Month: August 2009

Categories
Featured Articles

One in Seven Scientists Say Colleagues Fake “Scientific” Study Results

by: David Gutierrez

(NaturalNews) One in seven scientists report that they have known colleagues to falsify or slant the findings of their research, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and published in the journal PLoS One.

A number of scientific data falsification scandals have emerged in recent years, such as the case of a South Korean researcher who invented data on stem cell research. At the same time, increasing controversy over close industry ties to medical research has called into question whether researchers who take money from drug companies might be induced to falsify their data.

"Increasing evidence suggests that known frauds are just the tip of the iceberg and that many cases are never discovered," said researcher Daniele Fanelli.

The researchers reviewed the results of 21 different scientific misconduct surveys that had been performed between 1985 and 2005. All respondents were asked whether they or anyone they knew of had taken part in either fabrication (outright invention of data) or "questionable practices."

Questionable practices were any improper procedure short of fabrication, including failing to publish results contradicting one's prior research, modifying data based on a "gut feeling," changing conclusions after pressure from a funder or selectively choosing which data to include in an analysis.

One in seven scientists said that they were aware of colleagues who had engaged in fabrication, while nearly half — 46 percent — admitted to knowing of colleagues who had used questionable practices. Only two percent, however, admitted to fabricating results themselves.

While two percent is higher than previous estimates of the prevalence of data fabrication, researchers believe that the number is still too low. In all likelihood, it reflects both a reluctance by researchers to admit to serious misconduct and a tendency to interpret one's behavior as favorably as possible — questionable instead of fabrication, or acceptable rather than questionable.

Researchers in the medical and pharmacalogical fields were the most likely to admit to misconduct than researchers in other fields.

Categories
Featured Articles

Home Pesticides Linked to Childhood Cancers

by: S. L. Baker

(NaturalNews) Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), a malignant disease of the bone marrow, is the most common cancer diagnosed in children. In fact, nearly one third of all pediatric cancers are cases of ALL. Although this form of cancer can be cured in many cases, in the worst case scenarios the cancer crowds out normal cells in the bone marrow, metastisizes to other organs and takes the lives of about 15 percent of the youngsters it attacks. What triggers so many kids, usually between the ages of three and seven, to develop this cancer in the first place? A new study just published in the August issue of the journal Therapeutic Drug Monitoring raises the suspicion that commonly used household pesticides are the cause.

Previous studies in agricultural areas of the US have shown strong associations between pesticides and childhood cancers but this is the first research conducted in a large, urban area to look at the connection. The study, conducted between January of 2005 and January of 2008, involved 41 pairs of children with ALL and their mothers and a control group of 41 matched pairs of healthy children and their mothers. The volunteer research subjects were all from Lombardi and Children's National Medical Center and lived in the Washington metropolitan area.

Urine samples collected from the children and their mothers were analyzed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look for metabolites that provide evidence of household pesticide exposure. Specifically, the scientists were looking for metabolites associated with the pesticides known by their chemical name as organophosphates (OP). The researchers found evidence of the pesticides in the urine of more than half of all the participants, but levels of two common OP metabolites, diethylthiophosphate (DETP) and diethyldithiophosphate (DEDTP), were significantly higher in the children who suffered from cancer. What's more, the mothers who participated in the study filled out questionnaires that revealed more moms whose kids had cancer used pesticides (33 percent) than did the mothers in the control group (14 percent) whose youngsters were cancer-free.

"We know pesticides — sprays, strips, or 'bombs,' are found in at least 85 percent of households, but obviously not all the children in these homes develop cancer. What this study suggests is an association between pesticide exposure and the development of childhood ALL, but this isn't a cause-and-effect finding," the study's lead investigator, Offie Soldin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Lombardi, said in a statement to the media. "Future research would help us understand the exact role of pesticides in the development of cancer. We hypothesize that pre-natal exposure coupled with genetic susceptibility or an additional environmental insult after birth could be to blame."

While the scientists aren't ready to flat out say pesticides cause cancer, when you look at the big picture and see what is already known about the havoc pesticides appear to cause in the human body, it makes sense for parents and parents-to-be to ditch pesticides — for their own health and for the health of their children.

Jarro-Zymes Plus
IP-6

Categories
Featured Articles

Ron Paul Introduces Three New Bills Designed to Restore Free Speech to Health

by Ethan Huff

(NaturalNews) In recent years, numerous companies have been targeted, raided, and even shut down by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for making health claims about the products they sell. These federal agencies operate outside the realm of constitutional legitimacy and thus have pejoratively muzzled free speech concerning natural health products and their health benefits for decades. In an effort to restore constitutional freedom of speech, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has introduced three bills which would help dismantle the web of corruption that censors legitimate health claims and truthful information about foods, herbs, and supplements that prevent, combat, or otherwise remediate disease.

