May 8

New Research Shows Antidepressants Increase Risk of Non-Hodg

(NaturalNews) People who take tricyclic antidepressants are at increased risk for a rare group of blood cancers known as non-Hodgkin lymphoma, according to study conducted by researchers from the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology at the Danish Cancer Society, and published in the journal  Epidemiology .

"Our results indicate an increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma specifically among long-term users of tricyclic antidepressant medications," the researchers wrote. "Given the high prevalence of antidepressant use, this finding warrants additional studies."

The same research team previously found an increased risk for non-Hodgkin  lymphoma  among those who took antidepressants  in North Jutland County, Denmark, between 1989 and 1996. In the current study, researchers analyzed data on 354,551 residents of the county who were over the age of 29 between 1989 and 2004, this time collecting data on the specific types of antidepressants used. They found that heavy, long-term users of tricyclic antidepressants had a 2.5 times higher risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma than those who did not take antidepressants at all.

No increase in risk was found among those taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors ( SSRIs ).

The researchers noted that the study was not set up to determine whether the antidepressant drugs were actually causing the disease or not. Because tricyclic antidepressants are more often used for patients with severe depression (as opposed to SSRIs, which are often a first resort), they might merely function as a marker for serious mood disorders, the researchers said. This, in turn could be correlated with a depressed immune system, or with a risky behaviors that are more likely to expose people to the viruses that might cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

"Our study, however, raises the hypothesis of a serious long-term side effect from tricyclic antidepressants, and this needs further research," lead researcher Susanne Oksbjerg Dalton said.

The rates of non-Hodgkin lymphoma have more than doubled in Denmark since the 1970s.

May 8

Discover Sprouted Nuts and Give Your Pancreas a Break

(NaturalNews) Nuts are one of the healthiest foods to ad to your diet. Eating nuts not only reduces the risk of heart attack by a huge 60%, but research shows that people who eat more nuts are usually thinner and they have lower levels of LDL cholesterol and reduced risk of osteoporosis. Eating nuts even lowers the risk of cancer and reduces inflammation. Although this resume is quite impressive, nuts can be made even more nutritious, delicious and healthy by sprouting or soaking them. When it comes to boosting the benefits of nuts, as well as seeds  and grain, sprouting is like a mini-miracle.

Nuts are so great just the way they are, why sprout them?

Most  nuts  come from the seeds or dried fruits of trees and have an outer shell that protects them from rotting as they lie on the ground waiting to germinate. This shell also protects their healthy fats from spoiling. After being picked, most nuts are processed by drying, and they appear in the store as raw nuts. The term 'raw' when applied to nuts does not mean just plucked from the tree. Raw nuts are fairly nutritious and have no added fat, but they are often rather bland and tasteless.

The wisdom of Mother Nature has implanted nuts with enzyme inhibitors so they can wait until conditions are right for growth before they germinate. These inhibitors act as preservative for the nut, making sure it can stay viable for a long time. As spring rain comes and the ground becomes soaked, the nut sits in the  water  and slowly begins to lose its inhibitor, allowing for germination to finally take place.

If nuts are picked, dried and placed on your grocer's shelf, this enzyme inhibitor is still intact. This is why nuts have a reputation as being difficult to digest. The inhibitor actually inhibits  digestion  when nuts are eaten without undergoing the process  nature  intended. Not only that, but unsoaked nuts actually neutralize the  enzymes  your body uses to control  inflammation  and aid in digestion. Eating unsoaked nuts is extremely hard on the digestive system and calls for the  pancreas  to produce huge amounts of digestive enzymes to counteract the inhibitor.

When such a large amount of pancreatic enzymes are needed to digest unsoaked nuts, the enzymes are not available to perform their regular maintenance of the body. A continuous diet of unsoaked nuts is so taxing to the pancreas that it can actually swell with distress. Since a happy pancreas keeps you happy, this is not something your want to have happen. This is why most nutritionists and raw foodists suggest eating only very small amounts of nuts.

Roasting nuts will destroy the inhibitor, but there are definite disadvantages to roasting nuts. In addition to destroying many of their nutrients, roasting nuts usually involves added oil which is most likely in the form of a seed oil. When heated to a high temperature seed oils produce an abundance of free radicals. Dry roasting nuts is detrimental to their fatty acids and destroys their flavor to such an extent that seasoning or even MSG is often added to make up for the missing taste. Although roasting destroys the inhibitor, it also destroys the enzymes in the nut that the body needs to make it easily digestible. So eating dry roasted nuts also puts a strain on the pancreas.

