Orthodox Medicine Q&A on The Treatment of Cancer.

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

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

 

Orthodox Medicine Q&A on The Treatment of Cancer.

Question #1

  Chemotherapy and radiation put people into remission. Putting
people into remission proves that the total life (see above
definition) of a person is significantly increased by using
chemotherapy and radiation. True or false?

Answer: People equate the concept of remission with the concept
of cure. Technically, remission means nothing more than one or
more of the symptoms of the cancer are gone (e.g. destroying a
tumor may put a cancer patient into remission). However, even if
a tumor is destroyed, for example, and the person is judged to
be in remission, there still may be many areas of concentrated
cancer cells in the body. Thus a person can still have potentially
damaging areas of cancer in their body and they can still be
considered to be in remission.

There has never been scientific proof that the treatment of
symptoms generally relates to a longer total life. In other
words, there has never been scientific proof that the concept
of removing symptoms and the concept of increasing total
life are related. Indeed, the total life of cancer patients has
barely changed in over 80 years in spite of many improvements
in treating symptoms.

Furthermore, while many people do go into remission, for some
types of cancer, more than 90% of the people who go into
remission will come out of remission (which is called regression)
and will later die of cancer. Total Life has to do with the
eventual death of the patient, not the treatment of the symptoms
of cancer. Consider this quote:

Ovarian cancer is usually detected at an advanced stage and, as
such, is one of the deadliest and most difficult cancers to
treat. Therapy can eradicate the tumors, but most patients
relapse within two years  Normally, when a woman is diagnosed
with ovarian cancer, she undergoes surgery to have the tumors
removed. The ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus and parts of the
bowel are often removed as well.

Chemotherapy follows the surgery, and about 90 percent of
patients then go into remission, a period of watchful waiting.
The problem is that over the next five to 10 years, as many as
90 percent of women will relapse and die, says Berek. When the
cancer returns in other surrounding tissue, it is more virulent
and resistant to chemotherapy.
  
Of course the returning cancer is more deadly than the original
cancer because the person’s immune system was destroyed while
treating the symptoms of the first cancer. The cancer may never
have left the patient. Once chemotherapy has damaged the immune
system, the patient is left far more vulnerable to cancer.

An even more deceptive term has entered into the vocabulary of
orthodox medicine. The term is response. Again, people equate
the term response to cure. This newly ubiquitous term is even
more deceptive than the term remission. What does response
mean?

It only means that the tumor has shrunk a little. That’s all.

Orthodox medicine wants patients to think that the tumor is the
cancer and the size of the tumor equates to the cancer being
cured. This is utter nonsense. It is a clever trick to avoid the
issue of total life. Rather than extending the total life of
patients, they extend their vocabulary to be more and more
deceptive.

Question #2

If a cancer patient lives 5 years after diagnosis, orthodox
medicine considers that they are cured of cancer. Is this
concept mathematically equivalent to the concept of total
life?

Answer: It is assumed that the concept of cure (meaning
patients who survive 5 years after diagnosis), is equivalent
to the concept of total life. Consider two car manufacturing
companies, Company B and Company G. Let us define the total
life of the cars these companies manufacture to be the number
of miles the cars drive before the engine dies permanently and
has to be replaced. Suppose the total life of Company B cars
is 100,000 miles and suppose the total life of the Company G
cars is 300,000 miles.

Clearly, Company G makes far superior automobiles. How can the
Company B executives make it appear that their car engines are
as good as the engines made by Company G? They can lie with
statistics.

For example, what if Company B did a study of what percent of
Company B car engines and what percent of Company G car engines
were still running after 30,000 miles? Both companies would look
very good and you could not tell them apart. But if the study
were based on what percent of Company B car engines and what
percent of Company G car engines were still running after 250,000
miles, the truth about the inferiority of Company B car engines
would be obvious.

If the benchmark is carefully chosen to be well below the
average, any company will look good.

That is exactly how orthodox medicine lies with statistics. A
cure rate based on a patient living 5 years is like the engine
test after 30,000 miles  it is meaningless. The benchmark is
way too low. Cure rates should be based on total life and
nothing else. For example, some cancers are very slow growing.
The cure rate for these cancers is very high, when in fact a 15-
year cure rate would show just how poor treatments are for some
of these types of cancers.

But the lies of orthodox medicine on this issue go much deeper
than that...much deeper.

If you look up the word cure in the dictionary, or think about
the concept of curing cancer, you might come up with a
definition of cure for cancer as meaning the cancer patient
has been returned to his or her condition before they got
cancer. In other words, they have less than, or fewer, cancer
cells than the average person.

Why doesn’t orthodox medicine use that definition of cure? If
they did use that definition, and every few years they found a
true cure for a type of cancer, their cure rate would slowly
go up.

