Bayer, Pfizer Accused of Making False Claims About Their Top-Selling Multivitamins

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
                


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

By Dr. Mercola

    A recent study sponsored by the National Institutes of Health,
BASF Corporation, Pfizer and DSM Nutritional Products found that
daily supplementation with a multivitamin significantly reduced
the risk of cancer among men.

    This particular study used Pfizer’s Centrum brand of multivitamins,
which brings in around $1 billion a year in sales (a hefty share of
the $40 billion US supplement market).

    Undoubtedly, Pfizer will seek to use these study results to
claim that taking Centrum multivitamins may help you prevent cancer
a lofty marketing move that has already landed them (and other drug
companies) in hot water

    Although it is good to see the Center for Science in the Public
Interest (CSPI) keeping these companies honest, one of the biggest
crimes is actually perfectly legal. These companies are using
synthetic vitamins rather than natural ones in virtually all of their
products, despite the compelling evidence of the vast superiority
of natural versions.

Pfizer Removes False Claims from Multivitamins After a Threatened Lawsuit

    Last year CSPI alleged that claims made on the labels of Centrum
multivitamin products were deceptive and implied that the supposed
health benefits had been scientifically established, when most were
from studies not directly applicable to the product. Among the claims
at issue were that Pfizer’s multivitamins support:

        Energy and immunity
        Heart health
        Eye health
        Breast and colon health
        Bone health

    In a letter to Pfizer Chief Executive Ian Read, CSPI threatened
legal action and listed multiple examples of unsubstantiated claims
and deception. For instance, regarding the multivitamin’s role in
heart health, the letter stated:

        Pfizer markets Centrum Ultra Men’s, Centrum Cardio, and
Centrum Silver with the claim that they support heart health.

        For example, a recent print advertisement says, Centrum
Cardio is the only complete multivitamin with CoroWise phytosterols,
an ingredient derived from soybeans that may reduce the risk of
heart disease by lowering LDL (bad) cholesterol. Centrum Cardio
is the multivitamin that's complete and all heart.(Emphases added.)

        However, existing research on the effectiveness of
phytosterols has evaluated them in foods, which help disperse
the phytosterols in the GI tract to do their work. There is little
or no evidence that the free phytosterols in hard, dry pills have
the same effect. In fact, Pfizer has failed to produce any convincing
evidence as to their effects in response to previous requests from CSPI.

        Therefore, this claim is um-lawful because it lacks prior
substantiation and is deceptive.

    In response, Pfizer agreed to drop certain claims related to
breast health and colon health from the labels of its Centrum
multivitamins, as well as from their Web site. CSPI subsequently
agreed to withdraw their notice of intention to file a lawsuit.

Bayer Also Threatened With Legal Action Over False Multivitamin Claims

    Bayer, which manufactures One A Day multivitamins, states on
their Web site that taking One a Day is a recommended tip for avoiding
breast cancer. CSPI has taken issue with this, and other health
claims related to heart disease and more, and has notified Bayer
that they will file a lawsuit for violating state consumer protection
laws if the deceptive claims are not removed from One A Day marketing
materials.

    This is the second time since 2009 that CSPI has threatened Bayer
with legal action. In 2009, the organization filed a lawsuit against
Bayer for claiming that its One A Day Men’s multivitamin with selenium
might reduce the risk of prostate cancer, when no research existed to
back it up. Bayer also settled a lawsuit in 2010, in which a group of
state attorney generals alleged the company was deceptively leveraging
fear of prostate cancer in order to market One A Day to men.

Who’s Behind Some of the Largest Multivitamin Brands in the World?

    There’s certainly nothing wrong with taking a multivitamin
supplement. But when doing so it’s essential to know who’s behind the
product you’re trusting with your health. For instance, Pfizer, which
makes Centrum multivitamins, is no stranger to lawsuits and has been
convicted of fraud and other illegal activities on multiple occasions.

    In fact, in 2009, Pfizer paid a $2.3-billion settlement for
marketing fraud related to Bextra, Lyrica and other drugs. Charges
included marketing drugs to doctors for uses for which they had not
been approved and giving kickbacks to doctors and other health care
professionals for prescribing their drugs. This was Pfizer's fourth
settlement numbering in the multimillions in less than a decade.

