Month: March 2012

By Bruce Levine, Ph.D.

In my career as a psychologist, I have talked with hundreds of people previously diagnosed by other professionals with oppositional defiant disorder, attention deficit hyperactive disorder, anxiety disorder and other psychiatric illnesses, and I am struck by (1) how many of those diagnosed are essentially anti-authoritarians, and (2) how those professionals who have diagnosed them are not.

Anti-authoritarians question whether an authority is a legitimate one before taking that authority seriously. Evaluating the legitimacy of authorities includes assessing whether or not authorities actually know what they are talking about, are honest, and care about those people who are respecting their authority. And when anti-authoritarians assess an authority to be illegitimate, they challenge and resist that authority—sometimes aggressively and sometimes passive-aggressively, sometimes wisely and sometimes not.

Some activists lament how few anti-authoritarians there appear to be in the United States. One reason could be that many natural anti-authoritarians are now psychopathologized and medicated before they achieve political consciousness of society’s most oppressive authorities.

Why Mental Health Professionals Diagnose Anti-Authoritarians with Mental Illness

Gaining acceptance into graduate school or medical school and achieving a PhD or MD and becoming a psychologist or psychiatrist means jumping through many hoops, all of which require much behavioral and attentional compliance to authorities, even to those authorities that one lacks respect for. The selection and socialization of mental health professionals tends to breed out many anti-authoritarians. Having steered the higher-education terrain for a decade of my life, I know that degrees and credentials are primarily badges of compliance. Those with extended schooling have lived for many years in a world where one routinely conforms to the demands of authorities. Thus for many MDs and PhDs, people different from them who reject this attentional and behavioral compliance appear to be from another world—a diagnosable one.

I have found that most psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals are not only extraordinarily compliant with authorities but also unaware of the magnitude of their obedience. And it also has become clear to me that the anti-authoritarianism of their patients creates enormous anxiety for these professionals, and their anxiety fuels diagnoses and treatments.

In graduate school, I discovered that all it took to be labeled as having “issues with authority” was to not kiss up to a director of clinical training whose personality was a combination of Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, and Howard Cosell. When I was told by some faculty that I had “issues with authority,” I had mixed feelings about being so labeled. On the one hand, I found it quite amusing, because among the working-class kids whom I had grown up with, I was considered relatively compliant with authorities. After all, I had done my homework, studied, and received good grades. However, while my new “issues with authority” label made me grin because I was now being seen as a “bad boy,” it also very much concerned me about just what kind of a profession that I had entered. Specifically, if somebody such as myself was being labeled with “issues with authority,” what were they calling the kids I grew up with who paid attention to many things that they cared about but didn’t care enough about school to comply there? Well, the answer soon became clear.

Mental Illness Diagnoses for Anti-Authoritarians

A 2009 Psychiatric Times article titled “ADHD & ODD: Confronting the Challenges of Disruptive Behavior” reports that “disruptive disorders,” which include attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and opposition defiant disorder (ODD), are the most common mental health problem of children and teenagers. ADHD is defined by poor attention and distractibility, poor self-control and impulsivity, and hyperactivity. ODD is defined as a “a pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behavior without the more serious violations of the basic rights of others that are seen in conduct disorder”; and ODD symptoms include “often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rules” and “often argues with adults.”

Psychologist Russell Barkley, one of mainstream mental health’s leading authorities on ADHD, says that those afflicted with ADHD have deficits in what he calls “rule-governed behavior,” as they are less responsive to rules of established authorities and less sensitive to positive or negative consequences. ODD young people, according to mainstream mental health authorities, also have these so-called deficits in rule-governed behavior, and so it is extremely common for young people to have a “duel diagnosis” of AHDH and ODD.

Do we really want to diagnose and medicate everyone with “deficits in rule-governed behavior”?

Albert Einstein, as a youth, would have likely received an ADHD diagnosis, and maybe an ODD one as well. Albert didn’t pay attention to his teachers, failed his college entrance examinations twice, and had difficulty holding jobs. However, Einstein biographer Ronald Clark (Einstein: The Life and Times) asserts that Albert’s problems did not stem from attention deficits but rather from his hatred of authoritarian, Prussian discipline in his schools. Einstein said, “The teachers in the elementary school appeared to me like sergeants and in the Gymnasium the teachers were like lieutenants.” At age 13, Einstein read Kant’s difficult Critique of Pure Reason—because Albert was interested in it. Clark also tells us Einstein refused to prepare himself for his college admissions as a rebellion against his father’s “unbearable” path of a “practical profession.” After he did enter college, one professor told Einstein, “You have one fault; one can’t tell you anything.” The very characteristics of Einstein that upset authorities so much were exactly the ones that allowed him to excel.

