Natural Cures Not Medicine: cancer

Most Read This Week:

Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts

This is why you should avoid sugar and artificial sweeteners



Image: www.sheknows.com

Cancer researcher Ty Bollinger talks about the dangers of sugar when it comes to cancer. He also discusses the role sure plays in overall health. Artificial sweeteners aren't any better. Ty talks about one in particular, aspartame, and how that can be even worse for your health than sugar.


iHealthTube.com - The Many Risks with Sugar and Aspartame

Source: rawforbeauty.com

This Is Why You Should Stay Away From Chemotherapy And Radiation

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

by Dr. James Howenstine, MD
Image: www.healthwars.co

For many years it has been known to well informed individuals within the medical community that chemotherapy and radiation were quite toxic and essentially worthless in the management of malignancies. This information is carefully covered up by our controlled media so that these two methods of therapy are regarded by lay persons as the proven therapy for malignancies. Like lemmings going over a cliff the general public lines up for these therapies and nearly all treated persons proceed to die.

To the person who inquires how can an essentially worthless therapy continue to be used the answer is simple. It is all about money. Chemotherapy drugs bring in more than a trillion dollars annually to the pharmaceutical industry. Oncologists frequently make $1000 from every injection administered to a patient. There are 40 National Cancer Institute Centers scattered across the USA. Each of these employs thousands of employees. Curing cancer would be devastating for the economy and must not be allowed to occur. Research programs whose alleged purpose is to cure cancer see their funds steered into harmless areas where no cancer cures will ever result. Less than 1% of research funds are spent finding methods to prevent the spread of cancer, which is the cause of fatal cancer cachexia which kills 90% of cancer victims..

Preventing unfavorable chemotherapy results from being seen by the public in TV, radio, and newspaper reporting is combined with malicious quackery charges and actual death threats to practitioners who have legitimate cancer cures. I am aware of at least a dozen cancer cures since 1900 that have been ignored or suppressed. Several persons with bonafide cancer cures have been so vilified they died alcoholics or committed suicide. Prominent physician Dr Milbrook Johnson was poisoned the night before he was scheduled to speak on a national radio network in the 1940s about the ability of Dr. Royal Rife’s electronic equipment to cure cancer and infections.

Both chemotherapy and radiation have such toxic effects on the human body they must be stopped before they kill the patient. In the early days of chemotherapy drugs it was noted that skeptical patients who refused to take chemotherapy usually lived longer than patients treated with chemotherapy.

Radiation therapy directed toward a bone containing cancer might initially seem innocuous but actually has effects throughout the body. Circulation of blood through areas of ionizing radiation being delivered to bone is able to transport this radiated blood to distant sites where it can injure bone marrow production of killer lymphocytes, red blood cells, macrophages and platelets. Loss of appetite and nausea can be seen. Conventional radiation to the abdomen and other areas may be followed by permanent injury to the small intestine(diarrhea, pain) and arteriosclerosis of arteries in any field of radiation.

A suspected cancer patient had xray films showing numerous lucent identical sized masses overlying brain and spinal cord tissue. The films were misread as metastasis from a prior malignant melanoma instead of echinoccocal cysts spread from the family dogs.. Massive radiation of brain and spinal cord tissue caused complete loss of appetite with no food intake and death in 8 days in a previously well 26 year old woman.

What are results of chemotherapy drugs? Associate Professor Graeme Morgan of Australia was the lead researcher on an article titled "The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5 year survival in adult malignancies." This research showed that chemotherapy improved 5 year survival by less than 3% in adults with cancer. In 1987 Dr. Lana Levi of the University of California wrote "most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. It does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancer. This fact has been known for over a decade. Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemotherapy than without it."

Dr. Ralph Moss Ph.D relates that "Conventional Cancer therapy is so toxic and dehumanizing that I fear it more than I fear death from cancer. Yet most alternative therapies regardless of potential or proven benefit, are outlawed, which forces patients to submit to the failures that we know don’t work because there is no other choice. Dr. Moss was employed as a science writer for Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Chemotherapy drugs are cellular poisons so they are quite toxic. They are also quite expensive. In his book The Cancer Industry he documents how the close links between the pharmaceutical industry and the cancer establishment enables an inadequate therapy like chemotherapy to become promoted and established as standard care".

In a 1995 interview Dr. Moss related that chemotherapy was effective in only 2 to 4 % of all malignancies (Hodgkin’s Disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia, childhood leukemia, testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma.)