    Meanwhile, some 3,000 lawsuits have been filed against Bayer in
recent years over their genetically modified crops contaminating
American rice farms. They have also been fending off lawsuits
from angry beekeepers for years now, who allege that Bayer’s
neonicotinoid pesticides are killing bees.

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

Breast Cancer Prevention Strategies

                             SPONSORS

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


Learn Exactly How To STOP High Blood Pressure & Cholesterol
And Eliminate Your Risk Of A Heart Attack Or #Stroke
                       http://bit.ly/19X2iHh



           Why Arthritis Drugs Don't Work and the
            Natural Method That Does.
                      http://bit.ly/193hi3i

      
           Why High Blood Pressure Drugs Don't Work And
           The Natural Method That Does
                      http://bit.ly/1gqP7ln


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



                  Continued from  2/2/14

        Family history trumps BRCA 1 and 2 status

Breast Cancer Prevention Strategies

    So in summary, it’s important to realize that even though many
well-intentioned physicians and media will seek to convince you of
the value of cancer screening, it does NOT in any way equate to cancer
prevention. Although early detection is important, recently a number
of very popular screening methods have been shown to cause more harm
than good.

    In terms of genetic testing, ask yourself what you would do with
the information, should it turn out you’re a carrier of the breast
cancer gene. Ideally, such a test result would spur you to take real
prevention seriously. But even if you don’t have the mutation, lifestyle
factors are still a much larger risk factor overall. Remember, the
percentage of diagnosed breast cancer cases that have the mutated gene
is in the low single digits. Something else, primarily your lifestyle,
accounts for the remainder.

    In the largest review of research into lifestyle and breast cancer,
the American Institute of Cancer Research estimated that about 40 percent
of U.S. breast cancer cases could be prevented if people made wiser
lifestyle choices. I believe these estimates are far too low, and it
is more likely that 75 percent to 90 percent of breast cancers could
be avoided by strictly applying the recommendations below.

        Avoid sugar, especially fructose. All forms of sugar are
detrimental to health in general and promote cancer. Fructose, however,
is clearly one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as
possible.

        Optimize your vitamin D. Vitamin D influences virtually every
cell in your body and is one of nature's most potent cancer fighters.
Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis
(cell death). If you have cancer, your vitamin D level should be between
70 and 100 ng/ml. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer
treatment I'm aware of, with no adverse effects. I suggest you try
watching my one-hour free lecture on vitamin D to learn more.

        Remember that if you take high doses of oral vitamin D3
supplements, you also need to increase your vitamin K2 intake, as
vitamin D increases the need for K2 to function properly. See my
previous article What You Need to Know About Vitamin K2, D and
Calcium for more information.

        Please consider joining one of Grassroots Health’s D*Action’s
vitamin D studies to stay on top of your vitamin D performance. For
more information, see my previous article How Vitamin D Performance
Testing Can Help You Optimize Your Health.

        Get plenty of natural vitamin A. There is evidence that
vitamin A also plays a role in helping prevent breast cancer. It's
best to obtain it from vitamin A-rich foods, rather than a supplement.
Your best sources are organic egg yolks, raw butter, raw whole milk,
and beef or chicken liver.

        Lymphatic breast massage can help enhance your body’s natural
ability to eliminate cancerous toxins. This can be applied by a licensed
therapist, or you can implement self-lymphatic massage. It also promotes
self-nurturance.

        Avoid charring your meats. Charcoal or flame broiled meat is
linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide—a carcinogen created
when starchy foods are baked, roasted or fried—has been found to increase
breast cancer risk as well.

        Avoid unfermented soy products. Unfermented soy is high
in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some
studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase
breast cell proliferation, which increases the chances for mutations
and cancerous cells.

        Improve your insulin receptor sensitivity. The best way to
do this is by avoiding sugar and grains and making sure you are exercising,
especially with Peak Fitness.

        Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when
you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising. It's
important to lose excess body fat because fat produces estrogen.

