You've Got To See This!

Are There Deadly Cancer Cells

Lurking in Your Body?

Did the world's most accurate and early cancer test

get BURIED to keep a BILLION dollar industry alive?

Join Now!

You never thought THIS could cause cancer

Bet you never thought THIS

could give you cancer...

The next time you clink glasses for a toast… or tip up your cup at a football party… or celebrate TGIF a little too enthusiastically… you might want to give a little thought to how much you drink and how often.

A number of studies show a possible link between alcohol use and an increased risk of developing certain cancers. A lot hangs on that word "possible." Is this one more thing we need to worry about? Or is it a scientific guesstimate we can safely ignore? Let's take a look. . .

Continued below. . .

The super-antioxidant from the sea that can undo years of damage to your heart, brain, joints and nerves This astonishing healing discovery is up to 100 times more potent than blueberries, pomegranates, and even green tea catechins. What if I told you that one simple nutrient can improve your cholesterol, boost circulation, enhance memory and mental sharpness, and even help you sleep better? You'd probably be skeptical.  I certainly was… But then I saw the research from Dr. Haengwoo Lee, a Korean biochemist now living near Seattle, Washington, and my jaw nearly dropped to the floor. Dr. Lee has made a startling discovery that few people, even many alternative health doctors, know about. He and his team have found an antioxidant that's up to 100 times stronger than the familiar antioxidants vitamins C and E, antioxidant-rich fruits like blueberries, pomegranates and even green tea catechins. What is this amazing "super-antioxidant"? Learn More Now

Some researchers say there's little evidence to suggest that moderate alcohol consumption puts you at greater risk for developing the most common cancers.

But how about "moderate" use every day? Many of these investigators are uncertain about how much influence regular alcohol use has on cancer risk.

A variety of studies suggest the more alcohol you consume the greater your risk of developing these cancers:

• Breast
• Colon and rectum
• Esophagus
• Larynx
• Liver
• Lung
• Mouth
• Prostate
• Throat

The reason for the uncertainty stems from conflicting study results. Let's take a look at breast cancer as an example…

Several studies used words like "modest¹," "mild²," and "weak³" to describe the connection between alcohol use and breast cancer.

On the flip side, a study⁴ published in the November 2011 Journal of the American Medical Association said that even moderate alcohol use led to an increase in breast cancer risk!

Still other studies claimed to find no link between alcohol consumption and breast cancer.

Just to add to the confusion—one study⁵ even stated that moderate alcohol use could actually REDUCE breast cancer risk!

And if you think you'll get a clearer opinion from health organizations that research and provide cancer information, don't be surprised to learn that…

Even the cancer "experts" don't agree!

David J. Hanson, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the State University of New York, has researched and written on the subject of alcohol and drinking for over 30 years.

On his website Alcohol: Problems and Solutions⁶, Hanson noted the lack of consensus within the medical community about alcohol increasing risk for developing various cancers.

Hanson found that the National Cancer Institute, the National Library of Medicine, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center all say alcohol is not a risk factor for colorectal cancer.

But several other groups disagree, including the American Cancer Society, the Mayo Clinic, and the Colorectal Cancer Coalition. These groups all advise that heavy drinking may increase the odds of being diagnosed with the disease.

One finding is not in doubt: Alcohol and tobacco used together are especially lethal. Combining alcohol and tobacco greatly increases the risk of developing throat and mouth cancers. You can help reduce your risk for developing these cancers if you quit smoking.

If you're thinking there might be good reason for so many folks to sound a warning, you might also be wondering…

How do researchers think alcohol

raises your cancer risk?

