May 8

Cancer - Turn It On Or Turn It Off

. . . by Raymond Francis


America has one of the highest cancer rates in the world, and cancer is the most dreaded disease in our society. Once rare, affecting less than one in a thousand, by 1900 cancer affected 30 in a thousand. Today almost 500 in a thousand will develop cancer in their lifetimes.
 
The situation has become so bad that almost all Americans over the age of 50 have cancer! For example, it is known that after age 50, 40 percent of men have prostate cancer and 40 percent of women have breast cancer, and these are just two cancers. Cancer is also increasing among children and, after accidents, it is their biggest killer. We need to teach people how to prevent and reverse this tragic disease

Unfortunately, modern medicine is of no help. Since 1971, when President Nixon declared "war" on cancer, we have thrown 200 billion dollars at cancer research. What has this money bought us? More cancer! The public has yet to grasp the colossal gap between how much money the cancer industry is spending, and the paltry results it is achieving.

 
Research is only part of the billion dollar-a-day cancer industry whose treatments with drugs, surgery and radiation are not only ineffective but dangerous. These conventional treatments do nothing to address what caused the cancer, and they suppress the immune system. Suppressed immunity allows cancer to grow and metastasize -- modern medicine's treatment of cancer promotes cancer!

Fortunately, we can protect ourselves. If you are over age 50, you are probably past preventing cancer, you already have it! Now you need to keep it under control. Don't turn the cancer on, and if you already have active cancer, turn it off. Can this be done? Sure it can, and it is done every day by people who take charge of their health.

A few years ago, businessman Paul Orberson told his story on the Beyond Health radio show. Mr. Orberson had been diagnosed with advanced kidney cancer. Given only months to live, he read my book Never Be Sick Again -- and put his cancer into remission.

 
Almost two decades ago, my brother was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer and given months to live. He, too, put his cancer into remission and is living a high-quality life.
 
Medical school professor and author Dr. Lorraine Day reversed her highly-advanced breast cancer. There are countless such stories. 

To prevent and reverse cancer, it helps to understand something about what causes and promotes cancer. The cancer process occurs in three stages: initiation, promotion and metastasis.

INITIATION
 
Cancer begins with damaged genes. Initiation occurs when the DNA in a normal cell is damaged. If the DNA is not repaired before the cell divides to form a new cell, it results in a permanent genetic alteration in those new cells.

DNA can be damaged by a variety of means, including viruses, chronic infections, foreign bodies, nutrient deficiency, radiation and toxic chemicals. Numerous natural and manmade chemicals have been identified as carcinogenic. Upon exposure, these chemicals can, in a matter of minutes, cause potentially permanent damage to DNA. Such chemicals include many common household chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, food additives, fluoride and metals such as mercury and lead. We live in a sea of carcinogens and must learn how to avoid them. Radiation is carcinogenic; it damages DNA. This is why mammograms cause breast cancer, and why medical X-rays play a major role in our cancer epidemic.

Due to our exposure to carcinogenic chemicals and X-rays, most of our older population and many of our younger people have completed this initiation, and they have clusters of cancer cells throughout their bodies. This stage of cancer is not believed to be reversible. Given the right conditions, these cells will grow and then metastasize. 

Preventing Initiation

 
DNA is being damaged and cancer is being initiated on a grand scale. Our best defense is to support DNA repair with good nutrition while avoiding carcinogenic chemicals and radiation.
 
We have been irresponsibly exposed to radiation by our doctors and dentists. Decline routine X-rays. Allow only those that are absolutely necessary, and there are very few of those.
 
We have been exposed to DNA-damaging viruses through vaccinations. Avoid vaccinations. Vaccine-induced, DNA-damaging viruses are showing up in a variety of cancers including lymph, lung, brain and bone.
 
Avoid foods that have been heated to high temperatures, such as barbecued meat, as this causes formation of powerful carcinogens. Any food that has been blackened is dangerous, including toast. Avoid peanuts and corn products as these are often high in aflatoxins, which are potent carcinogens.
 
Fluoride can inhibit DNA-repair enzymes. Avoid fluoridated water, toothpaste and processed foods. Beyond Health has approved areverse osmosis system that effectively removes fluoride. 

Defects in DNA repair will increase the risk of developing cancer after being exposed to X-rays and chemicals. Certain nutrients are known to support the DNA repair process. These include vitamins B3, B6, B12, and folate, zinc and L-carnitine. Most Americans are deficient in one or more of these nutrients. According to the USDA, 73 percent of Americans are deficient in zinc, and 40 percent are deficient in B12. To optimize DNA repair, eat a diet rich in fresh, organic vegetables and fruits, and take high-quality nutritional supplements. Everyone should, at the very least, be on a superior vitamin/mineral formula like Beyond Health Vit/Min Formula.

PROMOTION


The next step in the cancer process is promotion. This is when a small cluster of initiated cancer cells grows larger. These cells will not grow unless a precise group of conditions are met, allowing their growth-control mechanisms to be overridden. 

Certain foods are known to promote tumor growth and spread. Sugar, excess omega-6 oils and excess animal protein all promote cancer. Cancer cells differ from normal cells in that they are totally dependent on sugar to produce energy. So raising the sugar content of the blood feeds cancer cells and helps them grow. In addition, increased blood insulin is a powerful promoter of tumor growth and spread. 

Oils high in omega-6s such as corn, safflower, sunflower, peanut, soybean and canola oils are known to support cancer progression. Never eat these oils, or any of the thousands of products made with them, including baked goods and salad dressings. 

Perhaps the most significant factor of all is animal protein and most especially dairy protein. Animal protein, beyond what can be used for growth and daily repairs, promotes cancer, and the average American eats ten times too much. Excess animal protein is able to turn cancer on in experimental animals 100 percent of the time! A high-protein diet increases estrogen, and excess estrogen is known to promote a number of cancers. Protein also acidifies the body and cancer thrives in an acid environment. Animal protein also contains large amounts of the amino acid methionine. Excess methionine is known to be a cancer promoter. 

Preventing and Reversing Promotion

 
Cancer promotion can be reversed. By eliminating cancer promoters and maximizing cancer inhibitors, it is possible to turn cancer off! We know fresh fruits and vegetables are cancer inhibitors-eat lots of them.
 
