Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts

Friday, 18 January 2013

you are not alone : cancer and flu shots

from Dr Tedd Koren DC: 
Cancer – is chemotherapy worthless?


Worse. An extensive survey to quantify the actual benefit of cancer chemotherapy concluded that chemotherapy contributes just over 2% to improved survival in US patients. And that was an optimistic assessment.
Dr. Graeme Morgan, author of the study says: "We were sick and tired of hearing about these new drugs and it wasn't really cementing into anything. And the reason for my doing the paper was to really show that there hasn't been any improvement in survival, or the improvement has been very, very modest despite all these new drugs and new combinations and bone marrow transplants."


My patient's husband

The husband of one of my patients is a top executive in a large pharmaceutical firm. He is in charge of manufacturing the flu shot. I asked her if he had his flu shot.

"No, he doesn't get them," she told me.

"He doesn't? Why?" I asked.

"Don't you know that pharmacists don't take drugs?" she said.

She reminded me of the famous study of oncologists who were asked, "If you or a family member had cancer, would you take or recommend chemotherapy?" Over 80% said, "No."

When asked why they answered, "because of unacceptable levels of toxicity and questionable effectiveness."



Friday, 7 September 2012

Vitamin B12 deficiency and you

Just been exploring vitamin B12 deficiency: Since vitamin B12 plays a role in so many bodily functions, it’s no wonder B12 deficiency has been linked to a variety of serious health conditions. Studies have shown that over time, a B12 deficiency that is not corrected can lead to the following: 1)Heart disease 2)Certain types of cancer 3)Alzheimer’s 4)Fibromyalgia 5)Stroke 6)Chronic depression 7)tinnitus 8)erectile dysfunction A vitamin B12 deficiency will cause high homocysteine levels in the bloodstream. High homocystein levels in the bloodstream can be toxic and lead to the development of serious diseases like cancer, heart disease, stroke and even Alzheimer’s disease. Conversely, getting enough B12 will help you avoid these diseases by naturally lowering your homocysteine levels. The important role vitamin B12 plays in the brain means that a deficiency, especially when it is undetected for a long time, will disrupt brain function and lead to problems that are difficult to reverse. The brain and nervous system are impacted the most from a B12 deficiency. Even when the deficiency is corrected with better nutrition and supplements, impaired neural functioning may persist. It may be some time before chemicals in the brain are balanced and depression is alleviated, and the patient may have an elevated risk of developing Alzheimer’s in the future. B12 deficiency can easily be responsible for many all-too-common illnesses such as fatigue, depression, memory loss, brain fog all the way on to dementia, Alzheimers, Autism, and many more. It can mimic the symptoms of MS and Parkinsons. These are illnesses that we will ALL come across at sometime in our lives, either affecting ourselves or someone dear to us. And age has nothing to do with it. B12 deficiency can affect everyone. And if our doctors look at B12 deficiency before they look at anything else, many of these illnesses can be treated simply, quickly and cheaply long before they become a threat, long before they destroy a life, long before they devastate families and ultimately affect probably millions of people As a vegetarian (mostly) I suspect I may be short of this vitamin - I have been experiencing tired legs on even mild exertion and ear problems (tinnitus,etc) so went to a health food shop in Chorley and bought some vitamin B12. The sort suggested from my internet research is methylocobalmin 1000UG tablets taken sublingually - from Solgar. Since taking it every day for a few days I have felt more energy and my tinnitus has deminished. will keep posted

Monday, 14 December 2009

Linus Pauling and vitamin C

from Dr.Hilary Roberts :
"Vitamin C - Linus Pauling was right all along. A doctor's opinion"

It is the 10th anniversary of the death of Linus Pauling and his most controversial scientific conjectures about the health benefits of vitamin C are being confirmed. The weight of evidence may yet force the medical establishment to accept his ideas on nutrition and health.

Linus Pauling's claim, that he knew a cure for heart disease, cancer and infections, was greeted with ridicule. His remarkable health claims concerned the substance we know as vitamin C. Now, ten years after his death on 19th August 1994, his revolutionary ideas are finally on the way to vindication. Given his history, it should not surprise us if Pauling was right all along. He was, after all, the leading chemist of the last century and, arguably, the greatest ever American scientist. He remains the only person to have won two unshared Nobel Prizes, the first for Chemistry (1954) and the second for peace (1962). In addition to being one of the greatest scientists ever, he was a renowned humanitarian.

By the time of his death, the medical establishment had branded Pauling a quack, because he advocated the use of high doses of vitamin C to treat many diseases. Irwin Stone first introduced Pauling to vitamin C, and explained that it wasn't really a vitamin at all, but an essential substance we could no longer manufacture in our bodies. Most animals make their own vitamin C, in large amounts. In humans, the gene for this ability has mutated and no longer works properly.

When Pauling looked into Stone's claims, he found that conventional medicine had long ignored evidence from respected physicians and scientists. This research suggested that high doses of vitamin C might be a cure for many illnesses, including cancer and heart disease. However, when he explained these findings in his wonderfully constructed books "Vitamin C and the Common Cold" and "How to Live Longer and Feel Better", the medical profession was incensed, implying that a mere chemist could not possibly understand the intricacies of medical science.

If Pauling was correct, vitamin C could help overcome the major killers in the industrialised world. This sounded so unlikely that a lesser scientist making the claim would probably have been ignored; the medical world had already disregarded similar reports of vitamin C. Linus Pauling had a reputation for being 20 years ahead of other scientists.

He may well have been years ahead in other fields but, in medicine, the insiders considered such a thing to be impossible. Pauling battled with the medical authorities and convinced a lot of the public of the benefits of high dose vitamin C. He took on the medical establishment because the implication for health was enormous: an end to premature death and unnecessary suffering from heart disease, infection and many cancers.

