US Sports Net Today!


Live Play-by-Play, Updates, Highlights and More! on US Sports Network!
[Chrome Users-You may have to click on the play button twice to listen]
US Sports Network Powered By Beast Sports Nutrition!




US Sports Radio
The Las Vegas Raiders Play Here
Fitness and Sports Performance Info You Can Use!
The Scoreboard Mall
The Rock Almighty Shaker Of Heaven And Earth!
The Coolest Links In The Universe!
Showing posts with label treatment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label treatment. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

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…

Cancer Defeated Publications 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/.

Like Us on Facebook


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/
Cancer Defeated Publications

Thursday, July 18, 2013

LIVESTRONG Fitness Releases new Mission Statement

LIVESTRONG Fitness is part of Johnson Health Tech (JHT), a name synonymous with quality fitness solutions for more than 30 years. Their commitment to product innovation, superior value and unmatched customer service has made JHT a leading provider of high-quality home and commercial fitness equipment around the world. In addition, Johnson Health Tech is a proud partner of the LIVESTRONG Foundation in the fight against cancer. Each purchase ensures that a minimum of $4 million will go to the LIVESTRONG - Foundation to improve the lives of people affected by cancer.

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Just say no to this dangerous test

Cancer Defeated Publications

X-rays are a major cause of cancer


    We Americans are the most over-X-rayed people on earth, and the heavy doses of radiation we get are a major, and growing, cause of cancer. A British study suggests nearly one percent of all cancer cases in the United States (0.9 percent, to be exact) are due to diagnostic X-rays. That's a full 50 percent more than in the UK, where about 0.6 percent of cancers are caused by doctors taking pictures. The Brits don't subject patients to as many X-rays as we do.

    Doctors, of course, would have us believe the benefits of X-rays outweigh the "small" increase in risk. One cancer out of a hundred may not sound like much, but just imagine if, say, a supplement like C0Q10 were found to be the cause of one percent of all cancers. It would be pulled off the shelves so fast your head would spin, and there would be no talk of balancing the dangers with the benefits (which happen to be enormous for this supplement).

    What does radiation do to you? Let's take a look...

Continued below...


Flip Your Body's Energy Switch to "ON"
    Without Caffeine, Sugar, Herbal Stimulants or that Tropical Vacation You Don't Have Time For...

    If you're feeling tired and sluggish too often ... lacking your old pep and enthusiasm ... and relying on caffeine, energy drinks or sugary snacks to make it through the day...

    There is now a PROVEN, NATURAL SOLUTION that takes care of all of your energy problems so you....
  • Wake up well-rested and hop out of bed
  • Walk, bicycle, play tennis or golf with energy left over
  • Wipe away brain fog and think clearly with sharper focus
  • Increase your stamina and endurance throughout the day
  • Feel more alive than you have in decades!
    PLUS: Support balanced blood sugar and blood pressure... maintain a slim waistline... reignite your sex drive... and feel happier and healthier than you have in decades!

    Learn More in this FREE Special Report


We're in the middle of an X-ray epidemic
    American medicine has gone X-ray crazy. The total amount of X-radiation we receive went upsix times from 1990 to 2006, according to the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (2009, Report 160).

    The New England Journal of Medicine says CT scans alone account for half the medical imaging dose we get. The article estimates that CT scans cause something like four out of every thousand cancers (Issue 357). The number of patients getting very high doses doubled every yearfrom 1996 to 2010, says the Journal of the American Medical Association.

    A recent study of people who had cancer when they were children demonstrates the dangers of radiation. More than 95 percent of them suffered from chronic health problems by the time they were 45, including lung, hearing and heart problems.

    You see, radiation damage is long term and shows up decades later. As Dr. Melissa Hudson, one of the study's authors, puts it, "Doctors may not be thinking about a heart-valve disorder in someone in his 30s, but if you had radiation to your chest at 10, this is something to think about."

    The findings, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, are based on detailed physicals conducted on 1,700 adults who were treated for cancer at St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital in Memphis from ten to 40 years ago.

    The researchers found that the parts of the body treated then are precisely the ones that are falling apart now. There's strong evidence that conventional cancer treatments accelerate the aging process of organs. The damage is profound, but it's not evident right away.

    Adult survivors who received radiation to the brain as children suffer from thinking and memory problems typical of much older people. Those who were subjected to chest X-rays are likely to have heart-valve changes, including scarring and leaky valves. For this group of people whose average age was 33, "the health problems were considered striking" (the Wall Street Journal'schoice of words, not mine.)

