The amazing healing power of light

Who Needs Drugs When You've Got Light? Last year, we brought you our first report on ultraviolet blood irradiation, also known as UBI (see Issue #235). It continues to be an astounding therapy for a host of diseases, including cancer. According to Tom Lowe, an entrepreneur and researcher who connects medical professionals with UBI devices, UBI therapy has been overlooked for decades as a viable cancer treatment -- a terrible loss for millions of patients who could benefit. It’s also a quick, drug-free cure for most infections, even serious ones like polio. Let’s take a look… Continued below… br> “The Only Side Effect is Chronic Good Health” That’s what Australian researchers reported after gathering case studies from doctors who used this natural compound in the treatment of cancer and other diseases. Recent studies indicate that this therapy shows promise in destroying cancer cells, leaving healthy ones unharmed. One Florida oncologist reported that in 30 out of his 40 patients with stage 4 cancers, this common compound shrunk tumors by half or more. Why did the mainstream turn its back on this safe and effective cancer treatment? Discover the answer and how to get all the details on the treatment, HERE. Mr. Lowe cited some remarkable stats at the 40th Annual Convention of the Cancer Control Society in September of 2012: UBI therapy is backed by 70 years of history It boasts virtually no side effects Treatment is relatively inexpensive The efficacy rate falls between 60 and 80 percent On top of that, ultraviolet blood irradiation has demonstrated a positive effect on over 60 diseases. And according to William Campbell Douglass, author of a book about UBI therapy called Into the Light, it has brought about remarkable results in both prompting cancer remission and extending the lives of patients who have been diagnosed with cancer. Powerful healing results first seen seven decades ago Though most commonly known as UBI, or ultraviolet blood irradiation, this is a treatment that goes by scores of other names: Biophotonic therapy, photo-oxidation therapy, photopheresis, ultraviolet blood therapy or UVB, hematologic oxidative therapy, extracorporeal photopheresis, and photo-luminescence. It first came about in 1928 when Emmitt K. Knott, a scientist, began experimenting with light. He assisted in the case of a woman dying of sepsis (infection). Knowing that light kills bacteria and viruses, he withdrew a small amount of her blood, exposed it to light, put it back in her body, and miraculously, the woman lived. The treatment was studied for the next two decades by scientists at prestigious schools like Georgetown University. A Dr. Henry Barrett reported treating over 110 cases of disease with UBI by 1940. The treatment was even cited in a 1949 issue of Time Magazine, which called it the “miracle of the future.” But then the 1950s hit and all attention in the medical world began to focus on antibiotics and vaccines as the main tools to fight infections. However, in Russia and Germany, practitioners have continued to take an interest in UBI. Currently around 3,000 European providers offer it to their patients. The U.S. has only around 250 practitioners skilled in UBI treatment. Twenty years ago, Yale University reignited interest in UBI after using it to treat T-cell lymphoma. The researchers even got FDA approval for the treatment. From there, Johnson & Johnson purchased and named it TherakosTM Photopheresis System. They now administer it in over 200 centers around the world and have treated more than 600,000 patients. Cost ranges between $2,500 and $4,000 per treatment, and patients require an average of 10 treatments total. That’s interesting because, according to Tom Lowe, you only need a minimum of four treatments (depending on your illness). And many alternative doctors will give you the treatment for a much lower price. Not to beat around the bush: $2,500- $4,000 per treatment is a ripoff. Mainstream medicine strikes again! How UV light supercharges the immune system Here’s how it works: Using a butterfly needle and a syringe, between 40 and 60 cubic centimeters (cc) of blood is withdrawn from your arm. Then it gets mixed with saline solution and passes through 26 seconds of ultraviolet light before being re-infused back into your body. That’s it. As you can see, this isn’t a $4,000 procedure. But it does deliver $4,000 of value! The logic behind diluting the blood is that one study showed light couldn’t penetrate more than five blood cells deep (30 microns, or 1 ml). So diluting the blood makes the therapy much easier to administer, not to mention more effective. The calculated mixture works out to be about 12 percent blood and 88 percent saline, which still absorbs 99.9 percent of the UV light. It also means less clotting time, a lower chance of problems, lower disposal quantities, and fewer staffing/nursing costs. Now, we all know that putting something dank out in bright sunlight for a few hours is bound to kill the smell, lighten the stain, or eliminate bacterial spread. UBI treatment works the same way. The type of activated light from the 400-780 nanometer point on the visible spectrum (white light) flat-out kills bacteria and viruses. UBI tears apart the DNA strands of the offending particles and sends them back into the body where they exhibit a vaccine-like response. Many people wonder why the treatment requires only 40 ccs of blood at one time, but researchers in this field counter by pointing out it only takes 1 cc of a vaccine to get an effective immune response. It helps that bacteria and viruses in your bloodstream will absorb five times as much photonic energy as your red and white blood cells. That’s exactly how the UV light exposure kills infecting organisms. The fragments of those killed-off infectious agents are what stimulate the vaccination-like response in your body and go on to heighten your immune response. From there, your supercharged immune system is able to launch a new attack on harmful agents throughout the body. Now of course, the body has to respond to the treatment. But assuming it does, then any form of virus or bacteria in your blood gets eradicated. And along with ramping up your immune system, the treatment also improves circulation and oxygenates tissues. If you turn to UBI to treat an autoimmune disorder like lupus, allergies, rheumatoid arthritis, or even a rash, it has a balancing effect that is helpful in 50 to 60 percent of cases. Other benefits to treatment include anti-inflammatory effects, stimulation of red blood cell production, and improvement in blood flow. It’s even known to cure shingles in two days. Two days! If you’ve ever had shingles – one of the most painful diseases known – you can appreciate what a blessing it would have been to have access to this therapy. It should be in every doctor’s office in the country – not in a mere 250. And it should cost maybe $100, not $4,000. (Again: The original UBI therapy offered by alternative doctors doesn’t cost anywhere near the price of Johnson & Johnson’s new FDA-approved boondoggle.) UBI is definitely useful as a cancer therapy, though several practitioners recommend using it as part of a multi-pronged approach. It’s an ideal adjunctive therapy for cancer in that it adds oxygen to the body, cuts pain, reduces inflammation, and decreases infections. Lifestyle, immune system, nutrition, and detoxification all go hand-in-hand with UBI. One to two treatments per month are recommended. And several practitioners also view ozone therapy (see Issue #226) as a treatment that complements the effects of UBI. An ideal treatment to add to any pro-health regimen The biggest argument against UBI is that “light simply can’t do that.” And there’s very little new research about it, including dissenting comments. You won’t even find anything about it on Quackwatch, the website run by mainstream docs known for lambasting virtually all alternative therapies—both the good and bad ones.     To the best of my knowledge, UBI is a really effective therapy, and an absolutely safe one. So why aren’t more hospitals and doctors using it? For starters, there’s the ever-present challenge that it’s not mainstream, not officially accepted. There’s also a good dose of skepticism and ignorance out there, plus there’s not enough money to support more research. And of course, it’s not currently business-driven and is being held back as a widespread treatment by the FDA (although it’s not actually illegal -- doctors can legally administer UBI under section 21).     Is it worth a try? Absolutely. To learn more about where you can access treatment, visit http://www.drsubi.com/. References: “Blood irradiation therapy.” Article: Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_irradiation_therapy “First Patient Enrolled In Therakos Phase Two Study For Treatment Of Graft-Versus-Host Disease.” Products & Operating Company: Johnson & Johnson News page: Press Release published 6 December 2011.http://www.jnj.com/news/all/first-patient-enrolled-in-therakos-phase-two-study-for-treatment-of-graft-versus-host-disease Into the Light, by Douglass, William Campbell. Rhino Publishing, SA: Republic of Panama. 1993. “The Light Fantastical.” By Mark Crislip for Science-Based Medicine. 2 November 2012. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-light-fantastic/ “Therakos: Photopheresis.” Located 19 October 2013. http://www.therakos.com/ “UVB UltraViolet Therapy.” Oxygen Healing Therapies, Located 19 October 2013. http://www.oxygenhealingtherapies.com/UV_UltraViolet_Therapy.html “Ultraviolet Blood Irradiation.” Patient Care: Therapies, The Riordan Clinic. http://www.riordanclinic.org/patient-care/therapies/ultraviolet-blood-irradiation/ “Ultraviolet Blood Irradiation.” Treatments at the Wycoff Wellness Center. Located 19 October 2013.http://www.wycoffwellness.com/treatments/ultraviolet-blood-irradiation “Ultraviolet Irradiation of Blood.” G.I. Levashenko Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 33, No. 3, 1999, pp. 141-143. “What The Heck is UBI (Ultraviolet Blood Irradition Therapy) and Why Am I Hooked To An IV?” By Kevin Gianni, The Renegade Health Show #915. Published 27 January 2012. http://renegadehealth.com/blog/2012/01/27/what-the-heck-is-ubi-ultraviolet-blood-irradition-therapy “When Medicines Have Failed: BioPhotonic Therapy – The Cure the Time Forgot.” Physicians UBI Awareness Center. http://www.drsubi.com/

