How homeopathy treats the whole person.

REMINDER: In The Archive is all of the articles that I
have posted since I started this blog. There is TONS OF
INFORMATION there for you to learn from. It's the type
of information that not only saved my life...It also has
given me a better quality of life.

                             SPONSORS

              The Solution For Disease FREE Health...

                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i

                   

             Prevent Alzheimer's With Natural Remedies!

                       http://bit.ly/H8y8Uz

        World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative

        Cancer Treatments Cancer Defeated

                  http://bit.ly/ZVR6Qw

    Increasingly, cancer-survival stories that involve homeopathy
are getting mainstream attention. Breast cancer survivor Devieka
Bhojwani says homeopathy helped significantly with the side effects
of radiation treatment. Then there's Norbert Varga of Philadelphia,
who overcame a cancer scare using whole foods and homeopathy
instead of opting for invasive cancer treatment. He's now ten years
in remission.

    Advocates believe homeopathy heals the whole person and works
in your body on a wholistic (or holistic) level. One theory is that
homeopathic treatments operate through the same mechanism as
the placebo effect, underscoring the role of the mind-body
connection in overcoming disease.

    Of course, doubters from the medical side wag their fingers
and say there's lack of evidence homeopathy is effective. But in
reality, nearly 150 randomized clinical trials (RTCs) have been
conducted 43 percent of which show positive evidence. Of those
studies, 49 percent were inconclusive.

    But here's the thing...Randomized clinical trials measure
the effectiveness of a therapy on a group of people, all of whom
are treated the same. But homeopathy works best when it's tailored
to the individual. According to the British Homeopathic
Association, "A homeopathic prescription is based not only on the
symptoms of disease in the patient but also on a host of other
factors that are particular to that patient, including lifestyle,
emotional health, personality, eating habits, and medical history."
Classic homeopathy treats the whole person.

    Plus, most folks in randomized trials have to meet certain
criteria to qualify. Those who fall outside the criteria like older
folks, children, pregnant women, and anyone with unusual medical
issues can't be included in a gold-standard clinical trial. Yet
these are the people who benefit most from homeopathic care!

The rest of the world is already way ahead of the U.S.

    In Germany, homeopathy is part of mainstream medical treatment.
In the U.K., there are three homeopathic hospitals financed by the
National Health Service in London, Bristol, and Glasgow.

    The Swiss Government even commissioned a report on homeopathy
a few years ago, concluding that the therapy has "real world
effectiveness, is appropriately in demand by the Swiss population,
is safe when prescribed by professional homoeopaths, and should be
available to the Swiss public through the Federal Government"

    And India, with one of the most advanced biologic development
programs in the world, is a strong supporter of homeopathy.

    On the other hand, there's the U.S., where medical officials
seem determined to put an end to anything not created synthetically
in a lab, especially if it can't be patented and marketed for big
bucks.

    Even so, it's becoming more common to read about medical doctors
who gave up or supplemented their original training to learn
homeopathy. When asked why, the reason has a lot to do with wanting
to cure illness instead of just treating symptoms.

    And in 2011, a survey by the American Hospital Association
found that 42 percent of U.S. hospitals offer one or more
complementary or alternative therapies, including homeopathy. That
number is up by 5 percent compared to the survey done in 2007.
And some medical schools now offer courses on homeopathy and
other alternative therapies like acupuncture and yoga. So at least
there are signs of progress.

Leading cancer research centers see the light

    A study that appeared in the February 2010 issue of the
International Journal of Oncology showed positive results when
treating breast cancer with homeopathy. The study showed it was
possible to prompt apoptosis (cell death) in cancer cells using
homeopathic medicine.

    Moshe Frenkel, MD, of M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston,
examined four extra-diluted homeopathic remedies against two human
breast cancer cell lines. His findings included "cell cycle delay/
arrest and apoptosis." Dr. Frenkel has also stated that homeopathic
remedies appear to have similar activity to paclitaxel (Taxol the
chemotherapeutic drug used most commonly on breast cancer), yet
without any toxic effect to healthy cells.

    Researchers at M.D. Anderson are also looking at the Banerji
Protocol for cancer treatment. Developed by Doctors Prasanta and
Pratip Banerji, it's an approach to healing hypo-thyroidism with
homeopathic medicine that has been proven safe and effective in
clinical trials in India.

    The Banerji approach uses modern diagnostic tools like X-rays
and ultrasound to diagnose whether a patient has a disease, and
then works to reverse the disease condition through homeopathy.
But the difference from traditional homeopathy is that they use
mixtures of remedies and frequent "repetitions" of the remedies,
all personally tailored to the individual being treated.

