BECOMING REAL: RECLAIMING YOUR HEALTH IN MIDLIFE
• Learn more about Dr. Kumar's Innovative approach to midlife
• This book is packed with information about what happens to your body in midlife and how to care for yourself during the second half of your life.
• Understand how the body changes in midlife and how to evoke health and empowerment during this time of life and beyond.
• How can women move through peri-menopause and menopause safely and naturally?
• Learn about Dr. Kumar's innovative method of using bio-identical hormones for maximal benefit with minimal risk.
• Also, learn about Dr. Kumar's pioneering Four Body System™ framework for integrative diagnosis and treatment and her vision for transforming health care.
• Join the 1 billion midlife women and men who are seeking a way to experience the second half of their lives with health and meaning.
Hardcopy and Kindle version available through Amazon
Roaches and ants won’t eat it, cats and dogs won’t eat it, even house flies won’t eat it — but the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) serves Aspartame to you with their approval and the approval of the Monsanto Chemical Company.
The FDA and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) have received nearly 7,000 complaints, including five deaths, attributed to the use of aspartame in food products since the FDA first permitted limited use in 1981.
A number of researchers and doctors around the country object not only to the product itself, but to the questionable preliminary research that led the FDA to approve it’s use.
There are 90 documented symptoms including: Headaches, Muscle spasms, Irritability, Heart palpitations, Loss of taste, Joint pain, Dizziness, Weight gain, Tachycardia (heart racing), Breathing difficulty, Tinnitus (ringing in the ears), Blurred vision, Seizures, Rashes, Insomnia, Anxiety attacks, Vertigo, Hearing loss, Nausea, Depression, Blindness, Slurred Speech, Memory Loss, Fatigue, Numbness.
The New York Times - By DENISE GRADYMARCH 17, 2015
Breast biopsies are good at telling the difference between healthy tissue and cancer, but less reliable for identifying more subtle abnormalities, a new study finds.
Because of the uncertainty, women whose results fall into the gray zone between normal and malignant — with diagnoses like “atypia” or “ductal carcinoma in situ” — should seek second opinions on their biopsies, researchers say. Misinterpretation can lead women to have surgery and other treatments they do not need, or to miss out on treatments they do need.
The new findings, reported Tuesday in JAMA,challenge the common belief that a biopsy is the gold standard and will resolve any questions that might arise from an unclear mammogram orultrasound.
In the United States, about 1.6 million women a year have breast biopsies; about 20 percent of the tests find cancer. Ten percent identify atypia, a finding that cells inside breast ducts are abnormal but not cancerous. About 60,000 women each year are found to have ductal carcinoma in situ, or D.C.I.S., which also refers to abnormal cells that are confined inside the milk ducts and so are not considered invasive; experts disagree about whether D.C.I.S. is cancer.
“It is often thought that getting the biopsy will give definitive answers, but our study says maybe it won’t,” said Dr. Joann G. Elmore, a professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle and the first author of the new study on the accuracy of breast biopsies.
Her team asked pathologists to examine biopsy slides, then compared their diagnoses with those given by a panel of leading experts who had seen the same slides. There were some important differences, especially in the gray zone.
An editorial in JAMA called the findings “disconcerting.” It said the study should be a call to action for pathologists and breast cancer scientists to improve the accuracy of biopsy readings, by consulting with one another more often on challenging cases and by creating clearer definitions for various abnormalities so that diagnoses will be more consistent and precise. The editorial also recommended second opinions in ambiguous cases.
A second opinion usually does not require another biopsy; it means asking one or more additional pathologists to look at the microscope slides made from the first biopsy. Dr. Elmore said doctors could help patients find a pathologist for a second opinion.
A surgeon not involved with the study, Dr. Elisa Port, a co-director of the Dubin Breast Center and the chief of breast surgery at Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan, said the research underlined how important it is that biopsies be interpreted by highly experienced pathologists who specialize in breast disease.
“As a surgeon, I only know what to do based on the guidance of my pathologist,” Dr. Port said. “Those people behind the scenes are actually the ones who dictate care.”
In Dr. Elmore’s study, the panel of three expert pathologists examined biopsy slides from 240 women, one slide per case, and came to a consensus about the diagnosis.