But that is exactly why they don’t use that definition of cure.
They have no intention of curing cancer. As Dr. Bob Beck, a
PhD in physics used to say: a patient cured is a customer lost.

How can orthodox medicine maximize their profit per cancer
patient? In other words, they cannot control who gets cancer,
but they can control how much money they make per cancer
patient. They can do that by making cancer into a chronic
disease.

In other words, if can they extend the life of the patient, and
keep them on orthodox drugs and orthodox treatments, the
orthodox medical community can make more and more money
per patient.

It is easy to tell from their choice of a definition of cure
that that is exactly what they had in mind all along.

When the orthodox medicine people came up with their 5-year
cure rate they clearly had in mind that they wanted to convert
cancer into a chronic disease, meaning the patient was going to
be on prescription drugs for the rest of their life. That was
clearly their goal, because as they convert people into chronic
patients their cure rate will go up and up ( i.e. more and more
of them will hit the 5 year mark, but they will be on drugs for
life which may not be long after the 5 year mark).

Their definition of cure has NOTHING to do with how many
cancer cells a person has, what their health is, how long they
will live after the 5 year mark, how their immune system is
doing, how many microbes they have in their body, etc. etc.

Their definition of cure is only a number which reflects their
ability to convert cancer into a chronic disease. The more they
are able to convert cancer into a chronic disease, the higher
their cure rate, using their tricky definitions.

Orthodox medicine loves to use tricky definitions to make their
treatments look better than they really are, and to hide how
ineffective their treatments are. The American Cancer Society
is at the center of the deceptive definitions.

The reader should understand the difference between a treatment
and a true cure. A true cure, meaning the patient is made whole
and no longer needs prescription drugs, stops the profits of
orthodox medicine. But a “treatment” extends and expands on
their profits.

Orthodox medicine wants to treat cancer, not cure cancer.

In fact, orthodox medicine hates it when someone uses the term
cure for any disease. They want that term to be illegal because
it distracts the attention of people away from what they want
all profitable diseases to be chronic diseases.

                  Continued4/14/14

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.

Why Water Fluoridation Is a Scam

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         


                  Cure Acid_Reflux Naturally
                    http://bit.ly/19QPluW


                  Continued from 4/7/14

By Dr. Mercola

Why Water Fluoridation Is a Scam

    Water fluoridation was invented by brilliant schemers who
needed to get rid of toxic industrial waste that would cost
them hundreds of millions of dollars for proper disposal. They
duped politicians with fraudulent science and endorsements,
which is not science, and sold them on a public health idea in
which humans are utilized to filter this poison through their
bodies, while 99 percent simply goes down the drain. Adding
insult to injury, they now MAKE hundreds of millions of dollars
selling this hazardous industrial waste, rather than having to pay
for its disposal.

    In his 2012 article "Poison is Treatment—Edward Bernays and
the Campaign to Fluoridate America"6, James F. Tracy reveals the
PR campaign that created this fake public health measure:

   The wide-scale U.S. acceptance of fluoride-related compounds in
drinking water and a wide variety of consumer products over
the past half century is a textbook case of social engineering
orchestrated by Sigmund Freud’s nephew and the ‘father of
public relations Edward L. Bernays, he writes. The episode
is instructive, for it suggests the tremendous capacity of
powerful interests to reshape the social environment, thereby
prompting individuals to unwarily think and act in ways that are
often harmful to themselves and their loved ones.

    I highly recommend taking the time to read Tracy’s
informative expose on how good PR can trump science and keep
you in the dark for decades, lest you dig a bit deeper. The oft-
quoted phrase that water fluoridation is one of the greatest
public health achievements of the 20th century was also created
by a Public Relations firm, not hard-core facts.

The Health Ramifications of Mass Medicating with Fluoride

    Scientists from the EPA's National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a
"chemical having substantial evidence of developmental
neurotoxicity, and 25 studies have now reported an association
between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ in children—including
a recent study out of Harvard, in which the authors noted:

    The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high
fluoride exposure on children's neurodevelopment.

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental
fluorosis unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth
that indicate overexposure to fluoride. But that's not all.
Studies have shown fluoride toxicity can lead to the wide-
ranging problems listed below.

****Increases lead absorption    
****Disrupts collagen synthesis    
****Hyperactivity and/or lethargy    
****Crippling skeletal fluorosis and bone fractures
****Genetic damage and cell death    
****Increased tumor and cancer growth    
****Disrupts immune system and inhibits antibody production     
****Chronic fatigue
****Brain damage, and lowered IQ and dementia    
****Gastrointestinal problems and kidney issues    
****Arthritic symptoms    
****Severe eye problems, including blindness
****Impaired thyroid function    
****Weakened bones, and fatal bone cancer (osteosarcoma)     
****Inactivates 62 enzymes    
****Muscle disorders health.