Never settle for standard operating procedures when it comes to
your health

    If you're being treated for cancer in a restrictive hospital
where complementary treatments are frowned on, don't hesitate to
broach the topic of homeopathy. Remember, in the world of medicine,
there are healers and there are body mechanics.

    Your best bet for preventing or overcoming cancer is to find a
practitioner who understands the interconnectedness of the human
body and helps you supplement your individual health needs with
safe, natural alternative treatments.

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

Larry Nelson
cancercurehere@gmail.com

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

The one juice that cancer cells just can't swallow!

REMINDER: In The Archive is all of the articles that I

have posted since I started this blog. There is TONS OF

INFORMATION there for you to learn from. It's the type

of information that not only saved my life...It also has

given me a better quality of life.

                             SPONSORS

              The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i

                   
             Prevent Alzheimer's With Natural Remedies!
                       http://bit.ly/H8y8Uz


        World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative
        Cancer Treatments Cancer Defeated
                  http://bit.ly/ZVR6Qw

The one juice that cancer cells Just can't swallow!

    For some folks, the word 'wheatgrass' conjures up images
of juice bars and health food stores filled with, well, health
nuts.

    But have you ever wondered just what it is and why so many
folks are so eager to chug down wheatgrass concoctions? They
know what they're doing, so please keep reading. . .


    Wheatgrass is typically sold as a juice made from the young
grass of the wheat plant. Health food stores may sell the produce
itself or products such as wheatgrass tablets, powder or frozen
juice.

    As for why the plant has so many fans a major reason is that
it packs a punch when it comes to nutrient density!

    Wheatgrass contains at least 13 vitamins as well as all 21
amino acids (including the 9 "essential" amino acids that your
body is unable to make for itself). You need all of these
nutrients to power up your immune system to protect you from
damaging diseases.

    Plus it's a rich source of the plant pigment chlorophyll.
This amazing body detoxifier provides the perfect alkaline
balance for the acidic foods Americans commonly eat.

    It is this combination of nutrients that many people believe
is the secret to optimal health. And here's why many folks are
convinced that wheatgrass could be an effective cancer treatment,
too.

How can wheatgrass help cancer patients?

    According to the Livestrong organization, chemotherapy
treatments may suppress bone marrow activity, which can cause:

    A decreased capacity for carrying oxygen throughout your
    body Insufficient blood cells to boost your immune system
    Decreased blood clotting ability

    This condition is called myelotoxicity and it significantly
    compromises a cancer patient's immune system.

    But wheatgrass juice may be able to boost low levels of
    white blood cells, helping to prevent this condition from
    occurring.

    This claim is supported by a 2007 study published in
Nutrition and Cancer involving 60 breast cancer patients under-
going chemotherapy treatments.

    Researchers found that patients receiving a daily serving
of wheatgrass juice during the first three cycles of chemotherapy
experienced a significant reduction in myelotoxicity.

    These patients also had a reduced need for drugs to help
boost their white blood cell production.

    Another study showed that wheatgrass juice could be an
effective alternative to blood transfusions for terminally ill
cancer patients. I'm not quite ready to buy into that, but
studies suggest wheatgrass provides abundant benefits to the
blood even if it's not quite a direct substitute for red blood
cells.

    In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology,
researchers examined the effects of wheatgrass juice on 348
terminally ill cancer patients at the Netaji Subhash Chandra
Bose Cancer Research Institute in India.

    Researchers wanted to know if the plant juice could help
improve hemoglobin levels, serum protein and overall patient
health performance.

    They found that these patients experienced significant
improvement in total protein & albumin levels.

    Although white blood cell and platelet counts remained
the same, the patients' overall health performance increased
from 50 percent to 70 percent!

    But wheatgrass has the potential to do far more than
work as a complementary cancer treatment.

Peek inside Mother Nature's medicine cabinet!

    According to the respected Hippocrates Health Institute,
proponents of wheatgrass use it to treat a wide variety of
health disorders. For example, anecdotal evidence suggests
wheatgrass can:

    Cleanse your colon when juice is held in the lower bowel
    for about 20 minutes. This is done by inserting a rectal
    implant that contains a small amount of juice.

    Detoxify your liver to protect you from pollutants and
    other carcinogens.

    Freshen breath when juice is used to gargle.

    Lessen the effects of radiation through its enzyme SOD,
    an anti-inflammatory compound that may prevent cell
    damage.