“These were very, very experienced breast pathologists who have written textbooks in the field,” Dr. Elmore said.
Cancer is almost always diagnosed by biopsy, a surgical procedure that removes tissue samples from tumors.
The samples are viewed under a microscope by a pathologist to determine the presence and type of cancer. Studies are proving that biopsies can indeed spread cancer. Even a needle aspiration can leave 'tracks' of cancer cells. As it becomes common knowledge that biopsies spread cancer, many patients are looking for safer options for testing and treatment. And over half a million US citizens travel out of the country for medical treatment each year.
UD doctors routinely recommend biopsies to diagnose cancer. PET and CT scans usually follow. All of these tests can harm the patient. All cells are surrounded by interstitial fluid. This fluid drains into the lymph system through lymph channels, to the upper left chest, where the major lymphatic channel drains directly into a blood vessel. When a scalpel or needle invades tissue with cancer cells, there will be some bleeding, spilling cancer cells into the blood vessels or the lymph system via the interstitial fluid. Once a few of the billions of cancer cells break away and enter the bloodstream, they travel to distant organs and start to grow. This process is called 'seeding'. The dangerously high amount of radiation in PET and CT scans damages normal cells, which produce abnormal cells when they divide, and those abnormal cells can become malignant.
When preforming prostate biopsies, doctors often aspirate cells from 30 different samples. Thirty chances for cancer to spread. While needle aspirations are safer than surgical biopsy, there are still dangers. According to Bloomberg News, patients having prostate needle biopsies are seeing an increasing number of anti-biotic resistant infections, such as E. coli. Two of every 100 men undergoing prostate biopsy will develop sepsis, a potentially lethal blood infection. Another study showed that 9 of 100,000 men who tested negative for cancer died within a month of their biopsy.
Breast biopsy complications can include pain, swelling, bleeding, and drainage from the biopsy site, infection and false positive results, leading to unnecessary treatments.
Doctors and researchers have noted that biopsy of a tumor can cause seeding, or spread of cancer cells along the path of the needle track at the biopsy site. Author and health researcher Karl Loren has documented 73 cases of seeding from biopsies causing metastasis on his website, KarlLoren.com.
Dr. Vincent Gammill, Center for the Study of Natural Oncology in Solana Beach, California, presented a case of a woman who had successfully treated her breast cancer naturally since 1994. Last year, her conventional oncologist convinced her that she was a fool to refuse a needle biopsy. She now has new tumors at each of the puncture sites.
"I rarely see distant metastasis until after a biopsy – and then it grows rapidly everywhere, especially in the bones," Gammill said.
In 2011, researchers for Mayo Clinic College of Medicine reported that transperitoneal biopsy of cancer of the bile duct is associated with a higher rate of peritoneal metastasis and they recommend the procedure not be performed if a curative method exists.
While conventional medical doctors must follow AMA protocol, many are questioning the wisdom of biopsies. And as patients become more educated, they are beginning to question the need for invasive and sometimes dangerous tests. There are tumor marker blood tests, ultrasounds, sonograms and MRIs that can also determine the presence of a tumor without risking the spread of cancer or infections. Patients who travel outside the country for safer testing and treatment are taking responsibility for their own healthcare.
Surprisingly, many alternative health centers outside the states still require biopsies. Some small private clinics in Mexico do not. These clinics offer tumor marker testing, ultrasounds and whole body thermography instead.
Today patients are educated in a way that was not possible before the use of computers. Patients can do their own research and learn about the risks and side effects of treatments and procedures, and get a clear understanding of what is involved before they commit to treatment. The more patients learn, the better choices they can make.
(Natural News, March 2013)
According to an article by Ethan Evers, oligosaccharides from apples killed up to 46 percent of human colon cancer cells in vitro, and outperformed the most commonly used chemo drug by a wide margin at every dose level tested.
Unlike toxic chemo drugs, oligosaccharides are natural, health-promoting compounds widely present in fruits and vegetables.
Colon cancer is the 2nd leading cause of cancer-related death for women worldwide, the 3rd for men. Commonly used chemo drugs for colon cancer not only have limited success, they produce serious side effects, such as coronary spasm, neurotoxicity, anemia and immunosuppression.
