Categories
The Best Years In Life

Cancer: Why There is No Mainstream Cure

by: Tony Isaacs

(SilverBulletin) On the same day of the highly publicized "Stand Up to Cancer" telethon, the mainstream media widely ran an article titled "The top 10 deadliest cancers and why there's no cure". The top three "incurable" cancers listed were cancers of the lung, colon and breast followed by pancreatic, prostate, leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, liver, ovarian and esophageal cancers. An accurate report would have been titled "The top 10 deadliest cancers and why there's no mainstream cure".

Natural Cellular Immune Booster Protocol

The article stated that "Cancer cells, and how they grow, remain unpredictable and in some cases mysterious. Even after seemingly effective treatments, crafty cancer cells are able to hide out in some patients and resurface."

According to the article, we have spent about $200 Billion on cancer research since the early 1970's and there has been a rise in five-year survival rates for all people diagnosed with cancer from about 50 percent in the early 1970's to 65 percent today.

Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, stated: "We would not be where we are if basic and clinical science wasn't funded. Basic science teaches us about mechanisms, about how drugs may be effective, and we take that info and put it into a clinic to find out whether or not those new ideas work in cancer treatment."

An accurate article would have pointed out that five-year survival is not at all the same as a cure. It would also have revealed that the five-year survival rates have increased largely due to earlier detection and the statistical inclusion of highly curable pre-cancerous conditions such as DCIS – which was not considered to be a cancer in the 1970's.

A truly accurate article would also have told us about the natural and alternative cancer "cures" which have had outstanding success against even the most deadly cancers and would have listed the real reasons there is no cancer cure in sight for mainstream medicine, such as:

1. Almost all of the $200 Billion spent on cancer research has been spent either looking for genetic links, looking for ways to detect cancer earlier once it is already established, or looking for improved drugs and treatments that fit into the same mainstream paradigm of the past 40 years: trying to cut out, poison out or burn out the symptoms of cancer instead of addressing the root causes in order to actually cure cancer and prevent its return.

2. Cancer has become a bloated $300 to $400 Billion a year industry, including charitable foundations such as the American Cancer Society and other agencies with high salaries and perks. The continued existence and profits of the cancer industry depend on NOT finding a cure for cancer.

3. In medical schools whose major source of funding comes from big pharmaceutical companies and whose curriculum is controlled by the AMA, oncologists and other doctors are taught virtually nothing about the importance of proper diet and nutrition or about the healing and immune boosting herbs found in nature. Notably, you cannot patent nature. You may be able to patent synthetics and unique isolates based on nature, but that is not at all the same as natural items with all the supporting synergistic compounds.

4. Alternative therapies are little funded and are in fact vigorously suppressed because of the threat they represent to mainstream profits.

5. The people whose toxic products cause cancer and the people who profit from cancer direct research away from the true causes of cancer and towards the treatments and drugs they profit from.

6. Scant attention or research is directed towards prevention.

Categories
Featured Articles

Sleep Deprivation Increases Risk of Diabetes and Heart Disease

by: Wee Peng Ho

(NaturalNews) Are you one of those who skim on sleep regularly? Then here's a good reason to get a full night's sleep starting today: According to a recent study by the University of Warwick, people who sleep fewer than six hours per night have a three-fold risk of developing a condition that could progress to type II diabetes, strokes and heart attacks.

Analyzing six years' worth of data from 1,455 participants, researchers found that decreased sleep duration is associated with a heightened risk of incident-impaired fasting glycaemia (IFG) — a pre-diabetic condition characterized by blood glucose levels that are higher than normal but yet not high enough to be classified as diabetes.

"We found that short sleep, less than six hours, was associated with a significant, three-fold increased likelihood of developing IFG, compared to people who got an average of six to eight hours sleep a night," said Dr Saverio Stranges, lead author of this study.

The research used data taken from the Western New York Health Study. All participants were between 35 and 79 years of age and had completed a clinical examination as well as surveys which included questions about their general health and sleeping patterns.

According to the American Diabetes Association, about 11 percent of people with IFG developed type 2 diabetes each year during the average three years of follow-up. Pre-diabetic patients are also 1.5 times more likely to develop cardiovascular disease compared to those with normal blood glucose levels.

How does sleep deprivation lead to diabetes and heart disease? The reason is unclear but previous studies suggested that it may have something to do with a decrease in glucose tolerance and an increase in levels of cortisol, a type of stress hormone, when one does not get enough sleep.