        Drink a half to whole quart of organic green vegetable juice
daily. Please review my juicing instructions for more detailed
information.

        Get plenty of high-quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as
krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.

        Curcumin. This is the active ingredient in turmeric and in
high concentrations can be very useful adjunct in the treatment of
breast cancer. It shows immense therapeutic potential in preventing
breast cancer metastasis. It's important to know that curcumin is
generally not absorbed that well, so I've provided several absorption
tips here.

        Avoid drinking alcohol, or at least limit your alcoholic drinks
to one per day.

        Breastfeed exclusively for up to six months. Research shows
breastfeeding can reduce your breast cancer risk.

        Avoid wearing underwire bras. There is a good deal of data
that metal underwire bras can heighten your breast cancer risk.

        Avoid electromagnetic fields as much as possible. Even electric
blankets can increase your cancer risk.

        Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy. Breast cancer
is an estrogen-related cancer, and according to a study published in
the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates for
women dropped in tandem with decreased use of hormone replacement therapy.
(There are similar risks for younger women who use oral contraceptives.
Birth control pills, which also comprised of synthetic hormones, have
been linked to cervical and breast cancers).

        If you are experiencing excessive menopausal symptoms, you may want to
consider bioidentical hormone replacement therapy instead, which uses hormones
that are molecularly identical to the ones your body produces and do not wreak
havoc on your system. This is a much safer alternative.

        Avoid BPA, phthalates and other xenoestrogens. These are estrogen-like
compounds that have been linked to increased breast cancer risk

        Make sure you're not iodine deficient, as there's compelling
evidence linking iodine deficiency with breast cancer. Dr. David
Brownstein, author of the book Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can't
Live Without It, is a proponent of iodine for breast cancer. It actually
has potent anticancer properties and has been shown to cause cell death
in breast and thyroid cancer cells.

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.

Nearly Every Part of the Human Genome Is Now Owned by Corporations

                             SPONSORS

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


Learn Exactly How To STOP High Blood Pressure & Cholesterol
And Eliminate Your Risk Of A Heart Attack Or #Stroke
                       http://bit.ly/19X2iHh



           Why Arthritis Drugs Don't Work and the
            Natural Method That Does.
                      http://bit.ly/193hi3i

       
           Why High Blood Pressure Drugs Don't Work And
           The Natural Method That Does
                      http://bit.ly/1gqP7ln


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


                  Continued from 1/30/14        


Nearly Every Part of the Human Genome Is Now Owned by Corporations

    Ironically, just as we’re entering the age of individualized
medicine, doctors’ ability to actually employ such advancements for
the benefit of their patients is being profoundly undermined and
restricted. As recently stated by Christopher E. Mason of Weill
Cornell Medical College: You have to ask, how is it possible that
my doctor cannot look at my DNA without being concerned about patent
infringement?

    Mason recently published a study in the journal Genome Medicine,
in which he and his co-author, Jeffrey Rosenfeld, an assistant
professor of medicine at the University of Medicine & Dentistry of
New Jersey, show that when you include both genes and DNA sequences
inside the genes, nearly the ENTIRE human genome is covered by patents!
What this does is render medicine prohibitively expensive. Under the
Affordable Care Act, BRCA genetic testing is classified as preventative
care, which means no out-of-pocket cost for those deemed eligible.

But as stated by Policy Mic:

        Affordable Care Act money should be used to provide medical
care that is expensive for a reason, not to prop up an unfair and
anti-competitive monopoly.

Tissue Trauma and Surgery Can Actually Increase Your Risk of Cancer

    There’s much yet to be learned about cancer development and
progression. For example, research has shown that trauma
to the breast itself can cause cancer.

According to the authors:

        Models of epithelial cell generation indicate that a causal
link between physical trauma and cancer is plausible. A latent interval
between cancer onset and presentation of under 5 years is also plausible.
The most likely explanation of the findings is that physical trauma
can cause breast cancer.