The package inserts for chemotherapy drugs admit that taking a course of chemotherapy drugs can increase your risk of subsequently developing a new cancer by about 10%.. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) warns that the powerful drugs used in chemotherapy can cause cancer in employees who handle them (nurses, pharmacists, cleaning personnel). If continued too long these drugs are fatal. The damage to white blood cell , killer lymphocyte and red blood cell production makes the patient vulnerable to overwhelming infection which is the cause of death in many patients on chemotherapy and radiation. It never made sense to me why administering toxic substances that cause major side effects could possibly heal a serious illness like a malignancy.

Dr. William Campbell Douglass II, MD "To understand the utter hypocrisy of chemotherapy, consider the following: The McGill Cancer Center in Canada, one of the largest and most prestigious cancer treatment centers in the world, did a study of oncologists to determine how they would respond to a diagnosis of cancer. On the confidential questionnaire, 58 out of 64 doctors said that all chemotherapy programs were unacceptable to them and their family.

In 33 years of conventional medical practice I referred all patients with malignancies to oncologists. The only survivor was a Chinese man with a low grade lung cancer. He responded every five years or so to a few doses of radiation.

In my opinion one of the most important verses in the Bible is Proverbs 14:12. There is way that seems right unto man but its end is the way of death. Drug company owners and executives, politicians, world leaders and media executives have unbelievable wealth and power in this world. However, they face a tortured eternity following death. This seems to be a very unwise tradeoff.

Anyone reading this article has my permission to copy or publish this information. Hopefully, some individuals will be made aware that there are safe effective alternatives to chemotherapy and radiation in the treatment of malignancies.

© 2009 Dr. James Howenstine - All Rights Reserved

Source: oawhealth.com

Soy products linked to cancer in lab tests

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

(NaturalNews) As time goes by, people are steadily waking up to some of the proven facts about soy, such as the knowledge that most soy is GMO. If that is the case, one can deduce that to solve the problem one can simply buy organic soy products. While it’s true that organic soy is healthier for you than GMO soy, there are other facts about soy that pose serious health risks. Here are four facts that debunk soy as a healthy food choice.
Image: rawforbeauty.com

Four reasons to phase-out most soy products on the market

1. Soybeans contain large amounts of toxins. Unlike with other foods where any toxins are destroyed or deactivated during cooking, the toxins in soybeans remain intact. Some of these toxins, or “enzyme inhibitors,” block the actions of enzymes needed for the digestion of protein. The enzyme inhibitors in soy are linked to cancer in lab animal tests. Test animals fed enzyme inhibitors developed enlargement and pathological conditions of the pancreas, including pancreatic cancer.

2. Soybeans can interfere with nutrient absorption during digestion. This is because soy is high in phytic acid, which has been shown to block absorption of minerals calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc.

3. Soybeans are among the most highly pesticide-contaminated foods on the market. As you probably know, pesticides are a toxic, distorted-energy-spin substance, linked to a variety of ailments. Soy products also contain high levels of aluminum, a life-force sapping heavy metal which does not belong in foods that we put in our bodies, as it has bio-accumulative negative health effects. The aluminum in SOY comes from the aluminum tanks in which the beans are acid washed and heat-processed.

4. Soybeans contain haemagglutinin, nitrites, soy protein isolates, and goitrogens. Each of these substances has a particular negative effect on your HEALTH. Haemagglutinin is a blood clot-promoting substance which causes red blood cells to clump together. Nitrites are powerful carcinogens which form when soybeans are spray-dried (carcinogens are potential cancer-causing agents). Soy protein isolates have been shown to enlarge the pancreas and thyroid gland and also increase fatty acid deposits in the liver. Goitrogens are found in soy-based foods in large amounts. They block thyroid hormone production. All of the above substances have the effect of disrupting body chemistry and hormones.

Wait a minute! I thought soy was good for me

Like me, you’ve probably been under the impression that soy was healthy for years. In which case, the truth turns out to be shocking as it was to me. And still, proponents of soy will assert that Asian cultures have been safely eating soy for thousands of years. However, this has been debunked as only a partial truth. Asians began eating soybeans 2,500 years ago only after figuring out how to ferment it. Ancient Asian cultures knew that soybeans contain multiple toxic substances even after cooking. It is only through the process of fermentation that toxins in soy are safely neutralized.