Soaking nuts answers the problem of the inhibitor since soaking replicates the conditions nature would provide for removing it prior to germination. Soaking is the process in which all the vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids and enzymes that have been lying dormant in nuts are released. Soaking eliminates toxins in the nuts and solves the problem of the lack of taste in raw nuts, as the flavor of the nut is released along with the nutrients. Soaking foods before eating is not something new. It dates back thousands of years and is still in practice today in non-meat eating cultures where nuts play a central part in the diet.

This traditional process is also called sprouting, although not every nut that is soaked can be sprouted. The process begins with fresh undried nuts that are soaked in water with the addition of a pinch of  sea salt  for twelve to twenty-four hours depending on the nut. They should be rinsed and the water changed periodically. Taste them then too to determine what stage of soaked nut you like the best. When the soaking time is up, they are removed from the solution and slowly dried at a very low temperature with low humidity. The drying heat is less than is used in the controversial pasteurizing process, and it is never high enough to destroy any of the nut's natural enzymes so needed for ease of digestion.

Soaking and drying nuts is a time consuming process, but one with a big pay off. Soaked nuts are so easily digested that they can be eaten in large amounts. They have greater nutritional value than unsoaked nuts, and are crunchy like roasted nuts. Nuts suitable for soaking can be bought online. The website of  Sprout People  offers a good selection of organic fresh nuts. The flavor of soaked nuts is superb.

Delicious sprouted nuts are available online

If soaking your own nuts sounds like a little too much work, or you have a taste for something more exotic, there are several companies that sell soaked nuts online. One of the companies,  Living Nutz , recently received a glowing review and a discount code from Mike Adams of naturalnews.com for its dressed up versions of soaked nuts. The company also sells plain, unadorned sprouted nuts. The nuts and everything else used in their products are organic.

Higher Power  is another online retailer of sprouted nuts, seeds and trail mix. They even sell raw nuts for sprouting at home. All their products are organic. Their quality is quite high, but their prices are down to earth. They offer the variety of nuts as well as trail mix made with sprouted nuts and seeds. While their products are not dressed for a ball, their trail mix wears delicious everyday clothing.

Their Fertile Crescent Blend is a good mix of nuts, seeds and dried fruit. It contains cashews, pumpkin seeds, flame  raisins , pecans, apricots, peaches, apples, and figs. It is dressed in powdered allspice, cinnamon and a pinch of cayenne.

The Northwest Blend is heavy on the nuts and seeds with a nice addition of fruit. It contains walnuts,  almonds , filberts, pumpkin seeds, raisins, apples, pears, and figs. It is dressed in powdered cinnamon.

The Tropical Blend is heavy on the fruit and could probably use a few more nuts. It contains bananas, raisins, mangoes, date pieces, pineapple,  macadamia nuts , and coconut. It is dressed in raw can sugar, and powdered ginger.

Order a bag of almonds,  pecans  or macadamia nuts to add to these mixes for a more nutty, less fruity fare. Higher Power offers a trio of their trail mixes at a slightly discounted price, so you can try them all. These trios would make great holiday gifts for everyone on your list including the pickiest raw foodists. The company also sells raw granola made from sprouted grains.

Another company to try is  Go Raw . They specialize in organic sprouted seeds. If you are a salty snack addict, this is the place for you. Their sprouted sunflower seeds and pumpkin seeds are dressed with sea  salt  and have just the right crunch. A bag of either of these mixed with the trail mix from Higher Power is absolutely fabulous.

May 8

The Procyanidins of Red Wine and Their Anti-Aging Effect

Tis the season....and now you can justify that glass of red wine at your holiday party!!

(Natural News) Moderate red wine drinkers have less incidence of heart disease than non-drinkers and now scientists are confirming a direct correlation between red wine and many powerful anti-aging benefits. Moderate consumption of some red wines may be a very effective way of improving your cardiovascular health as well as your lifespan. However, it is important to choose the correct red wine.

Unfortunately, only traditional production methods have been determined to produce the high concentration of the active ingredient necessary for anti-aging benefits. This ingredient is found in the wines produced in Southwest France and Sardinia, Italy. When the wines from these regions were tested, researchers found higher levels ofpolyphenols. In fact, they found up to 5 to 10 times higher concentrations in these wines, than in wines from New World countries.

