Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, MS, Depression and Bipolar Disorder All Linked To Metal Toxicity

Metal toxicants entering the part of the brain that deals with stress and panic have been linked to disorders dealing with the central nervous system. Increasing evidence indicates that damage to the locus ceruleus (LC), is present in a wide range of neurodegenerative diseases including demyelinating and psychiatric disorders. 

There are a growing number of Clinicians and Scientists who are convinced that excitotoxins and heavy metals play a critical role in the development of several neurological disorders, including migraines, seizures, infections, abnormal neural development, certain endocrine disorders, specific types of obesity, and especially the neurodegenerative diseases; a group of diseases which includes: ALS, Parkinson's disease,Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, and olivopontocerebellar degeneration.

The locus ceruleus (LC) is a nucleus in the pons (part of the brainstem) involved with physiological responses to stress and panic. It is the principal site for brain synthesis of the hormone and neurotransmitter norepinephrine (noradrenaline).

It has been known for many years that toxicants (i.e., poisons that are put into the environment or human body by human activity) that block the uptake of noradrenaline can damage the LC of experimental animals.

The recent finding that a metal toxicant, inorganic mercury, selectively enters the cytoplasm of human LC neuron has prompted researchers to investigate how these toxicants cause many of these CNS disorders.

The Locus Ceruleus Is Upregulated By Stress

An increased output of noradrenaline from the LC can be elicited by a wide range of acute and chronic stressors, in particular those that are physical (e.g., pain), psychological (e.g., anxiety), or social (e.g., isolation). Chronic stressors can keep noradrenergic neurons in a highly active state permanently. Stressors can increase the uptake of circulating toxicants that use neurotransmitter transporters to enter LC neurons.

Stress has been implicated in the onset or relapse of a number of neurodegenerative, demyelinating and psychiatric conditions. The increased activity of the LC during stress, with a concomitant increase in neurotransmitter release and re-uptake, encourage circulating toxicants to enter the terminal axons of LC neurons.

Studies indicating which elements of the LC-Toxicant hypothesis relate to particular CNS disorders.

CNS Regions Are Innervated By The Locus Ceruleus

About 70% of all CNS noradrenaline comes from the LC innervate in particular CNS regions that are involved in Alzheimer’s disease (hippocampus, neocortex, basal forebrain), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (brain stem and spinal motor neurons), and mood disorders (amygdala). The substantia nigra, which is damaged in Parkinson’s disease, also receives innervation from the LC.

The normal human brain contains about 32,000 LC neurons and is estimated to contain capillaries with a total length of 640 kilometres. This means that, on average, each LC neuron is responsible for innervating 20 meters of capillaries. No other neuronal system has such widespread contact with circulating blood.

Noradrenaline plays an important part in maintaining the integrity of the blood-brain barrier and in responding to stressors by increasing cerebral blood flow. With their large exposure to the blood circulation, LC neurons could take up toxicants even if they were at low levels in the blood.

Noradrenaline also suppresses inflammation, mostly because of its affects on microglia, which have a high expression of adrenoreceptors. Inflammation would be further increased if a permeable blood-brain barrier, caused by noradrenaline depletion, allowed inflammatory cells to enter the CNS. 

The Locus Ceruleus Has Been Shown To Be Damaged In Neurodegenerative, Demyelinating, and Psychiatric Disorders

A man who injected himself intravenously with metallic mercury had mercury staining in the cytoplasm of about 70% of his LC neurons. This individual committed suicide a few months after the mercury injection, so mercury uptake by the LC may have been aided by stress-induced upregulation of the LC neurons. This is the first time that a metal toxicant has been found to be able to enter the human LC selectively.

Neuromelanin, a dark pigment produced neurons in the LC, increases during aging and may influence cell function. Neuromelanin could initially play a protective role by chelating certain circulating metal toxicants such as mercury and lead and when production is inhibited could dramatically affect uptake.

Recent reviews have highlighted the extent of LC damage in neurodegenerative, demyelinating, and psychiatric disorders.

The LC-Toxicant hypothesis can explain a number of puzzling features of neurodegenerative, demyelinating and psychiatric disorders, which are grouped below under the term “neurodegenerative disorders”.