Soy: Healthy in the right form

The distorted half-truth about soy having beneficial, health-enhancing properties is actually based on fact. The truth however, is that the beneficial properties of soy are only made available during fermentation when a special mold grows on the beans. Fermentation has the dual purpose of making the nutrients in soy bio-available, while simultaneously destroying the toxins.

Source: naturalnews.com

Is the Peanut Butter You Are Eating Carcinogenic?

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Though there's no immediate need to turn your PB&J's into jelly-only sandwiches, there is a chance that peanut butter may contain the carcinogen aflatoxin. The soft and porous shell that encases peanuts can allow fungus with aflatoxin to penetrate into the nut, explains Organic Authority.
Image: Getty Images

Although aflatoxin has yet to be proven to cause cancer in the United States, it has been documented as causing liver cancer in developing countries where corn, peanuts and grains are grown without strict soil quality regulation. Currently, all commercially-produced peanut butters must be tested for aflatoxin, but grind-your-own peanut butter may actually be at a higher risk because the peanuts sit around the longest without refrigeration, allowing more mold to develop, according to Organic Authority. Planet Green also adds that natural peanut butters may be more susceptible since "they are less processed and have a shorter shelf life, therefore the mold is more likely to thrive."

This alarm bell has been sounded before. In an informative write-up, Celeb doc Andrew Weil explains that the Consumers Union found the exact same results about a decade ago, when it was discovered that supermarket brands like Peter Pan, Jif and Skippy contained the less afloxtin than natural brands. Consumer Reports has researched aflatoxins since 1972, but still says peanuts are worth eating for their health benefits.

There's a simple precaution if you're concerned. Refrigerate your peanut butter -- it'll keep out the mold.

Source: slashfood.com

3 Year Old Cured of Stage 5 Cancer With Alternative Medicine

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

“They said doctors take precedence over parents in medical cases.” When their child, Dustin Kunnari was diagnosed with Stage 5 brain cancer doctors tried to force the parents to enroll in a risky, experimental treatment that would have left their child in a wheelchair.

Two-year-old Dustin Kunnari is diagnosed with brain cancer but the only conventional treatment being offered would leave him in a vegetative state. After a gut-wrenching legal battle Dustin’s parents are permitted to pursue an alternative treatment that saves Dustin’s life.


