NMR Lipoprofile—the Most Important Test to Determine Heart Disease Risk

                            SPONSORS

           The Solution For Disease FREE Health...                  

                http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i

              

          Prevent Alzheimer's With Natural Remedies!

                   http://bit.ly/H8y8Uz

 

I just found the coolest way to make money from your computer!

Check it out.

                   http://bit.ly/1ga9NeR

By Dr. Mercola

NMR Lipoprofile—the Most Important Test to Determine Heart Disease Risk

    The incorrect idea that high cholesterol causes heart disease has led to
the demonization of entire categories of extremely healthful foods (like eggs
and saturated fats), and cholesterol has been falsely blamed for just about
every case of heart disease in the last 20 years.

    Fat and cholesterol are commonly believed to be the worst foods you can
consume. Please understand that these myths are actually harming your health.

    Not only is cholesterol most likely not going to destroy your health (as
you have been led to believe), but it is also not the cause of heart disease.

    Chris Kresser, L.Ac., an acupuncturist and a licensed integrative
medicine clinician, has investigated risk factors for heart disease and
promotes the use of a relatively novel way of assessing your heart disease
risk based on your LDL particle number.

    He’s currently writing a book about this topic for the Paleo ancestral
health community. His interest grew from losing his grandfather to heart
disease several years ago. His grandfather’s case was badly mismanaged,
which spurred Kresser to learn more about what really causes heart disease.

    A few years later, while in graduate school studying integrative medicine,
he did a semester-long research project on the relationship between
cholesterol and heart disease.

    Since then, he’s read about 750 peer-reviewed studies, consulted with
numerous experts in the field, and has challenged everything he thought he
knew about the role of cholesterol in heart disease.

    Over the last several years, he’s been sharing that information on his
blog, in his podcast, and in educational seminars and programs.

The Problem with the Conventional Approach, in a Nutshell

    For the past 50 years, you’ve been told that eating saturated fat and
high-cholesterol foods will raise cholesterol serum levels. However,
researchpublished over the past 10 or 15 years suggests that neither of
those statements are true.

    Furthermore, the typical cholesterol tests your doctor prescribes, which
are supposed to measure your risk for heart disease, don’t actually do a very
good job of predicting your risk.

    You can have low or normal LDL or total cholesterol and still be at high
risk from heart disease. Alternatively, you can have high or normal total or
LDL cholesterol yet be at low risk. Subsequently, many are not getting enough
treatment, and others are getting too much.

        “We’ve learned a lot about what causes heart disease over the past 10
years,” Kresser says. “But unfortunately, that knowledge hasn’t really
trickled down into the mainstream yet. So, your average general care
physician, primary care nurse, or even science writer that’s writing for the
mainstream media is still operating on information from the old paradigm.

        The other issue is that the current dietary guidelines that are
offered for how to reduce your risk for heart disease are based on this
information that’s still 30 to 50 years old. And they’re clearly not working.
Cardiovascular disease is still the number one killer. One out of every three
deaths is due to this cardiovascular disease, and it affects about 65 million
people in the U.S. alone.”

The INTERHEART study,

 

which looked at heart disease risk factors in over 50 countries around the
world, found that 90 percent of heart disease cases are completely preventable
by modifying diet and lifestyle factors. As Kresser points out, we clearly need
a new approach that’s based on more current evidence.

        “The problem, of course, that we face is that the old paradigm is so
entrenched. The idea that cholesterol and saturated fat are bad for us is so
deeply engrained in our society that a lot of us don’t even question that
anymore.

        One of the main problems there is the massive conflicts of interest
in the medical profession. We have a situation where two-thirds of medical
research is sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Eight out of nine of the
doctors who are on the National Cholesterol Education program that write the
guidelines for cholesterol receive money from pharmaceutical companies,” he
says.

Conventional Tests Are Not Accurate Predictors of Heart Disease

    If you’ve had your cholesterol levels checked, your doctor most likely
tested your total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and
triglycerides. But we now know those are not accurate predictors for
cardiovascular disease risk. According to Kresser, a much more accurate
predictor is testing your LDL particle number. He explains:

        “To use an analogy: if you imagine your bloodstream’s like a river,
the LDL particles are like the boats that carry the cholesterol and fats
around your body. The cholesterol and fats are like cargo in the boats. Right
now doctors are usually measuring the amount of cargo or cholesterol in the
LDL particles. But what we should be measuring is the number of LDL
particles, or the number of boats in the river, so to speak, because that’s a
much more accurate risk factor for heart disease.”