    And, as reported by Science News in 2011:

        The slightest scratch can cause cancerous cells to crawl to
the wound and form tumors in mice, a new study finds. The work may
explain why certain kinds of cancers seem to cluster around burns,
surgical scars and other injuries. 'This work says that if you have a
predisposition to getting cancer, wounding might enhance the chance
that it will develop,' says cell biologist Anthony Oro of Stanford University

School of Medicine.

    This raises questions about the possibility of developing cancer
in the remaining or surrounding chest tissue following a radical
surgery as double mastectomy. Needle biopsies have also been fingered
as sources of cancer that otherwise might not have occurred.

Epigenetics The Answer for Those Seeking Cancer Prevention

    The paradigm-shattering research now referred to as epigenetics
proves your genetic code is not nearly as predeterministic as previously
thought. You actually have a tremendous amount of control over how
your genetic traits are expressed. As it turns out, your genes will
express or suppress genetic data depending on the environment in which
it finds itself, meaning the presence or absence of appropriate nutrients,
toxins, and even your thoughts and feelings, which unleash hormones
and other chemicals in your body.

    Dr. Susan Love, a breast cancer surgeon and president of the Dr.
Susan Love Research Foundation, commented on such research back
in 2009, saying:

        It’s exciting. What it means, if all this environmental stuff
is right, is that we should be able to reverse cancer without having
to kill cells. This could open up a whole new way of thinking about
cancer that would be much less assaultive.

Physician Discovers What It’s Like to Be 'Sold' Preventive Mastectomy

    An article by Dr. Daniela Drake titled "Why I’m Not Having a
Preventive Mastectomy" presents the other side of the preventive
mastectomy argument, and highlights the problems of our current
paradigm:

        Lobular Carcinoma In Situ (LCIS)... increases my odds of
developing cancer from 12 percent to 30 percent. But still, my options,
my doctor explained, include immediate bilateral mastectomy... She
tells me that my chances of developing cancer are 80 percent and that
if she were in my shoes she would 'just have them both removed....Her
offhand manner suggests something deeply unserious like a manicure...

        Although I used to be a vociferous advocate for aggressive
medical interventions, my perspective changed radically when I began
working as a house-call physician. My patients are too debilitated to
go to the doctor’s office and many were disabled by botched surgeries...
I’m concerned about my surgeon’s flippancy and I suggest alternatives:

   There’s growing data that this is a lifestyle disease. You know the
Women’s Health Initiative shows exercise can greatly decrease risk.'

        I don’t know. That may be true,' she shrugs. 'If we don’t do
surgery, then we’ll just do mammograms every six months.' When I object,
saying that LCIS doesn’t show up on mammogram, she responds, 'I know.
It doesn’t make sense to me either.' It becomes evident that we don’t
know how to deal with my condition. The medical system does not tolerate
ambiguity well, so breast amputation has become the answer...

        Now I know why patients are so mad at us. This is supposed to
be patient-centered care. But it feels more like system-centered care:

The medical equivalent of a car wash. I’m told incomplete and inaccurate
information to shuttle me toward surgery; and I’m not being listened
to. I came to discuss nutrition, exercise and close follow-up. I’m
told to get my breasts removed—the sooner the better.

        Mastectomy may be appropriate in some cases, like in those where your risk
of cancer is virtually 100 percent. But the risk of surgery—operative
complications, infections, device and graft complications—remains significant.

It’s callous and irresponsible to elide the risks to the public.”

The Case Against BRCA Testing

    In the research paper titled "The Case Against BRCA1 and 2 Testing",
published in the journal Surgery30 in June 2011, the four authors from
the Department of Surgery, University of California explain what many
oncologists don’t want to hear:

        It turns out that, like a book, a gene can be 'read' both
backward and forward. Small sections (or chapters) within a big gene
can be 'read' alone. The three-dimensional structure of DNA controlled
by site-to-site methylation prevents many chapters from being read at
all. In addition, short segments of RNA (22 base pair micro-RNA) can
cycle back to control DNA transcription.

        So, DNA is just the starting point, and like flour, you do
not know whether the chef is going to cook a croissant or a tortilla
with it... Are BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 unique? Or just like other genes,
is their expression controlled by the inner cellular attitudes (both
epigenetic and environmental) of the individual patient?