They wondered what the difference between these wines was. They eventually determined that the traditional production methods used in these regions insured that the beneficial compounds were extracted more efficiently. This is likely the reason for the strong association between consuming traditional lines and overall good healthand longer life spans.

Researchers tested further to determine which were the most potent polyphenols. After purifying the most active polyphenols, they determined that procyanidins were found most abundantly in red wine. In fact, in some traditional red wines, up to 1 gram per liter was detected.

In addition, the researchers found contradictory evidence to the claims that resveratrol is the magic ingredient to good health. They found the levels of resveratrol to be so low that one would need to consume 1000 L per day to get the desired benefits.

So, what is different about traditional wines? Traditional wines are processed using full extraction methods. This requires more skill to produce. These wines are also more tannic. More recent wines are typically described as having smooth tannins and this corresponds with almost no procyanidins.

The following factors have been identified as directly affecting the procyanidins content in wines.

1. The selection of grapes - based on the ripeness

2. The amount of time that seeds and skins are in contact with the fermenting juice

3. Any filtration processes performed

Typically, traditional wines ferment for approximately one month. This results in the full extraction of procyanidins. In contrast, more modern wines typically ferment for only a few days. This is only enough time for the color to be extracted from the grape skins.

Using overripe grapes results in a wine with less procyanidin content and higher sugar content. A red wine that is more sweet and has higher alcohol content has significantly lower procyanidin content.

Procyanidins have shown direct benefits on arterial function in blood vessels. In fact, polyphenols have been determined to have a protective effect on the vascular system to the point where they improve the endothelial cells that line the arteries.

To realize these health benefits one must consume red wine that is less sweet and has a lower alcoholic content. For the most health benefits, one or two glasses of red wine with a meal are optimal. Grape seed extract has been shown to lower blood pressure as well. Two small glasses of red wine would provide the same effect as grape seed extract.

Red wines from Southwest France are the ideal wine to choose.

May 8

The Positive and Negative Impact of Caffeine on Women's Heal

(NaturalNews) Caffeine is a compound found in a variety of plants and acts as a natural pesticide which protects plants from the insects that feed on them. In the human body, however, caffeine behaves like a psychoactive stimulant drug by arousing the central nervous system and it is also a gentle diuretic. Caffeine is most prevalently found in the cherries of coffee plants, in leaves of tea bushes, in the kola nuts, in yerba mate, in guarana berries, in cocoa plants, in yaupon hollies and in certain species of beans. Most of our caffeine intake, and we take in quite a bit of it, is through the consumption of coffee, tea, cocoa, soft drinks as well as sports and energy drinks.

Because caffeine, in one ingestible form or another, plays such significant social, economic and cultural roles in just about every nation around the world, scientists and researchers have conducted many studies pertaining tohealth issues, particularly in women because it is women who tend to be more sensitive to it than men and because it takes women longer to detoxify caffeine out of their systems.

Caffeine and the Female Sex Hormones of Childbearing Age Women

 

  • Approximately forty percent of women of childbearing age experience at least some symptoms of the premenstrual syndrome (PMS) which includes breast swelling and tenderness, bloating and weight gain, abdominal cramps and headaches, irritability and depression, fatigue and anxiety. Reduced consumption of caffeine has helped relieve some of these symptoms, especially the nervous irritability and breast sensitivity.
  • Increased fibrous and glandular tissues in the breasts results in a commonly occurring but painful condition in women called fibrocystic breasts. Elimination of caffeine intake will not dissolve the noncancerous cysts but it will reduce the pain.
  • According to the Centers for Disease Control, nearly ten million women are using infertility services to increase their chances of becoming pregnant. As part of these treatments, elimination of caffeine is recommended for it seems to have an adverse affect on women's fertility.
  • Pregnant women who take in caffeine tend to give birth to considerably smaller babies who, after birth, display signs of caffeine withdrawal because the caffeine had permeated the placental barrier. Caffeine is also known to cause heart palpitations in pregnant women.
  • Women who intend to breastfeed should stop ingesting caffeine as it becomes a component of the breast milk.