Some readers may remember back in mid-2008 when the FTC performed a witch hunt against 130 companies and one non-profit religious group who made claims about their products' effectiveness in treating cancer. The FTC ordered that these entities remove all claims and testimonials and issue a statement to all their customers that drugs and radiation are the only useful and proven treatments for battling cancer and that none of the products or ingredients sold by these companies were helpful in preventing or treating illness.

Similarly, in 2005 the FDA threatened to raid cherry orchards who posted legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific studies on their websites about the health benefits of cherries, claiming that the dissemination of any information correlating cherries to health would cause the cherries to become unapproved drugs subject to seizure.

There have also been countless raids, including one back in January on a company who postulated that its health products treated depression and other illnesses. What resulted was the arrest and detention of the company's owner by U.S. Federal Marshals for speaking the unapproved truth.

As lunatic as all of this sounds, this type of behavior has become normal operating procedure at the FDA and FTC whose unrestrained power continues to escalate into increasingly tyrannical control over free speech. As such, Rep. Paul's three bills aim to end the illegitimate censorship of free speech and restore constitutional freedom of speech in natural health. Below are their summaries and information about how to support them.

HR 3394, The Health Information Protection Act, inhibits the FTC from acting against any entity for communicating the health benefits of its products unless the FTC presents "clear and convincing" evidence that those statements are false. In concordance with the Fifth Amendment, the burden of proof concerning an accusation of a false claim is to fall upon the accuser (FTC) to determine, with legitimate evidence, that a claim is false before demanding its removal. As it stands, the FTC has reversed the Fifth Amendment by preemptively and arbitrarily restraining communication without any evidence or reason while demanding that the accused party prove its claim to be true. HR 3394 will reinforce the already lawful Fifth Amendment that establishes the burden of proof upon the FTC to present a legitimate case before impeding any lawful communication. It will restore the freedom to communicate nutrient-disease health claims freely.

Similarly to HR 3394, HR 3395, The Health Freedom Act, will remove the unconstitutional FDA power of "prior restraint" over all nutrient-disease relationship claims. In other words, free speech health claims will no longer be universally banned but will be permitted. The burden of proof will properly and lawfully fall upon the FDA to establish "clear and convincing" evidence against a claim, after it has been made, if it believes a claim is false. The First Amendment of the Constitution was designed to protect the free speech of the people from the federal government imposing "prior restraint" on speech, the very thing the FDA has instated as the foundation for its operating procedure. This bill will preserve the proper and lawful prosecution of those who make false claims, but it will require the government and its agencies, particularly the FDA, to establish legitimate evidence against a claim that it believes to be false prior to taking any action against any person or entity rather, effectively restoring the First Amendment supremacy over the FDA.

Finally, HR 3396, The Congressional Responsibility and Accountability Act, addresses the roughly 90% of federal government law that is enacted not by Congress, as is mandated in the Constitution under the non-delegation doctrine, but by unelected bureaucratic agencies such as the FDA and FTC. As such, it would prohibit any law created by these agencies from being enacted without first being passed by Congress in concordance with Article I of the Constitution. HR 3396 will restore constitutional government by returning the responsibility of legislating law to Congress which will in turn protect the public from rogue federal agencies who tend to overstep their bounds and tyrannize the people.

While these bills mostly reinforce what is already provisioned in our Constitution, they represent the potential for reform by pinpointing specific areas for which our federal government and its agencies have unlawfully violated their roles and tyrannized people by outlawing free speech, particularly health speech. It is time to put these unelected bureaucracies in their place by supporting Rep. Ron Paul's health freedom bills.

Categories
The Best Years In Life

An Amazing Discovery in Turkey – Part 1 of the Oleander Series

by Tony Isaacs

(NaturalNews) My search for a possible cancer cure began in late 2004 when I found out that my cousin, lifelong friend and running buddy, Jeff Johnson, had been diagnosed as having stage-three melanoma. The cancer had appeared out of nowhere and so it was quite a shock to my cousin and everyone close to him. As luck would have it, I had spent a lot of time the previous four years or so working on my dream of someday posting a website aimed at helping aging baby boomers and others live longer, healthier and happier lives. Naturally, a lot of my research involved searching for ways to ward off and treat diseases and ills such as cancer, Alzheimer`s, heart disease, high blood pressure, kidney and liver disease, and so forth.

When I found out about my cousin, I already had a head start on knowing where and how to look, and so I began to redouble my efforts and focus my research more on cancer. As a result of my research, I found a lot of very good information about fighting cancer and other diseases, boosting our immune systems and improving health in general – much of which you may find in my simple "How to Live a Long and Healthy Life" book. However, it was not my research that led me to finding out about the magical, miraculous oleander plant – it was a card game!