Although the medical community can't say for sure exactly how alcohol affects cancer—they do have a few ideas…

According to the American Cancer Society (ACS)⁷, alcohol may raise cancer risk in any of four different ways:

• Damages body tissues—some researchers think alcohol may irritate and damage mouth and throat cells. As the cells try to repair themselves, it may cause DNA changes that lead to cancer. What's more, alcohol changes bacteria in the colon and rectum into acetaldehyde. Studies show this chemical causes cancer in lab animals.
• Decreases nutrient absorption—your body needs the B vitamin folate to help it produce and maintain new cells. Alcohol may reduce your ability to absorb folate in foods. And low folate levels can increase your risk of breast and colorectal cancers.
• Sparks hormone changes—alcohol may raise your estrogen levels. Because this hormone regulates breast tissue growth, it may impact breast cancer risk.
• Triggers harmful chemical reactions—ACS said alcohol may help toxic chemicals enter cells in your digestive tract. It may also slow your ability to break down and flush away these harmful chemicals.

The ACS said there may be other as yet unknown ways that alcohol may contribute to cancer. For this reason, the group recommends limitations of no more than 2 drinks per day for men, and 1 drink a day for women. Maybe I'm straitlaced, but to me that sounds like plenty of drinking.

In addition to this establishment take on alcohol and cancer, I'd also note that a shot of alcohol is a big shot of sugar. As regular readers of this newsletter know, sugar is just about the most pro-cancer food you can eat.

Aside from the fact that many alcoholic drinks are high in sugar, the alcohol itself is quickly metabolized into sugar in your body. This means any alcoholic drink sends your sugar levels soaring, even if it's a drink we don't normally consider sweet, such as scotch or beer.

I always marvel when I meet a diabetic who has enough will power to push away desserts, but drinks alcohol as if it's harmless. The alcohol has to go, too. Think of it as liquid sugar. As for people who have cancer, both alcohol and sugar are out of the question.

Even if the scientific studies produce a mixed bag of results… and you find that you're uncertain about what to believe…

…one thing for sure is that it certainly won't HARM you to limit your alcohol consumption.

And if you drink red wine because of its proven cardiovascular benefits—remember that you also achieve these results with a healthy diet and a regular exercise program.

Resveratrol is thought to be the component in red wine that's responsible for most of the health benefits. Take it as a supplement and avoid any possible downside associated with heavy drinking.

That's an 'ounce of prevention' you can feel good about adding to your glass!

Speaking of foods for which it's hard to figure out the cancer risk, we wrote about another one in the last issue. If you missed it, scroll down and take a look now.

Genetically modified foods: Safe to eat?