Caffeine and the Female Sex Hormones of Post-Childbearing Age Women

 

  • Menopause is a natural process of aging and hormonal changes in women. Many menopausal women experience hot flashes, sleeplessness, vaginal dryness, osteoporosis and heart attacks. All these symptoms seem to be exacerbated by caffeine. Caffeine also hastens the aging process and brings on menopause earlier in life.
  • Menopausal women are more susceptible to bone density loss. Caffeine blocks the absorption of the minerals (calcium, magnesium, potassium, vitamin D) which are needed to prevent or reverse this condition; therefore bone density decreases as osteoporosis worsens.

Caffeine and Other Health Issues in Women of All Ages

Heart disease kills more women in the United States and the rest of the western world than any other fatal disease. Caffeine is associated with risk factors such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol and high homocysteine levels which lead to heart disease.

Is There Nothing Good to Say About Caffeine?

Of course there is something good to be said about caffeine:

 

  • A new research which was conducted in France and Portugal and then published in the "Neurology", the journal of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) revealed amazing results. Over a span of four years, 4,197 aging (65 and older) dementia-free women were tracked in reference to their caffeine consumption and their cognitive capabilities. The conclusion was that, being a psycho-stimulant, caffeine may help safeguard the thinking processes and memory skills in elderly women who are not yet suffering the effects of dementia as it reduces their cognitive decline.

    This study also noted that the benefits seem to progressively intensify with age. The intake of caffeine by 65 year old women shows a thirty percent reduction in cognitive decline while the intake of caffeine by 80 year old women shows a seventy percent reduction in cognitive decline.

  • A recent study conducted by Dr. Walter Willett and colleagues from the Harvard School of Public Health found that although caffeine unfavorably affects fibrocystic breasts, it has no relevance to any kinds of malignant breast cancers.
  • A study at Harvard University reveals that women who regularly take in caffeine decrease their chance of contracting diabetes by thirty percent.
  • Other studies show the following benefits: reduction of the development of Parkinson's disease; fewer cases of colon cancer, cirrhosis and gallstones; helps with asthma, stops headaches, elevates moods and inhibits the development of dental cavities.

So, enjoy your coffee, tea or soda -- just remember moderation! And here's a tip: using an espresso machine pump - driven to brew the coffee you drink - will reduce your overall caffeine consumption compared to drip coffee.

May 8

Americans finding alternative cancer treatments in Mexico

November 20th, 2008 @ 10:14pm
By Scott Haws

Every day cancer kills 1,500 people in the United States. That's more than a half-million people this year alone. When a patient is told his or her chances of survival aren't good, some head south of the border.

For years fly-by-night Mexico clinics claiming miracle cures have made a fortune off desperate U.S. patients. But we visited a clinic that ignores treatment protocols followed in the United States, even though it offers similar types of treatment.

8013710
Bernice Haskell and Susan Manning

On top of that, it offers a large dose of something patients say they really need: hope.

An infusion of hope fills the room at Betania West Cancer Clinic in Tijuana. One of the patients, Bernice Haskell, is officially in remission.

Eight months ago, this moment seemed unimaginable for Bernice. When they diagnosed her with pancreatic cancer, doctors in Sacramento gave her less than a year to live. "The odds weren't very good," she said.

"Eight months ago we didn't have hope," her husband, Jim, said. "We didn't have a hope in our life." Now, the cancer is gone.

Susan Manning's doctors in Connecticut delivered similar news. "'As far as the liver is concerned, Susan, I'm so sorry.' And that's a quote," Manning remembers.

Within a week, her son, Chad Bartulis, was taking her across the border. Four months later, the dozens of lesions on her liver were gone.

8013728
Dr. Salvador Vargas,

"It's a miracle, to be honest with you," Chad said. "I'm not even ... I was very skeptical."

"The very first thing you felt when you walked in the door after the long trip out here was hope. Because they had taken away all hope, and so there was nothing left to lose to try anything," Manning said.

"They told me to go home and make plans to die. They say they gave me three to four months," said Dolores Jackson, who was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2005. "I'm still here, but I'm still here because of Dr. Vargas."

Dr. Salvador Vargas is the man behind the Betania West Cancer Clinic. "We do radiation, we do chemo, we do surgery, we do immunotherapy. People think we are alternative, we do things different. We don't," he said.

Vargas says what he is doing is tailoring treatments to each patient: disregarding protocols followed in the United states, which he says restrict the types of treatment that may be most effective.