Since Pauling's death, the medical establishment has reclaimed the scientific position with a series of experiments on vitamin C. In particular, the NIH measured the distribution of vitamin C in the body and claimed that Pauling was wrong about the need for high doses, as the blood could be saturated at low doses [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 93, 3704-9.]. They added that doses higher than one gram were potentially dangerous. From this point on, the high dose vitamin C lobby were on the defensive.

If the body could be saturated at low doses, the argument went, higher doses were simply a waste or even potentially dangerous. However, clinical reports of the utility of high dose vitamin C had been repeated in the literature for over 50 years. These reports continued, particularly in the fields of heart disease, infections and cancer, contradicting the NIH conclusions. Either the clinical reports of the efficacy of high doses were incorrect, or the NIH experimental work was flawed.

Taking note of this inconsistency, Drs Steve Hickey and Hilary Roberts decided to investigate the data for a book ("Ascorbate, the science of vitamin C", www.lulu.com/ascorbate). They began by looking at the apparently ludicrous claims for the medical effects of vitamin C. Pauling had stated that the substance could cure cancer and that shortage was the major cause of heart disease. Among his many scientific advances, Pauling had made occasional errors: perhaps he had done the same with vitamin C. If he was wrong, his hypotheses should be easy to refute.

When they examined the evidence, Hickey and Roberts found background evidence for Pauling's ideas from independent scientific and medical reports, covering half a century. The findings in these papers could neither be dismissed as placebo effects nor easily explained. The reports included remission of AIDS, cures for cancer, and the immediate recovery of children at the point of death from septic shock. The claims seemed so out of the ordinary that they were hard to believe. However, Hickey and Roberts could find no counter examples in the scientific or medical literature.

If these positive reports were indeed wrong, no-one had shown this to be true. The scientific evidence was consistent with Pauling's ideas, with a few notable exceptions. The primary exception was the NIH data on blood and tissue saturation. The medical establishment accepted the NIH conclusions and held them in the highest regard. The US Institute of Medicine had based their official recommended dietary allowance (RDA) on these results. If the NIH was correct, then Pauling was wrong and the positive reports of high doses must be invalid.

The NIH conclusions were not correct, however. Hickey and Roberts examined their experiments and found them to be full of errors. For example, the researchers had given a dose of vitamin C, waited until it had been excreted and then measured blood levels. Using this procedure, they found that increasing the dose did not greatly increase the blood levels. Instead of realising that this was because the dose had been excreted, the NIH claimed it was because the body was saturated, so higher doses were redundant. They then used white blood cells as a model for normal cells, to see how they absorbed vitamin C from their surroundings. These white blood cells are specialised to absorb vitamin C, even when supplies are low. If other body cells were similar to white blood cells, we would normally have a reserve of 40 grams in our bodies. In this case, given the proposed RDA of 200mg, it would take 2-3 years to fill a depleted body. This is demonstrably incorrect: the classic example is that James Lind's sailors recovered from scurvy in a matter of days when they were given citrus fruits containing small amounts of vitamin C.

These mistakes were gross and unsupportable. In order to check their re-interpretation of the data, Hickey sent emails to the NIH, the Institute of Medicine and every scientist he could contact who was associated with the RDA, asking them to provide a reasonable scientific response to these errors. No-one was able to provide such a response. Since it is normal scientific practice to explain and defend your ideas, the hypothesis that people only need small amounts of vitamin C looks increasingly shaky.

Even the NIH's subsequent data contradicts their earlier work. The NIH vitamin C group published a series of papers on vitamin C and cancer [Ann Intern Med, 140(7), 533-7.]. In these papers, they suggested that repeated doses of oral vitamin C would produce blood levels of at least 220 microM (a measure of the concentration) , which is three times greater than the 70 microM maximum "saturated" value they claimed in their RDA papers. While their own papers clearly showed that their low-dose claims were wrong, the NIH appeared not to notice. Instead, they suggested that intravenous doses could produce higher blood levels, which might be effective against cancer. Even though their data were coming closer to Pauling's findings on the use of vitamin C in cancer, the NIH took the opportunity to mount another attack on Linus Pauling, suggesting he did not know the difference between oral and intravenous (IV) vitamin C.

Pauling had performed a series of trials with Dr Ewan Cameron, a Scottish cancer specialist, showing that intravenous vitamin C allowed cancer patients to live much longer than expected. Numerous other studies confirmed this effect, particularly the work of Dr Abram Hoffer and Dr Hugh Riordan. The Mayo Clinic tried to refute this research but failed, as they used low, oral doses, making their results invalid. In their own cancer paper, the NIH researchers claimed that Pauling and Cameron's use of the IV route was "serendipitous", implying that Pauling did not know the difference between injected and oral doses. In fact, Pauling had written explicitly about this difference, so the NIH criticism was misplaced.

A new scientific theory, called the dynamic flow model, explains all the observed responses to vitamin C in the literature. This model is described in the book "Ascorbate", mentioned above. According to the model, people should ideally be in a state of dynamic flow, which means they should ingest more vitamin C than they need, in the form of divided dose supplements. The extra ascorbate flows through the body and is excreted in the urine. It is not wasted, however, as the excess acts as a reservoir when extra vitamin C is required. Dynamic flow is the closest we humans can get to restoring our physiology to how it was before we lost the ability to make vitamin C in our bodies, as most other animals still do.

It is difficult to imagine what Linus Pauling would have made of all this had he lived. Hickey and Roberts like to think that he would have pointed out the NIH errors earlier. He might have had fun explaining that the NIH could not perform a simple experiment, yet tried to blame him for the deficiencies in the Mayo Clinic's research. It is now 10 years since Pauling's death. Biologist Ren� Dubos suggested that the mainstream converges with Pauling twenty years later. If so, we only have another decade to wait until the medical establishment can admit that Pauling was right all along.