Source: Raw For Beauty

The Cancer Causing Metal Millions of Us Have Eaten, Worn and Injected

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

                     Written By:SAYER JI, FOUNDER

Aluminum is considered by most health authorities perfectly acceptable to eat, wear as an antiperspirant, and inject into your body as a vaccine adjuvant, but new research indicates it has cancer-causing properties, even at levels 100,000 times lower than found in certain consumer products.
A concerning new study published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistrydemonstrates clearly that exposure to aluminum can increase migratory and invasive properties of human breast cancer cells.  This has extremely important implications, because mortality from breast cancer is caused by the spread of the tumor and not from the presence of the primary tumor in the breast itself.  This profound difference, in fact, is why a groundbreaking new NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE COMMISSIONED EXPERT PANEL recently called for the complete reclassification of some types of non-progressive ‘breast cancer’ and ‘prostate cancer’ as essentially benign lesions – bittersweet news for the millions who were already misdiagnosed/overdiagnosed and mistreated/overtreated for‘CANCER’ OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS.  
Another recent relevant study, also published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, found increased levels of ALUMINUM in noninvasively collected nipple aspirate fluids from 19 breast cancer patients compared with 16 healthy control subjects. The researchers commented on their findings: “In addition to emerging evidence, our results support the possible involvement of aluminium ions in oxidative and inflammatory status perturbations of breast cancer microenvironment, suggesting aluminium accumulation in breast microenvironment as a possible risk factor for oxidative/inflammatory phenotype of breast cells.”[1]
A key implication of this research is that the common ingestion (food additive), injection (as a vaccine adjuvant), and topical application (antiperspirant) of forms of aluminum may be contributing to the burgeoning cancer epidemic in exposed populations. Given this possibility, the further use of aluminum in foods, cosmetics and drugs should be halted until adequate risk assessments can be made thoroughly proving its safety.  (Since we do not use the precautionary principle to guide risk assessments and their regulation in the US, instead opting for a chemical and drug-industry favoring “weight of evidence” standard, this likely will not happen; however, we can use this information to apply the precautionary principle in our own lives)
When it comes to aluminum’s presence in ANTIPERSPIRANT FORMULAS, a very concerning study published last year in the Journal of Applied Toxicology identified the primary form of aluminum used in underarm cosmetics – aluminum chloride – as capable of altering breast cancer cells in a way indicative of ‘neoplastic transformation,’ or, the transformation of a healthy cell into a cancerous one:
“These results suggest that aluminium is not generically mutagenic, but similar to an activated oncogene [cancer-causing gene], it induces proliferation stress, DSBs and senescence in normal mammary epithelial cells; and that long-term exposure to AlCl(3) generates and selects for cells able to bypass p53/p21(Waf1) -mediated cellular senescence. Our observations do not formally identify aluminium as a breast carcinogen, but challenge the safety ascribed to its widespread use in underarm cosmetics.”
Even more disturbing was their finding that these changes, which included “contact inhibition and anchorage-independent growth” (two markers of malignancy), were caused by concentrations “…up to 100 000-fold lowerthan those found in antiperspirants, and in the range of those recently measured in the human breast.”[2]
This new study dovetails with recent research demonstrating that aluminum binds to cellular estrogen receptors, indicating it may disrupt and/or drive proliferation within hormone-sensitive tissues. One research team coined a new term – “METALLOESTROGEN” – to describe an entirely new class of metal-basedENDOCRINE DISRUPTERS, including aluminum, antimony, arsenite, barium, cadmium, chromium (Cr(II)), cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenite, tin and vanadate. This reclassification of what were formerly perceived to be hormonally inert substances should help to alert consumers to the significant health risk associated with the use of ‘unnatural’ products containing these elements.
While there is little extant animal research demonstrating aluminum’s cancer causing properties, which is why it has not yet been classified with respect to carcinogenicity, “aluminum production” has been classified as carcinogenic to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).[3]  There is also a 2011 study published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology that foundALUMINUM CONTENT IS HIGHER IN NIPPLE ASPIRATE FLUID OF BREAST CANCER-AFFECTED WOMEN VERSUS HEALTHY CONTROLS.
Aluminum, of course, is widely distributed within our environment (reaching, at present, the highest level in documented history), and has even been implicated in ATMOSPHERIC AEROSOLS (i.e. geoengineering/ ‘chemtrails’); which, incidentally, may be one reason why our soils are becoming saturated with the metal to levels toxic to plants, and why biotech corporations are presently working on developing ALUMINUM-TOLERANT GM plants.
Because our regulators consider ALUMINUM PERFECTLY  ’SAFE TO EAT,’ apply topically, and INJECT INTO OUR BODIES to “IMPROVE NATURAL IMMUNITY,” the emerging view of aluminum as possessing cancer-causing effects will put additional responsibility on consumers to educate themselves and make choices to protect themselves from avoidable exposure.

Harvard Study Shows “Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half”

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Science Daily

The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.
Image: Wisconsin Department of Justice

They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy.

THC that targets cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 is similar in function to endocannabinoids, which are cannabinoids that are naturally produced in the body and activate these receptors. The researchers suggest that THC or other designer agents that activate these receptors might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer.

“The beauty of this study is that we are showing that a substance of abuse, if used prudently, may offer a new road to therapy against lung cancer,” said Anju Preet, Ph.D., a researcher in the Division of Experimental Medicine.

Acting through cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2, endocannabinoids (as well as THC) are thought to play a role in variety of biological functions, including pain and anxiety control, and inflammation. Although a medical derivative of THC, known as Marinol, has been approved for use as an appetite stimulant for cancer patients, and a small number of U.S. states allow use of medical marijuana to treat the same side effect, few studies have shown that THC might have anti-tumor activity, Preet says. The only clinical trial testing THC as a treatment against cancer growth was a recently completed British pilot study in human glioblastoma.

In the present study, the researchers first demonstrated that two different lung cancer cell lines as well as patient lung tumor samples express CB1 and CB2, and that non-toxic doses of THC inhibited growth and spread in the cell lines. “When the cells are pretreated with THC, they have less EGFR stimulated invasion as measured by various in-vitro assays,” Preet said.

Then, for three weeks, researchers injected standard doses of THC into mice that had been implanted with human lung cancer cells, and found that tumors were reduced in size and weight by about 50 percent in treated animals compared to a control group. There was also about a 60 percent reduction in cancer lesions on the lungs in these mice as well as a significant reduction in protein markers associated with cancer progression, Preet says.