He still uses chemo and radiation, but in much lower doses. In fact, patients rarely lose their hair.

Vargas specializes in solid tumors, but he never starts with surgery. He claims the chemo and radiation sterilize the area, shrink the tumor, then, if needed, surgery removes the now smaller tumor.

All the while, Vargas delivers a constant dose of hope. "When [you] feel helpless and hopeless, you're going to die. When you have a will to live, when you feel that there is hope, you'll live," Vargas preaches.

May 8

Glioma: Surgeon changes study of brain tumors

Justin Berton, SF Chronicle Staff Writer October 6, 2008 (10-05) 17:34 PDT -- As a young neurosurgery resident at UCSF in the late ྖs, Dr. Charles Cobbs developed a hunch about brain tumors. It was a theory that he now concedes "was not based on a lot of scientific things." Cobbs had observed that his patients diagnosed with malignant glioma - an aggressive brain cancer that leaves victims with a two-year life expectancy - were mostly older, well-educated and from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. Their "hyper-hygienic" lifestyles had possibly left their immune systems susceptible to more common viruses, such as the human cytomegalovirus, or CMV, a herpes virus so ubiquitous that it infects 4 of 5 Americans. During off-hours, and without formal research funding, Cobbs and a lab partner analyzed dozens of brain tumor samples: All of them were riddled with CMV. In 2002, the doctor published his novel finding in a leading medical journal Cancer Research where it was quickly dismissed by many of his peers. "I was left with a lot of self doubt," said Cobbs, now 45. "My fear was that we'd done something incorrect. But now, my confidence is growing." In February, brain cancer researchers at Duke University Medical Center published the first peer-reviewed report that confirmed Cobbs' discovery, followed by two reports from independent labs at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center at University of Texas in Houston and the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden. And this month, the National Brain Tumor Society is sponsoring a first-of-its-kind gathering in Boston of the world's top virologists and glioma experts to examine the possible link between CMV and the deadly brain tumors that are diagnosed in 10,000 Americans every year. "His discovery opens the door and has broad implications in this field," said Dr. Duane Mitchell, a Duke University Medical Center researcher who is conducting vaccine trials based on Cobb's findings. "And the door has just been opened." An unorthodox connection Cobbs came up with the idea to connect CMV and brain tumors while reading "Surely, You're Joking Mr. Feynman!" a collection of reminiscences on the value of original thinking by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman. The book inspired Cobbs to re-examine long-held assumptions in his field. Medical researchers have long known that CMV exists in a latent state for most people unless a person's immune system is compromised. While it's a common and unremarkable virus in some ways, CMV also causes persistent infection and is known to carry cancer-causing properties. It's also the most common cause of congenital brain infections in humans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cobbs expected another researcher had considered CMV as a likely culprit for brain tumors, but he found no published evidence. "When I stopped to think, 'If I was going to cause a brain tumor, what would I be?'" Cobbs said, "CMV made a lot of sense. ... But if you tell people you think like that, in these days of rigid grant proposals - well, it might not win you that research grant." A response to Cobbs' initial findings in a 2004 issue of the journal Modern Pathology arrived from City of Hope researchers in Southern California that was particularly authoritative. The group studied 22 brain tumors and concluded that "none demonstrated evidence of CMV." But Cobbs and his lab assistant had invented a more thorough technique to search for the virus, called antigen retrieval, which made the testing methodology 10 times more sensitive, with the result that the antibodies could more easily "see" the virus. Cobbs said he offered to demonstrate the antigen retrieval technique to City of Hope researchers, but they declined to meet with him. They also did not respond to an interview request for this article. Extending patients' lives For the researchers who have confirmed Cobbs' methods, action is already under way. Mitchell, the Duke researcher, started a trial two years ago with 13 patients using a vaccine against the virus that stimulates the immune system to attack the infected tumor cells. One of the desired results of such antiviral treatment is to thwart the return of cancerous tumors once they've been removed. Currently, according to the National Brain Tumor Society, about 95 percent of patients whose tumors were removed and who underwent chemotherapy and radiation treatment saw a tumor return in six to eight months. Several of the patients in the Duke trial were tumor-free after two years, but Mitchell would not give specific data about his patients, which he is compiling for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. About half were just now seeing a return of the tumor, he said. Doctors for Sen. Edward Kennedy, who was diagnosed with glioma in May and operated on at Duke, would not confirm whether he is participating in the anti-CMV drug trials at the university. In San Francisco, some of Cobbs' patients who are taking Valcyte, an anti-CMV drug are experiencing results similar to those of Mitchell's patients. Francis Gates, 81, who had a golf-ball-size tumor removed one year ago, only recently has seen signs of returning growth. Gates, who grew up in the rural Placer County town of Loomis, and worked as director of law libraries at University of Southern California and Columbia University, has undergone chemotherapy and radiation treatments in the past year in addition to taking Valcyte. Although he is unsure if his early life growing up on a farm matched the hygiene profile Cobbs had observed among glioma patients, he would not rule out the theory. He is also unsure if the antiviral drug is responsible for suppressing the tumor growth and extending his life, though he's thankful he's lived longer than doctors estimated. "I feel lucky," Gates said. "But I've also felt that way my whole life. I just try to focus on my quality of life today, and see if I can't have some fun along the way." Hopes for treatment, funding During a recent two-hour surgery at California Pacific Medical Center on Castro Street, Cobbs removed a knot of infected brain tissue from an 83-year-old female patient and quickly dropped it into a vial held by Liliana Soroceanu, a neuroscience brain tumor researcher who then drove the tumor across town to their South of Market lab. While Cobbs gathers research, removing roughly 100 tumors a year, it's still unknown how his CMV-related discovery will translate into treatment, especially for older patients, said Dr. Susan Chang, director of the Division of Neuro-Oncology at UCSF. "There's still a number of questions to be answered as to what kind of treatments this discovery will lead to," Chang said, "and which patient populations might benefit most. Will this work best for older patients? Or only young patients? We're still not sure, and that's what we'll start discussing at the symposium." The Boston gathering has been described as somewhat unusual by Cobbs' peers. Rarely is a surgeon able to gather so many top thinkers and researchers from multiple fields to discuss a theory that is not yet widely accepted by the medical establishment. He hopes the event will also kick-start a critical mass of acceptance, so that funding will follow. "We'll get the skeptics together, have a meeting, brainstorm and see if this is worth pursuing," Cobbs said. "It's almost been taboo because no one wants to stick their neck out on this," he said referring to virologists and pathologists. "But I have nothing to lose. I'm just a surgeon." Health: Business Wire founder Lorry Lokey donates $75 million to Stanford for stem cell research. B1 E-mail Justin Berton at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/06/MNJ8135E2I.DTL This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