We know that sugar, omega-6 oils and animal protein promote cancer-avoid them. Omega-6 oils not only promote cancer, they also suppress the immune system. Eat plenty of omega-3 oils to offset this effect; supplement with flax and fish oils. Turn cancer off by avoiding animal protein; this means avoiding meat, eggs, dairy and fish except in very small quantities. Avoid fruit juices; they contain too much easily-absorbable sugar. Cancer is highly iron dependent. Avoid iron-rich foods such as red meat. Avoiding fluoride is also important as fluoride can increase tumor growth by 25 percent.

Fat soluble toxins bioaccumulate in the body. Their synergistic effect can be a powerful cancer promoter. The average person is accumulating hundreds of such chemicals, including pesticides, styrene, PCBs, dioxins, phthalates and fire retardants. The only reliable way to get rid of them is with regular saunas, which have become as necessary as regular exercise. (Beyond Health sells asauna I researched and approved.)

Chronic stress substantially increases free radical formation and also severely depresses the immune system. Both promote cancer. Using stress-reducing techniques such as meditation are important.

METASTASIS

 
The final stage of cancer is when it invades neighboring or distant tissues. Once again, a precise set of conditions must be met to allow this to happen. This stage of cancer causes death, but it too is reversible.

Preventing Metastasis


When cancer cells enter the blood stream and get transported to other locations, they become very vulnerable to attack by the immune system. Strong immunity is critical to prevention. Cancer cells require special enzymes to invade other tissues. Studies have found that inhibiting these enzymes stops the spread of the cancer. Plant flavonols found in fruits and vegetables, such as quercitin and luteolin, are known to interfere with these enzymes.

Nutrition

 
Eating lots of fruits and vegetables is probably the single most important thing you can do to prevent or reverse cancer. Evidence is overwhelming that common vitamins, minerals and plant chemicals interfere with the cancer process at every level. Many chemicals found in plant foods are capable of turning cancer cells back into normal cells. Certain flavonoids found in vegetables have been found to suppress and even to kill cancer cells. In fact, food and nutritional supplements have a far more powerful effect on cancer than chemotherapy. 

Since almost all Americans are deficient in vitamins and minerals, supplements are necessary. Here is a list of the nutrients known to inhibit cancer: vitamins A, all the Bs, C, D, E, beta carotene, choline, selenium, acetyl L-carnitine, alpha lipoic acid, zinc, magnesium, flavonoids and omega-3 oils.

Nutrition improves immunity. Immune cells have a higher metabolic rate, and therefore, need more nutrients. Water soluble nutrients such as B vitamins and vitamin C are not stored well in the body and need constant replacement. When this does not happen, immunity is quickly affected. Whenever the immune system responds to a threat, billions of immune cells are needed quickly. These cells will be limited by the amount of nutrients available for their construction. Any vitamin or mineral deficiency will quickly be felt, impairing immunity. This is why the Beyond Health Life Essentials Comprehensive Kit, along with theCancer Support Kit is a powerful anti-cancer regimen. 

The bad news is that cancer is an out-of-control epidemic. The good news is that cancer is a complex disease requiring the successful completion of many steps to make it happen-this provides us with multiple opportunities for its prevention and reversal. The most powerful preventive and healing tools are fresh fruits and vegetables plus high quality supplements. 

Reprinted with permission from: 
Beyond Health News 2006

May 8

Foods rich in vitamin B 17, known to treat/prevent cancer!

Foods Containing B17 (Nitrilosides)
Vitamin B17 appears in abundance in untamed nature. Because B17 is bitter to the taste, in man's attempt to improve tastes and flavors for his own pleasure, he has eliminated bitter substances like B17 by selection and cross-breeding. It can be stated as a general rule that many of the foods that have been domesticated still contain the vitamin B17 in that part not eaten by modem man, such as the seeds in apricots. Listed below is an evaluation of some of the more common foods. Keep in mind that these are averages only and that specimens vary widely depending on variety, locale, soil, and climate. SOURCE: The Little Cyanide Cookbook by June de Spain - (former) FDA Toxicologist and Pharmacologist.

Fruits Range* Seeds Range* Beans Range*
Blackberry, Domestic Low Apple Seeds High Black Low
Blackberry, Wild High Apricot Seeds High Black Eyed Peas Low
Boysenberry Med Buckwheat Med Fava High
Choke Cherry High Cherry Seed High Garbanzo Low - Med
Wild Crabapple High Flax Med Green Pea Low
Market Cranberry Low Millet Med Kidney Low - Med
Swedish (lignon) Cranberry High Nctarine Seed High Lentils Med
Currant Med Peach Seed High Lima, U.S. Low
Elderberry Med - High Pear Seed High Lima, Burma Med
Gooseberry Med Plum Seed High Mung Med - High
Huckleberry Med Prune Seed High Shell Low
Loganberry Med Squash Seed Med    
Mulberry Med        
Quince Med        
Strawberry Med        
Rasberry Med        
Sprouts Range* Nuts (all raw) Range* Leaves Range* Tubers Range*
Alfalfa Med Bitter Almond High Alfalfa High Cassava High
Bamboo High Cashew Low Beet Tops Low Sweet Potato Low
Fava Med Macadamia Med - High Eucalyptus High Yams Low
Garbanzo Med     Spinach Low    
Mung Med     Water Cress Low    

Range*

High — above 500 mgs. nitriloside per 100 grams food

Medium — above 100 mgs. per 100 grams food

Low — below 100 mgs. per 100 grams food

Vitamin B-17 is one of the main sources of food in cultures such as the Eskimos, the Hunzas, the Abkasians and many more. Did you know that within these tribes there has never been a reported case of cancer? According to Dr. Krebs, we need a minimum of 100 mg of vitamin B-17 (the equivalent of about seven apricots seeds) too nearly guarantee a cancer free life. Foods that contain vitamin B-17 are as follows:

KERNELS OR SEEDS OF FRUIT: The highest concentration of vitamin B-17 to be found in nature, aside from bitter almonds. Apple, apricot, cherry, nectarine, peach, pear, plum, prune.
BEANS: broad (Vicia faba), burma, chickpeas, lentils (sprouted), lima, mung (sprouted), Rangoon, scarlet runner.
NUTS: Bitter almond, macadamia, cashew.
BERRIES: Almost all wild berries. Blackberry, chokeberry, Christmas berry, cranberry, elderberry, raspberry, strawberry.
SEEDS: Chia, flax, sesame.
GRASSES: Acacia, alfalfa (sprouted), aquatic, Johnson, milkweed, Sudan, minus, wheat grass, white dover.
GRAINS: oat groats, barley, brown rice, buckwheat groats, chia, flax, millet, rye, vetch, wheat berries.
MISCELLANEOUS: bamboo shoots, fuschia plant, sorghum, wild hydrangea, yew tree (needles, fresh leaves).