Lee Euler, Editor Cancer Defeated

Are "Frankenfoods" Really All that Scary? Those who make and eat GM (genetically modified) foods say they're the answer to mass starvation and disease. Those who shun GM technology say it'll be the cause of mass starvation and disease. They call these foods "Frankenfoods," with a nod to Frankenstein, the monster humanoid created by runaway, out-of-control science. GM food is a hot-button issue right now. The subject arouses intense emotions, often based on a minimum of information. Most important of all is the question of how GM foods might affect our long-term health. Let's first look at the facts. Continued below. . . Toxic chemical condemned 8 men to die of prostate cancer . . .but one of them escaped. Here's how he did it! John S. watched helplessly as 7 of his Vietnam platoon buddies died of prostate cancer, one by one. They were exposed to chemicals during the war that caused them to get cancer when they reached middle age. Then, in 2002, John found out it was his turn. He got opinions from three different doctors and they all told him the same thing: he'd need a miracle to survive. John found the miracle he needed. Four years after his diagnosis, he told us, "I am healthy and happy with no symptoms of the disease." He actually wishes he'd gotten the disease sooner so he could have told his Army buddies this secret. It might have saved their lives. We're ALL exposed every day to chemicals similar to the ones that killed these veterans. A man is just about certain to get prostate cancer if he lives long enough. That means John's life-saving secret is big news for men everywhere. Click here and keep reading. . . Don’t Touch My Prostate!  Vietnam vet cures his own prostate cancer! Seven guys from his Vietnam platoon had already died of prostate cancer, one by one.  Some were ONLY IN THEIR 50s!  Exposure to a toxic chemical during the war condemned them to death.  So when John S. got the disease, doctors said he’d need a miracle to survive. That’s when John S. tried an amazing natural prostate cancer breakthrough, one that’s prized in some of the top alternative clinics around the world. The result? He wiped out his cancer COMPLETELY! This same natural remedy can save you, your prostate, and your sex drive from the surgeon’s knife. You need to know this valuable information, because ALL of us are exposed every day to the kind of chemicals that gave these men cancer. When food meets technology GM foods come from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). They consist of food organisms that were modified via molecular biology techniques that promote selective breeding. GMOs undergo much more specific changes than what you get from standard, Luther-Burbank-style mutation breeding, which is time-consuming and not always accurate. The goal behind genetic food modification is to increase desired traits in food sources. For instance a plant such as corn might be modified to produce higher resistance to weed killers and better nutritional content. The science involved is incredible, but scary. For example, a plant geneticist can take a highly drought-tolerant plant, identify the gene that's responsible for drought tolerance, and insert it into a plant that doesn't have it. The new plant then becomes drought-tolerant. Not only can scientists transfer genes from plant to plant, they can also transfer genes between plants and non-plant organisms. The best example of this happened when plant geneticists created a strain of corn that produced its own pesticides against insects. They did it by taking Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.), which is a natural bacterium that makes proteins lethal to insect larvae, and inserting the B.t. gene into corn. The bulk of GM foods are staple foods like soybean, corn, rice, and canola. Some animal products have been developed, though none are on the market as of this writing. GM foods first entered the market a mere 15 years ago in 1996. By 2010, 10% of the world's crop land was planted with GM crops, and most of those were in North America. And yet it could save the world… The world population is now at 7 billion, on track to double in 50 years. This means having enough food to go around is a big concern. GM advocates say genetically modified food is the answer. For one, GM plantings increase the production of food per acre, which is important since the world is running out of farmland. Plus, GM plants have better pest and disease resistance and can tolerate herbicides. For that matter, GM plants can be created to tolerate cold, drought, and salinity. This means we can grow food in places previously unfit for crops, like the desert, or areas with high salt content. Benefits go beyond even that. Proponents say GM foods can improve nutrition in third world countries by injecting staple foods — like rice — with more vitamins and minerals. And right now, researchers are working to develop GM foods with edible vaccines. Since medicines and vaccines cost a lot to produce, store, and ship to the people who need them most (for instance, people in poor countries), it makes a lot of sense to embed those vaccines in something like a potato. There's also a pro-environmental side. To date, plants like poplar trees have been genetically engineered to clean up heavy metal pollution from contaminated soil. In this case, what we don't know might really hurt us Of course, there's a downside. The biggest one is that we just don't know what the long-term