Dr. Hilary Roberts

Wednesday, 2 December 2009

Linus pauling on cancer

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner).

Thursday, 20 August 2009

carbs cause cancer?

from Al Sears MD
"The other night, my son Dylan and I were
in line at the grocery checkout, and I couldnt help but notice
the woman in front of me.

As she unloaded potato chips, pastries,
waffles, and pasta onto the conveyor belt, I wondered if she
understood the risks she was taking. If she knew empty carbs were
linked to breast cancer would she still buy them?

Sugar feeds cancer cells ... and makes
them grow like wildfire. Cancer loves sugar.

And carbs turn into sugar in your body.
A 2004 study in Cancer Epidemiology followed the
eating habits of a large group of women in Mexico. The risk of breast
cancer was found to be 220% higher in the women who ate the largest
amounts of carbohydrates compared to the women who ate the least
carbs.1

And just a few weeks ago, a new study
confirmed it.

Researchers in Stockholm analyzed data
from women who completed food frequency questionnaires
in the late 1980s. They discovered that women who ate high glycemic
load foods were more likely to develop breast cancer.

They also found that carbohydrate
intake, glycemic index and glycemic load were all associated with a
specific estrogen receptor type of tumor.2


And it’s not just women who need
to be concerned. There have also been links to carbohydrate
consumption, especially high glycemic load foods, and colorectal
cancer among men.3

The evidence that refined, processed,
high glycemic foods are bad for you is overwhelming. And when it comes
to cancer, sugar is the worst.

So when you go to the store, make sure
to pass up on the sugar. Plus, youll want to avoid
...


Grains, including Potatoes and other white
foods, like white rice, sugar and salt.
Also avoid drinks and foods that
contain high fructose corn syrup"



Al Sears, MD



1 Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers &
Prevention Vol. 13, 1283-1289, August 2004

2 International Journal of Cancer, July 2009

3 Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005
Jan;14(1):138-47

Saturday, 23 May 2009

Cancer and ATP: The Photon Energy Pathway

By Sepp Hasslberger
May 23, 2007



Could cancer be a functional deviation of the cellular energy production mechanism that is open to correction by relatively simple means instead of a genetic mutation that is passed down through cell division? Heinrich Kremer, MD, says that this is indeed the case. His hypothesis of a photon-mediated cellular energy pathway may turn out to substantially add to our understanding of what cancer is, and why such natural substances as curcumin may be effective cancer fighting agents.


Turmeric (Curcuma longa)is a curative spice and coloring agent used in Indian cooking

www.thenhf.com/articles

Tuesday, 5 August 2008

Obese females' large waists 'raise pancreatic cancer risk'

Obese women who carry most of their excess weight around their stomach are 70 per cent more likely to develop pancreatic cancer, a new study claims.

Before now, the most well-established risk factors for pancreatic cancer were smoking and chronic pancreatitis but scientists behind today's research say it strengthens the evidence linking obesity to pancreatic cancer risk in women.

The team at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden followed more than 138,000 postmenopausal women in America for over seven years to investigate the effects of obesity on pancreatic cancer as a part of the Women's Health Initiative.

251 women in the study developed pancreatic cancer. Of these, 78 women had the highest waist-to-hip ratios.

This is 70 per cent more than the 34 women with the lowest waist-to-hip ratios who went on to develop the disease - after adjusting for other potential risk factors including age and smoking status.

Previous research has suggested that diabetes and abnormal insulin levels may play a role in pancreatic cancer and the authors of today's study argue that obesity could increase the risk of the cancer by affecting insulin levels.

Commenting on the study, Dr Lesley Walker, director of cancer information at Cancer Research UK, said: "Pancreatic cancer is associated with particularly poor survival, so it's crucial that we learn more about how to prevent the disease.

"About a quarter of all cancer deaths are caused by unhealthy diets and obesity and it's important that people are aware of this risk."

Wednesday, 20 February 2008

acidosis

ACIDOSIS is not in itself a specific disease; it is a general condition of the blood and thus the root of many different diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure, arthritis, cancer, tumors and many more. Many people today have this blood condition without knowing it. ALKALOSIS is not as common as acidosis, but also indicates an unbalanced condition of the blood.

All natural foods contain both acid and alkaline forming elements. In some, acid forming elements dominate, in others alkaline forming elements dominate. According to modern biochemistry, it is not the organic matter of foods which leave acid or alkaline residues in the body. The inorganic matter (sulphur, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, magnesium and calcium) determines the acidity or alkalinity of the body fluids. Food comparatively rich in acid forming elements are acid forming foods, those comparatively rich in alkaline forming elements are alkaline forming foods.

Acidic condition inhibits nerve action, alkalinity stimulates nerve action. One who has a balanced condition can think and act (decide) well. A balanced food plan is a great help in maintaining the pH balance of the blood; however it does not reveal results in a day or two. It takes a longer time to show the effect. Cold showers make the blood alkaline, while hot showers make the blood acid. If the blood develops a more acidic condition, then our body inevitably deposits these excess acidic substances in some area of the body such so that the blood will be able to maintain an alkaline condition. As this tendency continues, such areas increase in acidity and some cells die; then these dead cells themselves turn into acids. However, some other cells may adapt in that environment. In other words, instead of dying as normal cells do in a acid environment, some cells survive by becoming abnormal cells. These abnormal cells are called malignant cells. Malignant cells do not correspond with brain function nor with our own DNA memory code. Therefore, malignant cells grow indefinitely and without order. This is Cancer, and cancer develops in the following stages:

Ingestion of many acid forming foods, fatty foods, refined foods, carcinogenic substances such as nitrates, and chemically treated foods in general. X-ray scans contribute even at this stage.
www.healthherbs.com

Sunday, 23 December 2007

Does flouride cause cancer?