Two rules of thumb: According to Dr. Krebs, the basic concept is that sufficient daily B-17 may be obtained by following either of two suggestions:

First, eating all the B-17-containing fruits whole (seeds included), but not eating more of the seeds by themselves than you would be eating if you ate them in the whole fruit. Example: if you eat three apples a day, the seeds in the three apples are sufficient B-17. You would not eat a pound of apple seeds.

Second, one peach or apricot kernel per 10 lbs of body weight is believed to be more than sufficient as a normal safeguard in cancer prevention, although precise numbers may vary from person to person in accordance with individual metabolism and dietary habits. A 170-lb man, for example, might consume 17 apricot or peach kernels per day and receive a biologically reasonable amount of Vitamin B-17.

And two important notes: Certainly, you can consume too much of anything. Too many kernels or seeds, for example, can be expected to produce unpleasant side effects. These natural foods should be consumed in biologically rational amounts (no more than 30 to 35 kernels per day).

High concentrations of B-17 are obtained by eating the natural foods in their raw or sprouting stage. This does not mean that moderate cooking and other tampering will destroy the B-17 content. Foods cooked at a temperature sufficient for a Chinese dinner, for example, will not lose their B-17 content.

May 8

Mainstream Media Lies about Vitamin D Deficiency and Parkins

(NaturalNews) Following the release of a new study strongly correlating vitamin D deficiency with Parkinson's disease, the mainstream media (MSM) has once again gone out of its way to intentionally distort the findings of the study and mislead readers about vitamin D. The study was conducted by Emory University, the same university that has just had $9.3 million in NIH grants frozen because of undisclosed ties between its researchers and the drug companies (http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000362_...). Thus, from the start, we already know that Emory University researchers are working for Big Pharma and likely have a financial stake in promoting pharmaceuticals or discrediting natural alternatives.

Nevertheless, the study -- which was published in Archives of Neurology -- examined 300 people: 100 withParkinson's, 100 with Alzheimer's and another 100 they called "healthy" (which, by modern medicine standards, could have been seriously diseased but not yet diagnosed with disease). The study found that 90% of the healthy people had sufficient vitamin D levels in their blood. In the Alzheimer's group, the number was lower: 84%. And in the Parkinson's group, it was lower still: 77%.

What the study showed was a statistically significant correlation between low vitamin D levels and higher risk ofParkinson's disease.

Why vitamin D is a miracle nutrient for the brain

To anyone who knows even a little bit about vitamin D, these results are not surprising. Vitamin D is essential for proper functioning of the nervous system. The protective effects of vitamin D on cognitive function are well known and well documented. You can see a sampling of the thousands of clinical studies on vitamin D and brain function here: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/science/...

Thus, it is no surprise that patients who lacked sufficient levels of vitamin D would suffer poor brain function and eventually be diagnosed with neurological disorders such as Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, both of which are entirely preventable through nutrition.

But the relationship between vitamin D and neurological function remains a great mystery to those in themainstream media (or so they want you to believe). In fact, they've gone to great lengths to misrepresent these clinical findings and try to twist the story around to imply that vitamin D causes Parkinson's!

The false headlines

Today's BBC health headline declares, "Parkinson's linked to vitamin D."

The implication, of course, is that vitamin D causes Parkinson's. There's a word conveniently missing from this BBC headline: "deficiency." The correct headline should be, "Parkinson's linked to vitamin D deficiency," right? But no, that would tell the truth. Instead, BBC editors have decided to remove the word "deficiency" and, in doing so, completely flip the meaning of the headline, making readers believe that taking too much vitamin D might cause Parkinson's disease. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/76667...)

Not to be outdone by the BBC, The Press Association parroted the same loopy logic in their own headline: "Vitamin D 'link' to Parkinson's" (http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM...). Just like the BBC headline, this carefully-phrased headline also implies that vitamin D causes Parkinson's.

The Craegmoor Healthcare news website in the UK went even further, declaring that sunshine is linked to Parkinson's! Here's their headline: "Sunshine linked to Parkinson's" (http://www.craegmoor.co.uk/news/industr...)

Do they really think readers are so stupid as to believe sunshine exposure causes Parkinson's disease? They're apparently willing to print the false headlines and find out.

Composing such obviously-false headlines requires an incredible leap of really bad logic (or a sinister agenda). But mainstream media journalists have had a lot of practice over the years, reporting lies about 9/11, the War on Iraq, vaccines and just about every other contentious topic gullible news consumers have swallowed without a single moment of critical thinking. To become a mainstream media journalist, the first thing you have to do is leave your brain at home. It's far better to arrive at work with a hollow head that can be filled with nefarious agendas and false facts.

Some of those journalists work at HealthDay news, of course, where today's headline in the Washington Post hilariously declares, "Parkinson's Patients More Prone to Vitamin D Deficiency." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...)

In case you missed that, this HealthDay headline implies that Parkinson's disease causes vitamin D deficiency!Wow. The idiocy of it would be hilarious if it weren't being reprinted in a news source read by so many people. I suppose scurvy causes vitamin C deficiency, too, and cancer causes vitamin D deficiency. Maybe osteoporosis causes calcium and magnesium deficiencies. It is a worrisome sign of the times when the mainstream media engaged in such blatant logic reversals and prints them as fact.

If it all sounds familiar, it should: George Orwell's 1984 book provided the template for such newspeak:

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

And vitamin D causes Parkinson's disease, if you believe HealthDay news.

I've found HealthDay news, by the way, to be the very worst agenda-driven health news misinformation organization in America. HealthDay editors have famously authored some of the most intellectually-challenged stories I've ever seen, including one that claims people can lose weight by chugging sodas and eating ice cream and pizza (http://www.naturalnews.com/022453.html).