By today’s standards, Saul Alinsky, the legendary organizer and author of Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals, would have certainly been diagnosed with one or more disruptive disorders. Recalling his childhood, Alinsky said, “I never thought of walking on the grass until I saw a sign saying ‘Keep off the grass.’ Then I would stomp all over it.” Alinsky also recalls a time when he was ten or eleven and his rabbi was tutoring him in Hebrew:

Many people with severe anxiety and/or depression are also anti-authoritarians. Often a major pain of their lives that fuels their anxiety and/or depression is fear that their contempt for illegitimate authorities will cause them to be financially and socially marginalized; but they fear that compliance with such illegitimate authorities will cause them existential death.

I have also spent a great deal of time with people who had at one time in their lives had thoughts and behavior that were so bizarre that they were extremely frightening for their families and even themselves; they were diagnosed with schizophrenia and other psychoses, but have fully recovered and have been, for many years, leading productive lives. Among this population, I have not met one person whom I would not consider a major anti-authoritarian. Once recovered, they have learned to channel their anti-authoritarianism into more constructive political ends, including reforming mental health treatment.

Many anti-authoritarians who earlier in their lives were diagnosed with mental illness tell me that once they were labeled with a psychiatric diagnosis, they got caught in a dilemma. Authoritarians, by definition, demand unquestioning obedience, and so any resistance to their diagnosis and treatment created enormous anxiety for authoritarian mental health professionals; and professionals, feeling out of control, labeled them “noncompliant with treatment,” increased the severity of their diagnosis, and jacked up their medications. This was enraging for these anti-authoritarians, sometimes so much so that they reacted in ways that made them appear even more frightening to their families.

There are anti-authoritarians who use psychiatric drugs to help them function, but they often reject psychiatric authorities’ explanations for why they have difficulty functioning. So, for example, they may take Adderall (an amphetamine prescribed for ADHD), but they know that their attentional problem is not a result of a biochemical brain imbalance but rather caused by a boring job. And similarly, many anti-authoritarians in highly stressful environments will occasionally take prescribed benzodiazepines such as Xanax even though they believe it would be safer to occasionally use marijuana but can’t because of drug testing on their job

It has been my experience that many anti-authoritarians labeled with psychiatric diagnoses usually don’t reject allauthorities, simply those they’ve assessed to be illegitimate ones, which just happens to be a great deal of society’s authorities.

Maintaining the Societal Status Quo

Americans have been increasingly socialized to equate inattention, anger, anxiety, and immobilizing despair with a medical condition, and to seek medical treatment rather than political remedies. What better way to maintain the status quo than to view inattention, anger, anxiety, and depression as biochemical problems of those who are mentally ill rather than normal reactions to an increasingly authoritarian society.

The reality is that depression is highly associated with societal and financial pains. One is much more likely to be depressed if one is unemployed, underemployed, on public assistance, or in debt (for documentation, see “400% Rise in Anti-Depressant Pill Use”). And ADHD labeled kids do pay attention when they are getting paid, or when an activity is novel, interests them, or is chosen by them (documented in my book Commonsense Rebellion).

In an earlier dark age, authoritarian monarchies partnered with authoritarian religious institutions. When the world exited from this dark age and entered the Enlightenment, there was a burst of energy. Much of this revitalization had to do with risking skepticism about authoritarian and corrupt institutions and regaining confidence in one’s own mind. We are now in another dark age, only the institutions have changed. Americans desperately need anti-authoritarians to question, challenge, and resist new illegitimate authorities and regain confidence in their own common sense.

In every generation there will be authoritarians and anti-authoritarians. While it is unusual in American history for anti-authoritarians to take the kind of effective action that inspires others to successfully revolt, every once in a while a Tom Paine, Crazy Horse, or Malcolm X come along. So authoritarians financially marginalize those who buck the system, they criminalize anti-authoritarianism, they psychopathologize anti-authoritarians, and they market drugs for their “cure.”

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, March 13, 2012

(OMNS, March 13, 2012) The news media proclaim that taking vitamin supplements is of no value and, somehow, actually dangerous. You have heard an earful from reporters. Now let's hear from doctors.

IntraMax
LL Complete

Michael Janson, M.D.:

The standard American diet does not provide even the RDA. Two-thirds of all meals are eaten outside the home, and nearly half of them are in fast food joints. You can't expect this to provide all the necessary nutrients, and many studies show that it does not. A large number of people admitted to hospitals are found to have deficiencies, and the problems worsen in the hospital. Those given supplements have a lower rate of complications, faster discharge from the hospital and fewer deaths. Vitamin companies do not send doctors on expense paid vacations or "seminars," as do the drug companies for prescribing their drugs, and vitamins are safe and cheap. But surely this does not influence pharmaceutical-advertising-paid-for media!

Vitamin E in high doses (800 IU) enhances immunity in healthy elderly subjects. Vitamin C in doses (2,000 mg) far above the aRDA (90 mg) significantly reduces allergic rhinitis and asthma and speeds the recovery from airway constriction induced by histamine. Vitamin B1 (thiamine) was used successfully to treat trigeminal neuralgia, as described in an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association way back in 1940.