    These people were cancer survivors — you could argue their treatment was successful. But two points are worth making. One is that alternative treatments could have done the job gently, with no damage, instead of the lifetime health problems these young people now face. There are something like 395,000 childhood cancer survivors in our country. This is a vast tragedy.

    The second point is that those of us who just receive routine diagnostic X-rays — not cancer treatment — face similar risks.
Everyday X-rays and your risk of cancer
    To be fair, the doses of radiation used to treat cancer patients are vastly great than those you receive in diagnostic X-rays. But X-ray damage is permanent and cumulative, so all those "little, routine" X-rays add up. Once the damage is done, it never goes away. And each time you have another X-ray, you add to it. Given the escalating use of X-rays in our medical system, the problem can only get worse.

    When I was young, I had many chronic health problems myself and received tons of X-rays, so this is personal with me. The X-rays never turned up anything useful. The results were always negative. The problems I was trying to solve — chronic headaches, chronic body pain and fatigue, terrible GI-tract upset, unhealthy skin — were all eventually solved by alternative medicine.

    My health problems were mostly due to the Standard American Diet (SAD), consisting of sugar and other refined carbs, hormone-and-drug-fed beef and chicken, heaven knows what preservatives and other chemicals, over-cooked vegetables, no fiber and a desperate lack of nutrients. X-rays were never going to identify any of those problems, but if you walk into a doctor's office with head pain or back pain or intestinal problems, you're probably going to get an X-ray.

    I have plenty of company when it comes to being over-X-rayed. It's normal, and the consequences are a disaster. A study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute found, for example, that women who had had an average of 25 back X-rays had a 70 percent greater risk of dying of breast cancer than the general population. If you think nobody ever has 25 X-rays, ask a friend with long-term chronic pain. I had four back X-rays that I can remember, maybe more.

    A recent study at the University of Hong Kong found that the risk of soft-tissue sarcoma is doubled if a person receives an amount of radiation equivalent to two CT head scans. One of the study's authors, Dr. Dino Samartzis, said, "The study has highlighted that even low to moderate levels of exposure are enough to cause genetic mutation."

    Yup, I had a brain scan, too, for those mystery headaches I used to have, plus a full set of sinus X-rays.

    In one recent year, 2008, a study found that 1.65 million children received a CT scan during a visit to an emergency room — five times as many as in 1994. A CT scan is equivalent to three to seven years of absorption of the amount of radiation we get naturally from the environment — all packed into a few minutes. A child exposed to just two or three scans faces three times the risk of developing brain cancer later in life.

    A couple of years ago, TV star Dr. Mehmet Oz set off a mini panic when he noted that thyroid cancer is the fastest-growing cancer in women. As one of the causes he cited the harmful effects of radiation from sources like dental X-rays and mammograms.

    Thyroid cancer is pretty rare. It accounts for only about 3 cancers out a hundred in women. It's also highly treatable and nearly everyone who gets it survives. But who needs any kind of cancer? Your dentist should X-ray no more than one or two of your teeth a year. If he's doing a full X-ray every year, get a new dentist.

    One of the strongest voices against our X-ray mania was the late Dr. John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D. and Professor at the University of California at Berkeley. He wrote six books on the effects of ionizing radiation on health, his last title being Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease. In this 700-page tome, he presented strong evidence that medical X-rays not only play an important role in causing half of all cancer cases, but also cause 60 percent of heart disease cases.

    X-rays are not the only causes of these diseases (see my previous comments about diet) but they are major causes. Preventing cancer is the fine art of trimming your exposure a little bit here and a little bit there, wherever you have the opportunity. Never say, "It's just one little X-ray" — especially if you've already dozens during your life up to this point.

    Sometimes you need an X-ray to diagnose a medical problem, but they should generally be avoided and resisted. This newsletter is on record against mammograms, the most common unnecessary (and largely useless) use of X-rays. Consider thermography. It's a better way to diagnose breast cancer.

    When a doctor urges (or orders) an X-ray, ask whether an MRI or ultrasound is possible instead. These diagnostic tests involve no radiation at all. Refuse X-rays that are part of a general physical "just to make sure everything's all right." If you don't have any symptoms, why have an X-ray?