HealthDay editors have also authored insanely stupid stories on vaccines (http://www.naturalnews.com/022479.html) and even a story that claims lip balm defies the laws of physics and bends light rays (http://www.naturalnews.com/023122.html).

Where does HealthDay find these people? And what do they make them smoke before they start work in the morning? Given how incredibly retarded some of the news reports are that come out of HealthDay, it's no surprise that they've achieved global distribution with CNN, the Washington Post, Yahoo, Business Week, Forbes, MSN and even iVillage. What these organizations do is copy and paste the misinformation from HealthDay and run it as their own stories. This is how health lies get spread through the mainstream media.

Today, HealthDay's home page declares, "Smoking Makes You Old Before Your Time." Gee, really? That might have actually been news in 1973, too.

Not all the MSM journalists are complete idiots

A few mainstream media sources actually got the vitamin D story right. Astonishingly, even WebMD managed to state the correct headline: "Low Vitamin D Level Tied to Parkinson's." (http://www.webmd.com/parkinsons-disease...)

The Telegraph (in the U.K.) also got the story headline correct. It reported, "Lack of sunshine linked to Parkinson's" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop...)

Kudos to the Telegraph's medical editor, Rebecca Smith, who apparently has a far greater grasp of logic than, say, certain editors at HealthDay. Then again, the Telegraph is a far smarter newspaper to begin with.

But if you want to find really smart news sources, you've got to turn to the alternative press. Check outwww.Alternet.org or www.OrganicConsumers.org or www.PRwatch.org

NaturalNews, of course, remains the most trusted online destination for honest news about natural health. We don't take money from any advertisers at all (other than Google, whose ads we don't choose). Our only "agenda" is to empower the People with honest, independent information they can use to prevent ALL disease (cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's, you name it...) and enhance the quality of their lives.

Far too often, the agenda of the mainstream media is to distort the truth, and in doing so, intentionally mislead readers with harmful disinformation. A careful review of mainstream newspapers, magazines and news websites reveals a clear, intentional pattern of news distortion that just happens to benefit the drug companies that fund so much of their advertising.

May 8

Radiation Treatment for Breast Cancer Causes Cancer in the O

By Amanda Gardner

HealthDay Reporter 
Tuesday, October 14, 2008; 12:00 AM

WEDNESDAY, Oct. 15 (HealthDay News) -- Young women receiving radiation after having surgery for breast cancer are at increased risk of developing a new tumor in the opposite -- or contralateral -- breast, a new Dutch study suggests.

And the risk jumps even higher if the woman also has a significant family history of breast cancer.

The study, appearing online in the current issue of theJournal of Clinical Oncology, looked at fairly recent radiation techniques (1970 to 1986), but experts pointed out that these techniques are continually being refined and improved.

"It's a very interesting study, [but] radiation techniques have changed dramatically over the last 25 years and a lot of these patients were treated with much older techniques," said Dr. Jay Brooks, chairman of hematology/oncology at Ochsner Health System in Baton Rouge, La.

The risk of contralateral breast cancer was also greatest when three or more family members had a history of breast cancer, indicating that some of the women in the study might have the risk-raising BRCA1 or 2 genetic mutations. These mutations weren't tested for in the study.

"Today, we're able to better identify women who may not be breast-conservation candidates," Brooks said.

Study author Maartje J. Hooning, of the department of medical oncology at Erasmus Medical Center Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center in Rotterdam, said that even though "radiation techniques of today will lead to a lower dose to the contralateral breast than the techniques presented in our study, treating clinicians should be aware of the existing dose-response relationship for risk of contralateral breast cancer. Especially in young women, the radiation dose to the contralateral breast should be kept as low as possible."

According to the American Cancer Society, radiation therapy is usually employed to destroy lingering cancer cells after a lumpectomy (also known as breast-conserving surgery), after a mastectomy involving a tumor larger than 5 centimeters in size, or when cancer is found in the lymph nodes.

In general, according to the study, women diagnosed with breast cancer in one breast have three to four times the risk of developing a new cancer in the other breast.

Much of this increased risk has been attributed to genetic predisposition, hormonal risk factors and other common causes. But there remains the possibility that treatment regimens for the first breast cancer, including chemotherapy and radiation, might also play a part.

For this study, the researchers looked at more than 7,000 one-year survivors of breast cancer who had been under the age of 71 when they were diagnosed. All were treated from 1970 to 1986 in the Netherlands.

Overall, radiation therapy did not significantly increase the risk of a new cancer in the opposite breast.

However, women treated with radiation before they turned 45 had a slightly increased risk of a new tumor in the other breast, while women receiving radiation before they were 35 had a 78 percent increased risk.

Women receiving post-lumpectomy radiation before the age of 45 had a 1.5-fold increased risk of contralateral breast cancer when compared with women who had undergone post-mastectomy radiation, according to the study.

Younger women with a strong family history of breast cancer who had also undergone post-lumpectomy radiation had a 3.5-fold increased risk of contralateral breast cancer, the study found.

"Now that we know that young patients with affected relatives are at increased risk of contralateral breast cancer following radiation therapy, we should define in more detail the subgroup that is genetically susceptible to radiation-induced breast cancer," Hooning said.

More information

SOURCES: Maartje J. Hooning, Ph.D., department of medical oncology, Erasmus Medical Center, Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Jay Brooks, M.D., chairman, hematology/oncology, Ochsner Health System, Baton Rouge, La.;Journal of Clinical Oncology, online

May 8

Mammograms offer no health benefits whatsoever, doctors conc

An Australian team from the University of Queensland see little, if any, benefit in screening women under 50 years of age, but they do point out some of the serious negative effects - later ill effects from the radiation they are exposed to during the mammogram, the possibility that an existing tumor may spread due to the pressure exerted on the breast during screening, and the anxiety caused by frequent false- positive results. The Canadian researchers point out that a false-positive result may not only produce great stress, but may also lead to unnecessary biopsies and surgery. They also point out that mammography misses 10-15 per cent of early breast cancers thus providing a false sense of security.

