Our daughter-in-law was reading a blog and the young woman she was reading about has bi-polar. She is wanting to get off the medications and get pregnant. She is concerned of what will happen with her highs and lows without the medication.
Here is what I know.
Bi-polar has many sides. I don't claim that what I write about here will be a catch all answer but hopefully it might provide someone with some help.
I always encourage those with depression, bi-polar, ADD and ADHD to take DHA. this is most prominently found in fish oil. You can also purchase straight DHA. (I use the Carlson brand Super DHA where each capsule is 500 mgs. I take up to 4 a day depending on my stress levels, etc.) We are often fat deficient and the brain is 60% fat and 60% of that fat is DHA. It is what the brain uses to keep messages transmitting correctly.
Next we have found that an overgrowth of yeast/candida is a large contributor to depression and bi-polar. When yeast/candida becomes systemic it can travel to the brain and cause problems. I would encourage a sugar and milk/dairy free diet. There are good books on yeast overgrowth and diets to follow. The Yeast Connection is a good one. Also meat, dairy and eggs will contribute to the problem. A diet of mainly fresh veggies, some grains and legumes should be looked at. Again there are products that can be purchased to help with controlling the yeast. Yeast/candida is really hard to get rid of especially if someone continues to eat things that promote yeast growth. The company, Vitanica, has what I feel is a good yeast product called Candidastat. Know that men can have yeast issues as well that can manifest as itching ears, nail fungus, skin irritations, etc. If you are sexually active and dealing with yeast in any form, please make sure your partner also does yeast management otherwise you will continue to re-infect each other.
I am a big fan of probiotics. I feel these are invaluable when working with any issue but especially yeast. Again, the company, Vitanica, has a good probiotic called FemCology. There are other companies that also have good probiotics. ReNew Life, Dr. Ohirrah's are two good ones.
Another favorite product that I have used when diagnosed with major depression is Dr. Christopher's Mind Trac. I really like this product and it has been helpful for me.
Then there is good 'ole exercise. I personally have a challenge with exercise. If you work out, walk regularly, etc., this will help the body normalize. I have chosen to purchase a T-Zone Vibration Machine that I use on a regular basis. There are studies with this machine that indicates that is will assist with hormone balancing and mental/emotional balancing and regulation.
Lastly but certainly not least is a rather touchy issue dealing with depression and bi-polar. I feel I would be remiss if I did not mention it. It has to do with dark spirits that influence us and bi-polar is sometimes a result. Please understand that this topic takes more time that I have on this blog. There are two books that I would recommend. Dr. Melvin Fish has a book entitled, " From Darkness Into Light". Karol Truman has one entitled " Feelings Buried Alive Never Die". I would encourage the reading and usage of these two books and many of the techniques mentioned in them. One other source is www.emofree.com which will discuss the Emotional Freedom Technique. We have found all of these books and techniques helpful.( at some time we may discuss this issue in more depth)
Now as far as getting pregnant. There are a few products that have been shown to help with this. Again, Vitanica, has Pregnancy Prep formula and Michael's Naturopathics has Male and Female Reproductive Formulas. I have personal knowledge of individuals who have had success with both of these products.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Pancreatic Cancer ideas
(NaturalNews) When actor Patrick Swayze was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer he decided to follow the advice of his doctors to use chemo and starve out his cancer. He ended up dying of wasting disease. By contrast, an 80 year old man who decided to nourish his body and fight cancer naturally is robust and thriving almost three years after his diagnosis.
Last year, this author wrote an article about Patrick Swayze dying after placing false hopes in chemo drugs and in the advice of his doctors to try to "starve out" his cancer.
http://www.naturalnews.com/027034_c...
Previously, following Swayze's Barbara Walter's special, this author had also written an article lamenting Swayze's decision to place his faith in mainstream medicine.
http://www.naturalnews.com/025289_c...
Both articles strongly suggested that Swayze might have been better served by trying to nourish his body and build his immune system.
Ironically, shortly after the second article was published a member of a health group centered on beating cancer naturally posted a message about her 80 year old step-father with pancreatic cancer. She said her step-father had fared very well using a natural approach and eschewing mainstream treatment. He had already lived longer than Swayze after his diagnosis, had good health, was active and was enjoying a good quality of life.
She also reported that her step-father had never had any mainstream treatment and said she was convinced that he was still alive and enjoying life because he had opted for nature instead.
"My Stepdad always asks the doctor have you found a cure and they say "NO" and he then says I am not interested. Even his doctor quietly agreed that he made the right decision. All his hospice nurses are amazed when they find out his story."
Each of the aforementioned articles resulted in considerable flack from mainstream outlets. One reputed oncologist followed the author to the CureZone forums to profess dismay for anyone daring to suggest Swayze might have been better off with natural alternatives than with the mainstream approach he took.
Immediately thereafter a rebuttal was posted which included rather graphic photographic evidence of how rapidly and drastically Swayze`s health declined after he began chemo.
