1948. After each study, they report their findings. In 1967, the Framingham Heart Study reported: “Physical activity found to reduce the risk of heart disease, and obesity to increase the risk of heart disease.”1 Yet physicians were not trained to recommend increased physical activity to their hypertensive patients. They were trained to prescribe drugs to treat hypertension (HT). Guidelines were set as to what constituted HT and at what number doctors should prescribe medication to reduce blood pressure.2

In 2015, The New York Times reported that SPRINT, the study on 9,300 men and women who were at risk of heart disease, would be terminated early because the results were so compelling that the researchers wanted to publish as soon as possible. As a result of the published data, doctors and prescribing nurses were trained to prescribe HT medicines to people with lower diastolic and systolic numbers than they had prior to the published study. More patients on more meds. Nowhere are patients taught that hypertension can be lowered immediately with a 20 minute walk.3

Not only were the “favorable” data pushed down through the medical community, they were “pulled through” the patient community via major news publications such as The New York Times. Even more compelling, major media via magazine advertisements and promotional news spots on television called video news releases (VNRs) were used to reinforce the consumer messaging. All medical communications and consumer information is produced by Pharma’s ad agency. The SPRINT trial (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) was designed with the outcome in mind. As soon as they reached their desired conclusion, the study was stopped to deliver the “good news” to the public and to change the protocol for what determines HT. Now, doctors were prescribing HT meds earlier to patients who might not be at risk in the interest of protecting their vasculature from possible future heart disease.

As an aside, the SPRINT study was named by the advertising agency used to brand the clinical trial. Controlled brand building generates excitement and allows the marketing message dissemination to begin with a catchy name that connotes a positive forward-thinking movement. These names are not pulled out of the air. They are carefully crafted by expert marketers who know how to prep and sell the target market on the concept they endeavor to get adopted by program, protocol, and product advocates. The advocates are Thought Leaders in CVD who are already talking about the trial before it has even been completed, thus influencing lower-tier prescribers all the way down the chain to your own General Practitioner.
Homeopathic Remedies Sale at Botanic Choice

The protocol was written in advance of the study by the medical education agency, a subsidiary of the advertising agency, and the spin began long before the trial did. As a result, a soon-to-be launched new HT medication was not only embraced, but reached blockbuster status right out of the gate. The SPRINT trial was funded by the NHLBI and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Those organizations received their grant money from the pharmaceutical industry, most notably from the company whose drug was planned to launch upon the release of the new data.

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine” Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and long time Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ)

In summary, I’ll quote J. Michael Pearson, CEO of Valeant Pharmaceuticals, who flat out admitted on April 13, 2016 that his first responsibility is to the shareholders, not to the furthering of healthcare outcomes and the consumers of their drug products. Instead of investing in new breakthroughs, Valeant relies on lucrative drug acquisitions and price hikes. “If products are sort of mispriced and there’s an opportunity, we will act appropriately in terms of doing what I assume our shareholders would like us to do.”4

More and more, it is only the wealthy who can afford quality healthcare, not the average consumer with modest healthcare insurance plans. In 2016, 56 of Valeant’s drugs increased in price by 66 percent. Their latest drug acquisition prompted a 550 percent price increase. “My primary responsibility is to Valeant shareholders. We can do anything we want to do. We will continue to make acquisitions, we will continue to move forward.” Stock prices for Valeant rose 1,000 percent since Pearson became CEO.5 With that message coming from the top, it’s easy to see how patients are the ones who will suffer from Pharma’s greed. Pharmaceuticals continue to make choices based on how much money they will make, not on how many patients they can help.

The Role of Vitamin D in Disease Prevention


The latest news is that President Obama is initiating a “Cancer Moonshot”. Now this is a full 45 years later since President Nixon started the first “War on Cancer” that was supposed to be an massive effort to eradicate cancer, and today cancer incidence are at an all-time high.  So I guess that we are to believe that the Medical Establishment and the US government is really ready to truly get rid of cancer this time.  So after 45 years of hard work on curing cancer, we have more cancer than we’ve ever had. And now we’re waiting for the same people, the same organizations that couldn’t get it done the first time to get it right this time. After spending many billions of dollars, if not trillions, on cancer research and treatments, we have more cancer than ever.