Full Story at Science Daily

Source: realfarmacy.com


West Coast Getting Drilled with Radiation From Fukushima

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Image: Raw For Beauty
While many people assume that the ocean will dilute the Fukushima radiation, a previously-secret 1955 U.S. government report concluded that the ocean may not adequately dilute radiation from nuclear accidents, and there could be “pockets” and “streams” of highly-concentrated radiation.
Marine Debris Poster (4) AI9The University of Hawaii’s International Pacific Research Center created a graphic showing the projected dispersion of debris from Japan:
4e7a288f0006a.image
Last year, scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory and 3 scientists from the GEOMAR Research Center for Marine Geosciences showed that radiation on the West Coast of North America could end up being 10 times higher than in Japan:
After 10 years the concentrations become nearly homogeneous over the whole Pacific, with higher values in the east, extending along the North American coast with a maximum (~1 × 10−4) off Baja California. 
***
With caution given to the various idealizations (unknown actual oceanic state during release, unknown release area, no biological effects included, see section 3.4), the following conclusions may be drawn. (i) Dilution due to swift horizontal and vertical dispersion in the vicinity of the energetic Kuroshio regime leads to a rapid decrease of radioactivity levels during the first 2 years, with a decline of near-surface peak concentrations to values around 10 Bq m−3 (based on a total input of 10 PBq). The strong lateral dispersion, related to the vigorous eddy fields in the mid-latitude western Pacific, appears significantly under-estimated in the non-eddying (0.5°) model version. (ii) The subsequent pace of dilution is strongly reduced, owing to the eastward advection of the main tracer cloud towards the much less energetic areas of the central and eastern North Pacific. (iii) The magnitude of additional peak radioactivity should drop to values comparable to the pre-Fukushima levels after 6–9 years (i.e. total peak concentrations would then have declined below twice pre-Fukushima levels). (iv) By then the tracer cloud will span almost the entire North Pacific, with peak concentrations off the North American coast an order-of-magnitude higher than in the western Pacific.
Fuku1
The half life of cesium-137 is so long that it produces more damage to human. Figure 4 gives the examples of the distribution of the impact strength of Cesium-137 at year 1.5 (panel (a)), year 3.5 (panel (b)), and year 4 (panel (c)).
***
It is worth noting that due to the current near the shore cannot be well reconstructed by the global ocean reanalysis, some nuclear pollutant particulate tracers may come to rest in near shore area, which may result in additional uncertainty in the estimation of the impact strength.
***
Since the major transport mechanism of nuclear pollutants for the west coast of America is the Kuroshio-extension currents, after four years, the impact strength of Cesium-137 in the west coast area of America is as high as 4%.
Source: Raw For Beauty

Patent confirms that aspartame is the excrement of GM bacteria

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Image: Awaken The Mind
(NaturalNews) In 1999, The Independent published an article entitled “World’s top sweetener is made with GM bacteria,” which revealed that Monsanto was knowingly adding aspartame to soft drinks in the United States – and that aspartame is made from GM bacteria. This report, which remains one of the earliest disclosures on aspartame in a mainstream newspaper, received little attention after its publication – possibly because its implications were underestimated at the time – and it has long been forgotten.

Since 1999, the world has become a little more attentive to Monsanto and aspartame, but ignorance still abounds about the latter’s genesis. While more and more people are starting to awaken to aspartame’s destructive effects on our health, do they know how it is actually made? Fortunately, a 1981 patent for aspartame production, once confined to the drawers of patent offices, is now available online for everyone to see – and it confirms everything that Monsanto was happy to tell us in 1999 before their meteoric growth necessitated greater prudence.

The patent, which is entitled Process for producing aspartame and is credited to Bahl, Rose, and White, summarizes the process as follows:

“The artificial sweetener aspartame, a dipeptide with the formula Asp-Phe-me, is produced using a cloned micrcorganism [sic]. A DNA which codes for a large stable peptide comprised of the repeating amino acid sequence (Asp-Phe)n is inserted into a cloning vehicle which in turn is introduced into a suitable host microorganism. The host microorganism is cultured and the large peptide containing the repeating Asp-Phe sequence is harvested therefrom. The free carboxyl group of the large peptide is benzylated and then hydrolysed to benzyl Asp-Phe dipeptides. This dipeptide is methylated and then debenzylated to form aspartame.”