    As mentioned, it’s possible to have normal total or LDL cholesterol yet
have a high number of LDL particles. This is completely missed using the
conventional testing. On the other hand, you may end up being prescribed a
statin drug to lower your cholesterol when in fact your LDL particle number
is normal, placing you in the low risk category for heart disease. (As a
general rule, regardless of your LDL particle number, chances are you do NOT
need a statin drug to address high cholesterol. The only people who may truly
benefit from a statin drug are those with the genetic defect called familial
hypercholesterolemia.)

How to Test Your LDL Particle Number

    Some groups, such as the National Lipid Association, are now starting to
shift the focus toward LDL particle number instead of total and LDL
cholesterol, but it still has not hit mainstream. Fortunately, if you know
about it, you can take control of your health and either ask your doctor for
this test, or order it yourself.

    There are several ways to test for your LDL particle number. Kresser
recommends using the NMR LipoProfile, offered by a lab called Liposcience.
The test uses FDA approved technology for testing LDL particle number, and
it’s the test used in most of the scientific studies on LDL particles.

        “All the different lipoproteins have a unique magnetic signature, and
this test uses a nuclear magnetic resonance technique to pick up on that
signature. It can correctly identify the number of particles in each case,”
he explains.

    It’s easy to get and all major labs offer it, including LabCorp and
Quest. Most insurance policies cover the test as well. Best of all, even if
your doctor were to refuse to order it, you can order it yourself via third-
party intermediaries like Direct Labs, or you can order the test online, and
get blood drawn locally.

    In Europe and other parts of the world, LDL particle number is more
commonly measured using an indirect marker, apolipoprotein B (apoB). ApoB is
a protein required for the formation of the LDL particle. About 90-95% of
apoB particles are LDL particles, which makes apoB a fairly accurate measure
of LDL particle number. If you live in a country where the NMR profile is not
available, you can use the ApoB test to roughly determine your LDL particle
number, and then use triglycerides, HDL, fasting blood sugar, blood pressure
and waist-to-hip ratio to determine if you have insulin resistance.

The Devil Is in the Details... 

How Medicine Got the Wrong Idea about Fats    Saturated fat has long been
demonized as a heart attack waiting tohappen, and many doctors still cling
to this outdated view. Ironically,saturated fat is not only healthful fat, it’s one
of the most importantdietary factors to support health! There’s simply no way
to calculate theharm inflicted by the low-fat craze. We now know that if you
avoid saturatedfats, you’re asking for trouble. Not only is saturated fat the
optimal fuelfor your brain, it also:

  Provides building blocks for cell membranes, hormones, and hormone-like
substances

  Acts as carriers for important fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K

  Is required for the conversion of carotene to vitamin A, and for mineral 
absorption

  Acts as antiviral agents (caprylic acid)

  Helps lower cholesterol levels (palmitic and stearic acids)

  Modulates genetic regulation and helps prevent cancer (butyric acid)

    The US Department of Agriculture's dietary guidelines1 advises you to
consume less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fats. I and other
nutritional experts have warned that most people actually need upwards of
50-70 percent healthful fats, including saturated fat, in their diet for
optimal health. How did medicine get this so wrong?

    A combination of factors is likely to blame. There were early studies
showing that saturated fat raised cholesterol levels in the blood, but they
were almost always short-term studies. Since then, much larger observational
studies, conducted for extended periods of time have been done, completely
refuting earlier short-term results. Later studies have shown absolutely NO
relationship between saturated fat intake and blood cholesterol levels.

        “We’re talking about some really big, well-known studies that cover
tens of thousands of people,” Kresser says. “In fact, there was research
published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that covered about
350,000 people in a follow-up period of five to 23 years. And there was no
relationship at all between saturated fat intake and heart disease. And then
a large Japanese study of about 58,000 people actually found an inverse
association between saturated fat intake and strokes. So, in other words, the
people who were eating the most saturated fat actually had the lowest levels
of stroke.”