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i...
This week an update on the 80 year old survivor was posted to the Yahoo group by his step-daughter:
"My 80 year old stepdad has had pancreatic cancer for the last 3 years and is doing great! He takes plenty of Oleander (supplement) and 4 oz of colloidal silver every day until he finishes the gallon and then takes about a 2-3 week break. (He) has a bile bag because the tumor was blocking his bile duct, but now there is nothing going into the bag and all signs point to the tumor shrinking and the bile traveling the correct way through his body.
He was diagnosed almost 3 years ago with stage 4 pancreatic cancer and was yellow and given only a couple of months to live. He went from 230lbs to about 135 in 5 months. Now he is around 150 and plays golf weekly."
One cannot help but notice the contrast between the healthy 80 year old and Swayze. Swayze went from a smiling robust 55 year old man to a sad shell of himself in only 18 months while the 80 year old survivor was doing well after three years, playing golf and gaining weight. Notably, Swayze died not from his cancer, but rather from wasting disease and malnourishment.
In the best natural cancer treatments, such success stories are often the rule instead of the exception. Sadly, just the opposite is often true in many mainstream cancer treatments.
Sources included:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027034_c...
http://www.naturalnews.com/027034_c...
http://www.curezone.com/forums/fm.a...
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i...
Last year, this author wrote an article about Patrick Swayze dying after placing false hopes in chemo drugs and in the advice of his doctors to try to "starve out" his cancer.
http://www.naturalnews.com/027034_c...
Previously, following Swayze's Barbara Walter's special, this author had also written an article lamenting Swayze's decision to place his faith in mainstream medicine.
http://www.naturalnews.com/025289_c...
Both articles strongly suggested that Swayze might have been better served by trying to nourish his body and build his immune system.
Ironically, shortly after the second article was published a member of a health group centered on beating cancer naturally posted a message about her 80 year old step-father with pancreatic cancer. She said her step-father had fared very well using a natural approach and eschewing mainstream treatment. He had already lived longer than Swayze after his diagnosis, had good health, was active and was enjoying a good quality of life.
She also reported that her step-father had never had any mainstream treatment and said she was convinced that he was still alive and enjoying life because he had opted for nature instead.
"My Stepdad always asks the doctor have you found a cure and they say "NO" and he then says I am not interested. Even his doctor quietly agreed that he made the right decision. All his hospice nurses are amazed when they find out his story."
Each of the aforementioned articles resulted in considerable flack from mainstream outlets. One reputed oncologist followed the author to the CureZone forums to profess dismay for anyone daring to suggest Swayze might have been better off with natural alternatives than with the mainstream approach he took.
Immediately thereafter a rebuttal was posted which included rather graphic photographic evidence of how rapidly and drastically Swayze`s health declined after he began chemo.
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i...
This week an update on the 80 year old survivor was posted to the Yahoo group by his step-daughter:
"My 80 year old stepdad has had pancreatic cancer for the last 3 years and is doing great! He takes plenty of Oleander (supplement) and 4 oz of colloidal silver every day until he finishes the gallon and then takes about a 2-3 week break. (He) has a bile bag because the tumor was blocking his bile duct, but now there is nothing going into the bag and all signs point to the tumor shrinking and the bile traveling the correct way through his body.
He was diagnosed almost 3 years ago with stage 4 pancreatic cancer and was yellow and given only a couple of months to live. He went from 230lbs to about 135 in 5 months. Now he is around 150 and plays golf weekly."
One cannot help but notice the contrast between the healthy 80 year old and Swayze. Swayze went from a smiling robust 55 year old man to a sad shell of himself in only 18 months while the 80 year old survivor was doing well after three years, playing golf and gaining weight. Notably, Swayze died not from his cancer, but rather from wasting disease and malnourishment.
In the best natural cancer treatments, such success stories are often the rule instead of the exception. Sadly, just the opposite is often true in many mainstream cancer treatments.
Sources included:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027034_c...
http://www.naturalnews.com/027034_c...
http://www.curezone.com/forums/fm.a...
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i...
vaccinations
(NaturalNews) Rotavirus vaccines are commonly given to children, and this year's batch of vaccines made by GlaxoSmithKline and Merck are contaminated with a pig virus, the FDA recently discovered. So the FDA called a meeting to determine whether injecting a pig virus into the bodies of young children might be some sort of problem requiring a recall of the vaccines.
Can you guess what conclusion the agency reached? As reported by Reuters, the FDA concluded "...it was safe for doctors to resume giving patients Glaxo's Rotarix and continue using Merck's Rotateq. The agency said there was no evidence the contamination caused any harm..."
In other words, as long as they can bury the evidence and deny any link between vaccines and health problems -- which has been the standard excuse of the FDA for decades -- they can continue to claim the vaccines are safe enough to inject into little children.
Never mind the fact that the pig virus found in the vaccines actually causes a wasting disease in baby pigs, giving them intense diarrhea and causing them to rapidly lose weight. DNA from these viruses was detected in the "master cells" used to make the vaccines.