"Of all the conditions caused by Fluoride, Cancer is the most life threatening. Adding Fluoride to the water will, according to extremely conservative projections, increase cancer deaths in the UK by at least six people per day. To put it another way, every four hours of every day someone will die from cancer caused by Fluoride. This means that, of the people living in the UK today, at least 100,000 will die of cancer caused by adding Fluoride to the water. Studies show Thyroid cancers increase by up to 400%, bone cancer in young men is increased and there is an overall increase in cancer of 5% in water Fluoridated areas compared to non-Fluoridated areas. Dr Dean Burke, former chief scientist with the National Cancer Institute in the USA, testified before Congress that "Fluoride causes more human cancer deaths and causes it faster than any other chemical I have ever come across". Even if Fluoride was effective, this alone is too high a price to pay. The fact that Fluoride does not work and causes so much other damage to people turns tragedy into obscenity."

from Dr Munro-Hall (dentist)
http://www.positivehealth.com/article-view.php?articleid=1439

Tuesday, 18 December 2007

ct scans cause cancer?

CT (computed tomography) scans are the cause of up to 2 per cent of all cancers. The effect could be far worse among children, who are more sensitive to irradiation.

The scans, which seem to especially cause cancers of the lungs and colon, produce a radiation dose similar to that of the atom bombs that were dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

Each scan produces a radiation dose of around 15 mSv in an adult, and 30 mSv in a newborn child, and as standard treatment is for two to three scans, the overall dose reaches 45 mSv. Survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were exposed to doses slightly below 50 mSv.

Around 11 per cent of all CT scans are carried out on children to determine if they have appendicitis, and researchers fear that, even if they do not develop cancer immediately, they are still at greater risk as adults as their radiation load continues to increase.

In the US alone, 62 million scans are performed every year, mainly to check on seizures, chronic headaches and trauma, an extraordinary increase since 1980 when just 3 million scans were performed.

Researchers from Columbia University Medical Center in New York base their cancer estimates on radiation exposure from survivors of the atomic bomb blasts, and from a major study into the health of 400,000 workers in the nuclear industry.

They also reckon that up to a third of all CT scans are unnecessary or could be replaced by safer technology such as ultrasound.

If that’s so, it means that 20 million adults and 1 million children are unnecessarily irradiated every year in the US – and also being exposed to the risk of cancer.

(Source: New England Journal of Medicine, 2007; 357: 2277-84).

Printer-friendly version of this page

Saturday, 24 November 2007

magnesium and cancer

Magnesium stabilizes ATP , allowing
DNA and RNA transcriptions and repairs.

There is a power and a force in magnesium that cannot be equaled anywhere else in the world of medicine. There is no substitute for magnesium in human physiology; nothing comes even close to it in terms of its effect on overall cell physiology. Without sufficient magnesium, the body accumulates toxins and acid residues, degenerates rapidly, and ages prematurely. It goes against a gale wind of medical Science to ignore magnesium chloride used transdermally in the treatment of any chronic or acute disorder, especially cancer. (magnesium chloride is from Sea Salt )

Magnesium repletion produced rapid
disappearance of the periosteal tumors.

Aleksandrowicz et al in Poland conclude that inadequacy of Mg and antioxidants are important risk factors in predisposing to leukemias. Other researchers found that 46% of the patients admitted to an ICU in a tertiary cancer center presented hypomagnesemia.

Monday, 19 November 2007

Slovenia's president cures himself of cancer

From The Times
November 15, 2007
All hail the mystic President
Slovenia’s President is a recluse. Told he had cancer, Janez
Drnovsek moved alone to the woods and embraced his inner
spirituality. His Government despises him but he is a hero to his
people

Martin Fletcher

It is not often that you ask a European head of state whether he
has gone loopy, but in the case of Janez Drnovsek, Slovenia’s
reclusive President, the question seems almost unavoidable.

Bald, monkish and skeletally thin, Drnovsek has abandoned his
capital for a mountain retreat. He no longer speaks to his
Government. He boycotts state occasions, and disappears for weeks at
a time. He has turned vegan, talks like a New Age mystic of his quest
for “higher consciousness” and “inner balance”, and communicates with
the Slovenian people through books on spirituality. He set out to
tackle the problems of the world from a country smaller than Wales,
and has become a champion of progressive causes.

It is an astonishing transformation for a man who, as Slovenia’s
Prime Minister from 1992 until he was elected President in 2002, was
regarded as a dull, grey technocrat. It was triggered by the prospect
of imminent death. In 1999 he found that he had kidney cancer and, in
2001, that the cancer had spread to his liver and lungs. His doctors
said his condition was incurable.

Any serious illness comes as a shock, but “the shock can be
beneficial because one is caught in patterns of behaviour and somehow
you do them mechanically and without really thinking about them. You
do like others do,” Drnovsek explained in the course of a two-hour
interview with The Times– the first he has given in months. “When you
are confronted with the perception of the end of your life, it’s an
opportunity to look at things from a different point of view, to
change priorities and establish a distance to this daily existence
and all these material developments that you are taught are so
important,” he said as he sipped black tea in his office.

He accepted that some people thought that he had gone crazy, but
was not perturbed. They do not understand, he said in soft, heavily
accented English. “Why should I worry what people of this level of
consciousness should say or think about me? This is so irrelevant.”
He used a Chinese philosopher’s tale to illustrate his point: “The
frog in its well was convinced that this well was the whole world.
And then came a turtle from the sea. The turtle told this frog that
there was a big ocean and the well was nothing. The frog said: ‘OK.
This turtle is crazy’.”

