The Cancer Industry

FDA quietly bans powerful life-saving intravenous Vitamin C

We hope this isn’t true, but it would appear that they’re attacking another cheap, non-toxic, effective treatment for cancer.
Even if you would argue that IV vitamin C isn’t a cure, you can’t deny that it’s relatively innocuous compared to chemotherapy, radiation or even immunotherapy drugs. Each one of those treatments have a laundry list of side effects, many of them fatal.
People that clamor for the science on this don’t understand that regardless of the scientific basis demonstrating that it is effective, it is not going to be marketed by Big Pharma. And this is because no company is going to spend millions of dollars promoting something that they can’t make any money off of! It just doesn’t work like that. This is not hard to understand, but many alleged science-loving people fail to comprehend this fact. I call it ‘strategic ignorance.’
The science that we’ve seen shows that chemotherapy and radiation are not cures for cancer. So even if IV vitamin C isn’t a cure, it definitely will not cripple, maim or injure cancer patients. And even better, it won’t bankrupt them either. Or is this contrary to Big Pharma profit principles? We need to stop being dupes for Big Pharma’s profit motive. It’s simply not in Big Pharma’s plan to allow cheap cures for diseases because they would destroy the market & sales that they garner from their existing drugs.
Who do you know that would willingly destroy their source of income? Especially if we’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars of profits. It’s time to stop being naive and start to wake up to the way that human behavior and motivation really works. Do we really need a double-blind, randomized study to prove this?
Learn 5 Things You Can Do to Stop Your Cancer COLD…

It would be naive to think that the FDA endeavors to protect the public’s health as its primary focus. Indeed, that would be a conflict of interest, as it serves its master, the pharmaceutical industry. Has the Food and Drug Administration engineered a shortage of intravenous vitamin C as part of an overall attack on natural and non-toxic approaches to healing that compete with prescription drugs? An analysis by Natural Blaze would suggest that the answer is yes.

Natural Blaze claims that a critical shortage of IV bags in general followed an FDA ban on the mass production of intravenous vitamin C. The FDA limited the availability of IV-C and the pharmaceutical industry halted production of injectable vitamins and minerals, after a 60 minute story about the miraculous recovery of a swine flu patient on life support. Because of the shortage of IV-C, doctors called upon compounding pharmacies to produce it. But the FDA began to limit compounding pharmacies after injectable steroids produced by the New England Compounding Center were contaminated with a fungus that caused a deadly outbreak of meningitis. Here is an example of an entire industry being punished for the dubious practices of one compounding pharmacy.
Try and follow this convoluted story: Doctors began to source NECC for its more expensive product because cheaper generic versions were in short supply. But it was the FDA’s increased inspection of drug factories that disrupted the supply chain in the first place. So the meningitis deaths were in part caused by the onerous actions of the FDA.
Natural Blaze reports, “… without anyone noticing, and by many indirect means of banning production of the bags or shutting down those doing the production of the bags and the injectable vitamins and minerals, access to IV solutions for innumerable treatments for diseases, have gone into critical shortage.”
Vitamin C and the Big C
Could the shortage of IV-C be part of an effort to limit alternative cancer therapies?
DrWhitaker.com states, “… vitamin C is a potent antioxidant that has the power to boost immune function, increase resistance to infection, and protect against a wide range of diseases. But there’s an entirely different and largely unknown role of vitamin C, and that is its ability—when administered in very high doses by intravenous (IV) infusions—to kill cancer cells. … Best of all—and unlike virtually all conventional chemotherapy drugs that destroy cancer cells—it is selectively toxic. No matter how high the concentration, vitamin C does not harm healthy cells.”
Dr. Whitaker continues:
“The only way to get blood levels of vitamin C to the concentrations required to kill cancer cells is to administer it intravenously. … For example, 10 g of IV vitamin C raises blood levels 25 times higher than the same dose taken orally, and this increases up to 70-fold as doses get larger.”
Choose health, choose life
When the human body is challenged by pathogens or needs to heal from injuries or surgery, its requirement for vitamin C increases considerably. If hospitals routinely administered intravenous ascorbic acid, a proven and inexpensive treatment, patient outcomes would improve. When one weighs the risk of infection from deadly superbugs in hospitals today, IV vitamin C as a preventative safeguard makes all the more sense.
To learn how to secure IV-C in advance of a hospital stay for yourself or a family member, check out this very useful advice at DoctorYourself.com. You will learn how to deal with objections from physicians and hospital administrators regarding this “alt-health” remedy. It will require some moxie, but doing so may save a life.
Supporters of Obamacare believe that access to affordable healthcare is the most important consideration. But of even greater concern should be the ability to choose your own treatment modality, such as IV-C. In other words, medical freedom of choice trumps universal access. Many of us involved in the health freedom movement are outraged by the disregard for our natural rights by unelected federal bureaucracies such as the FDA. We hope for a day when a critical mass of aware citizens will hold their elected officials accountable to overturn toxic policies that favor Big Pharma’s obscene profits over our health and well-being. And that day is long overdue.
For more info, go to: www.blacklistednews.com

Read on »

Selenium-A Natural Cure for Cancer?

This is very exciting news, but the frustrating part is that this isn’t recent news. Worse yet, why isn’t information like this being widely promoted by the mainstream media, nor by the Medical Establishment?  That is a very interesting, and enlightening question for discerning minds.
We hear about all these newfangled, technical miracle medicines and treatments. Whether it’s immunotherapy, or some new drug, treatment or procedure that they have is supposed to revolutionize cancer treatment, we’re always hearing about these types of things from the Medical Establishment. But we don’t hear about how powerful selenium is for preventing cancer.
It would seem more sensible to prevent a person from contracting cancer rather than treating it after that person was diagnosed with it. That would appear to be a more advanced, proactive, effective way to deal with cancer. The best cancer diagnosis is one that is never made. At least that’s what would be cheaper and less painful for the prospective cancer patient.
But we must ask the question: Why is news like this not being slapped all over the news and the Medical Establishment? It wouldn’t be a reach to say that it’s because prevention doesn’t serve Big Pharma interests! Selenium is dirt cheap relative to chemotherapy, radiation, surgery, immunotherapy, or other mainstream treatment modalities.
We must be realistic and understand the concept and truth that Big Pharma companies are not charities! They are not humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross or the Salvation Army. Their mission isn’t the betterment of mankind, but the earning of profits for their owners. This isn’t hard to understand, and it is something that everyone needs to know, regardless of how you feel about it.
Things like this let you know that these companies are all about the profits. And this is why you don’t and won’t hear them plastering news or Public Service Announcements about selenium dropping your chances of contracting or dying of cancer by 50%. If it was a pharmaceutical drug that reduced the chances of contracting or dying of cancer by 50%, you’d never hear the end of it from Big Pharma and the Medical Establishment.
Nonetheless, you’re still seeing those Big Pharma commercials for their drugs for cancer and other ailments all over the place. This isn’t rocket science, but it will require you to set aside Big Pharma propaganda so that you can see the truth. But you’ll never see it if you blindly believe the Medical Establishment and their army of scientists that have been conditioned to be beholden to Big Pharma objectives and the Big Pharma paradigm. They’re all cashing in while they have nothing to say about things like selenium. In fact, they (and their minions) often tell you that diet, simple vitamins and minerals cannot cure or treat cancer. I wonder why…
Get More Alternative Cancer information at your fingertips…

Selenium-A Natural Cure for Cancer?
Here’s one of natures most potent natural cancer cures the pharmaceutical industry hopes you never find out about (bad luck for them because you’re about to!)
See why selenium really is one of those “natural cancer treatments” many have been eagerly waiting and hoping for…
Selenium has now been recognized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in America as an anti-cancer nutrient. For that to happen there has to be some strong evidence to prove selenium’s benefit in cancer prevention and treatment.

