How Does the Budwig Flaxseed oil and Cottage Cheese Mix Help with Cancer?

by

This is a great question, and this answer comes directly from the Budwig Cancer Center web site.

Dr. Budwig was a visionary, but also practical. The short version is that she, as a biochemist, came up with a way to beat cancer and a lot of other chronic diseases by using flaxseed and cottage cheese. It sounds rudimentary, but this was what she found to be effective as a scientist.

Of course, she was scorned and derided by the Medical Establishment for her unorthodox findings. We’ve all heard that story before, as it should be very familiar to you if you’ve done any study on alternative cancer treatments.

This is a simple, short, but important article to help you better understand the Budwig protocol. It contains tidbits that will help you improve your health.

Beat Cancer Even If Your Doctor Gives Up on You-Free Report

How Does the Budwig Flaxseed oil and Cottage Cheese Mix Help with Cancer?

According to Dr. Budwig’s research, solar electrons are exceptionally high in essential fatty acids. Because Flaxseed oil contains essential fatty acids, they have a negative electrical charge. In contrast, cottage cheese is loaded with sulphurated amino acids and thus have a positive charge. This contrast provides the basis for an electrical circuit in a biological setting. Flaxseed oil is the electron donor, it stores energy and releases it on demand. The more energy stored, the healthier a person is.

Flaxseed on its own does not readily enter the cells of the body because it is not water soluble, but when mixed with cottage cheese it becomes water soluble and can enter the cells providing energy and oxygenation. Experiments from as far back as the 19th century (before Dr. Budwig was even born), showed that animals that were fed a high-fat diet without protein died. Likewise, when they were fed a high protein diet without fat, they also died. However, when they were fed flax oil and protein together, they quickly recovered health and vitality. So, to supply the cells with energy and oxygen, we need the protein and healthy natural fats combination that the flaxseed oil and cottage cheese mix provide.

Interestingly Dr. Budwig also encouraged her patients to sunbathe and spend time outdoors. When a person consumes the flaxseed oil and cottage cheese and also sunbathes, the solar electrons within that person resonate with the photons/electrons from the sun increasing energy levels even more, which significantly contributes to the healing process. Dr. Budwig said the worse your health is, the more you need to spend time outdoors, even on cloudy days.

Otto Warburg and Cancer

by

Oxygenating the Body Series

by Dr. Mark Sircus

“But nobody today can say that one does not know what cancer and its prime cause be. On the contrary, there is no disease whose prime cause is better known, so that today ignorance is no longer an excuse,” said Nobel Prize Winner Otto Warburg in a meeting of Nobel Laureates on June 30, 1966. Warburg is considered one of the 20th century’s leading biochemists. He was the sole recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1931. In total, he was nominated for the award 47 times over the course of his career.

To not understand how acid and low oxygen conditions influences cancer is to not understand cancer. Over 80 years ago, Warburg showed that cells could always be made cancerous by subjecting them to periods of hypoxia. Cancer cells survive by utilizing a process that is advantageous in low oxygen environments.

It is not only how they survive it is how they are created and as we need to see, there are many reasons for not enough oxygen reaching the cells. Unfortunately, except for Warburg’s studies, little work has been done to investigate the relationship between hypoxia and cancer.

However, researchers at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center has unearthed a previously unknown phenomenon. They found that important regulatory molecules are decreased when deprived of oxygen, which leads to increased cancer progression in vitro and in vivo.

One of the secrets to disease and this whole question of oxygen levels is that a very bad feedback loop is created that takes our respiration down. All over the Internet people are arguing about causes of cancer and what comes first, depressed oxygen levels and acidity, or normal oxygen levels, no acidity and then cancer comes along out of the blue to cause acidity.

It is absurd to think that people are perfectly healthy and then suddenly cancer comes in from mars. Everywhere we read about preconditions that increase the incidences of cancer and none of these preconditions are healthy. For instance, diabetics, heavy drinkers, those exposed to toxins, radiation, heavy metals, strong emotional upset, heart disease and a long list of nutritional deficiencies, and very importantly, faster than the medical norm breathing that takes down oxygen levels causing acidity at the same time.

Cancer Secret

D F Treacher and R M Leach teach, “Oxygen transport from environmental air to the mitochondria of individual cells occurs as a series of steps. The system must be energy efficient (avoiding unnecessary cardiorespiratory work), allowing efficient oxygen transport across the extravascular tissue matrix. At the tissue level, cells must extract oxygen from the extracellular environment and use it efficiently in cellular metabolic processes.”

What happens is that acidity depresses oxidation, and increasing alkalinity, even to a marked degree, greatly increases the rate of oxidation.[1] Meaning when acid conditions prevail the oxidative process inside the mitochondria is severely compromised and, its no surprize, as we switch to alkaline conditions we find that oxidation is remarkedly facilitated.

According to Warburg, damaged cell respiration causes fermentation, resulting in low pH (acidity) at the cellular level. “In every case, during the cancer development, the oxygen respiration always falls, fermentation appears, and the highly differentiated cells are transformed into fermenting anaerobes, which have lost all their body functions and retain only the now useless property of growth and replication. Thus, when respiration disappears, life does not disappear, but the meaning of life disappears, and what remains are growing machines that destroy the body in which they grow.”

The Warburg theory of cancer postulates that the driver of tumorigenesis is an insufficient cellular respiration caused by insult to mitochondria. In other words, instead of fully respiring in the presence of adequate oxygen, cancer cells ferment. Cancer is a metabolic disease, a fermentation caused by malfunctioning mitochondria, resulting in increased anabolism and decreased catabolism.

Hypoxia or anoxia results in a dramatic decrease in the levels of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Hypoxia is the stimulus that creates the need for a replacement for the lost ATP. If the cell wants to survive (not suffer cell death) it must turn to fermentation and it does. When oxygen becomes limiting, mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation (OxPhos) is restricted and pyruvate is converted to lactate instead.

Very impactful to cellular health is the level of oxygen each cell receives. Most tissues do not experience oxygen levels at 20-21%. In our lungs, oxygen levels are around 14.5% and in peripheral tissues oxygen can be as low as 3.4-6.8%. The term physiological normoxia is used to define oxygen levels between 3-7%.

Pathological hypoxia may occur in certain instances of loss or occlusion of blood vessels or, in such cases as cancer, leaky and inadequate vasculature. In these examples, O2 levels tend to fall below 2%, but can range from 0.3- 4.2%.

The lowest level of O2, or being oxygen-free, is referred to as an anaerobic environment. Many microorganisms, including bacteria within the digestive tract of humans and at the bottom of the ocean are considered anaerobic species.[2] Since many of these species would be killed off by any trace of O2, these microorganisms must be studied by scientists within an environment completely devoid of O2.

Dr. Rockwell from Yale University School of Medicine (USA) studied malignant changes on the cellular level and wrote, “The physiological effects of hypoxia and the associated micro environmental inadequacies increase mutation rates, select for cells deficient in normal pathways of programmed cell death, and contribute to the development of an increasingly invasive, metastatic phenotype.” [3] In response to hypoxia, mitochondria generate an initial burst of ROS.[4]

Dr. Robert Rowan says, “Warburg emphasized that you can’t make a cell ferment unless a LACK OF OXYGEN is involved. In 1955, two American scientists, R.A. Malmgren and C.C. Flanigan, confirmed Warburg’s findings. They found that oxygen deficiency is ALWAYS present when cancer develops. Warburg found that you can reverse fermentation simply by adding oxygen – but only if you do it early enough. He incubated cells in nitrogen, starving them of oxygen for regular but short periods. Starving the cells of oxygen caused them to begin fermentation. Restoring oxygen promptly enabled the cells to recover. But the longer they were oxygen starved, the slower and less certain the recovery. With enough oxygen starvation, cells don’t recover. Once they reach a certain point, no amount of oxygen will return them to normal.”

