CRISPR takes American Medicine to a dangerous level

While European Governments and companies have held back, the Americans race ahead developing CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat).

What does it do? Well it is James Bond meets Mission Impossible and then some. Having cracked the layout of the Human Genome, this system would enable scientists to see what bit had gone wrong in a sick person, and then change it.

At the moment, the scientists are beavering away, taking cells out of sick people, trying to change the relevant gene sequence and then put the cells back. Who needs chemotherapy drugs?

But the real breakthrough would come if the changes could be made in situ, without any cells being taken from the body. If you had cancer or diabetes, you could just be zapped, and health would return in days.

Of course, the technology could be used more widely. For example, defects at birth could be altered, allowing a long and happy life.

But what about students? Could their genome be altered to make them brighter?

Or prisoners – could their genome merely be altered to stop them robbing or murdering.

Or militant Muslims, what of them?

In America, CRISPR is in the public eye now and dubbed the Microsoft Word of genetics.

, , , , , , ,

What’s in your Vitamin Supplement??

People simply do not realize the rubbish that can be in cheaper vitamin supplements. And by ‘people’, I mean not just the sick, but doctors, researchers and even the scientists who prepare reports praising or condemning them.

Synthetic, deficient and dangerous?

The cheaper versions are often simply synthetic, and deficient versions of the real thing, like Thai copies of Gucci handbags. Should you be surprised when the handle drops off?

But this is your health you are messing with. And matters can get worse when you realise what ‘fillers’ and even toxic ingredients can be incorporated in the tablet.

Unfortunately, most research studies simply talk about ‘vitamin E improving your immune system’ (positive) or ‘vitamin E doing more harm than good’ (negative) without any sensible or responsible comment on the vitamin quality used.

Vitamin E is a classic example of confusion – even the mighty Memorial Sloan-Kettering Medical School gets its commentary wrong on its website!

Vitamin E is available in nature in 8 related forms – 4 tocopherols and 4 tocotrienols. These cousins appear in foods from grains to greens. Memorial Sloan-Kettering refers to all the foods in nature you can find vitamin E within. However, Memorial Sloan-Kettering then refers to vitamin E as alpha-tocopherol, which it is not. Alpha-tocopherol is but one constituent. It certainly is NOT present in all those foods mentioned.

The same applies to UK high street vitamin E, which, thanks largely to EU ‘health’ restrictions is this same constituent form – alpha tocopherol – and, worse, invariably synthetic and made by the petrochemical industry. In a review of a number of research studies by the Nordic Cochrane Institute it was concluded that the ‘vitamin E’ was of little benefit and arguably did more harm than good. A similar issue is found with beta-carotene, which in nature is available in cis- and trans- forms, but in cheap varieties is just one synthetic copy.

To put this in context, experts are agreed that natural vitamin E is effective against ageing, cancer, oxidative damage, diabetes, eye problems and more. Conversely, synthetic petrol-derived vitamin E is an endocrine disrupter!

Unwanted additives

Next there are the ‘innocent additives’. Typically these may include cows’ dairy products, sugar (like maltodextrin), gluten, corn starch, soy products, hydrogenated vegetable oil and yeast.

Then there are warnings on bottles about contra-indications, some of which are relevant while others are little more than scaremongering clap-trap. Inconsistency rules. Sadly, the same doctors who advise patients not to take vitamin supplements whilst taking drugs routinely forget to mention that many drugs have contra-indications with grapefruit and its juice, or with dried meats and eggs.

Fillers and ‘excipients’

The American International Pharmaceutical Council has stated that, ‘Excipients are substances other than the pharmacologically active ingredients, which are included in the manufacturing process or are contained in a finished product. In many products, excipients make up the bulk of the total dosage form’ (Czap, AL, The Townsend Letter For Doctors and Patients, July 1999, Vol.192; pg.117-119).

And it should be noted that such fillers and additives in supplements can ‘cause allergic reactions, impede absorption, and have undesirable physiological effects’. Often manufacturers call such ‘fillers’ by words like ‘glaze’ or ‘natural vegetable coatings’.