  This is what the science is telling us about the ramifications
of fluoride use. And yet, rather than taking the precautionary
approach and stopping fluoridation until we know more, our
policymakers continue to blindly forge ahead; refusing to give
the scientific evidence the attention it deserves.

Congratulations on Keeping Portland’s Water Safe!

  According to the EPA’s local's president, Bill Hirzy, a chemist
in the EPA's Office of Toxic Substances, water fluoridation
remains a government policy because of institutional inertia
[and] embarrassment among government agencies that have been
promoting this stuff as safe.

    This is probably true, yet it’s shameful that the ADA, CDC
and other agencies would spend so much money trying to coerce
the continuation of this hazardous practice instead of just
yielding to the wishes of communities.

  Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health.
Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have
no place in our water supplies. So I urge you to join the
Fluoride Action Network’s efforts7 and your local anti-
fluoridation movements in the US and Canada.

    Please remember, people have been misled for generations
be patient with your friends and families who have been
improperly educated about fluoridation chemicals.   The tide
is turning, we are making a difference when we bring organic
consumers, environmentalists, and natural health advocates
together.

Join the Fight to Get Fluoride Out of Drinking Water

    There's no doubt about it: fluoride should not be ingested.
Even scientists from the EPA's National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a
chemical having substantial evidence of developmental
neurotoxicity. Furthermore, according to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), 41 percent of American adolescents
now have dental fluorosis—unattractive discoloration and mottling
of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. Clearly,
children are being overexposed, and their health and development
put in jeopardy. Why?

    At least when it comes to topical application, you have a
choice. You can easily buy fluoride-free toothpaste and mouthwash.
But you're stuck with whatever your community puts in the water,
and it's very difficult to filter out of your water once it's
added. Many do not have the resources or the knowledge to do so.

    The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of
water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride
Action Network has a game plan to END water fluoridation, both
in the United States and Canada. Clean pure water is a
prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and
other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies.

 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.

Major Victory as Portland, Oregon Votes NO on Water Fluoridation

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

    We are beginning to win the battle. The tide seems to
have turned as a major victory was achieved late last month
when Portland voted against fluoride - thanks much in part
to the national support they received.

    Because of your support, I was able to help fund this
effort and took a few lumps in the media as self-serving,
as I sell a non-fluoride toothpaste.  Desperate campaigns
go to desperate measures, making personal attacks the norm.

    It would have been a dangerous victory for the CDC had
they won, Portland was a prime target as it is the largest
unfluoridated city in the US.

    Fluoride, of course, is a toxic substance that is
biologically active in the human body. It accumulates in
sensitive tissues over time, wreaking havoc with enzymes,
and producing a number of serious adverse health effects
including neurological and endocrine dysfunction.  Fluoride
should never be ingested intentionally.

    Yet despite the scientific evidence against the practice,
the United States lags far behind other nations in
acknowledging the mistake and ending this tragic public
health measure.  As usual, the big lie must continue to
protect faith in long term public health policies and
agencies.

    As a result, individual communities around the US have
taken up the fight to end water fluoridation in their own
local areas. On many occasions, I’ve asked you to support such
efforts and today, I’m very pleased to report that the latest
fight has ended in victory.  Your hard work to share this
information or contribute to the campaign proved essential,
and I am so proud and grateful to our motivated supporters.

Science and Integrity Wins in Portland, Oregon

    Portland, Oregon gets its water from the Bull Run
watershed; a 102-square mile protected watershed that is so
pristine and pure the city was even granted a waiver from having
to build a water treatment plant.

    On May 21, Portland residents voted on whether or not to
fluoridate their unusually pristine water supply, with No
getting 61 percent of the votes.

    It’s been a rocky ride for Portlanders who even had to
fight for the right to vote on the issue for the fourth time!

    Citizens had already voted 'no' on water fluoridation for
Portland in 1956, 1962, and 1980. But after more than a year
of secretive planning, fluoride lobbyists finally convinced
the Portland city council to begin fluoridating Portland's
water supplies. The decision was set to take effect by March
2014.

    Luckily, the citizens of Portland stood together by
gathering enough signatures to force the decision to a vote
yet again. As reported by Fluoridealert.org:

   We are proud of our Portland colleagues who used
science and integrity to defeat fluoridation and the public
relations blitzkrieg that backed it,’ says Paul Connett, PhD,
FAN’s Executive Director.

  ... Fluoride chemicals are the only chemicals added
to public water for the purpose of medication. Most western
countries, including the vast majority of Europe, do not
fluoridate their water.