One agent that enters neurons at an early age and cause damage later in life is a heavy metal, since metal toxicants persists within human neurons for many years.

CNS and Neurogenerative Disorders

In Parkinson’s disease, cell loss is more severe in the LC than in the substantia nigra. This fits with suggestions based on animal experiments that in Parkinson’s disease LC damage occurs first, and that the noradrenaline-deficient substantia nigra is then more susceptible to toxic insults.

The topographical distribution of cell loss in the LC varies in Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and depression. he type of pathology differs as well, with LC cell loss in Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, gliosis in multiple sclerosis, and neuronal shrinkage in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. These topographical and pathological differences suggest that toxicants affect LC neurons in different ways.

Genetic variation is unlikely to account for the variations in incidence of neurodegenerative disorders that have been described between city and country living, or for increases or decreases of disease incidence over time. Here environmental factors are more likely. The LC would be subjected to different toxicants in the city versus the country, and would be exposed to different levels of pollutants over time. Geographic differences in toxicant exposure could interact with other environmental factors in a disorder such as multiple sclerosis, where a reduction in sunlight and vitamin D levels at increased latitudes has been implicated.

Herbicides, pesticides, vaccinations, medications and industrial exposures may be the most effective approach likely to define groups with known exposures to certain toxicants and then look for genetic variants (either single nucleotide, copy number, or epigenetic) in the biological pathways that normally protect individuals from these toxicants. An analysis could then be undertaken to see if these genetic variants are more common in people within these defined groups who have neurodegenerative disorders.

Source: PreventDisease

The Prostate Mistake Millions of Men Make

It's a fact that 1 in 2 American men will suffer from prostate problems by age 50, and an astonishing 9 in 10 will by the age of 70. It's a myth however that this is an unavoidable part of aging for men. You can be one of those lucky guys who doesn't have any prostate problems whatsoever! 

It's a well-known fact that many of us men take a passive approach to our health. Maybe it's our "tough guy" attitude, or perhaps we're just busy. But way too often, we tend to ignore minor health issues until they become major problems. This is especially true when it comes to prostate health.

You may still think it won't happen to you, but the odds are not good. And trust me, you don't want to wait until it's too late because the conventional approach to dealing with prostate problems is deeply flawed. It doesn't address the root cause of the problem and can make things much worse.

The BIG Problem with PSA Tests and Prostate Drugs

EACH year some 30 million American men undergo testing for prostate-specific antigen, an enzyme made by the prostate. Approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1994, the P.S.A. test is the most commonly used tool for detecting prostate cancer. But the test’s popularity has led to a hugely expensive public health disaster, not only because it is ineffective, but because it is not a tool that leads to prevention or an addressing of the problem.

Prostate cancer may get a lot of press, but consider the numbers: American men have a 16 percent lifetime chance of receiving a diagnosis of prostate cancer, but only a 3 percent chance of dying from it. That’s because the majority of prostate cancers grow slowly. In other words, men lucky enough to reach old age are much more likely to die with prostate cancer than to die of it.

Even then, the test is hardly more effective than a coin toss. As many have been trying to make clear for many years now, P.S.A. testing can’t detect prostate cancer and, more important, it can’t distinguish between the two types of prostate cancer -- the one that will kill you and the one that won’t.

Instead, the test simply reveals how much of the prostate antigen a man has in his blood. Infections, over-the-counter drugs like ibuprofen, and benign swelling of the prostate can all elevate a man’s P.S.A. levels, but none of these factors signals cancer. Men with low readings might still harbor dangerous cancers, while those with high readings might be completely healthy.

The medical community is slowly turning against P.S.A. screening. Last year, The New England Journal of Medicine published results from the two largest studies of the screening procedure, one in Europe and one in the United States. The results from the American study show that over a period of 7 to 10 years, screening did not reduce the death rate in men 55 and over.

The European study showed a small decline in death rates, but also found that 48 men would need to be treated to save one life. That’s 47 men who, in all likelihood, can no longer function sexually or stay out of the bathroom for long.