Suppressing the evidence of harm
An FDA advisory panel said the risk to human health from the viral contamination was only "theoretical." But of course it's easy to claim anything is "theoretical" if you suppress the evidence that it's real. By simply ignoring any reports of neurological side effects from the vaccine, the FDA can always claim there is "no evidence" of harm. Well, no evidence they're willing to accept as real, anyway.
And that's how vaccine science works these days: Suppress any evidence of harm, deny any links between vaccines and neurological problems, then okay practically any viral contamination from any animal and declare it's all safe to be injected directly into the bodies of infants and children.
So much for science, huh? The vaccine industry operates more like a cult than a scientific organization, and anyone who questions the beliefs of their cult is immediately branded a heretic and publicly condemned.
By the way, even though these rotavirus vaccines are contaminated with a pig virus, the companies that make them claim there is "no manufacturing or safety issue" with the vaccines. In other words, this is normal!
Think about that for a moment: The discovery that a vaccine being injected into children is contaminated with a virus from a pig doesn't even result in a product recall! It doesn't raise any red flags! It's just business as usual in the vaccine industry, where DNA from any number of diseased animals is often used in the vaccine formulas.
Last year, rotavirus vaccines earned nearly a billion dollars in revenues for Big Pharma. The risk of a child in the United States actually dying from a rotavirus infection is ridiculously small. What these kids need is good nutrition and vitamin D, not an injection of a questionable vaccine made with pig virus DNA.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...
Can you guess what conclusion the agency reached? As reported by Reuters, the FDA concluded "...it was safe for doctors to resume giving patients Glaxo's Rotarix and continue using Merck's Rotateq. The agency said there was no evidence the contamination caused any harm..."
In other words, as long as they can bury the evidence and deny any link between vaccines and health problems -- which has been the standard excuse of the FDA for decades -- they can continue to claim the vaccines are safe enough to inject into little children.
Never mind the fact that the pig virus found in the vaccines actually causes a wasting disease in baby pigs, giving them intense diarrhea and causing them to rapidly lose weight. DNA from these viruses was detected in the "master cells" used to make the vaccines.
Suppressing the evidence of harm
An FDA advisory panel said the risk to human health from the viral contamination was only "theoretical." But of course it's easy to claim anything is "theoretical" if you suppress the evidence that it's real. By simply ignoring any reports of neurological side effects from the vaccine, the FDA can always claim there is "no evidence" of harm. Well, no evidence they're willing to accept as real, anyway.
And that's how vaccine science works these days: Suppress any evidence of harm, deny any links between vaccines and neurological problems, then okay practically any viral contamination from any animal and declare it's all safe to be injected directly into the bodies of infants and children.
So much for science, huh? The vaccine industry operates more like a cult than a scientific organization, and anyone who questions the beliefs of their cult is immediately branded a heretic and publicly condemned.
By the way, even though these rotavirus vaccines are contaminated with a pig virus, the companies that make them claim there is "no manufacturing or safety issue" with the vaccines. In other words, this is normal!
Think about that for a moment: The discovery that a vaccine being injected into children is contaminated with a virus from a pig doesn't even result in a product recall! It doesn't raise any red flags! It's just business as usual in the vaccine industry, where DNA from any number of diseased animals is often used in the vaccine formulas.
Last year, rotavirus vaccines earned nearly a billion dollars in revenues for Big Pharma. The risk of a child in the United States actually dying from a rotavirus infection is ridiculously small. What these kids need is good nutrition and vitamin D, not an injection of a questionable vaccine made with pig virus DNA.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
influenza vaccines and convulsions
I have never been a fan of vaccinations. Here is an article from Natural News that once again confirms my dislike of vaccines.
there are so many other healthier ways to deal with illness. On this blog I offer a number of those ideas.
(NaturalNews) Influenza vaccines have sent 57 children into life-threatening convulsions, reports The Age out of Australia. These influenza vaccines were being give to children under five to "protect" them from seasonal flu, but after receiving the shots, these children started going into convulsions.
An investigation has revealed that there is no quality control problem with any particular batch of influenza vaccines. They all pass quality control, in other words, so the convulsions are being caused by what is intentionally put into the vaccines, not by some mistaken chemical contaminant.
This, of course, baffles conventional doctors who have all been told that vaccines are perfectly safe and could never harm anyone. So rather than pausing to consider what might be contained in the vaccines that's causing children to go into convulsions, they charge ahead with the recommendation that even more people should get vaccines.
Alan Hampson, chairman of Australia's Influenza Specialist Group, "...advised young, healthy people anxious to get the flu vaccine to consider having the swine flu vaccine" reports The Age. There is no amount of real-world evidence, you see, that can break the mythological stranglehold that vaccines have over the minds of mainstream physicians. Even if children start dropping to the floor and convulsing right in front of them, they will continue to push vaccines on even more children.