    Another problem is that early studies did not differentiate between
critically important omega-3 and less health-promoting omega-6 fats.

        “There’s a study... that went back and looked at some data. Some of
the early data suggested that replacing saturated fat with industrial seed
oil or polyunsaturated fat would lower cholesterol and lower the risk of
heart disease. But what they didn’t realize back in the ‘60s when they were
doing those studies [was the difference between omega-3 and omega-6; they
thought all polyunsaturated fats were the same, so they would lump them
together in the studies.

        Now we understand that omega-6 has very different effects from
omega-3. When you study them separately, you see that omega-6 actually
doesn’t reduce the risk of heart disease and may increase the risk of heart
disease when it’s studied independently of omega-3s.”

    Today we have yet another complicating factor when it comes to omega-6
fats and that’s the fact that many of them now come from genetically
engineered corn and soy. When you add that into the mix, the health hazards
may be worse than we currently imagine.

Which Fats Are Healthy?

    Sources of healthful fats (and in some cases cholesterol) include:

  Olives and Olive oil

  Coconuts and coconut oil

  Butter made from raw grass-fed organic milk

  Raw nuts, such as almonds or pecans

  Organic pastured egg yolks

  Avocados

  Grass-fed meats

  Unheated organic nut oil

    Another healthful fat you want to be mindful of is animal-based omega-3.
Deficiency in this essential fat can cause or contribute to very serious
health problems, both mental and physical, and may be a significant
underlying factor of up to 96,000 premature deaths each year. For more
information about omega-3s and the best sources of this fat, please review
this previous article.


                          Continued

God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com

PS Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.

Scientific and Medical Corruption...

                            SPONSORS

         The Solution For Disease FREE Health...

                   http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i
                   

               New - Reverse Your Diabetes Today

                   http://tinyurl.com/n8bygev

 

I just found the coolest way to make money from your computer!

Check it out.

                   http://bit.ly/1ga9NeR

 

           Continued From Last Post

Quackwatch

You might be interested to know exactly what the NIH, quackwatch, etc.
complained about in the Cameron/Pauling study. They complained it was not a
"double blind" study.

Now let's think about this for a moment. Suppose two groups are selected for
a study and the patients are not told which group they are in. The first
group is secretly given Vitamin C in an IV, which builds their immune system,
provides zero pain, and the patients feel fine. The second group is secretly
given chemotherapy in an IV, which destroys their immune system, destroys
their vital organs, makes them feel sick, and causes enormous pain. Do you
think the patients could figure out which group they were in? Do you think
you could do a "double blind" study with Vitamin C versus chemotherapy? Don't
be ridiculous. Within a matter of days each group would know what kind of
treatment they were on.

But it gets deeper than that. Let me quote from quackwatch, a defender of
orthodox medicine and one of the major servants of Big Pharma. See if you can
figure out what tricks of logic they are using before you read my comments
about their statement:

    "The Pauling/Cameron study 

 

was not a clinical trial in which patients were compared to carefully matched
patients chosen at random and followed using a standardized [selection] protocol.
Instead, Pauling and Cameron attempted to reconstruct what happened to the
control group by examining their medical records. Most cancer specialists and
journal editors are extremely reluctant to accept [medical records] for evaluating
the validity of contemporary cancer therapy, primarily because bias may occur
in selecting controls."
  
First of all, it is a blatant lie that medical records are not acceptable in
medical research, they are frequently used. Second, there was nothing
unethical about using a single group. These patients were going to die in any
case, it was only a matter of when and the difference at most would only be a
matter of weeks. Furthermore, by not taking chemotherapy, the patients would
be in much less pain even if they did not live as long.

There are many cancer patients who would rather have a less painful treatment
plan, even if they don't live as long. In fact many cancer patients drop out
of chemotherapy because they lose interest in a treatment plan that makes
them so sick and causes them so much pain and misery.

But to go a little deeper, image that two cars collide in an intersection, a
red car and a green car. The red car ran a "red light" several seconds after
the light had turned red and was speeding as it entered the intersection. The
green car, which did not enter the intersection until after the light turned
green, had one tire that was low in air pressure. Imagine the judge saying
that the green car was at fault because the air pressure in one of its tires
was low. Imagine the judge ignoring the fact that the red car ran a red light
and was speeding! Using Barrett's logic, the green car was at fault.

