Tissue Trauma and Surgery Can Actually Increase Your Risk of Cancer.

                                   QUOTE OF THE DAY:   

For anything worth having, one must pay the price; and the price 
is always work, patience, love, and self-sacrifice.

Thank You John Burroughs, American naturalist

                             SPONSORS

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


                  Continued from  4/2/14


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 ill 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
Mastectomy29" 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 a single 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
       
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 forthe
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.31, 32 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 ecommendations
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.33 It's best to obtain it from vitamin A-rich
foods, rather than a supplement. Your best sources are organic egg yolks,34 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  estrogen's,
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.35 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, 36 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.

  For more information, I recommend reading Dr. Brownstein's book. I have been
researching iodine for some time ever since I interviewed Dr. Brownstein as I do
believe that the bulk of what he states is spot on. However, I am not at all convinced
that his dosage recommendations are correct. I believe they are too high.

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.

What Do Gene Patents Have to Do with It?

                             SPONSORS

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

                      Continued From 3/31/14


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.


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
case12 on May 13, 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 offspring 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 law13 Buck vs Bell14 (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 enes 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 quoted15 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.

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. Mason22 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.

Thank You  Dr. Mercola

                  Continued 4/04/14


 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.

Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer and Radical Mastectomy

Are Women Being Misled into a False Sense of Security?

This article is quite long so I'm splitting it up into
5 parts. The reason is it is an article that every woman
should read before they get themselves tested for cancer.

Life can deal a tough hand to play at different times. We
do not need money grubbing professionals that we trust
dealing us a bad hand just to line many peoples pockets.

With our medical profession coming under the control of the
Federal government, (IRS),that's more pockets to line. We
are the people that have to pay them at their discretion.
We are becoming slaves by far worse than 200+ years. This
slavery has no skin color. We all pay the master, our Federal
Government, and they pick what medical services that we can
have.

We have to educate ourselves if we are going to have a high
quality of life that most of us strive for. This blog,
hopefully, is one tool to help educate as many people as
you and I can. Please pass this blog on to as many as you
can. It will make a huge difference in many peoples lives.

                             SPONSORS

              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 BRCA1 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 study3 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.

Thank You  Dr. Mercola

                  Continued on 4/02/14

 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.

Eat Insects, Save the World

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

By Dr. Mercola

    The practice of eating insects, known as entomology, may sound extreme,
but it’s actually quite common throughout the world and has been that way for millennia.

    There are more than 1,900 documented edible insect species and some are even
 farmed the way cattle or chickens are in the US.

    With growing concerns over the unsustainable practices that constitute
modern farming, and the very real prospects that food shortages and
environmental destruction could be an inevitable part of the future if more
environmentally friendly farming alternatives aren’tsoon embraced, eating insects
may prove to be a very wise, and necessary, decision.

    In fact, a new report by the Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United
Nations (FAO) highlights the many prospects insects offer for the future of food
and feed security.

Eating Insects Is Already Common in Many Parts of the World

    Although still considered largely taboo in the Western world, many cultures
prize insects as a culinary delicacy.

The FAO report notes:

    From ants to beetle larvae eaten by tribes in Africa and Australia as part of
their subsistence diets  to the popular, crispy-fried locusts and beetles enjoyed
in Thailand, it is estimated that insect-eating is practiced regularly by at least
billion people worldwide.

    The most commonly eaten insect groups include:


Beetles     Caterpillars     Bees    Wasps     Ants    
Grasshoppers    Locusts     Crickets     Cicadas
Leaf and plant hoppers     Scale insects     True bugs
Termites     Dragonflies     Flies


There are several quite compelling reasons that make a strong case for
considering insects as part of a sustainable diet that could end world hunger.
For starters, insects are extremely plentiful and are found in nearly all environments.

There are an estimated 6-10 million species of insects, which are thought to
represent over 90 percent of the differing animal life forms on Earth, according
to FAO. Environmentally, raising insects for food would emit considerably fewer
greenhouse gasses than confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) raising
livestock.