Many people are losing their faith in the medical profession because many doctors are unwilling to accept what is becoming common knowledge: nutrition and nutrient therapies are safer, cheaper and more effective than most other medical treatment. It is clear that most media reporters do not know the current nutrition literature, they do not know the old literature, and they do not know the middle-aged literature. If they do not know the literature, they should not be writing articles.

Martin Gallagher, M.D., D.C.:

I have been a practicing physician for 37 years. During that time, I have directly treated and supervised over 12,000 patient encounters per year. With each patient, I have prescribed a variety of vitamins, minerals, homeopathic medicines, and herbs. I have to date not encountered a single complication, anaphylactic reaction or death. The doses have been well above the RDA's for vitamins and minerals. In fact, the IV treatments include doses of ascorbate (vitamin C) that vary from 10,000 to over 100,000 mg per treatment session.

At a time when the leading cause of death in the US is correctly prescribed medication, we need to embrace, not chastise, nutritional supplements.

Robert G. Smith, Ph.D.:

Most people in modern societies have vitamin and mineral deficiencies because these nutrients are removed by industrial food processing. Vitamin and mineral supplements are effective in preventing deficiencies that cause major illness such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, osteoporosis, dementia, and many others. Supplements of vitamins and minerals, when taken in proper doses large enough to work (For example: vitamin C for an adult at 3,000 – 6,000 mg/day, and much more when stressed or sick), are safe and effective — and far less expensive than taking prescribed drugs overblown by the medical profession and media.

Michael J. Gonzalez, Ph.D.:

Research in Europe has shown that long-term users of antioxidant vitamin supplements have a 48% reduced risk of cancer mortality and 42% lower all-cause mortality. [1] The media did not bother to mention it. There is in fact overwhelming clinical evidence to justify the use of nutritional supplements for the prevention of disease and the support of optimal health. The Lewin Group estimated a $24 billion savings over 5 years if a few basic nutritional supplements were used in the elderly. [2] On the other hand, prescription medication kills over 100,000 people a year. [3]

Thomas Levy, M.D.:

There are more politics in modern medicine than in modern politics itself. Today's average physician deserves even less trust than today's average politician, as doctors continue their refusal to allow the scientific data on the profound benefits of vitamins and other antioxidant supplements to reach their eyes and brains. And the staunch support of a press, which collectively no longer has a shred of journalistic or scientific integrity, completes the framing of today's colossal medical fraud. Money always rules the day: properly-dosed vitamins would eliminate far too much of the profit of prescription-based medicine.

William B. Grant, Ph.D.:

Modern lifestyles including wearing clothes and sunscreen and working and living largely indoors have led to widespread vitamin D deficiencies. Numerous ecological and observational studies have found correlations between higher solar UVB doses and vitamin D concentrations and reduced risk of many types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, bacterial and viral infectious diseases, autoimmune diseases, falls and fractures, cognitive impairment, and many more types of disease. To compensate for lack of sun exposure, 1,000-5,000 IU per day of vitamin D3 should be taken to raise serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations to at least 30-40 ng/ml (75-100 nmol/L). These amounts are safe for all but those with granulomatous diseases, who can develop hypercalcemia. 1,000 to 5,000 IU/day of vitamin D is effective in reducing risk of many types of diseases, as shown in a number of randomized controlled trials, such as cancer, falls and fractures, type A influenza, and pneumonia.

W. Todd Penberthy, Ph.D.:

Niacin in particular has been shown to provide exceptional benefit in treating cardiovascular disease in clinical trial after clinical trial [4]. By comparison, the popular diabetes drug Avandia was recently found to cause a 43% increase in heart attacks in diabetics. [5] This came out only after Avandia had already become the most popular diabetes drug in the world! Never underestimate the power of market-driven forces to sell drugs, and books, such as The End of Illness by Dr. Agus, instead of proper information regarding what actually works best.

People are amazed how quickly simply taking supplemental niacin corrects high cholesterol, high triglycerides, low HDL (the good cholesterol) and VLDL. All of these parameters are pushed in the healthier direction because niacin ultimately functions inside the body in over 450 reactions. There is a reason niacin continues as a preferred therapy for doctors in the know, using niacin therapy for over 50 years now. Niacin works better than any drug to correct dyslipidemia.

One thing to always remember is this. You can "prove" that any drug or vitamin does not work if you are not using high enough doses to achieve the correct concentration of the molecule. Furthermore, all biochemical pathways rely on more than one molecule to function properly, so generally one drug/vitamin is not enough for optimal health. Our bodies rely on vitamins, not drugs, to routinely stave off illness by means we often take for granted. Sometimes we need much more of these essential molecules. This is common sense, and it is known as orthomolecular medicine.