What Barrett's (the M.D. owner of quackwatch) site

was saying was that there was no placebo control group. In other words,
when they picked the control group, they used medical records rather than
a placebo control group. The key question is this: "if Cameron and Pauling
had used a placebo group, instead of medical records, would the psychological
effect of taking a placebo have resulted in the placebo control group living
several times longer than they did?" Barrett must that thought the answer to
that question was "yes." As already mentioned, such a study would be impossible
when comparing Vitamin C to chemotherapy, which is what Cameron and
Pauling were comparing.

But there is another problem. If a placebo group were required, what two
groups would you use? It could not be Vitamin C versus chemotherapy, because
one group must be given nothing (i.e. a placebo). But if you compare the
placebo group to the Vitamin C group (which actually would have been
acceptable if that is what you were studying), you still have to ultimately
compare the Vitamin C group to the chemotherapy group by using medical
records. Thus, you cannot get around using medical records if you want to
compare Vitamin C to chemotherapy.

The main reason for doing a double-blind study 

is to gauge any psychological factor that may exist in the minds of the participants.
In other words, if both groups think they are getting the real medication (Vitamin
C in this case), then you eliminate any psychological factor.

Is it possible that in four different studies, done in three different
countries (Scotland, Canada and Japan), that a psychological factor caused a
several-fold increase in survival time? If so, why didn't both groups in the
Mayo Clinic studies survive several times longer than expected, because both
groups thought they were getting Vitamin C? Even if the psychological theory
was true, I would still give people Vitamin C, if their psychological state
of mind caused them to live several times longer!

If fact, Barrett's argument is total nonsense. The purpose of the study was
to compare Vitamin C to chemotherapy, and that is impossible to do using a
double blind study. The real reason the two groups of studies yielded
different results was the treatment protocol, not the psychological effect of
a placebo.

Here is the important thing, quackwatch didn't even mention that there were
any differences in the treatment protocols between Pauling and Moertel (i.e.
they didn't mention that the red car had run a red light or that it was
speeding). Their focus was on the selection protocol (i.e. the air pressure
in the tires of the two cars).

Do you see how quackwatch twists the facts and uses sensationalism to divert
your attention from the most important issues. It is as if Dr. Cameron did
not know how to determine which hospital the patients were at, what kind of
cancer they had, which stage of cancer the patients were at, and which
doctors treated which patients. Let me re-quote from above:

    "These patients were then compared by Cameron and me to patients with the
same kind of cancer at the same terminal stage who were being treated in the
same hospital but by other doctors--doctors who didn't give vitamin C, but
instead just gave conventional treatments."

To quackwatch, this wasn't good enough because it didn't come to the correct
answer - use prescription drugs. The vastly different treatment protocol used
by the Mayo Clinic is more "scientific" because it leads you to take
prescription drugs. Get used to this type of propaganda, you will see it all
the time. They love to divert your attention with irrelevant issues.

A normal, open-minded researcher, if they studied the Pauling/Cameron studies
and the three Mayo Clinic studies, would quickly look at the selection
protocol and see nothing significant to complain about. They would then focus
their attention on the treatment protocol. Since the two groups of studies
had vastly different results, it would be absolutely obvious to the
legitimate researchers that something significant was different about their
studies. By far the thing that was most significant was the treatment
protocols.

Barrett also has a page on Linus Pauling himself. The title to the quackwatch
page on Linus Pauling is titled: "The Dark Side of Linus Pauling's Legacy."
Ohhhh, it sounds like Linus Pauling joined the "Dark Side" before he died.

The article starts:

    "Linus Pauling, Ph.D., was the only person ever to win two unshared Nobel
prizes. He received these awards for chemistry in 1954 and for peace in 1962.
His recent death has stimulated many tributes to his scientific
accomplishments. His impact on the health marketplace [sic], however, was
anything but laudable."

Yes, I agree Pauling's impact on Big Pharma was not laudable. He was a pain
in their neck. He had integrity, which is something they cannot tolerate. He
also cared about people more than money, and they view people no deeper than
a "source of money to increase earnings per share."