Apples are the most widely consumed fruit in many countries, and have already demonstrated activity against breast, ovarian, lung, liver and colon cancer. The oligosaccharides used in the study can be cheaply produced from apple pomace – a widely available waste product left over from the apple juice processing industry.
Oligosaccharides occur naturally in many fruits, vegetables and algae as well as in honey and milk. They have been shown to promote healthy intestinal flora, control blood sugar and modulate the immune system. Commercially produced apple juice contains virtually no oligosaccharides and provides only about 10% of any health giving substances compared to raw apples.
Apples and their potent anti-cancer effects, even at low concentrations, offer promise for a low cost natural medicine in the future.
About the author: Ethan Evers is the author of the award winning medical thriller "The Eden Prescription" – where researchers perfect an all natural cancer treatment only to be hunted down by the pharmaceutical interests who will stop at nothing to protect their $80 Billion cancer drug cash machine.
Daily News, August 2012
Long considered the most effective cancer-fighting treatment, chemotherapy may actually make cancer worse, according to a new study.
The extremely aggressive therapy, which kills both cancerous and healthy cells indiscriminately, can cause healthy cells to secrete a protein that sustains tumor growth and resistance to further treatment.
Researchers in the USA made the 'completely unexpected" finding while seeking to explain why cancer cells are so resistant inside the human body when they are so easy to kill in the lab.
They tested the effects of a type of chemotherapy on tissue collected from men with prostate cancer and found evidence of DNA damage in healthy cells after treatment, the scientist wrote in Natural Medicine. Chemotherapy works by inhibiting reproduction of fast-dividing cells such as those found in tumors.
The scientist found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival. "The increase is WNT16B was completely unexpected," study co-author Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle told AFP.
The protein was taken up by tumor cells neighboring the damaged cells.
"WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumor cells and cause them to grow, invade and most importantly, resist subsequent therapy," said Nelson.
In cancer treatment, tumors often respond well initially, followed by re-growth and then resistance to further chemotherapy.
This easy to use website lets you build a page to raise funds for your medical treatments.
They help you every step of the way, and you can share your story on Facebook, Twitter, email, etc. There is no cost to build your web page. The company takes a very small percentage of your donations (5%), and in return they host your page, and send you checks or wire transfers on a regular basis. We've heard from patients that this is an easy way to raise money for treatment and to get your story out there. And if you use this service – please let us know how it works for you. We love to help our patients by sharing success stories!
Dr. Duane Graveline, MD, MPH, is a former NASA astronaut and has authored several books on the dangers of statins.
He offers clinics proof that statin drugs can cause prostate cancer, memory loss, neuropathy, etc. His website is very informative and interesting. If you or someone you love is taking statins to lower cholesterol, please check out this web site. And a bit thank you to Dorothy, who introduced us to this site!
Check out this website: www.spacedoc.com
Among many other cancer causing products commonly found in the home, this dirty dozen list has made it to the Hall of Shame. The Cancer Prevention Coalition (CPC) and Ralph Nader have released a "Dirty Dozen" list of consumer products used in most American homes, and manufactured by giant U.S. corporations.
The "Dirty Dozen" products contain a wide-range of carcinogenic and other toxic ingredients and contaminants to which most of us are exposed daily.
NOTE: Also evidence of causal relation to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, multiple myeloma and other cancers.
NOTE: Carcinogenicity of silica is admitted in 1994 Material Safety and Data Sheet (MSDS).
(Manufacturer claims to have reduced silica levels since 1993.)
Labeled or Unlabeled Toxic Ingredient: ORTHOPHENYLPHENOL (OPP): Carcinogenic; irritant. (Carcinogenicity is denied in Material Safety and Data Sheet.)
9. Zodiac Cat & Dog Flea Collar (Sandoz Agro. Inc).
Labeled Toxic Ingredient SODIUM 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETATE (2,4-D), Carcinogenic with evidence of casual relation to lymphoma, soft tissue sarcoma and other cancers ; neurotoxic; reproductive toxin.