Further:

    Insect rearing does not require clearing land to expand production Insects
are very efficient at converting feed into protein (crickets, for instance, need 12
times less feed than cattle and half the feed as pigs and chickens to produce the
same amount of protein)

    Insect rearing can be low-tech and inexpensive, making it a plausible livelihood
in even the poorest sections of the world Insects have a low risk of transferring
diseases to humans, unlike CAFO beef, pork and poultry

Further, perhaps one of the best reasons to consider eating insects is because
they’re quite healthy, making them a nutritious alternative to common protein
sources like chicken, beef, pork and fish. Insects are:

    Rich in protein and fiber

    Good sources of healthy fats (some species even have similar levels of omega-3
fats as fish) High in nutrients such as calcium, iron, B vitamins, selenium and zinc

Think of Insects as ‘Shrimp of the Land’

    Dutch entomologist Marcel Dicke has stated that the reason many people are
reluctant to eat insects is simply a matter of mindset. His solution? To think of
insects as shrimp of the land.

    In the TED video above, Dicke explains that insects are not only eco-friendly
and nutritious, but they compete with meat in flavor, too. If you can get past the
initial aversion, eating insects may not be entirely different from eating shrimp
or other more unique food sources, such as crabs, oysters and mussels. As written
in the FAO report:

    Common prejudice against eating insects is not justified from a nutritional
point of view. Insects are not inferior to other protein sources such as fish, chicken
and beef. Feelings of disgust in the West towards entomophagy contributes to the
common misconception that entomophagy in the developing world is prompted
by starvation and is merely a survival mechanism. This is far from the truth.
Although it will require considerable convincing to reverse this mentality, it is
not an impossible feat.

    Arthropods like lobsters and shrimps, once considered poor-man’s food in
the West, are now expensive delicacies there. It is hoped that arguments such
as the high nutritional value of insects and their low environmental impact, low
-risk nature (from a disease standpoint) and palatability may also contribute to
a shift in perception.

    Interestingly, at the Nordic Food Lab, a non-profit organization, they’re focusing
on the deliciousness factor of wild foods including edible insects. If people begin
to accept insects as a delicious dietary addition, they will naturally begin to view
them as edible. And this, they believe, is a key factor to getting insects into
mainstream Western diets.

FAO notes:

     By exploring the vast range of flavors, the Nordic Food Lab aims to turn
‘inedible’ into edible ingredients. Seaweed is one such food source: just a few
years ago it was considered in the West as either exotic or niche, but now, in
certain places, it is celebrated as a new, versatile ingredient since it was shown to
be delicious. The head of the culinary research and development group says that
deliciousness is the first and most important factor in developing new gastronomic
building blocks.

        Mayonnaise from bee larvae works not because of its novelty but rather
because of its earthier and more satisfying taste its unique deliciousness.

You’re Probably Already Eating Insects

    Chances are more likely than not that you’ve already sampled your first
(and then some) insect, albeit probably unintentionally.

Insects are a part of nature, and the inevitably end up on a leaf of lettuce or
in your box of cereal. This happens not only in the field but also later, as foods
sit in storage facilities prior to processing. It’s for this reason that the US Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) allows certain amounts of bugs in your food.

For instance:

        Canned tomato juice: two whole maggots per 100 grams
        Raisins: FDA won’t take action unless 10 or more whole or equivalent
       Drosophila flies and 35 of its eggs are found per 8 ounces of raisins   
       Macaroni: Anything less than 225 insect fragments per 225 grams in six
       sub-samples is allowed

    It’s certainly unsavory to think about insect parts in your food, but the truth is
it probably isn’t going to hurt you. In fact, depending on the species, it may actually
add some nutrition

The Future of the World’s Food Supply Depends on Sustainability

    Feeding the world in the decades to come is going to depend on broadening
our horizons not only of what we think of as food but also of what we accept as
farming. Insects may very well play a role in this food future. As the FAO report’s
foreword reads:

    It is widely accepted that by 2050 the world will host 9 billion people. To
accommodate this number, current food production will need to almost double.
Land is scarce and expanding the area devoted to farming is rarely a viable or
sustainable option. Oceans are over fished and climate change and related water
shortages could have profound implications for food production. To meet the
food and nutrition challenges of today there are nearly 1 billion chronically
hungry people worldwide and tomorrow, what we eat and how we produce it
needs to be re-evaluated. Inefficiencies need to be rectified and food waste reduced.
We need to find new ways of growing food.