        BRCA 1 and 2 code nuclear proteins, also known as tumor
suppressor genes, capable of repairing damaged DNA... Both mutations
increase the lifetime risk of breast cancer in a woman. Less than
5% of women diagnosed with either ductal carcinoma in situ or
invasive ductal cancer are a result of inherited BRCA genes...

        But BRCA 1 and 2 may speak with many voices. Polymorphisms
are naturally occurring single nucleotide variations of a gene present
in more than 1% of the population. Polymorphisms and other single-
nucleotide variants have been identified within the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2
genes. Indeed, more than 500 mutations in BRCA 1 alone have been
documented and most render their proteins inactive—so, some BRCA genes
seem to be shooting blanks. And a single nucleotide polymorphism, albeit
only asingle nucleotide change, can have a formidable influence on protein
expression.

        Sequence variant S1613G, for instance, results in increased
mutational risk of BRCA 1 neoplastic expression, whereas a variation
in K1183R is related inversely to cancer risk. It seems that some
polymorphisms may actually have a protective effect.

    In summary, the authors state that for screening and therapeutic
purposes, BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genetic testing is really little more
than an expensive way of determining what can be accomplished more
expeditiously by speaking with your patient, since:

        The DNA base pair sequence in all humans is 99.6% identical
    Epigenetic factors influence substantively the RNA processing
and translational requisition of the initial DNA message. There are
thousands of sequence variants of the BRCA1 and BRCA 2 genes

                  Continued.

 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.

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.

It’s Starting to Look Like a Coordinated Yet Cleverly Designed PR Campaign...

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

           Why Arthritis Drugs Don't Work and the
            Natural Method That Does.
                      http://bit.ly/193hi3i

 

              The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i   
                 
        
           Why High Blood Pressure Drugs Don't Work And
           The Natural Method That Does
                      http://bit.ly/1gqP7ln


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


                Continued from 1-27-14



 It’s Starting to Look Like a Coordinated Yet Cleverly Designed PR Campaign...

    When looking at a number of different yet related events, this
whole thing is starting to look like a well-coordinated PR push where
a number of companies and industries stand to gain. The only real
loser in this game appears to be women in general... First, as we
predicted would happen months ago, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of
Monsanto in the Monsanto vs. Bowman case, thereby affirming that a
patent holder can control the use of its patent through multiple
generations of seed. Alas, the implications of this ruling go far
beyond agriculture. It will also have implications for other businesses
such as vaccines, cell lines, and human genes.

    What this ruling does is grant ownership of genetic material in
perpetuity. A silly but simple analogy would be that if you own the
patent to a dog trait, and your dog with that trait impregnates all
the neighbors’ dogs, all the pups would be yours, as would the pups
of those pups, and so on. As we predicted, the Supreme Court only
took this case to protect the biotech industry by setting precedent.
There is very little morality left in our fascist federal government,
and that includes most of its agencies, including the IRS, FDA, and
FTC. They’re all operating for political and industrial gains.

    In Monsanto vs. Bowman, Justice Kagan justified the unanimous
decision to allow living, self-replicating organisms and their off
-spring to be licensed property of the patent owner due to financial
interests. A patent would plummet in value after the first sale of
the item containing the invention, she said. And just seconds into
Bowman’s attorney’s opening arguments, Chief Justice Roberts
interrupted him by asking why anyone would ever patent anything if
Bowman were to prevail?

    That and more indicated that it was a closed case right from
the start...Justice Breyer went so far as referencing the infamous
law Buck vs Bell (that still stands in the US to this day, which
legitimizes government-forced sterilization and vaccination) when
he said: There are three generations of seeds. Maybe three
generations of seeds is enough. This was a spin on Supreme Court
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's statement:

        "It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to
execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for
their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly
unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains
compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the
Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

    It’s a chilling thought when you consider the potential
implications this case can have on the trend of patenting of
human genes and other life forms. Over 20% of the human genome
is already patented, and the old eugenics movement has a lot
in common with the burgeoning anti-choice movement when it comes
to vaccinations and other medical treatments, including cancer
treatment for minors. Children have been taken from their parents
for refusing to follow the conventional cut-poison-burn cancer
treatment plan for their ailing children, even though statistics
and research clearly shows that chemotherapy is typically what
ends up killing the patient, even when the cancer itself is
conquered!