In fact, most Slovenians have grown very fond of their singular
President. Despite – or perhaps because of – his eccentricities he
will complete his term of office next month as one of the most
popular figures in his country.

Drnovsek is an erstwhile banker who won his nation’s respect – if
not its affection – by helping to negotiate its peaceful secession
from the former Yugoslavia in 1991, and then steering it from
communism to democracy and membership of the European Union and Nato.
As late as 2000 – one year after he had a cancerous kidney removed –
The Economistdescribed him as a “singularly uncharismatic . . . poker-
faced trimmer” whose preoccupations were growth and stability. It
quoted him saying, glumly: “People demanded vision. I hate vision.
The cemetery of history is full of visionaries.”

Drnovsek says that his conversion from conventional politician into
“Slovenia’s Gandhi” – as one commentator has dubbed him – was
gradual, and he adopted a low profile as he fought his illness. He
abandoned conventional medicine because his doctors told him that
they could not cure him. He dabbled with Indian and Chinese healers.
He gave up meat, dairy products and alcohol in favour of organic
vegetables and home-baked bread. He fasted for days at a time. He
also sought to nourish his soul, leaving Ljubljana for a remote home
set in beautiful beech forests south of the Slovenian capital. He
lives there alone, reading and writing, without so much as a
television for company since his dog died. He says modern man has
lost contact with nature, but it is “very beneficial for health, for
body but also for soul . . . Somehow we can purify ourselves of all
negativities that are concentrated in towns and urban centres where
there is all this activity and stress.”

The new Drnovsek began to reappear on the public stage in late
2005, but more in the guise of national guru than president. He cut
his staff. He quit his centre-left political party and launched the
Movement for Justice and Development that was open to “all people who
wish to change the world for the better”. He became a champion of the
environment, animal rights and the oppressed, and afierce critic of a
political class that is, he says, concerned only about power and
image. “If only we had a candidate like Drnovsek, or even a shadow of
him, the world would quickly become less intolerable,” gushed
Brigitte Bardot in the midst of the French presidential election.

Drnovsek travelled around the country. He was photographed wearing
a crown of leaves. He published books entitled Thoughts on Life and
Awareness and The Essence of the World that are found in the
spirituality – not politics – sections of Slovenia’s bookshops. He
wrote a monthly advice column in a popular women’s magazine, and a
blog in the name of “Janez D”, whose subjects ranged from diatribes
against pesticides to apocalyptic warnings about climate change – he
says that humanity has perhaps 20 years left to save itself.

Drnovsek also began to intervene in international affairs in a way
that infuriated Slovenia’s new conservative Government. He upset
nearby Serbia by supporting independence for Kosovo. He visited
Jerusalem, where he urged the Israelis to talk to the newly elected
militants of Hamas, and Sri Lanka, where he tried to meet Tamil Tiger
leaders. In China he defied the authorities by visiting Tibet. He
went to India for a conference on spirituality, and to Bolivia for
Evo Morales’s inauguration as that country’s first indigenous
president “after 500 years of colonialism and neo-colonialism”.

His most ambitious undertaking, however, was a one-man drive to
resolve the Darfur conflict that ended with the detention of his
envoy and the nonappearance of Sudanese and rebel leaders at a
Ljubljana peace conference. It was an embarrassing episode, and he
admits that he was probably naive, but says that he felt morally
obliged to try to stop the suffering. While international diplomats
were living in luxury hotels, earning fat salaries and indulging in
endless talks, people were dying, he says. “I thought somebody had to
do something to wake up everybody.”

By the summer of 2006 Drnovsek had exhausted his official budget,
and the Government seized the chance to ground him by refusing
further funds for his “exotic activities”. He was forced to cancel a
state visit to Spain and an appearance at the UN in New York, and
grew ever more scathing in his denunciations of the Government.

Drnovsek has described Janez Jansa, the Prime Minister, as the
“Prince of Darkness”. He disagrees with nearly all of what the
Government does, and accuses it of moving towards a “kind of
totalitarian system” by curbing the independence of the media. He
stops only marginally short of saying that it was unfit to assume the
EU’s rotating six-month presidency on January 1. “I will say nothing.
I’m still President of this country,” he replied when pressed.

Drnovsek has now abandoned his conflict-resolution efforts. He
tried his best, but was dismissed as “this crazy Slovenian
President”, he says. “I came to the conclusion that the only way to
change the world is to change the consciousness of as many individual
people as possible, and then the pressure on politicians will
increase to act differently.”

He has once again become an absentee President. He spurns official
receptions. He boycotted Slovenia’s National Day celebrations in
June. “ At a certain level of spirituality . . . it becomes more
difficult to do these things of this material life,” he says. “You
feel the ephemerality of everything, and if you know your activity
will have no real effect, you become more selective about what you do
and what not. I still have activities, but practically I stopped all
unnecessary political activities – those involved with other
politicians.”

He vanished entirely from June until mid-September, and failed to
greet Romano Prodi, the Prime Minister of Italy, when he visited
Slovenia in August. Drnovsek said that he spent some of that time
visiting monasteries in France, tapping into the “positive energy”
that monks had built up through centuries of prayer.

Drnovsek has infuriated the Government, but his people have warmed
to his evident humanity. His books are bestsellers, and while a few
of the Slovenes I approached in Ljubljana’s central market said that
they found his conduct embarrassing, many more expressed support and
affection for their unusual President.

“He’s a good and wise man,” said Katja Berlinc, a 21-year-old
theology student. “He’s great. He’s not afraid to speak his mind. He’
s not afraid of anything,” said Asim Begtasevic, who runs a flower
stall. “He stands for basic moral values,” said Sasho Adamich, a
young TV assistant. When a former lover revealed that Drnovsek had a
19-year-old daughter, it only boosted his popularity.