    Mend damaged hair and itchy scalp when rubbed into the
    scalp before shampooing.

    Protect your brain and organs by neutralizing heavy metal
    toxins such as cadmium and mercury, as well as other
    toxins such as nicotine.

    Reduce blood pressure by dilating pathways blood travels
    throughout your body.

    Restore proper pH balance to your body by improving blood
    alkalinity.

    Treat gastrointestinal problems such as constipation,
    diarrhea, peptic ulcers and ulcerative colitis.

    Slow the aging process by cleansing your blood and
    rejuvenating aging cells.

    Soothe and heal sunburn, cuts, burns and itching when
    applied externally to your skin.

    And much, much MORE!

    For example, one animal study suggests that wheatgrass may
help lower cholesterol. In the 2011 study from Acta Poloniae
Pharmaceutica, scientists found that treating rats with wheatgrass
juice helped reduce total cholesterol and lowered LDL (or 'bad')
cholesterol in rats with abnormally high cholesterol levels.

    Granted, there are no studies yet demonstrating whether
wheatgrass might have the same cholesterol-lowering effects in
humans.

    But the superfood nutrients in wheatgrass certainly shouldn't
hurt you either!

    Remember, the chlorophyll in wheatgrass is a rich source of
oxygen. Boosting the oxygen flow in your body helps power up
every cell in your body.

    It also can help increase your immune defenses to protect
you from diseases. Wheatgrass is generally safe for use, but
some people experience an upset when they first start taking
it, as it begins its detoxifying work.

    As your system begins to flush toxins, you may experience
mild nausea. You may need to start slowly by drinking a minimal
amount of wheatgrass juice or powder (e.g. one ounce daily),
then slowly build your tolerance level.

    As with any treatment, be sure to consult your medical
professional before using this alone or in combination with
other medications. And as with so many foods, wheatgrass is
most beneficial when fresh. True devotees grow their own
wheatgrass (for instance, in a windowbox) and make their
own juice.

    Wheatgrass does not contain gluten and shouldn't pose a
problem to people who are wheat- or gluten-sensitive. Gluten
is present only in the wheat grain. Wheatgrass is harvested
when the shoots are young, well before a seed head forms.

    Turning to another topic, conventional medicine in the
United States has tried to suppress a whole competing school
of medicine that's more than 200 years old and has produced
remarkable results for millions of patients. You should
consider this approach for cancer or ANY health condition.
We wrote about it in the last issue. If you missed it then,
you can catch up with it below. . .

This 217-Year-Old Natural Medicine System Offers an Answer

to Today's Diseases

    When 81-year-old Trish Coleman of British Columbia was
diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, she was given four to six
months to live, with no hope of a cure or even a treatment.

    She turned to a homeopathic doctor. Six months later,
she says she feels better than she has in months.

    Coleman is part of a trend of cancer sufferers turning
toward homeopathy, hich is based on the principle that "like
cures like." The system is generally credited to German
physician Samuel Hahnemann, who pioneered it in 1796, though
some people credit Hippocrates for originating the concept
in 400 BC. It's scorned by conventional MDs, but there's good
evidence it works.

Let's take a look. .

    The premise of homeopathy is that if a large dose of a
substance causes a disease-like symptom, very small doses of
the same substance will cure it. For example, a cold might be
treated with a plant extract that produces symptoms similar to
those of a cold but the treatment will utilize a very small
amount of extract dissolved in water. Or poison ivy might be
treated with tiny amounts of a plant that makes you itch again,
diluted in water.

    Most homeopathic remedies are water-based and contain
microscopic amounts of plants, minerals, chemicals, or animal
products all of which occur naturally.

    Roland Guenther, MD, the doctor who treated Trish Coleman,
explains "Homeopathy is a treatment with remedies that are made
from substances of nature that still carry the energy of these
substances."

If it's just water, I'd like some

    As Dr. Guenther's statement might suggest, there's a
spiritual element to homeopathy. Hahnemann himself believed
diseases had both spiritual and physical causes. Many homeopathic
treatments are believed to carry certain energies and vibrations,
based on the plants or material they come in contact with.

    There has to be an "energy" or "spiritual" explanation for
homeopathy, because most of the remedies are so diluted they're
actually pure water. There isn't a single molecule left of the
plant extract (although there is a significant amount of extract
present before the dilution process begins).

    This makes homeopathy very "unscientific" indeed if you
ignore the many clinical studies that suggest it works. Maybe
the remedies are just water, but apparently that water has
something special going for it.