Unlabeled Toxic Ingredients BENZENE HEXACHLORIDE, Carcinogenic.DACTHAL, Carcinogenic (can be contaminated with dioxin); irritant; strong sensitizer. DIELDRIN, Carcinogenic; xenoestrogen.DDT, Carcinogenic; xenoestrogen.HEPTACHLOR, Carcinogenic; neurotoxic; reproductive toxin; xenoestrogen.HEXACHLOROBENZENE, Carcinogenic; neurotoxic; teratogenic.LINDANE, Carcinogenic; neurotoxic; damage to blood forming cells.HORMONES: Carcinogenic and feminizing.ANTIBIOTICS: Some are carcinogenic, cause allergies and drug resistance.Labeled IngredientNITRITE, Interacts with meat amines to form carcinogenic nitrosamines which are a major risk factor for childhood cancers.
12. Whole Milk – (eg. Borden or Lucerne)
Unlabeled Toxic Ingredients DDT, Carcinogenic; xenoestrogen.DIELDRIN, Carcinogenic; xenoestrogen.HEPTACHLOR, Carcinogenic; neurotoxic; reproductive toxin; xenoestrogen.HEXACHLOROBENZENE, Carcinogenic; neurotoxic; reproductive toxin. ANTIBIOTICS: Some are carcinogenic, cause allergies and drug resistance. RECOMBINANT BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE and IGF-1: Also, risk factor for breast, colon and prostate cancers.
Safer Alternative: rBGH-free Organic skim milk
Loaded with extremely toxic chemicals that could harm you, your family and the environment. Residues of these chemicals are left on your clothes and are absorbed by your skin and evaporated into the air where they could be breathed in. Most would be surprised to find that even ‘Green’ labeled detergents contain toxic ingredients.
“What is particularly galling about the “Dirty Dozen”, emphasized Ralph Nader, “is that these toxic chemicals don’t have to be there. Yet these corporations continue to expose people to health hazards unnecessarily”.
Current product labeling provides no warning for cancer and other chronic health risks. Food is labeled for cholesterol, but not for carcinogens. Cosmetics are labeled for major ingredients, but not for those that form carcinogens or contain carcinogenic contaminants. Except for pesticides, household products contain no information on their ingredients.
Cancer rates are skyrocketing. Currently, more than one-third of all of us will develop cancer in our lifetime, and one-fourth will die from the disease. Many cancers are due to avoidable exposures to industrial carcinogens in the food we eat, and the cosmetics and household products we use.
Hopefully this has gotten the message across that just because these products sit on store shelves, do not guarantee it’s safe to use. These are 12 of the thousands of products that have not been tested alone or in conjunction. We’d like to add one more to this product hall-of-shame.
June 26th 2012 at 10:00 am by Sayer Ji.
Following on the heels of recent revelations that x-ray mammography may be contributing to an epidemic of future radiation-induced breast cancers, in a new article titled, "Radiation Treatment Generates Therapy Resistant Cancer Stem Cells From Aggressive Breast Cancer Cells," published in the journal Cancer July 1st, 2012, researchers from the Department of Radiation Oncology at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center report that radiation treatment actually drives breast cancer cells into greater malignancy.
The researchers found that even when radiation kills half of the tumor cells treated, the surviving cells which are resistant to treatment, known as induced breast cancer stem cells (iBCSCs), were up to 30 times more likely to form tumors than the nonirradiated breast cancer cells. In other words, the radiation treatment regresses the total population of cancer cells, generating the false appearance that the treatment is working, but actually increases the ratio of highly malignant to benign cells within that tumor, eventually leading to the iatrogenic (treatment-induced) death of the patient.
Last month, a related study published in the journal Stem Cells titled, "Radiation-induced reprogramming of breast cells," found that ionizing radiation reprogrammed less malignant (more differentiated) breast cancer cells into iBCSCs, helping to explain why conventional treatment actually enriches the tumor population with higher levels of treatment-resistant cells. [i]
Anti-Aging Supplement Can Turn Back The Clock
Article by Dr. Michael Heim, Tampa Health Center
In my last blog on caloric restriction and longevity, I mentioned a supplement that produces similar effects in the body without the pain of following a low-calorie diet. That supplement is Resveratrol. As I covered in last month's blog, research has shown that caloric restriction or intermittent fasting can have an enormous impact on your health and has been shown to increase life span by up to 60% in animal studies. It is believed this result is due to a survival mode which the body reverts to when it goes through periods of time without a readily available fuel source. This survival mode leads to improved fuel efficiency, improved immunity and disease fighting ability.