    One thing that's under your control is your exposure to natural radiation from radon. Check your home and, if possible, your work place to ensure you're not being irradiated every day without even knowing it. As bad as medical X-rays are, radon accounts for an enormous portion of the public's exposure to radiation. 21,000 lung cancer deaths a year are attributed to radon, second only to smoking.

Like Us on Facebook



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! 
Cancer Defeated Publications

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Are You Being Tricked Into Eating Cancer-Causing Foods?


    It's scary to think you don't know what you're really buying at the supermarket. But this is the reality for most everyone in America — and some countries beyond. It's almost impossible to tell if what you're buying is laced with genetically modified foods (GM foods), also known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs).




    Worse still, you may think you're vigilant about eating only "natural" or organic foods, but in a cruel twist of irony, most natural foods in America do contain some GM ingredients.


    And despite their hypey claims of the last decade-and-a-half, GM foods are increasingly being linked to disease — including cancer. There's only one way to be sure you're not slowly poisoning your system.


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 on Breast Cancer Coverup

Too good to be true
    I covered GMO foods for the first time in Newsletter #144, where we looked at the claims for bioengineered foods — and the accusations against them.

    The claims make GMOs sound like they will save the world. Advocates say GM foods will control pests and weeds, create seeds that resist drought, and supplement starving cultures with vitamins and abundant amounts of food.

    To date, some sixteen years later, none of those claims have been conclusively proven. Instead, we may be on the brink of an agricultural nightmare.

    Worse, substantial health problems linked to GMOs are starting to surface. Studies are uncovering links to fertility problems and birth defects. There's a cancer link that's been confirmed both by a Russian study and by British environmentalists. Significant organ damage also appears to result from eating certain GM foods.

    On top of all that, we're facing the destruction of biodiversity and the demise of farmers' livelihoods. Really, it's a threat to our basic freedoms — the ability to choose what we eat and to know what we've chosen.

    At the heart of all the controversy is Monsanto, the giant seed company working to pump the world full of genetically modified crops.
"Worst company of 2011"
    Greed and a total disregard for human welfare appear to rule Monsanto, assuming recent allegations against the company hold water.

    In the past, Monsanto has gotten well-deserved flak for suing small farmers for patent infringement when GM seed traits spread into fields surrounding GM crops. Monsanto has also been found guilty of polluting American rivers and landfills with toxic waste. And then recently, Monsanto was declared the worst company of 2011 by the Natural Society for its threat to both the environment and human health.

    Right now, the government of India is in the process of suing Monsanto on bio-piracy charges. They claim the biotech giant failed to get approval before attempting to create GM versions of local eggplant varieties, thereby violating the Indian Biological Diversity Act of 2002.

    The company shows a long pattern of fraud and apathy toward health and sustainability. From where I sit, it looks like it's all about money. After all, records show the company spent $1.4 million lobbying the federal government last year. $2.5 million was spent the year before, and $1.9 million the year before that (small change for this big company, though.)

    Monsanto's lobbying efforts are targeted toward Congress and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to make sure no hint of GM crop regulation is ever passed. This especially includes disclosing on the packaging when foods contain GMOs.
What you can do to protect yourself
    By some measures, at least 70 percent of the food in your typical American grocery store is laced with GM foods. You just don't know it, thanks to the massive lobbying efforts of U.S. lawmakers by Monsanto to prevent labeling requirements.

    That doesn't mean there's no hope. It was a grassroots effort that got GM foods out of Europe and other countries, not legislation. Consumers rejected GM foods, forcing food manufacturers to remove GM ingredients. According to EU law, all foods with any amount of GMOs or GMO ingredients must be labeled.

    As of this writing, GM foods are banned in Germany, Ireland, Hungary, France, and Peru. Peru even went to the effort of passing a monumental 10-year ban on all GM foods — and this was despite previous governmental pressure to legalize GMOs.

    The problem is, you have to know which foods to reject. That's not easy, since Monsanto has fought tooth and nail against labeling laws.

    Which means our only answer is education.