Two papers appearing in the March 13 (2008) issue of the journal Nature conformed again Warburg’s theories. Led by researchers at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre (BIDMC) and Harvard Medical School, the papers find that the metabolic process that has come to be known as the Warburg effect is essential for tumours’ rapid growth and identifies the M2 form of pyruvate kinase (PKM2), an enzyme involved in sugar metabolism, as an important mechanism behind this process.

“We showed that that hypoxia causes a down regulation of, or decrease in, quantities of Drosha and Dicer, enzymes that are necessary for producing microRNAs (miRNAs). MiRNAs are molecules naturally expressed by the cell that regulate a variety of genes,” said Dr. Anil Sood, professor of gynecologic oncology and reproductive medicine and cancer biology. “At a functional level, this process results in increased cancer progression when studied at the cellular level.”

Conclusion

If the level of carbon dioxide in the blood is lower than normal, then this leads to difficulties in releasing oxygen from hemoglobin. Carbon dioxide and its twin sister bicarbonate control the pH of the blood. (Next week this will be fully explained in an essay entitled ‘Hypocapnia (Lowered CO2) in the Blood Leads to Reduced Oxygenation.’)

Unless the body’s PH level is slightly alkaline it cannot heal itself. Health is only possible when the PH of the body is normal. If your body’s PH is not correct one cannot effectively assimilate vitamins and minerals. Our body PH affects everything.

The human body is ‘alkaline by design but acidic by function,’ so everything that effects balanced pH in the body matters. Every living cell in the body creates metabolized waste, which is acidic. The nutrients from our food are delivered to each cell, the cells burn with oxygen to provide energy for us to live. The burned nutrients become metabolized waste. If there is any impedance, whether into our out the cell walls, acid wastes build, create inflammation in the capillaries, cutting oxygen transport.

All waste products are acid; the body discharges the waste through urine, bile and perspiration. Without proper elimination, the acid waste produces the perfect environment for fungus, bacteria and viruses to flourish. Although our bodies work hard to dispose of acidic waste, eating acidic foods makes it harder for the body to eliminate waste.

In another chapter we will discuss in depth another major point made by Warburg. “If our internal environment was changed from an acidic oxygen deprived environment to an alkaline environment full of oxygen, viruses, bacteria and fungus cannot live.” The fact is that these infections are another major cause of cancer.

Special Note: I recently published Grand Unification Theory of Cancer to this essay in part as a response to other people’s abuse and misrepresentation of Warburg’s work on cancer. Certain people just cannot understand how much oxygen matters, how deficient it can get in certain areas of the body, and how that leads to most diseases and then on to cancer. The next essay in this series is entitled ‘Hypocapnia (Lowered CO2) in the Blood Leads to Reduced Oxygenation,’ which is all about Danish scientist Christian Bohr, who noticed more than a century ago that hemoglobin binds oxygen more tightly at high pH than it does at low pH.

Black Seed: The All Natural Cancer Cure You Need to Know About

by

This article lays it on the line. They’re telling you the truth about the medical science industry.

Modern medicine is really painting itself into the proverbial corner. They want to maximize profits, but at the expense of the health and suffering of the patients.  It’s a problem for people that depend on and trust the medical industry to heal them when the Medical Establishment’s main objective is to make the maximum amounts of money regardless of the effect on patients.

Because of the Internet, growing numbers of people are starting to become aware of this. If the Medical Establishment continues down this road, it will eventually collapse under the weight of its lies, deceptions and greed. Eventually, the majority of people will start to say ‘no’ to Big Pharma drugs and expensive, but relatively ineffective treatments for disease.

This article is about one of many suppressed effective treatments for cancer. Nothing works 100% of the time, but most alternative cancer treatments are not going to poison you to death. What’s the loss if it is non-toxic and relatively inexpensive? There’s nothing but upside with little downside.  Do your research!

Learn about 19 Things that ‘Prove’ that They are Suppressing Cancer Cures

Black Seed: The All Natural Cancer Cure You Need to Know About

(emphasis added)

It’s come to a point where medical science, as an institution, is staring down the barrel of a gun. That gun is represented by the fact that so-called traditional medicine is being continuously outed for suppressing natural extracts that treat cancer naturally and effectively while the industry continues to push poisons.

Take chemotherapy for example. This is a medical intervention that was developed from WWII era chemical weapons after sailors were exposed to it when their ship was destroyed. Early on, researchers found that it shrunk tumors in the lymph nodes. Of course it does, temporarily. Then it degrades the patient’s health so dramatically that any remaining cancer can return with a vengeance. The only chance patients have is their own immune systems beating both the cancer and the chemo.

Of course, we could go on for pages about the many examples of treatments for cancer that tend to exacerbate the condition. But we would rather talk about another of so many natural substances that both fights cancer and helps the body do the same. Like CBD oil, and the many immune boosting herbs that also retard the growth of tumors, this substance has no dangerous side effects. Better yet, it is cheaper than traditional cancer treatments by orders of magnitude.

We’re talking about black cumin oil, otherwise known as black seed oil, black cumin seed, and Nigella sativa. This powerful natural extract contains a chemical known as Thymoquinone, which can modulate 90% of cancer’s destructive capabilities.

An enormous amount of research has gone into verifying the cancer-fighting powers of black seed oil. Among these powers are potent anti-inflammatory properties.

Reducing internal inflammation, as so much recent research has shown, is key to preventing and reducing all manner of diseases from autism, to auto-immune disorders, to heart disease, and dementia. When the gut is inflamed, the many harmful substances that the gut normally contains can seep into the circulatory system causing systemic distress. So many common illnesses are due to the fact that we eat exorbitant amounts of carbohydrates which cause the tissues of the gut to swell and keep it chronically swollen.

The other significant anti-cancer effect of black seed extract is its selectively destructive impact on cancer tumors.

To understand why substances like this can hinder the ability of cancer to flourish, we have to take a look at what cancer actually is. There are many types of cancer, and many causes. But the underlying fact behind all cancer is that it is the result of a cell that has had its reproductive programming damaged so that it can no longer self-regulate. Many cancer cells simply falter and die. They are benign. Others are more, for lack of a better word, aggressive.

Cancers are in constant development in every living person. Ordinarily, the body disposes with them on its own. But when exposure to a toxin or other risk factor is especially persistent, the tissues involved become sufficiently weakened that cancer can get a foothold. From there it’s just a matter of time and chance before a malignant tumor develops.

The studies supporting black seed extract are numerous. The following are quotes gathered by Naturalnews.com from the abstracts of a sample of those studies.

“As non-invasive lesions progress to malignancy, the precursor period provides a window for cancer therapies that can interfere with neoplastic progression.”

“[…], thymoquinone suppresses growth and invasion, and induces apoptosis of glial tumour cells via degrading tubulins and inhibiting 20S proteasome, telomerase, autophagy, FAK and metalloproteinases.”

“Thymoquinone inhibits autophagy and induces cathepsin-mediated, caspase-independent cell death in glioblastoma cells.”

“These findings demonstrate that the volatile oil of N. sativa has the ability to inhibit colon carcinogenesis of rats in the post-initiation stage, with no evident adverse side effects[…]”

Many of the studies conducted have narrowed in on 3 types of cancer that black seed extracts can be helpful in fighting: Colon, pancreatic, and fibrosarcoma. A study published in “Oncology Letters” in 2010 found that two daily doses of crude extra-virgin black seed oil inhibited the growth of cancer tumors in rats.

You can buy black seed oil online. Just make sure to read the online description and label to make sure its 100% natural and no preservatives or additives are included, weakening the product.