The illusion of vaccine efficacy
Vaccines are based on a scientific-sounding mythology that is widely believed by gullible physicians and scientists who simply believe what they are told rather than what's real.
This mythology is based on the belief that injecting foreign matter into the human body will cause the immune system to adapt to the weakened foreign matter by creating antibodies that fight off future infections. This explanation, however, is pure mythology. In reality, an immune system can only invoke an adaptive response when it is properly nourished with vitamin D. And if the patient has enough vitamin D, they need no vaccine because vitamin D protects them from seasonal influenza in the first place.
Thus, vaccines only "work" in those people who don't need them. People who have the least protection against influenza due to their vitamin D deficiency also have the weakest immune response to vaccines. The vaccines, in other words, just don't work on them.
Children with particularly weak neurology are highly susceptible to neurological damage from vaccines. This damage may take the form of a coma, convulsions, autism or being partially paralyzed. Some children given vaccines soon find themselves in wheelchairs, unable to walk even though previous to the vaccine they were star athletes.
If you're a parent, don't expose your children to vaccine shots! Learn more about the dangers of vaccines with these articles:
Virginia teen athlete in wheel chair after vaccine shot:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027473_G...
Swine flu vaccine linked to paralysis:
http://www.naturalnews.com/026866_s...
Vaccine puts girl in the hospital:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027395_s...
Vaccines linked to neurological disorders:
http://www.naturalnews.com/022642_v...
Ten questions doctors refuse to answer about vaccines:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027258_v...
there are so many other healthier ways to deal with illness. On this blog I offer a number of those ideas.
(NaturalNews) Influenza vaccines have sent 57 children into life-threatening convulsions, reports The Age out of Australia. These influenza vaccines were being give to children under five to "protect" them from seasonal flu, but after receiving the shots, these children started going into convulsions.
An investigation has revealed that there is no quality control problem with any particular batch of influenza vaccines. They all pass quality control, in other words, so the convulsions are being caused by what is intentionally put into the vaccines, not by some mistaken chemical contaminant.
This, of course, baffles conventional doctors who have all been told that vaccines are perfectly safe and could never harm anyone. So rather than pausing to consider what might be contained in the vaccines that's causing children to go into convulsions, they charge ahead with the recommendation that even more people should get vaccines.
Alan Hampson, chairman of Australia's Influenza Specialist Group, "...advised young, healthy people anxious to get the flu vaccine to consider having the swine flu vaccine" reports The Age. There is no amount of real-world evidence, you see, that can break the mythological stranglehold that vaccines have over the minds of mainstream physicians. Even if children start dropping to the floor and convulsing right in front of them, they will continue to push vaccines on even more children.
The illusion of vaccine efficacy
Vaccines are based on a scientific-sounding mythology that is widely believed by gullible physicians and scientists who simply believe what they are told rather than what's real.
This mythology is based on the belief that injecting foreign matter into the human body will cause the immune system to adapt to the weakened foreign matter by creating antibodies that fight off future infections. This explanation, however, is pure mythology. In reality, an immune system can only invoke an adaptive response when it is properly nourished with vitamin D. And if the patient has enough vitamin D, they need no vaccine because vitamin D protects them from seasonal influenza in the first place.
Thus, vaccines only "work" in those people who don't need them. People who have the least protection against influenza due to their vitamin D deficiency also have the weakest immune response to vaccines. The vaccines, in other words, just don't work on them.
Children with particularly weak neurology are highly susceptible to neurological damage from vaccines. This damage may take the form of a coma, convulsions, autism or being partially paralyzed. Some children given vaccines soon find themselves in wheelchairs, unable to walk even though previous to the vaccine they were star athletes.
If you're a parent, don't expose your children to vaccine shots! Learn more about the dangers of vaccines with these articles:
Virginia teen athlete in wheel chair after vaccine shot:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027473_G...
Swine flu vaccine linked to paralysis:
http://www.naturalnews.com/026866_s...
Vaccine puts girl in the hospital:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027395_s...
Vaccines linked to neurological disorders:
http://www.naturalnews.com/022642_v...
Ten questions doctors refuse to answer about vaccines:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027258_v...
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Breast cancer help
Some great help for those yourself or someone you love to help with breast tumors.
Janeen
(NaturalNews) Natural chemicals found in the spices turmeric and black pepper appear to stop the growth of breast tumors, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center and published in the journal Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.
Researchers applied a solution containing both curcumin, found in turmeric, and piperine, which makes black pepper spicy, to breast cancer cells in a laboratory, using concentrations 20 times higher than those found in the human diet. They found that the solution hampered the ability of stem cells to propagate but did not affect the differentiation of normal breast cells.
"This shows that these compounds are not toxic to normal breast tissue," lead author Madhuri Kakarala said.
Cancer stem cells are the cells in tumors that allow it to keep growing without limit. Current chemotherapy treatments are unable to affect stem cells, which is part of the reason that cancers can spread and recur even in those undergoing treatment.