Yes, the way I first heard about the healing powers of oleander happened one evening when I was sitting down at a friendly card game and mentioned my cousin`s cancer. An acquaintance of mine, whom I had known for a few years and who had worked for the American Medical Association at one time, looked across the table at me and, as serious as could be, said "I know a cure." He then proceeded to tell me an amazing story of what he knew about oleander. Later, I found others who told me essentially the same basic story, although each person seemed to have a slightly different version. I fully expect that the story is headed toward becoming a modern day legend someday. Although the versions I heard have differed somewhat, the basic story line I believe to be essentially correct is as follows:

In the early 1960`s a Turkish doctor by the name of Huseyin Ziya Ozel was searching for a cure for his pet dog`s cancer when he noticed that a large number of Turkish villagers referred to him came from high altitudes and he thought that perhaps there was more to the story than just the higher incidence of skin cancer associated with higher altitudes:

In many versions of the story, Doctor Ozel was reported to have observed Turkish villagers drinking an oleander remedy and curing their cancer, which pretty much correlates with the description of Oleander Leaf on the American Cancer Society website, where it states that Doctor Ozel started his study of oleander because of folk traditions that suggested that an extract from oleander was active against leukemia. It should be noted that Doctor Ozel`s daughter Sumru disputes this version and states that Doctor Ozel "studied folkloric remedies and discovered that poultices made of crushed oleander leaves and flour were applied topically to wounds and produced amazingly fast healing of the wounds." The author suspects that this version may have been put forward to put distance between what Ozel observed and what he later patented in order to protect the patent from challenges.

According to Ozel`s daughter, Doctor Ozel made an observation that the majority of cancer patients referring to him were coming from an altitude above 600 meters. He thought that there should be a correlation between the rate of cancer occurrence and some environmental influence.

Whatever the actual truth, Doctor Ozel obviously did observe Turkish villagers using oleander and did review that use as well as a number of environmental factors, and he proceeded to continue his research on oleander based on what he found.

Further research showed that Nerium Oleander was most abundant in lower altitudes and practically did not exist at high altitude. Satisfied that he may have determined the cause of the villager`s good health, Doctor Ozel became intrigued with the plant and began to prepare and work with various extracts of Oleander himself in 1966 while he was the head of the surgical department at Mugla State Hospital of Turkey.

Doctor Ozel first conducted animal studies to determine that the substance was non-toxic and, once he determined the toxicology and effects of Nerium Oleander Extract (or NOE), he conducted further experiments and developed his treatment in various forms until he eventually started tests on terminal human cases.

After initial success in treating human cancer patients with NOE, Doctor Ozel began discussing his findings with other professionals in his field. He sought analysis of the extract from various Turkish laboratories to understand the empirical results. They were unable to characterize the extracted compounds. In the hope of gaining assistance from the government or research organizations, he prepared a paper to present his first human cases at the Fourth Balkanic Medical Days Symposium held in Ankara on 20 September 1973.

The cases presented were all considered terminal cases when the patients came to Doctor Ozel. By law, he could not treat patients with an experimental drug, such as NOE, unless they had exhausted all other conventional treatment methods with no response or were diagnosed as advanced stage, terminal cases. At the symposium he was able to call the attention of the scientific community to NOE and how the extract had shown to be efficacious on cancer cases of different varieties. He was sure that his presentation would trigger serious and abundant research on NOE, and that it finally could be put into service for mankind.

The response from the scientific community was less than overwhelming. The skepticism centered mainly on the fact that the presentation contradicted what little literature there was on oleander species. Clearly the results presented could not be explained as an extension of prior art but Turkish scientists strongly denied the facts that Doctor Ozel had presented without any further research. To conclude, the medical community was reluctant to accept the results. Doctor Ozel was undaunted by the criticism and lack of support for the ideas presented. He continued his research and patients continued to seek treatment.

In 1974, he published additional case reports in the Turkish Medical Journal "Dirim". Doctor Ozel resigned from his position as Chief Doctor at Mugla State Hospital that same year in order to be able to work on NOE and initiate research on the subject,

Doctor Ozel contacted various universities in Istanbul. Years passed and he realized that no serious scientific research could be performed in any of the local universities. In the meantime, his old patients referred new ones to him, and more cancer patients presented themselves to him as word of the results of the treatment spread.

In 1985 he started to look for research facilities abroad. During 1986-1987 some tests performed in Europe proved the effect of NOE on the immune system as well as cancer tumors. The studies showed that it was at least six times as potent as the most active commercially available immune-stimulants (Schizophyllan, Krestin and Lentinan, which were patented by the Japanese in the 1980s).