One indicator that they are not really serious about curing cancer is that they never publicize things that anyone can do to greatly reduce their chances of preventing cancer. Things like taking Vitamin D supplements, or better yet, getting 30 minutes of sunlight per day.  Or taking supplemental selenium on a regular basis. Or reducing your sugar intake.  These are simple things that anybody can do to greatly minimize the chances that they receive a cancer diagnosis. But do you hear these simple things being promoted as much as those endless cancer fundraisers?  It makes me wonder whether or not the money is more important to these people than actually reducing the cancer rate.  What does it look like to you?

By Dr. Mercola

At the end of January 2016, President Obama established the “Cancer Moonshot Task Force” with the aim of creating a comprehensive plan to enable progress in treatment and care of cancer.1

Based on the overwhelming amount of evidence at our disposal, optimizing vitamin D is one of the foundational strategies that really need to be part of any comprehensive cancer treatment plan, yet from the looks of it, it’s not.

On Medscape’s website, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong explains the new technologies the Moonshot program aims to bring forward. You can also learn more about the program in the press conference video below.

Soon-Shiong invented human nanoparticles out of blood, which allows the cancer to be mapped. The treatment also involves whole genome sequencing and personalized, targeted immunotherapy. As noted by Soon-Shiong:

“My view of the next-generation therapy is to take this high-dose standard-of-care chemotherapy and reduce it to low-dose chemotherapy given in the outpatient setting.

Then, we engage in hand-to-hand combat with the cancer cells in real time with the dendritic cell, the natural killer cell, the T cell, and the suppressor cell.”

How Many Must Die Before Vitamin D Science Is Recognized?

While Soon-Shiong wisely recognizes the need to strengthen immune function, allowing the body to clear itself of the cancer without resorting to “carpet bombing” with toxic chemicals, he doesn’t mention the influence of vitamin D on immune function at all.

I firmly believe that any cancer prevention or treatment strategy that excludes vitamin D is depriving the patient of a safe and vital immune boost to defeat the cancer.

Moreover, the current recommendation to avoid sun exposure in order to avoid skin cancer is likely increasing other more serious cancers. Prevention, after all, is worth a pound of cure, so why are people told to engage in behavior that will dramatically increase their cancer risk?

Recent research2 shows that UV abstinence is actually as dangerous as smoking when it comes to cancer and overall mortality risks. In this “competing risk” analysis, the life expectancy of sun avoiders was reduced by as much as two years when compared to those who got the highest amount of sun exposure.

As noted by Michael T. Murray, N.D. who reported and commented on these findings:3

“These results shatter conventional wisdom, but they are not new. Noted vitamin D researcher Dr. Michael Holick, warned almost a decade ago that avoiding sun exposure to prevent skin cancer results in such a drop in vitamin D levels that for every life saved from skin cancer over 100 people will lose their lives to other forms of cancer …”

Improving Vitamin D Status Is a Key Cancer Prevention Tool

The evidence now clearly shows that once you reach a serum vitamin D level of 40 ng/ml, you see a major reduction in virtually all cancers.

The Health and Medicine Division (HMD) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (formerly Institute of Medicine, IOM) has also reported an association between vitamin D and overall mortality risk from all causes, including cancer.

So why is there such resistance against vitamin D optimization through sun exposure as a cancer prevention strategy when the scientific evidence showing the enormous benefits are right there in black and white?

Vitamin D has become one of the most well-researched nutrients out there, and studies have repeatedly demonstrated that it can significantly reduce your cancer risk, and increase your chances of surviving cancer if you do get it.

Most recently, researchers at the University of California found that women with a vitamin D serum level of 40 ng/ml or greater had a 67 percent lower risk of cancer compared to women with levels of 20 ng/ml or less.