"If we can limit the number of stem cells, we can limit the number of cells with potential to form tumors," Kakarala said.
The researchers found that the piperine appeared to make the curcumin more effective. They also found that the solution affected cancer stem cells regardless of whether the tumors were estrogen-sensitive or not. This is an especially significant finding because the cancer-preventive drugs tamoxifen or raloxifene, which can have highly toxic side effects, do not affect estrogen-independent tumors.
"The concept that dietary compounds can help is attractive, and curcumin and piperine appear to have very low toxicity," Karkala said.
Previous studies have linked a diet high in turmeric to a lower risk of breast, colon, prostate and lung cancers. Black pepper and piperine have both also been shown to suppress the development of colon and lung tumors in animal tests.
Sources for this story include: health.usnews.com; timesofindia.indiatimes.com.
Share60
Janeen
(NaturalNews) Natural chemicals found in the spices turmeric and black pepper appear to stop the growth of breast tumors, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center and published in the journal Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.
Researchers applied a solution containing both curcumin, found in turmeric, and piperine, which makes black pepper spicy, to breast cancer cells in a laboratory, using concentrations 20 times higher than those found in the human diet. They found that the solution hampered the ability of stem cells to propagate but did not affect the differentiation of normal breast cells.
"This shows that these compounds are not toxic to normal breast tissue," lead author Madhuri Kakarala said.
Cancer stem cells are the cells in tumors that allow it to keep growing without limit. Current chemotherapy treatments are unable to affect stem cells, which is part of the reason that cancers can spread and recur even in those undergoing treatment.
"If we can limit the number of stem cells, we can limit the number of cells with potential to form tumors," Kakarala said.
The researchers found that the piperine appeared to make the curcumin more effective. They also found that the solution affected cancer stem cells regardless of whether the tumors were estrogen-sensitive or not. This is an especially significant finding because the cancer-preventive drugs tamoxifen or raloxifene, which can have highly toxic side effects, do not affect estrogen-independent tumors.
"The concept that dietary compounds can help is attractive, and curcumin and piperine appear to have very low toxicity," Karkala said.
Previous studies have linked a diet high in turmeric to a lower risk of breast, colon, prostate and lung cancers. Black pepper and piperine have both also been shown to suppress the development of colon and lung tumors in animal tests.
Sources for this story include: health.usnews.com; timesofindia.indiatimes.com.
Share60
Environmental chemicals and cancer
I subscribe to the newsletter "Natural News". this was a recent article on environmental chemical exposure and cancer. it is really good. Please take a read and feel free to subscribe to the newsletter too.
Janeen
(NaturalNews) When a government panel of experts finds the courage to tell the truth about cancer, it's an event so rare that it becomes newsworthy. Late last week, a report from the President's Cancer Panel (PCP) broke ranks with the sick-care cancer establishment and dared to say something that natural health advocates have been warning about for decades: That Americans are "bombarded" with cancer-causing chemicals and radiation, and if we hope to reduce cancer rates, we must eliminate cancer-causing chemicals in foods, medicines, personal care products and our work and home environments.
In a directive to President Obama, the report states, "The panel urges you most strongly to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase healthcare costs, cripple our nation's productivity, and devastate American lives."
When I first read that, I just about fell out of my chair. Government-appointed experts are really saying that there are cancer-causing chemicals in our food and water? That simple fact has been vehemently denied by the cancer industry, processed food giants, personal care product companies and of course the fluoride lobby -- all of which insist their chemicals are perfectly safe.
ACS attacks the report
The American Cancer Society, not surprisingly, was quick to bash the report. The ACS is one of the sick-care cancer industry front groups that reinforces consumer ignorance about both the causes and the solutions for cancer. The ACS has, for decades, engaged in what can only be called a "cancer chemical cover-up" with its denials that environmental chemicals cause cancer. (http://www.naturalnews.com/010244_A...) and (http://www.preventcancer.com/losing...)
Even as cancer experts like Dr Sam Epstein have been warning about carcinogens in cosmetics, personal care products and foods (http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers), the ACS has ridiculously pretended such threats don't exist. And just to top it off, the ACS has been warning people to stay away from sunlight and become more vitamin D deficient, thereby increasing cancer rates even further.
So it's no surprise that the ACS doesn't like this PCP report that dares to state the obvious: There are cancer-causing chemicals in our food and water! "The American people -- even before they are born -- are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures," the report writes.
The great chemical denial
Joining the ACS in criticizing the report is the American Chemistry Council, the trade group representing the very same chemical companies that are poisoning our world right now. Remarkably, the ACS and ACC are on the same side here, denying any link between chemicals and cancer. They insist that all those chemicals in your processed foods, cosmetics, antibacterial soaps, shampoos, fragrance products, home cleaning solvents, pesticides, herbicides and other similar products are all safe for you! Eat up, suckers!
Don't worry about the chemicals, they say. Cancer is just a matter of bad luck. There's nothing you can do about it. So stop trying.