    In my experience, some kinds of energy medicine are effective,
but mainstream scientists can't explain why, so they chalk it up
to the placebo effect. You have to realize a great deal of so-
called science is "parascience" the people who call the shots
exclude from consideration any evidence that doesn't fit what
they believe "must" be true.

    As a cancer treatment, homeopathy's first benefit is that it
does no harm. That's a far cry from the havoc wreaked by
chemotherapy and radiation therapy. But besides simply doing
no harm, homeopathy shows measureable results in rigorous studies.
In some cases it not only makes patients more comfortable,
it also cures their disease.

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

Larry Nelson

cancercurehere@gmail.com

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

Vitamin D Might Be Able to Slash Your Breast Cancer Risk by 90 Percent

REMINDER: In The Archive is all of the articles that I
have posted since I started this blog. There is TONS OF
INFORMATION there for you to learn from. It's the type
of information that not only saved my life...It also has
given me a better quality of life.

                            SPONSORS

              The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i

                   
             Prevent Alzheimer's With Natural Remedies!
                       http://bit.ly/H8y8Uz


        World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative
        Cancer Treatments Cancer Defeated
                  http://bit.ly/ZVR6Qw

Thank You Dr. Mercola

Carole Baggerly is the founder director of Grassroots Health. Her organization’s
 mission is to increase awareness about vitamin D and the crucial role it plays
in many aspects of your health.

Carole is on the cutting edge of vitamin D research, with her finger on the pulse
of  some of the world’s leading vitamin D scientists.

Prior to this focus, Carole’s educational background included physics and
mathematics,  and she owned and managed an aerospace business. However, her
passion for vitamin  D  arose from a more personal experience. She is a breast
cancer  survivor and attributes  a  large portion of her healing to vitamin D.

Her particular combination of managerial and executive skills,  education
in the sciences and personal health battles make her  uniquely qualified to get
 this  critical information into the hands of the public.

I first interviewed Carole in 2011. In this second interview, Carole discusses what
the latest science says about how vitamin D prevents and slows multiple forms of
cancer,  and why it’s so important to have your serum levels tested on a regular basis.

In fact, optimizing your vitamin D levels may help you prevent more than 16
different types of cancer including pancreatic, lung, ovarian, breast, prostate, and
skin  cancers.

Modest Vitamin D Levels May Decrease Your Risk of ALL Cancer by 77 Percent

Vitamin D has shown preventative benefits for many diseases, including heart
disease  and diabetes, and can even reduce chronic pain1. But when it comes
to cancer,  vitamin  D is its worst enemy! Theories linking vitamin D deficiency
to cancer  have  been tested  and confirmed in more than 200 epidemiological
studies,  and  understanding  of its  physiological basis stems from more than 2,500
laboratory  studies.

One particularly noteworthy study was completed by Joan Lappe and Robert
Heaney in 20072. A group of menopausal women were given enough vitamin D to
raise their serum levels to 40 ng/ml.

These women experienced a 77 percent reduction in the incidence of all cancers,
across the board, after just four years3. The remarkable thing is, 40 ng/ml is a
relatively  modest level. The latest information suggests the serum level sweet spot
for vitamin D is 50 to 70 ng/ml.  To have such stunning findings at just 40 ng/ml
underscores just how powerful and important vitamin D is to your body’s optimal
functioning.

Could Breast Cancer Be 90 Percent Preventable, Just with Vitamin D?

Vitamin D has powerful effects when it comes to breast cancer, to the degree that
breast cancer is being described as a vitamin D deficiency syndrome.Of course,
other lifestyle factors are also important in preventing cancer, such as nutrition,
exercise, sleep, and managing stress. However, vitamin D’s critical importance
seems to grow with every emerging study.

Carole believes that 90 percent of ordinary breast cancer is related to vitamin D
deficiency which is 100 percent preventable!

This is absolutely a profoundly important statement. As breast cancer is the most
common cancer in women, this has massive implications for women’s health.
For  more
information about breast cancer, I invite you to watch my informational video on
the subject. Please be aware though that she is referring to more common types of
breast cancer as opposed to inflammatory breast cancer and some of the other
unique forms.


 Vitamin D Can Make Breast Cancer Cells Fall Apart

Dr. Cedric F. Garland of the University of California's San Diego Moores  Cancer
Center is the epidemiologist who has connected the dots between Vitamin D
deficiency and cancer. According to Garland, in nearly all forms of breast cancer,
vitamin D affects the structure of your epithelial cells. These cells are held together
by a glue-like substance called E-cadherin, which provides structure to the cell. E-
cadherin is made up of mostly vitamin D and calcium.