In the past, studies have largely focused on the relationship between sleep duration and diabetes. But this is believed to be the first time that the link between sleep duration and pre-diabetes has been investigated. This research has been published in the Annals of Epidemiology journal.

Results from this study add to the growing list of potential health problems that have been associated with sleep deprivation. These include obesity, impaired immune system, hypertension and higher mortality rate.

Categories
Featured Articles

New York City’s Almost Comical Attempts at Curbing Obesity

by Sarah Cain

New York City has higher rates of childhood obesity than the national average, and it is worsening.  When mayor Michael Bloomberg entered office in 2002, he pledged to improve the health of New Yorkers.  Since then, he has led campaigns against smoking and sugar.  Now, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is trying to reduce the rates of childhood obesity.  The New York Times reported their lack of success last week. 

Upon reading of their methods, their failure is not at all surprising.  Let us not forget that it was New York State that absurdly planned to ban salt in restaurants for the benefit of people's health.  New York State has a history of unwise health policies.  It was the primary location for AIDS experiments on foster care children, during a time when New York City officials would routinely remove children from homes, if their care-givers refused to poison them with experimental drugs.  New York was also the first state to mandate the swine flu vaccine for health care workers.  It is worth reminding readers that most New York State health care workers did not want the vaccine shot, because of serious safety concerns, but we are certain they neglected to mention this to their vaccine patients.

New York City officials are planning to reduce childhood obesity by limiting the amount of sugar that is consumed in schools.  While this sounds admirable at first, we began to question their logic when we read that the city had only banned sugar-sweetened beverages in school vending machines.  Just how many soft drinks actually contain real sugar?  We have yet to find a major brand cola that contains any sugar at all.  They contain high fructose corn syrup.  So, were any popular drinks removed at all?  What's more, all of the drinks that were replaced have been substituted with their 'diet' equivalents, because the real emphasis is on calories and politics, not legitimate nutritional science.

"It would be naïve to think that measures like banning trans fats and posting the calories of foods served in restaurants would be enough to bring about a decline in childhood obesity."

— Cathy Nonas, Director of Physical Activity and Nutrition
for the N.Y.C. Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Switching from regular soft drinks to their 'diet' versions is only making the obesity epidemic worse.  Artificial sweeteners, including aspartame, actually cause weight gain.  This is one of the industry's dirty little secrets, and all of the studies prove it.  What's more, diseases such as fibromyalgia and Parkinson's disease will start to occur in younger populations in New York City.  Such conditions are directly caused by excitotoxin exposure (such as aspartame and MSG).  Worse of all is that aspartame is well proven to cause brain tumors (eg. brain cancer), for which survivability chances are lower than for any other type of cancer.

Whenever anti-obesity campaigns such as this one occur in any part of the country, they always seem to result in failure.  None of them seem to attack the real problems: high fructose corn syrup, artificial additives, simple-carbohydrate diets, trans fats, soy products, and various other toxins in foods and pharmaceuticals.  Instead, politicians attack salt and sugar, which technically a body needs, and it will deteriorate without the right proportions of them in their natural forms.  Attacking the real culprits of America's obesity and disease epidemics takes politically incorrect guts, and a willingness to stand up against some powerful people.

As long as corn is subsidized with our tax money, and as long as processed versions of it continue to appear in 80% of the products, we will never be free from the obesity epidemic.  America will never be healthy until this changes.  By the way, corn in its natural state is, of course, healthy.  We rarely see corn in its natural state anymore, and most of it is a genetically engineered frankenfood.  Do not expect to read about this on any of the labels, however.

What's more, carbohydrates have now been placed at the bottom of the food pyramid (the main food), with the U.S.D.A. now recommending a heaping 11 servings of grains per day, for the benefit of its industry partners, of course.  In an era when fats and candy have been given an official place on the food pyramid, there should be no shock that our rates of disease and obesity are growing alongside our waist lines.  They will continue killing us, until we as a society start placing the blame where it is deserved, and take ownership of our own health.

Categories
Featured Articles

Vitamin D Proven Far better Than Vaccines at Preventing Influenza Infections

by Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) If scientists discovered something that worked better than vaccines at preventing influenza, you'd think they would jump all over it, right? After all, isn't the point to protect children and adults from influenza?

Vitamin D3

A clinical trial led by Mitsuyoshi Urashima and conducted by the Division of Molecular Epidemiology in the the Department of Pediatrics at the Jikei University School of Medicine Minato-ku in Tokyo found that vitamin D was extremely effective at halting influenza infections in children. The trial appears in the March, 2010 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Am J Clin Nutr (March 10, 2010). doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.29094)

The results are from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 334 children, half of which were given 1200 IUs per day of vitamin D3. In other words, this was a "rigorous" scientific study meeting the gold standard of scientific evidence.