If you go to your doctor complaining about having to "go" all the time or difficulties in the bedroom, he or she will likely prescribe a drug that may help ease some of your symptoms, but that comes with some seriously disturbing side effects. In fact, the FDA recently warned that these drugs actually increase your risk of developing prostate cancer.

First, here's some background on how it works. For decades, the theory has been that prostate problems are caused by the conversion of regular testosterone into a form of testosterone known as dihydrotestosterone, or DHT, which causes the prostate to swell. This conversion happens naturally as men get older and is catalyzed by an enzyme called 5-alpha reductase.

So, the pharmaceutical companies created drugs that stop this natural process by blocking 5-alpha reductase. But, as so often is the case withnarrow-minded pharmaceutical approaches to "solving" health problems, this therapy misses the mark.

As it turns out, blocking the 5-alpha reductase enzyme alone can actually make matters worse because another enzyme, called aromatase, takes its place and starts turning your testosterone into estrogen.

In case you're not aware, you DON'T want excess estrogen in your body as a man for a number of reasons.

Why Men Should Avoid Too Much Estrogen 

• Contributes to prostate enlargement
• Obliterates your sex drive and ability to perform
• Causes gynecomastia (breast enlargement)
• Accelerates weight gain and hair loss

So you can see why prostate drugs are not a good long-term solution for sustained prostate health! In order to really solve the problem, you must block BOTH the 5-alpha reductase enzyme AND the aromatase enzyme.

The Natural Prostate Solution (with a Catch)

If you've looked into natural ways to support your prostate health, you've no doubt come across saw palmetto extract. This extensively studied prostate supporter is derived from the berries of the saw palmetto plant. Saw palmetto is a godsend when it comes to prostate health because it is scientifically proven to inhibit both 5-alpha reductase and aromatase, blocking the production of both DHT and estrogen.

Gold-standard clinical studies have shown that saw palmetto:

• Nourishes and protects the prostate
• Helps to reduce prostate swelling
• Promotes a healthy sex drive
• Supports recovery from exercise
• Boosts healthy hair growth

And best of all, research has shown saw palmetto is effective in nearly 90% of users, has no side effects or drug interactions and is safe even in extremely large doses.

Unfortunately, Most Saw Palmetto Supplements Are Junk!

Don't be fooled into thinking all saw palmetto is the same. Recent tests from a leading independent laboratory showed that almost half of the leading brands of saw palmetto extract were lacking effective potency. So how do you know if you're getting a good product or just a bottle of junk?

I'm going to let you in on some industry secrets about saw palmetto thatwill make you think twice about buying just any old saw palmetto supplement. Here's a list of things you definitely want to avoid when purchasing a saw palmetto supplement:

	Lack of Potency: The active ingredients that make saw palmetto so effective are found only in the mature berries of the plant, and these berries must be highly concentrated. But many saw palmetto supplements are made with whole, ground up unripe berries, as well as other parts of the plant, that contain little if any of its active constituents!
	Chemical Solvents: The vast majority of saw palmetto berries are processed using harsh chemical solvents that are used to extract the active ingredients. These solvents are potentially toxic and end up in the raw material used to make the supplement.
	Pesticides and Toxins: There's big money in saw palmetto crops, and growers go to great lengths to get maximum yield. Many of them use copious amounts of pesticides and herbicides that end up in the plants used to make saw palmetto supplements.
	Berries from Far-Off Lands: The saw palmetto plant is indigenous to the Southeastern US But by my estimates, 99% of the saw palmetto supplements sold in the US are made with saw palmetto berries that were grown in China, where there is little regulation in place to ensure safe growing and processing practices.

6 Tips for Finding a Great Supplement 

1.	Make sure the supplement provides a daily dose of at least 300 mg of highly concentrated saw palmetto berries.
2.	If possible, call the company and ask what the country of origin is for the saw palmetto berries. Ensure they are not from China.
3.	Find a supplement that uses organic saw palmetto berries. This eliminates any possibility of contamination from pesticides and other toxins.
4.	If the supplement was produced using harsh solvents, it may cause more harm than good. The best supplements are produced usingsolvent-free extraction.
5.	Cheap supplements have low potency, so you end up having to take 4 to 6 pills per day. A concentrated supplement will provides at least 300 mg in only 1 or 2 pills per day. This makes it more likely you'll take them every day!
6.	There is no need to overpay for a high-quality saw palmetto supplement. My advice -- don't spend more than $20 for a bottle.