James A. Jackson, Ph.D.:

For over twenty years, I was the laboratory director of a federally approved clinical reference laboratory. We accepted samples from all the United States and foreign countries. We measured all the fat soluble and water soluble vitamins in blood and urine. It was common to find vitamin deficiencies in both males and females, whether children or adults. The most common vitamin deficiencies were vitamin C and vitamin D3. The clinic's physicians treated the patients with the appropriate vitamins and were monitored by our laboratory. Many were helped by the vitamin replacement treatment, including those with complaints such as headache, joint and muscle pain, chronic fatigue syndrome, and ADHD. We published many of these cases in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. (http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/index.shtml)

Ian Brighthope, M.D.:

Over 70% of Australians consume vitamins on a regular basis. A search of the department of health's database reveals no serious adverse reactions or deaths have occurred in the Australian population over the past ten years from the use of complementary medicines. There is an extreme bias against very low to extremely low risk products by government regulators and health professionals working within and outside the establishment institutions.

Robert Jenkins, D.C., M.S.:

I have been in practice for 52 years and have treated thousands of patients with diet and nutritional supplements for numerous health conditions ranging from hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, metabolic syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, and many others. I have yet to experience adverse patient reactions from taking nutritional supplements. I have lectured second year medical students at two medical schools in the Philadelphia, PA area. When I asked those students how much nutritional training they had received, they all held up their hands with the sign of zero. The pharmaceutical industry makes sure medical students are trained in how to prescribe their drugs, while no positive mention is made of nutritional supplements. Why would anyone think that our modern medical doctors are to be considered authorities on nutritional supplementation for health conditions when they are not trained to do so? When this lack of nutritional education is combined with the news media's ignorance of supplements and their benefits, we have "the blind leading the blind."

Gert Schuitemaker, Ph.D.:

In the Netherlands, a report of the Dutch Health Council states that less than 2% of the population is eating according to official dietary guidelines. [6] Moreover, the authorities state that, even if a person is eating according to the dietary guidelines, he is not getting enough vitamin A, D, folic acid, iron, selenium and zinc. [7] Research in a Dutch hospital showed that 40% of patients at the time of admission were malnourished.[8] So, dietary supplements are necessary. Usually, chronic diseases, developing with increasing age, are treated with medicines, inevitably accompanied with the risk of severe side effects and unnecessary deaths. While the basis of many chronic diseases is a metabolic disturbance and nutritional deficiencies, the best treatment approach is good nutrition, including the use of dietary supplements. The "danger" of vitamins and minerals lies in chronic deficiencies, not in alleged toxic effects. Following the scientific literature on a daily basis, in 30 years, I have not seen any harmful effect from supplements.

Damien Downing, M.D.:

The more toxins you are exposed to, the more nutrients you will use up in dealing with them. Every year, we are exposed to more and more toxins, and our DNA has had no time to adapt. Heavy metals such as lead, mercury, fluorine; pesticides including the newer ones like glyphosate ("Roundup"); flame retardants that are even contaminating the Arctic; and hundreds of thousands of other new-to-nature molecules that every human has to deal with. And like it or not, pharmaceutical medications are mostly toxins too.

At the same time, intensive farming, soil depletion and poor diets (often foisted on us for spurious reasons such as fear of cholesterol) mean that it's normal to be deficient now. We are deficient in vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients as well.

What chance does a human have? A much better one if she doesn't buy the hype from big companies, the dogma from pharma-paid scientists, and the bullying from governments. Take your vitamins.

Steve Hickey, Ph.D.:

Over the past three centuries, the frequency of deficiency and infectious diseases has been reduced, through improved nutrition and better hygiene. Throughout this time, however, the role of nutrition has been belittled by the authorities. These same authorities now reject the idea that nutritional supplements can prevent our current chronic diseases. Thus, as a result of such authoritarian medicine, we may have replaced the horrors of pellagra, scurvy, and rickets with those of dementia, heart disease, and cancer. If so, it is likely that people in the future will look back with similar dismay on the current and needless destruction of health. How will we answer them, when they ask how could we have allowed this to happen?

Dean Elledge, D.D.S., M.S.:

The high-carbohydrate, nutrient-poor diet is a primary contributing factor in dental diseases. [9] Vitamin D and vitamin C are safe to use in dentistry to help the patient recover from dental diseases. Vitamins in general help reduce inflammation, and antioxidant vitamins reduce the inflammation in periodontal disease. Vitamin supplements improve antioxidant reserves.

Michael Ellis, M.D.:

I see so many patients in conventional general practice who are deficient in vitamins. I had one patient who had ended up in a hospital neurosurgical unit only to be found to have severe B12 deficiency. The foods that most people eat are high in sugar, processed, and denatured of essential nutrients. All patients need, at the very least, daily multivitamins.

Ralph Campbell, M.D.:

We have had lots of talk of the alleged "toxicity" of vitamins over the decades I have been in pediatric practice. I remain leery of the validity of such accusations. Most are just uninformed regurgitation of poorly designed studies. If alert, a clinician can easily detect vitamin deficiencies, and with experience, quickly spot suboptimal vitamin levels. The medical establishment seems to be increasingly aware of vitamin D, B12 and folic acid deficiency. What is taking the media so long?