In the study, while 31 of 167 children in the placebo group contracted influenza over the four month duration of the study, only 18 of 168 children in the vitamin D group did. This means vitamin D was responsible for an absolute reduction of nearly 8 percent.

Flu vaccines, according to the latest scientific evidence, achieve a 1 percent reduction in influenza symptoms (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v…).

This means vitamin D appears to be 800% more effective than vaccines at preventing influenza infections in children.

To further support this, what really needs to be done is a clinical trial directly comparing vitamin D supplements to influenza vaccines with four total groups:

Group #1 receives a vitamin D placebo
Group #2 receives real vitamin D (2,000 IUs per day)
Group #3 receives an influenza vaccine injection
Group #4 receives an inert injection

Groups 1 and 2 should be randomized and double blind while groups 3 and 4 should also be randomized and double blind. The results would reveal the comparative effectiveness of vitamin D versus influenza vaccines.

Unfortunately, such a trial will never be conducted because vaccine pushers already know this trial would show their vaccines to be all but useless. So they won't subject vaccines to any real science that compares it to vitamin D.

Vitamin D also significantly reduced asthma in children
Getting back to the study, another fascinating result from the trial is that if you remove those children from the study who were already being given vitamin D by their parents, so that you are only looking at children who started out with no vitamin D supplementation before the trial began, the results look even better as vitamin D reduced relative infection risk by nearly two-thirds.

More than six out of ten children who would have normally been infected with influenza, in other words, were protected by vitamin D supplementation.

Also revealed in the study: vitamin D strongly suppressed symptoms of asthma. In children with a previous asthma diagnosis, 12 of those receiving no vitamin D experienced asthma attacks. But in the vitamin D group, only 2 children did.

While this subset sample size is small, it does offer yet more evidence that vitamin D prevents asthma attacks in children, and this entirely consistent with the previous evidence on vitamin D which shows it to be a powerful nutrient for preventing asthma.

Vaccine pushers aren't followers of real science
Now, given that vitamin D3 shows such a powerful effect in preventing influenza — with 800% increased efficacy over vaccines — shouldn't CDC officials, doctors and health authorities be rushing to recommend vitamin D before flu season arrives?

Of course they should. But they won't. Because for them, it's not about actually preventing influenza and it never has been. The vaccine pushing camp is primarily interested in using influenza as an excuse to vaccinate more people regardless of whether such vaccines are useful (or safe).

Even if vitamin D offered 100% protection against all influenza infections, they still wouldn't recommend it.

Why? Because they flatly don't believe in nutrition! It runs counter to their med school programming which says that nutrients are useless and only drugs, vaccines and surgery count as real medicine.

The vaccine pushers, you see, aren't followers of real science. You could publish a hundred studies proving how vitamin D is many times more effective than vaccines and they still would never recommend it.

They are promoters of medical dogma rather than real solutions for patients. They promote vaccines because… well… that's what they've always promoted, and that's what their colleagues promote. And how could so many smart people be wrong, anyway?

But that's the history of science: A whole bunch of really smart people turn out to be wrong on a regular basis. That's usually how science advances, by the way: A new idea challenges an old assumption, and after all the defenders of the old (wrong) idea die off, science manages to inch its way forward against the hoots and heckles of a determined dogmatic resistance.

This attitude is blatantly reflected in a quote from Dr John Oxford, a professor of virology at Queen Mary School of Medicine in London, whose reaction to this study was: "This is a timely study. It will be noticed by scientists. It fits in with the seasonal pattern of flu. There is an increasing background of solid science that makes the vitamin D story credible. But this study needs to be replicated. If it is confirmed we might think of giving vitamin D at the same time as we vaccinate." (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne…)

Did you notice his concluding remark? He wasn't even considering the idea that vitamin D might replace vaccines. Rather, he's assuming vitamin D only has value if given together with vaccines!

You see this in the cancer industry, too, with anti-cancer herbs and nutrients. Any time an anti-cancer nutrient gains some press (which isn't very often), the cancer doctor will say things like, "Well, this might be useful to give to a patient after chemotherapy…" but never as a replacement for chemo, you see.

Many mainstream doctors and medical scientists are simply incapable of thinking outside the very limiting boxes into which their brains have been shoved through years of de-education in medical schools. When they see evidence contrary to what they've been taught, they foolishly dismiss it.