And there certainly is!
The first conclusive study, a double blind study, was performed by Dr Larry Clark and the results published by the University of Arizona Medical School back in 1996 (these results were then published in the prestigious “Journal of the American Medical Association” J.A.M.A).
What Dr Clark did was take 1312 people and give them nothing more than 200 micrograms of selenium daily, then watch them for ten years.
What he discovered was that selenium alone was able to reduce the overall cancer mortality rate by a stunning 50%. Furthermore, it was able to reduce prostate cancer by 63%, and colorectal cancers by 58%. It was also able to reduce lung cancer by 46%, whether these people were smokers or not. And in a parallel study conducted by the University of California San Diego, they found that selenium was able to reduce breast cancer in women by a staggering 65-95%, depending on the type.
Wow! Amazing Stuff…
The results from this study were truly astounding and even shocked Dr Clark. But what’s even more astounding was that Dr Larry Clark, the man who physically set up the study, was actually against selenium!
Yes that’s right.
He believed selenium was nothing but a total fraud and he set up the study to prove his theory.
Instead it proved just the opposite!
And what’s almost unbelievable about all of this is even after the results, Dr Larry Clark still refused to swallow his pride and not only recognize selenium’s benefits, but also take selenium supplements himself.
Three years after the study, Dr Larry Clark died of prostate cancer.
Now some people might look at this and say it was a terrible tragedy.
I look at it and say it was pure insanity!
Enough said I think?
More Marvelous Benefits of Selenium for Cancer Sufferers…
So what other benefits can this remarkable mineral offer us in regards to treating and curing cancer?
Well, selenium also works very closely with vitamin C, vitamin E and beta carotene to block the chemical reactions in the body that create dangerous free radicals (free radicals damage our DNA and cause degenerative diseases, including cancer).
In addition, selenium helps to stop these damaged DNA molecules from actually reproducing. So in other words, it prevents tumors from even developing!
Dr James Howenstine, in his book, A Physicians Guide to Natural Health Products That Work, says… (In regards to selenium)
“It contributes towards the death of cancerous and pre-cancer cells. Their death appears to occur before they replicate, thus helping stop cancer before it gets started.”
And as a further benefit, selenium has also been shown to aid in the slowing – and even reversal – of cancer progression in patients who already have the disease.
Westerners often don’t get enough selenium, because it’s now been processed out of the foods normally eaten and western soils are grossly deficient.
This is one of the reasons why American men are five times more likely to die from prostate cancer than Japanese men. The standard Japanese diet contains four times the amount of selenium as the standard American diet.
Good News on Selenium For Breast Cancer Patients…
Ralph W Moss, in his ground-breaking book “Cancer Therapy”, talks about selenium and breast cancer. He states…
The statistics for breast cancer are particularly striking. “The higher the selenium, the lower the breast cancer,” says Professor Ladas. Similar associations have been found with leukemia, as well as cancers of the intestines, rectum, ovary, prostate, lung, pancreas, skin and bladder. In Yugoslavia, scientists studied 33 patients with breast cancer. These women had selenium levels in their bloodstream only half those of healthy volunteers.
And in “Eat and Heal” by the editors of FC&A Medical Publishing, they talk about the powerful effects of selenium when it’s combined with iodine and used as a natural cancer treatment – in particular for breast cancer…
Stephen Cann, associate researcher at the University of British Columbia, gives advice to women who want to fight breast cancer with diet, “Eat different types of seaweed”. These include wakame, kombu, and the more common nori – sea vegetables that might fight cancer because of their iodine and selenium. “We think it is very important for the breast”, Cann says about iodine. This mineral, he believes, may prevent and even shrink breast tumors by combining with certain fatty acids and stopping cancerous cells from multiplying. And without the selenium, iodine doesn’t do its job properly.
The simple fact is all natural cancer treatments must be built on selenium supplementation.
You simply cannot go without this nutrient if you want to cure cancer!
For more info, go to: www.life-saving-naturalcures-and-naturalremedies.com

Read on »

How Reliable Are Cancer Studies?

We all know that nothing is perfect, including science. But it would be very nice if lots of staunch people who worship science as a religion would get off of their proverbial ‘high horses’ and try to be more realistic.
This is a very important question because this is the crux of science. Science is supposed to be based on proof, evidence and a process to remove bias. Many see ‘science’ as the paragon, the absolute apex of information, and of society. This is understandable because we do need to be sure of the things we think and believe are true. It has allowed civilization to progress as far as it has.
But there is a problem when what we call science is different from what science is supposed to be, different from what people assume that it is. And therein lies the conundrum. Is a study really science and constitutes ‘proof’ if the conclusions and the actual study results can’t be replicated? Is ‘science’ really science if it has been corrupted for other objectives? Is ‘science’ really science if the scientists are controlled by profit-seeking corporations, politicians who have been bribed or otherwise incentivized to only search for cancer cures down authorized areas of research, or by regulators and government agencies who are in bed with Big Pharma?
It’s just irritating to hear people always talk about science as if it were the only thing that we can believe in. Evidently, most cancer studies, as demonstrated in this brief study, are not reproducible. This means that this so-called science isn’t as scientific or definite as many think it is. And that’s before we even start talking about hidden agendas for various things like protecting corporate Big Pharma profits, prestige, following the mainstream so you don’t get steamrolled by the Medical Establishment, etc.
Maybe this is a sign that there needs to be an overhaul of science, or a revolution in the way that scientific studies are performed. There has to be a way to improve the reproducibility of scientific experiments. There have to be ways to find and use cheaper, more effective, safer treatments for cancer than what Big Pharma, the Medical Establishment and the government are offering and/or allowing to be marketed to patients and consumers. There’s a difference between finding a cure for cancer no matter where or how it is, and finding a treatment for cancer upon which Big Pharma and the Medical Establishment can make billions of dollars of profit! These objectives are as different as night and day.
Often, many people are extremely biased against ‘unproven’ cancer treatment approaches. They fiercely attack people that have different views on cancer treatment. They ridicule and berate anyone who goes outside of traditional cancer treatments. This article exposes what many alternative cancer treatment practitioners and supporters have implicitly known and felt, but never had the proof to document–until now.
The major takeaway from this study is that people who attack alternative cancer treatments should probably try to be more open minded. It would be different if there were some conventional cancer treatments out there that were over 50-75% effective, but they aren’t. So to summarily dismiss ALL ‘alternative’ cancer treatments because they aren’t mainstream is highly biased because each approach is different and stands on its own merits. But ‘alternative cancer practitioners’ and their supporters usually have more logic in their approaches to cancer treatment than what Big Pharma and the Medical Establishment are offering. One common sense strategy is to refrain from the use of medicines and treatments that severely injure patients (like chemotherapy, radiation and often even immunology)!
Get More Alternative Cancer Treatment information right here…