Resveratrol is a compound found in many common foods including red wine, grapes, berries, and peanuts. Before you get too excited about the Resveratrol content in wine however, know that you will have to consume a liter of wine to get about 5 mg of this nutrient and that the recommended dosage is 250-300 mg daily. Luckily, Resveratrol is also available as a nutritional supplement. It is believed that Resveratrol simulates caloric restriction and the resulting health and longevity benefits it provides.
Animal studies have shown a longevity benefit from Resveratrol, even in subjects that were given a high caloric diet, but there is an even greater, synergistic effect when the two are combined (Resveratrol supplement with some sort of caloric restriction protocol as discussed in my blog last month).
The World Health Organization (WHO), produced a study ranking health care by country. Can you guess where the US ranks?
In overall medical care, the US ranks # 37, just under Costa Rica and just above Slovenia. (France is number one)
They also ranked the total health expenditure as a per centage of each country’s GDP. The USA ranks 2nd. Only the Marshall Islands spends more on health care than Americans.
And when it comes to how many years of a person’s life expectancy will be healthy ones, the USA is 24th.
Conclusion – While we spend more on health care than almost every other country in the world, we are not receiving the kind of care that they get in the 36 countries that rank ahead of us.
And in 25 other countries, people live healthier lives.
Is it any wonder that over half a million people leave the US each year to seek medical treatment outside the country?
Thursday, July 28, 2011 - by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger - Editor of NaturalNews.com
Ever wonder what'sreallyin the food sold at grocery stores around the world? People keep asking me, "What ingredients should I avoid?" So I put together a short list that covers all the most toxic and disease-promoting ingredients in the food supply. These are the substances causing cancer, diabetes, heart disease and leading to tens of billions of dollars in unnecessary health care costs across America (and around the world).
Our Guest Doctor Michael P. Heim is a nationally known Bariactric Medicine (weight loss) Specialist. His clinic, The Center for Health and Age Management, is located in Tampa, Florida, where he practices anti-aging medicine, medical weight loss and primary care medicine.
I’ve just finished Michael Pollard’s Book, In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifestowhich I mentioned in my blog last week. Many thoughts went through my head while reading this book but the one that stands out the most was that it reminded me of why I majored in nutrition in college.
Simply put, I believe in the power of food and always have. The natural next step as a physician has been to believe in the power of food and healthy living to fuel our health and well being. The author does a masterful job of explaining how the food supply in our country has become so unhealthy. It also makes me question everything I put in my mouth and, as a parent, what my children put in theirs’.
To reiterate some of the points of last week’s blog, we as a country have been duped by the food industry with cooperation from our government. The food lobby is well funded and with that funding comes the power to obtain the right (by our government) to make, quite frankly, asinine health claims about the so-called food they are selling us. Are we really to believe that Lucky Charms is now somehow good for us because a small amount of “whole grains,” have been added?
The same machine has produced the commercials mentioned last week about the merits of high fructose corn syrup, in moderation of course. Does anyone else want to ask, “are you #@@?% kidding me?”
Organic coffee enemas are prescribed at many holistic clinics. They are simple to do at home.
Use only organic coffee (not decaf). Make a pot of coffee – two tablespoons to 8 cups of water. Let the coffee cool to comfortable warmth. Put a towel in the bathtub, and hook the enema bag over the faucet. Pour half the coffee into the enema bag. Position yourself on the towel, and insert the enema nozzle.
The goal is to lie on your right side for 10 minutes, then your left side for 10 minutes. When you are ready, keep the nozzle in, sit on the toilet, and release. This cleans out the lower bowel. As soon as you finish on the toilet, pour the rest of the coffee into the enema bag and get back in the tub. Do the whole thing all over again. The second time, the caffeine will be quickly absorbed into the bloodstream. As it makes its way to the liver, it causes the liver to contract, and that will eliminate toxins (the liver is where we store lots of garbage, including residue from medications, alcohol, chemotherapy, etc.)