GMO Opponents Are 'Elitist' and Insensitive to World’s Needs,
Monsanto CEO Says

    If the idea of a new eugenics movement is not enough, Monsanto
CEO Hugh Grant was recently quoted stating that opponents who want
to block genetically modified foods are guilty of “elitism” and fail
to consider the needs of the rest of the world. Thank goodness the
CEO of a $58 billion multinational corporation, which last year paid
him over $14 million, is ready to stand up to the selfish elitists
opposing his plan to save the world...

    But I digress... On May 14, one day after Big Biotech was granted
patent rights to genetic material in perpetuity, Angelina Jolie’s op-ed
comes out, and the very next day, biotech stocks took a jump. Then
on the 16th, Arthur Caplan, director of the Division of Bioethics at
New York University's Langone Medical Center, pens a CNN op-ed
applauding Jolie’s brave message. Chillingly, he ends his article
with:

        As the U.S. pushes forward into health reform, Jolie's story
reminds us that we need to adjust our health care system from one that
pays for treatment to one that also covers prevention.

    Prevention here meaning a $4000 test that if positive results in
amputation of a non-diseased organ... According to reports,18 Jolie
is also planning to remove her ovaries to limit her risk of ovarian
cancer—a decision that leads to ‘surgical menopause,’ which requires
careful hormone replacement and monitoring.

    Truly, we need to drive home the message that testing is NOT
prevention. Testing is a diagnostic tool that has nothing to do
with actually preventing disease. True prevention requires taking a
close hard look at lifestyle choices, as well as making some radical
changes to a wide range of industries that don’t want to change the
way they do business. Toxic chemicals are oftentimes far cheaper
to use than all-natural ones. And toxins drive cancer processes
in your body...

The Angelina Effect—Don’t Be Swayed...

    Deception by the agricultural, food, biotech, chemical, and
personal care product industries are primary drivers of most of
the chronic and deadly diseases plaguing our modern society. They’re
poisoning you from all angles, and then pretend to have the solutions...
Parallel with this mockery of a science-based health care system,
federal agencies have been cleverly manipulated by highly leveraged
lobbying to force you to pay for most of this by tax subsides, and
federal regulatory agencies limiting your choices.

    Within days of her coming out, Jolie again graced the cover of
TIME magazine with the words: The Angelina Effect Angelina Jolie’s
double mastectomy puts genetic testing in the spotlight. What her
choice reveals about calculating risk, cost, and peace of mind.

    I have no special insights about what this woman has been thinking,
but I certainly don’t blame her. To me she is merely a victim of
sophisticated and clever techniques that have successfully twisted
common sense on its head. She has learned to trust and believe in the
system that has created this insanity. The PR campaign that catalyzed
her decision is clearly aimed at deceiving naïve and preoccupied people
into an utterly flawed system motivated primarily by corporate greed
not by any compassion or desire to decrease human suffering.

    I don’t fault Jolie for any of it. She, like everyone else, made
the best decision she could based on the information she was given or
sought out. Few people have enough time to study and understand the
complexity of system that has evolved for over a century.

    In this case, the goal is not to empower you to make proactive
decisions about your health. It’s about herding you into the fold
of the most profitable industries in the world. Myriad Genetics alone
rakes in approximately half a billion dollars in revenue each year.
Genetic testing for breast cancer accounts for 85 percent of their
total revenue, and again, they have complete and total control of
this niche since they own the patent for the BRCA genes. Salon magazine
recently wrote an article titled "How One Company Controls Your Breast
Cancer Choices:

        Myriad’s monopoly over BRCA1 and BRCA2 not only means showing
that it can charge whatever it wants for the test; it also means that
further research on the genes is restricted, and that women who take
the test and get an ambiguous result can’t get a second opinion, only
take the test again. An ambiguous result can mean the difference
between removing breasts or ovaries or leaving them intact.