You should realize that Vitamin C, by itself, is not a cure for cancer, but
if it can extend the life of terminal cancer patients by 5 1/2 years or even
1 year (depending on how advanced they were when treatment began), that gives
them plenty of time to use the natural treatments that do cure cancer. That
makes Big Pharma even madder.

Later, I will talk about the "top 100" most effective alternative treatments
for cancer. Where does Vitamin C therapy fit in this list? It is not on the
list. Not even close. It's cure rate is far too low. It is used in
alternative medicine largely to extend the life of the patient so far more
effective treatments have more time to work.

The Bogus Mayo Clinic Studies on Laetrile

Largely the same people at the Mayo clinic also did two bogus studies on
laetrile therapy to discredit the tens of thousands of testimonials of people
cured by laetrile therapy. The public was beginning to believe that laetrile
actually worked. Time for damage control. Guess what, the Mayo Clinic did not
follow standard American protocol and dosages.

For example, if they had followed the standard laetrile diet, which is
virtually the same thing as a "raw food" diet, the diet alone would have
significantly extended the lives of the patients.

But in this case it was the watered-down and phony "laetrile" the NIH
provided to the Mayo Clinic that was perhaps the most bogus part of these
studies. The NIH, which funded the bogus studies, did not allow an
alternative treatment vendor to supply the laetrile for at least one of the
studies, even though they offered to supply the laetrile for free.

God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com

PS Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.

Case Study of Scientific Corruption...Big Pharma.

                            SPONSORS

         The Solution For Disease FREE Health...

                   http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i

                   

               New - Reverse Your Diabetes Today

                   http://tinyurl.com/n8bygev

I just found the coolest way to make money from your computer!

Check it out.

                   http://bit.ly/1ga9NeR

The Dr. Ewan Cameron and Linus Pauling, PhD Vitamin C Experiment

Linus Pauling is one of the few people in history who has won two Nobel
Prizes and is the only person to have won two unshared Nobel Prizes. He lived
well into his 90s. Here is a quote from an interview with him:

    "I became interested in vitamin C and cancer in 1971 and began working
with Ewan Cameron, M.B., Ch.B., chief surgeon at Vale of Leven Hospital in
Scotland. Cameron gave 10 grams of vitamin C a day to patients with
untreatable, terminal cancer. These patients were then compared by Cameron
and me to patients with the same kind of cancer at the same terminal stage
who were being treated in the same hospital but by other doctors--doctors who
didn't give vitamin C, but instead just gave conventional treatments.

    Cameron's terminal cancer patients lived far longer compared to the ones
who didn't get 10 grams a day of vitamin C. The other patients lived an
average of six months after they were pronounced terminal, while Cameron's
patients lived an average of about six years.

    More recently I've been collaborating with Hoffer, a physician in
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Hoffer has treated 300 cancer patients
and has recommended to all of them essentially the same treatment [as
Cameron]. But about a quarter or a third of the patients didn't follow the
treatment for one reason or another: The family doctor might have said that
those high doses of vitamins would kill them, or the patient might have had a
stomach upset and not wanted to continue taking the vitamins.

    The terminal cancer patients who didn't follow Hoffer's regimen had a
survival time of only about six months. But the ones who followed Hoffer's
therapy have done even better than Cameron's patients. On the average they
lived about 12 years after being pronounced terminal with untreatable cancer.

    Hoffer's regimen includes 12 grams of vitamin C per day, about the same
as Cameron's. But it also includes significant amounts of other nutrients:
800 units of vitamin E, 1,000 or 2,000 mg of niacin, large amounts of the
other B vitamins and vitamin A in the form of beta carotene. Apparently the
other vitamins cooperate with the vitamin C to give even greater control over
cancer."   

(Warning: Do not even think about going on a Vitamin C 

treatment program

until you have read my entire tutorial on alternative treatments for cancer.)
Actually, there were multiple experiments done by Cameron and Pauling. Their
treatment protocol was very simple:

1) Pick cancer patients who were diagnosed as terminal,
2) Who had never had chemotherapy or radiation (there were exceptions),
3) Give them 10 grams (or more) of liquid Vitamin C every day (instead of
chemotherapy) (note: these days people use crystal Vitamin C or pills),
4) For the rest of their lives,
5) Then measure how long they live.