    Here's what you can do to protect yourself right now:
  • Buy organic products whenever possible. Just keep in mind you're only guaranteed to be buying GMO-free if there's a label that says "100% USDA Organic." By definition, foods that carry this label must be free of all GM organisms.
  • Don't eat processed foods. Most contain soy and corn products, and these are almost guaranteed to be heavy with GMOs.
  • Use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide when deciding which brands and products to buy. I suggest you print it out and take it with you when you go to the store. If you have an iPhone, download the free app called "ShopNoGMO."
  • Don't buy something simply because it has one of the following labels: natural, naturally made, naturally grown, all natural, or any derivative of those terms. The use of the word "natural" is not regulated and products with those labels often contain substantial amounts of GMOs.
  • Avoid processed foods, and anything with maltodextrin, soy lecithin, and high fructose corn syrup. Also, avoid aspartame (NutraSweet) and Milk with rbGH.
  • Avoid non-organic varieties of zucchini and crookneck squash, as well as papayas from Hawaii.
  • Look at the PLU code on the produce stickers of the fruits and vegetables at the supermarket. Organic produce has five digits, starting with the number 9. Conventionally-grown produce has four digits, starting with the number 4. GM fruit has five numbers, starting with the number 8.
Push now for truth-in-labeling
    I won't deny it's a nice idea to use science to fix the world's problems, especially when it comes to our food supply.

    But evidence against bioengineered food continues to mount, and if something isn't done soon there's a real risk these problems will only escalate. There's hope, at least. For starters, polls over the last 16 years show between 85% and 95% of Americans want mandatory labels on GMO foods.

    And we're already seeing some progress. A bill was recently introduced in Vermont that would require food to be labeled as GM food whether it was made entirely or even partially with GMOs. The bill would also forbid use of the misleading slew of "natural" labels. In April of this year, the Vermont House Agriculture Committee voted in favor of the bill. They now await judiciary approval. California has a similar bill underway.

    It's said that a Monsanto executive once remarked, "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it." To him, that means it would merely alarm people for no reason. To me, a skull and crossbones sounds like truth in labeling.

    There's no question we need truth-in-labeling. And the only way to get it is by action at the grassroots level. One of the things you can do is put pressure on big supermarket chains and natural food retailers to implement their own labeling practices.

    Personally, I look forward to the day when we can once again be sure of what we buy in the store. In the meantime, I urge you to take the steps listed above to protect yourself from the potential threats of GM food.

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

The latest high tech prostate cancer treatment

Press Release Image Online Publishing and Marketing
You Can Now Treat Prostate Cancer with
the Most Expensive Medical Device
in the History of the World

    If you've heard that proton therapy is the magic bullet for prostate cancer, be warned: There's a lot of money tied up in this therapy, but not a lot of research. That's a scary combination for any health treatment. Let's look at the facts. . .

Continued below. . .



Toxic chemical condemned 8 men to die of prostate cancer
. . .but one of them escaped. [Search "Don't Touch My Prostate"] 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 [Search "Don't Touch My Prostate"] and keep reading. . .



This treatment definitely has some advantages

    Proton therapy isn't even a new breakthrough, although the public didn't get interested till recently.

    The therapy was initially prompted by Dr. James Slater of Massachusetts General, who first started harvesting protons from a Harvard cyclotron in the early 1960s. Dr. Slater had been disheartened by the side effects of radiation treatment (using X-rays) and has since devoted most of his professional life to bringing proton-based treatments to medical facilities.


    Proton therapy itself is fairly simple. It uses a beam of protons to inject a tumor with radiation. Protons are one of the three main particles that make up atoms (the other two are electrons and neutrons). Protons have a positive charge while electrons have a negative charge.


    Like X-rays, protons wreck the genetic makeup of a tumor. More importantly, proton therapy is much more precise than other radiation therapies, but without the side effects.
Online Publishing and Marketing

    For example, when a patient undergoes X-ray treatment, tissues surrounding the tumor site are easily destroyed. The side-effects and resulting sickness can be overwhelming.


    But in proton therapy, the stream of charged particles can be tailored to the contours of the tumor, without affecting any tissues except the tumor.


    Unfortunately (and like too many things in the medical industry), proton therapy suffers from a money bias. Construction costs for a proton-beam generator can top $200 million, making it the most expensive medical device ever invented.


    One of the reasons the treatment is so expensive is that protons aren't exactly easy to harvest. For proton therapy, protons must be stripped from hydrogen atoms and then moved into a stream that is nearly as fast as the speed of light.


    The device that makes this possible weighs around 220 tons and must be housed in a structure at least the size of a football field. So, beyond the cost of the machine itself come considerable construction expenses for any hospital toying with the idea of offering this treatment.

But here's the worst problem of all. . .

    Proton therapy involves spending a stupefying amount of money on something that doesn't necessarily work better than other prostate cancer treatments. Anthony Zietman, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and past president of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, has gone on record saying proton therapy is a very good treatment for prostates, but "It just doesn't appear to be superior treatment."