(emphasis is mine)
In recent years, scientists have been dealing with concerns about a reproducibility crisis—the possibility that many published findings may not actually be true. Psychologists have grappled intensively with this problem, trying to assess its scope and look for solutions. And two reports from pharmaceutical companies have suggested that cancer biologists have to face a similar reckoning.
In 2011, Bayer Healthcare said that its in-house scientists could only validate 25 percent of basic studies in cancer and other conditions. (Drug companies routinely do such checks so they can use the information in those studies as a starting point for developing new drugs.) A year later, Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis from Amgen said that the firm could only confirm the findings in 6 out of 53 landmark cancer papers—just 11 percent. Perhaps, they wrote, that might explain why “our ability to translate cancer research to clinical success has been remarkably low.”
But citing reasons of confidentiality, neither the Bayer nor Amgen teams released the list of papers that they checked, or their methods or results. Ironically, without that information, there was no way of checking if their claims about irreproducibility were themselves reproducible. “The reports were shocking, but also seemed like finger-pointing,” says Tim Errington, a cell biologist at the Center for Open Science (COS).
Elizabeth Iorns had the same thought, and she saw a way to do a better and more transparent job. She had founded a start-up called Science Exchange, which uses a large network of contract labs to provide research support to scientists—and in some cases, check their work. She contacted the COS, and together, they launched the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology—an initiative that used the Science Exchange labs to replicate key results from the 50 most cited papers in cancer biology, published between 2010 and 2012. (The COS recently used the same model for psychology studies to good effect.)
The results from the first five of these replication attempts were published today—and they offer no clean answers. Two of them largely (but not entirely) confirmed the conclusions of the original studies. One failed to do so. And two were inconclusive for technical reasons—the mouse strains or cancer cell lines that were used in the original studies didn’t behave in the same way the second time round. These uncertainties mean that it’s very hard to say whether each replication attempt “worked,” or whether each original study was actually reproducible.
“Everyone wants us to paint the project in black and white,” says Errington. “What percent of these papers replicate? I’ve been asked that so many times, but it’s not an easy question.” To him, the project’s goal isn’t to get a hard percentage, but to understand why two seemingly identical goes at the same experiment might produce different results, and to ultimately make it easier for one group of scientists to check another’s work.
The Reproducibility Project team pre-registered all of their work. That is, for each targeted paper, they wrote up their experimental plans in full, ran them past the original authors, and submitted them to the journal eLife for peer review. Only then did they start the experiments. Once the results were in, they were reviewed a second time, before being published.
The hardest part, by far, was figuring out exactly what the original labs actually did. Scientific papers come with methods sections that theoretically ought to provide recipes for doing the same experiments. But often, those recipes are incomplete, missing out important steps, details, or ingredients. In some cases, the recipes aren’t described at all; researchers simply cite an earlier study that used a similar technique. “I’ve done it myself: you reference a previous paper and that one references a paper and that one references a paper, and now you’ve gone years and the methodology doesn’t exist,” admit Errington. “Most people looking at these papers wouldn’t even think of going through these steps. They’d just guess. If you asked 20 different labs to replicate a paper, you’d end up with 10 different methodologies that aren’t really comparable.”
So, in every case, he had to ask the scientists behind the original experiments for the details of their work. Oftentimes, the person who actually did the experiments had left the lab, so an existing team member had to rummage through old notebooks or data files. The project ended up being hugely time-consuming for everyone concerned. “We spent a boatload of time trying to get back to ground zero,” says Errington.
And for what? The results of the first five papers show just how hard it is to interpret a replication attempt in this field. For example, in 2012, Levi Garraway at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute found that melanoma skin cancers frequently carry mutations in a gene called PREX2. His team then showed that these mutations accelerate the growth of human melanoma cells that were transplanted onto mice. But replicating team couldn’t confirm the latter result; in their experiment, the PREX2 mutations made no difference.
Does that mean that Garraway’s study was wrong? Not quite. Even though the replication team got their melanoma cells and mice from the same source as Garraway’s group, in their hands, the transplanted tumours grew much faster than had been reported. The PREX2 mutations made no difference because all the cells were already zooming along in sixth gear. Small differences in the ways the cells were grown or the mice were housed could have contributed to the differences between these studies, writes Roger Davis, a cell biologist at the University of Masschussetts Medical School, reviewed the PREX2 replication paper.
In another case, Irving Weissman from Stanford Medicine showed that cancer cells carry high levels of a protein called CD47, and antibodies that target this protein can slow the growth of human tumor cells that had been transplanted into mice. In this case, the replication experiment was inconclusive because all the transplanted tumors would spontaneously regress, antibodies or no.
Some might argue that these differences arise because the project relied on contractors, who lack the experience and artisanal skills of the scientists in the original teams. Iorns disagrees. “The teams were all selected for their technical expertise in the experiments being conducted,” she says. “They routinely run these types of experiments all the time.”
Instead, she and Errington argue that the differences stem from the inherent and underappreciated variability of the cells and animals being used in these studies. In psychology, researchers who replicate a study have no choice but to recruit different volunteers, who might differ from the original sample in critical ways. But in theory, cancer biologists should be able to use the exact same lineage of cells or breed of rodents—genetically identical and sourced from the same suppliers—which should behave in the same way. “But some of these models kind of fell apart, and you can’t dismiss that,” says Errington. He hopes that these results will spur other scientists to better explore those variations, and include more quality control steps in their work.
And perhaps the most important result from the project so far, as Daniel Engber wrote in Slate, is that it has been “a hopeless slog.” “If people had deposited raw data and full protocols at the time of publication, we wouldn’t have to go back to the original authors,” says Iorns. That would make it much easier for scientists to truly check each other’s work.
The National Institutes of Health seem to agree. In recently released guidelines, meant to improve the reproducibility of research, they recommend that journals ask for more thorough methods sections and more sharing of data. And in this, the Reproducibility Project have modelled the change they want to see, documenting every step of their project on a wiki.
“We want to applaud replication efforts like this,” says Atul Butte from the University of California, San Francisco, whose study was among the two that were successfully reproduced. “It is important for the public to have trust in scientists, and belief in the veracity of our published findings.” But he suggests that the team chooses their targeted studies in a “more impactful manner”—not by citations, but by those that are most likely to lead to new treatments.
In the meantime, the team still needs to finish its first wave of replications. They initially set out to replicate 50 old papers, but the unexpectedly high costs of doing so have forced them to scale back. “In the end, we think we’ll complete 30,” says Iorns.
For more info, go to: www.theatlantic.com

Read on »

The Therapeutic Value of Medical Cannabis vs the Medical Establishment

It boggles the mind to try to figure out the logic of some battles. One such battle is the fight to legalize medical cannabis.
The government and the people who profit from the status quo are very tenacious when it comes to fighting against the legalization of medical cannabis. You would think that cannabis was the deadliest drug on the planet from the way they stubbornly cling to keeping it illegal.  But this isn’t really the case. Alcohol and tobacco kill thousands every year, while there has never been one documented death from cannabis in all the thousands of years people have been smoking or eating it. Think about that…

It doesn’t make sense until you start to understand that cannabis is one of the most useful plants in the world. It would be a threat not only to Big Pharma (as medical marijuana treats lots of diseases and disorders), but also to a number of industries like Big Oil, textiles, the steel industry and others. There are lots of entrenched interests that would lose significant profits if cannabis were to be legalized. More importantly, people would be able to free themselves from dependence on Big Oil and Big Pharma. Many in government don’t want to see that happen, and they definitely don’t want to lose out on the influence that would be lost if those big industries were to shrink.
When you look at how much money entrenched financial interests would lose if cannabis were to be legalized, you will then understand why corporations and their toadies in the government and media fight cannabis legalization tooth and nail. It’s even worse when you consider how much money municipalities, counties and the federal government make off of arresting people for marijuana charges.  It literally goes into the billions of dollars. The War on Drugs really turned out to be a war on The People.
It’s a shame when political and economic agendas taint science and other areas. Marijuana simply isn’t as dangerous as we’ve been led to believe. It isn’t 100% innocuous, but it is safer than alcohol, tobacco and most pharmaceutical drugs that are legal. And the DEA’s stubborn refusal to admit the truth about cannabis is strong evidence that they are more concerned with profiteering and protecting corporate interests over protecting the freedom and rights of The People.
The even bigger threat to corporate profits is if cannabis really does treat cancer and a lot of other diseases. Imagine what would happen to scores of medicines if it were to become public knowledge that cannabis was more effective. It would deal corporate profits a big blow. It makes you wonder whether corporate profits or the well being of patients and humanity are the main priority of the DEA and government regulators.
Learn 5 Things You Can Do to Stop Your Cancer COLD…