It's a pretty simple protocol. A high school student could easily follow
their protocol. The results of their experiments were also very simple, the
patients who took Vitamin C lived several times longer than patients who took
orthodox treatments with chemotherapy and radiation. Some of their patients
(remember all of their patients were considered terminal) went into complete
remission, just using Vitamin C.

Their studies were designed to compare a Vitamin C treatment protocol,
without chemotherapy and radiation, to a typical orthodox protocol using
chemotherapy and radiation.

Note that they did not use a tricky statistic, such as determining what
percentage of the patients lived for one year, but rather they measured how
long each patient lived.

Their experiments proved beyond reasonable doubt that Vitamin C is a superior
treatment for terminal patients versus orthodox therapy. Excuse me for
stating the obvious, but if it is a superior treatment for terminal patients,
then it is a superior treatment, instead of orthodox treatments, for the vast
majority of cancer patients.

Orthodox treatments are extremely painful, destroy a person's immune system,
destroy their vital organs, and have a whole slew of other painful and
dangerous side-effects. Vitamin C is an antioxidant that: is completely
painless, builds the immune system and adds quality time and quantity time to
the life of terminal cancer patients.

So you might wonder, since these studies were done many years ago, why do
doctors today use toxic chemotherapy instead of Vitamin C, and the other
vitamins of Hoffer?

Big Pharma's Reaction To Cameron and Pauling

Well, it turns out that Big Pharma was not happy with Linus Pauling and Dr.
Cameron. It was time for damage control. There was a smear campaign to
discredit Dr. Pauling that continues to this day. The reason is that the
patients who took Vitamin C did not take chemotherapy. Thus, Big Pharma did
not stand to profit from the extended lives of these patients. In fact, Big
Pharma did not stand to profit from these patients at all.

Now you know why Big Pharma has been attacking Vitamin C and Linus Pauling
for many years. If cancer patients took mega doses of Vitamin C, instead of
chemotherapy, they would live longer and have far less pain. I will translate
that into something a businessman can understand: less "earnings per share"
for Big Pharma.

The truth about what Cameron and Pauling had discovered had to be crushed.
But since the studies were already published, and because Pauling was already
world-famous, what was Big Pharma going to do? The answer was to conduct
bogus studies which came to different conclusions. But how can a scientific
study follow the same treatment protocol and come to a different conclusion?

It can't. However, what can be done is to refuse to follow the same protocol
and use very fancy statistical tricks. That is exactly what happened.

But who would do such a bogus study, the treatment protocol was so simple an
idiot could have followed it? You track down a doctor known to hate
alternative medicine, one Dr. Moertel of the Mayo Clinic.

In response to the success of the Cameron/Pauling studies, the NIH funded a
totally bogus "study" at the Mayo Clinic on Vitamin C that did not even
remotely follow the same patient selection protocol or the same treatment
protocol. Of course since they made no attempt to replicate the Cameron and
Pauling study, they did not get the same results. Was the protocol too
complicated for them to follow?

When Cameron and Pauling complained that the study was so overtly and grossly
bogus (this ridiculous study was actually published in a major medical
journal - the New England Journal of Medicine), a second bogus "study" was
commissioned by the same NIH. You might call this: "a bogus study replacement
technique" for Big Pharma and corrupt scientists. Needless to say, the Mayo
Clinic again refused to follow the simple treatment protocol and again they
did not obtain the same results. There was even a third study, and guess
what, again they did not follow the same treatment protocol and did not get
the same results (Note: technically this third study was done by a different
group, but this group was affiliated with the Mayo Clinic). Do you see a
pattern here?

The fact of the matter is, the doctors at the Mayo Clinic knew the
Cameron/Pauling protocol worked and they knew that if they followed their
protocols they would have come to the same results. So they never did follow
their protocols and obviously never did replicate their results. The most
educational thing about their studies was the incredible statistical tricks
they used to avoid the truth.

Not only did Hoffer follow the Cameron/Pauling protocols, but a Japanese
study also replicated their selection and treatment protocols and also
replicated their results! Four totally independent studies (two by Cameron)
used the same treatment protocol and got the same results. Three bogus
studies at Mayo Clinic did not use the same treatment protocol and did not
get the same results.