Karin Munsterhjelm-Ahumada, M.D.:

I have been a physician for 35 years. For the last 20 years, I have worked with combining general medicine with nutritional (orthomolecular) medicine, the practice of preventing and treating disease by providing the body with optimal amounts of substances which are natural to the body, principally vitamins and minerals. I have had good opportunity to compare the results of my work as a GP from the time before I got knowledge of vitamins and minerals as therapeutic substances with the time after I had learned to integrate them in my work with patients. I can today certify that I have seen a great number of very positive results after beginning to integrate vitamins in my clinical work. The results have been particularly fine in neurologic and psychiatric conditions, including schizophrenia, and in hormonal and infectious diseases. During these last 20 years I have not seen severe side effects of orthomolecular substances. On the contrary, I have often been able to decrease the dosage of strong pharmaceutical drugs that carry severe side effects. This has led to a completely new and better quality of life for my patients, and for myself as a doctor.

Conclusion:

The old saying remains true: the person who says it can't be done should not interrupt the person successfully doing it. Progressive doctors prescribe vitamins because they work. If your doctor doesn't "believe" in vitamins, maybe it is time for him or her to change such an antiquated belief system in favor of the true clinical evidence.

For further reading:

How to Learn More about Nutritional Medicine: Information Archive and Locating a Practitioner http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n09.shtml

How Doctors Use (Or Should Use) Vitamin Therapy http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n25.shtml

A Guide to Free, Peer-Reviewed Nutritional Medicine Information Online http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v07n08.shtml

Intravenous Vitamin C as Cancer Therapy: Free Access to Twenty-One Expert Video Lectures Online http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v07n03.shtml

Additional Resources on Nutritional Therapeutics http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n27.shtml

References:

1. Li K, Kaaks R, Linseisen J, Rohrmann S. Vitamin/mineral supplementation and cancer, cardiovascular, and all-cause mortality in a German prospective cohort (EPIC-Heidelberg). Eur J Nutr. 2011 Jul 22.

2. Suh DC , Woodall BS, Shin SK , Hermes-De Santis ER. Clinical and economic impact of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. Ann Pharmacother . 2000;34(12):1373-9.

3. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA . 1998 15;279(15):1200-5.

4. Carlson LA: Nicotinic acid: the broad-spectrum lipid drug. A 50th anniversary review. J Intern Med, 2005; 258: 94-114.

5. Nissen SE, and Wolski K: Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med, 2007; 356: 2457-2471.

6. Significant trends in food consumption in the Netherlands. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands, 2002; publication no. 2002/12.

7. Voedingscentrum. Richtlijnen goede voedselkeuze. [The Netherlands Nutrition Centre. Guidelines Good Nutritional Choice] 2011.

8. Naber TH, Schermer T, de Bree A et al. Prevalence of malnutrition in nonsurgical hospitalized patients and its association with disease complications. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Nov; 66(5):1232-9.

9. Elledge DA. Effective hemostasis and tissue management. Dentistry Today, Oct 2010, p150.

by Sayer Ji

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the developed world, and yet we are still in the dark ages when it comes to treating and understanding it.

Immune Protocol & Detox Protocol

The colossal failure of conventional cancer treatments reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what cancer – the “enemy” – actually is.  For one, chemotherapy and radiotherapy are both intrinsically carcinogenic treatments. The only justification for their use, in fact, is that they are highly effective at damaging the DNA within cells – with the hope that the cancer cells will be more susceptible to being harmed than the healthy ones. The reality, however, is that the “collateral damage” from treatment is inevitable; it is not a matter of “if,” but to what degree the damaging side effects will occur. As in real modern warfare, the decision to strike is often based on deciding how much collateral damage to “civilian” populations is deemed acceptable. This is not unlike the fixation in toxicological risk assessments for drugs, environmental pollutants, food additives, etc., where determining "an acceptable level of harm" (is that not oxymoronic?) to the exposed population is the first order of business.

The DNA-damaging, or genotoxic effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, according to the prevailing wisdom, are the #1 cause of cancer initiation and promotion. This is known as the “Mutational Theory” of cancer, and has been the dominant explanation for half a century. Therefore it is absolutely disconcerting that the standard of care in cancer treatment today is still the use of genotoxic agents versus substances that are able to selectively harm the “bad” cells, leaving the “good” ones intact; which is also known as “selective cytotoxicty,” and is a property characteristic of natural anti-cancer compounds and whole plant extracts. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the case of fruit-derived compounds, such as graviola, where research indicates that it may be up to 10,000 times more effective at killing certain cancer cells versus adriamycin — not so affectionately named the "red devil" for its lethal side effects — and is highly selective in which cells it kills.