In 1988, a research team was formed at Munich University Pharmacology Institute to isolate the active components contained in the N.O. extract. Several polysaccharides were identified that might be responsible for some part of the immune activity. On 17-22 July 1990, the initial results were presented as a poster at the symposium of Biology and Chemistry of Active Natural Substances (BACANS) which was held in Bonn, Germany. The presentation was published in Planta Medica 1990-56:66. However, no single component of the extract was found to be the sole source of its benefits. Instead, the activity is induced by a complex mixture of components contained in the extract, acting synergistically to modulate the immune system.

Since the early 1970`s, Doctor Ozel has been treating patients with advanced and inoperable cancer as well as a wide variety of other of illnesses. His results have been truly remarkable. In fact, so fantastic were the stories of his success that Doctor Ozel had to endure long periods of controversy from the Turkish medical establishment and there were those who tried to charge the good doctor with being a charlatan. Happily, the truth of his successes won out and such charges were dropped from consideration when his results were proven. Scores of patients rose up to defend the good doctor, testifying about how they had been cured when all other treatment options had failed.

The patented name of Doctor Ozel`s oleander extract is Anvirzel, whose trademark was once owned by Ozelle Pharmaceuticals, which was formed by Doctor Ozel`s son and other investors. Today, trademark rights are in dispute. Unfortunately, since Doctor Ozel had claimed that oleander was a cure for cancer, as opposed to a natural supplement, and since his extract was patented and given a trademark, the FDA now considers oleander as an unproven medicine which, because of the toxicity of the raw plant, must have its safety and effectiveness proven before the FDA will allow its use even as an herbal supplement, and so it is very difficult to obtain herbal supplements which contain oleander in the United States.

Today, the lengthy and costly three-phase FDA trial process for approval of Anvirzel or any other oleander extract, is far from over, although many people and millions of investor dollars are counting on it ultimately being approved. In 2000, Ozelle Pharmaceuticals had successful phase I FDA trials conducted on Anvirzel, but subsequently ran into investor problems and had to reorganize. Although Ozelle continues to publish plans that it will soon begin phase II trials with Anvirzel, such plans have not yet reached fruition and funding appears to continue to be a major problem for Ozelle.

In the interim, a competing company, Phoenix Biotech, also obtained a patent for Anvirzel in Honduras and has applied for a U.S. patent as well, and a clinic has been established in Honduras by the name of Salud Integral. For the past eight years, the clinic has successfully treated a number of patients, many of whom travel from the United States for initial diagnosis and treatment, as well as three-month supplies of Anvirzel for various cancers, hepatitis-C, psoriasis and other immune disorders.

Within just the past three years, a third competing company appeared by the name of Shimoda Atlantic Oncology Biosciences, and claimed to have developed its own oleander extract named Xenavex which it claimed was much stronger due to an ethanol extraction method. As it turned out, I and others exposed the company as a fraud that was created to cheat investors and the drug was actually a heart medication imported from Russia. Furthermore, although the imported Russian medicine does have slightly higher concentrations of oleandrin, the ethanol extraction method results in the loss of other compounds that researchers believe work together in a synergistic way to make oleander extract so powerful (over 500 trace compounds have been identified in an aqueous, or water, oleander extract, including vital long-chain polysaccharides that are lost in ethanol extraction methods because they precipitate out during the extraction process).

Sadly, I must report that it may be many years, if ever, before an oleander based medicine wins FDA approval. The simple fact is that it takes hundreds of millions of dollars to get a new drug successfully through all the FDA trials, and this pretty much bars competition to all but the very large pharmaceutical companies. Many feel that if the issue ever went to court, the patent itself would be hard to defend, since it is based on a common plant and a centuries-old folk remedy. Others feel that, because of the billions of dollars in profits at stake for the trillion-dollar world pharmaceutical industry and their myriad cancer treatments, no oleander medicine will ever be approved in the United States.

The best hope as of the time of this writing appears to be the development of an oleander based tablet by Phoenix Biotech which is reported to be have a much stronger concentration of oleandrin and the other cardiac glycosides while losing none of the other essential synergistic compounds. Only time will tell if a major pharmaceutical company with the requisite funds will pick up this new oleander product from Phoenix, shepherd it through FDA trials, and finally bring it to market.

Live Long, Live Healthy, Live Happy!

Categories
The Best Years In Life

The Father of Oleander Soup – Part 2 of the Oleander Series

by Tony Isaacs

(NaturalNews) In the earlier article "An Amazing Discovery in Turkey", the first of this series of articles about oleander, I described how Doctor H. Z. Ozel discovered an age old remedy for cancer and other conditions in rural Turkey in the early 1960`s and, after successfully treating thousands of patients over the past 40 years, Dr. Ozel patented the medicine and it was entered into FDA trials. Unfortunately, after passing phase I trials, the patented medicine known as Anvirzel has languished for lack of funding (many consider the patent, based on an age old remedy and common plant to be a weak one) and inter-company squabbles; and it may be many years, if ever, before this promising cancer fighter reaches the market as an FDA approved medicine.