Doctors who prescribe chemo don't tell you this

If you think cancer "experts" are hiding something...you're right!     Cancer researchers pride themselves on making great strides toward finding the causes and treatments for cancer.     And as they're supposed to in professional medical journals, they publish details about the problems they're addressing… the methodologies they use… the type of people who take part in the studies… the conclusions they reach…     Or do they? Continued below... Drink This and Cancer Comes Pouring Out of Your Body     "If I could pick only one treatment to cure my cancer, this would be it," says a top expert on alternative cancer treatments.     Research conducted by a scientist at the Detroit Institute of Cancer Research showed this is one of the world's most powerful cancer cures. Even the mainstream National Cancer Institute confirmed that this do-it-yourself treatment kills cancer cells. Then they buried the research.     Personally, I've been writing about cancer treatments for almost seven years. Out of nearly 400 that I've investigated, I haven't found an at-home treatment that's better.     It worked for Robert, age 54, who had late stage stomach cancer. His doctors told him he didn't have chance. The most they could do was buy him a little time, using four aggressive chemotherapy drugs PLUS radiation — a deadly, toxic, last-ditch treatment.     INSTEAD Robert used this non-toxic liquid and was completely cancer-free within months. The amazed doctor was forced to admit Robert's cancer was "in remission." Two years later, he was still cancer-free.     Click the link below to watch an important video presentation about this discovery... Click here and watch an important video presentation about this discovery.     When it comes to investigating chemotherapy treatments, one group of researchers doesn't think so.     This new finding comes from Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, Canada. A team led by Ian F. Tannock, MD, FRCPC, PhD, scoured 164 journal articles published over 16 years and made this startling discovery: The researchers were hiding information about chemotherapy drug side effects!     The group published their results on Jan. 9, 2013 on the Annals of Oncology website. According to their research, not even one-third of reports on clinical trials for breast cancer chemotherapy medications contained detailed data on side effects and adverse drug events.     I don't know about you… but I don't believe for one second that any chemo cocktail could have been THAT good!     Not only were these breast cancer drug researchers underreporting side effects—but they also went out of their way to report more positive treatment outcomes.     In other words, these studies aren't valid scientific reports. They're disguised sales pieces for chemo drugs.     Think about what this means for cancer doctors and their patients… Did someone call for a spin doctor?     Doctors are busy, just like most people. To stay current on the latest research, they don't read entire journal articles. They tend to read abstracts - brief summaries provided at the top of the articles -- to get the gist of the findings.     Dr. Tannock's group found that two-thirds of the drug studies they examined don't mention serious side effects in these summaries. This held true not only for chemotherapy studies but for cancer studies involving surgery and radiation as well.     The Canadian researchers found similar omissions in the discussion sections and results tables.     This means most doctors prescribing treatments are not aware of the full range of potential side effects. (Actually, the problem goes well beyond cancer drugs. Doctors spend little time educating patients about side effects for ANY prescription drug. It's up to you to find out for yourself.) The corrupt world of peer-reviewed journals     Dr. Tannock told Reuters about another disturbing trend they noticed in the studies they reviewed: Researchers for these breast cancer drug studies had a tendency to change the definition of success.     Specifically, Dr. Tannock said if a treatment didn't produce stellar results, some researchers just choose a different set of results to report—regardless of whether the study was designed to test them.     Just so we're clear… drug companies often provide the money to study the cancer concoctions they intend to market. So researchers are under pressure to produce glowing reports, or risk seeing research dollars disappear. Some may try to hang on to their virginity, but it seems the drug companies have no trouble finding scientists for sale.     I recently had a behind-the-scenes look at this world of peer-reviewed published research. Sometimes a big-name doctor's name is listed among the authors even though he or she didn't really do anything. A well-known doctor can supplement his income by lending his name to companies trying to get a scientific seal of approval on their products.     And lesser known, working scientists want their studies published in prestigious journals. If they frame their research in a positive light, it increases their chances for publication, additional grants, career promotion and tenure.     But this win-win deal for drug companies and the researchers who do their bidding is a sure loser for cancer patients who are kept in the dark about drug side effects. One rotten egg that made it to market…     You've probably heard drug commercials that spend maybe 55 seconds describing the benefits—then in the last five seconds a fast-talking motor-mouth comes on, the volume is turned down, and they rattle off a quick list of warnings and side effects.     These are just the dangers that are so common they feel required to tell you about them. Imagine how long the commercial would be if they included unreported side effects!     The practice of underreporting bad effects helps explain how the drug Avastin® could have made its way to pharmacies.     In February 2008, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave an accelerated approval to use Avastin in combination with the cancer drug paclitaxel to treat metastatic breast cancer.     Adding Avastin supposedly prevented angiogenesis -- blood vessels growing on tumors to nourish them.     An FDA news release said the speedy approval was based on promising results from one study that suggested Avastin could extend a cancer patient's life.     Avastin's maker, Genentech, completed two additional clinical trials after the drug was approved and submitted data from those studies to the FDA. What did these results show? Minimal effect on tumor growth No evidence that patients lived any longer No indication that quality of life improved when compared to taking standard chemotherapy     In the end, the agency revoked Avastin's approval for breast cancer treatment less than three years after approving it for that use.     FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg said, "After reviewing the available studies it is clear that women who take Avastin for metastatic breast cancer risk potentially life-threatening side effects without proof that the use of Avastin will provide a benefit in terms of delay in tumor growth that would justify those risks."     And get a load of the side effects some women experienced during the time the drug was approved for use as a breast cancer treatment… Bleeding and hemorrhaging Heart attack and heart failure High blood pressure (severe) Perforations in the nose, stomach, intestines and other body parts     Before you think warm and fuzzy thoughts about the agency revoking its use as breast cancer treatment—remember it's still on the market to treat other cancers.     What's more, Dr. Hamburg actually invited Avastin's drugmaker to TRY AGAIN stating, "I encourage Genentech to consider additional studies to identify if there are select subgroups of women suffering from breast cancer who might benefit from this drug."