In 2016, the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States issued a long-awaited decision on the medical benefits of cannabis, and instead of validating what millions of people already know to be true about this healing plant, the DEA chose to keep intact the 1970 designation of cannabis as a schedule I substance, a drug which has, as they claim, no medical benefit.
Furthermore, in an even more egregious affront to justice and common sense, in December of 2016, the DEA made an overnight decision to create a new classification of schedule I drugs for cannabis extracts in order to stop the sale and consumption of CBD oil, a non-psychoactive derivative of cannabis which is known to have many health benefits.
These decisions contradict hundreds of studies, an abundance of medically verified success stories, and countless pieces of anecdotal evidence that cannabis in fact has wide-ranging medical value.
Seen as preposterous to those who support legalization, these rulings appear to be rooted in the status quo tyranny of the drug war and prison industrial complex, two monolithic cash cows which bring immense profit to those who persecute others for recreational and medical use of a plant. Now, however, this DEA’s attitude towards cannabis should come under even more scrutiny and criticism, as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has just released a press release which supports the claims that cannabis has therapeutic benefits.
“… the lack of any aggregated knowledge of cannabis-related health effects has led to uncertainty about what, if any, are the harms or benefits from its use. We conducted an in-depth and broad review of the most recent research to establish firmly what the science says and to highlight areas that still need further examination. As laws and policies continue to change, research must also.”
In the groundbreaking report released this week entitled The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids:
The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research (2017), the NAS issued a comprehensive, researched-backed statement on the validity of medical marijuana, including pros and cons, outlining its clinical effectiveness.
“The report states that there is conclusive evidence that marijuana can be used as a medicine. The report did not find clinical evidence for all conditions marijuana treatment is often associated with, but it recognizes its efficacy for treating many medical conditions such as “chronic pain in adults…chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and multiple sclerosis spasticity symptoms.”” [Source]
Speaking on the significance of a statement such as this coming from such an authoriative scientific body as the NAS, Deputy Director of National Affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance, Michael Collins said:
“This report is vindication for all the many researchers, patients and healthcare providers who have long understood the benefits of medical marijuana. To have such a thorough review of the evidence conclude that there are benefits to medical marijuana should boost the case for federal reform. It also underlines how out of touch the DEA and other marijuana reform opponents are when they claim otherwise.” [Source]
Key findings in the NAS report of particular interest to advocates of legalization include the following:

Cannabis has significant therapeutic benefit in the treatment of chronic pain, for spasms caused by multiple-sclerosis, and in the reduction of discomfort for chemotherapy and radiation treatment patients.
Smoking cannabis does not increase the risk for cancers often associated with tobacco use.The NAS report does not appear to show favoritism in its findings, duly noting and reporting evidence of both the positive and negative aspects of chronic cannabis usage, which includes the increased risk of mental health issues and psychosocial issues due to overuse. However, the report should be considered a win for those advocating for the legalization of cannabis-based therapeutic medicines and remedies, as well as a rejection of the DEA’s classification of cannabis and cannabis extracts as substances devoid of medical benefit.
Contributed by Waking Times of www.wakingtimes.com.Waking Times is an independently owned and operated online magazine that seizes on the transformational power of information to trigger personal revolution and influence humanity’s evolution.

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

Read on »

Response to an Oncology Fellow

I came across an article on Forbes that was found on Quora. A person asked a question about alternative cancer treatments and wondered why alternative cancer treatments like vitamin C aren’t being used even though they are said to selectively kill tumor cells without side effects.  The answer was given by a Stanford oncology fellow.
He basically comes out and makes unsubstantiated claims and statements about various alternative cancer treatments. He says that vitamin C simply doesn’t work for cancer treatment by saying that it’s been out since the 1970’s (it’s really been around a lot longer than that). He makes the same blanket statement about all the other alternative cancer treatments, specifically naming Gerson therapy, Laetrile, coral chelation therapy, Japanese mushroom extract, and alkaline water.
Curiously, he mentions that some of his patients had paid ‘out of pocket’ for the above alternative cancer treatments but never addresses what the results of these treatments were. He does mention that all of them are cheaper than conventional cancer treatments. I was curious about the results of those people’s experiences with alternative cancer treatments (even though those would be anecdotal reports and not technically ‘scientific’).
His biggest proof of his claim that no alternative treatments work (he actually said that they don’t even qualify as treatments) is that the organizations paying for the treatments (i.e., the national health services in the various countries) would pounce on these treatments if they were cheaper and effective. He says that all you need to know is that since none of these organizations are even investing in any research on these alternative cancer treatments, that means that it’s because they simply don’t work.
Learn 5 Things You Can Do to Stop Your Cancer COLD…
Of course, you know that this isn’t such an airtight reasoning exercise as he has argued that it is. He has left out a number of elements that impact this situation greatly.  It’s not as simple a situation that he describes it to be.
I had a simple question that I haven’t seen any authorities answer. I want to know why there haven’t been any studies where an alternative cancer treatment, or even no treatment at all, is directly tested against a standard cancer treatment? If chemotherapy, radiation and surgery are so much better than these alternative treatments that don’t work, then why won’t anyone test them directly and compare the results.
In fact, why don’t they test chemotherapy drugs against controls that receive no treatment? They claim it’s an ethical issue, but how would you really know if chemotherapy and/or radiation work better than no treatment at all if you never directly test them? One researcher found that chemotherapy was virtually useless for treating cancer.
And why do they have such a huge problem admitting that their approaches to cancer treatment are a dismal failure, especially considering the enormous amounts of money that they’re spending on cancer treatment and cancer research.  Even more perplexing is that they continue to direct the research down the same old lines, using the same failed paradigm. In short, the body is viewed as a battlefield instead of as an integrated working mechanism with interrelated parts.
This is manifested in the thought that bad foods can cause disease, but good foods can’t lead to health. How can one be true and the other be false? This is what I’ve heard from mainstream medical sources, but it doesn’t make sense to me.  If bad food can make you sick, how is it possible for good food to not make you healthy? In fact, for decades, mainstream medicine denied that your choice in foods could even affect your level of health.
A problem with medical research in general is that the experiments are designed to evaluate drugs, as if drugs are the only way to treat diseases.  And because of this bias, there is no real incentive for Big Pharma companies to run expensive trials for natural substances for which they cannot secure patents. No company could finance an $800 million study (the average cost for running a properly recognized study) for a substance that they couldn’t patent and recoup that investment. And unfortunately, contrary to popular belief, no non-Big Pharma companies have the funds to run an $800 million dollar study on any of those natural substances. So it’s basically a “Catch-22” situation.
Get More Alternative Cancer information right here…
There are plenty of promising, non-patentable substances out there that are being studied all the time, but because they can’t be patented, we’ll never see a “double blind randomized” study on them for the above reasons. And although a lot of national health services pay a lot of money for health care, it doesn’t necessarily logically follow that they would want cheap, effective treatments for cancer or any other diseases. In government, they are usually incentivized to want bigger budgets because many departments and administrators are judged on the size of their budget. So to shrink their budgets would be akin to shrinking their fiefdoms, which they don’t want to do.
Lots of scientists and physicians challenge the status quo, but virtually all who do get punished by the mainstream medical establishment. There’s simply too much money that is being made because of the status quo, and anyone that challenges the conceptual framework of it is seen as an enemy of entrenched financial interests. And they ruthlessly defend their profits with an ‘by any means’ strategy. There isn’t a dirty trick in the book that is too sinister for them to employ.
I don’t want to believe that this is the state of affairs in modern medicine. But as I’ve studied, observed and analyzed it (as have others, including scientists and physicians), it’s a fact that there is bias and dogma in modern medicine. We’d like to think that everything they do is proven science, but there’s a lot more to it than that. It’s not such a simple situation. Most people don’t even want to entertain the idea that there is corruption and profiteering in modern medicine, but it’s the sordid truth. Not that this is proof, but I know of doctors who are very disgusted with the way that their options for treating and educating patients are severely curtailed by the medical authorities. They are simply not able to suggest or use treatments that they believe would be better for their patients. In my mind, that is a problem.
 