Start Protecting Your Prostate Today--Before It's Too Late

Please don't be among the millions of men who ignore prostate issues. Remember, 90% of men will suffer from prostate problems by age 70. Failing to take action now sets you up for serious problems down the road, not to mention discomfort, pain and reduced capabilities.

If you've tried a saw palmetto before and didn't see results, perhaps you were just one of the millions of men who were fooled into taking a JUNK supplement. Please use my advice above and try again!

Source: PreventDisease

A Shot Never Worth Taking: The Flu Vaccine

Deep into my 6th year of researching and investigating the damning science that condemns vaccine efficacy and safety – yes, all of them – I am beginning to turn my attention more to the societal memes and the individual belief systems that protect and perpetuate tragically flawed and unacceptably dangerous collective behaviors.

The information is OUT THERE, brilliant scientists, physicians, and researchers without financial ties and agendas have weighed in and presented their concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, however, the average citizen resists and clings to a hyper-simplified, seemingly "safe" stance.

"Well, I'm not against vaccines, I mean, they've done a lot. I'm sure there are some risks, but they're extremely rare."

I understand, now, that, my collection of PubMed articles substantiating concerns about inefficacy, neurological, autoimmune, and fatal risks of these poorly conceived and anachronistically relevant immune modulators is not meaningful to someone who is not interested. The questions raised by this information are not provocative to someone who needs, above all, to believe that the government, the CDC, and doctors mean well, are doing their due diligence, and that they are holding themselves to a basic standard of ethical delivery of healthcare. They are not meaningful to someone who needs to outsource their power.

Instead of debating the science, what it may take to change to bring awareness to this egregious misuse of medical authority is, one of two, non-scientific, anecdotal exposures:

1. They see it doesn't work, and may even cause illness
I have several pediatricians as patients. Unprovoked, all of these women have confessed to me that they have observed increased virulence in their vaccinated populations. It is this clinical experience that has given them pause about the heavy-handed mandate coming down from the CDC.

"Oh!" I say, "Have you read the studies that suggest increased risk of infection in the vaccinated population? There's THAT ONE where they actually used a saline placebo in 115 children and found that those vaccinated had a 4.4 times increased rate of non-flu infection? Or how about that CANADIAN ONE where they looked at 4 observational studies and found that 2008-2009 H1N1 vaccination was associated with a1.4 to 2.5 increased risk of actually contracting said virus?"

2.They know someone harmed
It is basic human psychology that what is out over there is irrelevant at best, and threatening at worst. What is near and familiar is what is true. Few of us seek to bridge gaps between what we are surrounded by and what may be out there to learn. The difficulty of appreciating the scale of harm brought to the population by vaccination practice is related to the insidious nature of immune and neurologic insult.

The propaganda surrounding this CDC and government-endorsed practice is so thick that doctors treating this young man were blind to even the most obvious of causative insults. If doctors cannot appreciate a documented adverse event that occurs within 24 hours, you cannot expect the system to acknowledge more complex disturbances to the immune system and neuorologic development that will land you and your loved ones on medications and in therapies for life. And, remember, that this family cannot sue the physician who pushed the needle or the pharmaceutical company who created the lethal product.

I think about the Cliff's Notes version, a distillation of why the flu vaccine is evidence that our government and regulatory bodies have forgotten us, and are following an objective that may leave you lying dead on the side of the road. I know that few of you will read the papers that I have read, attend lectures, seminars, and dialogue with concerned experts. If nothing else, digest these important points, and then wait until this issue gets close enough to you to change your mind on it...hopefully before it's too late.