Did Angelina Jolie do the right thing?

Angelina Jolie and "Pre-Surgery" — Is This a Smart Way to Beat Cancer?                                        The whole world knows about actress Angelina Jolie's decision to have an elective double mastectomy. She didn't choose the surgery because she has cancer — she was cancer-free. She chose it because she carries the BRCA1 gene, a "flawed" gene that sharply increases her risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer.     But having both breasts removed when you don't have cancer is a drastic step, to say the least. Did she do the right thing? Let's take a look. . . Continued below. . . Breast Cancer Breakthrough BANNED! U.S. Government Blocks Release of Doctor's Life-Saving Book     A mammoth discovery is wiping out most breast tumors better than anything seen yet in modern medicine. It makes surgery, radiation and chemotherapy look like something from the Dark Ages.     A Cornell-educated doctor followed more than 25 years of case studies and PROVED this treatment can cure breast cancer. With the discovery I'm going to tell you about, almost every woman makes it and without losing a breast to surgery or taking any toxic chemicals. Even those with late stage cancer!     You've got to include this treatment if you want to have any REAL hope of defeating breast cancer. Click here now and watch a new video presentation about this important discovery… Breast Cancer Cover-Up     Ms. Jolie has seen firsthand how cancer can ravage the body and bring suffering to a whole family. Her mother battled breast cancer and ultimately died of ovarian cancer at age 56. By that point, she'd been struggling against the disease for a decade. Ms. Jolie's maternal grandmother was also diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Quick facts on breast cancer     Before we get into whether her decision was smart or crazy, let's talk more about the BRCA1 gene. The term "BRCA" comes from the first two letters of each of the words "breast" and "cancer." If you develop breast cancer, normal BRCA genes help you fight it. But when the BRCA gene is mutated, it can't do its job, and cancer risk sharply increases.     Prior to surgery, and by her doctor's estimate, Jolie's risk of breast cancer was an alarming 87 percent. Her risk of ovarian cancer landed at 50 percent.     Some of my readers may be surprised, but on the whole, I think Ms. Jolie made a reasonable decision. It wasn't the only thing she could have done, but it was not a "crazy" thing to do. I would choose a policy of regular monitoring for cancer, plus a healthy diet and the supplements we talk about all the time in this newsletter and in our books. Early detection IS possible and surgery comes into play only when you actually have cancer. But I understand a person can become panicky when faced with the kind of odds she faced. Men with small, nearly harmless prostate tumors are the same way. Most of them want the whole thing cut out NOW!     Though only a tiny fraction of breast cancer diagnoses stem from the BRCA1 gene mutation, if you happen to be one of the unlucky women who have it, you face a 65 percent risk of breast cancer and a 39 percent chance of getting ovarian cancer. Those are averages. Ms. Jolie's risk was boosted by the fact that her mother and grandmother were cancer victims.     The breast cancer odds are more than five times worse for women with the gene mutation than for those without. For the latter, the risk of breast cancer is only 12 percent and the risk of ovarian cancer is less than 1 percent. I don't mean to belittle the risk for any woman, but as you can see it's much worse for women with the gene mutation.     Men can inherit the BRCA1 mutation as well, bringing their own breast cancer risk up to 8 percent.     The general risk of having a BRCA mutation is 1 in 500 people. If you're of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage, risk rises to 1 in 40.     Jolie's choice was to minimize her risk. I can't imagine what a hard decision it must have been. After three months of intensive medical procedures that included removing the tissue in both her breasts, her chances of developing breast cancer have dropped from a high of 87 to a low of 5 percent. She paid her dues and got the reduction in risk she was seeking. As I said, it's a reasonable choice. Mastectomies don't really mean medical progress…     The big risk in Ms. Jolie's public announcement is that other women will draw the wrong conclusions. Some worry that she's opened the gates to a new trend in mastectomies that are medically unnecessary.     It's no secret that the past several years have unleashed a virtual epidemic in preventive mastectomies for women with one cancerous breast who decide to remove the healthy breast as a precaution. These women, by and large, do not carry the genetic mutations that elevate their risk. That means their odds for cancer developing in their remaining breast are quite low.     Preventive mastectomies make sense for women with the same high-level risk of cancer Jolie faced. But very few women share that risk. For women without the gene mutation, I'm prepared to say without a doubt that removing a healthy breast is unnecessary and unwise, even if the other breast has cancer.     The trend toward mastectomies is even more frustrating given that lumpectomies for actually existing cancer have been proven just as effective as mastectomies. In a lumpectomy, only the tumor and nearby tissue are removed, not the entire breast. And, yes, that's all you need. The statistics indicate you gain nothing by "radical mastectomy," i.e.removal of the whole breast.     I like the reaction of Dr. Susan Love, breast surgeon and author of Dr. Susan Love's Breast Book. In an interview with The New York Times, she pointed out that Ms. Jolie was an unusual case. Said Love, "What I hope that people realize is that we really don't have good prevention for breast cancer. When you have to cut off normal body parts to prevent a disease, that's really pretty barbaric when you think about it."1     If anything, we can hope that Ms. Jolie's public disclosure will shed light on a topic that deserves more research. For now, the only definitive answer is drastic surgery.     It's also important to know that preventive surgery isn't the only option, even for those with BRCA1 mutations. Many doctors advocate mammograms and MRI scans, done alternately every six months. That way if cancer does surface, it's found early … assuming the mammograms do their jobs, which is debatable.     Readers of this newsletter know all about the shortcomings and dangers of mammograms. Themorgraphy is a better, safer way to screen for breast cancer. See our previous Issues #218 and #239 for more information on the best ways to find breast cancer early.     You should also consider purchasing my Special Report Breast Cancer Cover-Up. This report was written to explain all your best options for detecting, preventing and treating breast cancer. Needless to say, the report focuses on alternatives, not mainstream treatments. How to heal the "Whole Body" from surgery     Ms. Jolie's advice is for all women, especially those with a family history of ovarian or breast cancer, to get a better understanding of their risk level. She advocates gene testing and preventive treatment. But she acknowledges that gene testing, which typically costs more than $3,000 in the U.S., is not an option for a great many women.     Many insurance carriers will cover genetic testing, but most of them require you to prove your risk through family history. If you're unsure about your increased risk, take this free quiz on risk assessment from the Pink Lotus Breast Center—the same center where Ms. Jolie was treated.     She also acknowledged that many alternatives to surgery are in the works. On top of that, I was interested to learn that much of her own surgery played by an alternative rule book.     