Read on »

An extra four months of life with fewer side effects compared to chemotherapy

I don’t mean to sound crass or unsympathetic, but it just appears to me that the bar is set extremely low if it is cause for celebration and accolades that an immunotherapy drug gives someone an extra 4 months of life when compared to chemotherapy.
It would seem that a real cause for celebration would be for something more along the lines of 4 extra years of life with fewer side effects than chemotherapy. Or 14 extra years of life.
I guess that it’s all relative. We know that chemotherapy isn’t a cure. But it’s recommended to the majority of cancer patients. I wonder why that is.
I noticed in the article that they tested the new immunology treatment relative to chemotherapy. They don’t dare test it against something like Essiac or IV vitamin C because it would probably beat Big Pharma treatments so badly that nobody would ever consider using either.
Einstein is attributed to saying that the repeating of something that isn’t working is akin to insanity. Or maybe it’s craftiness. Or an orchestrated strategy to maximize profits by not killing the chemotherapy gravy train with something relatively non-toxic and highly effective in treating cancer.
Regardless of whether or not you believe that forces and people in Big Pharma are hiding cheap cures, one thing you can’t deny is that oncology is stubbornly bound to using chemotherapy and radiation to treat cancer. It’s been in use for many decades, with few to no signs of letting up.
If you’re like me, you would prefer more objectivity and truth in science. But unfortunately, politics and profits often dictate what it studied and what does and doesn’t get reported. We’d be naïve to deny the effect that bias and other objectives play in science. It’s not a comfortable thing to admit, but it’s the truth.
The difference between us and them is that we readily admit that we have bias. Big Pharma and others who drumbeat the dogmatic call for ‘science’ are often not willing to even admit the bias in their ‘science.’  And it’s a lot worse for the science zealots who call people that question what is called ‘science’ all sorts of names that are an attempt to destroy and malign us without truly answering the questions and concerns that we discuss.
Or worse yet, they are not willing to view science as a process, but view it as a form of religion that cannot be questioned or challenged. It took me a while to truly understand that the way that science is currently structured, it often misses the essence of truth. And it often has more in common with religion than with what could be known as the scientific method.
With all that said, we refer to this article that shows once again that progress in oncology is moving along at a snail’s pace, at best.  Regardless of what you believe about cancer and Big Pharma dogma or conspiracies to hide cures, we have to admit that the cost to benefit ratio for all that has been spent (money and man-hours of research performed) on cancer research is paltry even if you’re the most optimistic person who believes everything that the PR says about oncology.
At this rate, they will never have any cures that aren’t toxic. And they will only have expensive, pharmaceutical-based or expensive procedures that are even more costly than the ones that aren’t cures already. The country will go bankrupt if costs continue to rise. Many patients are already going bankrupt from expensive medical treatments.
It’s really time for a paradigm change in oncology, among other things.
Find out how you can stop your cancer…

Patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer survive four months longer with fewer side effects on an immunotherapy drug called atezolizumab compared to chemotherapy, according to a phase 3 clinical trial published in The Lancet.
The trial enrolled 1225 advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients who have no more treatment options, but this study used an early analysis of the first 850 patients from the trial. Half of the group were given atezolizumab and the other half were given docetaxel chemotherapy, which is the standard treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.
Patients given atezolizumab — a drug that blocks the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) protein — survived for an average of 13.8 months, compared with 9.6 months for those on chemotherapy.
As well as the benefits in survival, atezolizumab also had fewer side effects than chemotherapy with 14.8% (90 of 609) of those given the drug having grade three or four side effects compared with 42.7% (247 of 578) of those given chemotherapy. However, 46 (of 609, 7.6%) of the patients given atezolizumab still gave up treatment due to side effects, as well as 108 (of 578 patients, 18.7%) of those on chemotherapy.
“Lung cancer is the most common cancer affecting 1.8 million people each year worldwide. It is also the leading cause of cancer death worldwide and survival remains stubbornly low. Recently, important advances in the treatment of the disease have come from immunotherapies that target the PD-L1 and PD-1 pathway,” said Dr Achim Rittmeyer, lead author, University Goettingen, Germany. “Atezolizumab reinvigorates patients’ immune systems against cancer, and our trial has shown that this has significant results for their survival.”
Other immunotherapies for non-small-cell lung cancer, such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab, are designed to block PD-L1’s counterpart, the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) which is located on the immune cell surface. Normally the PD-L1 and PD-1 proteins signal to one another to activate the immune system to attack tumours.
For more info, go to: www.sciencedaily.com

Read on »

Fraud, Embezzlement, and Government Betrayal at the CDC

The next time somebody tells you how ‘high and mighty’ ‘science’ is, you can think about this report on some of the shenanigans so-called ‘scientists’ have been perpetrating.
I’m not saying that ALL of them operate like this, but the major take-away from this is that you can’t just go around blindly believing what experts and researchers say just because they say that it’s ‘science,’ or you’re leaving yourself vulnerable to falsehoods under the guise of truth.
It’s time for people to start using their thinking and reasoning faculties more because at this point there are a lot of profiteering and cronyism going on in science and research, as well as other fields of endeavor. But here we focus on health and how profits can have more impact on your health and treatments than truth.
Many times, scientific conclusions are reached based on political and economic factors more so than on the efficacy of the treatment. That’s how we can have poisons and toxins being used as medicines when there are safer, cheaper, more effective options. The more effective, safer, cheaper options are not profitable for Big Pharma, and they are not under Big Pharma control. So they are not marketed or promoted. Marketing and promotions is literally selling things for a profit. If there’s no profit in cheap cures, they will not be made known to the public. That’s simple business practice.
Just because someone is a scientist or physician doesn’t mean that they have the power to override entrenched financial interests that manipulate the regulation, funding and dissemination of research findings and treatment standards, nor that they necessarily want to. And it also doesn’t mean that patients will receive the best treatments. Unfortunately, patients usually receive the most profitable treatments for Big Pharma.
Big Pharma is highly interested in keeping most people taking vaccines because they make big money on them. But most people don’t know that vaccines also insure that people will be sicker over the long term so that it keeps people paying customers to the Medical Industry. This means that vaccines help raise long term profits for the Medical Establishment.
Find out how you can stop your cancer…

 