If you don’t have adequate vitamin D, that structure comes apart and those
cells  do what they are programmed to do in order to survive they go forth and
multiply.  If this growth process (cell proliferation) gets out of control, you may
end up with  cancer.

If you have breast cancer in progress, the addition of vitamin D can help stop cancer
cells in their tracks by replenishing E-cadherin. Once cancer growth is slowed,
your immune system can begin to get ahead of  the cancer cells, because it doesn’t
have to deal with gazillions of them. It’s just disposing of the leftovers. The theory
above is Dr. Garland’s DINOMIT theory and has been substantiated by subsequent
studies by other researchers.

Optimizing Vitamin D Reduces Your Risk of Preterm Birth by HALF

In addition to being a strong cancer preventive, if you are a pregnant woman,
vitamin D has some important benefits for you and your baby.

Unfortunately, an astounding 80 percent of pregnant women are vitamin 
D deficient, and you definitely do not want to be one of them.

    Carol Wagner and Bruce Hollis studied the effects of vitamin D levels on
pregnant women, with phenomenal results. The researchers gave 4,000  IUs
of vitamin D to a group of pregnant women, lowering their incidence  of preterm
deliveries by a whopping 50 percent. These stellar results  gave rise to a new
prenatal program at Grassroots Health, called Protect  Our Children Now, which
you can learn about on their website.

    Vitamin D is also known to improve a number of different problems of
pregnancy, including reducing your risk of having a low birth weight  baby
and lowering your chances of C-section. If you’re pregnant and have  good D3
levels, you are passing on important health protection to your  newborn baby
that will continue well after birth.

It’s ALL About Your Vitamin D Blood Level

    The most important factor is your vitamin D serum level. It doesn’t  matter how
much time you spend in the sun, or how much vitamin D3 you  take: if your serum
level is low, then you’re at risk, plain and simple.  And the only way to know your
serum level is to test it. As of the  present time, we don’t understand why people
differ so widely in their  serum responses to vitamin D supplementation. Until
science figures  this out, the only way to determine your serum level is by testing
your blood on a regular basis.

    Fortunately, all of the major labs have updated their vitamin D  testing protocols,
so it no longer matters which lab you use. It’s  recommended you check your level
every three to six months, because it  takes at least three months for it to stabilize
after a change in sun  exposure or supplement dose.

    The window you’re shooting for is 50 to 70ng/ml. More studies are  needed to
tease out the benefits of getting your serum level above 50,  and 60, and 70 in terms
of what specific benefits occur at each  increment. Above 20, you’re safe from
rickets. Above 30, your gums will  be healthy. Above 40, you receive great cancer
benefits. But there may  very well be reasons to push your level even higher we
just don’t have this information available yet. Science progresses slowly, and
researchers  are very cautious. For an interesting chart that shows disease
prevention  by serum vitamin D level, based on the research to date, visit this
page on the Grassroots Health site.

It is Actually Difficult to Get Toxic

    The best way to optimize your vitamin D level is through sun exposure
or a safe tanning bed as that virtually eliminates any risk of overdose.  As a
very general guide, you need to expose about 40 percent of your entire body
to the sun for approximately 20 minutes between the hours of 10 am  and 2 pm,
when the sun is at its zenith. There appears to be no risk of  vitamin D toxicity
from ultraviolet B exposure.

    If you’re using an oral supplement, recent studies suggest adults  need about
8,000 IU’s of oral vitamin D3 per day in order to get serum  levels above 40 ng/ml.
However, remember that if you take oral vitamin D,  you also need to boost your
vitamin K2, either through your food choices  or a supplement. Vitamin K2
deficiency is actually what produces the  symptoms of vitamin D toxicity, which
includes inappropriate calcification that can lead to hardening of your arteries. In
general, however, taking vitamin D3 is very safe. Even the conservative Institute
of Medicine has concluded that taking up to 10,000 IU per day poses no risk for
adverse effects.

    The ideal or optimal ratio between vitamin D and vitamin K2 has yet  to be
elucidated, so there’s little to go on in this regard. Dr. Kate Rheaume-Bleue, author
of Vitamin K2 and the Calcium Paradox: How a Little Known Vitamin Could Save
Your Life, suggests 150-200 micrograms of K2  per day will meet the vitamin K2
needs of the "average" healthy person,  if you’re not taking a vitamin D supplement.
Keep in mind that some of  that can come from your diet, such as fermented
vegetables. If you take a vitamin D supplement, you may need to increase your
vitamin K2 some more.