        Edible insects have always been a part of human diets, but in some societies
there is a degree of distaste for their consumption. Although the majority of edible
insects are gathered from forest habitats, innovation in mass-rearing systems has
begun in many countries. Insects offer a significant opportunity to merge
traditional knowledge and modern science in both developed and developing
countries.

    The success of using insects as a food source will depend directly on the
sustainability with which this new food source is raised. Raising insects on a
mass scale may beget many of the same problems already saddling the food
system, such as the threat of genetic engineering, unforeseen pollution,
disruptions to local ecosystems and risks to native insect, animal and plant
species.

    Insects must be raised in a sustainable way if they are to become a
successful part of the worldwide diet, and this is true of any food source. If
agricultural practices such as permaculture, which work with nature instead of
against it, are more widely embraced, the food sources you currently enjoy can
be sustained and flourish.

    For instance, if cattle are rotated across pastures instead of raised in CAFOs,
the animals' grazing will cut the blades of grass, spurring new growth, while
their trampling helps work manure into the soil, fertilizing it naturally. This
healthy soil then helps keep carbon dioxide underground and out of the
atmosphere.

See, it’s not the raising of cattle or poultry or fish that’s the problem; it’s the
way in which they’re being raised that is unsustainable and currently trashing
the planet and threatening the food supply.

    Environmental devastation can even be healed and functional ecosystems
rebuilt using the permaculture concept. So while considering insects as a
sustainable food source is intriguing, it should not replace the ultimate goal,
which is sustainable farming for every species.

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.

Let’s answer these questions...

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      
               

Let’s answer these questions from 3/24/14

Question #1:

Dr. Ewan Cameron, and two-time Nobel Prize winner
Linus Pauling, did studies in Scotland (which were duplicated
by studies in Canada and Japan) comparing Vitamin C therapy to
chemotherapy. Which group of patients, the ones on vitamin C or
chemotherapy, lived longer on average, and by how much?

Answer: The vitamin C patients lived an average of ten times
longer than the chemotherapy patients. I don’t know why anyone
would be surprised at this result. Cancer in many cases is nothing
but a symptom of a weakened immune system. Chemotherapy virtually
destroys an already weakened immune system, and it is the immune
system that deals with cancer on a normal basis. On the other
hand, Vitamin C helps build the immune system. It makes sense
that someone who has had their immune system built up would outlive
someone who had their immune system destroyed.

Because Dr. Pauling was world famous, and had an impeccable
reputation for quality and integrity, a person might wonder why
the orthodox medical community did not do further studies on
Vitamin C and cancer. They did do further studies on Vitamin C.
But the purpose of these studies was to discredit Dr. Pauling
and Dr. Cameron, as previously mentioned.

Question #2: 

 An American alternative cancer treatment doctor
treated 33,000 cancer patients, many of whom had been given up
for dead by orthodox medicine and had been sent home to die.
What was his verified cure rate?

Answer: Dr. William Donald Kelley, a dentist by training, had a
93% cure rate on patients who were not too far gone before
they went to him. This cure rate was verified by a 5-year study
by an orthodox doctor. His technique is called metabolic therapy,
and guess what, it was designed to build the immune system and
safely and selectively kill cancer cells.

But what is of even more significance is the answer to this
question: if we factor out all of his patients who went to
orthodox doctors before they went to Dr. Kelley, and only counted
those who went to Dr. Kelley first, what would his cure rate have
been?

First of all, even for orthodox medicine the vast majority of
cancer patients live for at least a year and a half after their
first diagnosis. But for Dr. Kelley it is logical to conclude
that an even higher percentage of cancer patients, who went to
him first, lived for at least a year and a half because Dr.
Kelley’s treatment does not damage the immune system, rather it
builds the immune system.
Furthermore, Dr. Kelley had a high cure rate even for pancreatic
cancer patients who went to him first.