Statistics don’t lie, but statisticians certainly can. In his book, “Master Manipulator: The Explosive True Story of Fraud, Embezzlement, and Government Betrayal at the CDC,” investigative journalist James Grundvig exposes what really goes on at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In it, he reveals how the agency has engaged in massive fraud, misinformation and manipulation of vaccine information. What made Grundvig write such a book?
“A couple of reasons,” he says. “One is I have an autistic son who’s 16 years old now. He’s one of the 5,000 cases kicked out of vaccine court [for] thimerosal poisoning.
Number two, I’m first generation Norwegian-American. Poul Thorsen, the main manipulator — but not the only one — is of Danish descent. I was introduced to an alliance [that asked me] to track down Thorsen over in Denmark, a culture and country I know very well.”
Danish Scientist Charged in Vaccine Research Scam
Thorsen is a major player and an essential character in this real-life drama. In 2011, he was charged with 13 counts of wire fraud and nine counts of money laundering. A federal grand jury alleged Thorsen stole over $1 million from autism research funding between February 2004 and June 2008.
He stole the money while serving as the principal investigator for a program studying the relationship between autism and exposure to vaccines. At the time, The Copenhagen Post reported that:1
“… [Thorsen] submitted over a dozen false invoices from the CDC for research expenses to Aarhus University … instructing them to transfer the funds to a CDC account, which was in fact his personal account …
Thorsen’s research on autism is widely known in academic circles, where he was until this week a highly respected figure. A paper of his on the subject, which is known as ‘The Danish Study,’ is quoted extensively to refute the autism vaccine connection.”
As of 2014, Thorsen was permanently expelled from Denmark’s university hospital system. Thorsen has been a fugitive for the past five years. Yet his whereabouts are no secret. As noted by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in a 2015 Forbes article:2
“The fact that he is roaming free and is easy to find, despite the U.S. Federal indictment … suggests a lack of enthusiasm by HHS and CDC to press for his capture and extradition.
The agency undoubtedly fears that a public trial would expose the pervasive corruption throughout CDC’s vaccine division and the fragility of the science supporting CDC’s claims about thimerosal safety.”
The Master Manipulator
Thorsen’s spectacular demise was likely the result of an inside tip to Aarhus University. But was he really the sole person responsible for the creation of these manipulated studies? According to Grundvig’s investigation, the CDC appears to have had a clear hand in the deception.
In 1999, Thorsen — who had earned his Ph.D. in Denmark the year before — was invited to the CDC in Atlanta as a foreign visiting scientist. He arrived at a time when there was a lot of discussion between vaccine makers and the CDC to remove thimerosal from vaccines.
Thorsen ended up being hired full-time to conduct five studies on Danish people, as the Danes had a preexisting database covering the entire population.
In the U.S., no federal health authority was collecting this kind of comprehensive vaccination and health data. “That was the beginning of five corrupt Danish studies that were done: four on thimerosal; one on MMR,” Grundvig says.
The Link Between Thimerosal and Autism
To this day, most doctors will tell you the science is settled and there’s no link between vaccines and autism. In reality, the science is FAR from settled. In 2000, two secret meetings took place. The first one, in May, took place in Puerto Rico. This meeting covered aluminum adjuvants in vaccines. The second meeting took place in Simpsonwood5 three weeks later.
“In those meetings, they talked about how they all realized — the scientists within those meetings, from the CDC, from college institutions, from Big Pharma vaccine makers — all agreed that thimerosal is a problem, and aluminum is a problem. But they can’t change overnight and lose that kind of money …
These two meetings produced results from foreign scientists, like Dr. Thomas Verstraeten out of Belgium. The CDC realized they had a major problem on their hands with the general public. They found thimerosal … is dangerous to the brain, especially of babies, infants and children.”
The CDC desperately needed to prove there’s no link between vaccines and autism, and Thorsen ended up being the guy hired to produce that evidence. Had the CDC not covered up the truth, we’d probably have an entirely different discussion on vaccines today.
As noted by Grundvig, some of Thorsen’s studies kept getting extended because the CDC simply wasn’t comfortable with the results; even with manipulation, they kept showing an association between the number of vaccines and the rise of autism.
“What’s amazing is Thorsen coming from Denmark. Thimerosal was banned in Denmark in 1991 — fully enacted in 1992. Vaccines today in Denmark have no thimerosal whatsoever. So, you have Thorsen agreeing to do whatever the CDC wanted to, which was manipulate the data, to lose data, to produce results that would favor [thimerosal],” Grundvig says.
CDC Whistleblower Confirms Vaccine-Autism Cover-Up
In his book, Grundvig explains how, were the studies done properly using valid scientific criteria, they would have revealed some incredible insights. For starters, they would have shown that autism is in fact correlated with thimerosal exposure.  Brian Hooker is one of the researchers who has gone back to re-evaluate Thorsen’s studies. In 2017, Danish scientists will again redo the studies, to hopefully settle the matter.
Thorsen was hardly the only manipulator of data at the CDC, however. Dr. William Thompson, a research scientist at the CDC’s National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases (NCIR), is another. He co-authored four studies refuting a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, as well as thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism.
According to Thompson, one of the studies found that African-American boys who received the MMR vaccine before the age of 36 months had an increased risk for autism.8 He also maintains that other CDC studies have found a relationship between thimerosal and tics, which are associated with autism.9
Clearly, there’s no way for the truth to get out unless we have skilled investigative journalists like Grundvig bringing us the full story. After that, it’s a matter of sharing the information, because you can be sure this information will not appear in The New York Times or on your local news station. It’s suppressed by design.
Thimerosal Is Still a Major Vaccine Ingredient
In the early 2000s there was a major push to remove thimerosal from vaccines, but it never took the form of law. Instead, vaccine makers were encouraged to reduce or eliminate thimerosal in their vaccines on a voluntary basis. Some did so, but according to Grundvig, even vaccines that claim to be thimerosal-free are not entirely devoid of it.
“If you read the labels, it says “thimerosal-depleted” … They remove [thimerosal] in the process. It’s filtered out, but it’s not filtered out 100 percent. There’s still thimerosal in all of the thimerosal-containing vaccines as there were before, just a lot less. However, in the flu vaccine, it’s full bore thimerosal.
It’s the cheapest and fastest way to make it. I don’t think that vaccine makers are interested in changing the 20th century recipe to making vaccines. It’s cheap and fast. That’s all they care about. They do not care about safety. They don’t care about children’s health. With poor children’s health, they are able to take care of children, on the other end … with drugs and treatments and so forth. They continuously make money off every American citizen out there,” Grundvig says.

More Information
If you have an interest in vaccine safety and/or autism, you won’t want to miss out on Grundvig’s book, “Master Manipulator: The Explosive True Story of Fraud, Embezzlement, and Government Betrayal at the CDC.” It clearly reveals why we cannot blindly trust our federal health agencies.
We must educate ourselves and understand the political and financial dynamics that underlie the recommendations coming from these agencies. Failing to do so can quite literally be dangerous to your health. In this case, Grundvig has done a remarkable job of explaining the situation at the CDC that has allowed the claim that thimerosal-containing vaccines have no role in autism.
This is not to say that there are no other factors involved in autism. Evidence suggests Roundup and other glyphosate-containing pesticides may play a role. Ditto for other toxic exposures and electromagnetic field (EMF) exposures. Having an unbalanced gut microbiome also appears to influence the outcome. There are many variables that, when combined, can result in autism. Still, that does not mean we should give vaccines a free pass.
Projections suggest that within the next 25 years, half of all children will be autistic. There is no way a culture can survive with half of the population being in the autistic spectrum. We’re looking at the collapse of society if the rise in autism isn’t stopped or reversed, and that means addressing ALL known factors.
For more info, go to: articles.mercola.com

Read on »

Cancer Survivors Have Higher Risk of Severe Heart Attack

This is a testament to the fact that chemotherapy and radiation are very damaging to the body. Although they say in this study that the subsequent heart disease doesn’t lead to higher rates of death, it has to have an adverse effect on your quality of life. What good is a cancer treatment if it gives you heart disease? Wouldn’t a better approach be to use more healthy, non-toxic cancer treatments that don’t give you other diseases?
Another notable part of this article is that they admit that most cancer survivors (who we must assume have undergone conventional cancer treatments) end up dying from the cancer later on. I would submit that they are more likely dying from the toxic cancer treatments.
If the cancer treatment is giving patients heart disease, and if they’re dying from cancer anyway, what’s the use? Especially when you factor in that cancer patients are spending an average of around $50-100,000 for their treatments. In short, we’re paying high rates for no cures, or even worse, paying for treatments that extend your life while making you steadily sicker. Sounds agonizing to me.
Also, the article states that there are “downstream illnesses and side effects to an extent never encountered before’ which would seem to indicate that all these new cancer treatments are causing more side effects and illnesses subsequent to treatment. This is just more evidence that these conventional treatments are dangerous. They also go on to state that cancer survivors are 3 times more likely to die of non-heart-related causes. This would appear to support the contention that these cancer treatments are damaging the entire body. We know that chemotherapy and radiation are extremely toxic, so it wouldn’t be surprising that it is causing more death after treatment.
The question is when people are going to stop submitting to poisons masquerading as medicine. We already know that Big Pharma and the Medical Establishment are not going to stop offering their expensive, highly profitable toxic cancer treatments. As long as people keep taking them and paying for them, they will continue to sell them to us. And we will continue to suffer and die from them.
Find out how you can stop your cancer…