Mammograms offer no health benefits whatsoever, doctors conclude

Danish researcher Dr. Peter Gotzsche first made this claim in a study published in "The Lancet" in October 2006. Gotzsche had re-analyzed the studies originally done on the benefits of mammograms and found them unconvincing. Since then, other doctors have begun to assert that in addition to failing to offer protection, mammograms — which involve exposing patients to radiation —may actually increase women's risk of cancer. "The latest evidence shifts the balance towards harm and away from benefits," said Dr. Michael Baum of University College in London. Gifford-Jones also points to other risks, from the physical to the psychological. According to some authorities, the squeezing of women's breasts during mammograms may rupture blood vessels, causing cancer to spread to other parts of the body and actually increasing a patient's risk of death. He also pointed to the trauma suffered by women who receive false positives from their mammograms, and to the dangerous sense of security felt by those who receive false negatives. 

Mammography Madness

Some years ago a British surgeon blasted American doctors as "immoral" for screening women under 50 for breast cancer. On a visit to the Long Island Jewish Hospital Medical Center Dr. Baum said the screening was "opportunistic" and did more harm than good. "Over 99 percent of premenopausal women will have no benefit from screening. Even for women over 50, there has been only a one percent biopsy rate as a result of screening in the United Kingdom. The density of the breast in younger women make mammography a highly unreliable procedure." (Medical Tribune, 3/26/92)

A yet unpublished Canadian study even suggests, the rumor goes, that younger women are more likely to die if they expose themselves to mammograms instead of just relying on physical breast exams. The investigators say this earlier finding has not proven to be true but Dr. Cornelia Barnes of the University of Toronto said: "We will not say that mammography kills. The conclusion that will be reached is that younger women do not benefit [by having a reduced mortality]." (Emphasis added.)

Dr. Barnes said the danger of early mammograms is not from radiation but from false-positive results that can lead to unnecessary biopsies, resulting in scar tissue that can make subsequent mammograms more difficult to read. more

"Screening mammography poses significant and cumulative risks of breast cancer for premenopausal women. The routine practice of taking four films of each breast annually results in approximately 1 rad (radiation absorbed dose) exposure, about 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray. The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade's screening. These risks are even greater for younger women subject to "baseline screening." Dr. Mercola

Benefits of mammogram are being questioned
Breast cancer screening may cause more harm than good

Do you have a question or need guidance?  Patricia Wilson volunteers her time to provide guidance and support in your quest to find relevant information.   She can be reached at  281-581-2424 or 206-222-1619 (USA) or  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;subject=Question%20for%20Patricia" style="font-size: 1em; color: rgb(10, 62, 105);">click here to email PatriciaThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;subject=Question%20for%20Patricia" style="font-size: 1em; color: rgb(10, 62, 105);">click here to email Patricia .


Los Angeles Times April 28, 2001Key Breast Cancer Study Was a Fraud : A key study pointing to the effectiveness of high-dose chemotherapy and bone marrow transplants in treating metastatic breast cancer was based on faked data, cancer experts said Thursday. The American Society of Clinical Oncology announced that an unscrupulous South African researcher, Dr. Werner Bezwoda, has led thousands of women with breast cancer to undergo expensive, debilitating and often fatal bone marrow transplants. His data were fraudulent..."

FDA Advisory Committee Urged To Reject Zeneca's application of Tamoxifen For Preventing Breast Cancer in Healthy Women as the Drug is Ineffective and Dangerous. more

After running her own successful business in Wellness Alternatives, Pamela Hoeppner faced the unthinkable. She was diagnosed with a malignant, fast-growing breast cancer. Pam declined all conventional treatment and chose an alternative approach with an impressive track record instead, which resulted in her full recovery. Convinced that mutilation and toxic treatments are not always necessary she wanted others to know there ARE options that don't involve devastating a person's body and their quality of life. In her inspiring book, The Breast Stays Put, with a delivery all her own, she shares her courageous story of overcoming a deadly diagnosis, and provides prevention and treatment information

David Brownstein, MD - "The Breast Stays Put is a wonderfully written first-hand account of how one woman overcame her life-threatening diagnosis of cancer using only alternative medicine.  I believe this is a must read for anyone diagnosed with breast cancer, I highly recommend it to anyone interested in learning more about treating cancer with alternative therapies." 


Transfer Factors and Breast Cancer

Duane Townsend, M.D. - "I'm a cancer physician. I have many cancer patients on transfer factors, along with traditional treatment protocols. I believe that transfer factors has been very beneficial to these patients. I primarily treat female cancer and certainly encourage my patients who are undergoing chemotherapy and radiation therapy to take transfer factors. It helps to modulate the immune system. I have patients with chronic herpes infections who are taking transfer factors on a regular basis and it's reducing the number of outbreaks. I've also had patients with chronic yeast infections, and the transfer factors has reduced their infections as well. Transfer factors is a science-based product with data from a variety of researchers." Dr. Townsend is the former Director of Gynecologic Oncology and Gynecologic Endoscopy at LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah. He has authored over 90 papers in peer review journals and fifteen chapters in books. Dr. Townsend created a well-known procedure in dealing with precancer of the cervix.

Dr. Townsend has had more than 32 years of distinguished experience in the medical field. He pioneered a surgical technique for the treatment of pre-malignant disease of the uterine cervix. In addition, he has authored more than 90 scientific papers in peer review journals as well as over 15 chapters in research books.

Ann Lane was diagnosed with Hodgkin's cancer. The tumor mass filled her rib cage. Her immune system dropped into the 2,000 range. She began her chemotherapy regimen along with a nutritional protocol (containing transfer factors) along with the traditional therapies administered by her physician. Ann's blood work revealed that 30 days after beginning her nutritional protocol (including transfer factors), her immune system went up to and maintained a level ranging between 4,200 and 7,200. Ann believes that the nutrition, especially transfer factors improved the effectiveness of her immune system, and that made the difference and possibly saved her life.

Effects of Dialyzable Transfer Factor in Patients with Breast Cancer  Five patients with advanced breast cancer were treated with pooled dialyzable transfer factors from healthy adult donors. The period of treatment ranged from 21 to 310 days, the total dose from 20 to 257 ml. Transfer factors did not elicit inflammatory or hypersensitivity reactions or detectable formation of antibody to itself, nor any hematological or biochemical abnormalities or other side effects. Three patients became responsive (by skin test) to tuberculin and/or streptococcal antigens. Marked partial regression of the breast cancer, lasting 6 months, was observed in one patient. 

May 8

Gwenyth Paltrow- All Natural Beauty Secrets!