~ Health Scams Exposed

Grand Unification Theory of Cancer

by

Grand Unification Theory of Cancer

By Dr. Mark Sircus

Inflammation is inseparable from lower pH, oxygen, CO2 and cell energy levels, which of course would track with cell temperature, respiration and elimination. A grand unification theory of medicine would describe this area of physiology where certain things are happening simultaneously. There is a point where one cannot separate oxygen from CO2 levels because they are locked into a tight mathematical relationship. The same is true about pH and cell voltage. As CO2 levels go south with O2 levels, pH dives as does cell voltage.

Given enough time, cancer will develop whenever there is a proliferation of damaged cells and when oxygen levels fall far enough. When cells are damaged, when their cell wall permeability changes, when toxins and free radicals build up, when the mitochondria lose functionality in terms of energy ATP production, when pH shifts to the acidic in cells, when essential gasses like carbon dioxide are not present in sufficient concentrations, and when essential nutrients are absent, and stress levels are high enough, cells will eventually decline into a cancerous condition.

Free Report-19 Things that Prove Cancer Cures are Being Suppressed

In trying to understand cancer we must leap over many hurdles and pass through minefields of deliberate confusion like in climate science or politics. Just like we have fake news we have fake medicine. Unfortunately, in medicine false ideas and practices kill people or lead to years of suffering.

In trying to understand cancer we must leap over many hurdles and pass through minefields of deliberate confusion like in climate science or politics. Just like we have fake news we have fake medicine. Unfortunately, in medicine false ideas and practices kill people or lead to years of suffering.

I could have entitled this a Dear readers newsletter for it will be informal, but it is announcing a series of chapters that I will begin to publish this week about one of the most important subjects that too many people are facing—cancer. These chapters will go into the second edition of Hydrogen Medicine—Combining Hydrogen with Oxygen and CO2. This newsletter is actually the preface to the series, which I hope will get a wide viewing.

I have written a 2,500-page compendium on cancer, its causes and treatments. However, even knowing cancer I was thrown for a loop watching, what seemed like to me, a most ridiculous video. Seems like there is a slew of people who react badly to the fervent alkaline water sellers who preach that cancer cannot survive in a high oxygen alkaline environment. Would have been more accurate if they said cancer has a tough time surviving in high oxygen alkaline environments or said a little stronger—cancer hates high oxygen alkaline environments.

Tywon Hubbard’s H2 Hydrogen Minutes video demonstrates obliviousness to what is important about cancer and oxygen.

“Otto Warburg did not win his Nobel Prize for discover the root cause of cancer What his research actually said regarding cancer and pH is that cancer excretes acid to the surrounding tissues in order to keep itself around the 7.4 pH. So essentially, acid doesn´t cause cancer but cancer causes acid. What he actually observed was that cancer switches to an anaerobic method of energy production even when there´s plenty of oxygen present,” said Hubbard.

Tywon Hubbard seems to have taken his materials from Tony Isaacs on the Truth About Cancer site. Isaacs said, “There have been many “prime causes” of cancer put forward, such as fungus, bacteria, viruses, parasites, stress, low pH, and on and on. But notably, virtually every one of those has been around for thousands and thousands of years. What has not been around and what tracks exactly with the increased incidence of cancer is toxins.”

This is mostly true but what Isaacs and Hubbard leave out is that the general population today is deficient in oxygen primarily because modern man has become a fast, shallow breather, which drives down CO2 levels in the blood, which compromises oxygen delivery to the cells according to the Bohr Effect. Of course, the toxicity we are all having to deal with is driving a stake through our cells lives. Toxicity itself is a main cause of cancer and a main reason oxygen delivery to the cells is compromised.

However, ninety percent of people today breathe above the medical norm, which itself in medical textbooks has been shifted up over the last 60 years to reflect the changes in recent generations that are increasingly stressed and breathing too fast.

Isaacs says, “Simply stated, cancer cells have low oxygen because they quit taking in oxygen for respiration as part of the cancer process itself. Similarly, it is the cancer process itself which causes the body to become increasingly acidic. The body labors mightily to maintain blood pH within a narrow range (7.35 – 7.45) and most people first get cancer when their pH is at or close to the normal range. As the cancer progresses, the body becomes increasingly acidic.” He is talking about the blood not the pH of the cells themselves nor the interstitial fluids. The truth is cancer cells have low oxygen because they were born and live in low oxygen environments.

Issacs and Hubbard would have us believe that cancer develops out of the clear blue, or that there is plenty of oxygen and cancer just decides to stop taking it. They both misrepresent the work of Otto Warburg who very much did indicate that hypoxia (low oxygen) and toxins are prime causes of cancer.

This is not a Cart comes before the Horse Joke

Cancer cells have low oxygen because their cell walls are compromised, because they are not receiving enough oxygen because there is not plentiful oxygen available. In everyone, for multiple reasons, oxygen levels go down in certain tissues and they are the ones most vulnerable to respiration disturbances on the mitochondria, which eventually force them to go cancerous.

Simply stated cancer cells have low oxygen because of their hosts breathing problems, stress levels, nutritional deficiencies and toxic loads, which includes increasing levels of background radiation, and an obscene number of medical tests and treatments that use radiation, all of which are poisoning us. Nutritional deficiencies cause toxins to become more toxic. Medical science knows that many factors are driving down oxygen delivery to the cells, just some people cannot r do not want to understand that.

Isaacs gets it right when he says, “Relying solely on either oxygen or increased pH to beat cancer is not advisable.” First, when it comes to dealing with the necessary gases of life, hydrogen, oxygen and CO2 should be employed together, not oxygen alone. A full protocol that addresses detoxification, immune system function and full remineralization are necessary to back up intensive oxygen treatments, which when done right, are capable of carpet-bombing cancer cells out of existence.

Wrong Again

Dr. Otto Warburg did not win the Nobel Prize for finding that cancer cannot live in an oxygen rich though all his work suggested that oxygen rich alkaline environments are not what encourage cancer cells. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule so for instance, a person who has a great alkaline diet can still get cancer.

However, young cancer cells do not begin their uncontrolled ways in oxygen enriched environments, they begin their lives under hypoxic conditions and that is why intense oxygen therapy pulls the rug out from under cancer by removing the basic condition that makes cancer cells virulent.

As we shall see in the coming series, oxygen high alkaline conditions make cancer cells weak and less resistant to treatment. Breathing oxygen or enriching the oxygen content of hypoxic (low in oxygen) cancer tissues improves therapy. Cancers low in oxygen are three times more resistant to radiotherapy. Restoring oxygen levels to that of a normal cell makes the tumors three times more sensitive to treatment.

Tumors with large areas with low levels of oxygen (areas known as hypoxic regions) are associated with poor prognosis and treatment response. Tumors rely on hypoxia to promote their own expansion. Hypoxia is a key factor driving tumor progression.

Dr. Chiang and colleagues at Burnham Institute for Medical Research (Burnham) say, “Cells initially shut down the most energy-costly processes, such as growth, when they’re under hypoxic stress.”[1] Pure oxygen at three-and-a-half times normal air pressure adds significantly to the effectiveness of a natural compound already shown to kill cancerous cells.

All of these points will be made in depth in the series, which sustains the idea that hypoxia is one of or is the main physiological state that leads to intensive oxidative stress, inflammation in the capillaries and overall lowering of oxygen availability to the body’s tissues and cells.

Low-Acid, High-Alkaline Equals High Oxygen

Dara Chadwick, writing on Cure said, “For years, a pervasive theory has existed that eating a low-acid, high-alkaline diet can help fight and prevent cancer. The premise? Cancer cells thrive in acidity (low pH), but not in alkalinity (high pH), so a diet high in alkaline foods like fruits and vegetables that also limits acidic foods, such as those from animal products, will raise blood pH levels and create an environment in the body that discourages cancer growth.” Her comment, “this is not exactly true.”