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." – Bertrand Russell

Medical journals as guardians of ignorance
Medical journals largely function not as beacons of scientific truth but as defenders of pseudoscientific dogma. To have your paper published in most journals, your paper must meet the expectations and beliefs of that journal's editor. Thus, the advancement of scientific knowledge reflected in each journal is limited to the current beliefs of just one person — the editor of that journal.

Truly pioneering research that challenges the status quo is almost always rejected. Only papers that confirm the presently-held beliefs of the journal's editorial staff are accepted for publication. This is one reason why medical science, in particular, advances so slowly.

Studies that show vitamin D to be more effective than vaccines will rarely see the light of day in the scientific community. It is to the great credit of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, in fact, that it accepted the publication of this paper by Mitsuyoshi Urashima. Most medical journals wouldn't dare touch it because it questions status quo beliefs about vaccines and influenza.

Medical journals, you see, are largely funded by the pharmaceutical industry. And Big Pharma doesn't want to see any studies lending credibility to vitamins, regardless of their scientific merit. Even if vitamin D could save America billions of dollars in reduced health care costs (which it can, actually), they don't want vitamin D to receive any scientific backing whatsoever because drug companies can't patent vitamin D. It's readily available to everyone for mere pennies a day.

In time, it will be recognized as superior to vaccines for seasonal flu, but for now, we must all suffer under the foolish propaganda of an industry that has abandoned science and now worships a needle.

Categories
Featured Articles

Gwyneth Paltrow Reveals Vitamin D Deficiency Caused Osteopoenia Diagnosis

by Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) Gwyneth Paltrow has revealed to her online fans that she has a severe vitamin D deficiency. "My doctors tested my vitamin D levels which turned out to be the lowest thing they had never seen — not a good thing," she said earlier this month. She then went on to reveal she is suffering from osteopenia, a thinning of the bones.

Vitamin D3

These two things are, of course, strongly related. Because vitamin D is necessary for your body to absorb and integrate calcium into your bone structure, being deficient in vitamin D is a sure way to end up diagnosed with osteoporosis or osteopenia.

To reverse this condition, Gwyneth Paltrow was prescribed high dose vitamin D and told to spend more time in the sun. (Good advice!)

It's about time a celebrity started getting some sound health advice from health practitioners. Sunlight and vitamin D is exactly what Gwyneth needs. And I'm glad to see she had the courage to go public with this private information and set a good example by boosting her vitamin D intake.

This advice seemed to initially confuse Gwyneth who said, "I was curious if this was safe, having been told for years to stay away from [the sun's] dangerous rays, not to mention a tad confused!"

And here we discover the harm that has been caused by all the medical charlatans who have urged people to stay out of the sun: Oncologists, dermatologists, general practitioners and even non-profits like the American Cancer Society. In making people afraid of sunlight, they have strongly contributed to a global vitamin D deficiency that actually causes cancer, diabetes, kidney and liver disorders, bone disorders and even influenza. These health "authorities" who tell people to avoid the sun and coat their bodies with toxic sunscreen chemicals are killing people!

Fortunately, Gwyneth Paltrow found this out before any cancer appeared. Had she stayed on this course of vitamin D deficiency for longer, cancer would have been a very likely result. And then she might have found herself pushed into toxic chemotherapy and radiation — the death tools of an industry that's now poisoning Michael Douglas (http://www.naturalnews.com/029685_M…) and has already killed rock stars (http://www.naturalnews.com/029699_c…) and other famous actors such as Farrah Fawcett (http://www.naturalnews.com/026511_c…).

Most of the industrialized world is vitamin D deficient
What's really shocking about the vitamin D story is not that Gwyneth Paltrow was deficient in it, but that as much as 90 percent of the first-world populations are chronically deficient.

In the UK, deficiency is at epidemic levels. The same is true in Canada and the northern states of the USA. Even in the southern states like Florida and California, most people live their lives indoors, hiding from the sun while becoming more vitamin D deficient with each passing day.

Vitamin D deficiency is the underlying nutritional deficiency that keeps modern medicine in business. When you don't have enough vitamin D, things start to go wrong with virtually every organ in your body. There are vitamin D receptors on every major organ and organ system in your body, and vitamin D activates hundreds of different genes in your body that prevent chronic disease.

The simple act of testing for vitamin D and boosting vitamin D levels across the entire population would do more to increase health and reduce health care costs than all the health care reforms Congress has ever debated.

