Both Air And Noise Pollution Increase Cardiovascular Risk

                     SPONSORS

        World's #1 Publisher of Information About  
             Alternative Cancer Treatments.            
                 http://bit.ly/1kQKj7b


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

By Dr. Mercola

    Air pollution and noise pollution often go hand-
in-hand, as some of the most heavily air-polluted areas
are also those near loud busy roadways and airports.

    Because of this connection, some have tried to
dismiss studies linking air pollution to increased
heart risks, blaming it on the noise in the area
instead and vice versa.

    Now new research has settled this point of
contention, as it looked at air pollution and noise
pollution simultaneously and found that each form of
pollution was independently associated with heart
risks, specifically subclinical atherosclerosis, or
hardening of the arteries.

Air Pollution and Noise Pollution: A Double Whammy to
Your Heart

    If you live near a busy highway, you’re likely
being simultaneously exposed to two major pollution
sources that can harm your heart: air pollution and
noise pollution from the traffic.

    In a German study of more than 4,200 people,
researchers used a measure of arterial hardening
known as “thoracic aortic calcification” (TAC) to
estimate heart risks. Exposure to fine particle air
pollution increased TAC scores by nearly 20 percent
while exposure to noise pollution increased TAC by
about 8 percent.

    This was after controlling for other variables that
may influence heart health, such as age, gender,
smoking, physical activity, alcohol use and more.
What this means is that people living in high-risk
areas need to account for both types of pollution to
protect their heart health. As researchers noted:

         Both exposures seem to be important and both
must be considered on a population level, rather than
focusing on just one hazard."

Air Pollution Is Strongly Tied to Heart Risks

    You may think air pollution mostly impacts your
lungs, but it actually has a serious impact on your
heart, as well. In fact, the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 5 percent or
more of heart disease deaths may be related to air
pollution exposure.

    For starters, it’s known that exposure to one type
of air pollution, ozone, may trigger inflammation of
your vascular system, increasing risk factors associated
with heart disease.

    Ozone exposure has also been linked to a change in
heart rate variability and a reduction in the ability
of blood clots to dissolve, both of which can lead to
heart problems.

    Additional research published in the journal PLoS
Medicine, showed that, on average, the thickness of
the carotid artery increased by 0.014 millimeters per
year after other risk factors such as smoking were
accounted for.

    Those who had higher levels of exposure to fine
particulate air pollution experienced thickening of the
inner two layers of the carotid artery (which supplies
blood to your head) quicker than those exposed to
lower levels of pollution. According to the authors:

        "Linking these findings with other results from
the same population suggests that persons living in a
more polluted part of town may have a 2 percent higher
risk of stroke as compared to people in a less polluted
part of the same metropolitan area.

    For people with existing heart conditions the risk
may be even steeper, with one study showing that
breathing exhaust fumes from heavy traffic may trigger
a heart attack among this population a risk that
continues for up to six hours afterward as well. Simply
being in heavy traffic has even been found to triple
the risk of suffering from a heart attack!

    Interestingly, both fine particle matter air
pollution and noise pollution are believed to increase
your cardiovascular disease risk through similar
biologic pathways, including by causing an imbalance in
your autonomic nervous system (ANS). Your ANS is
intricately involved in regulating biological functions
such as blood pressure, blood sugar levels, clotting
and viscosity.

How Does Noise Pollution Harm Your Heart?

    According to research published in Environmental
Health Perspectives, long-term exposure to traffic
noise may account for approximately 3 percent of
coronary heart disease deaths (or about 210,000 deaths)
in Europe each year. But how exactly does noise harm
your heart?

    One of the key ways is by elevating stress hormones
such as cortisol, adrenaline, and noradrenaline, which,
over time, can lead to high blood pressure, stroke and
heart failure. One review of research showed that
arousal associated with nighttime noise exposure
increased blood and saliva concentrations of these
hormones even during sleep. Deepak Prasher, a professor
of audiology at University College in London and a
member of the WHO Noise Environmental Burden
on Disease working group, states:

        Many people become habituated to noise over
time The biological effects are imperceptible, so that
even as you become accustomed to the noise, adverse
physiological changes are nevertheless taking place,
with potentially serious consequences to human health
Taken together, recent epidemiologic data show us that
noise is a major stressor that can influence health
through the endocrine, immune, and cardiovascular
systems.