Typical compounds include:

1. Magnesium stearate – used as a flow agent to keep manufacturing equipment working smoothly. Made from cottonseed oil. (Concerns have been raised about GMOs, pesticides, T-cell damage and inhibition of drug absorption, but all seem overclaims)

2. BHT (butyl hydroxyl-toluene) – laboratory made chemical, added to various foods and supplements, to prevent rancidity and oxidation. Supplements of it go with claims that it can treat lipid-coated viral disease. But Berkeley Wellness newsletter expresses concerns over safety – the Center for Science in the Public Interest lists BHT in its “caution” column. It may be harmful in high doses.

3. Boric acid – known to have anti-fungal and anti-yeast activities, it has been used as an antiseptic, insecticide and even a flame retardant. It is also connected to DNA damage.

4. Cupric sulphate – Green Med Info is concerned it can contribute to heavy metal toxicity. Can be used as a herbicide, fungicide and pesticide.

5. Sawdust – although you won’t find it on the label some tablets have been shown to contain sawdust.

6. Talcum powder – the same is true for talcum powder, which may have even been dyed.

7. Sodium benzoate – Used as a preservative to stop the presence of moulds and bacteria. Has a known effect against mitochondria.

You get what you pay for

While, there is ample evidence that the levels of the above are small and that they have no negative effects at those concentrations, the question is, ‘Why take cheap supplements containing them?’

In 2012 at The National Cancer Institute, Dr Young Kim produced a study on controlling stem-cell cancer tumours and their re-growth. In that study, Kim identified certain food compounds that could prevent a cancer re-growing, and went on to say, ‘All of the bioactive compounds could be found in quality supplements’.

So what is a quality supplement? The point is that many supplements simply do not fit the bill. Take common vitamin C. Research covered in Cancer Watch at the charity CANCERactive showed that supplementation with standard vitamin C did not increase plasma concentrations of anti-oxidant at all, whereas antioxidant activity from vitamin C from a squeezed orange lasted about 24 hours. According to research, only about 7% of vitamin C from a cheap supplement even makes it into the blood stream. Liposomal vitamin C (which can cost over 40 pounds a bottle) is a different matter. Natural vitamin E with all 8 tocopherols and tocotrienols can cost over 65 pounds.

The crucial questions then become, ‘How much are you prepared to pay for quality nutritional supplements?’, and, ‘Even at these high prices, are you clear you are not introducing chemicals of concern into your body?’

At least now you know what to look out for!

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One Great Fat Myth

As health experts like Mercola and Woollams have been telling you repeatedly, eating fat is not as bad for you as Health Authorities have led you to believe. There are certainly good fats and oils like fish oils, extra virgin olive oil, nut and seed oils, like flaxseed, coconut and walnut oil that clearly promote health. But is saturated fat and cholesterol so bad?

According to top American cardiologist Dr Chauncey Crandall, Director of the Palm Beach Cardiology Clinic, ‘No’. In his Heart Health programme he talks about the importance of cholesterol in your brain, as a precursor to vitamin D and hormones, to aid digestion and support the essential transporting functions of cell membranes. He lays the blame for heart disease on glucose and refined carbohydrates and preservatives in foods, talking of their role in chronic diseases from diabetes, to heart disease, to cancer.

Crandall argues that chronic inflammation caused by a number of factors from food additives to red meat and cows’ dairy causes inflammation in arteries, causing the fat to ‘stick’ to the walls. After calcium deposits collect on top of the fat, your fate is sealed.

Mercola has been talking about the importance of fat for 30 years; Woollams has been talking about the dangers of glucose and refined carbohydrates in the diet for a decade. CANCERactive has covered the dangers of glucose and the benefits of a Ketogenic Diet for almost as long.

If saturated fat is not so bad after all, what is the problem?

The FDA takes action on Trans Fats at last:

It would seem that the research often quoted by Mercola and Woollams on the dangers of trans fats has at last been heeded. Originally thought to have been so refined as to be inert, trans fats have increasingly been shown to be dangerous and even cancer causing. FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, M.D., has studied the research and now announced that trans fats “are not generally recognized as safe for use in food.”.