You cannot control health care costs without addressing the issue of widespread vitamin D deficiency.

In other words, if the population remains vitamin D deficient, health care costs will always spiral out of control because it's more expensive to treat sickness than to keep people healthy with low-cost vitamin D supplements.

Let's hope that more people will pay attention to the experience of Gwyneth Paltrow and find the personal courage to treat their vitamin D deficiencies by boosting their intake of vitamin D (and getting more sunlight when possible).

It's nice to see a health-conscious celebrity setting a good example, much like Drew Carey did by beating diabetes. Celebrities have tremendous power to influence the public, and sadly, most celebrities abuse that power. But a few stand out as positive influences who have the personal integrity to lead by example so that their fans might improve their health, too.

Categories
Featured Articles

The Cancer Industry and Its Celebrity Hucksterism

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) If there's one thing to be learned from the recent "Stand Up To Cancer" telethon that gathered top Hollywood celebrities to raise money for the cancer industry, it's that you probably shouldn't get your health advice from actors.

 
Selenium
Vitamin D-3

The cancer industry is losing its propaganda battle as more and more people discover the truth about the toxic side effects of chemotherapy as well as the cancer preventive powers of nutrients like vitamin D and selenium. With the science now clearly showing that chemotherapy fails most patients  and that conventional approaches to cancer cause more harm than good, the cancer industry has resorted to celebrity-influenced emotional theater to try to lure more people into keeping its "someday we'll find a chemical cure" scam going.

And starring in that theater are many top names in Hollywood, from Denzel Washington and George Clooney to Cindy Crawford and Katie Couric. Not present at the event, of course, were all the celebrities who have been killed by the cancer industry, including Patrick Swayze and Farrah Fawcett. By this time next year, that list will undoubtedly be even larger.

Give more money, but don't inform yourself
The gushy, emotionally-charged cancer fundraiser theatrical production was focused on raising more money for the failed cancer industry, yet it utterly failed to empower viewers with real information that could start saving lives right now: Information about how anti-cancer nutrients like vitamin D and selenium can slash cancer rates by 70 to 80 percent, saving hundreds of thousands of lives around the world.

No celebrity told the viewing audience to "take more vitamin D supplements to prevent cancer." No celebrity urged people to "get more sunshine and save your own life." The entire event was staged to raise more money for the very same toxic cancer industry that's right now killing celebrities and fans alike.

The whole charade was put on with a gushy, almost nauseating emotional appeal that had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual science on reversing cancer. The Washington Post called the whole thing "contrived" and described it as an event where "celebrity actors, pop stars, news anchors and others donned especially shiny halos and implored the world to give more to the cause. As always, the cancer movement's message is that we are so close to a breakthrough." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy…)

The cancer industry scam continues
But of course this has been the cancer industry's scam for more than 40 years: Claim to be just a few more dollars away from "the cure" while avoiding talking about the real, practical ways that people can prevent cancer right now.

If all these Hollywood celebrities really wanted to help people stop cancer, they would encourage viewers to stop drinking BPA chemicals from plastic bottles, stop eating processed meat products, stop using toxic chemicals found in personal care products and stop using pesticides on their lawns.

That message, however, isn't as sexy and emotional as sharing tear-jerker stories of how so many of the people we all love have been killed by cancer. Where facts fail, emotion can always persuade people to part with their money… especially if a famous person is telling you to pledge more.

Of course I feel sad for all the people killed by cancer, but I feel even more remorse for the ones killed by cancer treatments like chemotherapy and radiation. Nothing in this article should be construed as making light of the very real pain and suffering endured by those who are diagnosed with cancer or who undergo chemotherapy and radiation — I have great compassion for them all. In fact, I lost several close relatives to the deathly side effects of chemotherapy, and I never want to see another person suffer from cancer nor the devastating toxic side effects of chemotherapy.

But unlike these cancer industry celebrity shills, I'm working to empower people with the information they need to halt cancer right now. And I'm happy to be working in harmony with some other truly courageous celebrities who are actually making a difference.

Suzanne Somers wasn't at the event. That's because she's been working hard sharing her book, Knockout: Interviews with Doctors Who Are Curing Cancer — And How to Prevent Getting It in the First Place. This is a book that actually teaches people how to prevent and even cure cancer right now, using readily-available anti-cancer remedies and treatments that don't make you vomit and die like chemo often does.

Not surprisingly, nobody mentioned this book at the "Stand Up To Cancer" telethon event. After all, if people knew cancer cures already existed, why would they bother giving more money to the cancer industry?