    In the world of peer-reviewed journals, they won't be able to say whether proton therapy deserves all the rave reviews it's gotten until somebody puts together a decade-long, randomized trial to see which treatments have the best outcome overall.


    In the meantime, the Internet has become a serious hindrance to spreading accurate information about this treatment. Loads of blogs and websites run by men who had success with their own proton treatment laud the benefits of proton therapy. I don't deny that they have good intentions. Many of these enthusiastic Internet writers feel proton therapy was the best and only cure for their prostate cancers.


    Plus, men love the fact that's it's non-invasive. Who wouldn't? After all, few things shake a man's pride like the idea of losing bladder function or becoming impotent. A man's well-being after conventional radiation or surgery can be very poor indeed.


    But the buzz reminds me of prime-time commercials from the pharmaceutical industry (although more honest, I hope). When you see a commercial for the latest and greatest pill, featuring happy people evangelizing a drug, it's hard not to wonder if it might work for you.


    Just remember, the bloggers are comparing proton therapy to conventional radiation and surgery. To be fair, it IS an improvement — a very expensive one. But why go there at all?


    The problem in this case is that too many websites are written by guys who aren't aware of the costs-versus-benefits of this treatment, much less the benefits of alternative cancer treatments. They're excited by the high-level technology — the ultimate power tool for guys — and they give false hope to millions of men searching the Internet for legitimate answers.


    The bias for proton therapy technology continues to grow with time, making it hard to put together any kind of a reliable study on outcomes. Researchers are finding that men who went in thinking proton treatment was superior, who then have unexpected and unnecessary side effects, still advocate proton therapy as the best choice they could have made.


    Marketers call it "post-purchase dissonance." When people have made an important choice, they have to convince themselves they did the right thing. If the purchase is a let-down, some people go into denial and still insist they made a good choice.


    And remember, as with most medical therapies these days, the advice you get from doctors is subject to a ton of bias. Dr. Zietman, while being interviewed for an article in Men's Health last year, said, "In the absence of knowledge, anything goes. Surgeons recommend their favorite surgery. Radiation oncologists recommend their favorite form of radiation."


    It follows that oncologists smitten with cool technology — and with making money — recommend proton therapy.

Money-driven healthcare, the vampire
that's sucking the life out of our country

    What's obvious here is that the least expensive option for treating early-stage prostate cancer rarely gets lip service from the experts. Officially, it's called "active surveillance." You may know it as "watchful waiting."

    Watchful waiting boils down to closely monitoring a patient and watching for any signs of growth in his cancer. If there's no growth, there's no treatment. If there is growth, the patient gets treated. Most prostate tumors are slow-growing. There's no pressing need to take action. And there are dozens of safe nutrients, foods and herbal remedies a man can use to control or eliminate prostate tumors without resorting to radiation, chemotherapy and surgery at all. I gave readers my take on all this in my Special Report, Don't Touch My Prostate.


    Proton treatment sounds to me like technology-driven medicine gone crazy. Frightened people with cancer are willing to buy into any kind of nonsense recommended by the men in white coats, and of course we all get handed the bill.


    Medical care is the single biggest expense driving the country into bankruptcy and potential social and political collapse. Meanwhile, to the doctors and industrialists meting out the treatments, there are massive profits to be had treating prostate cancer with protons.


    Proton therapy isn't worthless. Far from it. It actually shows more reliable promise for treating brain, eye, and spinal cord tumors, as well as certain kinds of tumors in children.


    But treating something like childhood cancers requires multiple, lengthy sessions and insurance companies are loath to cover it.


    Prostate patients, on the other hand, are in and out in 20 minutes and need fewer total treatments. Medicare and most insurance companies cover the cost without hassle. And there are a lot of prostate cancer cases to funnel through the system.


    It's healthcare dictated by money, which is the worst kind.


    I should point out that even with the heavy emphasis on proton therapy as a miracle cure, it's hard to come by. Only 1% of radiation oncologists in the U.S. have experience in proton therapy. And right now, there are only nine proton centers in operation (though eight more are in development, which shows how the medical industry is responding to demand).

Sometimes the best healthcare means bucking the trends

    Conclusive studies are a long way off. But for now, the best information we can find is that proton treatment is not much better than standard radiation treatment — just more expensive and more techno-fancy.