Read the full report at NaturalNews.com

Source: RealFarmacy.com

Woman Refuses Chemo and Double Mastectomy and Heals Cancer Naturally

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Here is another case of a woman with breast cancer taking the natural route and over coming this ever more common cancer. This is her story:

Company Produces Cancer Causing Herbicide, Sells Drug to Treat Same Cancer

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

According to recent research, the chemical herbicide atrazine has been shown to cause breast cancer in lab animals:
http://www.inspirationgreen.com/
"several studies found either a higher number or earlier appearance of mammary gland(breast) tumors in the female rats fed a moderate to high level of atrazine over long periods of time. These rat studies suggest that atrazine could be a possible breast cancer causing agent."(Source: Cornell University)
Atrazine is the second most used herbicide in the US. It is estimated that at least 70 percent of the US population is exposed to it on a daily basis since it's the most common chemical pollutant in drinking water.

Femara(letrizole) is popular treatment for breast cancer in women. The drug is produced by Novartis Pharmaceutical company and acts as an aromatase blocker which helps stop tumor growth in patients suffering from breast cancer. By blocking aromatase in the body, Femara is able to stop cancer growth. The herbicide atrazine is known to cause increased levels of aromatase which is one cause of breast cancer.

Here's the problem. According to the Journal Star:
"Syngenta was formed by the merger of Novartis and Astra Zeneca, while the manufacturer of the drug Femara or letrozole, a leading breast cancer medication, is Novartis Pharmaceuticals"
You read that right. The same company that produces this breast cancer causing herbicide has a subsidiary of it's company that also sells the medicine to "fix" the problems being caused by their own product. So do you consider this a conflict of interest, a genius business plan which will create customers forever, or a sinister and inhumane plot to capitalize on our health? Let us know in the comments below.

Here are some petitions to stop the use of atrazine: www.inspirationgreen.com.

Suzanne Somers Refused Chemotherapy and Healed Cancer Naturally

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

“If you went to school all these years to learn how to administer chemotherapy and someone comes and says ‘I’ve got a better way than those drugs,’ what is this doctor gonna do? So, they are fighting it tooth and nail.”
“200,000 women die every year. Where is the success?”


Source: Raw For Beauty

The Ugly History of Chemotherapy as a Cancer Treatment

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

How did chemotherapy become the first option for treating cancer? Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez discusses the history of the drug class. Dr. Gonzalez also talks about the so-called ‘War on Cancer’ and how cancer fundraisers are completely misguided in their missions.


iHealthTube.com - The Shocking History of Chemo as a Cancer Drug

Source: Raw For Beauty

34 Medical Studies The Government Wishes Were Never Published

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Michael Taillard, Guest
Waking Times
Image: Raw For Beauty

There’s still a lot of confusion across the nation about whether or not marijuana is effective for cancer patients. Odds are you’ve heard something about it but weren’t sure whether the information was reliable or definitive. So, in order to help clear things up, here is a list of 34 studies showing that marijuana cures cancer, categorized by the type of cancers being cured in each study. As you sort through the articles, note that the consistent theme between them is that cannabis shrinks tumors and selectively targets cancer cells. As bills and voter initiatives to legalize medical marijuana spread from state to state, remember that we’re not just talking about mitigating the side effects of chemo (though this is another viable use), we’re talking about curing the cancer itself as well as preventing its spread. I’ve taken the liberty of only including articles from credible scientific journals, removing any biased or otherwise improperly cited studies. Enjoy!

Cures Brain Cancer

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v95/n2/abs/6603236a.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11479216
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/21/17/6475.abstract
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/308/3/838.abstract
http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/10/1/90.abstract

Cures Mouth and Throat Cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20516734

Cures Breast Cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20859676
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18025276
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21915267
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/early/2006/05/25/jpet.106.105247.full.pdf+html
http://www.molecular-cancer.com/content/9/1/196
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22776349
http://www.pnas.org/content/95/14/8375.full.pdf+html

Cures Lung Cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22198381?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21097714?dopt=Abstract
http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v27/n3/abs/1210641a.html

Cures Uterine, Testicular, and Pancreatic Cancers

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/66/13/6748.abstract

Cures Prostate Cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12746841?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3339795/?tool=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22594963

Cures Colorectal Cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22231745

Cures Ovarian Cancer

http://www.aacrmeetingabstracts.org/cgi/content/abstract/2006/1/1084

Curse Blood Cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12091357
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16908594
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.23584/abstract
http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/70/5/1612.abstract

Cures Skin Cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12511587

Cures Liver Cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475304

Cures Biliary Tract Cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916793

Cures Bladder Cancer

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/803983 (Sign-up required to view study)

Cures Cancer in General

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12514108
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15313899
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15313899

sources: Raw For Beauty

Waking Times

Most Cancer Patients Don't Die of Cancer

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Dr. Michael Farley discusses his findings as a forensic pathologist. After doing many autopsies on cancer patients, he found that most, if not all, died from something other than the cancer itself. But cancer is almost always listed as the cause of death.