That's their message, you see, and it's a message that plays right into the hands of the cancer industry: Don't prevent your cancer and when you get sick, they'll make a fortune off your disease and suffering.
The radiation threat from medical imaging
The PCP report also takes a strong stand on the cancer risks caused by medical imaging radiation. It actually says, "People who receive multiple scans or other tests that require radiation may accumulate doses equal to or exceeding that of Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors."
I remember receiving hate mail from cancer industry shills when I once made the same statement in an article about mammograms and CT scans. (http://www.naturalnews.com/026113_m...) And yet that statement was factually quite correct: If you undergo several medical imaging tests in a hospital today, you can very easily receive just as much radiation as a person standing a few miles away from the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshoma during World War II. This is not an exaggeration. It is a simple fact of physics and the law of inverse squares. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invers...)
The environmental dangers of pharmaceuticals
Here at NaturalNews, I've been talking about the environmental pollution of pharmaceuticals for years. The fact that pharmaceutical chemicals are flushed down the drain and end up in the water supply is the "dirty little secret" of the drug industry. The problem has gone virtually unrecognized by the entire mainstream medical system... they just pretend it doesn't exist.
Yet this PCP report takes aim at it by saying: "Pharmaceuticals have become a considerable source of environmental contamination. Drugs of all types enter the water supply when they are excreted or improperly disposed of; the health impact of long-term exposure to varying mixtures of these compounds is unknown."
It's about time somebody in Washington stood up and challenged the pharmaceutical industry on the environmental effects of its toxic chemicals. HRT drugs, antidepressants, painkillers and many other types of drugs are right now polluting our oceans and waterways. You can hardly catch a fish near any major U.S. city now that isn't contaminated with pharmaceuticals.
But don't expect anyone to give credence to this warning. This entire PCP report is being largely ignored in Washington (and attacked by Big Business).
What the report really says
The President's Cancer Panel is headed by:
LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., M.D., F.A.C.S., Chair
Charles R. Drew Professor of Surgery
Howard University College of Medicine
Washington, DC 20059
Margaret L. Kripke, Ph.D.
Vivian L. Smith Chair and Professor Emerita
The University of Texas
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Houston, TX 77030
These two people deserve your support for having the courage to publish a report that challenges the status quo of the corrupt cancer industry. So if you wish, send them a thank-you email for their work.
The report is entitled, "REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL CANCER RISK - What We Can Do Now"
Here are some of the highlights from the report:
• In 2009 alone, approximately 1.5 million American men, women, and children were diagnosed with cancer, and 562,000 died from the disease. Approximately 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and about 21 percent will die from cancer. The incidence of some cancers, including some most common among children, is increasing for unexplained reasons.
• The Panel was particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread. One such ubiquitous chemical, bisphenol A (BPA), is still found in many consumer products and remains unregulated in the United States, despite the growing link between BPA and several diseases, including various cancers.
• However, the grievous harm from this group of carcinogens has not been addressed adequately by the National Cancer Program. The American people -- even before they are born -- are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures.
• Some scientists maintain that current toxicity testing and exposure limit-setting methods fail to accurately represent the nature of human exposure to potentially harmful chemicals. Current toxicity testing relies heavily on animal studies that utilize doses substantially higher than those likely to be encountered by humans. These data -- and the exposure limits extrapolated from them -- fail to take into account harmful effects that may occur only at very low doses.
• Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety.
• While all Americans now carry many foreign chemicals in their bodies, women often have higher levels of many toxic and hormone-disrupting substances than do men. Some of these chemicals have been found in maternal blood, placental tissue, and breast milk samples from pregnant women and mothers who recently gave birth. Thus, chemical contaminants are being passed on to the next generation, both prenatally and during breastfeeding.
• The entire U.S. population is exposed on a daily basis to numerous agricultural chemicals, some of which also are used in residential and commercial landscaping. Many of these chemicals have known or suspected carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting properties. Pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides) approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contain nearly 900 active ingredients, many of which are toxic.
• Many of the solvents, fillers, and other chemicals listed as inert ingredients on pesticide labels also are toxic, but are not required to be tested for their potential to cause chronic diseases such as cancer. In addition to pesticides, agricultural fertilizers and veterinary pharmaceuticals are major contributors to water pollution, both directly and as a result of chemical processes that form toxic by-products when these substances enter the water supply.
• The use of cell phones and other wireless technology is of great concern, particularly since these devices are being used regularly by ever larger and younger segments of the population.
• Americans now are estimated to receive nearly half of their total radiation exposure from medical imaging and other medical sources, compared with only 15 percent in the early 1980s. The increase in medical radiation has nearly doubled the total average effective radiation dose per individual in the United States. Computed tomography (CT) and nuclear medicine tests alone now contribute 36 percent of the total radiation exposure and 75 percent of the medical radiation exposure of the U.S. population.