Dianne Piepenburg, writing Minnesota Oncology said, “The myth of the need to make the body more alkaline does not have significant value in respect to cancer cell growth or development.” So, one can eat all the worst acid forming foods and drink Coke by the gallon and so what. Little do such people know that alkaline means more oxygen, much more.

One cannot have cancer, heart disease, diabetes, be obese and have normal oxygen levels at the same time. Hypocapnia (CO2 deficiency) in the lungs and, in most cases, arterial blood is a normal finding for chronic diseases due to prevalence of chronic hyperventilation among the sick.

An understanding of the pathogenesis of disorders, including cancer, in which hypocapnia is a constitutive element is necessary to understand cancer. Hypocapnia is a universal constant in disease. We can perceive long term trends seeing hypocapnia long before serious illness and cancer set in. Hypercapnia (high CO2 levels) on the other hand protects against the damaging effects of ischemia or hypoxia.

Hubbard is standing in quicksand saying, “This is actually called the Warburg effect. So, basic cancer does just as well in the oxygenated environment as it does a hypoxic environment.” He had to keep repeating “Warburg did not win his Nobel Prize for discover the root cause of cancer,” to try to make people believe that oxygen is not a factor in cancer when it very much is.

It was difficult listening to people’s confusion about what Tywon had to say about acid conditions having nothing to do with cancer. I wrote him and asked him to take the video down and offered to help him set the record straight. He refused. People’s lives are at stake thus my motive for going public taking this confrontation onto the medical streets.

According to Keiichi Morishita in his book, Hidden Truth of Cancer, if blood starts to become acidic, then the body deposits the excess acidic substances in cells so that the blood will be able to maintain a slightly alkaline condition. This causes those cells to become more acidic and toxic, which causes a decrease in their oxygen levels, which of course causes cancer.

Before we leave this confrontation behind us we must mention what Hubbard said to try to convince us one more time. “But if were true that low oxygen causes cancer and high oxygen prevented cancer, then there would be differences in those living in low elevation and those living in high elevation. But guess what? There is a difference, but research shows that cancer rates are lower where oxygen levels are lower. Interesting,” says Hubbard.

Not very interesting. In fact, one can find exactly the opposite in research. Populations living in extremely cold or high-altitude environments have genes that boost survival but that also predispose individuals to cancer later in life, especially lung, breast, and colorectal cancer, according to researchers. In another report we read, Living at high altitude was associated with a higher prevalence of cancer and also with a high mortality rate due to cancer.

I want to remind people this is just the preface to a series of essays that will deeply probe cancer and its cause. It is also a reminder of why some people throw in our faces, “Where did you get that information from, the Internet?”

What can I say about people who almost singlehandedly want to take on hardcore medical science. I am not talking about pharmaceutical science, which is not science at all. I am talking about the sum of clinical experience, university research and the work of some of the greatest medical scientists of all times. In the series we shall see what many professionals have to say about the crucial question of oxygen and cancer.

Can We Trust Wikipedia And Its Medical Skepticism?

by

This is a very interesting article.

I’ve talked about a lot of the topics that Dr. Coldwell speaks on. In short, there’s a lot of faith, belief and other ‘woo woo’ that is in what is called ‘Science-Based Medicine’ or ‘Evidence Based Medicine’.  In fact, there’s just as much in these things (if not more) than there is in what is often called Alternative Medicine.

Often, many people that are lulled into believing SBM and/or EBM end up trading one superstition system for another one. It’s a major problem for society when ‘science’ has been converted into just another dogma-based system supported by unproven (or worse, disproved) foundational assumptions. And that is exactly what has been done to what we call ‘science’.

Free Report-5 Things That Can Stop Your Cancer Cold

 

Can We Trust Wikipedia And Its Medical Skepticism?

(emphasis added by me)

It is not skepticism that is at fault for science’s lack of movement into the future… It is fear, conservatism, and dogmatism. It is pseudo-skepticism which clings to a scientifically disproved belief system, a triumvirate of ancient philosophies: materialism, rationalism and naturalism.” — Ralph Abraham, Professor of Mathematics, University of California-Santa Cruz.

This article will challenge a relatively recent group of Skeptics that identify themselves as the advocates of Science-Based Medicine (SBM), which is not to be confused with the widely accepted approach to decision-making in medical practice known as Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM). Although SBM’s most vocal leaders are physicians and medical researchers, the group’s origin is more properly found in the growing Skepticism movement, which advocates strict adherence to mainstream science and diligently criticizes alternative and traditional medical systems and therapies as pseudo-science, quackery and enemies of reason.

During the course of over forty-five years I have been an advocate for natural healing and have counseled numerous people in wellness, lifestyle and behavioral modification, nutrition and diet, physical exercise training, and mind-body therapies. I have witnessed numerous successes including remission from terminal cancers, reversal of illnesses otherwise assumed to be death sentences such AIDS and Alzheimer’s, autism, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, severe autoimmune and inflammatory conditions, etc. There is nothing miraculous about any of this. In fact, it is nothing out of the ordinary. We too are skeptics (small “s”), not only concerning divine intervention of phenomena that portends to be miraculous but also the far-out New Age health practices that have never undergone any manner of clinical or scientific scrutiny.

However we are also skeptical about what parades around in conventional medicine as being sound-evidence based therapeutic protocols is in our opinion controlled and dominated by private money interests. And we are deeply skeptical and concerned about the serious limitations in the 19th century Cartesian reductionist view of the human body, anatomy and bio-molecular activity. This paradigm, which should have been abandoned decades ago, is the one fully endorsed by the Skeptic medical doctors and its small radical faction of Skeptic physicians who market themselves under the banner of Science Based Medicine (SBM). And it is the same belief system endorsed and promulgated by Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimmy Wales.

What Skeptics criticize as magical thinking and placebo effects, particularly in the eradication of life-threatening diseases by alternative medical modalities or traditional healers, are in fact based upon laws of physics and biophysics that have yet to enter mainstream medical thinking. Much remains unknown or misunderstood with respect to human biology. And there are certainly innumerable physical laws, for example the field of “quantum entanglement” between mind and matter or energy that have not been thoroughly theorized. Yet the evidence is conclusive that further research in biophysics to understand the principles behind alternative medical systems that Skeptics don’t and refuse to understand and appreciate is warranted.

Unlike current medical science, even Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) strategies, quantum mechanics is a far more verifiable science. And this research is especially critical because conventional medicine continues to fail to meet its promises to patients; it is too costly for a growing number of people, and it is far too compromised by corporate profits and junk research to provide any assurances for a better future in healthcare and medical intervention. Nevertheless the positive results of non-conventional and traditional medical systems and Alternative and Complementary Medicine (CAM) cannot be debunked nor dismissed easily by Skeptic’s amateur and irrational arguments and biased assessment of their personal beliefs.

Although Skeptics repeatedly chant the mantra that reason should be the sole means to determine the efficacy or failure of a medical intervention, their arguments are in fact surprisingly irrational and often comical. On the one hand, SBM followers acknowledge the health benefits of a wholesome diet; yet they oppose functional nutrition therapies, especially supplement and herbal regimens as a means to prevent and treat disease. Because they have completely bought into biotech agriculture, they see no benefit to consuming organic foods. Genetically modified crops are in their estimation superior or a least “substantially equivalent.” They argue that alternative medicine, particularly naturopathy and homeopathy, costs lives, either due to these natural therapies themselves or because these therapies divert people away from receiving conventional medical attention. At the same time Skeptics downplay and more often completely ignore the deaths of hundreds of thousands of patients annually from iatrogenic injuries due to their own profession’s over-reliance upon pharmaceutical drugs, excessive radiation exposure and unnecessary surgery.