    I admit, it's hard to beat claims like those made by Loma Linda Medical Center on their website's "Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer" page: "More accurate, non-invasive, painless, provided in an outpatient setting, little impact on energy level, and requires no recovery."


    But don't be so sure it's a good choice. There are many, many easy alternative treatments I'd try first.

Online Publishing and Marketing

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

What's your risk of dying of cancer?


Press Release Image Online Publishing and Marketing
The Numbers Show a Cancer Death Decline ...
But There's More to the Story

    The number of people dying from cancer has dropped drastically, at least according to new reports from the American Cancer Society.

    Their numbers show a drop in mortality rates by 23 percent for men and 15 percent for women as compared with numbers 20 years ago. Overall, death rates have fallen for the four most common cancers: lung, colon, breast, and prostate.


    Rates refer to number of cancer deaths per thousand people. If 10 people per thousand were dying from the disease in 1990 and 8 people per thousand were dying in 2010, the decline from 10 to 8 would be a 20 percent decline.


Continued below. . .


An Important Message for Men Over 40
From David Blyweiss, M.D.

Men who SLEEP SOUNDLY Through the Night have Discovered...

THE SWEDISH
PROSTATE SECRET!


It's NOT
Saw Palmetto or
Beta-Sitosterol!
In the remote area of northern Sweden, scientists have discovered a rare natural powerhouse... An ingredient that virtually wipes out the pain, worry, and embarrassment of prostate trouble.
Now, this secret ingredient has been successfully tested in over 100 clinical trials with thousands of men reporting astonishing relief!
Online Publishing and Marketing
"Instead of getting up four times a night, I am currently only getting up once!"--John S.


"My urine stream is so much better...I no longer have discomfort." --Thomas J.

"I am 90% improved!" --David B.

"This is the first prostate product that I have taken that actually works."
--Karl S.

And they did it without risk, embarrassment, or doctor's visits!






    More specific reports show death rates from cancer went down by 1.8 percent (i.e. per hundred people) for men and 1.6 percent for women between 2004 and 2008. Data for the reports comes from the National Cancer Institute and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    The research also shows annual death rates for two minority groups — black men and Hispanic men — dropped most dramatically, at 2.4 percent and 2.3 percent, respectively.


    Childhood cancer rates have also improved, with the five-year survival rate up to 83 percent (it was only 58 percent in the mid-1970s). From what I can learn, this is because of great success at treating leukemia, the most common type of childhood cancer. But please note that the percentage of children getting leukemia is actually going up. We're fortunate this disease is now treatable.


    Overall, cancer is the #2 cause of death among children above the age of one, only exceeded by accidents. This is a tragic fact. My guess is it's due to the massive proliferation of untested chemicals and our unhealthy diets.


    But having said all this, I put little faith in the official count of who died from cancer and who didn't. Generally, cancer patients die of an infection such as pneumonia, or of heart failure — brought on by multiple rounds of chemotherapy that shatter the immune system, exhaust the patients, and leave them vulnerable to death from some cause other than cancer. Doctors don't count these deaths as cancer fatalities. So the statistics for cancer deaths are essentially meaningless.


    Why the decline in officially-measured cancer death rates? The American Cancer Society attributes the improved numbers to early detection and treatment.


    Yet, this can't be the whole story. After all, prostate cancer screening is no longer even recommended. According to the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF), prostate cancer screening provided no reduction in mortality.


    We should also note that less common cancers are actually on the rise. These include cancers of the pancreas, liver, kidney, esophagus, thyroid, and skin. Experts don't know the reason for the increase, but a few point their fingers at the obesity epidemic.

"More than a million deaths averted"

    That's according to Dr. Ahmedin Jemal, coauthor of the study that shows a decline in cancer. He was the first to cite early detection and treatment as an explanation for the reduction in deaths. He also cited improvements in cancer prevention, but at the same time pointed out that cancer deaths overall are bound to go up because of our aging, ever-growing population.

    Jemal went on to say the best way to overcome these disparities is to expand medical centers, put more doctors in place, and energize the health sector. That way, the medical professionals can apply what they know to all segments of the population.


    At the same time, Jemal — and most of mainstream medicine, like him — seems more focused on treating the symptoms of cancer on a massive level … instead of actively working to stop cancer from starting in the first place.