        The economic and racial implications of all this are major,
both for how the research has been done and who gets access to it. In a
video on the case, the ACLU points out, 'Initial gene studies focused
on white women. And now the patents make it more difficult to learn
what some mutations mean in women of color, because Myriad has total
control over researchers’ access to those mutations....Myriad’s patent
on the genes expires in two years, but the Supreme Court’s ruling will
set the broader principle going forward. For now, Jolie’s Op-Ed has
apparently made Myriad’s stock price rise 4 percent, its best level in
years.

       Continued

 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.

Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer and Radical Mastectomy

Are Women Being Misled into a False Sense of Security?

This is an extremely long article that is extremely important.
I'm going to break it down into parts over a few days because
I don't want people to become overwhelmed.

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

       
       Why Arthritis Drugs Don't Work and the
       Natural Method That Does.
                      http://bit.ly/193hi3i

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


"Who Else Wants To Naturally Cure Herpes Outbreaks From Home Within 72
Hours, With No Harmful Prescription Drugs?"
                        http://bit.ly/19Wwqmb


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

                 

By Dr. Mercola

    Some days I wonder if this is all a bad dream. How on earth
have we come to this craziness? The latest and greatest preventative
strategy for women genetically predisposed to breast cancer is
amputation, which puts the wheels in motion for this type of
preventive surgery to be covered by health insurance.

    I’m referring, of course, to Angelina Jolie’s recent and very
public decision to undergo a double mastectomy as a prophylactic
measure.  While she admits this is a very personal decision, the
impacts to the public could be quite significant based on her
celebrity influence.

    Her mother died from ovarian cancer at the age of 56, and
Jolie carries a hereditary gene mutation associated with both
breast and ovarian cancer. According to Jolie, who revealed her
decision in an op-ed in the New York Times:

        My doctors estimated that I had an 87 percent risk of
breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer, although
the risk is different in the case of each woman.

        Only a fraction of breast cancers result from an inherited
gene mutation. Those with a defect in BRCA have a 65 percent risk
of getting it, on average.

        Once I knew that this was my reality, I decided to be
proactive and to minimize the risk as much I could. ... I wanted
to write this to tell other women that the decision to have a
mastectomy was not easy. But it is one I am very happy that I made.

        My chances of developing breast cancer have dropped from 87
percent to under 5 percent. I can tell my children that they don’t
need to fear they will lose me to breast cancer.

    It is nearly incomprehensible to me how any researcher can
give such precise predictions of future cancer risk based on
genetics. The only explanation is near complete ignorance of the
science of epigenetics and the power we all have to change the
expression of our genes.

Why Does US Recommendations Place Women with Gene Defects at
Even Greater Risk?

    The genetic test to check for mutations in the BRCA1 and
BRCA2 genes (the BRCA stands for ‘breast cancer susceptibility
genes’) costs about $4,000 in the US, when not covered by
insurance.

    Ironically, if you discover that you carry the mutated BRCA
gene, the standard recommendation in the US is to get a mammogram
and an MRI scan at least once a year thereafter, even if you’re
under the age of 40. This is unconscionable, in my opinion. If
anything, should you have genetic susceptibility for breast cancer,
it would be wise to avoid ionizing radiation as much as possible,
not the other way around!

    Several European countries including Britain, the Netherlands
and Spain, have already altered their screening recommendations
for women with BRCA mutations, advising them to get MRIs (which do
not emit ionizing radiation) instead of mammograms before the age
of 30.

    Research has demonstrated that women with these genetic mutations
are more sensitive to radiation, and because the genes in question
are involved in repairing DNA, radiation damage to these genes will
subsequently raise your cancer risk. For example, a study published
just last year in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), found that women
with faulty BRCA genes are more likely to develop breast cancer if
they’re exposed to chest X-rays before the age of 30. According to
Cancer Research UK:

        Women with a history of chest radiation in their 20s had a
43 percent increased relative risk of breast cancer compared to women
who had no chest radiation at that age. Any exposure before age 20
seemed to raise the risk by 62 percent.