    The impact can be significant. Among women who
judge themselves to be sensitive to noise, chronic
noise exposure increased the risk of cardiovascular
mortality by 80 percent! Chronic noise exposure also
leads to health risks beyond your heart, such as
hearing loss, diminished productivity, sleep
disruption, impaired learning and more. Air pollution
similarly causes wide-reaching risks to health

Air Pollution Also Tied to Hyperactivity in Kids

    In related news, a study found that children
exposed to traffic-related air pollution before their
first birthday had a higher risk of hyperactivity at
the age of 7. The research suggests that air pollution
may be having a negative impact on brain development,
possibly by causing blood vessels to constrict or
causing toxic buildup in the brain.

    Noise pollution has also been tied to risks
specifically in children, including an impairment in
reading comprehension and long-term memory
among those exposed to chronic aircraft noise. Like
 adults, children living near heavy traffic areas may
be at significant risks of health issues from exposure
to both noise and air pollution simultaneously.

 Thank You  Dr. Mercola

                  Continued on  4/21/14


 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.

Q&A...Final portion of the Article...Treating vs Curing 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


World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative
     Cancer Treatments Cancer Defeated                 
          http://bit.ly/1kQKj7b      


           Continued from 4/14/14

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

reserved.

Question #4

Among the thousands of scientific studies on chemotherapy,
there is massive scientific evidence that chemotherapy extends
the total life of cancer patients compared to those who refuse all
treatment. True or false?

Answer: The next quote answers this question:

Professor Hardin B. Jones, PhD stated:
My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer
victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals.
If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live
longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation,
chemotherapy or surgery
Now consider this quote:

In 1975, the respected British medical journal Lancet reported
on a study which compared the effect on cancer patients of (1)
a single chemotherapy, (2) multiple chemotherapy, and (3) no
treatment at all. No treatment ‘proved a significantly better
policy for patients’ survival and for quality of remaining
life.

Barry Lynes, The Healing of Cancer The Cures the Cover-ups and
the Solution Now!

And this quote:
A German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor
Clinic, Dr Ulrich Abel, has done a comprehensive review and analysis
of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done.
His conclusions should be read by anyone who is about to embark
on the Chemo Express. To make sure he had reviewed everything
ever published on chemotherapy, Abel sent letters to over 350
medical centers around the world, asking them to send him
anything they had published on the subject. Abel researched
thousands of articles: it is unlikely that anyone in the world
knows more about chemotherapy than he.

The analysis took him several years, but the results are
astounding: Abel found that the overall worldwide success rate
of chemotherapy was ‘appalling’ because there was simply no
scientific evidence available anywhere that chemotherapy can
extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering
from the most common organic cancers’. Abel emphasizes that
chemotherapy rarely can improve the quality of life. He
describes chemotherapy as ‘a scientific wasteland’ and states
that at least 80 per cent of chemotherapy administered
throughout the world is worthless and is akin to the emperor’s
new clothes neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on
chemotherapy, even though there is no scientific evidence that it
works!

(Lancet, 10 August 1991) No mainstream media even mentioned
this comprehensive study: it was totally buried.
Tim O’Shea, The Doctor Within

Three major studies all came to the same conclusion: orthodox
cancer treatments do not extend the total life of cancer
patients. In fact, in many cases they shorten the total life
of cancer patients.

Yet virtually every cancer patient on earth has been told by
their doctors something like this: if you take this  chemotherapy
you will live 6 months longer than if you do not take it. This
statement is ubiquitous but totally unscientific!!

Here is a prophetic quote about the future of chemotherapy and
radiation:
Twenty years from now we will look back at chemotherapy and
radiation as [being as] barbaric as using leeches, Steve
Millett, manager of technology forecasts for Battelle

Unfortunately, this quote is nonsense. I personally have seen
quotes from cancer researchers who claim it will be at least
50 years before there will be a dent in cancer. That is more
accurate becuase that is what everyone wants.

Question #5

Orthodox proponents claim that for some kinds of cancer, cure
rates have gone up over the past 10 or 20 years. They claim
this is just another proof that orthodox treatments are
superior to alternative treatments. Do you agree?

Answer: Yes, some cure rates have gone up. This is the most
damaging deception of all.