For starters, Ms. Jolie's surgery was done on an outpatient basis at the family-owned, mostly female-run Pink Lotus Breast Center where they pride themselves on holistic care and wellness.     Following her surgeries, Ms. Jolie was placed on a variety of supplements. These included vitamin C, zinc, and multi-vitamins to improve healing at the site of each operation. A combination cream of arnica and bromelain, an enzyme extracted from pineapple stems, was used to help with post-operative swelling and bruising. The homeopathic remedies ExChem and Lymphomyosot were used to help eliminate anesthesia from her system.     In a situation like Ms. Jolie's where risk was high and intervention was believed to be the best course, it's nice to know she wasn't sentenced to a coarse and impersonal hospital stay with a stack of prescription drugs. It's proof that even in the event of extreme surgery, there are still ways to assist your body's natural healing faculties. Is it fair to patent a gene?     It's possible that Ms. Jolie's public disclosure will bring about a different kind of positive change. I'm not talking about more women choosing preventative surgery, but about a woman's right to information and gene testing, even if she lacks the cash and her insurance doesn't cover it.     As it turns out, a Utah company called Myriad Genetics currently owns the patent on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. This company developed the BRCAnalysis test that screens women for the gene mutation. And as long as they own the patent, no other company can develop a similar test. That's why the test costs $3,000.     The ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation have challenged Myriad's right to patent these genes on the grounds that they're preventing further studies and tests on the gene and delaying critical research. The landmark case will be decided before the Supreme Court in June.     Until then, Myriad argues that Medicare, Medicaid, and their own financial assistance program make testing available to what they consider "appropriate patients." But the bottom line is this: they'll retain control of the future of the BRCA genes, unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise. It's not a one-size-fits-all problem     At the end of her op-ed piece in The New York Times, Ms. Jolie stated, "Life comes with many challenges. The ones that should not scare us are the ones we can take on and take control of."2     What's important is to know your options. Surgery will not be the right choice for everyone, and each woman's case is unique. Considering she had the gene mutation, I believe Jolie made a reasonable choice, but it's not the only choice. Another woman might have chosen frequent screening, a healthy eating plan and supplements — and then surgery only if and when cancer cells actually appeared. And as I said above, I'm opposed to such surgery for women who don't have the mutation.     Ms. Jolie's choice should not highlight preventive surgery as the single best option for avoiding breast cancer. Rather, her message lies in the power of genetic counseling and informed decisions. Instead of asking questions about surgery, first focus on asking questions about your family history.     As Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian, a surgical oncologist at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told The New York Times, "We need to be careful that one message does not apply to all. Angelina's situation is very unusual. People should not be quick to say 'I should do like she did,' because you may not be like her."1

5 reasons to ditch your probiotic supplement

Still Taking a Probiotic Supplement? 5 Reasons to Consider Ditching It     In the Greek, the term probiotic means "for life" — so you can easily figure out what the term antibiotic means.     There are reams of published research surrounding probiotic microorganisms to suggest they actually do support a healthy life. In fact, many doctors who don't advocate a lot of supplements include probiotic pills among the few they do recommend.     So why ditch them if they're so awesome? Five reasons… Continued below. . . They Are Calling It The New AIDS Of America     There is a new menace invading the USA. They are terrorists but not humans…     This killer is the American trypanosome, which causes deadly Chagas disease: it makes your heart swell and burst without warning. It's being called the "new AIDS".     It's transmitted by "kissing bugs", which are moving ever northwards, as the climate warms. 40% of these bugs, when tested, had fed on humans recently.     Your only real protection is knowledge: you MUST get informed about what's going on.     Keith Scott-Mumby MD has produced a brilliant comprehensive handbook explaining scores parasites (only the ones we meet in Western society. You'll be shocked, horrified even, when you learn the truth.     Virtually all of us carry parasites, Dr. Keith says.     His entire text is backed up by cutting edge scientific references and--most importantly--help on what to do to stay safe and keep the critters out of your body.     Read more here...     Reason #1: There's an incredible alternative that, according to some sources, contains100 times more beneficial bacteria than an entire bottle of high potency probiotic supplement.     And this alternative isn't some newfangled product either.     It's been a part of the diet of nearly every traditional culture throughout the history of mankind. I'm talking about cultured vegetables, though there are other cultured foods highly regarded in various parts of the world. More on this is a minute.     Only since the widespread use of refrigeration have we stopped using traditionally fermented foods.     Reason #2: It may be impossible to say whether the bacterial strains in any particular probiotic supplement are really the best ones — or if they represent a wide enough selection of those needed for health. Scientists are constantly discovering new facts about the human body. For example, the Belly Button Biodiversity Project by scientists at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, has been analyzing navel swabs from volunteers. New Science reports that so far, they've found 1,400 distinct bacterial strains, nearly half of which have never before been seen.1 Who knows what beneficial bacteria are still undiscovered?     Reason #3: The trust factor. While we can't deny the benefits of probiotic supplementation — and it's certainly a whole lot safer than taking dangerous pharmaceuticals — I trust the thousand-plus year history of fermented foods more than its modern lab-formulated counterparts. There are serious questions about how many live microorganisms are actually left in a probiotic capsule or softgel by the time it gets to you. They can't tolerate high temperatures, and if your pills haven't been refrigerated every step of the way, they may have lost most of their live cultures.     Reason #4: What's more, at about $40 per bottle for a "high quality" probiotic, you stand to save a lot of money by eating cultured vegetables — especially if you make them yourself.     Reason #5: They're tastier than supplements any day. And the flavor will likely grow on you over time. If you make them yourself you get a degree of personal satisfaction too. It's easy. And inexpensive. It's also… A true living food     True raw cultured vegetables are a 100% organic, unheated, fermented food, loaded with beneficial enzymes.     The lactic acid produced during fermentation helps you digest other foods eaten at the same time as cultured ones, especially important for digesting proteins and starchy foods.     