effects of GM foods will be. Already, there's evidence of unintentional harm. A study in Nature showed that pollen from B.t. corn caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars. Even though monarch caterpillars eat milkweed plants, not corn, the fear is that pollen from B.t. corn could contaminate milkweed plants on neighboring fields and destroy the caterpillars. (I should point out this topic is being debated heavily by both sides since the study wasn't conducted under natural field conditions.) Regardless of the study's accuracy, it's not yet possible to make a B.t. toxin that only kills crop-damaging pests while sparing the good insects. On top of that, there's a concern that insects will just become resistant to B.t. crops, or any other kind of crop genetically-modified to create its own pesticide. There's also a concern about gene transfer to non-target species. People are worried the crops that are weed-resistant will crossbreed with weeds to create a "superweed" that withstands all weed killers. But the biggest and scariest disadvantage to GM crops are the unknown human health risks. Life-threatening allergies among children in the U.S. and Europe to things like peanuts and strawberries are a constant concern for millions of parents. The introduction of new genes into our food could create a new allergen. Another potential hazard is the risk that bacteria in our guts could pick up antibiotic-resistant genes found in GM foods. (These are genes added to GM plants as "markers" to tell food geneticists which plants have exotic genes.) It's feasible that this type of transfer could prompt the spread of disease-causing bacteria that are immune to antibiotics. GMOs are already leading food production Regulation is also a problem. In the United States, three different government agencies preside over GM food issues: the EPA looks at environmental safety, the USDA decides whether GM foods are safe to grow, and the FDA decides whether GM foods are safe to eat. Not only does that add layers of bureaucracy to the issue, it also puts the safety of our health in the hands of politicians or, perhaps worse, unelected bureaucrats. In March of 2011, an alliance of consumers, family farmers, and those against corporate agriculture protested what they call the consolidation of our nation's food system. They claim Monsanto, the main producer of GM seeds, effectively controls the U.S. commercial seed market. The alliance charges that the company has bought up independent seed companies, and that it continues to spike prices. They accuse Monsanto of market dominance and worry that seed diversity in this country will decline. Note: Monsanto is the company behind some of the biggest herbicide-resistant GM plants, those grown from "Roundup Ready" seeds. Right now, this trait — resistance to weed-killers -- is embedded in the majority of all soybeans and corn grown in the U.S. The idea is that a crop can be sprayed with Round-Up, killing the weeds but sparing the corn or soybeans. Unfortunately, the weeds are evolving and have developed resistance to Round-Up, much the way bacteria have developed resistance to antibiotics. The top three GMO users, the U.S., Argentina, and Brazil, produce 81% of the world's total corn supplies and 89% of the soybean supplies. China and India are adopting the technology, though Indian citizens are campaigning against this change. Most of Europe is largely opposed to GMOs. Is this the end of true, organic food? I've seen reports that wildlife, such as migrating birds, will not touch GMO corn when grown right next to non-GMO corn. As a matter of fact, no animals appear to consume GM food by choice. What do these animals sense that we're missing? So what I wonder is, when we eat foods genetically altered to produce chemicals designed to kill other forms of life, what type of effect will that have on us? You're probably already eating GMOs, even if you don't realize it. The FDA doesn't require labels on GM foods. Unless you eat and drink organic foods exclusively, you're eating GMOs. If you eat anything pre-packaged and processed, or any foods with corn, soybeans, canola oil, or high fructose corn syrup, you're probably eating GMOs. There's no sign this is going to change. Even Whole Foods agreed to sell GMO, herbicide-resistant alfalfa in January of 2011. Heads of other organic proponents like Organic Valley and Stonyfield Farm have also said they're not opposed to the mass commercialization of GM crops. Will there be any true organic food left at all in another decade? I don't know, but I do know that the quality of the food we eat more or less governs our health. There are no long term studies to assure us, for certain, that GM foods are harmless. We don't know enough at this point. It strikes me as a gamble. A friend of mine who's a biochemist tells me the gene for herbicide resistance "expresses" only in the leaves and stalk of the corn plant, not in the ear which produces the corn kernels we actually eat. It's analogous to a human brain cell being different from a human bone cell — different genes express in different parts of an organism while remaining dormant in the rest of the body. This is the main support for the position that GM foods are safe. The herbicidal gene is present in the part of the corn plant we eat — all of an organism's genes are present in every cell of that organism -- but the gene isn't actually doing anything. This is some comfort, but it's well short of ironclad proof of safety.