For patients who’ve undergone chemotherapy, or for anyone who would like to cleanse their body, there are some simple things you can do at home.
First, drink lots of pure mountain spring water – the higher the source, the better. Do not drink distilled water – distilled water is ‘dead’ water – all of the health-giving minerals have been removed. Avoid caffeine, soft drinks, tap water, hard liquors, frozen drinks and fruit juice (which is concentrated sugar).
Gently bouncing on a rebounder – a small trampoline – is another way to increase your circulation and stimulate your lymph system to flush toxins from the body. Just bounce lightly – the balls of your feet never have to leave the surface of the rebounder. Start with just a few minutes, and work up to 15 minutes a day.
Also, try to get at least 15 minutes or outdoor exercise a day – exercising in the fresh air can reduce stress and increase circulation of the blood and lymph.
Another great de-stressor is laughter. Keep a positive attitude. Be kind. Smile. Hug. Believe.
Many patients ask if it is really safe to go to Mexico for treatment.
Everyone has seen the sensational media stories about the drug wars and kidnappings in Mexico. I’m sure if you are a drug dealer, you have something to worry about. But in twenty years of working with cancer patients, the only time we have ever heard of a patient having trouble was from a couple who drove far into mainland Mexico, and had their money and passports stolen when they let them in plain sight in their car.
When patients travel to clinics in Baja, the skinny peninsula just south of California, they are met by clinic drivers at the San Diego airport. These drivers take the patients and their luggage directly to the hospital or clinic where they will receive treatment. Most drivers have a ‘fast pass’ so patients are not required to spend hours waiting in line at the border. In most cases, the ride from the airport to the facility takes about 15 minutes.
Choosing a clinic is a lot like choosing a spouse. You want a clinic that is caring, loyal, trustworthy, smart, attractive and successful. You need to feel a ‘connection’ in order to put your trust and your life in a medical team.
When a patient is seeking natural cancer treatment, they have a world of options. There are hundreds of websites touting everything from radio wave hyperthermia to stem cells to cancer vaccines. There are small private clinics and there are large modern hospitals. When you are faced with a life-threatening disease, the stress of finding the right treatment center can be just overwhelming.
When a patient calls us, we will ask many questions about the diagnosis, what has been done so far, and where they have been treated. We want to know about cancer diets they are following, family support, what type of facility would make them feel comfortable. After 20 years in this field, we have learned what things are important to a patients comfort and successful treatment.
One of the most frequently asked questions from cancer patients is: “What can I do right now to stop the cancer growth and improve my health?” And the answer is: change your diet!
When you have a scan with contrast dye, the carrying agent for the dye is glucose, or sugar water. Glucose is used because cancer cells suck up the sugar so quickly and completely, it lights up the films and shows the doctors where the cancer is located.
Sugar feeds cancer and helps it grow. If you eliminate sugar from your diet, you will quit providing fuel for the cancer growth.
Sugar is hidden in many foods. Sometimes we think we are eating healthy, but we are consuming large amounts of sugar.
It doesn’t matter if the sugar is natural or refined – it’s still sugar. While fruits are part of a healthy diet, we recommend eating only ‘northern’ fruits. Fruits that grow where there is a winter season are best because the dormant season takes much of the sugar out of the fruit. The best fruits are apples, pears, peaches, plums, apricots and berries of all kinds (go easy on strawberries). Fruits with the most sugar are southern or tropical fruits. The fruits with the most sugar are green grapes, melons, pineapples, mangos, papayas and bananas and citrus (lemons and grapefruit are permitted).
By Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.com | September 24, 2012
Biotech giant Monsanto has launched a desperate damage control effort in the aftermath of a French study which found that rats fed on Monsanto's genetically-engineered corn were far more likely to suffer tumors, organ failure and premature death.
Aside from the details of the study, a wider question remains. If Monsanto and other GMO giants are so confident in the safety of their products and have no qualms about them being in the food supply, why have they spent a combined total of over $19 million dollars in an attempt to prevent Americans from knowing that their food is genetically modified?