In other words, virtually all of the cancer patients who went to Dr.
Kelley first were in the group that had a 93% cure rate! If we
further make the even more obvious conclusion that among those
cancer patients in the 93% statistic, those who went to him first
had at least as high a cure rate as those who went to orthodox
medicine first, then we can logically conclude that his cure
rate on patients who went to him first was probably around 90%.

All of this is a highly logical conclusion for three reasons:

First, he used the identical treatment regardless of whether
his patient went to him first or orthodox medicine first,

Second, for those patients who went to orthodox medicine first,
Dr. Kelley lost a lot of time before he was able to start
treating these patients. In other words, he started their
treatments after their cancer was further along (compared to
those who went to him first), and Third, those patients who
went to orthodox medicine first had their immune systems severely
compromised before they went to Dr. Kelley (in other words,
for those who went to Dr. Kelley first, they still had their
immune system intact), thus Dr. Kelley had to rebuild that portion of
their immune system before his treatment started to
become fully effective. This loss of time was in addition to
the lost time caused by these patients going to orthodox medicine
first.

In other words, it is obvious that if 10,000 new cancer patients,
who had not had any orthodox treatments, went to Dr. Kelley first,
his overall cure rate for these people would be close to 90%, and
perhaps even higher! That is far, far higher than the patients
who go to orthodox medicine first.

In fact, as will be shown below, when you factor out all of the
fancy statistical tricks of orthodox medicine, such as their 5-
year cure rate, the true cure rate for orthodox medicine is 3%
or less. Thus, patients who went to Dr. Kelley FIRST had a THIRTY
TIMES higher chance of surviving their cancer than those who went
to orthodox medicine exclusively.

Dr. Kelley’s reward by orthodox medicine for his high cure rate
was to be thrown in jail. Kelley also had to move his treatment
to Mexico. Fortunately, he wrote a book about his treatment:

Cancer, Curing The Incurable Without Surgery, Chemotherapy or
Radiation before his death in early 2005.

Because Dr. Kelley had such an incredibly high cure rate for
cancer, much, much higher than orthodox medicine, you might
wonder why the orthodox medical community does not study Dr.
Kelley’s treatment to see if there are ways to improve it.

In other words, why doesn’t the orthodox community use Dr.
Kelley’s treatment in order to obtain a quick and immediate
90% cure rate for new cancer patients, then find ways to improve
on it to get even higher cure rates? Why are they content with
a 3% cure rate when there is a publicly available treatment that
has a 90% cure rate on new patients?

While the Kelley Metabolic treatment is perfectly capable of
curing a person’s a cancer, I should note that it is not advised
that it be the primary treatment for someone who has been on
chemotherapy. Some newer treatments do not depend on building
the immune system before they fully work, thus they are far
more effective on patients who have had their immune system
compromised by chemotherapy.

Question #3:

 Fill in the blank: In a review of 206 human studies, [which food]
consistently emerged as one of the top cancer-fighting foods.

Answer: Here is the complete quote: In a review of 206 human
studies, carrots consistently emerged as one of the top cancer-
fighting foods. The power of carrots lies in the group of
pigments called carotids (beta-carotene is among this group),
which give them their orange color.

While it is nice that scientists have made this discovery,
carrots were used to cure cancer long before any of the 206
human studies the quote refers to. Raw vegetable juices, with
raw carrots as the main ingredient, coupled with a customized
vegan diet, as a replacement for the meat and dairy centered
Western diet, has cured many, many thousands of people of cancer.

I might add that carrot juice is the main ingredient in the
vegetable juice that serves at the heart of the Raw Food Diet,
for which there is an article on this web site.

However, carrot juice based protocols are not rated in the top
layer of alternative cancer treatments for advanced cancer
patients. However, carrot juice is part of some of the best
treatments!!

Question #4:

How many Nobel Prize discoveries (and when were
they awarded) did Dr. Johanna Budwig use to help her develop
the Flaxseed Oil (omega 3) / Cottage Cheese (sulphur proteins)
cancer treatment?