May 8

Happy New Years 2009!!!

Wishing you a VERY HAPPY NEW YEARS FROM YOUR CANCER VICTORS FAMILY!!!

MAY GOD BLESS YOU IN 2009!!

May 8

Sidney's wife update

My wife is on zeolite and B17. Right lately she has been going down hill rather fast. As I type my daughter has taken her to the doctor. Anyway please pray for Martha. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

May 8

Genes Don't Cause Cancer: Exhaustive Study Reveals Genetic L

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, December 30, 2008
Key concepts: GenesCancer and Medical myths

It's a clever line parroted by cancer docs everywhere: Your genes cause cancer, so you'd better get your breasts surgically removed just in case, you know, so you don't ever get cancer.

But as it turns out, the whole genetic link to cancer is 99% hogwash. A study completed at the Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece analyzed hundreds of other studies that claimed to have "discovered" genes that cause cancer, and it found that out of 240 claimed associations between genes and cancer risk, only two genes actually had any significant correlation at all. (That's less than one percent, if you're keeping track.)

Put another way, over 99% of the claims about genes causing cancer don't hold up to scientific scrutiny.

So what are they, then? Scare tactics, of course. By blaming genes for disease, doctors can disempower patients and convince them that they have no control over their own health. It also diminishes the importance of avoiding smoking, boosting vitamin D consumption, increasing exercise and engaging in other smart lifestyle improvements that directly reduce cancer risk. When people are convinced they're going to get cancer anyway ("It's in your genes!"), they tend to stop taking care of their health, giving in to the deterministic brainwashing that's been fed to them by the profit-driven cancer industry.

It's no surprise, of course, that real science shows the cancer gene claims to be 99% junk science. The cancer industry has never been interested in real science anyway: It's run almost entirely on the quest for corporate profits and the ongoing use of fear mongering tactics such as scaring women into submitting to chemotherapy by using mammography equipment that routinely produces false positives.