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

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

Big Pharma, Bad Science!

                             SPONSORS

              The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i

                   
             Prevent Alzheimer's With Natural Remedies!
                       http://bit.ly/H8y8Uz


        World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative
        Cancer Treatments Cancer Defeated
                  http://bit.ly/ZVR6Qw

By Nathan Newman

I n June, the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most respected
medical journals, made a startling announcement. The editors declared that
they were dropping their policy stipulating that authors of review articles of
medical studies could not have financial ties to drug companies whose
medicines were being analyzed.

The reason? The journal could no longer find enough independent experts.
Drug company gifts and "consulting fees" are so pervasive that in any given
field, you cannot find an expert who has not been paid off in some way by the
industry. So the journal settled for a new standard: Their reviewers can have
received no more than $10,000 from companies whose work they judge. Isn't
that comforting?

This announcement by the New England Journal of Medicine is just the tip of
the iceberg of a scientific establishment that has been pervasively corrupted
by conflicts of interest and bias, throwing doubt on almost all scientific
claims made in the biomedical field.

The standard announced in June was only for the reviewers. The actual authors
of scientific studies in medical journals are often bought and paid for by
private drug companies with a stake in the scientific results. While the NEJM
and some other journals disclose these conflicts, others do not. Unknown to
many readers is the fact that the data being discussed was often collected and
analyzed by the maker of the drug involved in the test. An independent 1996
study found that 98 percent of scientific papers based on research sponsored
by corporations promoted the effectiveness of a company's drug. By comparison,
79 percent of independent studies found that a new drug was effective. This
corruption reaches from the doctors prescribing a drug to government review
boards to university research centers.

There have long been worries about the advertising and promotional gifts given
to doctors to influence which drugs they prescribe. But it turns out that even
deeper financial ties extend to the medical experts setting nationwide
professional guidelines for treating conditions ranging from heart disease to
diabetes. Surveys have found that nine out of ten experts writing such
guidelines have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, yet those ties
are almost never disclosed in the treatment guidelines, which are often
published in medical journals and endorsed by medical societies.

The Food and Drug Administration, for reasons similar to those of the
medical journals, routinely allows researchers with ties to the industry to
sit on drug approval advisory committees. In many cases, half the panelists
on such committees have a financial stake in the outcome, through links to
the drug manufacturer or to a competitor.

Increasingly, the industry has converted academic research centers into
subsidiaries of the companies. The billions of dollars of academic government
funding essentially pays to flush out negative results, while private industry
gets to profit from any successful result. Industry now provides 7 percent of
university research funding, but they are manipulating the system to gain a
far more substantial benefit. At the University of California at Berkeley,
Novartis agreed to pay $25 million to the campus in exchange for the first
right to patent a range of basic plant research produced by the university.

Where once university research was oriented to producing independent knowledge
that any other researcher could access and improve upon, university research
is increasingly being locked up in patents. What's more, scientists at
universities are often allowed to have stock options in companies benefiting
from the research they are conducting. As Dr. Marcia Angell, a former editor
of The New England Journal of Medicine, noted in the Baltimore Sun, "What
would be considered a grotesque conflict of interest if a politician or judge
did it is somehow not in a physician."

And the results are expensive and sometimes tragic for the public.

Experimental clinical drug trials are hazardous to participants and, more
broadly, critical to those with life threatening conditions who need to know
which treatments are fruitless to pursue. Yet researchers on industry payrolls
end up pressured to suppress negative results.

At the most basic level, researchers who defy their corporate sponsors know
they may lose their funding. When one Toronto scientist revealed in 1998 a
serious side effect of deferiprone, a drug for a blood disorder, her contract
was terminated. More dramatically, when a number of researchers concluded
thatRemune, an anti-AIDS therapy, was of little benefit to patients, the
companyfunding their research, the Immune Response Corporation, sued
the scientistsin 2001 for $10 million for damaging its business.

And these are the examples of scientists who spoke out. Many others just go
along with the demands of their corporate sponsors and suppress negative
evidence. In the early 1990s, a pharmacologist at the University of California
at San Francisco, Betty Dong, found that a generic thyroid hormone worked as
well as Synthroid, the brand-name drug made by the funder of the research.

According to the Washington Post, the company, Knoll Pharmaceuticals,
successfully blocked publication of the findings for seven years. Only in 1997
was this fraud discovered, and in 1999 Knoll had to pay 37 states $42 million
to settle a suit for consumer fraud in promoting the superiority of its drug.