But perhaps our favorite is SBM’s incessant diatribe that the countless successful treatments from natural and alternative therapies, which has been used for several millennia, are nothing more than placebo effects. Worse, the placebo effect is framed as a terrible thing although it has been intrinsic to healing since humans first made efforts to treat disease and illnesses. In fact, the dichotomy lies in the fact that these same Skeptics oppose mind-body and energy therapies, which are anathema in organized Skepticism. Nevertheless integrative medicine follows psycho-physical principles analogous to the placebo effect. It follows the powers of the mind that have been shown repeatedly that health can be improved through beliefs, expectations, social relationships and even faith. The importance of positive thinking and beliefs are the underpinnings of placebo effects.

And there is more. Double-blind clinical trials are considered the gold standard, but here too scientific evidence shows that such trials are intrinsically biased as well. In one study, both doctors and patients were asked to guess whether they had received the real drug or the placebo. One would expect that responses would be 50 percent correct. However, 80 percent of patients and 87% of doctors answered correctly. This clearly indicates the presence of pre-conditioned biases play some kind of role in shaping clinical results, although the scientific mechanism involved is not fully understood. It may also explain disagreements between the results of clinical trials on the same drug. For example, some trials show the popular anti-depressant drug Prozac slightly better than placebo whereas several show Prozac is no more effective than placebo. In the case of clinical trials for vaccines, no proper inert placebo is used at all. Rather a placebo is basically the vaccine minus the viral component.

Reality supersedes scientific verification and validation. Truths exist as such before any form of analysis is undertaken, even before we are capable of fully understanding the underlying principles of what is being investigated. There may be varying opinions about the underlying psycho-biological mechanisms of the placebo effect and its opposite the nocebo effect. However, the fact that both placebo and nocebo effects exist is irrefutable. Multiple studies prove that when we are subjected to fear, terror, apprehension, sadness, depression, etc, it has an immediate negative impact upon our biochemistry. Likewise, when we experience joy, happiness, comfort or bliss there is a positive biochemical response. Recently, a flurry of peer-reviewed studies have been published that measure the positive impact of Nature’s “greening effect” upon our physical health and mental well-being.

Independent medical research is rapidly verifying these natural ways to rejuvenate and strengthen our health and immune systems. There is no financial incentive for federal health agencies and large pharmaceutical and medical device firms to fund research to better understand our inherent human capabilities to heal ourselves nor the positive effects the natural environment has upon physical, emotional and mental health. The scientific evidence proving these phenomena cannot be manufactured, bottled and sold. Yet as Dr. Rupert Sheldrake observes,

“it is important to remember that animals and plants have been regenerating after damage, heal themselves and defending themselves against infections throughout the entire history of life on earth. All of us have descended from animal and human forebears that survived and reproduced for hundreds of millions of years before the advent of doctors. We would not be here if it were not for our ancestors’ innate capacities to heal and resist disease.”[1]

Researchers in the neurocognitive sciences and immunology have uncovered reproducible evidence that what we think and feel triggers biological changes. We no longer need further proof that this occurs. What we do need to explore are the underlying physical laws that contribute to these changes. However as Dr. John Ioannidis at Stanford University’s Prevention Research Center argues, it can take upwards to three decades for ground-breaking discoveries in the health sciences to eventually reach the attention of mainstream medicine. And most such discoveries are forgotten altogether.

For example, at this moment, the carcinogenic risks due to exposure to Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide is being reviewed and ruled in the European Union court. The evidence against the chemical’s safety is enormous, and the EU court has ruled that testimonies from farmers dying from glyphosate exposure will be heard. Is more evidence necessary? Skeptics argue it is because religious faith in a scientific paradigm prohibits them from budging an inch from coveted pseudo-scientific beliefs in the agro-chemical GMO paradigm. Is this not utterly irrational?

SBM Skeptics become religiously monotheistic when the only measure to determine the health of person is that which can be medically supervised and validated by clinical or cohort statistics. Whether we follow a meat- or plant-based diet, eat organic or chemically laced foods, supplement our nutritional needs when we are deficient, or make concerted efforts to reduce life’s stresses, is irrelevant to Skeptics. Nevertheless, every positive choice we make has a positive result.

The full measure of the scientific evidence shows that all these choices have a direct impact upon the state of our health and our longevity. Yet the only personal choice that matters to SBM Skeptics is the medical choice we make, whether to completely adhere to the full advice of our allopathic doctor or follow our magical thinking and become seduced into following an alternative health protocol or therapy. For Skeptics, such as Dawkins, Novella and Gorsky, and Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales redemption and salvation are only found in our conversion to the pharmaceutical regime that now dictates our destitute medical paradigm.

NOTES

1 Sheldrake, Rupert. Science Set Free: Ten Paths to New Discovery. Random House: New York, 2012

2 Gorski DH, Novella SP. “Clinical trials of integrative medicine: testing whether magic works?” Trends Mol Med. 2014 Sep;20(9):473-6.

3 Manzotti, Riccardo. The Spread Mind: Why Consciousness and the World are One. OR Books: New York, 2018

4 Novella, S. “Deconstructing Homeopathy Propaganda” August 17, 2016 https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/deconstructing-homeopathy-propaganda/

5 Angell, Marcia. The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. Random House: New York, 2004

6 Culliton BJ. “Medicine as business: are doctors entrepreneurs.” Science. 1986 Sep 5;233(4768):1032-3.

7 D’Arcy, Moynihan R. “Can the relationship between doctors and drug companies ever be a healthy one?” PloSMed. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000075.

8 Kirsch I. The Emperor’s New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth. Bodley Head: London, 2009.

Progressive Commentary Hour, August 2, 2018

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries. Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program natural health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including his most recent Deadly Deception: Exposing the Dangers of Vaccines released in January 2018.

DISCLAIMER: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

EPA in bed with Monsanto / Bayer, burying studies that show glyphosate causes cancer

by

This isn’t a big surprise if you’ve been following what’s really happening in business and science.

There’s a big revolving door between the regulatory agencies, lobbyists and private companies. And they’re laughing all the way to the bank. They get paid for poisoning us and the planet.

Remember that contrary to popular belief, regulators and the chemical companies (like Bayer & Monsanto) are not objective, and they usually slant their ‘research’ to protect and expand their profits.

This is why these big corporations lie and deceive. They knew that glyphosate causes cancer, but purposefully buried this fact so they could keep on selling their blockbuster pesticide (Roundup).

Hopefully, you aren’t surprised to be hearing this. But if you are, it’s a good thing that you’re starting to wake up to the lies and deception that we are led to believe are true.

Get Your Free Report-How to Beat Cancer After Your MD Gives Up on You

EPA in Bed with Monsanto/Bayer-Bury Studies That Prove Glyphosate Causes Cancer

(Natural News) With so much scientific evidence supporting the fact that glyphosate causes cancer, how can anyone still believe that weed killers that contain it, like Monsanto’s Roundup – now part of Bayer – are somehow safe? The answer is simple: The company has the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its pocket, and they’re all too willing to help them cover up damning evidence that their products are toxic.

The EPA is a government agency, and Monsanto knows that lots of people trust authoritative groups supposedly tasked with “protecting” us. It’s been a mutually beneficial relationship over the years, with a recent piece in Bloomberg Businessweek — hardly part of the “alternative media” — breaking down the dirty details of their dealings over the years.

A recent EPA paper put forth as part of a panel in charge of reviewing the agency’s stance that glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer — which caused a lot of controversy among experts. In fact, eight of the 15 experts there displayed serious concerns about the agency’s stance, and three others voiced concerns about the data.

They also called into question the impartiality of the Office of Pesticide Programs. The group is given the final word on whether pesticides are permitted, yet they make their decisions based on the data provided by the pesticide manufacturers themselves! They also happen to get nearly 30 percent of their operating budget from the pesticide industry. Surely there’s no conflict of interest there, right?