    'Most of Portland’s media falsely reported that
fluoridation promoters had science on their side and that
opponents used emotion, says Connett. ‘Those opposed did
their homework, relying on recent scientific findings from
the National Research Council (NRC) and Harvard that raise
serious questions about the safety of current fluoride
exposures.’"

    Six months ago, fluoridation was also rejected by voters
in Wichita, Kansas by a 20 percent margin. In April, Israel
announced it will end its mandatory fluoridation program,
and Ireland has proposed legislation that would make water
fluoridation a criminal offense! Canada has also seen a 25
percent drop in fluoridation programs over the past five
years as a result of increasing public awareness about the
associated dangers.

Coordinated Smear Campaign Lost Out to the Truth

    Portland residents did face a very tough battle. The
American Dental Association (ADA), Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) and the PEW Charitable
Trusts spent significant time coordinating their lobbying
efforts to the Portland City Council, which eventually led
to the Council unanimously voting to force fluoridation
chemicals on their citizens.

    Fluoridation proponents also spent close to $1 million on
their propaganda efforts leading up to the May 21 vote four
times the amount raised by the anti-fluoridation campaign
which they used to flood Portland with misleading ads and
editorials touting fluoridation as an urgently needed tool
for solving the dental crisis in the city’s poor
neighborhoods.

    Portland was the largest non-fluoridated city in the US,
making it a major target for pro-fluoridation advocates.
Fortunately, they failed big time. Portland has now set the
tone for other cities campaigns to rid themselves of this
toxic and unnecessary chemical.

    Proper diet, dental practices and access to mercury-free
dental services are the solutions to the problem of dental
cavities. Since we know that sugar causes cavities, perhaps if
the ADA, CDC, PEW and others really wanted the fluoride to go
to the right people, maybe they could lobby the junk food
companies to add fluoride to their soda and candies, opposed
to fluoridating drinking water. That would make more sense if
you believe fluoride can solve the problem of tooth decay,
wouldn’t it?

Water Fluoridation = Mass Medication Without Prescription

    Fluoride is not a nutrient. And while there is prescription
-grade fluoride, the fluoride put into drinking water is not a
prescription drug but an industrial waste product. However, it
is put into the water as a "drug" to help oral health, and it
is done without the consent of those receiving it. Even if you
accepted the premise that it works systemically, opposed to
topically only, there is no justification to force it on people
under the premise of slightly lowering tooth decay, as everyone
has the option of using it topically as a toothpaste if they so choose...

    The fluoride chemical typically added to water is hexafluorosilicic
acid (HFSA), which is a byproduct of the fertilizer industry. It
is a hazardous material they cannot easily dispose of. In fact,
it’s illegal to dump it into rivers and lakes or release the parent
gases into the atmosphere. And municipalities that decided to stop
fluoridating their water had to keep going until all the chemicals
were used up because they couldn’t afford the hazardous waste
disposal fees!

    Dr. William Hirzy from the EPA has pointed out that if it
goes into the air, it's a pollutant. If it goes into the local
water, it's pollution. But if the public water utilities buy it
and purposely pour it in our drinking water, it's no longer a
pollutant. All of a sudden, by some magic sleight of hand, it's
a beneficial public health measure... But dilution is not the
solution to pollution.

Fluoride Chemicals Also Pollute Drinking Water with Arsenic

    A recent study also shows that 90 percent of toxic arsenic
in our tap water comes from fluoridation chemicals. As reported
by Living Green Magazine:

   Industrial-grade fluoride chemicals added to US public water
supplies contain arsenic that the EPA classifies as a human carcinogen.
Switching to low-arsenic pharmaceutical-grade fluoride will save
society $1 billion to $14 billion annually, according to research
published in Environmental Science & Policy, led by former EPA
senior scientists who are experts in chemical  risk assessment,
reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

   Although never studied for safety or efficacy,
ydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) is added to public water supplies
as a purported cavity preventive. The industry-funded group that
regulates water additives, NSF International5, allows several
toxins in HFSA, including arsenic.

    We need to end this outdated practice. Adding
hexafluorosilicic acid to drinking water to prevent tooth decay
is based on politics, not science. Why should a water department
be given the power to medicate anyone when they don't take a
health history, they don't pass out a listing of side effects,
monitor the dose or the effect? This is tantamount to gross negligence.

    According to a 2006 report on water fluoridation produced
by the US National Research Council, the benefits from fluoride
are topical only, and cannot be achieved through ingestion. It
also detailed positive associations between fluoride ingestion
and bone fractures, cancer, reduced IQ and dementia.

    I predict that water fluoridation will become known as one
of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated against the public in
the 20th and 21st century. In the future, water fluoridation
will be compared to tobacco science, DDT science, asbestos
science, and thalidomide science all grossly manipulated to
hide an incredibly costly truth.

Thank You  Dr. Mercola

                  Continued4/09/14

 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.

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.