Is Living with a Smoker Hazardous to Your Health?

Date Released: 12/12/2011

Is Living with a Smoker Hazardous to Your Health? Old joke: Q: Do you mind if I smoke? A: Heck, I don't mind if you go up in flames. I guess a lot of folks feel that way about smokers. The habit has been banned practically everywhere. If you're a smoker these days, you pretty much have to do it outside or in the privacy of your own home or car. The premise is that breathing in someone else's tobacco smoke can harm a non-smoker's health, too. But is it true? Or just an over-reaction? I review the evidence below. But first, I'm proud to announce we've just published a new Special Report called The 31-Day Home Cancer Cure. It's a quick summary of a new plan for beating cancer, written by a top cancer expert. He's spent years studying the subject, and this report is confined to the very best things a cancer patient can do on his own. More details on this new Special Report are in the sidebar just below, or you can click here. Main article continued below. . . Shocked doctors were forced to eat crow after their patients tried The 31-Day Home Cancer Cure "You're a miracle from God!" said Richard Wiebe's doctor after he used The 31-Day Home Cancer Cure to get rid of so-called "terminal" brain cancer. "Congratulations! You're cancer free!" declared Rev. Cobus Rudolph's doctor after Rev. Rudolph used The 31-Day Home Cancer Cure to get rid of his "hopeless" stage four colon cancer. "Are you the terminal patient I saw two months ago? You look great!" That's what Kevin Irish's doctor exclaimed after Kevin used The 31-Day Home Cancer Cure to get rid of his stage four lung cancer. "Well, I know the cancer is here somewhere!" That's what Frank Woll's doctor said when he couldn't find the cancer with a magnifying glass. A month before, the doc had said they'd have to cut off half of Frank's ear and part of his neck! These four men got TOTALLY WELL with The 31-Day Home Cancer Cure. Watch this important video presentation and see for yourself. Inhaling environmental tobacco smoke is called passive smoking. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)1, exposure to secondhand smoke has been linked to the development of asthma, bronchitis, ear infection and pneumonia in children. Adults may notice some short-term effects in the form of coughing… eye irritation... headaches… nausea… and sore throats. I can't be around it myself for a long period of time. It irritates my eyes to the point where I get "pink-eye" (aka conjunctivitis). So it suits me that there's less smoke around these days. Worse still, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that non-smoking adults who breathe secondhand smoke are at increased risk for heart attack. The U.S. Surgeon General says that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker's chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent. In fact, passive smoking causes about 3,400 lung cancer deaths each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States. This is based on a straightforward comparison of households where there's a smoker to households where there isn't. It's pretty persuasive. Here's why passive smoking is so dangerous… Secondhand smoke is a mixture of gases and particles that smokers exhale as well as those released from the burning end of a cigarette. According to the National Cancer Institute3, secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals—many of which are toxic and about 70 of which are carcinogens. Let's take a look at ten terrible toxins lurking in secondhand cigarette smoke. We'll start with… Acetone—a chemical often used in solvents which can irritate your eyes, nose and throat. Prolonged exposure can seriously harm your liver and kidneys. Arsenic—this heavy metal toxin is one of the most dangerous chemicals found in cigarettes. Arsenic can severely damage your heart and blood vessels. And when arsenic builds up in your body, it prevents your DNA from repairing itself, which increases your risk of developing cancer. Benzene— this chemical is used as an industrial solvent and is found in vehicle emissions and gas fumes. Benzene exposure is associated with an increased risk of developing leukemia. Cadmium—small amounts of this metal occur naturally in air, food, soil and water. Cadmium is used to produce batteries, plastics and some metallic products. Cadmium exposure at high levels may cause health problems, including a variety of cancers. Chromium— good for your health when ingested in tiny amounts, but when inhaled in large amounts this metallic element is known to increase lung cancer risk. In fact, studies of mine workers exposed to chromium showed that cigarette smoking dramatically increased their risk of developing lung cancer Formaldehyde—a chemical used in particleboard, plywood and foam insulation as well as cigarette smoke. Prolonged exposure to formaldehyde can cause lung damage, nasal cancer, skin irritation, and stomach problems. Lead— the same lead found in paint, solder, and metal alloys is also an ingredient in many cigarettes! Lead exposure can damage your brain and kidneys. It can also cause anemia… stomach problems… and even damage to reproductive organs. Nickel—commonly used in dental fillings, stainless steel and batteries, nickel exposure can cause asthma, bronchitis and respiratory problems. Prolonged exposure has been linked to cancer of the lungs, nose and sinuses. Inhaling nickel is also thought to cause cancers of the stomach and throat. Polonium 210—this rare element emits alpha radiation. Inhaling polonium in cigarette smoke can cause this element to build up in the lungs. A study described by Cancer Research UK estimates that smoking half a pack of cigarettes a day provides a radiation dose equivalent to 300 chest X-rays each year! Vinyl Chloride—exposure to this chemical used to produce plastic is associated with an increased risk of brain, liver and lung cancers as well as leukemia and lymphoma. Whew! That's just 10 of the thousands of chemicals you're inhaling with every breath of secondhand smoke. But some folks would have you believe that members of the scientific and medical communities are merely blowing smoke when they warn you about inhaling these toxins… Wanna guess how the tobacco industry weighed in? The tobacco industry responded to the claims of the medical establishment by funding their own scientific studies to exonerate passive smoking. For example, a 2003 study4 published in the British Medical Journal claimed that no causal relationship could be established between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related deaths. The study also found that the association between secondhand smoke and diseases like heart disease and lung cancer may be "considerably weaker than generally believed." These conclusions sharply contrast with declarations made by the EPA, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer—who have all classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen. A few simple steps can help you avoid becoming a passive smoker! So what can you do to protect yourself? Well if you're a smoker, try to limit your smoking to outdoor areas away from other people. And if you're not a smoker, you're probably grateful for government regulations and other policies that restrict smoking on airplanes, in workplaces, some restaurants and other public venues. One sure thing is that every step you take to reduce your exposure to cigarette toxins can certainly help prevent your good health from disappearing in a puff of smoke.