•It's not indicated: I'm sure you don't know a single person who has died of the flu, and if you think you do, I can almost guarantee you that the diagnosis was not confirmed in a way that ruled out the 150-200 infectious pathogens that cause flu-like syndromes, none of which would be "covered" by the vaccine. Despite the astronomical figures the CDC flashes before us of "flu deaths", there were 18 (yes, 1-8) confirmed in 2001, for example. Access to these figures is suspiciously concealed, but in the end, forget the stats, and use some common sense to see the fear mongering and sales marketing for what it is.

•It doesn't work: The Cochrane Database – an objective, gold-standard assessment of available evidence has plainly stated, in TWO STUDIES, that there is no data to support efficacy in children under two, and in adults. Even the former Chief Vaccine Officer at the FDA states: "there is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza." Liking the idea of being protected from the flu does not equate to being protected from the flu. That's essentially what your vaccine-promoting doctor (or pharmacist) is engaging in – promoting an idea.

•Should there ever be a medical intervention appropriate for everyone?
It's being pushed on demographics where it is known to be ineffective, or is unstudied and likely unsafe including children, adults, elderly, and pregnant women as reviewed on THIS WEB SITE andGREENMEDINFO. I write about how this offends my sensibilities as a perinatal physician HERE.

•We just don't know what we are doing: The grave possibility of undetectable viral proteins in the chick embryos used to culture vaccines is just an example of how the immune roulette of vaccine development and rampant implementation has resulted in death and lasting injury. C. jejeuni contamination, for example, IS THEORIZED TO PLAY A ROLE in documented risk of Guillain-Barre paralysis after flu vaccine. Producing antibody response to virus and associated toxic preservatives is not immunity. We know that now.

As those of us who shake our heads in pain and frustration watching the sheep get herded off the cliff, we refrain: these agents cannot be considered "safe and effective" and also "unavoidably unsafe" as the government agencies would have us accept. They are avoidably unsafe, in fact, when you don't use them as part of your healthcare.

Source: GreenMedInfo

Splenda (Sucralose) Harms Vastly Underestimated: Baking Releases Dioxin

A new, in-depth review on the synthetic sweetener sucralose (marketed as Splenda), published in the journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, is destined to overturn widely held misconceptions about the purported safety of this ubiquitous artificial sweetener.

Found in tens of thousands of products and used by millions of consumers around the world, sucralose's unique ability to dissolve in alcohol and methanol as well as water, makes it the most versatile and therefore most widely used artificial sweetener in production today. And yet, its popularity is no indication nor guarantee of its safety, as is evidenced by the widespread use of other artificial sweeteners like aspartame, which while being safety approved in 90 nations around the world, has been linked to a wide range of serious health conditions including brain damage. 

But the tide may be turning...

Already this year, the Center for the Public Interest in Science downgraded Splenda from "safe" to "caution," citing their need to evaluate a forthcoming Italian study linking the artificial sweetener to leukemia in mice as a basis for their decision.  

Another recent human study linked Splenda to diabetes-associated changes, calling into question its value as a non-calorie sweetener for those suffering with, or wishing to prevent, blood sugar disorders.

The new study, however, may be the most concerning yet to surface in the peer-reviewed literature. Titled, "Sucralose, a synthetic organochlorine sweetener: overview of biological issues," it reveals an extensive array of hitherto underreported safety concerns, not the least of which is theformation of highly toxic chlorinated compounds, including dioxins, when Splenda is used in baking, an application which its manufacturer, McNeil Nutritionals (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), actively encourages it to be used for. [see: Cooking and Baking: SPLENDA®]

A Dizzying Array of Splenda (Sucralose) Safety Concerns That Have Never Been Adequately Tested

The study argues that, despite its widespread approval and use, further scientific safety research is warranted due the following significant findings:

• "Sucralose alters metabolic parameters and its chronic effects on body weight are unknown": both animal and human research indicates sucralose may raise blood sugar and insulin levels, indicating it may have diabetogenic properties.
• "Sucralose alters P-gp and CYP expression": While classified as a food additive, sucralose's organochlorine structure indicates it interferes with a wide range of organochlorine class drugs, and activates detoxification pathways and enzymes, in a manner similar to these xenobiotic chemicals.
• "The metabolic fate and health profile of sucralose metabolites are currently unknown": Contrary to statements in the research literature that sucralose passes through the body in the feces 'unchanged,' metabolites have been detected in the urine and feces of both animals and humans, the nature and health consequence of which have never been studied
• "Sucralose alters indigenous bacterial balancein the GIT": Sucralose (delivered as Splenda) has been found to reduce the number of beneficial bacteria in the gastrointesintal tract (e.g., lactobacilli, bifidobacteria), while  increasing the more detrimental bacteria (e.g., enterobacteria). One study found the adverse effects on flora did not return to normal (baseline) after a 3-month recovery period. Sucralose also altered the pH of the gastrointestinal tract.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly:

• "Numerous toxicological issues regarding long-term exposure to sucralose are unresolved": 1) DNA damage (genotoxicity), and possible adverse epigenetic alterations. 2) The generation of toxic compounds during baking, including chloropropanols, 1,6-DCF and dioxins. 3) The bioaccumulation of sucralose and/or its metabolites 4) The interaction between sucralose and/or its metabolites with drugs have not yet been studied or evaluated

Cancer-Causing Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds Formed When Splenda (Sucralose) Is Cooked

As the reader can plainly see, the picture is a complex one, and there are more unresolved questions than answers. But perhaps the most concerning issue addressed in the report is the 'Safety of Sucralose That Has Been Heated.' According to the paper, historically, sucralose was reported to be heat stable at temperatures used in cooking. But they cite a number of reports from independent laboratories showing that sucralose undergoes thermal degradation when heated. One study showed that the stability of sucralose decreased as the temperature and pH increased, with the breakdown process commencing at 119 degrees Celsius and temperatures of 180 degrees Celsius causing its complete degradation at all pH levels with the release of chloride ions.  Additionally, they refer to research showing that sucralose can break down into the following concerning compounds when heated:

• Chloropopanols are generated when sucralose was heated in the presence of glycerol. Chloropopanols are a group of contaminants that include known genotoxic, carcinogenic and tumorigenic compounds.
• Other chlorinated compounds formed when sucralose is heated in the presence of food include dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans, dioxin-like polychlorinated bisphenyls and polychlorinated naphthalenes.

Chlorinated compounds like dioxins and DDT are notorious for being both highly toxic and resistant to breaking down once released into the environment, which is why they are classified as 'persistent organic pollutants.' Splenda was launched in 2000 with tagline "Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar," until it retired this slogan in 2007 after settling with its rival, Merisant Co., the maker of Equal, who accused the makers of Splenda of intentionally confusing consumers into thinking its product was more natural and healthier than other artificial sweeteners. Long gone are the days that this artificial sweetener can be marketed as natural, safe and a healthy alternative to sugar. To the contrary, today's research clearly indicates that sucralose is a toxic chemical that we should go to great lengths to avoid exposure to rather than something we should intentionally add to our food. You will also find a growing body of research that indicates that sucralose not only does not break down in the environment, but survives water treatment plant purification techniques, with the inevitable consequence that it is accumulating in concentrations in our drinking water and the environment that may adversely impact humans and wildlife alike. 

The discovery that thermal breakdown through cooking can lead to the formation of highly toxic and equally persistent chlorinated compounds, including dioxins, should raise a series of red flags for consumers, manufacturers and regulators as the information becomes more widespread. A cursory perusal of the World Health Organization's description of 'Dioxins and their effects on human health,' which lists it as belonging to the "dirty dozen" of the world's most dangerous pollutants, will see what is at stake here. For more information on the formation of toxic chlorinated byproducts following the heating of sucralose read a 2013 study published in Scientific Reports titled, “Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans formed from sucralose at high temperatures," which goes into the topic in greater depth.