The cancer industry only wants to keep itself alive
And there's the punch line to this entire theatrical production, actually: Raising money to fund the cancer industry depends on not talking about cancer cures. There are a lot of jobs and egos to support in the cancer industry, and if word got out about the prevention and cure strategies that really work right now, all sorts of cancer industry beneficiaries would find themselves out of work.

To keep the cancer industry going, celebrities get on stage and make fools of themselves: Diane Sawyer, Brian Williams and Katie Couric bet their credibility on the event, not knowing that the whole thing was staged to distract people from the real cancer solutions that exist right now.

You can find some of those cancer remedies, by the way, through the Cancer Control Society (www.CancerControlSociety.com), Dr. Samuel Epstein's "prevent cancer" website (www.PreventCancer.com) or any of the websites devoted to Gerson therapy (www.Gerson.org)

You can even watch free videos explaining Gerson Therapy and other natural cancer cures on NaturalNews.TV.

The truth is, cancer can already be prevented and cured. A few really well informed celebrities like Suzanne Somers already know about this, but most of the rest have bought into the cancer industry's propaganda and misuse their celebrity power to extract yet more money from the very people who are being victimized by the cancer industry right now.

Charlatans of the cancer industry
Make no mistake: If curing cancer were only a matter of money, it would have already been cured. Billions of dollars have been poured into finding a pharmaceutical cure, and even though no such cure has ever been found (nor will it be from a chemical perspective), the industry keeps promising they're oh so very close to a cure if you would just reach deep into your pockets and see what cash you can hand over today.

The whole thing smacks of the televangelism scandals of the 1980's, where teary-eyed preachers were promising that your donations could "buy you a place in heaven" even while they were banging prostitutes in their luxury limos. The cancer industry is using your money to fund luxurious lifestyles, too — the American Cancer Society is the wealthiest non-profit in the world, supporting lavish salaries, luxury vehicles and even widespread real estate holdings. As Dr Sam Epstein reports on his website:

"In 1992, The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that the ACS was "more interested in accumulating wealth than in saving lives." Fund-raising appeals routinely stated that the ACS needed more funds to support its cancer programs, all the while holding more than $750 million in cash and real estate assets. A 1992 article in the Wall Street Journal, by Thomas DiLorenzo, professor of economics at Loyola College and veteran investigator of nonprofit organizations, revealed that the Texas affiliate of the ACS owned more than $11 million worth of assets in land and real estate, as well as more than 56 vehicles, including 11 Ford Crown Victorias for senior executives and 45 other cars assigned to staff members. Arizona's ACS chapter spent less than 10 percent of its funds on direct community cancer services. In California, the figure was 11 percent, and under 9 percent in Missouri."

This is the kind of thing celebrities are stumping for when they ask the public to donate money to the cancer industry.

Adam Sandler doesn't seem too funny all of a sudden when you think about the industry he's fronting on television. To give money to the cancer industry is to put your hard-earned dollars directly into the pockets of the very people who are purposely not talking about the cancer cures that exist right this very minute — cures that could save lives and ease suffering starting today.

And that's why "Stand Up To Cancer" should have aired on The Comedy Channel — it was all a sick joke. It was an orgy of celebrity-inspired propaganda and Big Pharma disinformation, all seductively packaged with heart-tugging stories of people who died from toxic cancer treatments offered by very industry that now claims to be trying to save your life.

Well, sure, we don't want people to die of cancer. That's a no-brainer. But the sad, sick truth of the matter is that the very industry financially benefiting from the event is the same one that actually depends on a continuation of cancer to keep itself in business.

To appear on stage stumping for this industry is to announce to the world, "I'm a cancer industry shill."

These celebrities only embarrass themselves with their ignorance.

Stand up to the cancer industry
Hasn't the cancer industry wasted enough of our money? Killed enough of our family members? Destroyed enough lives?

We don't need to "stand up to cancer…"

What we really need is to stand up to the cancer industry!

Stop giving your hard-earned money to cancer industry charlatans. Instead, learn the truth about cancer cures like Gerson Therapy. Read about anti-cancer nutrients and pursue a sensible, healthful lifestyle that's rich with sunlight, nutrition and natural foods.

Get the toxic chemicals out of your home, out of your bathroom and out of your kitchen. Stop buying synthetic chemicals in your foods, drugs and home care products.