This pattern of suppression means that medical knowledge is being stunted and
delayed, as other researchers aren't informed of dead ends that might have
helped steer their own research. And by locking up knowledge produced at
academic centers in patents, what should be free knowledge for the public
(free in both the intellectual and economic sense) instead feeds the profit
margins of the pharmaceutical industry.

Universities once opposed patents for any academic research. Yale University's
1948 policy on patents stated, "It is, in general, undesirable and contrary to
the best interests of medicine and the public to patent any discovery or
invention applicable in the fields of public health or medicine." That policy
was later abandoned and Yale now holds a key anti-AIDS drug patent jointly
with Bristol Myers. Facing massive global protest, Yale last year agreed to
relax its patent rules, but the fact that universities routinely now balance
who will live and die against their own profit motive is a degradation of
their public purpose.

This corruption of academic science is pervasive and the costs are extremely
clear, but what is remarkable is how easy it would be to end. Federal and
state governments still supply the overwhelming percentage of university
research funding. If all such funding was conditioned on ending non-disclosure
agreements and on barring the licensing of government-funded results to
private industry, the public would benefit both scientifically and financially.
We've paid for the knowledge once. We shouldn't have to do soagain in increased
costs of medicine and increased deaths due to suppressedknowledge.

Thank You Nathan Newman

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

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

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

BIG PHARMA RESEARCH!

                             SPONSORS

              The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i

                   
             Prevent Alzheimer's With Natural Remedies!
                       http://bit.ly/H8y8Uz


        World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative
        Cancer Treatments Cancer Defeated
                  http://bit.ly/ZVR6Qw

                 Continued from Monday, 12/30/13


Not Looking For the Right Thing

This was the tactic used over and over again in tobacco studies, and it is a
trick used over and over again in the pharmaceutical industry. For example, in
order to get funding from the tobacco industry, you could not directly look
for a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. You had to look for some
irrelevant, but seeming relevant, issue that "skirts" or avoids the real
issue.

As an example from the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA only accepts studies
that compare an "old" toxic sludge to a "new" toxic sludge. They will not
legally allow or accept a legitimate study comparing an alternative treatment
to an orthodox treatment.

Preaching the Importance of "Double Blind" Studies

Scientists love to preach the importance of "double blind" studies because in
that way they can compare their "old" toxic sludge to their "new" toxic sludge
in the same study. But in many cases, a double blind study makes no sense in
the world. For example, how could you do a double blind study comparing a
person who refuses all orthodox cancer treatments with someone who goes
through chemotherapy? It is a stupid concept, because after one day a person
would know which group they were in.

Likewise, how can you compare chemotherapy to Vitamin C in a double blind
study? The chemotherapy group would have intense pain, sickness, their hair
will fall out, and so on. The Vitamin C group would have no added pain, no
sickness (except perhaps diarrhea), and their hair will not fall out, etc. A
double blind study in this case is nonsense. What are you going to do,
secretly put Drano (a toxic sludge used in plumbing to clean drain pipes) and
ipecac (which makes people vomit) in with the Vitamin C so the Vitamin C group
will experience intense pain and sickness and not know which blind group they
are in?

There is nothing more stupid in the world of science that requiring a double
blind study in cases where it makes no sense.

But it gets worse. The whole point of a "double blind" study is to remove any
possible "psychological" effect in the study. In other words, since the
patients don't know which group they are in, there is no "psychological"
benefit or detriment to the treatment caused by their beliefs.

So what is the ultimate situation where there cannot possibly be any
"psychological" effect? Using medical records, especially of people that are
already DEAD! When a person doesn't know that their treatment is going to be
used in a study long after they are dead, there certainly is no
"psychological" effect that influences their outcome.

As a further point in this regard, the patients who are dead, and now only
exist in medical records, could not possibly have known about treatments that
didn't even exist when they were being treated. So how could there be a
psychological effect?

Patient Selection (i.e. Selection Protocol)

When scientists want to make sure they do not accidentally duplicate the
successful treatment of alternative medicine, they may use a clever way of
selectively picking participants for the study. For example, when Pauling and
Cameron selected patients for their study comparing Vitamin C therapy to
chemotherapy, they selected patients who had a wide variety of cancers. When
the Mayo Clinic wanted to make sure they did not come to the same conclusions
as Pauling and Cameron they did not use a wide variety of cancer types, they
used a small number of different types of cancers. By carefully choosing the
patients in a study you can largely control the outcome of the study.