It's All Natural: Gwyneth Paltrow's Beauty is Not Just Skin Deep

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 by: Josefina Laurens
Key concepts: HealthGwyneth Paltrow and Healthy lifestyle

NaturalNews) At 36, Gwyneth Paltrow is in great shape and could easily pass for someone ten years younger. But unlike many of the Hollywood celebrities who go under the knife to resculpt their bodies, Paltrow's slim figure and flawless skin are not the result of plastic surgery.

In her online newsletter called GOOP (www.goop.com), which Paltrow launched in September 2008, the Oscar-winning actress credits her great physical and mental condition to a health-conscious lifestyle, which includes natural foods and exercise. 

But Paltrow says her road to good health had not been without bumps. "Over the years I have tried a lot of different things and made a lot of mistakes," she points out on her site. "But I have figured some things out in the process."

And it all started, she says, with a family tragedy.

A turning point

Paltrow's road to heath consciousness began a decade ago. While filming The Talented Mr. Ripley in Italy in 1998, the actress learned that her TV producer father, Bruce Paltrow, had been diagnosed with throat cancer. 

"During this time I began to read about Eastern medicine and the body's capacity to heal itself," she writes in the newsletter, noting that although she tried to encourage her dad to follow a healthy lifestyle, the results were mixed.

"He loved acupuncture but hated macrobiotic food, which he likened to biting into The New York Times," Paltrow writes.

Sadly, Bruce Paltrow passed away in 2002, but the lessons the actress had learned in that four –year period are still serving her well today. "I had read that in Asia, the concept of going to the doctor when you were already sick was akin to digging a well when you were already thirsty," she notes. "This struck a chord with me."

Prescription for a Healthier Life

Common wisdom has it that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and that is the message Paltrow conveys in the newsletter. 

She asked her three doctors, whom she credits with helping her overcome pneumonia, anemia and stress, to share their insights into creating and fostering a healthy lifestyle.

One of the physicians, the Los Angeles-based Dr. Christian Renna D.O., an expert in the field of contemporary preventive medicine, writes about the power of good sleep, exercise, and positive thinking.

"Do what you have to do to get to sleep; there are plenty of natural agents that work," he urges on GOOP. "Try herbs (valerian), tea (chamomile), amino acids (tryptophan or hydroxy-tryptophan) and vitamins (magnesium and B6). These can be powerful sedatives and work just as well as prescription agents without the risks."

Another doctor, Alejandro Junger, a cardiologist who practices integrative healing in New York City, advises detoxification cleansing from all the waste products of normal metabolism. Cleansing, he says, is "a natural, common-sense medicine, enabling the body to heal, regenerate and even rejuvenate itself." 

The cleansed body, Junger adds, should be nourished with wholesome, toxin-free food, "the best way to avoid disease and premature aging." 

Paltrow's third doctor, London-based Neish Joshi, who practices centuries-old ayurvedic traditions and a wide variety of other healing philosophies and techniques from all over the world, sings praises to the benefits of "holistic detox."

"The older, more natural forms of medicine work predominantly on promoting and improving the body's ability to eliminate waste and towards finding balance and well-being," he writes on GOOP. "My motivation is towards the nutritional needs of a healthy body, on encouraging better sleep patterns, ways of coping with stress and reducing its effects on the body, and teaching individuals how to make healthy lifestyle choices: the true mind-body-spirit sense of health and well-being."

Just what the doctors ordered

Paltrow, who has two young children with musician Chris Martin, front man for the British rock group Coldplay, says the advice of each of her three doctors "has helped me out of some very sticky health problems."

The holistic approach to a healthy lifestyle is making all the difference in her physical and mental well-being. "My life is good because I am not passive about it," she sums up.

Related CounterThink Cartoons:

delusions tyrants 150 cancer cure 150 DrugFreeAmerica 150
May 8

Apricot Seeds For Immune System Health

We all want our immune systems to function well. After all, it is our immune systems that keep us from getting ill. It is easy to see which people have stronger immune systems sometimes. For example, take a look at teachers in an elementary school building. Some teachers may come down with every cold,  flu , or bug that is going around-these are typically the newly hired teachers or teachers who are new to that particular school system. The other teachers who rarely get ill have stronger immune systems in relation to those types of illnesses because their bodies have adapted to that specific setting.

There are ways to boost the immune system, though-methods through which anyone can work to try to strengthen his immune system so as to be less susceptible to both regular, everyday types of illnesses and more serious illnesses such as cancer.

You can boost your immune system through the use of apricot seeds. Though many conventional doctors may not subscribe to this theory, it does work (and anyway, conventional doctors nearly always reject alternative therapies out of hand, don't they?).

Taking apricot seeds works to prevent 'bad' cells in your body from forming, thus strengthening your immune system. Apricot seeds have the toxin cyanide as part of their structure; this cyanide, though, is only released when the amygdalin of the apricot seeds comes into contact with a 'bad' cell in your body. At that point, the cyanide works to destroy the bad cell.

If you take apricot seeds on a regular basis, your body will remain detoxified and free of the 'bad' cells that commonly cause the more serious types of illnesses, including cancer.

There are hundreds of different  types  of  cancer . The odds of getting some type of cancer at some point during your lifetime are relatively high-especially considering what scientists tell us.

They tell us that our bodies are continually making cancerous cells. That's pretty scary, isn't it? Well, there is a way to prevent those cancerous cells from ever developing into cancer-a way to destroy those cells before they have a chance to do any harm. It involves the use of apricot seeds.

Normally our immune systems can deal with the cancerous cells that our bodies are producing, scientists say. However, what if yours cannot? That means you will develop some type of cancer. So, perhaps you should try taking apricot seeds as a method of  cancer  prevention ...just in case.

Any Apricot Seeds?

Now, before you head off to your local  health  foods  store  or nutrition store and grab whatever bag of apricot seeds you can find, there are a few things you need to know. First and foremost, the apricot seeds you would find at your local store are not the type of seeds you could use for cancer prevention.

Health food stores carry either sun-dried or roasted apricot kernels. While these may have nutritive benefits, they do not have any type of cancer preventive properties. Instead, you need raw apricot seeds.

Why Raw Apricot Seeds?

Raw apricot seeds have a special construction that allows them to destroy cancerous cells-in the process of roasting the seeds or sun-drying the seeds, this special construction is, itself, destroyed. Roasted and sun-dried seeds do not have the component that is necessary to destroy the cancer cells.