Two "berry" good solutions to cancer

Two "berry" good solutions to cancer-Lee Euler Publisher, Cancer Defeated and Natural Cancer Remedies that Work

Date Released: 12/06/2011

Cancer Defeated Update By Lee Euler Two "berry" good solutions to cancer Every day at Cancer Defeated we learn about new, exciting alternative cancer treatments. I'll bring you the news in these updates. One promising and totally risk-free breakthrough is plain old red raspberries. A doctor at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) has discovered a nutrient in this delicious fruit that stops the division of cancer cells. And before you say, "I can't eat raspberries every day," let me tell you more good news: you can take red raspberry capsules or a red raspberry concentrate available on the market. In fact, the concentrate was used in the South Carolina study that demonstrated the power of this new remedy. Encouraging results against a variety of cancers Dr. Daniel Nixon of MUSC began studying ellagic acid in 1993. This naturally occurring plant phenol may turn out to be one of the most powerful ways to prevent cancer before you get it AND inhibit the growth of cancer cells already in progress. Dr. Nixon's study demonstrated that ellagic acid causes cancer cells to experience the same pre-programmed death as normal cells -- instead of the runaway cell division that usually characterizes cancer. He studied cervical cancer cells, but tests reveal similar results for colon, breast, prostate, pancreatic, skin and other cancers. The results hold up in animal experiments whether the critters are fed natural ellagic acid or synthetic ellagic acid. If you prefer real red raspberries (and who wouldn't?) our sources suggest one cup a day. As for the extract, you may be able to buy it online at HealthWize LLC, email address: sales(at)hwize.com. (We don't stand behind this company and have no affiliation with them). Our advice, get professional help when using these breakthroughs The easiest, best way of all to battle cancer is to put yourself in the hands of an alternative doctor who knows about the power of raw, unprocessed foods -- and about all the other effective cancer treatments available. We can help you find the right doctor with our Special Report called Adios Cancer -- How rich and poor alike beat cancer in clinics south of the border.. As you can probably guess, the clinics we reveal in this special report are foreign because so many of the best, most effective cancer treatments are illegal in the United States. Just look at one example: a proven therapy called hyperthermia is just about unavailable in the United States. It's based on the discovery that a high fever -- like you'd get with measles, for example -- is known to cure cancer. Alternative doctors have found safe, effective ways to harness this discovery (without giving you an infection!) -- but you can't obtain this treatment in the United States. It's just my private opinion, but if I found out I had cancer I would refuse to be treated at any clinic that does NOT offer hyperthermia. Now, a reliable guide to clinics that will help you In our new Special Report, Adios Cancer, you'll find out that a lot of millionaires and celebrities agree with me. They know about these foreign cancer clinics and make a beeline for them when they need treatment. The heir to the Max Factor cosmetics fortune suffered from lung cancer that had spread to his liver and spine. "You have only six months to live," his doctors told him. Instead, he headed for one of the clinics revealed in this Special Report and found a doctor who uses banned-in-the-U.S.A. cancer treatments. This wealthy man was alive and cancer-free 20 years later! Just click here on Adios Cancer to learn more about this valuable information and place your order.