The good news is that you do not have to wait for the approved medication, because you can make your own oleander extract at home on your stovetop, based on the original patent by Doctor Ozel and the folk remedy that has been used for thousands of years. Oleander is a naturally growing plant found all over the southern and southwestern United States and throughout much of the world, and if it isn`t growing naturally near you, you can order oleander plants from many mail-order nurseries on the internet (there are also at least three sources of a commercial supplement version I am aware of, but that will have to wait for a subsequent installment in this series).

Yes, you can make your own oleander remedy, known as "oleander soup" at home about as easily as a large pot of beans, and for that, you can thank a personal injury lawyer by the name of Edward F. Hensley, from San Antonio, Texas, whom I call the "Father of Oleander Soup".

In 2002, Ed`s mother was diagnosed with liver and lung cancer, small cell, and a sister with Hepatitis-C. Ed`s sister, Catrina (Cat), began researching and networking with her friends for answers to the doctor`s prognosis that Betty Hensley only had a few months to live. After contacting one of her old friends, she was told about a clinic in Honduras she could contact and discuss a new cancer drug, which was being made in San Antonio. Cat made a few calls and found who to order the drug from. It cost $1500.00 for a six-week supply of what was called Anvirzel. Cat, Ed, and their brother John put up the initial funds and the drug was ordered.

Betty had been seeing an oncologist in San Antonio, who advised of the risks of chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, and the fact that in her advanced stage, it would have only a small chance of extending her life, and a big chance of serious side effects, including destroying her immune system. Even so, she did try chemo for several weeks, with no result. When the Anvirzel arrived, she began injecting it with Cat`s help, following the instructions provided by the medical doctor in Honduras. After three weeks she went in for new scans with her oncologist. The new films showed the tumors in both her lungs and her liver were shrinking. Her doctor could not directly participate in the injections, but agreed to research the drug.

When the six week supply was about gone, and Betty was very sore at the site of her injections, Ed began researching what this new drug was made of, and what its long term usage was going to entail, and cost. The FDA had a letter posted on its site, warning about the drug, made from the oleander plant, saying it was unproven and should not be used. Yet, the clinic in Honduras was reporting many successful cures of several types of cancer, including juvenile brain cancer.

Ed was determined to find out what was in the drug and went to the U.S. Patent office web site and researched using the term Anvirzel. After several searches, Ed found the patent. It was about 39 pages of legalese, written in the language of patent attorneys, who charge $400 per hour for writing patents, which only lawyers and scientists dare to read.

After several weeks of part time study, the patent began to make sense. It was simply a very confusing, overly detailed, and exaggerated method of making a soup out of the leaves and stems of a common plant, oleander. No problem. Ed had huge oleander plants in his back yard, which were very healthy ornamentals with beautiful flowers year-round. Making the soup was as simple as getting a soup pot, some clippers, an electric hot plate, and a place to cook. Ed`s wife, Carol, would not permit him to cook it in her kitchen, so Ed was resigned to his outside store room – a 10×18 foot building storing yard tools and seasonal sports equipment. After burning several pots of soup because the heat was too high, Ed turned down the heat and boiled the water and oleander clippings for four hours. Then he took out the leaves and stems, and strained the remaining broth using paper towels and plastic strainers. Per Dr. Ozel`s method in the patent, he allowed the broth to cool before straining. He then slow boiled the broth until only about one fifth of the original liquid was left in the bottom of the 12-quart pot.

Ed measured the specific gravity with an anti-freeze gauge, which showed the measurements on a small scale. It was where Dr. Ozel recommended in the patent, about as thick as chicken soup broth. Next, 10 feeder mice were purchased and given the new liquid, which Ed named "oleander soup", as their only source of liquid for two weeks, with all the mouse food they could eat. The mice gained weight, were kind of lazy, but remained alive and looking well.

Ed`s mother was about out of her supply of Anvirzel at that point, so Ed took a bottle of the soup to Betty`s house for a comparison with her drug. It looked the same. It tasted the same. The new soup was fresh, not freeze dried and re-constituted, and according to Betty, tasted fresher. Ed went first and tried some, about a teaspoon. Betty then tried it, taking a teaspoon full. She declared she liked the fresh version better, and that was that. She took oral doses three times a day with meals, with diarrhea the only side effect, which subsided after a week.

Her tests three weeks later were surprising, showing the tumors were still shrinking and were almost gone. A month later, she had no tumors at all. Betty quit taking the soup after another month, after her doctor declared she was free of cancer.