All this infuriates his critics inside and outside the Government.
“Nobody dares to question Drnovsek’s conduct or his travels because
of his illness, and because he was some sort of hero of the
transition to democracy,” says Janez Markes, the editor of the
newspaper Delo.

Drnovsek’s colourful and controversial presidency is drawing to an
end. He is not seeking reelection, and the charming old streets
beneath Ljubljana’s castle are awash with posters of the more
conventional politicians fighting to replace him. He is not planning
any great farewell when he steps down. He is not concerned about his
legacy or image. He accepts that a certain amount of ridicule is the
price to be paid for stepping outside the political system, and he
certainly will not mind the anonymity. “I don’t have worries. I don’t
have fears. I don’t have wishes. I’m very calm.”

Drnovsek also has one incontrovertible riposte to those who say he
went loopy. Against all odds, and in defiance of every medical
prediction, he has not died in office. Indeed, he now claims to be
cancer-free: “I am completely healed. I am cured of everything. I can’
t prove it beyond being alive. I don’t need confirmation from a
doctor. I just know.”

Tuesday, 18 September 2007

cancer research with a differance!

CANCER
This really blew me away – could there be some truth in it?!

Review of The German New Medicine of the Discoveries of
Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer

Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer, formerly of the Universities of Munich and Tubingen in Germany, founded the German New Medicine after extensive research and a therapeutic practice dating back to 1979. The German New Medicine is a set of findings and principles that solidly bases the nature of disease on universal biological principles and on the interaction between the three levels that make up the organism: the psyche, the brain and the organ. In German New Medicine, diseases have a biological meaning and are not mistakes of nature. In fact, we can now categorize most of the diseases known to medicine in pairs of events. These pairs are actually programs of nature relating psychological and biological events. The programs are designed by Nature to either help the individual to cope or as a selection mechanism to serve the group.

Dr. Hamer realized that his wife’s death and his own cancer had to be connected somehow with the tragic shooting and eventual death of their son, Dirk. As a medical doctor, scientific researcher and head internist of an oncology clinic in Munich, Dr. Hamer was in the position to be able to come to the conclusion that a physical event can create a biological conflict shock that manifests in a visible physical transformation in the brain, and leads to a measurable change in physical-nervous parameters and to the development of cancerous growths, ulcerations, necroses and functional disturbances in specific organs of the body.

After twenty years of research and therapy with over 31,000 patients, Dr. Hamer finally established firmly, logically and empirically how biological conflict-shock results in a cold cancerous or necrotic phase and how, if the conflict is resolved, the cancerous or necrotic process is reversed to repair the damage and return the individual to health.

Disease, or the meaningful biological program of nature (as Dr. Hamer likes to call it), is divided into five biological events, all of which can be identified, measured, observed and are part of a system that makes possible a definite (not just statistically probable) prediction of events and development.

A biological conflict-shock - called a DHS (Dirk Hamer Syndrome in honour of his son) - causes the appearance of a focus of activity in the brain - called an HH (Hamerschenherd). This set of concentric rings that can be seen in a computerized tomography scan (CT) is centred on a precise point of the brain. The location of the focus depends on the nature of the shock-conflict or conflict contents. As soon as the HH appears, the organ controlled by that specific brain centre registers a functional transformation. This transformation can manifest as a growth, as tissue loss or as a loss of function.

Dr. Hamer further discovered that the program that is initiated after a conflict-shock is dependent on the layer of the brain that is affected, something to be understood and explained from the point of view of evolution. The system makes sense both from a phylogenetic and an ontogenetic point of view. Dr. Hamer prefers to keep theory to a minimum and grounds all his observations and conclusions on hard, rock-solid empirical evidence, so we will be referring to ontogenesis in this summary.....

to read more see www.newmedicine.ca/

Sunday, 5 August 2007

sugar and your health

Sugar's effect on your health
(from http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/sugar.htm )
The average American consumes an astounding 2-3 pounds of sugar each week, which is not surprising considering that highly refined sugars in the forms of sucrose (table sugar), dextrose (corn sugar), and high-fructose corn syrup are being processed into so many foods such as bread, breakfast cereal, mayonnaise, peanut butter, ketchup, spaghetti sauce, and a plethora of microwave meals.
sugar

In the last 20 years, we have increased sugar consumption in the U.S. 26 pounds to 135 lbs. of sugar per person per year! Prior to the turn of this century (1887-1890), the average consumption was only 5 lbs. per person per year! Cardiovascular disease and cancer was virtually unknown in the early 1900's.

The "glycemic index" is a measure of how a given food affects blood-glucose levels, with each food being assigned a numbered rating. The lower the rating, the slower the absorption and digestion process, which provides a more gradual, healthier infusion of sugars into the bloodstream. On the other hand, a high rating means that blood-glucose levels are increased quickly, which stimulates the pancreas to secrete insulin to drop blood-sugar levels. These rapid fluctuations of blood-sugar levels are not healthy because of the stress they place on the body.

One of sugar's major drawbacks is that it raises the insulin level, which inhibits the release of growth hormones, which in turn depresses the immune system. This is not something you want to take place if you want to avoid disease.

An influx of sugar into the bloodstream upsets the body's blood-sugar balance, triggering the release of insulin, which the body uses to keep blood-sugar at a constant and safe level. Insulin also promotes the storage of fat, so that when you eat sweets high in sugar, you're making way for rapid weight gain and elevated triglyceride levels, both of which have been linked to cardiovascular disease. Complex carbohydrates tend to be absorbed more slowly, lessening the impact on blood-sugar levels.
Sugar depresses the immune system.