The EPA’s paper used a lot of shady tactics. For example, when it came to epidemiological studies that showed glyphosate might cause cancer, they downplayed them by claiming that farmers’ recollection of their exposure to the chemical was unreliable and biased. In a meta-analysis that found trends in data from multiple human studies, they shaved off decimal points from results to make the data showing a higher risk of cancer in exposed farmers less swaying.

In scolding EPA officials at the meeting, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Epidemiologist Eric Johnson said: “Every time there’s something positive there, you said there’s something wrong with the study.” Experts who were present also complained that the evidence didn’t match the paper’s conclusion in favor of glyphosate.

When the EPA later reported on this peer review, they didn’t mention the number of reviewers who voiced concerns. They used wording like “some panel members suggested…” to obscure the fact the majority of those present were doubtful.

EPA has long known about the dangers of glyphosate

The EPA has known that glyphosate causes cancer since as far back as the 1970s, according to researcher Dr. Anthony Samsel. Samsel says that studies carried out by New Jersey firm Biodynamics from 1978 to 1980 showed a clear link between low doses of glyphosate and tumor growth in internal organs; the studies were submitted to the EPA back in 1981, who inexplicably decided to label them “not significant.”

Other archived EPA memos that recently came to light showed that they knew glyphosate was harmful, particularly to kidneys. The Inspector General of the EPA, Arthur Elkins Jr., confirmed in May that he is investigating possible collusion between the EPA and Monsanto.

In 2015, the World Health Organization declared glyphosate a “probable human carcinogen,” and the lawsuits have been piling up. There is currently multi-district litigation made up of 310 lawsuits against Monsanto on behalf of cancer victims throughout the nation, and documents exposed in this court case show how Monsanto discredits scientists, pays off journal editors, and uses paid social media comments to try to influence public opinion in favor of their toxic products. How can anyone still believe this chemical isn’t dangerous?

Just When You Thought Big Pharma Couldn’t Stoop Any Lower…

by

…they start poaching publicly funded research so they can sell it for massive profits.

If you’ve been following along, you know that they’ve been doing this for a while.  But most people would be totally surprised by this news.

Unfortunately, this is ‘standard operating procedure’ for many (if not the majority) of Big Pharma companies. There’s simply no limit to the lengths they will go to in order to rake in the profits. It doesn’t matter who has to suffer, or how large the trail of financial destruction or the pain that cancer patients will have to endure if they deem it necessary.

If you find that hard to believe, hold on to your seat and take in this report below. Nobody wants to believe that it’s like this, but it’s the truth. It’s about time that people woke up to the fact that profits are a higher priority to Big Pharma than just about any other element, including the welfare of the people that take pharmaceutical drugs.

Regardless of whether or not you believe that gene therapy will work, Big Pharma sees an opportunity to increase their profits from it. And they’re going to make sure that they make huge profits from it with huge markups.

Get Your Free Report-19 Things that Prove Cancer Cures are Suppressed!

No Matter How Bad You Thought Big-Pharma Was, This Is Worse

(emphasis added)

Impropriety among big-pharmaceutical corporations has ranged from multi-billion dollar bribery rackets, to marketing drugs to patients for uses they were never approved for by regulators, to covering up known dangerous side-effects of medications they produce and sell.

More recently, big-pharma has been embroiled in a series of price-gouging controversies over equipment and treatments. This includes the hijacking of and profiteering from a revolutionary new treatment called gene therapy.

Gene therapy, the process of re-engineering human cells to either include missing DNA to cure genetic conditions or to arm the immune system to seek and destroy disease, has been the latest hopeful technology scooped up and plundered by big-pharma.

Gene therapy promises a single shot cure to many of the diseases that have confounded humanity the most – everything from diabetes to cancer, to blindness, deafness, and even various effects of aging.

A third that has proven in clinical trials to provide permanent remission for leukemia patients who were unresponsive to chemotherapy, appears to be close to FDA approval.

The Literal Cure for Cancer, Dangled Over the Dying

While the treatment – even under experimental conditions – costs approximately $20,000 to produce, pharmaceutical giant Novartis has swooped in and industry experts anticipate a markup leaving the price tag between $300,000-600,000.

The New York Times in a 2012 article titled, “In Girl’s Last Hope, Altered Immune Cells Beat Leukemia,” reported that (emphasis added):

Dr. June said that producing engineered T-cells costs about $20,000 per patient — far less than the cost of a bone-marrow transplant. Scaling up the procedure should make it even less expensive, he said, but he added, “Our costs do not include any profit margin, facility depreciation costs or other clinical care costs, and other research costs.”

More recently, in a July 2017 Washington Post article titled, “First gene therapy — ‘a true living drug’ — on the cusp of FDA approval,” its reported that:

Novartis has not disclosed the price for its therapy, but analysts are predicting $300,000 to $600,000 for a one-time infusion. Brad Loncar, whose investment fund focuses on companies that develop immunotherapy treatments, hopes the cost does not prompt a backlash. “CAR-T is not the EpiPen,” he said. “This is truly pushing the envelope and at the cutting edge of science.”

But it isn’t Novartis that’s “pushing the envelope,” or at “the cutting edge of science.” Charity-funded university researchers are.

Stealing From Charity

The New York Times and the Washington Post both appear to give Novartis credit for this breakthrough in their article, with NYT claiming that the company invested some $20 million on a research center to bring the treatment to market. However, that appears not to be entirely true.

It was, in fact, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS) that funded the initial work toward this breakthrough, beginning in the late 1990’s and committing some $21 million to the effort.

Novartis is indeed a partner of LLS, but according to LLS’ own annual reports (2016, PDF), it is listed under the second tier of donors – providing between $500,000-900,000 out of the total $35.6 million LLS received in direct gifts that year. In some years Novartis has donated even less.

LLS itself, in a 2014 press release, stated:

LLS has invested in the work of June and colleagues since 1998 and has committed to investing a total of $21 million through 2017 to get this first treatment to more patients. LLS first funded Grupp in 1992 through its career development program. LLS has also been funding another member of the team, David Porter, M.D. of University of Pennsylvania since 1994.

Elsewhere, LLS reports cite that this breakthrough in curing leukemia has “attracted” Novartis as a partner, never mentioning that Novartis is actually a long-term LLS partner.

In reality, it appears pharmaceutical corporations like Novartis are using charities like LLS to fund research and development that corporations themselves should be investing in. Instead, Novartis and others are poaching public and charity-funded research and breakthroughs, profiting from what is often decades of dedicated and difficult work.

Beyond LLS’ partners, it receives millions of dollars annually from other donors ranging from businesses unrelated to the pharmaceutical industry, to fundraising events held nationwide, to families and individuals who have experienced cancer either themselves or through a family member or friend.

The research and breakthroughs LLS funds belong to all of its donors. How the work it funded has ended up in the hands of a single corporation, facing a mark up of anywhere between 15-30 times its cost during experimental trials demands scrutiny and a detailed explanation.

Why Big-Pharma is Gouging Gene Therapy

Gene therapy overall threatens the fundamental business model pharmaceutical giants are built on – that is to perpetually peddle medication that covers up the symptoms of disease rather than outright curing it.

It is a business practice that provides profits easily predicted quarter to quarter, with some medications leading to complications big-pharma also has a pill for. Something that treats a patient permanently with a single, inexpensive shot constitutes big-pharma’s worst nightmare.

MIT Technology Review in an article titled, “A First-of-a-Kind Gene Therapy Cure Has Struggled to Find a Market,” tells the tale of another pharmaceutical corporation – GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), of another revolutionary gene therapy it scooped up from research done by others, its $665,000 price tag, and why GSK – along with the rest of big-pharma – are disinterested in gene therapy.