The Acceptable Daily Intake of Splenda (Sucralose) May Have Been Set 100's of Times Too High To Ensure Safety

Lastly, an equally concerning issue addressed by the paper is the problem of the acceptable daily intake (ADI). The FDA approved an ADI for humans of 5 mg/kg/day in 1998 based on toxicity studies in rats by determining a no-observed-effect level (NOEL) of 500 mg/kg/day, and then applying a 100-fold safety factor. Since then, research has emerged showing that the NOEL in the microbiome ('gut bacteria') of rats for Splenda is actually as low as 1.1 mg/kg/day – 454 times lower than first determined – and 3.3 mg/kg/day for changes in intestinal P-gp and CYP – 151 times lower than first determined. Therefore, if the biological effects of sucralose in rats and humans are the same, or similar, then significant effects would be expected in humans far below the ADI.

For additional research on sucralose's adverse health effects, visit our research page that collates peer-reviewed research on its toxicological properties. Also, for research on natural sweeteners not associated with these adverse effects, take a look at the following alternatives:

• Honey
• Xylitol
• Erythritol
• Stevia

Source: GreenMedInfo

The Top Four Spices That Kick Cancer to the Curb

Image: chrisbeatcancer.com

These four cancer-fighting spices have powerful health benefits and were part of my daily regimen to beat cancer without chemo.  They are common, but not commonly found in American cuisine, so I had to be very deliberate about adding them to my food. I took copious amounts of these four spices and still do today.

They are (organically grown): Oregano, Garlic, Cayenne Pepper, and Turmeric.

The Turmeric plant is a relative of Ginger and has been used for thousands of years in Indian Ayurvedic medicine (the science of long life) as an antiseptic and antibacterial agent to treat infection, inflammation, wound healing, poor digestion, etc.  And as you may know, it is also a staple ingredient in Indian, Persian, Thai, and Malaysian Cuisine.

Turmeric is the business because it contains the powerful cancer-fighting polyphenol Curcumin.
Curcumin has been clinically shown to inhibit growth of various cancer cells including: Bone Cancer, Breast Cancer, Brain Tumors, Colon, Liver, Pancreatic, Stomach, Bladder, Kidney, Prostate, Leukemia, Ovarian, Melanoma, and more!

One of its anti-cancer benefits comes from its ability to induce apoptosis (natural cell death) in cancer cells.

Curry Powder, a common ingredient in indian and asian cuisine, is typically a mixture of coriander, turmeric, cumin, fenugreek, and red pepper. Love the stuff. It’s delicious!

Oregano has extremely high levels of antioxidants and antimicrobial compounds.  One teaspoon of oregano has the same antioxidant power (ORAC) of two cups of red grapes!  It contains the phytochemical Quercetin, which is known to slow cancer growth and also promote apoptosis (there’s that word again).

And on top of that Oregano is a good source of Vitamin K and Iron.

Garlic is a very powerful anti-cancer spice.  Studies all over the world have shown it to lower the risk of developing all types of cancers especially colon, stomach, intestinal, and prostate cancer.  It has strong antibacterial properties as well as the ability to block formation and halt activation of cancer-causing substances. It can also enhance DNA repair; slow down cell reproduction and, like Turmeric and Oregano, induce apoptosis.

The World Health Organization recommends adults have a daily dose of fresh garlic (approximately one clove).  So not only did I put garlic powder on everything I ate, but I also chopped it up raw garlic cloves into little bits and swallowed them like pills.  Did I reek of garlic?  Oh yeah. Did I care?  No I did not.
Cayenne Pepper contains Capsaicin, which is the active compound that sets your lips, tongue, and everything else on fire.  Turns out Capsaicin is also the stuff kills cancer cells, causing……………..can you guess it?
Apoptosis!

Cayenne is also a key ingredient in The Master Cleanse for its detox abilities.

The Hotter the Better: If you can handle the heat, Habanero Peppers contain 4-6 times more Capsaicin than Cayenne with a Scoville rating of 200,000 units.  Yeeoow!!!

The first time I ate a super hot chili pepper was on a dare when I was 20, my  friend Brad Stanfill bit half and I bit the other half.  It was so hot I couldn’t think straight.  I don’t know if it triggered endorphins or adrenaline or what, but we somehow ended up lying on our backs in the grass in our front yard until it wore off.  Good times.

Here’s a super easy way to add more spice to your life:  I use all four of these cancer-fighting spices in a salad dressing I make from scratch.

Source: chrisbeatcancer.com via rawforbeauty.com