    In response to these findings, Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief
medical officer of the American Cancer Society was quoted as saying:

        "This will raise questions and caution flags about how we
treat women with (gene) mutations."

    And Anouk Pijpe of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, one of the
authors in the above-mentioned study, told CBS News:

        "We believe countries who use mammograms in women under 30
should reconsider their guidelines. It may be possible to reduce
the risk of breast cancer in (high-risk) women by using MRIs, so
we believe physicians and patients should consider that."

Genetic Defects Are Not a Major Contributor to Breast Cancer

    A key point for women to remember is that while women with BRCA
defects have a 45-65 percent increased risk of breast cancer, only
about TWO PERCENT of diagnosed breast cancers are caused by BRCA
faults. So this genetic defect is nowhere close to being a primary
cause of breast cancer. Clearly, other non-genetic factors play a far more
significant role.

    As pointed out by H. Gilbert Welch, a professor of medicine
at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice
and a co-author of Over diagnosed: Making People Sick in the
Pursuit of Health, Angelina Jolie's personal story is completely
irrelevant to 99 percent of all women because they simply do not
have the BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. In a recent CNN article, he
writes:

        Let's be clear, the BRCA1 mutation is a bad thing... It is
a powerful risk factor for these cancers... When people are at very
high risk for something bad to happen, preventive interventions
are more likely to be a good deal... When people are at average
risk, the deal changes... It is a fundamental precept of medicine...
Patients with severe abnormalities stand to gain more from
intervention than patients with mild ones. Patients with mild
abnormalities are more likely to experience net harm from
intervention, simply because they have less opportunity to benefit.

        The vast majority of women don't have the BRCA1 mutation.
They are at average risk for breast cancer... They should not have
a preventive mastectomy.

        ...But there is a second question for women raised by Ms.
Jolie's piece:

Should I be tested for BRCA1?

        She seems to believe the answer is yes, pointing to the
half-million women who die from breast cancer worldwide each year.
But she neglects to point out that 90 percent of these deaths have
nothing to do with the BRCA1 mutation. That's because most women
don't have the mutation and because most breast cancer is sporadic.

    Furthermore, it’s also important to understand that even if you
do carry a defective gene, that in and of itself does not mean that
the gene in question is destined to be expressed. In other words,
having the BRCA defect is by no means an automatic death sentence.
As you will see below, there are many things you can do to
dramatically decrease your cancer risk through the lifestyle choices
you make, which have a profound impact on your genetic expression.

What Do Gene Patents Have to Do with It?

    Since the mid-1940’s, genomics and the patenting of genes has grown
exponentially. At present, nearly 20 percent of the entire human
genome, or some 4,000 genes, are covered by at least one US patent.
These include genes linked with Alzheimer’s disease, colon cancer
and asthma. Myriad Genetics8 owns the exclusive patent for the
BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. As explained by The New Yorker:

        "Anyone conducting an experiment on them without a license
can be sued for infringement of patent rights. This means that Myriad
can decide what research is carried out on those genes, who can do
that research, and how much any resulting therapy or diagnostic test
will cost."

    Needless to say, this has profound implications for medicine.
As stated by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU):

        Through its patents, Myriad has the right to stop anyone
from using these genes for clinical or research purposes. It has
therefore locked up a building block of human life.

    In her op-ed, Jolie states that this has got to be a priority
to ensure that more women can access gene testing and lifesaving
preventive treatment, pointing out that the cost of genetic testing
is an obstacle for many. The root of that problem lies with our
current patent laws, which allow for the patenting of human genes
and other life forms. According to the ACLU, which is the plaintiff
in another gene patent lawsuit heard by the Supreme Court in April,
Myriad recently raised the price of their genetic test from $3,000
to over $4,000, even though gene testing technologies have advanced
to the point where you can sequence ALL of your genes, about 23,000
or so, for as little as $1,000.

    The Supreme Court will decide in a matter of weeks whether human
gene patents will continue to be allowed or not, and if they are,
you can expect prices for gene-related medicine to continue to skyrocket
and become increasingly monopolized.


                   Continued on 1-29-14


 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.