[Alex] Pasteur [investor with F-Prime Capital Partners and interim CEO of Orchard Therapeutics] also says revenues for a rare-disease gene therapy might only ever add up to $100 million a year. Because GSK brings in $36 billion a year, Pasteur is not surprised the company is looking elsewhere for revenue. “These are pimples on the back of a whale,” he says. “But the assets could be very interesting for someone else.”

Indeed, a single shot that costs only a few thousand dollars and permanently cures people of virtually every human health infliction not only isn’t profitable, but will likely put these enormous, abusive monopolies out of business for good.

Obamacare vs Trumpcare: Nobody Cares, But Innovation Cures

Education is the first step in combating the hijacking and burying of gene therapy and other innovations.

At a time when people arguing over Obamacare versus Trumpcare are realizing that no one actually cares about their health more than they themselves, innovation like gene therapy offers to make healthcare so affordable and effective, insurance schemes and government subsidies would be unnecessary.

But gene therapy will only gain traction if the wider public knows about it, including its implications for not only improving their own health, but improving the healthcare systems of their respective nations.

The public must also understand the true costs behind gene therapy and where money for research has come from – often from public funding or charity. This knowledge allows the public to call out pharmaceutical corporations attempting to seize credit and profits entirely for themselves.

While pharmaceutical corporations invest inordinate amounts of money attempting to convince the world that they are indispensable, university researchers funded by public money and charity prove they are more often than not setting breakthroughs back, not moving them forward.

If the good people involved in LLS are capable of raising the money to fund these breakthroughs, they are capable of creating a pharmaceutical trust that can bring these cures to market with greater transparency and oversight.

Healthcare debates focused purely on political solutions and debates are frustrating. Getting behind gene therapy and other tangible healthcare innovations is something people can better invest their time, money, energy, and attention into instead.

 

 

Noni Leaf Extract Works Better Than Lung Cancer Chemotherapy Drug

by

This is very exciting news for people fighting lung cancer.

I’m sure that more studies are needed, but this is something that lung cancer patients may be able to act on immediately.

There are other non-toxic, cheap, safe, effective substances out there that can treat cancer. It is incomprehensible that there have been zero effective treatments for the major cancers with numerous researchers working on this problem over a number of decades. There’s no way that none of the researchers (mainstream as well as independent) have not found anything more effective and safer than radiation, chemotherapy and surgery.

The Medical Establishment has worked hard to hide, obfuscate, and create an environment of confusion in the public about characteristics, treatments and etiology of cancer. They work in concert with Big Pharma to control the health care industry with the goal of producing the most profits while feigning feverish research to cure cancer and other diseases.

We’ve discussed elements of this plan in numerous other articles on this site. I’m not the only one to identify this state of affairs in health care. A number of courageous doctors, scientists, journalists and others have called out Big Pharma and the Medical Establishment for these shenanigans. Unfortunately, mainstream media is in bed with them so it never gets widely disseminated.

Too many resources are being wasted while people suffer needlessly from diseases that have cures and/or less painful, less expensive, more effective treatments. This needs to change.

Learn how to beat cancer even if your doctor gives up on you…

Study: Noni Leaf Extract Works Better Than Erlotinib -The Chemotherapy Drug Used For Lung Cancer

Arjun Walia

Many foods, herbs, and other plants have proven remarkably effective at killing cancer cells in the lab. Perhaps the best known example is cannabis, whose active constituents, cannabinoids, have been shown to annihilate cancers of all different kinds. The trouble has been understanding the various strains and quality of cannabis and how it interacts with each person differently. Clinical trials would help, but there have been few.

The little-known Chinese herb artemesinin is another example. According to studies published in Life Sciences, Cancer Letters, and Anticancer Drugs, this derivative of the wormwood plant, commonly used in Chinese medicine, can kill off cancer cells, and do it at a rate of 12,000 cancer cells for every healthy cell. (source)

Another plant once used medicinally by ancient civilizations is now proving effective as well. Called Noni Leaf, it is derived from a small evergreen tree which grows in the Pacific Islands, Southeast Asia, Australia, and India among lava flows. It has been studied for its numerous health benefits, and a fairly recent study published in Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry is showing that this food, consumed as a vegetable (Noni Leaves), could be ideal for the treatment, prevention, and/or management of lung cancer.

The study found that an extract of Noni leaf was more effective than Erlotinib, the chemotherapy drug used for suppressing metastasized lung cancer, at treating lung cancer in an animal model.

The authors also point out how conventional chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy commonly fails when it comes to lung cancer. And this isn’t new information. A survey conducted in 1985 found that only about one-third of physicians and oncology nurses would have consented to chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Lung cancer is the most lethal of of all cancers, claiming 1.4 million lives every year, and the majority of these cases are classified as NSCLC.

Scientists compared Noni leaves on metastasized lung cancer development, both in vitro and in vivo, with the FDA-approved anti-cancer drug Erlotinib. What’s the difference between in vivo and in vitro studies? For in vitro studies, researchers conduct experiments using cells in a petrie dish, or perform a procedure in a controlled environment outside of a living organism. For in vivo studies, researchers perform experiments on a whole, living organism as opposed to a partial or dead organism. Animal studies and clinical trials are two forms of in vivo research.

The study found that Noni leaf extract “inhibited the proliferation and induced apoptosis in A549 cells and mouse Lewis lung carcinoma cells in vitro [and] arrested cancer cell cycle at G0/G1 phases.” The abstract goes on to further outline the results:

Showed no toxicity on normal lung cells, and mentioned that: Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) A549-induced BALB/c mice were fed with 150 and 300 mg/kg M. citrifolia and compared with Erlotinib (50mg/kg body weight) for 21 days. It significantly increased the pro-apoptic TRP53 genes, down regulated the pro-tumourignensis genes in the mice tumours, significantly increased the anti-inflammatory IL4, IL10 and NR3C1 expression in the metastasized lung and hepatic cancer tissues and enhanced the NFE2L2-dependent antioxidant responses against oxidative injuries. The extract elevated serum neutrophils and reduced the red blood cells, haemoglobin, corpuscular volume and cell haemoglobin concentration in the lung cancer-induced mammal. It suppressed inflammation and oedema, and upregulated the endogenous antioxidant responses and apoptotic genes to suppress the cancer. The 300 mg/kg extract was more effective than the 50 mg/kg Erlotinib for most of the parameters measured.

Pretty remarkable, isn’t it? These findings definitely warrant further research and human clinical trials. The changes produced by Noni leaf are consistent with what researchers would expect from a good chemotherapy drug, so why this type of medicine is classified as ‘alternative’ is a mystery. In fact, 25 percent of the active ingredients in cancer drugs are found only in the Amazon, yet only 10 percent of the plants in the Amazon have been studied for their medicinal properties.

Cancer Is Big Business

“We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison are better than three doses of that poison.”

– Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist (source)

Unfortunately, cancer is a big business, promising huge and endless profits for pharmaceutical companies. This is far from a conspiracy theory; there is a reason why so many experts in the field are speaking out against the cancer industry. Linus Pauling, for example, a two time Nobel Prize winner, told the world that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are “derelict in their duties to the people who support them.”

Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), a professor of medicine at Harvard University and the former editor-in-chief of the New England Medical Journal, told us that “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.” (source)

The list of statements from industry insiders is extensive, and the number of substances out there showing extreme potential for cancer treatment is similarly large. Unfortunately, pharmaceutical companies don’t seem to be interested in many of them, since most can’t be patented or profited from.