Raw seeds are comprised of amygdalin. Amygdalin has cyanide locked away that only cancer cells can unlock. When the amygdalin comes into contact with a cancer cell, the cyanide comes and destroys the cell. It is this component that the roasted and sun-dried apricot seeds are lacking. Amygdalin is also called B17. In its extracted, pure form it is also known as laetrile. Laetrile has been used to treat cancer sufferers in some cancer clinics.

May 8

More on Mammograms: Beware!

(NaturalNews) A report just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine (Arch Intern Med. 2008;168[21]:2302-2303) reaches a startling conclusion. Breast cancer rates increased significantly in four Norwegian counties after women there began getting mammograms every two years. In fact, according to background information in the study, the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been associated with increased incidence of breast cancer. This raises some obvious and worrisome questions: Did the x-rays and/or the sometimes torturous compression of breasts during mammography actually spur cancer to develop? Or does this just look like an increase in the disease rate because mammography is simply identifying more cases of breast cancer? The answer to the first question is that no one knows (and it isn't addressed in the Archives of Internal Medicine study). But the second question has an unexpected and – for those interested in the human body's innate ability to heal itself – potentially paradigm-shifting answer. The researchers say they can't blame the increased incidence of breast cancer on more cases being found because the rates among regularly screened women remained higher than rates among women of the same age who only received mammograms once after six years. Bottom line: the scientists conclude this indicates that some of the cancers detected by mammography would have spontaneously regressed if they had never been discovered on a mammogram and treated, usually with chemotherapy and radiation. Simply put, it appears that some invasive breast cancers simply go away on their own, healed by the body's own immune system. Per-Henrik Zahl, M.D., Ph.D., of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, and his research team studied breast cancer rates among 119,472 women (age 50 to 64). These research subjects were asked to participate in three rounds of screening mammograms between 1996 and 2001, as part of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. The scientists then compared the number of breast cancers found in this group to the rate of malignancies among a control group of 109,784 women who were the same ages in 1992, and who would have been invited for breast screenings if the program had been in place that year. Cancers were tracked using a national registry. Then, after six years, all participants were invited to undergo a one-time screening to assess for the prevalence of breast cancer. The researchers were surprised to find that the incidence of invasive breast cancer was 22 percent higher in the group regularly screened with mammography. In fact, screened women were more likely to have breast cancer at every age. "Because the cumulative incidence among controls never reached that of the screened group, it appears that some breast cancers detected by repeated mammographic screening would not persist to be detectable by a single mammogram at the end of six years," the authors stated in their report. "This raises the possibility that the natural course of some screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress." The researchers also conclude that their findings "provide new insight on what is arguably the major harm associated with mammographic screening, namely, the detection and treatment of cancers that would otherwise regress." This does not mean breast cancer should be ignored or not treated. After all, breast cancer is the second leading cause of death among American women. But the extraordinarily good and hopeful news is that it appears invasive breast cancer sometimes can be destroyed naturally -- at least in some people -- by the body's own innate defenses. "Although many clinicians may be skeptical of the idea, the excess incidence associated with repeated mammography demands that spontaneous regression be considered carefully," the scientists wrote in their report. "Spontaneous regression of invasive breast cancer has been reported, with a recent literature review identifying 32 reported cases. This is a relatively small number given such a common disease. However, as some observers have pointed out, the fact that documented observations are rare does not mean that regression rarely occurs. It may instead reflect the fact that these cancers are rarely allowed to follow their natural course." In an editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine that accompanies the breast cancer study, Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D., of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Franz Porzsolt, M.D., Ph.D., of Clincal Economics University of Ulm, Germany, wrote that the most important concern raised by the study is "how surprisingly little we know about what happens to untreated patients with breast cancer. In addition to not knowing the natural history of breast cancer for younger women, we also know very little about the natural history for older women. We know from autopsy studies that a significant number of women die without knowing that they had breast cancer (including ductal carcinoma in situ). The observation of a historical trend toward improved survival does not necessarily support the benefit of treatment."

May 8

Breast Cancer Rates Soar after Mammograms and Some Cancers m

NaturalNews) A report just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine (Arch Intern Med. 2008;168[21]:2302-2303) reaches a startling conclusion. Breast cancer rates increased significantly in four Norwegian counties after women there began getting mammograms every two years. In fact, according to background information in the study, the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been associated with increased incidence of breast cancer.

This raises some obvious and worrisome questions: Did the x-rays and/or the sometimes torturous compression of breasts during mammography actually spur cancer to develop? Or does this just look like an increase in thedisease rate because mammography is simply identifying more cases of breast cancer?

The answer to the first question is that no one knows (and it isn't addressed in the Archives of Internal Medicinestudy). But the second question has an unexpected and – for those interested in the human body's innate ability to heal itself – potentially paradigm-shifting answer. The researchers say they can't blame the increased incidence of breast cancer on more cases being found because the rates among regularly screened women remained higher than rates among women of the same age who only received mammograms once after six years. Bottom line: the scientists conclude this indicates that some of the cancers detected by mammography would have spontaneously regressed if they had never been discovered on a mammogram and treated, usually with chemotherapy and radiation. Simply put, it appears that some invasive breast cancers simply go away on their own, healed by the body's own immune system.

Per-Henrik Zahl, M.D., Ph.D., of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, and his research team studied breast cancer rates among 119,472 women (age 50 to 64). These research subjects were asked to participate in three rounds of screening mammograms between 1996 and 2001, as part of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. The scientists then compared the number of breast cancers found in this group to the rate of malignancies among a control group of 109,784 women who were the same ages in 1992, and who would have been invited for breast screenings if the program had been in place that year. Cancers were tracked using a national registry. Then, after six years, all participants were invited to undergo a one-time screening to assess for the prevalence of breast cancer.

The researchers were surprised to find that the incidence of invasive breast cancer was 22 percent higher in the group regularly screened with mammography. In fact, screened women were more likely to have breast cancer at every age.

"Because the cumulative incidence among controls never reached that of the screened group, it appears that some breast cancers detected by repeated mammographic screening would not persist to be detectable by a single mammogram at the end of six years," the authors stated in their report. "This raises the possibility that the natural course of some screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress."

The researchers also conclude that their findings "provide new insight on what is arguably the major harm associated with mammographic screening, namely, the detection and treatment of cancers that would otherwise regress."