Cultured vegetables "pre-digest" sugars and starches, which helps support overall digestive function. They are alkaline-forming due to their abundance of vitamins and minerals. And they can help you replenish your mineral stores and balance your whole body's pH levels.     Want to overcome starch cravings? Enthusiasts report that eating cultured vegetables on a regular basis can help you regain control over these cravings.     And as I said, cultured vegetables are teeming with beneficial microorganisms — a true "living" food.     When you eat them, you're feeding your biological system with intelligent little beings that work hard to keep your health optimal. Nearly every ancient civilization prized them     "The science and art of fermentation is, in fact, the basis of human culture: without culturing, there is no culture… Culture begins at the farm, not at the opera house, and binds a people to a land and its artisans," according to Sally Fallon, President of the Weston A. Price Foundation.     Weston A. Price was a dentist who traveled the world to study isolated cultures (human ones, not microbial ones) for the relationship between their dental health and what they ate. He found that whenever a people abandoned their traditional native foods, both their dental and physical health rapidly fell apart. However, if they stuck with their native diet, their overall health stayed strong throughout life.2     Long before modern scientists decided probiotics are the darlings of the microbial world, nearly every ancient civilization prized fermented foods and recognized their health benefits. Sadly, in modern day America, we've ditched these healthy foods, for the most part.     Culturing was how our ancestors naturally preserved food to ensure they had nourishment when fresh food was scarce… although they probably did not realize these foods boost the immune system, support good health, and add years to our lives.     Dr. Price found that almost every ethnic group had its own version of cultured food that people made themselves and ate regularly. These medicinal foods ranged well beyond cultured vegetables like sauerkraut, natto, miso and kimchi. The list must also include yogurt, kefir, aged cheeses, kombucha, sourdough breads, pickled fruits, lassi and more.     The Chinese have been fermenting cabbage for thousands of years. Cultured vegetables were eaten in ancient Rome — and in medieval Europe. Genghis Kahn used them around 1200 A.D., and Captain James Cook, the 18th century English explorer, took cultured sauerkraut on his ships to prevent scurvy in his crews.     In her book Nourishing Traditions, author Sally Fallon considers our modern-day proliferation of mysterious new viruses, parasites, chronic health problems, and even Superbugs. She asks, "Could it be that by abandoning the ancient practice of lacto-fermentation and insisting on a diet in which everything has been pasteurized, we have compromised the health of our intestinal flora and made ourselves vulnerable to legions of pathogenic microorganisms?"     Seems we've hijacked our health and even our economic well-being by insisting on "more, faster, cheaper"… A host of benefits awaits you     A basic tenet of holistic medicine is that digestive dysfunction is either a cofactor or the main cause of most chronic and degenerative diseases. Research suggests that bacterial imbalances (between "good" and "bad" bacteria) can disrupt your intestinal function — and that matters because it's your first line of defense against pathogens occurring in food or water.     Probiotic organisms, whether from cultured foods or supplements, replenish our good bacteria and tip the balance in the battle against bad bacteria.     While probiotic supplementation is very common, why not take a "food as medicine" approach and use cultured foods instead?     You already know vegetables provide a low-calorie wealth of nutrients. Fermenting them just makes them into real superfoods, easier to absorb and utilize.     Cultured vegetables can enrich your level of B vitamins (even vitamin B12, which is hard to obtain from food), vitamin C, omega-3 fatty acids, digestive enzymes, lactase and lactic acid and other immune chemicals that can fight off harmful bacteria, and yes, possibly even cancer cells.     Cultured vegetables can help you lose weight, as they're linked to how well things flow through your digestive tract, how regular you are, and how alkaline you are.     They can fight unhealthful microorganisms such as candida and E. Coli, and help with diarrhea, gastroenteritis, irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease and cancer.     There's even anecdotal evidence that kimchi may fight bird flu. Kimchi is a traditional Korean dish of spiced, fermented vegetables. In 2005, scientists at Seoul National University reported feeding an extract of kimchi to 13 infected chickens. A week later, 11 of them had started recovering. Eating kimchi to cure the flu may sound like a dubious folk remedy, but the theory is being floated by some of Korea's most eminent scientists.3     While it certainly seems plausible that we can benefit from turning ordinary vegetables into cultured superfoods with more live enzymes and predigestive qualities, most of what we know at this point comes from anecdotes and clinical reports, not peer reviewed science. After all, how much money could the drug companies make from studying the lowly cultured vegetable? Beware of foods that appear to be naturally cultured, but aren't!     To get your money and your health's worth from fermented foods, be aware of the HUGE difference between healthy fermented foods and commercially processed ones. Sauerkraut — potentially the most useful processed food you could buy — is in fact nutritionally worthless when purchased in a store because it's all been pasteurized. Pasteurization kills any live cultures in a food. Likewise, cheeses are pasteurized so they harbor few if any live cultures.     Setting aside the fact that the government makes food companies pasteurize everything, fermentation is a somewhat inconsistent process… some say it's more an art than a science. So it stands to reason commercial processors would develop ways to standardize their results. They don't want their brand's taste to vary from one batch to the next, and that's rather likely to happen with fermented foods (think of wine, for example — every bottle is unique).     In the search for standardization and "safety," Americans have traded the many benefits of cultured foods for the convenience of mass-produced pickles, yogurt, kefir and more.     Technically, anything "brined" in a salt stock is fermented. But watch out! Vinegar's acidic pH, refrigeration, and high-heat pasteurization all slow or stop the fermentation and enzymatic process.     For example, olives were traditionally fermented. Now they're treated with an acidic solution of lactic acid, acetic acid, sodium benzoate, and potassium sorbate — a far cry from the old-time natural lactic acid fermentation of salt alone.     Yogurt in the U.S. today is pasteurized and generally so full of sugar that it's little more than a highly sweetened pudding. All that sugar, unfortunately, tends to cancel out the potential benefit from any cultures that do manage to survive the over-processing. Ditto for kefir. How to make sure you're getting real Lacto-fermented foods     You can still find some healthy traditional lacto-fermented foods.     The strong-flavored traditional Greek olives in many olive bars are not lye-treated and are still alive with active cultures, according to our sources.     Many Korean and Japanese markets still sell their traditional cultured foods, like natto, miso, and kimchi. In general, the stronger the flavor (excluding jalapeno and hot peppers), the more likely the food still has active and beneficial lacto-bacteria.     You can also find fermented foods in some gourmet stores, farmer's markets and health food stores.     