Take the cancer drug tamoxifen, for example. It is classified by the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society as a human carcinogen, and can cause over two dozen health-destroying side effects, and yet it is still being used as a first line treatment for certain types of breast cancer. Does that really make sense?  Even if tamoxifen was effective (which increasingly it is not), does it really matter if it “cures” breast cancer only to cause endometrial or liver cancer (which is often far more deadly than breast cancer) as a direct result of the treatment? Tamoxifen and chemotherapy resistance is increasingly a problem. In the same way that certain pathogenic bacteria become resistant to antibiotics – even becoming stronger after being challenged with them – drug resistance and multi-drug resistance to chemoagents is the canary in the coal mine, indicating the entire paradigm, hinged as it is on patented, highly toxic chemicals, is rearing to collapse.

Similarly, radiotherapy is known to induce secondary cancers, along with a wide range of serious adverse effects. A woman whose breast is irradiated is more likely to develop lung cancer, for instance. But its effects may actually be far worse on the primary cancer it is being used to treat. When a breast tumor is exposed to radiation, the cells within that tumor are not uniform, but have great heterogeneity. Some of the cells are fast-replicating, whereas some are slow-replicating and benign. Some cells are older, technically senescent, and by their very existence are keeping neighboring cells within the tumor and with greater potential for malignancy from breaking out into invasive growth. There are also cancer stem cells, which are technically slower-replicating and therefore less likely to be destroyed by chemotherapy or radiotherapy, and yet which are responsible for re-seeding and fueling the growth of the tumor itself. Radiotherapy has been shown to increase the survival and self-renewing capacity of these breast cancer initiating cells, which means that while a radiation treatment may initially regress a tumor, it may actually be selecting out the more radiation-resistant and aggressive subpopulation of tumor cells which ultimately lead to higher malignancy. This promotion of self-initiating cancer cells is also true for chemotherapy, of course. Incidentally, the low-dose radiation used to diagnose breast cancers in x-ray mammography is likely causing far more cancers in women over time than it is said to prevent. If you read the actual peer-reviewed medical literature on the subject you may be surprised to find that the low-dose ionizing radiation is actually far more carcinogenic (3-4 fold higher) than the high-dose radiation it is often compared to in radiation risk assessments. In fact, one of the most well known breast cancer associated genes, namely, BRCA1/BRCA2, confers greater susceptibility to radiation-induced breast cancer in those who have it.  In other words, staying away from medical radiation, diagnostic or therapeutic, may be essential to avoid the cancer it is being used to both "prevent" and "treat." 

The failure of chemotherapy can work in the same way. When you expose a diverse population of breast tumor cells to a highly toxic agent, a normal response is to become damaged to the point of dying. But cancer may not be a strictly random mutational process, but an ancient survival program unmasked; that is, the cancer cell may be drawing from a far more ancient evolutionary and genetic “tool kit” which enables it to survive far harsher cellular environments, e.g. chemical exposure, low oxygen, higher availability of glucose/fructose, acidic pH, etc. and therefore the addition of highly toxic chemotherapy-type chemicals will selectively kill the weaker, and technically healthier (more benign) cells within a breast tumor, while creating the very conditions within which the malignant and more chemoresistant cancer cells may thrive. Multidrug-resistance genes and proteins are involved. When attacked by a chemical (xenobiotic) the cancer cell may "regress" and activate the genetic equipment that enables it to efficiently push out (efflux) the chemoagent being used, surviving, while its neighboring weaker (though technically more normal and healthier) cells die off. 

Can you see, then, how radiotherapy and chemotherapy may be responsible for driving a cancer into greater malignancy, at the very moment that it is harming the rest of the body, compromising the immune system (damage to the bone marrow and direct harm to the immune cells)? The incurability of pancreatic cancer vis-à-vis chemotherapy and radiation, therefore, may reflect how the standard treatments themselves are driving the patient into premature death. When the average pancreatic cancer patient (using most chemo and radiation protocols) lives no more than 6 months, do we say that the cancer killed them, or the treatments? Standard operating procedures is to write off the patients death as being "caused" by an “exceptionally aggressive” form of cancer, rather than to admit that the very treatments may have transformed a relatively slow growing tumor into a rapidly proliferating and invasive one. Think of it this way: if you were being blasted with chemicals and radiation, and you were seeing your neighbors dropping like flies, would you relocate? Can you, therefore, blame a subpopulation of tumor cells, having survived chemotherapy and radiotherapy while it’s neighboring cells did not, moving to another tissue – say, bone, or brain – in order to survive? Cancer, after all, is something our body does (and likely to survive) and not something that happens to it, as if the genes in our body just went off one day like a cancer time-bomb, fatalistically predetermined by the less than perfect genes we inherited from our predecessors.