How Vitamin D Helps Protect Against Cancer

Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body, which is part of why it’s effective against so many different kinds of cancer and other disease states. Your organs convert the vitamin D in your bloodstream into calcitrol, which is the hormonal or activated version of vitamin D. Your organs then use calcitrol to repair damage, including that from cancer cells. Vitamin D also triggers apoptosis (cell death) in cancer cells.

According to vitamin D researcher Cedric Garland in nearly all forms of breast cancer vitamin D affects the structure of your epithelial cells. These cells are held together by a glue-like substance called E-cadherin, which provides structure to the cell. E-cadherin is made up of mostly vitamin D and calcium. If you don’t have adequate vitamin D, that structure comes apart and those cells do what they are programmed to do in order to survive — they go forth and multiply. If this cell proliferation gets out of control, you may end up with cancer.

If you have breast cancer in progress, the addition of vitamin D can help stop cancer cells in their tracks by replenishing E-cadherin. Once cancer growth is slowed, your immune system can begin to get ahead of the cancer cells, because it doesn’t have to deal with such an overabundance of them.

Researchers have also discovered two specific compounds that appear to enhance the antitumor activity of calcitrol. They found that overexpression of an enzyme called CYP24A1 was responsible for dampening calcitrol’s antitumor effect, and the two compounds in question help inhibit this enzyme, thereby boosting calcitrol’s protective effects against cancer. A third compound was also found to increase expression of a protein that helps inhibit cancer growth.

Optimizing Your Vitamin D Level Is a Simple, Inexpensive Disease Prevention Strategy

Prior to 2000, few doctors ever considered the possibility that you might be vitamin D deficient. But as the technology to measure vitamin D became inexpensive and widely available, it became increasingly clear that vitamin D deficiency is rampant, and that it is a major factor influencing cancer rates.

While statistics vary, it’s generally found that at least half of the U.S. population has insufficient amounts of vitamin D. Researchers have also noted that vitamin D deficiency is particularly prevalent in people who always wear sun protection (which blocks vitamin D production) or limit their outdoor activities.

Despite its name, vitamin D is not a regular vitamin. It’s actually a steroid hormone that you are designed to obtain primarily through sun exposure, not via your diet. While some foods do contain some vitamin D, either naturally or through fortification, it would be nearly impossible to get all the vitamin D you need from diet alone.

At present, the U.S. Surgeon General, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), and many other cancer organizations recommend complete and total sun avoidance in order to prevent skin cancer. The AAD will not even acknowledge different recommendations based on skin type.

This is a disastrous recommendation, as sun avoidance has been shown to increase your risk of death very similar to that of smoking. It’s incomprehensible to me that health officials would warn you about the risks of smoking, but not about the risks of sun avoidance, when both have similar impact on disease and mortality risks.


Glyphosate/Roundup is Poison


Contrary to Monsanto corporate propaganda and paid ‘science’ toadies, glyphosate (Roundup) is highly toxic and poisonous. Natural News has an article here that cites various references that all document the disaster known as glyphosate (Roundup). It is highly toxic and dangerous to human life. But it is also the best selling herbicide in America, so of course Monsanto just pays off regulators, government officials, politicians, etc., to protect profits. And if people have to suffer and die, who cares? They were going to die anyway, or so goes the ‘corporate actions speak louder than corporate propaganda‘ meme.

So we must know that if you are to protect yourself from glyphosate, you’re going to have to do it yourself because there is no end to the widespread use of it in sight. But even if you don’t use it yourself, most of the grains foods are contaminated with it, even organic foods. You can forget about the regulators and others who have the ability to reduce the use of it because they’re all on the Monsanto ‘gravy train’.

Science could work if you could take some of the profit and politics out of it. But as long as you have those elements a part of it, science is going to be manipulated to yield the result that makes the most money for corporations. And that’s exactly what we see going on today. It doesn’t matter what ‘externalities’ are caused by dousing our foods in this, and other, toxic chemicals.