Sadly, about eight months later, feeling healthy, and energetic, Betty flopped down on her bed for a nap, and felt her collar bone snap. Tests showed cancer in the bone, and it was aggressive. Her oncologist referred her to another doctor who recommended some strong new chemotherapy, and discouraged her from going back on the oleander extract. In two months the chemo had slowed the bone cancer, but had also destroyed her kidneys. She died a month later of kidney failure, never taking another drop of the oleander soup or Anvirzel, which had previously saved her life. But she trusted her oncologist, who was very nice and very persuasive. Thankfully, Betty did live to be 88 years of age. She had been a heavy, two pack a day smoker since Ed`s father gave her a cigarette when she was 18. He died at 61 from coronary disease, directly related to his heavy smoking.

Catrina had been dealing with Hepatitis-C, a serious liver condition, which often leads to liver cancer. She began making her own oleander soup and took it, hoping it would stop her condition. It did. In less than two months, her Hepatitis-C was gone. Her liver enzymes were normal. It has not returned in over two years. She has shared the recipe with doctors from Mexico who are treating poor patients with aids, cancer, Hepatitis-c, and psoriasis. A friend of hers reports her rheumatoid arthritis symptoms have gone using the homemade remedy. She laughs when describing the scene in her kitchen, with a big pot of boiling leaves, and two Mexican brothers, medical doctors, standing there taking notes on how to cook something not nearly as difficult as "boracho beans" or chicken mole, two favorite Mexican dishes.

Later in 2003, Ed was surfing the Internet, looking for sites that referenced "Anvirzel". He found the Minnesota Wellness Directory site, and read their remarks about how good the prospects were for this new extract made from poisonous oleander leaves. Ed e-mailed the host the recipe and a short summary of his research. After the host, David, researched the concept and the soup recipe, including getting opinions from his herbalist and medical friends, he published the recipe on his site in his June 2003 newsletter, with warnings about its use.

Not one of his friends reported a problem with the soup, and many of them reported that their cancers and other disorders were improved.

Live long, live healthy, live happy!

Categories
Featured Articles

New Study: Fat in Meat and Dairy Products Increase Pancreatic Cancer Risk

by S. L. Baker

(NaturalNews) Cancer of the pancreas, the large organ located horizontally behind the bottom part of the stomach, typically spreads quickly and is usually deadly. Symptoms are often vague at first and a diagnosis is typically not made until the malignancy is advanced and treatment is futile. In fact, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) predicts that almost 42,500 thousand Americans will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2009 and the vast majority of these people, about 35,250 will die from the disease.

Clearly, the best way to deal with pancreatic cancer is to prevent it in the first place. But how? According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the known causes of the disease include long term diabetes, smoking and chronic inflammation of the pancreas (pancreatitis). However, a new study points to another, important and avoidable cause of pancreatic cancer — specifically, eating fat in red meat and dairy products.

The research, just published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, was conducted because previous studies that attempted to relate fat consumption to the disease reached inconclusive results. But this study concludes the link between dietary animal fat and pancreatic cancer appears to be strong.

Rachael Z. Stolzenberg-Solomon, PhD, of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues investigated a cohort of over 500,000 people from the NIH's AARP Diet and Health Study. Participants in the study filled out food frequency questionnaires in 1995 and 1996 and follow-ups were conducted by the researchers every six years or so in order to track the research subjects' health, including whether any developed pancreatic cancer.

Men and women whose diets included high amounts of total fats had 53 percent and 23 percent increased rates of pancreatic cancer, respectively, compared with men and women who had low fat consumption. Overall, the research subjects who ate high amounts of saturated animal fat had a 36 percent higher rate of pancreatic cancer compared with those who ate low amounts.

Another important finding: fat found in vegetables was not associated at all with cancer of the pancreas. "We observed positive associations between pancreatic cancer and intakes of total, saturated, and monounsaturated fat overall, particularly from red meat and dairy food sources. We did not observe any consistent association with polyunsaturated or fat from plant food sources," the authors wrote in the journal article. "Altogether, these results suggest a role for animal fat in pancreatic carcinogenesis."

There's even more good news about cancer prevention through diet. Other research just published in the British Journal of Cancer by Oxford University scientists concludes that not eating meat lowers the risk of many cancers, including stomach and bladder malignancies as well as leukemia, by close to 50 percent.

Categories
Featured Articles

Prostate Cancer Testing Doesn’t Help, It Harms Men

by S. L. Baker

(NaturalNews) If you are a man, you've probably had the fear of prostate cancer drilled into you — along with the idea that it is critical to your health, and probably your life, to have regular prostate cancer screenings. But two just released large randomized trials indicate that if there is any benefit to screening, it is extraordinarily small. The authors of a review of this research, just published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Otis W. Brawley, M.D. of the American Cancer Society and Donna Ankerst, Ph.D. and Ian M. Thompson, M.D. of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, say that prostate cancer is almost inevitable in men as they grow older, so a medical goal to find more prostate cancers is not acceptable.