Given the likelihood that the conventional cancer industry is often not only failing to improve the quality and length of the lives of those who it treats, but quite the opposite, reducing the quality and length of their lives, the time has come to look for safe, effective, affordable, inexpensive and accessible alternatives to patented chemicals and ionizing radiation in the prevention and treatment of cancer. And the solution may be as close to us as our kitchen spice racks: 

The Case For Turmeric

While US law presently forbids the medicinal use of natural substances, turmeric has been used in ancient Indian medicine for thousands of years, and curcumin, which gives the spice its golden hue, is one of the most extensively studied natural compounds of all time, with 4,588 references to studies performed on it on the National Library of Medicine’s bibliographic database known as Medline [as of 2.25.2012]. Yet, despite having been shown to have therapeutic value in more than 500 diseases in animal and test tube studies, it still has not been the subject of extensive human clinical trials.  As a public service GreenMedInfo.com has indexed curcumin’s anti-cancer properties in more than 50 cancers, with the top 10 most compelling cancers applications in cancer prevention and treatment listed below:

WHAT DO THE NUMBER OF ARTICLES MEAN? WHAT HAS THE ACTUAL RESEARCH SHOWN?

Sources: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/substance/curcumin

As one can see by the density of research referenced above, curcumin holds great promise. First, it has an exceedingly high margin of safety relative to conventional drugs.  As an example, the dose at which it will acutely kill 50% of the animals given it is 2,000 mg/kg, whereas it only takes 115 mg/kg of 5-fluorouracil (conventional chemo agent) to produce the same effects. What is even more amazing is that it  has been repeatedly demonstrated to possess  both chemoprotective and chemosensitizing properties, which means that it will both enhance the positive cancer-killing effects of conventional chemotherapy, while at the same time protect healthy cells which may be susceptible to being harmed by chemotherapy.  GreenMedInfo.com contains 57 studies on its chemosensitizing properties and 70 on its chemoprotective properties for reference.  As if this wasn’t impressive enough, it also has profound radioprotective and radiosensitizing properties.  Radioprotective substances protect the healthy cells in the body from being damaged by radiotherapy, and radiosensitizing substances help the radiation kill the cancer cells, making them “more sensitive” to the radiation treatments.  GreenMedInfo contains 15 studies on curcumin’s radiosensitizing properties and 23 studies on its radioprotective properties.

Given this growing and compelling body of research, should not curcumin be considered for use in cancer treatment? And if not as a first-line treatment,  then at the very least as an adjuvant in integrative cancer care?  

by Alan Phillips, J.D. Attorney and Counselor at Law

Parents who exercise a vaccine exemption for their children are often ridiculed for putting their own children and others at risk. However, legally and medically, unvaccinated children do not pose a significant health risk to themselves or anyone else. Alternative vaccine views support this assertion, but the reasoning in this article comes straight from mainstream vaccine beliefs, accepted medical practice and current law.

Colloidal Silver
Vaccine Protocol

     This legal presumption is not a mere exercise in semantics or logic. It is based on the widely accepted herd immunity theory, which tells us that so long as most of the members of a population are immune, all members of the population are protected.[2] Indeed, current vaccine policy necessarily depends on this theory. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says: “No vaccine is 100% effective. Most routine childhood vaccines are effective for 85% to 95% of recipients. For reasons related to the individual, some will not develop immunity.”[3] (It’s curious that they blame the “individual” and not the vaccines. Regardless, the CDC admits that this is why the majority of outbreaks occur in vaccinated children.) In contrast, national exemption rates run about 1% – 2.5% on average.[4] Furthermore, just as vaccinated children are not necessarily immune, exempt children aren’t necessarily lacking immunity. Many exempt children develop natural immunity, and according to the CDC, they don’t have to get sick for that to happen.[5] The bottom line is, you can’t determine the immunity status of any given individual child by the child’s vaccination status alone. But with the herd immunity theory, we don’t need to; we need only be concerned with a populations’ immune status collectively.

     Not only do non-immune children (vaccinated or not) not pose a significant health risk now, they pose no potential future risk, as protective laws and procedures have been put into place to account for them. For example, most states require exempt children to stay home from school during a local outbreak, for the duration of the incubation period of the outbreak disease. (Of course, since most non-immune children are vaccinated and they are not required to stay home, this practice discriminates against exempt children, but it is common policy around the U.S.) Most states also have laws that can require emergency vaccines and throw exemptions out the window and/or quarantine of unvaccinated persons in a declared, infectious disease emergency. So, neither exempt children nor their non-immune, vaccinated peers pose a significant health risk—now, or at any time in the future.

     A related issue concerns school administrators who fear that they risk liability if they allow exemptions, particularly in private schools. The short answer is that parents do not place themselves or anyone else at risk of liability for exercising a lawful exemption. By definition, liability occurs only when a law is breached. If all concerned are complying with the law, there won’t be a liability risk. Again, there is a legal presumption; here, that the proper exercise of a legal exemption does not create a significant liability risk—or else the exemption law would not have been enacted in the first place.