Suppose Company B (as discussed above) makes some small
improvements in their engines and the total life of their engines
increases from 100,000 miles to 102,000 miles. Because
of this, suppose the percentage of their engines that last
30,000 increases from 92% to 93%.

Now imagine the CEO of Company B makes the following
announcement:

The percentage of our car engines that last 30,000 has
increased from 92% to 93%. This proves that Company B cars
last longer than Company G cars.

Is the CEO right? Of course not, Company G engines still last
300,000 and Company B engines only last 102,000. It is an
absurd claim. What the Company B executive has done is compare
the old Company B cars to the new Company B cars. The CEO
has not compared the total life of the Company B cars to the
total life of the Company G cars.

That is exactly what the FDA does. When orthodox medicine says
that cure rates have gone up, they are comparing their old 5-
year chemotherapy stats to their new 5-year chemotherapy
stats.

They are not comparing the total life of orthodox treatments
to the total life of alternative treatments or even the total
life of those who refuse treatments.

Orthodox medicine is continually improving their treatments,
all with a loud clarion blast of publicity. Their cure rates
are always going up and a cure is always just around the
corner.

But look at it this way. Company B can improve their engines
to last 102,000, and 5 years later they can improve them to
104,000,  and 5 years later to 106,000, and so on. In the mean
time people who bought cars from Company G have cars that
last 300,000, then 5 years later 305,000, then 5 years later 310,000,
 and so on.
So when will Company B catch up to Company G? Never!!

But this sophisticated deception goes much deeper. Cure rates
will go up if the cancer is diagnosed earlier! In other words,
if the American Cancer Society convinces women to get
mammograms (which are carcinogenic, by the way) more often,
their breast cancer will be diagnosed earlier, on average, and
the cure rates for breast cancer will go up! The cure rate did
not go up because of some improvement in chemotherapy or
radiation, but because women have carcinogenic mammograms
more frequently!

There are many ways to manipulate the cure rates of orthodox
medicine.

In truth, the gap in total life between alternative cancer treatments
and orthodox cancer treatments is greater than the gap between
Company G cars and Company B cars. The Cameron/Pauling
study proved that. While the Cameron/Pauling Vitamin C
therapy is not one of the best current alternative cancer
treatments, there are newer Vitamin C therapies that are among
the best treatments.

Orthodox medicine, by using sophisticated definitions and
deceptive statistics, has convinced the public to believe that
orthodox cancer treatments extend the total life of patients.
But there is no scientific evidence for that belief!!

I want to emphasize that these deceptions were not developed
by ignorant people who didn’t know what they were doing. They
are sophisticated, carefully designed statistical deceptions
combined with carefully chosen deceptive terminology! A normal
person would automatically think only about total life, but
the total life numbers are carefully hidden. More will be said
about those doing the deception later.

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.

More Q&A on Treating & Curing 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 


        World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative
        Cancer Treatments Cancer Defeated                
                      http://bit.ly/1kQKj7b


              Continued from 4/11/14        

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

reserved.

Question #3

The FDA would never approve a chemotherapy drug unless it was
scientifically proven, beyond any doubt, that the drug
sigificantly extends the total life of a cancer patient.

True or false?

Answer: This comment needs some explanation because the goal
of the pharmaceutical industry is to maximize their profits.
Think about it, can you maximize your profits better if your
patients live 5 years or 3 years? Obviously, 5 years. So there
is some motivation to extend the life of cancer patients.

However, think about this also. If you cure the patient after
one year, how much profits do you make after they are cured?
Not much.

Thus, the goal of orthodox medicine is to make cancer into a
chronic disease, like diabetes, where the patient has many
years of treatment.

Also, understand that chemotherapy drugs do not target cancer
cells, they target fast-growing cells. There is a significant
difference between targeting fast-growing cells versus targeting
cancer cells.

First, some cancer cells are slow growing, thus chemotherapy
does not target them and may not kill them. Second, some non-
cancerous cells are fast growing, thus chemotherapy may target
them and kill them.

Thus, to target fast growing cells instead of cancer cells is
a huge difference.

But more importantly, because chemotherapy drugs do not target
cancer cells chemotherapy drugs cannot stop the spread of cancer.

If enough chemotherapy were given to a cancer patient that the
drugs stopped the spread of the cancer, the patient would die
from the toxicity of the chemotherapy.

Thus, the FDA has NEVER in their history approved a drug that
targeted cancer cells and/or stopped the spread of cancer.
Ponder that carefully.