(emphasis is mine)
THURSDAY, Dec. 1, 2016 (HealthDay News) — Cancer survivors are at increased risk for the most severe type of heart attack and require close attention to their heart health, a new study suggests.
Researchers at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., reviewed data on more than 2,300 patients who suffered this type of heart attack, called ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). One in 10 had a history of cancer, the investigators found.
“We’ve watched cancer survivorship increase over the past two-and-a-half decades, which is wonderful. But, it has led to new challenges, such as handling of downstream illnesses and side effects to an extent never encountered before,” said study senior author Dr. Joerg Herrmann. He is an interventional cardiologist at the clinic.
“As cardiologists, we wanted to know if cancer and its therapies left these patients debilitated from a cardiovascular disease standpoint,” he said in a Mayo news release.
While the study found that cancer survivors had a higher rate of heart attack, not all of those attacks proved fatal. In fact, cancer survivors did not have a higher risk of death caused by heart attacks, the study authors noted. Instead, they were three times more likely to die of non-heart-related causes.
After their heart attack, patients with a history of cancer were more likely to arrive at the hospital with cardiogenic shock, where the heart suddenly can’t pump enough blood.
These patients were also more likely to receive intra-aortic balloon pump therapy, in which a device is inserted to help the heart pump blood. The need for this treatment may indicate a reduction in the heart’s ability to pump blood, the researchers said.
Cancer survivors were also more likely to be hospitalized for heart failure during follow-up. But those who received proper medical treatment were not at increased risk of dying from heart disease. These patients eventually died from their cancer, the study authors said.
“This study supports the importance of cardiologists and oncologists working together to care for these patients,” Herrmann said. This type of care is known as cardio-oncology.
“Clearly, our goal is that the cancer patients of today do not become the cardiac patients of the future and, if they do, that we comprehensively see them through,” he added.
The study was published Dec. 1 in the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings.
— Robert Preidt
For more info, go to: www.medicinenet.com

Read on »

Some Honesty About How to Heal and Cure Cancer

This is probably one of the best articles I’ve seen on healing, curing and understanding cancer.  Dr Sircus speaks on disease and how we as individuals need to start taking more responsibility for our health conditions.
He also speaks of the paradigm shift that is necessary for us to undergo before we can actually find solutions for cancer.  His idea is simply to replace pharmaceutical poisons with good substances that actually aid the body and assist the healing process. No disease can ever be cured with pharmaceutical drugs. They’re only great for the people that sell them to the tune of billions and trillions of dollars.
Some of his recommendations may sound ridiculous to people that have been indoctrinated by Big Pharma and Disease Industry propaganda that drones all over the mainstream media incessantly, but what has the Medical Establishment come up with that makes more sense than this? At the rate Big Pharma is going, only wealthy people will be able to afford orthodox medical treatments. And that’s if you don’t think we’re there already, considering that many cancer treatments cost thousands of dollars a month.
And the icing on the cake is that even with all of the enormous amount of money we’ve spent on research, they really don’t have any answers for cancer or any other chronic diseases. The only answers are expensive and mostly temporary at best. The new ‘miracle’ cancer treatments, like immunotherapy, are even more expensive than the conventional ones. And immunology can be just as toxic, if not moreso, than chemotherapy in some instances.
The only way that people will find cures will be on their own or from unorthodox sources because Big Pharma, the government and the Medical Establishment are profiting way too much for them to have any degree of objectivity about anything outside of what they promote and profit from. They’ve proven that repeatedly. They won’t even admit that they have any bias in their opinions, studies or anything else. And they stubbornly cling to the idea that cancer is caused by genetics and that the future of disease treatment will be individualized for each person. But of course, this is going to involve expensive genetic testing and custom drugs designed just for you. So you know that this isn’t going to be cheap.
You can either take back your power and start to learn how to cure your cancer, or you can become another painful statistic of the Big Pharma meat grinder.  Search and find your own truth. Even the so-called successes that survive chemotherapy and radiation usually end up with long-term side effects, one of which is what they call ‘secondary cancers.’
Imagine that. The cancer treatment causes cancer.  This is the level of thinking that modern cancer treatment/oncology finds itself. They can only get away with it because most people don’t know, or are too trusting or confused to figure out what’s really going on with this. This is really pathetic. Profits over people and maintaining disease instead of either curing it or preventing it from happening. And the rapid and thorough destruction of anyone who doesn’t tow the Big Pharma line. Whoever said cancer treatments, cancer research, journal publications, the mainstream media and health care don’t have a huge dose of politics, cronyism, profiteering and dogma inside hasn’t done their homework.
Learn 5 Things You Can Do to Stop Your Cancer COLD…