Meanwhile Walter Willett, M.D., of Harvard School of Public Health has opined that the FDA conclusion is “strongly supported by massive scientific evidence that trans fat has many adverse effects on health’.

The benefits of Saturated Fat:

According to an article published in the prestigious British Medical Journal (October 22), saturated fat is NOT the cause of heart disease. In fact, the opposite is true. According to BMJ, : “The mantra that saturated fat must be removed to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease has dominated dietary advice and guidelines for almost four decades. Yet scientific evidence shows that this advice has, paradoxically, increased our cardiovascular risks. Furthermore, the government’s obsession with levels of total cholesterol, which has led to the overmedication of millions of people with statins, has diverted our attention from the more egregious risk factor of atherogenic dyslipidaemia’.

Woollams in these columns and in his book ‘The Rainbow Diet’ (where he talks about the French Paradox – they eat more fat and consume more alcohol than many other natures but have less heart disease and less cancer) has talked about exactly this point and the mythology surrounding fat and the drive to get everybody on often unnecessary statins. Statins that can increase risks of diabetes and other illnesses by more than 30 per cent whilst reducing levels of essential coenzyme Q10 in the heart, muscles and brain.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Polio Vaccine, Simian Monkey Virus and cancer links

Some 9 years ago CANCERactive covered several research studies from Japan on the higher incidence of Simian Monkey Virus (SV40) in people diagnosed with cancer.

The background to this is the Salk polio vaccine which, at the outset, used Simian Monkeys as the developing ground for the vaccine. Too late and after over 98 million vaccine doses had been prepared and over 30 million people had been inoculated, it was found that the Simian monkeys had a virus which was thus contained in the vaccine. The Salk vaccine then changed to use another animal source as its development host.

But. At the time we expressed great concern following the Japanese research revelations. One study looked at brain tumours where people who developed gliomas had much higher levels of SM40 than the population at large, and another study looked at cancers overall, with the same result. In 1961, the American National Institute of Health (NIH) stated that SV40 was ‘directly linked to causing tumor formation’.

It seems our fears were justified: The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently posted a fact sheet entitled Cancer, Simian Virus 40 and Polio Vaccine outlining the links between the virus and cancer. However, this was removed hastily as controversy flared in America – but too late. had already taken a copy of the damning report.

As you will see (original CDC page link and full archived page link: the SV40 virus, has been linked to causing a variety of human cancers, including childhood leukemia, lung cancer, bone cancer, and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

The CDC denies a definitive causal link between SV40 and cancer but implies it was problematic in relation to cancer development. Problematic is some sort of euphemism.

“Like other polyomaviruses, SV40 is a DNA virus that has been found to cause tumors and cancer,” explains “SV40 is believed to suppress the transcriptional properties of the tumor-suppressing genes in humans through the SV40 Large T-antigen and SV40 Small T-antigen. Mutated genes may contribute to uncontrolled cellular proliferation, leading to cancer.”

Michele Carbone, Assistant Professor of Pathology at Loyola University in Chicago, has found that the virus is present in many cases of both osteosarcoma bone cancer and the increasingly prevalent lung cancer variety known as mesothelioma. As it turns out, Carbone identified SV40 in about one-third of all osteosarcoma cases studied, and in 40 percent of other bone cancers. The same was true for 60 percent of all cases of mesothelioma. Obviously this conflicts with the accepted view that all mesothelioma is caused by asbestos exposure.

“Many authorities now admit much, possibly most, of the world’s cancers came from the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines, and hepatitis B vaccines, produced in monkeys and chimps,” adds (

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Glyphosphate in Roundup and very disturbing research about Parkinson’s, cancer and other chronic diseases.

A new research report by Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant, and Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has some very disturbing conclusions for the weed killer Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosphate, widely used on GMO products which have been engineered to withstand the large doses that are used to kill the weeds.

In April, the weedkiller was linked to Parkinson’s with an article in the Daily Mail covering the research in the UK (

‘Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body,’ the study says.

‘We have hit upon something very important that needs to be taken seriously and further investigated,’ Seneff said.