\

Sources: Raw For Beauty

ihealthtube.com

The Health Benefits of Cherries

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Image: Rennett Stowe
Cherries are one of the most popular summer fruit, with around two million tonnes being produced worldwide every year! Thankfully, cherries are also wonderful for our health! That deep, dark red hue is a good sign that they pack an array of nutrients, vitamins and minerals. The benefits of cherries range from helping to relieve pain, prevent diseases like cancer and slow down the aging process. Read on to find out how cherries can help improve our health.

Help Fight Cancer & Disease

Cherries are very rich in antioxidants – you can tell simply by observing their deep red hue. Antioxidants help scavenge free radicals which induce damage to our DNA and cells in our body. When we consume a large quantity of antioxidants, they replace the free radicals in our body before they can cause any harm to our health.

Cherries are rich in queritrin (a flavonoid), which has been found by researchers to be one of the most potent anti-cancer antioxidants. They also contain ellagic acid (potent anti-carcinogen and anti-mutagenic which eradicate cancer cells in the body) and perillyl alcohol (POH) which is extremely powerful in destroying proteins that the cancer cells need to grow.

Powerful Anti-Inflammatory (Arthritis, Gout, Migraines)

Cherries, similar to berries, help fight off inflammation in the body thanks to their high concentration of free-radical scavenging antioxidants. The anthocyanins and bioflavonoids in cherries slow down COX-1 and COX-2 pro-inflammatory enzymes, which means that individuals suffering from arthritis and gout will experience major pain relief from a reduction in inflammation.

By helping reduce inflammation in the body, cherries also help eliminate migraine headaches. In fact, cherries work so well at reducing headaches and migraines, that they have been found to be just as effective as aspirin and ibuprofen!

“Brain Food” – Improve Memory

Anthocyanins in cherries produce powerful effects in the brain, such that they improve circulation of blood and thus increase the ability of neurons to communicate more effectively. This means better memory and reduced risk of developing diseases like dementia or Alzheimer’s disease.

Help You Lose Weight

Cherries, like all fruit, can actually help you lose weight! Foods that are high in vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients help signal to the brain that the body has received ample nutrients and will shut off the hunger signal. When we consume empty-calorie foods (anything highly processed and packaged), we feel as though we can eat 500 times the amount of those foods and STILL not be satiated. This is because these foods are stripped of nutrients, and thus our body gets confused and wants to keep eating until it has fulfilled it’s nutrient needs.

Cherries have been extensively studied and have proven to lower total body weight, reduce belly fat and cholesterol. Specifically, tart cherries have the potential to limit the uptake of fat into the body and help control blood cholesterol levels.

Reset Circadian Rhythms

Cherries contain the antioxidant melatonin which is released when we sleep, and helps regulate our circadian rhythms. Our body rapidly absorbs melatonin, so if you want to sleep easy, eat a cup or two of cherries before you go to bed. Not much melatonin is present in the body, so consuming foods that contain this antioxidant is a wonderful way to naturally treat insomnia and help you sleep better.

 Sources : livelovefruit.com

 mercola.com

The Dangers of Using Plastic Water Bottles

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

This is an article that should be shared to anyone important in your life!
Image: Raw For Beauty

Bottled water in your car is very dangerous. People should not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. The heat reacts with the chemicals in the plastic of the bottle which releases dioxin into the water. Dioxin is a toxin increasingly found in breast cancer tissue. So please be careful and do not drink bottled water that has been left in a car.

Use a stainless steel canteen or a glass bottle instead of plastic.

This information is also being circulated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center … No plastic containers in microwaves. No plastic water bottles in freezers. No plastic wrap in microwaves.

Dioxin chemical causes cancer, especially breast cancer. Dioxins are highly poisonous to cells in our bodies. Don’t freeze plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic. Recently the Wellness Program Manager at Castle Hospital , was on a TV program to explain
this health hazard.

We should not be heating food in the microwave using plastic containers…..
This especially applies to foods that contain fat. The combination of fat, high heat and plastic releases dioxin into the food.