• Many referring physicians, radiology professionals, and the public are unaware of the radiation dose associated with various tests or the total radiation dose and related increased cancer risk individuals may accumulate over a lifetime. People who receive multiple scans or other tests that require radiation may accumulate doses equal to or exceeding that of Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors.
• Hundreds of thousands of military personnel and civilians in the United States received significant radiation doses as a result of their participation in nuclear weapons testing and supporting occupations and industries, including nuclear fuel and weapons production, and uranium mining, milling, and ore transport. Hundreds of thousands more were irradiated at levels sufficient to cause cancer and other diseases.
• Numerous environmental contaminants can cross the placental barrier; to a disturbing extent, babies are born "pre-polluted." There is a critical lack of knowledge and appreciation of environmental threats to children's health and a severe shortage of researchers and clinicians trained in children's environmental health.
• Single-agent toxicity testing and reliance on animal testing are inadequate to address the backlog of untested chemicals already in use and the plethora of new chemicals introduced every year.
• Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated. Enforcement of most existing regulations is poor. In virtually all cases, regulations fail to take multiple exposures and exposure interactions into account.
• Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated. Enforcement of most existing regulations is poor. In virtually all cases, regulations fail to take multiple exposures and exposure interactions into account. [Editor's note: In other words, people should read NaturalNews! We've been doing this for years!]
Sources
Read the report yourself right here:
http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory...
Janeen
(NaturalNews) When a government panel of experts finds the courage to tell the truth about cancer, it's an event so rare that it becomes newsworthy. Late last week, a report from the President's Cancer Panel (PCP) broke ranks with the sick-care cancer establishment and dared to say something that natural health advocates have been warning about for decades: That Americans are "bombarded" with cancer-causing chemicals and radiation, and if we hope to reduce cancer rates, we must eliminate cancer-causing chemicals in foods, medicines, personal care products and our work and home environments.
In a directive to President Obama, the report states, "The panel urges you most strongly to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase healthcare costs, cripple our nation's productivity, and devastate American lives."
When I first read that, I just about fell out of my chair. Government-appointed experts are really saying that there are cancer-causing chemicals in our food and water? That simple fact has been vehemently denied by the cancer industry, processed food giants, personal care product companies and of course the fluoride lobby -- all of which insist their chemicals are perfectly safe.
ACS attacks the report
The American Cancer Society, not surprisingly, was quick to bash the report. The ACS is one of the sick-care cancer industry front groups that reinforces consumer ignorance about both the causes and the solutions for cancer. The ACS has, for decades, engaged in what can only be called a "cancer chemical cover-up" with its denials that environmental chemicals cause cancer. (http://www.naturalnews.com/010244_A...) and (http://www.preventcancer.com/losing...)
Even as cancer experts like Dr Sam Epstein have been warning about carcinogens in cosmetics, personal care products and foods (http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers), the ACS has ridiculously pretended such threats don't exist. And just to top it off, the ACS has been warning people to stay away from sunlight and become more vitamin D deficient, thereby increasing cancer rates even further.
So it's no surprise that the ACS doesn't like this PCP report that dares to state the obvious: There are cancer-causing chemicals in our food and water! "The American people -- even before they are born -- are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures," the report writes.
The great chemical denial
Joining the ACS in criticizing the report is the American Chemistry Council, the trade group representing the very same chemical companies that are poisoning our world right now. Remarkably, the ACS and ACC are on the same side here, denying any link between chemicals and cancer. They insist that all those chemicals in your processed foods, cosmetics, antibacterial soaps, shampoos, fragrance products, home cleaning solvents, pesticides, herbicides and other similar products are all safe for you! Eat up, suckers!
Don't worry about the chemicals, they say. Cancer is just a matter of bad luck. There's nothing you can do about it. So stop trying.
That's their message, you see, and it's a message that plays right into the hands of the cancer industry: Don't prevent your cancer and when you get sick, they'll make a fortune off your disease and suffering.
The radiation threat from medical imaging
The PCP report also takes a strong stand on the cancer risks caused by medical imaging radiation. It actually says, "People who receive multiple scans or other tests that require radiation may accumulate doses equal to or exceeding that of Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors."
I remember receiving hate mail from cancer industry shills when I once made the same statement in an article about mammograms and CT scans. (http://www.naturalnews.com/026113_m...) And yet that statement was factually quite correct: If you undergo several medical imaging tests in a hospital today, you can very easily receive just as much radiation as a person standing a few miles away from the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshoma during World War II. This is not an exaggeration. It is a simple fact of physics and the law of inverse squares. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invers...)
The environmental dangers of pharmaceuticals
Here at NaturalNews, I've been talking about the environmental pollution of pharmaceuticals for years. The fact that pharmaceutical chemicals are flushed down the drain and end up in the water supply is the "dirty little secret" of the drug industry. The problem has gone virtually unrecognized by the entire mainstream medical system... they just pretend it doesn't exist.