The Environmental Protection Agency is conducting a standard registration review of glyphosate and has set a deadline of 2015 for determining if glyphosate use should be limited. The study is among many comments submitted to the agency.

Manufacturer Monsanto has always argued that Roundup is safe and “minimally toxic” to humans. But the research report in the journal Entropy, tells a different story:

i. Glyphosphate residues, found in many everyday foods due to its use with GM sugar, corn, wheat and soy, ‘enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease’. “Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body.”

ii. Glyphosphate greatly affects CYP proteins (for example, cytochrome P450). These were, for example, the focus of attention for Professors Potter and Burke in their work on Salvestrols.

CYP proteins can perform many functions, for example detoxifying ‘foreign’ chemical compounds in your body.

CYP1B1 is directly linked to cancer; even being used as a marker for the disease.

iii. Glyphosphate also destroys gut bacteria and thus the important bioactive products they release from the foods you eat or, indeed, make themselves. With glyphosphate poisoning the bacteria make reduced supplies of amino acids and this plus the glyphosphate interferes with the sulphur system in the body – essential in the fight against cancer and many diseases from gastro-intestinal diseases to MS.

‘Glyphosphate’s claimed mechanism of action in plants is the disruption of the shikimate pathway, which is involved with the synthesis of the essential aromatic amino acids, phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan. The currently accepted dogma is that glyphosphate is not harmful to humans or to any mammals because the shikimate pathway is absent in all animals.

However, this pathway is present in gut bacteria, which play an important and heretofore largely overlooked role in human physiology’, said the authors.

Readers should look at the CANCERactive article on The Microbiome and its importance to your good health (Link:

Readers might also like to read about Salvestrols. (Link:

1. Green Media info:
2. Nation of Change:
3. Mercola:

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Argentina – a Poster Child for the Health Hazard of GM seeds

By Dr. Mercola

Roundup Ready soy is now being cultivated on a massive scale across the globe, along with the exponentially increasing use of the herbicide Roundup. Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” soy beans are genetically modified to survive otherwise lethal doses of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the company’s herbicide Roundup.

It’s a win-win for Monsanto. But it’s a loss for just about everyone else. Not to mention a health hazard for the environment, and the animals and humans that eat these crops.

Argentina’s Bad Seeds

One of the countries most affected by genetically engineered soy is Argentina, whose population is being sickened by massive spraying of herbicides. Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, is blamed for the dramatic increase in devastating birth defects as well as cancer.

In the film People and Power — Argentina: The Bad Seeds, film maker Glenn Ellis investigates the destructive and health-harming trends associated with the burgeoning use of genetically engineered soy.

In Cordoba, he speaks to Alternative Nobel Laureate Professor Raul Montenegro about the problems associated with excessive pesticide use.

“Montenegro, a world-renowned biologist, looked the part of a pioneer, in a khaki shirt and jungle boots.’I have pesticide in me,’ he said, almost as soon as he opened the door. Here we all have pesticide in our bodies because the land is saturated with it. And it is a huge problem. In Argentina biodiversity is diminishing. Even in national parks, because pesticides don’t recognize the limit of the park,” Ellis writes.1

More than 18 million hectares in Argentina are covered by genetically engineered soy, on which more than 300 million litres of pesticides are sprayed. Studies strongly suggest that the glyphosate these crops are doused with can cause cancer and birth deformities; both of which are occurring at increasing rates in areas where spraying is done.

Sterility and miscarriages are also increasing. Experts warn that in 10 to 15 years, rates of cancer, infertility and endocrine dysfunction could reach catastrophic levels in Argentina.

Birth Malformation Skyrocketing in Agricultural Centers of Argentina

Ellis also met with Dr. Medardo Vasquez, the neonatal specialist who heads up the Children’s Hospital in Cordoba. Dr. Vasquez tells him:

“I see new-born infants, many of whom are malformed. I have to tell parents that their children are dying because of these agricultural methods. In some areas in Argentina the primary cause of death for children less than one year old is malformations.”

Ellis is also shown a chart of two steeply climbing graphs, rising in tandem with each other — one representing the increase in soya plantations over the last 15 years; the other the rise in birth defects across the province during that same time. In the village of Malvinas Argentinas, which is surrounded by soy plantations, the rate of miscarriage is 100 times the national average, courtesy of glyphosate.