But most of all, stop listening to health advice from ignorant celebrities. That unfortunate habit will only get you killed. Just because someone plays a famous character on television (or sings in a rock band) doesn't mean they know anything whatsoever about health, or cancer, or nutrition.

And if you're a celebrity thinking about stumping for the next cancer industry fundraising telethon, please just take yourself off stage and stop abusing your influence to take money from the poor and give it to the (disease industry) rich. Your actions are a disgrace to your fans and they only cement your own membership in the "celebrity ignorance Hall of Fame."

Categories
Featured Articles

Understand Enzymes and Detoxification

by: Kim Evans

NaturalNews) Enzymes are powerful substances; they are responsible for initiating every action in the body, including blinking and breathing. As such, enzymes are often called our life force – because without them we would die. Enzymes are also responsible for helping us digest our food and breaking down and removing old and diseased tissue and cells from the body. But when our enzyme stores are low, diseased tissues and cells regularly remain inside the body – because the enzymes aren't available to help remove them.

Jarro-Zymes

Most diets these days are enzyme deplete and as a result, most people are enzyme deplete. This means our bodies often can't detoxify away the old, diseased tissue as they should be able to – and it leads to diseased people with health problems. Deep detoxification is one answer to the problem because detoxification removes old, diseased tissues and cells en masse – and it's why detoxification is recommended for most every disease. Another part of the answer lies in boosting our daily intake of enzymes. This helps our bodies engage in on-going detoxification and remove the old, diseased cells and tissue before they build and cause problems for us. Enzymes also give us life force and energy.

Eating plenty of nature's raw foods is one way to boost your enzymes and avoid depleting your enzyme reserves. This is the case because heating and processing food destroys the enzymes that are present in nature's foods naturally. So, the more raw foods you eat with their enzymes intact, the less your body needs to borrow from its enzyme reserves for digestion. This leaves more enzymes free for work like breaking down and removing old, diseased cells. Eating plenty of nature's raw foods also helps us because if those foods are grown without chemicals, they don't add to our toxic burden – as do processed, pesticide-laced and often cooked foods.

A few foods are bursting with enzymes and consuming them regularly is key. Some of the most enzyme-packed foods include:
– Unpasteurized sauerkraut
– Papaya – particularly green papaya and papaya seeds
– Pineapple – particularly the core
– Sprouts

For a simple everyday enzyme drink:
Blend 1/2 papaya, 1/3 pineapple, and about 20 papaya seeds. Add a little stevia for sweetness, if desired.

In addition to breaking down protein and old tissue in the body, papaya seeds are known to help with intestinal parasites. In quantity though, green papaya and papaya seeds can induce abortion and have contraceptive effects – so avoid them if you're pregnant or trying to have a baby. In addition, some Hawaiian papaya is genetically altered, so it's best to avoid Hawaiian papaya or purchase only organic.

Categories
Featured Articles

Coffee Reduces the Risk of Diabetes

by: Mariam Antony

(NaturalNews) Coffee lovers across the world have been disheartened by all the bad things that coffee is supposed to do. Caffeine, the major culprit in coffee, is said to cause addiction, dehydration, panic attacks and emotional fatigue. Pregnant and lactating mothers are often advised not to drink coffee at all. However all is not lost! Several studies have found that drinking coffee actually helps in fighting heart diseases, headaches, asthma and Parkinson`s disease. New studies have confirmed that coffee can also help reduce diabetes.

Chromium

Fumihiko Horio and colleagues at the Department of Applied Molecular Bio-science, Nagoya University found that coffee may help in preventing diabetes. As a part of their study, they fed either water or coffee to two different groups of lab mice that were prone to diabetes. The group that was fed on coffee showed improved insulin sensitivity and they also did not develop high blood sugars. The research which was published in Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry found that coffee has beneficial effects in fatty liver and inflammatory adipocytokines, linked to a decreased risk of diabetes.

Previous studies have also indicated that drinking coffee lowers the risk of diabetes. In one study researchers looked at more than 28,000 post-menopausal women over a period of eleven years. Women who drank more than six cups a day were 22 percent less likely to develop diabetes compared to women who drank no coffee. The researchers found that the more coffee a person drank, the more beneficial effects it had in reducing diabetes. The study also found that women benefited more than men. The improved levels of insulin sensitivity were present regardless of whether decaf or regular coffee was consumed. This indicates that an ingredient other than caffeine may be responsible for the beneficial effects of coffee.

