Contemporary Cancer Topics

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 »

Cancer researchers discover how high-dose vitamin C kills cancer cells

Although mainstream oncology will not acknowledge efficacy of IV vitamin C for a variety of diseases, including cancer, these researchers have found (or more like, rediscovered) that it does have anti-cancer activity. It probably sounds like fantasy or something unbelievable to people who don’t venture outside of the orthodox medicine.
And this is because you only hear about expensive, toxic, relatively ineffective pharmaceutical drugs from the mainstream media and the medical ‘authorities.’ Even if those pharmaceuticals did work (which is a dubious claim, at best), most (if not all of them) are extremely expensive.
But this is not new information. A Dr Klenner was using IV vitamin C with amazing success back around the early to mid-1900’s He was a renowned researcher and physician. You would do good to read some of his works and opinions. From all appearances, you’re not going to be hearing about anything like this from your friendly neighborhood oncologist anytime soon, even though this work was done at least 40 years ago.
And even if you’re the most die-hard skeptic, the worst case scenario for vitamin C is that it won’t work because it’s not going to damage you like chemotherapy, radiation, surgery or even the new ‘miracle’ cancer treatment touted by orthodox oncology, immunology.
So much for the ‘objectivity’ of the established scientists and physicians of today…
Learn 5 Things You Can Do to Stop Your Cancer COLD…

Vitamin C has a patchy history as a cancer therapy, but researchers at the University of Iowa believe that is because it has often been used in a way that guarantees failure.
Most vitamin C therapies involve taking the substance orally. However, the UI scientists have shown that giving vitamin C intravenously — and bypassing normal gut metabolism and excretion pathways — creates blood levels that are 100 — 500 times higher than levels seen with oral ingestion. It is this super-high concentration in the blood that is crucial to vitamin C’s ability to attack cancer cells.

Earlier work by UI redox biology expert Garry Buettner found that at these extremely high levels (in the millimolar range), vitamin C selectively kills cancer cells but not normal cells in the test tube and in mice. Physicians at UI Hospitals and Clinics are now testing the approach in clinical trials for pancreatic cancer and lung cancer that combine high-dose, intravenous vitamin C with standard chemotherapy or radiation. Earlier phase 1 trials indicated this treatment is safe and well-tolerated and hinted that the therapy improves patient outcomes. The current, larger trials aim to determine if the treatment improves survival.
In a new study, published recently in the December issue of the journal Redox Biology, Buettner and his colleagues have homed in on the biological details of how high-dose vitamin C (also known as ascorbate) kills cancer cells.
The study shows that vitamin C breaks down easily, generating hydrogen peroxide, a so-called reactive oxygen species that can damage tissue and DNA. The study also shows that tumor cells are much less capable of removing the damaging hydrogen peroxide than normal cells.
“In this paper we demonstrate that cancer cells are much less efficient in removing hydrogen peroxide than normal cells. Thus, cancer cells are much more prone to damage and death from a high amount of hydrogen peroxide,” says Buettner, a professor of radiation oncology and a member of Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Iowa. “This explains how the very, very high levels of vitamin C used in our clinical trials do not affect normal tissue, but can be damaging to tumor tissue.”
Normal cells have several ways to remove hydrogen peroxide, keeping it at very low levels so it does not cause damage. The new study shows that an enzyme called catalase is the central route for removing hydrogen peroxide generated by decomposing vitamin C. The researchers discovered that cells with lower amounts of catalase activity were more susceptible to damage and death when they were exposed to high amounts of vitamin C.
Buettner says this fundamental information might help determine which cancers and which therapies could be improved by inclusion of high-dose ascorbate in the treatment.
“Our results suggest that cancers with low levels of catalase are likely to be the most responsive to high-dose vitamin C therapy, whereas cancers with relatively high levels of catalase may be the least responsive,” he explains.
A future goal of the research is to develop methods to measure catalase levels in tumors.
Journal Reference: Claire M. Doskey, Visarut Buranasudja, Brett A. Wagner, Justin G. Wilkes, Juan Du, Joseph J. Cullen, Garry R. Buettner. Tumor cells have decreased ability to metabolize H2O2: Implications for pharmacological ascorbate in cancer therapy. Redox Biology, 2016; 10: 274
Comment: Intravenous vitamin C does more than just kill cancer cells. It boosts immunity and can stimulate collagen formation to help the body wall off the tumor. It inhibits hyaluronidase, an enzyme that tumors use to metastasize and invade other organs throughout the body and corrects the almost universal scurvy in cancer patients.
For more info, go to: www.sott.net

Read on »

Rutin might have potential as anticancer agent

More science for the people who are intent on having it.
It’s just that this type of science isn’t really getting nearly as much press coverage as the more profitable approaches to treating cancer get.
We’re always hearing about immunotherapy and other pharmaceutical drugs in the press. But they try to make you sound like a quack idiot if you mention anything about natural treatments or substances. There’s a definite bias against anything that isn’t lauded by Big Pharma and their cronies.
So here’s another promising anticancer agent for your consideration. And for you people with inquiring minds, the LD50 dose for rutin is 4,250 mg/kg by weight. I’d classify that as non-toxic. How about you?
Learn 5 Things You Can Do to Stop Your Cancer COLD…

Abstract Title:

Rutin inhibits proliferation, attenuates superoxide production and decreases adhesion and migration of human cancerous cells.

Abstract Source:

Biomed Pharmacother. 2016 Dec ;84:1972-1978. Epub 2016 Nov 6. PMID: 27829548

Abstract Author(s):

Mohamed Ben Sghaier, Alessandra Pagano, Mohamed Mousslim, Youssef Ammari, Hervé Kovacic, José Luis
Lung and colorectal cancer are the principal causes of death in the world. Rutin, an active flavonoid compound, is known for possessing a wide range of biological activities. In this study, we examined the effect of rutin on the viability, superoxide anion production, adhesion and migration of human lung (A549) and colon (HT29 and Caco-2) cancer cell lines. In order to control the harmlessness of the tested concentrations of rutin, the viability of cancer cell lines was assessed using a 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol- 2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. ROS generation was measured by lucigenin chemiluminescence detecting superoxide ions. To investigate the effect of rutin on the behavior of human lung and colon cancer cell lines, we performed adhesion assays, using various purified extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins. Finally, in vitro cell migration assays were explored using modified Boyden chambers. The viability of cancerous cells was inhibited by rutin. It also significantly attenuated the superoxide production in HT29 cells. In addition, rutin affected adhesion and migration of A549 and HT29 cell. These findings indicate that rutin, a natural molecule, might have potential as anticancer agent against lung and colorectal carcinogenesis.

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

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 »