The Mayo Clinic studies were done specifically to discredit the work of two-
time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling. Linus Pauling was getting people to
believe there was "scientific evidence" for Vitamin C, and he had to be
stopped. It is totally unacceptable (from the viewpoint of Big Pharma) for
our corrupt government to allow any scientific evidence for alternative
treatments of cancer. Because there was scientific evidence for Vitamin C,
and because they could not shut-up a two-time Nobel Prize winner, there had
to be bogus studies designed to divert people's attention from the valid
studies. Once the bogus studies were finished, the media could then take over
the suppression of truth and immediately start blacklisting the valid
studies.

A Little Logic

Which of these seven studies do all government agencies, quackwatch, the BC
Cancer Agency, American Cancer Society, ad nauseum, depend on to justify the
use of chemotherapy instead of mega doses of Vitamin C? Duh. They quote the
three Mayo Clinic studies and complain that Pauling and Cameron did not know
what they were doing. In other words, the Mayo Clinic refused to follow the
simple protocol, and it was Cameron and Pauling's fault! Hmmm.

Did you follow all of that? Let me summarize it this way:

Group A (Cameron and Pauling) found that Vitamin C extends the lives of
terminal cancer patients several-fold. Group B (Hoffer and the Japanese),
using the same protocol as Group A, confirmed their findings. Group C (the
Mayo Clinic), which said they were going to test the validity of the Group A
study, did not use the same selection protocol or treatment protocol as Group
A, and obviously did not replicate their results. Group A complained that
Group C made absolutely no attempt to use the same treatment protocol as
Group A. Thus, Group C did a second study, and again did not follow Group A's
protocols, and again did not replicate their results. This happened a third
time. Group D (quackwatch, etc.) then comes along, and claims that Group C
knew what they were doing and that the studies of Group A and Group B were
bogus.

Now you know what is going on in medicine. The treatment protocol is
irrelevant to scientists who defend Big Pharma, they are only interested in
making sure Vitamin C doesn't look good because Vitamin C is not profitable
to Big Pharma.

                           Continued

God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com

PS Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.

.

Why Your Brain Craves Music

                            SPONSORS

         The Solution For Disease FREE Health...

                   http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i
                   

               New - Reverse Your Diabetes Today

                   http://tinyurl.com/n8bygev

I just found the coolest way to make money from your computer!

Check it out.

                   http://bit.ly/1ga9NeR

By Dr. Mercola

    If you’re a music lover, 

you already know that turning on the tunes canhelp calm your nerves, make
stress disappear, pump up your energy levelduring a workout, bring back old
memories, as well as prompt countless other emotions too varied to list.

    Even if you’re not a music aficionado, per se, there are compelling
reasons why you may want to become one, which were recently revealed by a
series of new research.

Music Prompts Numerous Brain Changes Linked to Emotions and 

Abstract Decision Making

    When you listen to music, much more is happening in your body than simple
auditory processing. Music triggers activity in the nucleus accumbens, a part
of your brain that releases the feel-good chemical dopamine and is involved
in forming expectations.

    At the same time, the amygdala, which is involved in processing emotion,
and the prefrontal cortex, which makes possible abstract decision-making, are
also activated, according to new research published in the journal Science.

    Based on the brain activity in certain regions, especially the nucleus
accumbens, captured by an fMRI imager while participants listened to music,
the researchers could predict how much money the listeners were willing to
spend on previously unheard music. As you might suspect, songs that triggered
activity in the emotional and intellectual areas of the brain demanded ahigher
price.

    Interestingly, the study’s lead author noted that your brain learns how
to predict how different pieces of music will unfold using pattern
recognition and prediction, skills that may have been key to our evolutionary
progress.

Time reported: 

 

        “These predictions are culture-dependent and based on experience:
someone raised on rock or Western classical music won’t be able to predict
the course of an Indian raga, for example, and vice versa.

        But if a piece develops in a way that’s both slightly novel and still
in line with our brain’s prediction, we tend to like it a lot. And that, says
[lead researcher] Salimpoor, ‘is because we’ve made a kind of intellectual
conquest.’

        Music may, in other words, tap into a brain mechanism that was key to
our evolutionary progress. The ability to recognize patterns and generalize
from experience, to predict what’s likely to happen in the future — in short,
the ability to imagine — is something humans do far better than any other
animals. It’s what allowed us (aided by the far less glamorous opposable
thumb) to take over the world.”