Even the whole cancer screening process is actually part of the cancer recruiting scam: Since mammograms emit cancer-causing radiation, a woman who undergoes mammography on a regular basis inevitably ends up with cancer tumors that were caused by the mammograms! Thus, the very process of screening for cancer causes cancer!

And then, when they find a tumor in your breast, they claim, "There's nothing you could have done about it. You had the gene for breast cancer."

Nonsense. Pure quackery. Criminal quackery, even.

The truth is that you can be free of cancer regardless of your genetic code, because it is the expression of those genes that matters. And guess what controls the expression of your genes? Your nutrition, diet, lifestyle choices and avoidance of cancer-causing chemicals in foods, drugs, cosmetics and personal care products.

In other words, you have probably 99% control over whether you get cancer or not. But the corrupt cancer industry wants you to think you actually have zero control.

What a con.

May 8

Pediatricians Push Flu Shots Onto Six-Month Old Infants

NaturalNews) Vaccinations are modern medicine's most-favored form of quackery. Even while the bulk of the evidence shows vaccines and flu shots ultimately harm more people than they help, they continue to be pushed by doctors, drug companies and state health authorities. Now you can add pediatricians to that list.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, a group of drug-pushing doctors that claim to care for children, is now demanding that parents get their children injected with an annual flu shot vaccine -- even for six-month-old babies! According to the new AAP guidelines, all children from six months to eighteen years old should receive an annualflu shot vaccine injection even though flu shots have been scientifically shown to be effective on only about one percent of those receiving them!

But here's the most disturbing part: The AAP is now aggressively attacking anyone who suggests flu shotvaccines should be spaced apart or skipped altogether in order to reduce the vaccine burden on a child.

The cumulative toxic vaccine burden

With a child in the U.S. now receiving upwards of 130 different vaccines (many are combined into a single shot, so it's not 130 shots), it only makes logical sense to wonder whether there's such a thing as a cumulative toxic vaccine burden that might harm the health of a child. But the AAP apparently believes there's no limit to the number of vaccines a child may be given. Even a six-month old infant may receive a thousand different vaccines as long as they are demanded by health authorities.

Any doctors or health authority who questions vaccines today is immediately branded a quack by the pro-drug, pro-chemical medical establishment, and vaccines have become the dividing issue that separates the medically insane from the sane. Those who push for mandatory vaccines (like HPV) and annual flu shots for infants are, of course, the insane "mad doctors" who think the human body is somehow deficient in viral DNA fragments and must be supplemented with any number of such injections in order to be healthy.

The agenda of the insane vaccine pushers is to literally criminalize all parents who object to vaccines and strip the medical licenses of any doctors who urge caution on vaccines. Importantly, they claim there is no room for debate on the issue of vaccines because they are so righteous in their vaccine wisdom that no reasonable person can even question the reasoning behind a child being injected with over a hundred vaccines.

Vaccine pushers have become irrational zealots

By taking this position, the pro-vaccine pushers have revealed themselves as irrational vaccine zealots who promote their chemical agenda not because it makes scientific sense, nor because it is medically justified, but rather because it is their demented way of dominating and controlling the population.

The pro-vaccine doctors have become a cult, and in this cult instead of sacrificing all your money and possessions, you sacrifice the health of your own children, turning them into modern medicine's lab rats who are subjected to outrageous medical experiments. (Let's face it: Injecting a child with 130+ vaccines is nothing less than a medical experiment.)

The frightening thing about this cult is that its power over the population is enforced at gunpoint. Try to resist thevaccination cult's directives, and you may find yourself arrested at gunpoint, your children kidnapped by state health authorities (CPS) and you end up in jail, charged with neglecting your child's health.

That's no exaggeration: In states like Maryland, parents are already being threatened with imprisonment for failing to get their children vaccinated, and the vaccine cultist are pushing for mandatory vaccine laws throughout the nation.

The radicalization of the vaccine pushers

In attempting to criticize opposition to his fabricated war on Iraq, President Bush famously said, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." This extremist stance is now mirrored by the vaccine pushers who are essentially saying, "You either agree with us, or you're a criminal."

Such a position leaves zero room for thoughtful debate, eliminating the possibility of coherent discussion over possible health threats that might be posed by vaccines. It's also a clear sign of the radicalization of the vaccine pushers who unfortunately seem to hold positions of high authority in modern society.