We have known this for decades. It was only in the 1970's that researchers found out that vitamin C was needed by white blood cells so that they could phagocytize viruses and bacteria. White blood cells require a 50 times higher concentration inside the cell as outside so they have to accumulate vitamin C.
There is something called a "phagocytic index" which tells you how rapidly a particular macrophage or lymphocyte can gobble up a virus, bacteria, or cancer cell. It was in the 1970's that Linus Pauling realized that white blood cells need a high dose of vitamin C and that is when he came up with his theory that you need high doses of vitamin Cicon to combat the common cold.
sugar and lymphocytes

We know that glucose and vitamin C have similar chemical structures, so what happens when the sugar levels go up? They compete for one another upon entering the cells. And the thing that mediates the entry of glucose into the cells is the same thing that mediates the entry of vitamin C into the cells. If there is more glucose around, there is going to be less vitamin C allowed into the cell. It doesn't take much: a blood sugar value of 120 reduces the phagocytic index by 75%. So when you eat sugar, think of your immune system slowing down to a crawl.

Here we are getting a little bit closer to the roots of disease. It doesn't matter what disease we are talking about, whether we are talking about a common cold or about cardiovascular disease, or cancer or osteoporosis, the root is always going to be at the cellular and molecular level, and more often than not insulin is going to have its hand in it, if not totally controlling it.

The health dangers which ingesting sugar on an habitual basis creates are certain. Simple sugars have been observed to aggravate asthma, move mood swings, provoke personality changes, muster mental illness, nourish nervous disorders, deliver diabetes, hurry heart disease, grow gallstones, hasten hypertension, and add arthritis.

Because refined dietary sugars lack minerals and vitamins, they must draw upon the body's micro-nutrient stores in order to be metabolized into the system. When these storehouses are depleted, metabolization of cholesterol and fatty acid is impeded, contributing to higher blood serum triglycerides, cholesterol, promoting obesity due to higher fatty acid storage around organs and in sub-cutaneous tissue folds.

Because sugar is devoid of minerals, vitamins, fiber, and has such a deteriorating effect on the endocrine system, major researchers and major health organizations (American Dietetic Association and American Diabetic Association) agree that sugar consumption in America is one of the 3 major causes of degenerative disease.

A good source of supplies for diabetics is diabeticdrugstore.com. They offer healthy eating diabetic food, hard to find sugar free candy and medical alert jewelry for diabetes care.
Honey is a simple sugar

There are 4 classes of simple sugars which are regarded by most nutritionists as "harmful" to optimal health when prolonged consumption in amounts above 15% of the carbohydrate calories are ingested: Sucrose, fructose, honey, and malts.
Some of you may be surprised to find honey here. Although honey is a natural sweetener, it is considered a refined sugar because 96% of dry matter are simple sugars: fructose, glucose and sucrose. It is little wonder that the honey bear is the only animal found in nature with a problem with tooth-decay (honey decays teeth faster than table sugar). Honey has the highest calorie content of all sugars with 65 calories/tablespoon, compared to the 48 calories/tablespoon found in table sugar. The increased calories are bound to cause increased blood serum fatty acids, as well as weight gain, on top of the risk of more cavities.
sugar and honey

Pesticides used on farm crops and residential flowers have been found in commercial honey. Honey can be fatal to an infant whose immature digestive tracts are unable to deal effectively with Botulinum Spore growth. What nutrients or enzymes raw honey does contain are destroyed by manufacturers who heat it in order to give it a clear appearance to enhance sales. If you are going to consume honey, make sure it is raw, unheated honey. Good to use in special cures, but not as an every day food. It is not much better than white or brown sugar.
Here is a list of ways sugar can affect your health:

* Sugar can suppress the immune system.
* Sugar can upset the body's mineral balance.
* Sugar can contribute to hyperactivity, anxiety, depression, concentration difficulties, and crankiness in children.
* Sugar can produce a significant rise in triglycerides.
* Sugar can cause drowsiness and decreased activity in children.
* Sugar can reduce helpful high density cholesterol (HDLs).
* Sugar can promote an elevation of harmful cholesterol (LDLs).
* Sugar can cause hypoglycemia.
* Sugar contributes to a weakened defense against bacterial infection.
* Sugar can cause kidney damage.
* Sugar can increase the risk of coronary heart disease.
* Sugar may lead to chromium deficiency.
* Sugar can cause copper deficiency.
* Sugar interferes with absorption of calcium and magnesium.
* Sugar can increase fasting levels of blood glucose.
* Sugar can promote tooth decay.
* Sugar can produce an acidic stomach.
* Sugar can raise adrenaline levels in children.
* Sugar can lead to periodontal disease.
* Sugar can speed the aging process, causing wrinkles and grey hair.
* Sugar can increase total cholesterol.
* Sugar can contribute to weight gain and obesity.
* High intake of sugar increases the risk of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.
* Sugar can contribute to diabetes.
* Sugar can contribute to osteoporosis.
* Sugar can cause a decrease in insulin sensitivity.
* Sugar leads to decreased glucose tolerance.
* Sugar can cause cardiovascular disease.
* Sugar can increase systolic blood pressure.
* Sugar causes food allergies.
* Sugar can cause free radical formation in the bloodstream.
* Sugar can cause toxemia during pregnancy.
* Sugar can contribute to eczema in children.
* Sugar can overstress the pancreas, causing damage.
* Sugar can cause atherosclerosis.
* Sugar can compromise the lining of the capillaries.
* Sugar can cause liver cells to divide, increasing the size of the liver.
* Sugar can increase the amount of fat in the liver.
* Sugar can increase kidney size and produce pathological changes in the kidney.
* Sugar can cause depression.
* Sugar can increase the body's fluid retention.
* Sugar can cause hormonal imbalance.
* Sugar can cause hypertension.
* Sugar can cause headaches, including migraines.
* Sugar can cause an increase in delta, alpha and theta brain waves, which can alter the mind's ability to think clearly.
* Sugar can increase blood platelet adhesiveness which increases risk of blood clots and strokes.
* Sugar can increase insulin responses in those consuming high-sugar diets compared to low sugar diets.
* Sugar increases bacterial fermentation in the colon.