Aside from chemical spraying, silos containing genetically engineered crops are another contributing factor. The chemically treated crop produces contaminated dust, which is then ventilated outdoors without filtration, where it is carried with the winds and breathed by the local residents.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Monsanto still maintains its innocence. In a written statement to Ellis, the company said:

“Roundup® brand agricultural herbicides have a long history of safe use when used according to label directions in more than 100 countries around the world. Comprehensive toxicological studies have demonstrated that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup® branded agricultural herbicides, does not cause birth defects or reproductive problems.”

Stunning Report Illustrates Nutritional Deficiencies and Hazards of GMO Corn

In related news, a report given to MomsAcrossAmerica2 by an employee of De Dell Seed Company (Canada’s only non-GMO corn seed company) offers a stunning picture of the nutritional differences between GMO and non-GMO corn. Clearly, the former is NOT equivalent to the latter, which is the very premise by which genetically engineered crops were approved in the first place. Here are a small sampling of the nutritional differences found in this 2012 nutritional analysis:

• Calcium: GMO corn = 14 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 6,130 ppm (437 times more)
• Magnesium: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 113 ppm (56 times more)
• Manganese: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 14 ppm (7 times more)

GMO corn was also found to contain 13 ppm of glyphosate, compared to zero in non-GMO corn. The EPA standard for glyphosate in American water supplies is 0.7 ppm. In Europe, the maximum allowable level in water is 0.2 ppm. Organ damage in animals has occurred at levels as low as 0.1 ppm… GMO corn was also found to contain extremely high levels of formaldehyde. According to Dr. Huber, at least one study found that 0.97 ppm of ingested formaldehyde was toxic to animals. GMO corn contains a staggering 200 times that amount! Perhaps it’s no wonder that animals, when given a choice, avoid genetically engineered feed like the plague.

GE Crops are NOT the ‘Most Tested’ Product in the World

It’s important to realize that genetically engineered (GE) foods have never been proven safe for human consumption over a lifetime, let alone over generations. Monsanto and its advocates claim genetically engineered crops are “the most-tested food product that the world has ever seen.” What they don’t tell you is that:

• Industry-funded research predictably affects the outcome of the trial. This has been verified by dozens of scientific reviews comparing funding with the findings of the study. When industry funds the research, it’s virtually guaranteed to be positive. Therefore, independent studies must be done to replicate and thus verify results.
• The longest industry-funded animal feeding study was 90 days, which recent research has confirmed is FAR too short. In the world’s first independently funded lifetime feeding study, massive health problems set in during and after the 13th month, including organ damage and cancer.
• Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta rarely if ever allow independent researchers access to their patented seeds, citing the legal protection these seeds have under patent laws. Hence independent research is extremely difficult or nearly impossible to conduct. If these scientists get seeds from a farmer, they sue them into oblivion as one of their favorite tactics is to use the legal system to their advantage. Additionally, virtually all academic agricultural research is controlled by Monsanto as they are the primary supporters of these departments and none will risk losing their funding from them.
• There is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the GE item in question has been approved, not a single country on earth is actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health effects.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Beating cancer with chemotherapy and better drugs

The mythology of cancer sees many claims. One of which is that we are beating cancer due to earlier diagnosis and better drugs. Let us consider the available research on chemotherapy – for almost every cancer patient treated with drugs is still, inevitably, given at least one round of good old chemotherapy.

Available research evidence does indeed point to chemotherapy having a positive effect for some cancer patients.

Let’s start here:

(1) The Department of Oncology at North Sydney Cancer Centre in 2004 published a report evaluating chemotherapy over the years and concluded that ‘it only made a minor contribution to survival’. The figures they came up with were 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in America. In Britain there are 320,000 people diagnosed with cancer a year. About 60 per cent have chemo (although some of these people do not actually have cancer and were misdiagnosed by mammograms etc). Being generous and assuming no misdiagnoses, that would mean that chemotherapy had an effect on about 3,600 people. I cannot tell you from the research whether ‘effect’ means they were cured or whether they reached 5-year survival, or what. Sorry, I didn’t find the research very clear on that point.