Pyridoxal 5'-Phosphate Caps, 100 mg, 60 vegetarian capsules

(NaturalNews) According to biotech industry and its army of mercenary trolls and science shills, glyphosate is perfectly safe to eat and doesn’t cause cancer.

Of course, that claim holds about as much scientific credibility as Big Tobacco’s claim that “smoking cigarettes doesn’t cause lung cancer or heart disease” — the “scientific” mantra of the tobacco era… dutifully repeated by the Journal of the American Medical Association for decades, by the way.

The truth, of course, is that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. So does eating glyphosate. It’s basic biochemical cause and effect. Those who deny this link are denying the laws of chemistry and biology.

Following is a list of toxic effects caused by glyphosate, AMPA, and Roundup as revealed in animal studies, laboratory studies in human cells, and human epidemiological and clinical case studies: Severe liver and kidney damage + Chronic kidney disease; Disruption of hormonal systems which can potentially lead to multiple organ damage and hormone-dependent cancer; Developmental and reproductive toxicity, including damage to sperm and miscarriage and premature birth + Disruption of beneficial gut bacteria, favouring the growth of botulism-causing bacteria in cows; Damage to DNA; Birth defects; Neurotoxicity; Cancer.
– GMO Myths and Truths A Citizens Guide to the Evidence on Genetically Modified Crops by Claire Robinson Mphil and Michael Antoniou

Monsanto has convinced millions of farmers, the American government, and the European Commission that glyphosate is safe. Yet the picture is not so clear. Studies published in 2010 show glyphosate causes birth defects in frogs and chicken embryos at amounts smaller than farmers and gardeners leave in food. Older studies document other dreadful effects of glyphosate, including cancer, endocrine disruption, damage to DNA, and deleterious malformations of the reproductive, neurological, and developmental systems of animals and humans. Researchers also link glyphosate to miscarriages in humans and livestock. Monsanto and government authorities have known about the toxic effects of glyphosate since the 1980s. And both the industry and regulators have kept the public in the dark. Genetic engineering, in other words, represents imperial politics of the worst kind, aiming at no less than the control of the world’s food by agribusiness.
– Poison Spring The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA by E G Vallianatos and McKay Jenkins

Another problem with GMO foods is they contain glyphosate residues. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto s herbicide Roundup – the most common weed killer in the United States. If you are consuming foods containing wheat, sugar, corn, or soy, unless they are organic, they will contain glyphosate residues. Glyphosate is a hormone disrupter and has been clearly linked to infertility and miscarriage in cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, and poultry that are raised on GMO feed. Glyphosate has been linked to hormone-dependent cancers, even at extremely low levels. A 2013 study in Entropy concluded that glyphosate may be “the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies.” The study further concluded that glyphosate may “enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions [including gut bacteria] and induce disease.
– The Great American Health Hoax – The Surprising Truth About Modern Medicine by Raymond Francis

But the researchers used the same strain that Monsanto had used in its 90-day study on the maize and in its rat studies with glyphosate. And this strain is a standard one used in long-term toxicity studies and in cancer studies as well. So if the use of that strain invalidates Seralini’s study, it also invalidates those Monsanto studies and the all the other studies in which it’s been employed -studies that include many other GE foods. Moreover, the absurdity of the argument looms larger in light of the fact that the rats consuming the GE maize (or the Roundup alone) displayed a quicker onset of tumors, and a higher incidence of them, than did the control rats – which demonstrated that something besides their pedigree exerted a tumor-inducing effect. Yet, although their criticisms were utterly unwarranted, a host of GE advocates doggedly maintained the effort to discredit the study.
– Altered Genes Twisted Truth How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science by Steven Druker