In fact, they point out that principles of good public health policy call for screenings only if they reduce the risk of death and/or suffering from prostate cancer, or reduce health care costs when compared with a non-screening scenario. And according to the new research, prostate cancer screenings do none of these things. But they can cause havoc in a man's life.

Actually, although the mainstream media frequently hawks cancer screenings for everyone, no major medical group, including the American Cancer Society, currently recommends routine screening for men at average risk for prostate cancer. In an editorial accompanying the CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians study review, Peter Boyle, Ph.D., D.Sc., of the International Prevention Research Institute, Lyon, France and Dr. Brawley state "the real impact and tragedy of prostate cancer screening is the doubling of the lifetime risk of a diagnosis of prostate cancer with little if any decrease in the risk of dying from this disease."

In 1985, before PSA (prostate specific antigen) testing was available, a US male had an 8.7 percent lifetime risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer and his lifetime risk of dying from the cancer was 2.5 percent . By 2005, with PSA testing widespread, an American male's lifetime risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer had climbed to 17 percent and he had a three percent risk of dying from the disease.

In a statement to the media, the authors of the current study point out that even in the best case scenario, applying the findings of a European trial that found PSA screening led to a 20 percent reduction in the risk of death, the average man who goes through PSA testing sees his risk of being labeled a "cancer patient" soar from about nine percent to at least 17 percent. However, the screening barely decreases his risk of prostate cancer death at all — it only drops from a lifetime risk of three percent to a lifetime risk of 2.4 percent.

The report discusses how a computer modeling study using National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries estimated that more than one in four cancers detected in white males (29 percent) and almost 50 percent of cancers detected in black males were over-diagnosed cancers. What's more, when a similar model using data from Europe was studied, the researchers estimated a 50 percent over-diagnosis rate of prostate cancer. Why is this alarming and even harmful to men? Because those diagnosed with clinically insignificant tumors are subject to unnecessary diagnostic tests and unneeded treatment and often suffer psychosocial harm and sexual side effects.

In addition, the authors point out, it is no small thing for men to be stuck with the label "cancer patient," which can have negative consequences on their ability to earn a living and cost of their health insurance. What's more, over diagnosing prostate cancer significantly affects five year survival statistics, which makes them totally inaccurate in showing progress in cancer treatment and control.

Bottom line: the researchers conclude that "men should discuss the now quantifiable risks and benefits of having a PSA test with their physician and then share in making an informed decision…the weight of the decision should not be thrown into the patient's lap."

As recently reported in Natural News, Dr. Brawley also published research in the New England Journal of Medicine this month showing that prostate cancer screenings are virtually useless at saving lives (http://www.naturalnews.com/026477_c…). Another Natural News article pointed out that one good way to avoid prostate cancer is to avoid statin drugs which have been linked to the disease (http://www.naturalnews.com/025218.html).

References:
Screening for Prostate Cancer, Otis W. Brawley, MD; Donna Ankerst, PhD; and Ian M. Thompson, MD, CA Cancer J Clin, July/Aug 2009 doi:10.3322/caac.20026.

Categories
Ask Utopia Silver

Silver Content

Q:
Hello Utopia,
I read somewhere that "Under a recent EU directive, colloidal silver manufacturers were obliged to dilute their silver by 90 per cent, making it much less effective; in the USA, this powerful tool to kill every virus has also been marginalized."

Since I just bought 2 bottles of your colloidal silver, I wanted to know if you were forced to dilute your product by 90%

Thanks,
Frangois in France 
A:
Hi Frangois,
The pharmaceutical industry has probably bought off most of the influential politicians in the world, but no, we have not been asked to dilute our product by anyone- nor will we. Besides the product is already a marginal, but effective, 20 PPM silver and 999,980 PPM water- pretty diluted as it is.

Ben in Utopia

Categories
Ask Utopia Silver

IBS

Q:
Hi Utopia Silver,
Will Colloidal Silver help Irritable Bowel Syndrome.  And how much should be taken for this?

Diane in Florida

A:
Hi Diane,
Yes, it will.  How much to take is impossible to say; everyone and every situation is different. Others I know of with a similar problem took from 2-4 oz. a day for 3-6 days with great results.

This article may be helpful, http://utopiasilver.com/laymansguide.htm

Ben in Utopia

Categories
Health & Freedom

Military to Deploy on U.S. Soil to “Assist” with Pandemic Outbreak

by Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) Until now, what I'm about to tell you would have been easily dismissed as a conspiracy theory. It's the kind of story that you might expect from some extreme fringe blogger… the kind of story that never appears in the mainstream media. Only today, it did. And it's not a conspiracy theory, either.