But the surest way of all is to make your own. And it's really pretty easy. The satisfaction and cost savings of DIY…     Real fermentation fans look to the past to define the wave of the future. And since, in days of old, people fermented their own foods, why not take it up yourself? 60 years ago it wasn't unusual at all for people to make their own sauerkraut or pickles.     While there are many ways to go about it, and individual tastes vary, making your own gives you the latitude to customize these foods with your own favorite (or local, in-season) vegetables, fruits and spice preferences (e.g., jalepenos and hot peppers).     Basically, you either shred or dice the vegetables (usually with cabbage as a base), season, and place them in sanitary jars, covered, for about 7 days at a steady temperature of 59 to 71 degrees Fahrenheit. Some people choose to add a starter to speed up the process.     Either way, expect the rapid multiplication of lactobacilli microbes that pre-digest the sugars ad starches and speed your digestive process.     Culturing is a great way to use up cabbage when it's in season, or when you have a surplus from your garden.     Some people advocate cultured vegetables as a substitute for salsa. Others recommend eating a little on a salad, on top of a small serving of meat or fish, or simply as a side dish. What's YOUR Favorite Recipe?     As far as recipes go, there are entire cookbooks now devoted to cultured foods, available at your library, bookstores, or online. Plus, there are a host of recipes online. You can use them as starting points, and with time develop your own personal favorites. There are far too many possibilities to cover them here.     But please… feel free to share your personal favorites with us on our Facebook fan page. Kindest regards, Lee Euler, Publisher Footnotes: 1http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/06/peter- aldhous-san-francisco-bu.html 2http://www.immunitrition.com/Cultured_Nutrition.html 3http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4347443.stm Editor in Chief: Lee Euler Contributing Editors: Mindy Tyson McHorse, Carol Parks, Roz Roscoe Marketing: Shane Holley Information Technology Advisor: Michelle MatoWebmaster: Steve MacLellan Fulfillment & Customer Service: Joe Ackerson and Cami Lemr

Health Disclaimer: The information provided above is not intended as personal medical advice or instructions. You should not take any action affecting your health without consulting a qualified health professional. The authors and publishers of the information above are not doctors or health-caregivers. The authors and publishers believe the information to be accurate but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. There is some risk associated with ANY cancer treatment, and the reader should not act on the information above unless he or she is willing to assume the full risk. Reminder: You're getting this email because you purchased a special report or book from us, or signed up for our free newsletter and gave us permission to contact you. From time to time we'll alert you to other important information about alternative cancer treatments. If you want to update or remove your email address, please scroll down to the bottom of this page and click on the appropriate link. We're an online cancer bookstore offering Outsmart Your Cancer, Cancer Step Outside the Box, Stop Cancer Before It Starts, Natural Cancer Remedies that Work, Adios-Cancer, Cancer Breakthrough USA, Missing Ingredient For Good Health, German Cancer Breakthrough, How to Cure Almost Any Cancer for $5.15 a Day and Keep Your Gallbladder!

These 10 things could save 6 million lives a year

If Everyone Took These 10 Steps, They'd Save 6 Million Lives a Year     I'm glad I've lived to see the day—or at least the beginning of the era—when doctors and scientists see cancer for what it is: An awful but largely preventable disease.     For decades, the medical mainstream viewed cancer much like a tornado, making us think it's a force of nature beyond our control and that any one of us could wake up one morning and get hit by a surprise.     It's been a disastrous approach to see cancer as just random bad luck. Because so many people fear cancer as something beyond their control, they place all their faith, trust, hope, and money in the hands of mainstream medical doctors, assuming they alone have treatments that might knock this unpredictable "tornado" off its path.     That's why it's so notable when players in mainstream medicine begin to recognize just how preventable cancer can be, especially if you give due credit to the body's own defenses. Here are the best things you can do to protect yourself. . . Continued below. . . The Best Cancer Treatment on Earth Just Got Better!     Hi. I'm Lee Euler, the editor of Cancer Defeated. On a recent tour of top cancer clinics with my colleague Andrew Scholberg, we learned about some remarkable new cancer treatments. In spite of all the information we already knew, these treatments were brand new to us. They're important discoveries. A maverick doctor cured his last four "terminal" brain cancer patients, using laser blood therapy developed to keep Russian cosmonauts healthy in space. That's right: four out of four patients got well. Several of the doctors we interviewed told us about a new cure for prostate cancer. It takes only one week -- and no surgery or drugs are required. If I had prostate cancer, this treatment would absolutely be my first choice. It gets rid of enlarged prostate too - totally, in just one week! A painless treatment for liver cancer has cured more than 300 patients. When it first came to light decades ago, the New York Times reported that this revolutionary procedure may have "solved the cancer problem"! Yet it disappeared and conventional doctors don't know about it. Now it's been rediscovered at one of the top clinics we visited, and it's working cancer miracles. You need to know about the handful of maverick doctors who offer it. Click here and see the facts for yourself. How to save over 6 million lives a year     When you look at research from the American Cancer Society and the American Institute for Cancer Research, you see that both estimate more than 30 percent of cancer is preventable through exercise, sensible eating, and staying thin. I'd say it's far more than 30 percent, but that's their number.     Their figure means roughly 3.8 million cancers worldwide could be prevented.     But there's more. Consider that smoking still accounts for over 30 percent of cancers. Combine that fact with what we know about diet and exercise choices, and we have evidence that more than 50 percent of cancers and deaths related to cancer could be avoided.     That means as many as 6.35 million lives saved, every year.     Don't get me wrong here. Yes, there are still genetic-related cancers that fall beyond our control. Yes, there are people who make wise lifestyle choices who will still develop cancer as a result of some environmental toxin beyond their control.     