Free Mighty Leaf Tea Samples

For example, while Roundup is toxic to human placental cells at levels 10 times lower than those found in agricultural use, the toxicity of glyphosate alone was measured at half or less. In an animal cell study, Roundup – but not glyphosate alone – disrupted the cell cycle, “the universal process by which cells reproduce.” This may be linked to human diseases, including cancer and Roundup caused significant changes in rat liver activity, while glyphosate alone had no effect. Roundup’s higher toxicity is often attributed to the inert ingredient POEA (polyethoxylated tallowamine), which helps the herbicide penetrate into leaves. It appears to help the toxin penetrate into human cells as well. In spite of conclusive evidence that inert ingredients increase toxicity, many of the safety assessments on herbicides conducted by manufacturers for the EPA test only the active ingredient.
– Genetic Roulette The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods by Jeffrey M Smith


Herbal remedies are an overlooked global health hazard


I’m not going to say that herbal remedies are totally harmless, but this seems to be some sort of damage control or attempt to battle people’s perception that herbals are safer than pharmaceutical drugs. There’s no way that herbals are more dangerous than pharmaceutical drugs, in general.  It’s already been determined that doctors and conventional medicine are the 3rd leading cause of death in the United States, so that’s a lot of people (0ver 250,000 per year) being hurt by medical errors.

Herbals and pharmaceuticals are not going to cure you of any disease over the long term. You’re going to have to fix the root problem, which is probably something wrong with your diet, water intake and ways that you think. Getting sick is actually a ‘wake up call’ for you to improve your habits of eating, drinking and thinking. If you created your disease state in your body with your habits, you can get rid of your disease with your habits! Now it may be simple, but it’s not always easy to make those changes. You just have to make a decision to change, and then consistently follow through on that decision with actions that are congruent with it.

Hot Selling Supplements in the News on Sale! TV Docs are raving about Razberi-K Ketones, Tumeric, and more! Click to Save up to 74%!

Millions of people around the world use herbal health remedies, following a tradition that began millennia ago. Many believe that herbs are safe because they have been used for many years, but researchers from Baylor College of Medicine and Stony Brook University are raising awareness that long-term use of herbal remedies is no guarantee of their safety. The invited commentary appears in EMBO reports.

Dr. Donald M. Marcus, professor emeritus of medicine and immunology at Baylor, and Dr. Arthur P. Grollman, distinguished professor of pharmacological sciences at Stony Brook University, discuss the scientific evidence showing that the plant Aristolochia can cause aristolochic acid nephropathy (AAN). People with this condition experience interstitial nephritis, renal failure and cancers of the urinary track.

The authors remark that in Taiwan, according to the national prescription database, between 1997 and 2003, 8 million people were exposed to herbals containing Aristolochia. Studies of patients with renal failure and cancer in Taiwan and China show that tens of millions of people in those countries are at risk of AAN.

VINA Red Grape Powder

In genetically susceptible people, consuming Aristolochia can lead to the formation of complexes between aristolactam, a compound in Aristolachia, and DNA in renal tissues. These complexes lead to mutations in the TP53 tumor suppressor gene, which in turn initiate the process toward kidney cancer. Additional studies have shown that this process may also lead to the development of cancer in the liver and the bladder.

Marcus and Grollman indicate that other herbals and traditional medicines are responsible for severe adverse events in Africa and Asia, but in these cases epidemiological data are lacking.

Although Aristolochia has been used as a herbal remedy for more than 2000 years, “the intrinsic toxicities were not recognized, owing, in large part, to the latency period between exposure and the onset of symptomatic disease, and, in part, to genetic determinants that confer susceptibility to only approximately 5 percent of those exposed to this herb,” said the authors. The long-term scientific study of AAN revealed the association of the disease with Aristolochia.

Almost all carcinogens and many toxins require a long period of time before symptoms appear. This makes it very difficult for a layman or a professional to identify a particular compound as the cause of an illness when it was taken months or years earlier.

“The history of Aristolachia indicates that other herbs that have been used for a long time may also have toxic and/or carcinogenic compounds,” said the authors. “It is prudent to assume that many herbs may contain toxic or carcinogenic substances that can cause subsequent health problems for humans.”