Increasing our Power to Heal and Cure Cancer
By Dr. Mark Sircus
Through the last ten years, as I have developed Natural Allopathic Medicine, I have introduced new principles and practices to treat cancer and other diseases. I have constantly sought to increase the healing power of doctors and other health care practitioners as well as give power to the patients themselves. It has been a challenge to lay down new tracks through the mountain passes of confusion, lies, deception and even perceptual blindness that arise from medical paradigms that cannot glean wisdom from other competing paradigms.
My medical revolution is simple. Replace dangerous, ineffective, expensive pharmaceuticals with more effective, safe and inexpensive basic medicinals. However, the mainstream world of medicine is stubborn and profit driven choosing to remain with the dangerous, expensive and ineffective medicines—no matter how many people die from these hazardous medications.
Self-Confrontation Helps
We all have a healthy and unhealthy self, a light and a dark side. A part that is not perfect. A part that is a bit lazy. A part of us resists change and clings to the status quo of comfortable habits. There is, in most of us, a natural resistance to making the effort to grow and heal. Most of us would rather take the easy way out and hope for the best. That is what we have doctors for. Aren’t they the ones who are supposed to take all the responsibility and do all the healing and medical work?
Bottom line principle to healing and recovering from cancer: The lazier we are the more it will cost and the longer it will take to recover. The real power to heal and cure lies within each one of us and for a cancer patient application of that power starts with water, then the breath. In fact, the best and most important cancer cures cost little to no money and we should use them no matter how much money we have to throw at our problems.
Disease is not a mistake, it is a natural consequence of many factors coming together, not all of which we have control over. Disease is often a consequence of mistakes we have made in the past that we have to rectify in the present and in the future. Disease is also a matter of ignorance for most of us are not even aware of what we are doing wrong so we can start doing things right. Moreover, even when our life depends on it we are fed misinformation, which just maintains our ignorance and uncertainty of will.
Fastest Way to Winning the War against Cancer – Water Fast
Few of us are into fasting and even fewer of us appreciate the healing power of water. However, it behooves us to understand to have a reference point to what is possible if we really bring our will into play when attempting to heal ourselves from cancer.
To wrap one’s mind around a simple medical healing process like a water fast and how devastating that can be to cancer cells one has first confront one’s laziness with even the idea of not eating. When one goes on a water fast one slams a fist right into the gut of cancer by starving them of glucose so we have to be tough and apply our strength of will to our fasting. Will by the way is something of the heart. Whatever we love to do, we have plenty of will for.
Cancer cells differ from healthy cells in the way they create energy. In cancer cells, damaged mitochondria and low oxygen conditions force cells to use fermentation to get their energy meaning they are completely hooked on high levels of glucose. This glucose comes mainly from carbohydrates. If you starve your body of glucose, you effectively starve cancer cells to death.
Dr. Philipp Mergenthaler and Dr. Andreas Meisel showed that depriving a cell of glucose, while giving it plenty of oxygen at the same time, blocks glycolysis and therefore forces the cell to revive its mitochondria and use the Krebs cycle for energy or just die.
In 2008 a group led by Dr. Valter Longo, a biologist at the University of Southern California (USC), published a paper suggesting that a short, sharp course of fasting—not eating at all for a few days, as opposed to months of eating much less than normal—could make ordinary, non-cancerous cells more resistant to the side-effects of chemotherapy, at least in yeast and mice. He also asserts that fasting will strengthen the immune system and help unleash its wrath on cancer cells.
Dr. Longo asserts that fasting can actually make cancerous cells more susceptible to chemotherapy than they otherwise might be. Cancerous mice treated with a combination of chemotherapy and fasting had better survival chances and smaller tumors, for several different types of cancer, than those treated with either fasting or chemotherapy alone. In some cases, the combination treatment eradicated even metastasized cancers completely.
An increasing number of medical scientists know that the most logical, effective, safe, necessary and inexpensive way to treat cancer is to cut off the supply of food to tumors and cancer cells, starving them with a lack of glucose. The therapeutic strategy for selective starvation of tumors by dietary modification is one of the principle forms of therapy that is necessary for cancer patients to win their war on cancer.
Researchers at Huntsman Cancer Institute in Utah were one of the first to discover that sugar “feeds” tumors. The research published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said, “It’s been known since 1923 that tumor cells use a lot more glucose than normal cells. Our research helps show how this process takes place, and how it might be stopped to control tumor growth,” says Don Ayer, Ph.D., a professor in the Department of Oncological Sciences at the University of Utah.
Dr. Thomas Graeber, a professor of molecular and medical pharmacology, has investigated how the metabolism of glucose affects the biochemical signals present in cancer cells. In research published June 26, 2012 in the journal Molecular Systems Biology, Graeber and his colleagues demonstrate that glucose starvation—that is, depriving cancer cells of glucose—activates a metabolic and signaling amplification loop that leads to cancer cell death as a result of the toxic accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS).[1]
Depriving your body of calories effectively treats cancer and nothing will do that better than a water fast. Normal cells respond to fasting by going into survival mode. They slow down, conserve resources and go into healing and regeneration mode.
Cancer cells on the other hand plow full steam ahead and this leaves them vulnerable. When denied food, they do not have the ability to slow down their metabolism until food becomes available again. They need a constant flood of glucose – i.e. blood sugar, which is the product of metabolizing carbohydrates. Without their favorite growth food, tumor growth slows and cancer cells die.
The ketogenic (no-carb) diet, the Gerson diet, and the macrobiotic diet all work because they practically starve you of carbohydrates. Many decades ago The American Cancer Society said, “Cancer is not caused or cured by any known diet.” Nothing has changed in all these years meaning oncologists are working with their patients with blinders on. The American Diabetes Association maintains a similar position with diabetes yet what we eat and refrain from eating is incredibly important to life and health.
Many studies on diet and cancer prove the connection between a no-carbohydrate diet and dramatically reduced cancer growth rates. Add fasting to whatever else you are doing, and you starve cancer cells even faster.
Fasting can heal many common diseases, because it allows the body to rest, detoxify, and concentrate all its energy on healing instead of digestion. Fasting can be as recharging for the organism as sleeping. During a longer fast, the body reaches out for all degenerative and foreign tissues in the body like fibroid tumors, moles, bacteria, viruses and any other sick and unnecessary tissues.
Precautions: I am not making a universal prescription for water fasts for all cancer patients at all stages of the cancer process. Generally, up to 3 day fasting should be safe for most people, but I recommend to start slowly – first skipping just one meal, then one day of fasting per week and only then go to 3 day fasting. If you have any doubts about fasting or wish to fast longer, please consult with your health practitioner. If your doctor is totally against fasting, you can find naturopathic doctors or other alternative practitioners.
Choose the type of fast that works best for you. If you are going through chemotherapy, remember that fasting not only makes your chemotherapy more effective, it can also reduce your side effects. Better yet, choose a natural form of chemotherapy like hemp oil and blast your healthy cells and the cancer cells both with waves of oxygen, voltage and alkalinity. There is not a cancer cell alive that will enjoy increases in oxygen, voltage and alkalinity while healthy cells will rejoice.
If you are eating a Western Diet/Standard American Diet, rich in meat, dairy, refined sugar, salt, oils, and processed junk food, you are putting toxins in your body faster than it can eliminate them. Over time, these toxins accumulate inside you until there is a tipping point at which your body is so overloaded that essential systems and functions begin to break down. This accumulation of toxins from an unhealthy diet and our environment are major contributors to chronic disease including cancer.
Fasting on water is not generally recommended for late stage cancer when a patient is already suffering from glucose deficiency. Cancer eventually eats it all leaving a person to starve.
Make Sure Your Water is Clean
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) each year lead in drinking water contributes to 480,000 cases of learning disorders in children and 560,000 cases of hypertension in adult males. In 1994 and 1995, 45 million Americans drank water from water systems that fell short of SDWA standards.[2]
We should know that pure water is one of the most basic medicines we have and if one is going to do a water fast it better be done with high quality drinking water. Successful treatment of any disease today depends on adequate intake of good water. Water is our body‘s only means of flushing out toxins.
The more water we drink, and the purer and more alkaline that water is, the more we allow our body to purify itself. Money is well spent on filtering our water. Bottled water, in most instances, is a poor and insecure substitute for the care we must individually put into our own water supplies.
Conclusion
Before we even begin to get sophisticated with multilevel treatments, we have already the nuclear core of an exceptionally powerful anticancer protocol that would probably cost about 1000 dollars for two to three months’ worth of treatment. With people in the third world in mind this cost could be cut further with the most basic and powerful therapies staying in the virtually no cost area.
 
For more info, go to: drsircus.com

Read on »

Doctors miss nearly half of ovarian cancer cases

This is unacceptable. Is this what they mean when they talk about top rate health care?
Now this is happening in Britain, but it has me wondering what’s going on in America. We already know that a test they were using for ovarian cancer in American wasn’t accurate. Looks like Britain isn’t doing much better. So why is it so hard for doctors to accurately diagnose ovarian cancer and actually tell patients they may have it?
My recomendation is for you to make sure that you pay attention to your body, and that you also become as knowledgeable as you can about health and fitness. The bottom line is that YOU are responsible for your level of health, not the doctor. You’re the one who is with your body 24 hours a day. The doctor might see you for 10 minutes at the appointment if you’re lucky.  If you adhere to the major principles of health, you will minimize your chances of contracting a disease.
It’s only been recently that doctors even admitted that your diet had a relationship to your heart health. And to this day, doctors get very minimal training on the impact of diet on health. But alternative doctors have been preaching about diet for many decades.
You can learn about health. Do your own research. Start doing things that will improve your health, and taking things that can help you reduce or eliminate cancer. They are out there.
Get More Alternative Cancer information right here…

Almost half of women with ovarian cancer were initially misdiagnosed, a charity has found.
And four in ten patients with the cancer said their symptoms were not taken seriously by dismissive GPs.
Research found that women were ‘dying needlessly’ because they were fobbed off by doctors who attributed symptoms to other issues such as digestion problems, the menopause or stress.
About 46 per cent of patients were initially referred for tests for something other than ovarian cancer, delaying their diagnosis and treatment.
Annwen Jones, from the charity Target Ovarian Cancer, which carried out the study, said: ‘Women with ovarian cancer are being failed at diagnosis, in access to trials and effective drugs, and they lack support. They deserve better than this.’
A fifth of sufferers aged 50 or above were first told they had irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) despite official guidelines stating older women with symptoms of IBS should be screened for ovarian cancer.
And 40 per cent of patients said their GP had not considered their symptoms to be serious, with nearly one in ten told they may have a mental health problem instead. A further 41 per cent of women had to visit their doctor at least three times before being referred for cancer tests, according to the research.
Even when women were referred for tests, three quarters were not told they might have ovarian cancer.
The cancer is often misdiagnosed or diagnosed late because of a lack of awareness about the symptoms among both the public and doctors. Signs include persistent stomach swelling, appetite loss and pelvic or abdominal pain.
Every year 7,300 women are diagnosed with the disease and 4,100 die. Only a third of women survive for ten years after diagnosis and 15 per cent die within two months.
Target Ovarian Cancer interviewed 396 ovarian cancer patients, as well as 504 GPs and 41 nurses for its annual Pathfinder survey.
It found nearly half of cancer nurses did not think their unit had enough staff to care properly for patients, while two thirds of the nurses surveyed did not have time to explain the symptoms of recurrent ovarian cancer.
Only one in four patients were involved in a clinical trial, despite more than half saying that they would like to be involved in one.
The report authors wrote: ‘Too many women continue to think cervical screening protects them against ovarian cancer and many have a false confidence in their ability to spot the symptoms of ovarian cancer.
‘Women continue to face repeat visits to their GP before being referred for diagnostic tests and many GPs still falsely believe symptoms only present themselves in the later stages of the disease and continue to be unaware of the importance of family history on both sides of the family.’
Professor Michael Peake, from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, who oversaw the research, said the results showed ‘where women’s lives could be saved if the quality of services were to be improved and, where necessary, investment made’.
For more info, go to: www.dailymail.co.uk

Read on »