Monsanto has bankrolled a huge campaign fronted by lobbyists in an effort to sink California's Proposition 37, a bill that would simply mandate genetically modified food and ingredients be labeled at the retail level.
If genetically-modified food is safe and the studies have proven it is safe, why is Monsanto so desperate to keep its presence in our food hidden?
The recent study, conducted by scientists at the University of Caen and published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, found that 50 percent of male and 70 percent of female rats fed on a diet containing NK603 - a genetically modified corn produced by Monsanto - or those exposed to Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller - suffered tumors and multiple organ damage, causing them to die prematurely.
Monsanto immediately went into spin mode, issuing a press release over the weekend claiming that toxicologists and public health experts had found "fundamental problems with the study design," without specifically explaining what those problems were.
Given the fact that Monsanto-funded scientists are routinely wheeled out in public to attack the abundance of evidence confirming the link between GMO and cancer, the reaction to the French study was unsurprising. As Sayer Ji explains, the two previous studies before the French inquiry, the results of which claimed that there was no link between Monsanto's Roundup Ready herbicide and cancer, were both funded by Monsanto itself. A study published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology which exonerated Monsanto contained this glaring admission of a conflict of interest;
"The authors have disclosed the funding source for this research. JSM [study author] has served has a paid consultant to Monsanto Company....This research was supported by the Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri."
Is it really just a coincidence that the first study in recent years not to be funded by Monsanto produces completely different results?
"There is no plausible mechanism for the results reported with genetically modified maize and the results are inconsistent with an extensive body of experience and scientific study," Monsanto claimed in response to the French study.
However, the results are only inconsistent with previous (Monsanto-funded) studies because the French study went beyond the 90-day period which Monsanto had previously been able to hide behind in claiming their GMO products were safe. As The Grocer highlights, the French investigation "Was the first study to look at the long-term effects of Roundup and NK603, which has been approved for human consumption based on 90-day feeding trials. Scientists found that rats developed mammary tumours and severe liver and kidney damages as early as four months in males and seven in females, compared with 23 months and 14 months respectively in a control group."
Since tumors and other ailments were only discovered after a four month period, this throws into serious doubt previous (Monsanto-funded) studies the biotech giant pointed to as proving the safety of GMO because they failed to extend beyond a 90 day period, whereas the French study looked at the effects of GMO throughout the whole life span of the rats. This again illustrates the fact that far from being inadequate or badly modeled, the French study was more extensive and more complete than any previous study - with the added bonus that it was not funded by Monsanto - it was completely impartial.
As we reported last week, apologists for Monsanto have jumped on the bandwagon in an effort to discredit the findings of the French study, lying by omission in an attempt to cast doubt on its findings. David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge tried to question the accuracy of the study by highlighting that "The study's untreated control arm comprised only 10 rats of each sex, most of which also got tumors."
However, Spiegelhalter failed to acknowledge that it took these rats anything up to 19 months longer to develop tumors compared to those fed on Monsanto's GM corn.
Having had its nose bloodied in various European countries and facing being kicked out of the European marketplace altogether, Monsanto is in panic mode right now. California's Right to Know Act - otherwise known as Prop 37 - could spell the beginning of the end not only for Monsanto's business model but for the whole GMO agenda across the globe.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.
BY DR. GARCIA AND DR. PEREZ
Question: Many clinics give Vitamin C by IV. Have there been any studies to show how this treatment can benefit cancer patients ?
Answered by Dr. Eduardo Ariel Perez Carbajal and Dr. Juan Manuel Garcia DeLeon Buenfil - BioScience Research Institute, Tijuana, Mexico.
A number of case-control studies have investigated the role of vitamin C in cancer prevention. Most have shown that higher intakes of vitamin C are associated with decreased incidence of cancers of the mouth, throat and vocal chords, esophagus, stomach, colon-rectum and lung. Because the possibility of bias is greater in case-control studies, prospective studies are generally given more weight in the evaluation of the effect of nutrient intake on disease.
When Eileen Draper told her gynecologist she was having menopausal symptoms, her doctor told her she had to start taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
“Don’t I have a choice?” Draper asked. Her doctor told her that all of her patients in peri-menopause had to go on HRT; there was no choice if she wanted to keep her doctor.