But if we could save half of them … if one of them was your spouse, or your son, or your father or sister. Then it'd be worth it, right? Here's how to get started. Top 10 things to do to lower your risk of cancer     Here's what the research suggests you do to modify your lifestyle and lower your cancer risk: Increase your daily consumption of dietary fiber. This helps lower the risk of several cancers, including breast, prostate, lung, gastric, and colorectal. Eat more fruits and vegetables, and make them organic. Especially aim for antioxidant-rich foods like blueberries and blackberries, cruciferous vegetables (broccoli and cauliflower are two of the best), and natural foods with high levels of carotenoids, like spinach, kale, sweet potatoes, and carrots. Eat whole grains, and stay away from GMOs. Eat fish, but eat the right kind. Eat nuts. Drink green tea and — if you must drink — choose wine. Stay away from calorie-loaded beer and liver-taxing liquor. Consider vegetarianism, or at least a primarily plant-based diet. It's linked to a lower overall cancer risk and a lower likelihood of developing female-specific cancers. Limit your intake of saturated fats from meat and dairy. Those from nuts, avocado and coconut are healthy. Avoid processed meat altogether (see the article below). Take vitamins and supplements. Vitamins C, D, E and the B vitamins, especially folic acid, appear to offer significant protection in terms of cancer prevention. Exercise daily. Moderate exercise — a simple half hour walk — makes a huge difference. Strength-training and more challenging aerobic activities are even better. But there's no need to be a fanatic.     Here's where things get sketchy for the medical establishment. While they're finally moving away from the primarily genetic model of cancer, and they now publicly acknowledge the benefits of a healthy diet, scientists and doctors still can't isolate specific compounds from specific foods that will solve all cancer, everywhere.     That's because cancer isn't a disease you can solve with a reductionist attitude. It's not a simple disease. It has multiple causes and takes multiple forms. Cancer demands a whole-body approach.     There's a hidden bonus to all this, too. Following a whole-body, healthy lifestyle approach not only decreases your odds of cancer, it also protects you against a barrage of other chronic diseases like arthritis, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke.     In fact, it's only a slight exaggeration to say all these diseases are one disease, mainly caused by poor eating and exercise choices, and giving up on the "battle of the bulge." Cancer only stands somewhat apart from diabetes and heart disease because it's also closely tied to toxic chemical exposure, certain infections and parasites, and (in some cases) faulty genes.     Because of these added risk factors, people who eat right, exercise and stay thin can nonetheless be hit with a cancer diagnosis. The lifestyle changes cut your cancer risk by at least half — but they cut your risk of heart disease and diabetes by nearly 100 percent. Yes, you can increase your odds of preventing cancer     It all comes down to the importance of a healthy lifestyle, which is something we've always supported here at Cancer Defeated. Scientists have yet to find that single, perfect nutrient from a single, perfect food … probably because there's no such thing.     Our bodies are complex and sophisticated. There may never be a one-shot-fixes-all way to prevent and heal cancer. But we already know, and it gets underscored more with each passing year, there IS a way to support the radical built-in defenses of our own bodies.     It's called a whole-food, comprehensive approach, not unlike other things that sustain us. Take your job, for instance. To enjoy employment, you not only need to love what you do, you also need to feel valued, work with people you like, and get paid appropriately.     The same goes for romantic relationships. It's not just the physical connection that's important. Romance is also sustained by pursuing outside interests together, having long conversations, laughing over dinner with friends, and so forth.     Why then, has it been so hard for some to understand how essential a whole-body approach is when it comes to health and cancer prevention? It's been slow going, but it's nice to see the tides are changing.     I like to think we're moving toward a "seatbelt approach" when it comes to cancer prevention and treatment, where lifestyle choices are the seatbelt. No, a seatbelt can't save everybody from every vehicle collision. But it can dramatically reduce your chances of facing a life-threatening injury, and it's common knowledge that a seatbelt is the best way to lower your risk.     Same goes for smart lifestyle choices when it comes to cancer. Hopefully soon, it'll be common knowledge that such is the best way to lower your risk of ever facing cancer.     I mentioned above that processed "pink" meats like ham and bacon increase your cancer risk. If you'd like to why, read the article below. These foods should be packaged with a warning label!     Some people would tell you that a chargrilled hot dog is as much a symbol of America as the stars and stripes, baseball, and apple pie.     But many health advisors say hot dogs and other processed meats don't deserve their all-American image. "What's the beef," you say?     Well, scores of studies have linked hot dogs, bacon, sausage and other red meats with a higher risk of developing cancer. Here's what the evidence shows. . . Continued below. . . The Real Reason You're Tired     If you're feeling tired and listless too often ... lacking your old pep and enthusiasm ... and relying on caffeine and energy drinks to make it through the day...     There are two secret medical reasons why.     They're your adrenal glands — and, chances are, they're both "burned out."     Does this sound like you?     You can't seem to get going in the morning without coffee or a strong energy drink.     You sputter out mid-morning — yawning, tired, and unable to concentrate.     When you get home, you collapse on the couch.     Yet, at night you toss and turn — and simply can't fall into a deep sleep.     If this sounds like your life lately, please keep reading...     ...because there's a remarkable new way to "recharge" your body and actually fix the secret cause of "adrenal fatigue!"     Even better — in just a matter of days, this natural solution can have you feeling more energetic and alive than you have in decades!     Read on...     In fact, at least 58 studies show that the more hot dogs and other processed meats you eat—the more you bump up your chances for colorectal cancer.     What's more, other studies have linked these foods to cancer of the ovaries and prostate, as well as leukemia. For example: Colon cancer—an American Cancer Society (ACS) study analyzed the relationship of red meat intake to colon cancer risk. Researchers studied the eating habits of nearly 150,000 adults between the ages of 50 to 74 for 10 years. In the final year of the study, the investigators analyzed the incidence of colon cancer in study participants. They found that men who ate three or more ounces daily—two or more ounces for women—were 30 to 40 percent more likely to develop colon cancer. The research team also reviewed poultry and fish consumption, but found no evidence linking these foods to colon cancer. Actually, subjects who ate less red meat and more poultry and fish reduced their risk of developing colon cancer. Now keep in mind that two to three ounces is barely enough ground beef to cover your palm! It's not hard to get to 21 ounces per week with frequent indulgence in bacon, ham or hot dogs. Leukemia—a study published in the journal BMC Cancer determined that children who eat more bacon, hot dogs, sausage and other processed meats are 74 percent more likely to develop leukemia than children who avoid such processed meats and eat more vegetables and tofu. Prostate—findings reported in the American Journal of Epidemiology said researchers at the National Cancer Institute surveyed more than 175,000 men about their diets, including meat intake and cooking habits. They followed these men for nine years and found that the 20 percent (one in five) who ate the most red and processed meats were 12 percent more likely to develop prostate cancer. The connection was even stronger with advanced prostate cancer, the risk being almost one-third higher among those who ate the most red meat versus those who ate the least!     