      Myths about vaccines and infectious disease persist, despite voluminous information refuting them, probably because fear is more powerful than reason. As the above reveals, this is true even within the world of vaccine mainstream beliefs. One of the more common mistakes comes from trying to apply concepts to individuals that really only apply to groups—that is the flawed basis for discriminating against exempt children and their parents. Those uncomfortable with this article have recourse with the state legislatures and promulgating regulatory agencies; that is, they can pursue changes in the law. Absent that, legally and medically, the exercise of a lawful vaccine exemption is, necessarily, a reasonably safe option that poses no significant health risk to anyone.

Alan Phillips, J.D. is a nationally recognized legal expert on vaccine rights issues. He helps clients, activists and other attorneys nationally with vaccine rights issues and legislative initiatives. Learn more at www.vaccinerights.com

[5] See, e.g., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Vaccines and Immunizations, Glossary, “Asymptomatic infection: The presence of an infection without symptoms. Also known as inapparent or subclinical infection,” http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/about/terms/glossary.htm

by: Jonathan Landsman

(NaturalNews) Why do people place ALL of their faith and trust in western medicine? Conventional doctors treat every chronic disease with a toxic chemical (drugs); learn little or nothing about disease prevention (nutrition) and kick patients out of their medical practice for merely questioning a treatment – like vaccinations. Something is wrong with this picture – don't you think?

Discover a new form of medicine that will help protect you from the pain of disease by tuning into the next NaturalNews Talk Hour. Visit: http://www.naturalhealth365.com and enter your email address for show details plus a healthy gift.

It's a crime to suppress life-saving information

According to Thomas Gray (poet) – "ignorance is bliss". Well, when is comes to healthcare – it's simply NOT true and millions of people are waking up to a new reality. You CAN reverse cancer (naturally) without drugs or surgery; prevent heart attacks with diet and exercise (alone) and eliminate type 1 or 2 diabetes within days – without taking insulin shots!

"The doctor of the future will give no medicine but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, in diet and in the cause and prevention of disease" – Thomas Edison

Don't allow you (or your loved ones) to become a death statistic of the "modern" sick-care system. Mammography can NOT prevent cancer, taking cholesterol-lowering medication (statins) does NOT prevent a heart attack and obesity will not be cured by stapling your stomach. But, if you live a healthy lifestyle, you can virtually eliminate the threat of disease your whole life.

What your doctor isn't telling you – could kill you

Ask yourself one important question: "What does my doctor ("teacher") have to offer me?" In other words, how was your physician medically-trained? If your doctor only knows about sickness – how can you ever feel great under his (or her) care?

At Quantum University, the world's largest institution of higher learning for integrative medicine, healthcare professionals are exposed to the new emerging science of quantum physics. Their "belief system" is a shinning example of what every medical student needs to know. (keep reading)

According to Quantum University:

We believe that the right to heal belongs to everyone who sincerely manifests and desire it.

We believe in the reality of the field and subspace as the optimal source of healing.

We believe in improving the health of communities by acting collectively on this subtle dimension.

We believe in a natural, non-invasive approach to restoring health, without side effects.

We believe that everyone should be educated on how to heal themselves and others.

We believe in promoting the practice of this healing art with competence, ethics, and compassion.

We believe in using a model of medicine based on the concepts of bio-terrain and subtle energies.

We believe that we can prevent disease and generate optimal health for all.

Dr. Paul Drouin, a Canadian M.D., has dedicated his life to the promotion of natural health and the prevention of disease, and to bringing depth and understanding to the field of Integrative Medicine. Dr. Drouin's approach to medicine promotes innovative methods of evaluation as a way to integrate quantum consciousness into the art of healing.

As founder of the Quantum University, Dr. Drouin is dedicated to consolidating his knowledge of conventional medicine, natural medicine, acupuncture, homeopathy, quantum physics and advanced biofeedback into a model of Integrative Medicine.

by Dr. Peter Braglia

Otitis media (more commonly known as an ear infection) is a generic name for several conditions that can affect the middle ear, including inflammation of the middle ear, ranging from acute to chronic and with or without symptoms.

Colloidal Silver
Probiotics
Enzyme Protocol

by: Sarka-Jonae Miller

(NaturalNews) Some people are literally stumbling through life thinking they are a klutz when really gluten is to blame. Before gastrointestinal symptoms like upset stomach appear, neurological damage may already be done, according to the Center for Peripheral Neuropathy. The Gluten Free Society calls gluten a "potential neurotoxin." Gluten damage may cause everything from unexplained dizziness to numbness in the hands and feet.

IntraMax
Colloidal Gold

by: Aurora Geib

(NaturalNews) Aspartame, an artificial sweetener commercially known as Nutrasweet, Spoonful and Equal, has infiltrated the world market and has become almost as ubiquitous as the sugar it seeks to replace. From soda drinks to chewing gum, it offers a low-fat, low-calorie and no-sugar option enticing to diabetics and people who are trying to lose weight.