Answer: Two Nobel Prizes, Dr. Otto Warburg (1931) and Dr. Albert
Szent-Gyorgyi (1937). First, Dr. Warburg:

    Dr Otto Warburg, twice Nobel laureate was able to prove
that cancer cannot grow in an high oxygen environment. He states:

Cancer, above all diseases, has countless secondary causes, but
there is only one prime cause: the prime cause of cancer is the
replacement of normal oxygen respiration of body cells by
anaerobic respiration’. In other words, lack of oxygen. His
research revealed that when a cell is denied 60% of its normal
requirement of oxygen, it switches to a fermentation mechanism
and grows out of control.

Second, Dr. Szent-Gyorgyi:

    Dr. Szent-Gyorgy won the Nobel Prize in 1937 for discovering
that essential fatty acids combined with sulphur-rich proteins
(such as those found in diary products) increases oxygenation of
the body.   

Note that both of these Nobel Prizes were awarded in the 1930s.
Dr. Budwig developed a diet to combine these two discoveries
into one simple treatment plan – flaxseed oil and cottage cheese.
Her treatment has cured untold thousands of cancer patients.

Her protocol is actually an integral part of two of the most
potent alternative cancer treatments: the Cellect-Budwig Protocol
and the Bill Henderson Protocol.

Question #5:

It is absurd to think that a person can be cured of
cancer simply by changing their diet. Only professionals can cure
cancer. True or false?

Answer: I quote from alternative medicine expert Walter Last:

    To show how simple natural methods can be very effective in
overcoming advanced cancer, I like to mention an example from
the book The Food and Health of Western Man by Dr J. L. Mount.
In five reported cases of bowel cancer, surgery revealed that
metastases had already spread all over the body. Therefore, these
patients were just closed up again and sent home to die. But
instead of doing that, independently of each other, these five
changed their diets and from then on ate only homegrown organically
raised food. When they finally did die 21 to 30 years later, no
traces of cancer could be found in post-mortem examinations. Such
cures without medical intervention are regarded as ‘spontaneous
remissions.
   
The vast majority of cancer patients who go into spontaneous remission
made massive changes in their diet after being diagnosed with cancer.

    A study was done on 200 cancer patients who had experienced
spontaneous remission. Doctors call these remissions miracles. They’re
NOT miracles. Here’s how they did it. Eighty seven percent
of them fundamentally changed their diets mostly to vegetarian.
All of the 200 made changes in their lives including nutritional
supplementation and detoxification techniques. What this and other
studies are telling us is that cancer can be cured by fundamentally
changing the chemistry that created it.

    Raymond Francis

Here is another interesting quote:

    A study of four hundred cancer cases that went into
spontaneous remission revealed cures which had little in common.
Some people drank grape juice or swallowed massive doses of
vitamin C; others prayed, took herbal remedies, or simply cheered
themselves on. These very diverse patients did have one thing in
common, though. At a certain point in their disease, they suddenly
knew, with complete certainty, that they were going to get better,
as if the disease were merely a mirage, and the patient suddenly
passed beyond it into a space where fear and despair and all
sickness were nonexistent.

While it is true that many people go into spontaneous remission
by dramatically changing their diet and attitude, imagine what
would happen if newly diagnosed cancer patients were told:

1) What foods contained the most cancer-killing nutrients,
2) What foods contained the best nutrients to build the immune
system,
3) What foods feed cancer cells and thus cause the cancer to
grow faster (these are foods to avoid),
4) The best supplements to kill cancer cells and build the
immune system, and they were told
5) What things in a person’s life can damage a natural treatment
plan (e.g. chlorine in tap water)?

For example, changing to a vegan diet would not necessarily cure
cancer, but going on a selective vegan diet and eating only the
vegetables and fruits known to contain large amounts of cancer
killing nutrients, and avoiding foods that feed the cancer, and
avoiding foods that interfere with the effectiveness of the cancer-
fighting foods, would yield a much higher cure rate than any
orthodox treatment, even better than Vitamin C therapy. But
alternative medicine can do much better than even this selective
vegan protocol.

Copyright (c) 2003, 2004, 2006 R. Webster Kehr, all rights reserved.

 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.