Sayer Ji from Greenmedinfo sums it up best:

The implications of this research are truly profound. Erlotinib (trade name Tarceva) can cost upwards of $7,700 a month (150 mg a day), depending on the drug dose used. Ironically, since the drug doesn’t actually prolong survival effectively, the profit gravy train runs dry sooner than later because the patient dies. If indeed the drug prolonged survival a year, would it be worth the 30,000 to 90,000 it costs? Perhaps, if you could afford it. When you compare the price of Noni leaf extract, which can cost as low as 12 cents per 250 mg extract, you begin to see just how skewed our concept of value is. How could a chemotherapy agent, with deadly side effects, that can easily bankrupt a family if they are forced to pay out of pocket, be offered as the only choice to those with cancer when something that is practically free, safe, and has been proven effective in this way? (source)

Below is an article we published on the cancer industry which looks at this corruption in-depth, as well as a thought-provoking video (taken from the Thrive documentary) to give you something to think about. It sums up the problems with cancer that not many people are addressing.

I also wrote an article titled “The First Three Things I would Do If I Was Diagnosed With Cancer” which you may be interested in checking out.

 

 

This Medical Scandal Will SHOCK You

by

This is an example of how they try to maximize the profits on drugs.

It’s called ‘off-label use’.

But it appears to be more of a way to extend the profits on drugs that come out of patent protection.

Why are some of these drugs being used for new ailments without any real studies being conducted on them? If the drug actually worked for the second use, why wasn’t it patented for that use in the first place? Often, the off-label use isn’t supported by sound scientific evidence.

As always, it’s probably a good idea to become knowledgeable about whatever disease you have, and also about the drugs and treatments that your health care professional recommends for you.

And realize that the FDA and other regulatory agencies aren’t really going to go out of their way to protect you and your loved ones from this.

Learn How to Stop Your Cancer COLD…

This Medical Scandal Will SHOCK You

You may have heard about this on the news.

The pharmaceutical company Celgene has agreed to pay $280 million to settle claims for when it marketed cancer drugs (Thalomid and Revlimid) for unapproved uses.

Under the terms of the settlement, the company will pay $259.3 million to the United States and $20.7 million to 28 states and the District of Columbia.

Maybe you’ve never been treated for cancer… and have never taken these drugs.

So why should you care?

Because what happened with Celgene is happening with DOZENS of other prescription drugs right now.

And you could be a victim without ever realizing it.

Here is the way things are supposed to work: drug companies find a need, develop and research a new medication, and then the FDA approves the drug when it passes certain tests.

The drug can then be sold.

But that is not how it works.

More often then not, companies get a drug approved, but then doctors use it for another thing.

This is called off-label use.

Off-label use is supposedly okay, as long as drug companies don’t push their drug for off-label use.

Yeah, right.

Celgene isn’t alone in pushing off-label use. There have been a string of multi-million dollar fines that drug companies have paid to settle charges of inappropriately marketing.

Here are the lessons:

  • A $280 million fine is nothing to a drug company. Celgene made $12.82 billion in 2017. That fine is only 2% of profits, meaning those two drugs, Thalomid and Revlimid, made over $7 billion in 2017.
  • The FDA does almost nothing to stop drug companies from marketing off-label drugs. The agency sent Celgene two warning letters, in 1998 and 2000, claiming the company had been mis-marketing its drugs, but that didn’t change anything. Usually, a whistleblower needs to come forward.The end result is that you have to choose wisely when you take drugs: there is no one looking out for your health (especially not the FDA).

    Dr. Scott’s Plan for Managing Medications:

    • Never start. Always investigate natural ways to help your condition as your first step.
    • Never stop without some help. Go to your doctor and ask him the best way to get off the drug. Weaning is often necessary.
    • Work with your doctor when possible. If your doctor is not open to you trying something natural and checking back in, then find another doctor.

Health and Happiness,

Dr. Scott Olson

Nearly 25 years ago, failed mainstream medical treatments left Dr. Olson in constant pain – and his health in ruins. And that’s when he did something REVOLUTIONARY. He began his career in medicine – and dedicated his life to uncovering the true, underlying causes of disease.
Through his innovative medical practices in Tennessee and Colorado, Dr. Olson has helped cure countless seniors from across America of arthritis… heart disease… diabetes… and even cancer. All without risky prescription drugs or painful surgeries.

 

Debunking cancer myths: Few cancers come from an inherited gene, according to the scientists

by

If you were to believe the perception given by the mainstream media and reported news, you would think that most cancers are genetic in origin.

But that would be false.

It just goes to show you that popular opinion is often the opposite of the truth.

My thought is that the Medical Establishment and Big Pharma want people to think that most cancers are caused by genetics because that would justify more expensive treatments and diagnostics.

It’s the same reason the research focus is on drugs and expensive procedures instead of on reducing environmental toxins, and the use of cheap, natural, non-toxic (non-patentable) substances. They simply aren’t very profitable. The money is in the expensive treatments and drugs; not in cures and cheap, effective treatments.

We have to learn the facts on our own because Big Pharma and those who profit from the status quo will never stop selling you their profitable treatments and drugs voluntarily.

Get More Alternative Cancer information at your fingertips…

Debunking cancer myths: Few cancers come from an inherited gene, according to the scientists

(Natural News) Is cancer genetic? While many people believe that cancer simply runs in their family, science tells us that very few cancers are actually caused by genes inherited from our parents. In fact, estimates suggest that only about 5-to-10 percent of all cancers stem from an inherited gene. Even the National Cancer Institute admits the fact that hereditary cancers are, in reality, quite rare.

In spite of this, many people wrongly believe that they are doomed to get cancer just because a family member had it. But as the American Cancer Society notes, cancers that appear to run in families are not inherently caused by faulty genes. Families often share similar lifestyle habits — whether it be in regards to diet, exercise, tobacco use or alcohol consumption, these are all things that can influence your cancer risk independent of your genetics. It’s well-established that kids often pick up on their parents’ habits.

By definition, cancer is a genetic disease — but not in the way we typically think of “genes.” This too can be confusing; we often think of genes as being what we inherit from our parents and pass down to our children. But your genes are so much more than that: They are the blueprint which lays the foundation for every cell in your body.

Cancer is caused by changes to genes which disrupt the way your cells function, particularly regarding cell growth and division. In this way, cancer is a “genetic” disease — if effects genes. But for the vast majority of cases, these are not cellular changes passed down through families. As the American Cancer Society explains, most cancers are caused by acquired mutations.

These kinds of mutations are changes that are acquired throughout the course of a lifetime — often thanks to exposure to carcinogenic substances. Whether it be the food you’re eating, the cigarettes you’re smoking or the pesticides you’re spraying on your lawn — these are the kinds of things that silently cause cancer over time.

Natural News has reported on cancer-causing foods and chemicals for years, and even the lowly cancer industry admits that these are things that cause cancer. Yet few people are truly aware of this fact, and many erroneously believe that if cancer runs in their family, they’re out of luck.

The truth is that nearly half of all cancers can be directly linked to lifestyle factors — with some research suggesting that figure is even higher. Some researchers believe that upwards of 90 percent of cancers are caused by some sort of controllable factor.

A recent study found that 24 lifestyle factors contributed to 41 percent of cancer cases. As the study authors noted:

“We estimated summary population attributable risk estimates for 24 risk factors (smoking [both passive and active], overweight and obesity, inadequate physical activity, diet [inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption, inadequate fiber intake, excess red and processed meat consumption, salt consumption, inadequate calcium and vitamin D intake], alcohol, hormones [oral contraceptives and hormone therapy], infections [Epstein-Barr virus, hepatitis B and C viruses, human papillomavirus, Helicobacter pylori], air pollution, natural and artificial ultraviolet radiation, radon and water disinfection by-products) by combining population attributable risk estimates for each of the 24 factors that had been previously estimated.”

These are not genetic cancers — they are cancers caused by the litany of toxins we expose our bodies to, in one way or another, on a daily basis. Indeed, there is no shortage of cancer-causing chemicals in modern life; from added sugars and artificial dyes to pesticides and herbicides, these hazards are virtually everywhere. And to make matters worse, modern medicine often relies on more cancer-causing chemicals to treat disease.

Sources for this article include:

NewsWise.com

Cancer.org