Instead use glass, such as Pyrex or ceramiccontainers for heating food… You get the same result, but without the dioxin.. So, such things as TV dinners, instant soups, etc., should be removed from
their containers and heated in something else.

Paper isn’t bad but you don’t know what is in the paper. It’s safer to
use tempered glass, such as Pyrex, etc.

A while ago some of the fast food restaurants moved away from the styrene foam containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of the reasons….

Plastic wrap, such as Cling film, is just as dangerous when placed over foods to be cooked in the microwave. As the food is nuked, the high heat causes poisonous toxins to actually melt out of the plastic wrap and drip into the food. Cover food with a paper towel instead.

Source: Raw For Beauty

Chemotherapy Doesn't Work 97% Of The Time

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Dr. Peter Glidden cites a recent study that concludes better than 97% of the time, chemotherapy does not work. Yet it’s one of the main treatments in the battle against cancer. Dr. Glidden explains why that’s still the case.


iHealthTube.com - Chemotherapy Doesn't Work 90% Of The Time

Transcript:

Interviewer:  Doctor, when you talk about cancer a little bit, various types out there, what are some of the things that you've seen in terms of your patients, and what are some of the things that you've been able to do?

Peter Glidden, BS, ND: A better thing to talk about in relationship to  . . . well, I will talk about that. A better thing to talk about, however, is the relationship between profits and cancer in the United States. There was a study that was published, I believe it was in 1994. It was a 12-year program, 12-year study. They looked at adults who had developed cancer as an adult, not childhood cancer but adult cancer. This is the main types of cancer that we get here in the United States.

They did a meta-analysis of these people all around the world who developed cancer as adults for 12 years and were treated with chemo. They looked at the results, and they published the results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. And the results? Ninety-seven percent of the time, chemotherapy does not work. Ninety-seven percent of the time, it doesn't work. So, why is it still used? There's one reason and one reason only: money.

If you go to a medical doctor, an MD, with a sinus infection and that doctor prescribes an antibiotic, he gets no financial kickback. Now, if he prescribes 5,000 of that antibiotic in one month, the drug company that makes it might send him to Cancun for a conference, but he gets no direct remuneration. With chemotherapeutic drugs, it's different. Chemotherapeutic drugs are the only classification of drugs that the prescribing doctor gets a direct cut of.

So, if your doctor prescribes chemotherapy for you, here's how it goes more or less: The doctor buys it from the pharmaceutical company for $5,000, sells it to the patient for $12,000, insurance pays $9,000, and the doctor pockets the $4,000 difference, and there ought to be a law. The only reason chemotherapy is used is because doctors make money from it, period. It doesn't work 97% of the time. If Ford Motor Company made an automobile that exploded 97% of the time, would they still be in business? No.

This is the tip of the iceberg of the control that the pharmaceutical industry has on us. Most people have no idea of this at all. I wrote a book. It's called The MD Emperor Has No Clothes. In my book, I have a bulleted list of 10 questions that every cancer patient should ask their doctor. Ten questions. I've had patients kicked out, literally kicked out of the oncologist's office because the doctor was p.o.'d that the patient was asking him these questions, and these are just common-sense questions.

With cancer treatment in the United States, we have lost the war on cancer. We have lost the war on cancer. Why? Because cancer is not a reductionistic phenomenon. Cancer is a holistic phenomenon. When you try to bring a reductionistic methodology like drugs and surgery to bear on a holistic phenomenon, you will completely miss the boat each and every time. You cannot do it.

Medical doctors are like colorblind art critics. They can see that that's a boat. They can see the black and white outline, but they're completely blind to all of the colors and textures that make up the substance of the thing. There's no difference with cancer. The reason that people get cancer in the United States and the reason that we have completely lousy outcomes is because medical doctors are driving the research bus.

When women get together and do a 5K run for breast cancer, all of that money--do you think any of that money goes to nutritional research? Do you think any of that money goes to homeopathic research or acupuncture or traditional Chinese medicine or naturopathic research? No. All of it goes to drugs and surgery, which do not work.

Why aren't those women running for selenium? If every girl in this country took 200 mcg of selenium, in one generation we'd eliminate breast cancer by 82%. That's a big number. Why aren't we doing that? Because medicine in the United States is a for-profit industry, and most people are completely unaware of this, and most people bow down to the altar of MD-directed high-tech medicine at their own demise. 

Source: rawforbeauty.com

Disclaimer:

Before trying anything you find on the internet you should fully investigate your options and get further advice from professionals.

Below are our most recent posts on facebook