However, scores of natural substances have been proven to target
cancer cells, or do no harm to non-cancerous cells, and thus STOP
the spread of cancer and cure the patient. Scores of natural
molecules have been proven to do that!!

The FDA has NEVER approved one of the natural substances known
to target cancer cells, or do no harm to non-cancerous cells,and thus
stop the spread of cancer and cure the patient.

Thus, everything the FDA has approved:
1) Is very profitable to the pharmaceutical industry,
2) Does NOT target cancer cells,
3) Does NOT stop the spread of cancer, and
4) Does NOT cure the patient.

Technically speaking, the drugs may slow down the cancer, and
thus put the patient in remission, but in the vast majority of
cases the patient comes out of remmision and dies of cancer or
the cancer treatment. Thus the drugs approved by the FDA are
more and more profitable to the pharmaceutical industry (because
the patient is on the treatment longer), but they do not stop
the spread of cancer or cure any patients.

Also, the FDA has NEVER approved any of the natural molecules,
which:
1) Are not highly profitable to the pharmaceutical industry,
2) DO target cancer cells or do no harm to normal cells,
3) DO stop the spread of cancer, and
4) DO cure the patient of cancer, especially if the patient 
    did not go with orthodox treatments first.

Do you see a pattern here? The deciding factor on what is
approved by the FDA is not based on how long a patient lives,
but on how profitable the drug is to the pharmaceutical industry.

So talking about the total life of the patient misses the whole
point of what is going on in orthdox medicine.

This is the key, if the FDA was interested in maximizing the
total life of cancer patients they would only approve natural
substances for the treatment of cancer. That is the key. The
FDA is only interested in increasing the “total life” of the
cancer patient if it means more profits to the pharmaceutical
industry.

To hide what they are really doing, the FDA approves
chemotherapy drugs based on the treatment of the symptoms of
cancer. The focus on how long a patient lives is not a focus
on targeting cancer cells, or doing no harm to non-cancerous
cells, and thus stopping the spread of cancer and thus curing
the patient. It is only a focus on profits.

But the approval of chemotherapy drugs is generally based on
how well a new drug does treating symptoms (e.g. tumor size or
putting a patient in remission), compared only to how other
chemotherapy drugs do treating this same symptom!!

Furthermore, when a chemotherapy drug is approved for extending
life, the approval is also based on comparing one chemotherapy
drug (or combination of drugs) to another chemotherapy drug (or
combination of drugs).

Once they got their first chemotherapy drug approved (to treat
symptoms), then all future drugs can be approved by comparing
them to earlier drugs for either extending life or treating symptoms.

Never, never, never, has a chemotherapy drug been approved by
a study comparing the use of the drug on one group of patients,
and comparing this group to a group of patients who refused
treatments (in an FDA filing), nor has a study ever been done
comparing chemotherapy to one of the top alternative cancer
treatments (in an FDA filing).

We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people,
right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research
is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three
doses of that poison.”Dr Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist

Now a person might think that it would be unethical to compare
a chemotherapy drug to those who refuse treatments. If a person
were secretly given a placebo, perhaps that would be unethical.

However, there are plenty of people who voluntarily refuse to
subject themselves to orthodox treatments who could be used in
a study to compare a chemotherapy treatment plan to those who
refuse treatment!!

To understand what is going on, suppose a new drug allows 75%
of the cancer patients, with a specific type of cancer, to live for
2 years after diagnosis. What exactly does this mean if 85% of
those same cancer patients would have survived two years without
any type of orthodox treatment or 97% of those same cancer
patients would have survived 10 years using the best of the
alternative cancer treatments?

Again, the focus of the FDA is on profits, not on “total life,
though the total life may increase in order for the pharmaceutical
industry to make higher profits.

The FDA executives are not innocent bystanders in the war
between orthodox medicine and alternative medicine. The FDA is
100% behind the pharmaceutical industry and 0% behind alternative
medicine. They are just as guilty as the pharamceutical executives,
just as guilty as the AMA executives, and just as guilty as anyone
else lying to the American people by telling them prescription
chemotharapy is in the best interests of cancer patients or that
alternative cancer treatments are worthless.

Nor can Congress plead stupidity and hide behind the skirts of
the FDA. The members of Congress also have their hands in the
pockets of the pharmaceutical industry.


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.

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.