As the vaccine-pushing cult becomes more radicalized and even militarized (due to gunpoint enforcement, attack dogs at the Maryland courthouse vaccine enforcement event, etc.) it runs the risk of looking more and more like a home-grown terrorist group. It already shares many similarities with terrorist groups: The use of fear to promote its agenda, the use of chemical weapons that harm and kill civilians, the use of firearms and violent weapons to enforce its agenda, and the adoption of an intellectually-extremist position that declares all opponents to becriminals.

It's true that medical violence against children is routinely tolerated in America today. There is no crime modern medicine can commit against children that's outrageous enough to warrant an arrest of the medical authorities, apparently: They can poison children with chemicals, maim them with medically unnecessary surgery, destroy their brains with psychiatric drugs, burn their flesh with radiation treatments and obliterate their immune systems with chemotherapy, but as long as it's approved by a doctor, nobody seems to question this violent medical abuse of a child.

And when angry parents try to fight the system by petitioning the government to end mandatory vaccine regulations, for example, they are immediately called "scientifically illiterate" and accused of neglect.

That's the key to all this, of course: Any parent who objects to vaccines is effectively threatened with being arrested for daring to oppose the all-powerful medical authorities. It is through this blanket of fear that most parents are motivated to shut their mouths, take the shots and stop asking questions about things like autism.

Losing your freedoms AND your health

So what does it all really mean? It means pro-vaccine doctors are not only a threat to your child's health, but also a threat to your freedoms! These vaccine-pushing health authorities aren't running a public health campaign; they're running a militant cult that declares all who oppose it to be criminals deserving arrest and imprisonment.

Like all such militant cults that rise to power, the vaccine pushers need to have their power checked before they become an even greater threat to the health and safety of families everywhere. This could be easily accomplished with the passage of health freedom laws that would establish the permanent right of parents to refuse to subject their children to chemical concoctions they object to.

The fact that we even have to consider new laws to protect such rights demonstrates just how much of a threat to health freedoms the vaccine pushers have already become. When governments and state-license health authorities are given the power to override the commonsense decisions of parents, the very fabric of freedom is beginning to fray.

Or, put another way, when parents who try to protect their own children from a dangerous accumulation of toxic chemicals are branded criminals and imprisoned, a dangerous threshold has been crossed that takes the entire nation further away from anything resembling freedom and a lot closer to a medical police state.

The future of militant medicine in America

If this militant vaccine agenda isn't stopped, and if medical authorities are given even more state power over the People, it's not hard to imagine a future where:

• Where chemotherapy is administered to children at gunpoint and those who resist are arrested.

• Where refusing to put a child on psychiatric drugs is considered justifiable grounds for mandatory psychiatric medication of the parents (in a mental institution, of course!).

• Where all information on the internet that challenges vaccines or pharmaceuticals is censored, and those who dare to publish it are arrested and "disappeared." Imagine a Gitmo for bloggers...

• Where vaccine pushers demand an ever-increasing barrage of vaccines for all children, reaching a point of utter insanity where 1000 or more vaccines are injected into a six-month-old baby.

• Where feeding your child vitamins is considered a crime, and children are even "drug tested" for traces of vitamins, and those found to carry such traces are taken away from their parents by Child Protective Services.

Do these possibilities seem outlandish? The idea that parents could be arrested for refusing to subject their child to chemotherapy also seemed outlandish at one time, but now it's a present-day reality. The idea that the State would send letters to thousands of parents, threatening them with jail time if they didn't submit their children to a "vaccination processing line" at the local courthouse also once seemed outlandish. But now it's an historical fact.

That something seems crazy has never been sufficient to prevent it from actually occurring, and the medical authorities seem willing to abandon human rights more quickly than just about any other group, including terrorist groups. Most terrorist groups, after all, tend to target adults (9/11, for example) while the vaccine pushers are targeting children. Terrorist groups also tend to target populations of other nations, while the vaccine pushers are targeting the children of their own countries.

This is not to say that vaccine-pushing doctors ARE terrorists, only that they use tactics and have embraced extremist views that are frighteningly similar to terrorists. Obviously, doctors don't use bombs, fragmentation grenades and rocket launchers to harm people. They use chemical poisons, heavy metals and viral fragments instead.

Perhaps we should start referring to the act of receiving a vaccination injection as "being fragged."