While many will argue that studies have reached conflicting conclusions—you shouldconsider the possibility that changes in the way foods are grown and prepared might play a role in making cancer a top killer in the U.S. The problem is in the processing…     So what exactly does meat processing involve? Basically, manufacturers use smoking, curing, salting or chemical procedures to preserve the meat. Nitrates are among the more dubious chemical additives     Many meat manufacturers use nitrates to: Give meats their pinkish color Enhance their flavor, and Act as a preservative.     When you eat bacon, hot dogs and other meats preserved with nitrates, your body automatically changes some of the nitrates to nitrites.     The nitrites then react with other meat chemicals to produce nitrosamines—which are known carcinogens.     If you also enjoy eating smoked meats, understand that this process produces cancerous hydrocarbons, which enter your food during the smoking process.     How do you feel about munching on slices of smoked, crispy bacon? If you like your meat well done, you should know that cooking processed meat at high temperatures can increasethe formation of nitrosamines.     But how much is too much?     Well, the FDA considers 200 parts per million (ppm) of sodium nitrite added to food as safe. This equals about 1 pound of sodium nitrite additive per 5,000 pounds of cured meat.     If you're currently healthy and not fighting cancer, there's probably not much harm in eating bacon, sausage, ham and hot dogs as an occasional treat. It's large quantities/frequent consumption that appear to pose a risk. I surely hope that most people aren't eating 21 ounces a week (three ounces a day) of these processed pink meats.     Frequent eating of processed meat is probably most common among people who have a weight problem. And it's likely just one of a half dozen bad lifestyle choices the same people are making -- including lots of high-sugar and salt-laden snacks that can help pack on extra pounds. It's all part of the collection of bad eating habits called the Standard American Diet — SAD.     If you want to feel better and live longer, try to load up your diet with fresh, uncooked fruits and vegetables. But — as long as you're not fighting cancer -- you don't necessarily have to give up meat, fat, sugar, potatoes and other carbs completely. Enjoy them once in a while as a special treat. When you do eat meat, choose free-range meat that's raised without antibiotics and hormones.     You can indulge as much as you want in healthy saturated fats like nuts, avocado and coconut oil (see Issue #247 for the fats that are good for you). Cashew butter and almond butter are loaded with fat and delicious — and good for you. Who needs hot dogs?     And even though the feds say that small amounts of sodium nitrite in processed meats probably won't cause cancer, consider playing it safe by making wiser choices.     When you feel the yen for bacon or sausage, many health food stores offer meat products that are nitrate-free. These products often have the word "uncured" on the packaging. References from 1st article: "Chronic Diseases and Health Promotion." Chronic Diseases Home: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/overview/index.htm "Dietary fat and breast cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition." By Sieri S., et al.American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2008 Nov;88(5):1304-12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18996867 "Let Food Be Your Medicine: Diet and Cancer Prevention." By Lorenzo Cohen, PhD, Huffington Post Blog, 17 Feb 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lorenzo-cohen-phd/diet-cancer- prevention_b_2665176.html "Smoking Cessation More Successful for Cancer Patients Who Quit Before Surgery." Reprinted from materials provided by Moffitt Cancer Center. 23 January 2013. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130123093723.htm "Vegetarian diets and the incidence of cancer in a low-risk population." By Tantamango-Bartley Y, et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013 Feb;22(2):286-94. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23169929 "Vegetarianism." American Cancer Society. http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/ complementaryandalternativemedicine/dietandnutrition/vegetarianism "World Cancer Day." CDC Features: Features by Date. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/features/worldcancerday/ Resources from 2nd article: Adams, M. 2009. Processed meats linked to 74 percent higher risk of leukemia. NaturalNews website. Retrieved from http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000708_sodium_nitrite_ leukemia_processed_meat.html#ixzz2RzIViQYl Barnard, N. 2011. Could processed meat give you cancer? Huffpost Healthy Living blog entry. Retrieved online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neal-barnard-md/processed- meat-cancer_b_919034.html Chao, A et al. 2005, Jan 12. Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association. Available online at http://jama.jamanetwork.com/issue.aspx?journalid=67&issueid=4959&direction=P Chen-yu, L. et al. 2009. Cured meat, vegetables, and bean-curd foods in relation to childhood acute leukemia risk: A population based case-control study. BMC Cancer 2009, 9:15 doi:10.1186/1471-2407-9-15. Available online at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/9/15 DeNoon, D.J. 2005. Eating 3 Ounces of Red Meat Per Day May Beef Up Cancer Risk. WebMD Health News article. Retrieved online at http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20050111/red-meat-eaters- risk-colon-cancer Niedziocha, L. 2011 Red meat and cancer—fact or fiction. Livestrong website article. Available online at http://www.livestrong.com/article/404623-red-meat-cancer-fact-or-fiction/ Gallagher, J. 2012. Processed meat linked to pancreatic cancer. BBC News. Retreived online at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16526695 Sinha, R. et al. Meat and meat-related compounds and risk of prostate cancer in a large prospective cohort study in the United States. Am. J. Epidemiol. (2009) 170(9): 1165-1177; first published online October 6, 2009 doi:10.1093/aje/kwp280. Available at http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/170/9/1165.full Editor in Chief: Lee Euler Contributing Editors: Mindy Tyson McHorse, Carol Parks, Roz Roscoe Marketing: Shane Holley Information Technology Advisor: Michelle MatoWebmaster: Steve MacLellan Fulfillment & Customer Service: Joe Ackerson and Cami Lemr

Health Disclaimer: The information provided above is not intended as personal medical advice or instructions. You should not take any action affecting your health without consulting a qualified health professional. The authors and publishers of the information above are not doctors or health-caregivers. The authors and publishers believe the information to be accurate but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. There is some risk associated with ANY cancer treatment, and the reader should not act on the information above unless he or she is willing to assume the full risk. Reminder: You're getting this email because you purchased a special report or book from us, or signed up for our free newsletter and gave us permission to contact you. From time to time we'll alert you to other important information about alternative cancer treatments. If you want to update or remove your email address, please scroll down to the bottom of this page and click on the appropriate link. We're an online cancer bookstore offering Outsmart Your Cancer, Cancer Step Outside the Box, Stop Cancer Before It Starts, Natural Cancer Remedies that Work, Adios-Cancer, Cancer Breakthrough USA, Missing Ingredient For Good Health, German Cancer Breakthrough, How to Cure Almost Any Cancer for $5.15 a Day and Keep Your Gallbladder!