Why Music Makes Us Feel United

 

    So far we’ve covered that music is involved in both emotional and
intellectual centers of your brain, but music also has an, almost uncanny,
ability to connect us to one another.

    Separate research published this month showed one reason for why this
might be. When listening to four pieces of classical music they had never
heard before, study participants’ brains reacted in much the same way. Areas
of the brain involved in movement planning, memory and attention all had
similar activation patterns when the participants listened to the same music,
which suggests we may each experience music in similar ways.

    The study’s lead author noted:

 

        "We spend a lot of time listening to music -- often in groups, and
often in conjunction with synchronized movement and dance … Here,
we've shownfor the first time that despite our individual differences in
musicalexperiences and preferences, classical music elicits a highly
consistentpattern of activity across individuals in several brain structures
including those involved in movement planning, memory and attention."

    Co-author Daniel Levitin, PhD, expanded:

 

        "It's not our natural tendency to thrust ourselves into a crowd of
20,000 people, but for a Muse concert or a Radiohead concert we'll do it …
There's this unifying force that comes from the music, and we don't get that
from other things."

Music Relieves Anxiety Better Than Drugs and Benefits Premature Babies

    If you want a more concrete example of music’s powers, a meta-analysis by
Levitin and colleagues found some striking benefits of music after reviewing
400 studies. Among the data was one study that revealed listening to music
resulted in less anxiety and lower cortisol levels among patients about to
undergo surgery than taking anti-anxiety drugs. Other evidence showed music
has an impact on antibodies linked to immunity and may lead to higher levels
of bacteria-fighting immune cells.

    Still more research revealed that playing music in the neonatal intensive
care unit (NICU) improved the health of premature babies with respiratory
distress or sepsis. When parents sang to their babies, or sounds mimicking
those in the womb were played, numerous benefits occurred, including changes
in heart rates, sucking behavior and parents’ stress levels. The researchers
noted:

        “Entrained with a premature infant’s observed vital signs, sound and
lullaby may improve feeding behaviors and sucking patterns and may increase
prolonged periods of quiet–alert states. Parent-preferred lullabies, sung
live, can enhance bonding, thus decreasing the stress parents associate with
premature infant care.”

    Taken together, the latest research makes a strong case for using music
as a therapeutic tool for babies and adults alike.

Why Music Should be a Part of Your Workouts, Too

 

    Many people instinctively don a headset linked to their favorite music
when hitting the gym, which makes sense since certain types of music can
motivate you to run faster, or keep going even though you're fatigued, giving
you a better workout. Additionally, research has shown that listening to
music while exercising boosted cognitive levels and verbal fluency skills in
people diagnosed with coronary artery disease (coronary artery disease has
been linked to a decline in cognitive abilities). Signs of improvement in
verbal fluency areas more than doubled after listening to music compared to
that of the non-music session.

    Listening to music while exercising can also improve your performance,
increasing your endurance by 15 percent, and your movement will likely
follow the tempo of the song. For instance, in one study when the music's
tempo slowed, the subjects' exertion level reduced as well. And when the
tempo was increased, their performance followed suit.

    Your body may be simply responding to the beat on a more or less
subconscious level, but the type and tempo of the music you choose while
working out may also influence your conscious motivation.

What Music Is Best?

    When a song gets you energized and rearing to go, you'll know it, and
these are the types of songs you probably naturally add to your workout
playlist.  For that matter, when a song makes you feel relaxed, eases your
anxiety or pain levels, or boosts your mood, you’ll know it too, as selecting
music is a highly personal – and highly intuitive – process. In other words,
only you know the “best” music for you, and that will inevitably change – not
only day to day with your mood but also over time with the different chapters
of your life.

    For now, technology has given us a simple way to harness the power of
music by allowing you to create different playlists for exercising, relaxing,
working and other important aspects of your day so you can instantly access
the right music for your mood or activity. You can also listen to music over
Internet radio using free services like Pandora, which will actually create
stations for you based on your musical tastes.

    Whatever method you choose, making music part of your lifestyle is a
simple yet powerful way to enhance your health and your life.

Thank You  Dr. Mercola

God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com

PS Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.