This does not mean breast cancer should be ignored or not treated. After all, breast cancer is the second leading cause of death among American women. But the extraordinarily good and hopeful news is that it appears invasive breast cancer sometimes can be destroyed naturally -- at least in some people -- by the body's own innate defenses.

"Although many clinicians may be skeptical of the idea, the excess incidence associated with repeated mammography demands that spontaneous regression be considered carefully," the scientists wrote in their report. "Spontaneous regression of invasive breast cancer has been reported, with a recent literature review identifying 32 reported cases. This is a relatively small number given such a common disease. However, as some observers have pointed out, the fact that documented observations are rare does not mean that regression rarely occurs. It may instead reflect the fact that these cancers are rarely allowed to follow their natural course."

In an editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine that accompanies the breast cancer study, Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D., of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Franz Porzsolt, M.D., Ph.D., of Clincal Economics University of Ulm, Germany, wrote that the most important concern raised by the study is "how surprisingly little we know about what happens to untreated patients with breast cancer.
In addition to not knowing the natural history of breast cancer for younger women, we also know very little about the natural history for older women. We know from autopsy studies that a significant number of women die without knowing that they had breast cancer (including ductal carcinoma in situ). The observation of a historical trend toward improved survival does not necessarily support the benefit of treatment."

May 8

TIMES ONLINE - followed by Dr. Mercola on "Chemo"

CHEMO THERAPY can do more Harm than Good - nOV. 12, 2008 Doctors have been urged to be more cautious in offering cancer treatment to terminally-ill patients as chemotherapy can often do more harm than good, a study suggests. The National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) found that more than four in ten patients who received chemotherapy towards the end of life suffered potentially fatal effects from the drugs, and treatment was “inappropriate” in nearly a fifth of cases. In a study of more than 600 cancer patients who died within 30 days of receiving treatment, chemotherapy probably caused or hastened death in 27 percent of cases, the inquiry found. In only 35 percent of these cases was care judged to have been good by the inquiry’s advisors, with 49 percent having room for improvement and 8 per cent receiving less than satisfactory care. Sources: • Times Online November 12, 2008 THEN DOCTOR MERCOLA COMMENTS: "In the conventional health paradigm, chemotherapy is the go-to treatment for cancer. People are paying up to $10,000 a month and sometimes more for these drugs, with the expectation that they will heal them from the disease. Yet, these expensive and, by their very nature, highly toxic medications often give patients just a few more months of life, or worse end up killing them prematurely or even causing cancer down the line. The biggest drawback to a conventional treatment like chemotherapy is it destroys healthy cells throughout your body right along with cancer cells. A typical and deadly side effect of chemo is the destruction of the rapidly multiplying and dividing cells found in your: • Bone marrow, which produces blood • Digestive system • Reproductive system • Hair follicles In this most recent study, The National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) found that more than four in 10 patients who received chemotherapy toward the end of life experienced potentially fatal effects! And after reviewing data from over 600 cancer patients who died within 30 days of receiving treatment, it was found that chemotherapy hastened or caused death in 27 percent of cases. “The majority of the cancer patients in this country die because of chemotherapy, which does not cure breast, colon or lung cancer. This has been documented for over a decade and nevertheless doctors still utilize chemotherapy to fight these tumors,” said Dr. Allen Levin, MD, author of The Healing of Cancer. Despite its reputation as the gold-standard cancer treatment, chemotherapy has an average 5-year survival success rate of just over 2 percent for all cancers, according to a study published in the journal Clinical Oncology in December 2004. If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with cancer, I urge you to do the research for yourself, and make an educated decision about which course of treatment to take. A decision like this is simply too important to leave solely in the hands of your doctor. The Best Known “Chemotherapy” Agent Ever Found The American Cancer Society estimates that this year alone, 745,000 men and 692,000 women will be diagnosed with cancer. By 2018, this disease is projected to be the number one killer of all Americans, young and old alike. The way to turn this around is two-fold: 1. Prevent cancer from occurring (I’ll get to that below) 2. Have a treatment for cancer that is effective and safe This latter requirement is actually already here, and you can use it to not only prevent cancer but also to treat it. What is it? Vitamin D. Calcitriol, the most potent steroid hormone in your body, and is produced in large amounts in the tissues of vitamin D-filled individuals. However, in patients with cancer, vitamin D is often in low supply. Calcitriol has been shown to induce cell differentiation and to control cell proliferation -- in simpler terms it protects against cancer. People with a low vitamin D level are less able to make calcitriol (activated vitamin D) in an amount sufficient to exert the controls over cell proliferation that are needed to reduce cancer. Optimized vitamin D levels will work synergistically with virtually every other cancer treatment. There are over 830 peer reviewed scientific studies showing its effectiveness in the treatment of cancer. Not only is this approach without virtually any side effects, but the treatment is practically free. I believe it is nearly criminal malpractice to not optimize vitamin D levels when treating someone with cancer. Levels of vitamin D should be increased to 80-90 ng/ml. To find out your levels, and to have them monitored throughout your treatment, make sure to have the blood test done by LabCorp, if you are in the United States. At this time, Quest labs has inaccurate and falsely elevated results. The Essential Steps to Preventing Cancer Normalizing your vitamin D levels will reduce your risk of cancer by over 50 percent, but there are a number of other strategies that are also important in your cancer-prevention plan. One of the top steps is managing your emotional health. The majority of illness is caused by negative, unmanaged emotions. If you focus on pain, misery and grief, it’s likely you’ll experience and attract more of it into your life. However, if you keep your focus on what you want to experience and put some energy into healthy lifestyle choices, your body will respond accordingly. Before you know it you will start to feel much better. So finding a tool that will permanently erase the neurological short-circuiting that can activate cancer genes is essential. One of the best approaches to processing your negative emotions is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), and I highly recommend it. Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer has also done wonderful work with his German New Medicine technique for solving emotional conflicts as the first step in healing disease. The other top tips I recommend, in no particular order, include: • Eating right for your nutritional type • Exercising • Avoiding processed foods, grains and sugars (to control and lower your insulin levels) • Eating a significant portion of your food raw • Normalizing your ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fats by taking a high-quality krill oil or fish oil and reducing your intake of most processed vegetable oils • Getting plenty of high-quality sleep. "