CNN is reporting this evening that the U.S. military is gearing up to get involved in the H1N1 swine flu outbreak widely expected to strike the U.S. this fall. As CNN reports, "The U.S. military wants to establish regional teams of military personnel to assist civilian authorities in the event of a significant outbreak of the H1N1 virus this fall, according to Defense Department officials." (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/07/2…)

When it comes to the U.S. military, the word "assist," of course, could mean almost anything. Typically, the U.S. military offers assistance at the end of a rifle. This "assistance" could mean assisting with quarantines, assisting with rounding up infected people or assisting with arresting and imprisoning people who resist vaccine shots.

Just to make it even more interesting, this operation will include "personnel from all branches of the military" and it will involve cooperation with FEMA — the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA is the group of geniuses who handled the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. They're the ones who confiscated firearms from law-abiding citizens defending their own homes, then thrust people into toxic temporary housing that caused neurological symptoms and breathing problems.

Internationally, FEMA is known as the Federal Emergency Laughing Stock Administration. But now, with H1N1 swine flu, FEMA will be backed by the power of highly-trained, heavily-armed military personnel.

Imagine one possible future in America…

There's a knock on your door. A peek through the window reveals two young soldiers in urban camo fatigues gripping M16 rifles slung across their chests. In front of them, an official-looking doctor person sports an N95 mask and carries a clipboard thick with ruffled papers.

Knock knock. "Is anyone home?"

One of the soldiers catches a glimpse of you peering through a sliver of curtain covering the living room window. "I've got movement." He tightens his grip on his rifle and elbows the soldier next to him. "Someone's home. Knock again."

Knock KNOCK. "We're here from the pandemic response team," insists the doc. "We're here to help. Open up or we'll be forced to come in."

Reluctantly, you inch towards the door and grip the doorknob with damp, sweaty hands. Your pulse pounds hard as you crack open the door.

But the doctor isn't in front of your door anymore. It's one of the soldiers — the larger one — and he wedges his foot between your door and its frame, prying it open and forcing his intimidating self into your doorway. "We're with FEMA. Please step away from the door."

"Our records show you haven't received the swine flu vaccine yet," squeaks the doctor from behind the bulk of the domineering soldier now squarely positioned in front of you. "We're here to administer your vaccine."

"I don't want a vaccine," you protest. "They're not safe."

The soldier chuckles, blurts out, "They're as safe as the U.S. government says they are."

The doctor peers out from behind his military companion and makes eye contact. "Sir, as you well know, vaccines have been required for all U.S. residents since President Obama's emergency pandemic declaration last month. Please extend your arm and we'll be on our way."

He produces a syringe and stabs it into a half-filled vaccine cylinder. As he pulls the plunger and liquid races into the syringe, you realize you have mere moments to make a decision. Will you willingly accept the vaccine and avoid being beaten, arrested or shot by the two armed enforcers at your door, or will you resist and pay the consequences?

"Please extend your arm now," the doctor says. The military grunt clenches his jaw, eyeing your hesitation with obvious scorn. He fingers the safety on his rifle and clears his throat…

… what will your choice be?

We're only here to help

That scenario might seem like fiction now, but it could unfold in America in the next few months. What seems outlandish today could become a police state reality before Christmas.

But this is no joke. These people are serious. Even the words tell too much: The order to approve all this is about to be signed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and it's called an "execution order."

So what, exactly, would military personnel be doing in your neighborhood in the event of a swine flu outbreak? The CNN story says they could assist with the "…testing of large numbers of viral samples from infected patients." There's nothing in the story about rounding people up, maintaining quarantine road blocks or cremating the infected bodies of the dead. These realities of a pandemic outbreak are better left unsaid if you're the U.S. military (or the mainstream media).

That's why the full story of what the U.S. military is planning for will never be told to the masses. It's too disturbing. But make no mistake: The military is planning for a worst-case scenario (that's what the military does), and a worst-case pandemic outbreak scenario would involve gunpoint-enforced isolation, military-enforced quarantine zones and most likely the forced vaccination of nearly everyone. Those who resist the vaccinations would be arrested (or detained) and injected at gunpoint, then set free back into the population.

Hollywood has already imagined some of what might happen in such a scenario. Rent the movie The Siege (Bruce Willis and Denzel Washington) to catch an imaginative glimpse of how the U.S. military might handle things in an "emergency situation." It's not a documentary, of course, but much of what it presents seems strangely on track with what's shaping up if a pandemic outbreak occurs.

The very fact that the military is now leaking this story to CNN says something all by itself: The U.S. military is preparing to be stationed on U.S. soil, and whatever freedoms you mistakenly think are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution will be long gone by the time the soldiers arrive at your door.