(2) Somewhat alarmingly, last year we had the report from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle that concluded ‘Chemotherapy can cause cancer to return’. Note that they did not say, ‘we know cancer can return after chemo’, which is how Cancer Research responded to this study. They said CAUSE – apparently chemotherapy can cause healthy cells to produce a protein WNT16B and this is taken up by cancer cells – it helps them re-grow and even protects them from the next round of chemotherapy.

You may feel that all this misses an important point and that drugs have moved on – chemo is past it; old hat: Drugs like Tamoxifen, Aromatase Inhibitors and Herceptin are not really chemotherapy agents, and you’d be right. In 2012 a couple of reports shed some light on the current state of play.

(3) Firstly, one study (lead by Professor Carlos Caldas – reported in Nature) had Cancer Research all excited. A ‘landmark study’ from their Cambridge Institute showed there were 10 different ‘clusters’ of breast cancer types. ‘No longer does one size fit all’ they cried at CRUK. (It would be churlish of me to mention that CANCERactive have been saying that for ten years, but what the heck). In the future CRUK are suggesting they can more accurately develop treatments for each cluster. The problem at the moment is that there are only treatments for two of the clusters, the Tamoxifen/AIs one and the ‘HER-2 targeted therapy using Herceptin’ cluster. So here’s a real improvement: 2 out of 10 is better that 2.3 per cent.

(4) Unfortunately, the excitement was crushed somewhat when three research studies reported on the existence of Cancer Stem Cells at the heart of tumours. A couple of UK cancer centres (Bart’s Hospital and the Blizzard Institute, London) have even isolated these nasty little cells. Apparently, if you don’t kill them off, they can re-grow.

In one of the three studies (from the University of Texas South Western Medical Centre), there were statements such as ‘Cancer Stem cells are in charge of tumours’, and the lead researcher, Dr Louis Parada and the other researchers added, ‘In the past we have tried to get rid of the entire stew of cancer cells. But shrinking a tumour by 50% is irrelevant. No current drugs tackle cancer stem cells – but at least we now know what to go after’.

(5) We are by no means ‘against chemotherapy’ at Junk Science UK, we just think the mythology and the hype needs to be calmed down. Perhaps the final words should therefore go to Duke’s University Medical Centre in Carolina who in their 2012 report concluded that ‘Patients with cancer are largely being mislead into believing that the drug they are being offered is somehow going to cure them’.

Oh dear.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CANCER UPDATE not from Johns Hopkins Kimmel

Below is a list of steps to beat cancer, supposedly from Johns Hopkins Kimmel School of Medicine in Baltimore.

However, the cancer center has strenuously denied it is from them, even publishing a denial and warnings:
“Information falsely attributed to Johns Hopkins called, “CANCER UPDATE FROM JOHN HOPKINS” describes properties of cancer cells and suggests ways of preventing cancer. Johns Hopkins did not publish the information, which often is an email attachment, nor do we endorse its contents.”

It first did the rounds about 5 years ago but has re-emerged recently with a few changes and improvements. Whatever, it’s pretty accurate.

Perhaps it’s just an anti-skeptic spoof out of the USA. … ….Apparently…
“Emails offering easy remedies for avoiding and curing cancer are the latest Web-influenced trend. To gain credibility, the anonymous authors falsely attribute their work to respected research institutions like Johns Hopkins. This is the case with the so-called “Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins.”

Perhaps it was an April 1st hoax?

“The gist of this viral email is that cancer therapies of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy do not work against the disease and people should instead choose a variety of dietary strategies.

Traditional therapies, such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, work. The evidence is the millions of cancer survivors in the United States today who are alive because of these therapies. We recognize that treatments don’t work in every patient, or sometimes work for awhile and then stop working, and there are some cancers that are more difficult to cure than others. These problems are the focus of ongoing cancer research.”

Read for yourself:

from Johns Hopkins


1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.

2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person’s lifetime.

3. When the person’s immune system is strong the cancer cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.

4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.