In another study published in the journal of American Diabetes Association, the relation between coffee consumption and risk of diabetes was studied in 88,259 women aged between 26 and 46 years. The objective was to assess the risk of diabetes on lower levels of consumption of coffee. The study found that the risk of diabetes decreased proportionately with the number of cups of coffee consumed. The risk decreased from 0.87 for women who drank one cup of coffee per day to 0.53 for four or more cups per day compared with nondrinkers. According to the journal, associations were similar between caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee.

Coffee is found to be especially useful in preventing type II diabetes. Type II diabetes starts with the onset of insulin resistance, a condition when the cells in the body show resistance to insulin. Insulin is the hormone which is the carrier of glucose molecules to the cells. The pancreas compensates for this by producing larger quantities of insulin. As cells become more and more insulin resistant, even the higher levels of insulin produced by the pancreas may not be sufficient. This results in a concentration of glucose molecules in the cells and is called hyperglycemia. Prolonged cases of hyperglycemia lead to diabetes.

Diabetes, a lifestyle disease, is a leading cause of death in the United Sates and in the world. Fortunately, it has been found that diabetes can be prevented to an extent by certain lifestyle and diet changes. A combination of healthy diet and regular exercise can often postpone the offset of type II diabetes in most people.

Categories
Featured Articles

TV Damages Health of Toddlers

by: David Gutierrez

(NaturalNews) Toddlers who watch television are significantly more likely to have poor health and poor educational performance by age 10, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Montreal and published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

"Although we expected the impact of early TV viewing to disappear after seven-and-a-half years of childhood, the fact that negative outcomes remained is quite daunting," said lead researcher Linda Pagani. "Our findings make a compelling public health argument against excessive TV viewing in early childhood."

"This is yet another study reinforcing the need for our society to finally accept that quite aside from good or bad parenting, children's daily screen time is a major independent health issue," said Aric Sigman of the British Psychological Association, who was not involved in the study.

As part of the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development Main Exposure, researchers questioned parents about their children's television exposure at both 29 and 53 months of age. They found that the average two-year-old watched just under nine hours of TV per week, while the average four-year-old watched just under 15. Fully 11 percent of two-year-olds and 23 percent of four-year olds watched more than two hours per day.

At the age of 10, children who had watched more TV as youngsters were significantly more likely to be rated by their teachers as having lower levels of classroom engagement and poorer performance in math. They were also less likely to be active and more likely to drink more soft drinks and have a higher body mass index.

"Early childhood is a critical period for brain development and formation of behavior," Pagani said. "High levels of TV consumption during this period can lead to future unhealthy habits."

"Common sense would suggest that television exposure replaces time that could be spent engaging in other developmentally enriching activities and tasks that foster cognitive, behavioral and motor development."

Categories
Featured Articles

Why Pregnant Women Should Take Vitamin D Daily

by: David Gutierrez

(NaturalNews) Mothers who took 4,000 IU of vitamin D daily cut their risk of premature delivery by half, in a study conducted by researchers from the Medical University of South Carolina and presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies in Vancouver.

Vitamin D3

"We never imagined it would have as far-reaching effects as what we have seen," lead author Carol Wagner said. "The message is that all pregnant women should be supplementing with 4,000 IU per day of vitamin D."

Researchers assigned 494 women between their 12th and 16th weeks of pregnancy to take either 400 IU, 2,000 IU or 4,000 IU of vitamin D per day. They found that the more vitamin D a pregnant woman took, the higher the levels of the vitamin in her blood and in that of the child at birth.

Higher levels of vitamin D were significantly associated with a lower risk of infection, preterm labor and preterm birth.

Premature birth is the foremost cause of newborn death in Canada.

Vitamin D has long been known to play an important role in the development and maintenance of healthy teeth and bones, and newer research has implicated it in maintaining a healthy immune system and preventing infection, cancer, heart disease and autoimmune disorders. Yet for a long time, researchers falsely believed that the vitamin could cause birth defects.

Later, researchers discovered that the defects initially attributed to vitamin D were caused by a genetic defect that affected the vitamin's metabolism in the body.

"For 30-plus years it was dogma that [vitamin D in pregnancy] was dangerous, that you didn't need very much and what you did need you could get from just casual sunlight exposure," Wagner said. "What we know now, from a decade of very intensive research, is that that's not the case."

Wagner cautioned that even though the study took place in South Carolina, 85 percent of participants had insufficient vitamin D levels when the study began.

"This is even more important for Canadians," Wagner said. "You're at a much higher latitude. The best that you can have is probably six months of sunlight exposure, at your lowest latitude, where you can actually make vitamin D."