Yet this PCP report takes aim at it by saying: "Pharmaceuticals have become a considerable source of environmental contamination. Drugs of all types enter the water supply when they are excreted or improperly disposed of; the health impact of long-term exposure to varying mixtures of these compounds is unknown."
It's about time somebody in Washington stood up and challenged the pharmaceutical industry on the environmental effects of its toxic chemicals. HRT drugs, antidepressants, painkillers and many other types of drugs are right now polluting our oceans and waterways. You can hardly catch a fish near any major U.S. city now that isn't contaminated with pharmaceuticals.
But don't expect anyone to give credence to this warning. This entire PCP report is being largely ignored in Washington (and attacked by Big Business).
What the report really says
The President's Cancer Panel is headed by:
LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., M.D., F.A.C.S., Chair
Charles R. Drew Professor of Surgery
Howard University College of Medicine
Washington, DC 20059
Margaret L. Kripke, Ph.D.
Vivian L. Smith Chair and Professor Emerita
The University of Texas
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Houston, TX 77030
These two people deserve your support for having the courage to publish a report that challenges the status quo of the corrupt cancer industry. So if you wish, send them a thank-you email for their work.
The report is entitled, "REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL CANCER RISK - What We Can Do Now"
Here are some of the highlights from the report:
• In 2009 alone, approximately 1.5 million American men, women, and children were diagnosed with cancer, and 562,000 died from the disease. Approximately 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and about 21 percent will die from cancer. The incidence of some cancers, including some most common among children, is increasing for unexplained reasons.
• The Panel was particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread. One such ubiquitous chemical, bisphenol A (BPA), is still found in many consumer products and remains unregulated in the United States, despite the growing link between BPA and several diseases, including various cancers.
• However, the grievous harm from this group of carcinogens has not been addressed adequately by the National Cancer Program. The American people -- even before they are born -- are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures.
• Some scientists maintain that current toxicity testing and exposure limit-setting methods fail to accurately represent the nature of human exposure to potentially harmful chemicals. Current toxicity testing relies heavily on animal studies that utilize doses substantially higher than those likely to be encountered by humans. These data -- and the exposure limits extrapolated from them -- fail to take into account harmful effects that may occur only at very low doses.
• Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety.
• While all Americans now carry many foreign chemicals in their bodies, women often have higher levels of many toxic and hormone-disrupting substances than do men. Some of these chemicals have been found in maternal blood, placental tissue, and breast milk samples from pregnant women and mothers who recently gave birth. Thus, chemical contaminants are being passed on to the next generation, both prenatally and during breastfeeding.
• The entire U.S. population is exposed on a daily basis to numerous agricultural chemicals, some of which also are used in residential and commercial landscaping. Many of these chemicals have known or suspected carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting properties. Pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides) approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contain nearly 900 active ingredients, many of which are toxic.
• Many of the solvents, fillers, and other chemicals listed as inert ingredients on pesticide labels also are toxic, but are not required to be tested for their potential to cause chronic diseases such as cancer. In addition to pesticides, agricultural fertilizers and veterinary pharmaceuticals are major contributors to water pollution, both directly and as a result of chemical processes that form toxic by-products when these substances enter the water supply.
• The use of cell phones and other wireless technology is of great concern, particularly since these devices are being used regularly by ever larger and younger segments of the population.
• Americans now are estimated to receive nearly half of their total radiation exposure from medical imaging and other medical sources, compared with only 15 percent in the early 1980s. The increase in medical radiation has nearly doubled the total average effective radiation dose per individual in the United States. Computed tomography (CT) and nuclear medicine tests alone now contribute 36 percent of the total radiation exposure and 75 percent of the medical radiation exposure of the U.S. population.
• Many referring physicians, radiology professionals, and the public are unaware of the radiation dose associated with various tests or the total radiation dose and related increased cancer risk individuals may accumulate over a lifetime. People who receive multiple scans or other tests that require radiation may accumulate doses equal to or exceeding that of Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors.
• Hundreds of thousands of military personnel and civilians in the United States received significant radiation doses as a result of their participation in nuclear weapons testing and supporting occupations and industries, including nuclear fuel and weapons production, and uranium mining, milling, and ore transport. Hundreds of thousands more were irradiated at levels sufficient to cause cancer and other diseases.
• Numerous environmental contaminants can cross the placental barrier; to a disturbing extent, babies are born "pre-polluted." There is a critical lack of knowledge and appreciation of environmental threats to children's health and a severe shortage of researchers and clinicians trained in children's environmental health.
• Single-agent toxicity testing and reliance on animal testing are inadequate to address the backlog of untested chemicals already in use and the plethora of new chemicals introduced every year.
• Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated. Enforcement of most existing regulations is poor. In virtually all cases, regulations fail to take multiple exposures and exposure interactions into account.
• Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated. Enforcement of most existing regulations is poor. In virtually all cases, regulations fail to take multiple exposures and exposure interactions into account. [Editor's note: In other words, people should read NaturalNews! We've been doing this for years!]
Sources
Read the report yourself right here:
http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)