Another trick they can use with patient selection is designed to make
alternative medicine look bad. But they usually don't use statistics to do
this, but rather they will use one patient at a time to make alterantive
medicine look bad.

For example, they can find a patient who was send home to die, after being
mutilated, poisoned and burned so bad that there is no way this patient can
survive. They then tell the story of an alternative cancer patient who died,
failing to mention that he was essentially dead before he started taking the
treatments.

Or they can find someone who didn't pick the right treatment for their
situation and died because of that. Because they suppress the truth about
alternative medicine, it is easy to find these people. These people probably
died due to the lack of truth available to them, rather than the
ineffectiveness of alternative medicine.

In essense, they can find a lot of people who took alternative treatments who
died. By not telling the whole story (whatever that story was), they can make
it look like alternative medicine is useless.

Give Drugs Known to Interact With the Treatment

When the NIH wanted to "prove" that Hydrazine Sulphate did not treat cachexia,
they had a problem - there were already many scientific studies that proved it
did work. So what they did was give 94% of the patients in the study a
prescription drug that was known to neutralize the effect of Hydrazine
Sulphate. The patients died of course, and the NIH got the data they wanted.
Hiding Who is Funding the Study

Many scientific studies are done by Big Pharma. Since these studies are too
overtly biased to be taken seriously, Big Pharma will frequently seek out a
big name scientist to attach his or her name to the study, as if they had
actually done the study. There are in fact many different ways to hide who
really does a study and many medical journals couldn't care less anyway.

In addition to this, many medical journals ignore who funds a study done by
non-Big Pharma scientists. As was mentioned in my "Introduction" article, with
aspartame studies there was a clear correlation between what the studies found
and who funded the studies.

Bribing the Peer-Review Group

    "In June [2002], the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most
respected medical journals, made a startling announcement. The editors
declared that they were dropping their policy stipulating that authors of
review articles of medical studies could not have financial ties to drug
companies whose medicines were being analyzed.

    The reason? The journal could no longer find enough independent experts.

Drug company gifts and "consulting fees" are so pervasive that in any given
field, you cannot find an expert who has not been paid off in some way by the
industry. So the journal settled for a new standard: Their reviewers can have
received no more than $10,000 [per year] from companies whose work they judge.
Isn't that comforting?

    This announcement by the New England Journal of Medicine is just the tip
of the iceberg of a scientific establishment that has been pervasively
corrupted by conflicts of interest and bias, throwing doubt on almost all
scientific claims made in the biomedical field.

    The standard announced in June was only for the reviewers. The actual
authors of scientific studies in medical journals are often bought and paid
for by private drug companies with a stake in the scientific results. While
the NEJM and some other journals disclose these conflicts, others do not.

Unknown to many readers is the fact that the data being discussed was often
collected and analyzed by the maker of the drug involved in the test."   

Contracts With Scientists

Virtually all contracts between a scientist and a pharmaceutical company will
include a stipulation that if the pharmaceutical company does not like the
results of the study, they have the legal right to suppress the results of the
study, and the scientist is forbidden from publicizing the results of the
study and is forbidden from submitting the study to a journal.

Very, very few colleges have the integrity to sign a contract that does not
have this contract clause.

What this means is that when a study finds a dangerous side-effect of a
prescription drug, or if it is found that the drug is worthless, the
information is legally suppressed.

Control By Funding

The fastest and quickest way to get on the "black list" of pharmaceutical
companies is to come to a conclusion they don't like. Perhaps you have found
out that one of their drugs kills more people than they admit. Perhaps you
have found a higher incidence of new cancers in patients who took a particular
type of chemotherapy drug. Perhaps you have found that a natural treatment for
cancer is superior to all chemotherapy drugs. You can forget ever being funded
again.

In short, if you don't give Big Pharma the conclusions they want, you won't
get funded again. Ever. Everybody knows that. It is the basic "rule of the
game."

Flooding Scientific Journals With Bogus Studies

To put all of these items in perspective, it was the ultimate goal of the
tobacco industry to flood the scientific journal market with bogus scientific
studies in order to dilute the valid scientific studies that they were not
able to control (i.e. fund).

The pharmaceutical industry has set even higher goals: use the corruption of
science and government to flood the scientific journal market with bogus
scientific studies, PLUS make sure the peer-review people are also in their
hip pocket, PLUS make sure that no studies making alternative treatments look
good can be published. They have done well.  

  Thank You CancerTutor webmaster, R. Webster Kehr         

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

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

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