Source: www.nancyappleton.com


Sugar and cancer

Of the over 4 million cancer patients being treated in the U.S. today, almost none are offered any scientifically guided nutrition therapy other than being told to "just eat good foods." Many cancer patients would have a major improvement in their conditions if they controlled the supply of cancer's preferred fuel: GLUCOSE. By slowing the cancer's growth, patients make it possible for their immune systems to catch up to the disease. Controlling one's blood-glucose levels through diet, exercise, supplements, meditation and prescription drugs - when necessary - can be one of the most crucial components to a cancer treatment program. The saying "Sugar feeds cancer" is simple. The explanation is a little more involved.
German Otto Warburg, Ph.D., the 1931 Nobel laureate in medicine, first discovered that cancer cells have a fundamentally different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells. The gist of his Nobel thesis was this: malignant tumors frequently exhibit an increase in "anaerobic glycolysis" - a process whereby glucose is used by cancer cells as a fuel with lactic acid as an anaerobic by-product - compared to normal tissues.(1) The large amount of lactic acid produced by this fermentation of glucose from the cancer cells is then transported to the liver. This conversion of glucose to lactate creates a lower, more acidic PH in cancerous tissues as well as overall physical fatigue from lactic acid build-up.(2,3) Therefore, larger tumors tend to exhibit a more acidic PH.(4)
anaerobic glycolysis

Hence, cancer therapies should attempt to regulate blood-glucose levels through diet, supplements, exercise, medication when necessary, gradual weight loss and stress reduction. Since cancer cells derive most of their energy from anaerobic glycolysis, the goal is not to eliminate sugars or carbohydrates entirely from the diet but rather to control blood-glucose within a narrow range to help starve the cancer cells and boost immune function.



References

(1) Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science 1956 Feb;123:309-14.

(2) Volk T, et al. pH in human tumor xenografts: effect of intravenous administration of glucose. Br J Cancer 1993 Sep;68(3):492-500.

(3) Digirolamo M. Diet and cancer: markers, prevention and treatment. New York: Plenum Press; 1994. p 203.

(4). Leeper DB, et al. Effect of i.v. glucose versus combined i.v. plus oral glucose on human tumor extracellular pH for potential sensitization to thermoradiotherapy. Int J Hyperthermia 1998 May-Jun;14(3):257-69.

Tuesday, 26 June 2007

Cancer Resarch Update from John Hopkins Hospital

1. No plastic containers in microwave.


2. No water bottles in freezer.

3. No plastic wrap in microwave.



Johns Hopkins has recently sent this out in its newsletters. This
information is being circulated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as
well.

Dioxin chemicals causes cancer, especially breast cancer.

Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don't freeze
your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from
the plastic.

Recently, Dr. Edward Fujimoto, Wellness Program Manager at Castle
Hospital , was on a TV program to explain this health hazard. He talked
about dioxins and how bad they are for us.


He said that we should not be heating our food in the microwave using
plastic containers.


This especially applies to foods that contain fat.


He said that the combination of fat, high heat, and plastics releases
dioxin into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body.

Instead, he recommends using glass, such as Corning Ware, Pyrex or
ceramic containers for heating food. You get the same results, only
without the dioxin. So such things as TV dinners, instant ramen and
soups, etc., should be removed from the container and heated in
something else.
Paper isn't bad but you don't know what is in the paper. It's just safer
to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, etc.

He reminded us that a while ago some of the fast food restaurants moved
away from the foam containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of the
reasons.
Also, he pointed out that plastic wrap, such as Saran, is just as
dangerous when placed over foods to be cooked in the microwave. As the
food is nuked, the high heat causes poisonous toxins to actually melt
out of the plastic wrap and drip into the food.

Cover food with a paper towel instead.



This is an article that should be sent to anyone important in your life!

Wednesday, 2 May 2007

the sun and cancer..

Do you realize that one of the most powerful cures for cancer is streaming over our heads each and every day, free of charge?
It's sunlight, which is astounding in its ability to prevent and cure cancer.
Here is an interesting recent research finding on the sun, vitamin D and cancer:

".......But perhaps the biggest bombshell about vitamin D's effects is about to go off. In June, U.S. researchers will announce the first direct link between cancer prevention and the sunshine vitamin. Their results are nothing short of astounding.

A four-year clinical trial involving 1,200 women found those taking the vitamin had about a 60-per-cent reduction in cancer incidence, compared with those who didn't take it, a drop so large — twice the impact on cancer attributed to smoking — it almost looks like a typographical error.

Only brief full-body exposures to bright summer sunshine — of 10 or 15 minutes a day — are needed to make high amounts of the vitamin. But most authorities, including Health Canada, have urged a total avoidance of strong sunlight or, alternatively, heavy use of sunscreen. Both recommendations will block almost all vitamin D synthesis.

Those studying the vitamin say the hide-from-sunlight advice has amounted to the health equivalent of a foolish poker trade. Anyone practising sun avoidance has traded the benefit of a reduced risk of skin cancer — which is easy to detect and treat and seldom fatal — for an increased risk of the scary, high-body-count cancers, such as breast, prostate and colon, that appear linked to vitamin D shortages.

The sun advice has been misguided information "of just breathtaking proportions," said John Cannell, head of the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit, California-based organization.

"Fifteen hundred Americans die every year from [skin cancers]. Fifteen hundred Americans die every day from the serious cancers."

So if sunlight were a mainstream drug, it would probably make the cover of Time magazine and be heralded as the greatest medical breakthrough in the history of modern science. It's that good.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070428.wxvitamin28/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home