5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and including supplements will strengthen the immune system.

6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastro-intestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.

7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.

8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.

9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.

10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites.

11. An effective way to battle cancer is to STARVE the cancer cells by not feeding it with foods it needs to multiple.

What cancer cells feed on:

a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important food supply to the cancer cells. Note: Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in colour. Better alternative is Bragg’s aminos or sea salt.

b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk, cancer cells will be starved.

c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.

d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruit help put the body into an alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells.

To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).

e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties. Water–best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.

12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines will become putrified and leads to more toxic build up.

13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the body’s killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.

14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the body’s own killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body’s normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.

15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor.

Anger, unforgiving and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.

16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.

You could find a more-accurate summary on

, , , , ,

GM Tomatoes to cure Heart disease and more?!

Forget spirulina, pomegranates, blueberries, and the host of other natural “superfoods” with incredible nutritive and healing powers — the biotechnology industry has developed a new purple “Frankentomato” that it claims can single-handedly halt inflammation, stop plaque buildup in arteries, and even cure cancer! An outrageous new propaganda campaign currently making the rounds in the mainstream media, and headed by researchers with a vested interest in seeing the new mutant tomato succeed, claims that genetically-modified (GM) tomatoes are key to eliminating heart disease globally, even though there are already plenty of nature-made fruits and vegetables, including other varieties of tomatoes, that naturally perform this and many other medicinal functions.

This latest affront to natural food comes out of the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), where Dr. Alan Fogelman, Executive Chair of the Department of Medicine and Director of the Atherosclerosis Research Unit, recently led a team of researchers in conducting a shoddy, deceptive study that just so happened to arrive at glowing conclusions concerning the team’s prized GM tomato. According to the study, which was presented at the annual American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions, adding a little bit of GM tomato extract to rats’ diets, which were said to be mostly composed of “Western-style, high-fat, calorie-packed” foods, helped them to experience “significantly lower blood levels of inflammation.”

But the trial, as pointed out by, was small, poorly conducted, and was neither peer-reviewed nor published in an actual scientific journal. And yet mainstream media coverage of the study has been relentlessly forgiving of these blatant flaws, with popular news sources parading around ridiculous headlines like “Purple tomato can beat cancer,” and “How my purple tomato could save your life,” which falsely imply that this untested mutant food is somehow a proven cure for whatever heart condition or disease that might be ailing you. Snake oil anyone?

Learn more:

, , , , , , , , , , ,


New Blockbuster Diabetes Drugs may well increase cancer risk, according to Dr Mercola

Several studies of the newest blockbuster drug for diabetes, Januvia, have implicated these very common drugs to cause a number of different cancers. They will likely be removed from the market but perhaps not until they’ve killed many.

There simply is no reason these dangerous drugs should ever be used as they fail to treat the cause of the disease. Anyone on them now ideally should stop taking them and follow a healthy eating plan, which will radically improve, if not completely resolve, their diabetes.

Acknowledged side effects of Januvia and Janumet, include anaphylaxis and acute pancreatitis—both of which can be lethal. Anaphylaxis is in fact such a grave hazard with this drug that it actually carries a black box warning for lactic acidosis: “If acidosis is suspected, discontinue Janumet and hospitalize the patient immediately.”

This new class of drugs inhibits the enzyme DPP-4 which also happens to be a tumor suppressor. Studies have shown that when you suppress DPP-4 (which is precisely what these drugs do), cancer cells are allowed to proliferate. According to Januvia’s drug information, the drug inhibits the DPP-4 enzyme for 24 hours, and you take it daily, effectively permanently blocking the activity of a tumor suppressor gene.

None of the safety studies on Januvia addressed its impact on tumor growth prior to approval.

Januvia is now the number one best-selling drug in the oral diabetes market. Should such a blockbuster drug be proven to be connected to cancer, it’s a HUGE loss not only to Merck, but several other major pharmaceutical companies that have developed similar drugs. Drug companies like Merck could make MASSIVE amounts of money from these clearly dangerous drugs while cancer slowly and quietly grows in patients taking them.

For the full story:


, , , , , , , , ,