The problem with cancer statistics

    Most people read cancer statistics and assume cancer is evenly spread throughout a population. But that's not true. Look at breast cancer in England and Wales. According to a report from several years ago, breast cancer in women over 45 who lived in Leicestershire was 20% higher than the national average. Yet, in Cumberland it was 20% lower than the average. Oddly, Cumberland women were 50% more likely than average to have malignant melanomas, yet nearby in Durham, incidence was 30% below average.

    How do you account for all the variation? It's pretty simple. It's practically positive proof that cancer extends far beyond genes into diet, lifestyle, and environmental factors.


    Wouldn't you agree then, that interventions should be more focused on these areas than in adding more medical centers to the world?


    The problem with cancer statistics is that they get everybody excited about facts that may not matter in the grand scheme of things. You see, there are a number of ways to parse the numbers, and mainstream medicine tends to cook the figures to make itself look good.


    I can easily believe the absolute number of lung cancer deaths is down because of the decline in smoking. Deaths from breast cancer went down massively when women found out hormone replacement therapy was a dangerous treatment, and stopped doing it. The reduction in new breast cancer cases was swift and drastic following this discovery.


    And I do know colonoscopy screening is touted as a great success and doctors are catching a huge number of colon polyps before they become tumors.


    The survival rate is even pretty good for more developed cases of colon cancer, those where a portion of the colon has to be removed by surgery. But I also have to tell you that life can be unpleasant following the operation.


    When it comes to prostate cancer, I'd be suspicious that there's been any real progress. Aggressive screening has led to the discovery of a great many more prostate tumors than in the old days, but most of those tumors would have remained undiscovered (and harmless — part of the reason these screenings are going out of vogue). The old saying is "Most men die WITH prostate cancer, not OF it."


    If a man over 65 has a small prostate tumor, chances are pretty good he'll die years later of some other cause. 30 years ago those little tumors weren't even diagnosed. Nowadays they're found, treated (usually over-treated) and the medical statisticians claim they've "saved a life."


    For early-stage prostate cancer, total removal of the prostate is said to be nearly 100% successful at preventing cancer death. But the quality of life is low following prostatectomy, and in my opinion most or all of these early-stage cancers can be cured by alternative treatments, without surgery.


    The underlying problem here is that as cancer rates improve slightly, everybody gets excited about early detection and surgical or drug intervention but little progress is made at prevention. And of course nondrug, nonsurgical alternatives are largely ignored although they could really knock down cancer rates.

Your health is in your hands

    The American Cancer Society itself admits that at least 25 percent of total cancer deaths can be prevented because they relate to lifestyle issues: tobacco use, being overweight, lack of exercise, and poor nutrition. I would guess even more could be prevented if we paid more attention to environment and cultural issues.


    Cancer remains an extraordinary problem. In North America and Western Europe alone, it's the equivalent of eight fully-loaded jumbo 747s crashing every day with no survivors. It's only going to get worse because the population is aging, and the risk of cancer rises sharply with age.


    Health officials and individuals at risk should focus more on why cancers develop in the first place. This means examining everything about the way we live, from the food we eat, to the sources of our food, to the government subsidies that promote certain foods over others. And instead of looking the other way, they should also focus more on toxins in our soil, chemicals in our homes, and all the cultural trends that promote sitting the whole day through and never getting off our hind ends.

Online Publishing and Marketing

Monday, January 16, 2012

Do not be the last person to die of cancer



Press Release Image
Online Publishing and Marketing
Will You be The Last Person
To Die of Cancer —
Because Your Doctors Didn't Know about These
Remarkable and Proven Cures?
The big-money cancer industry hates these proven alternative treatments. . .But our team of 15 doctors is speaking up now to make sure these breakthroughs aren't hushed up for one more day!
Their maverick approach saved this guy’s life. . .
    In Sunny Isles Beach Florida, a man in his 80s was near the end of the line with B-cell lymphoma. Various treatments had failed him. He was in a hospice, and expected to die.


    But he wasn't ready to give up.

    He called a local MD who had "different" ideas about cancer treatment. This doctor prescribed a low-dose regimen of an off-label drug approved for alcoholism, of all things. The drug has no side effects — no nausea, no hair loss.

    After six weeks of this inexpensive, generic medicine, the elderly gentleman was no longer at death's door. In fact, he was out of the hospice, back at home — and ballroom dancing again!


A miracle? Not at all. This treatment is
stopping cancer around the world!

    In France, this very same drug was taken by a woman who had 4 brain tumors and no hope left with conventional treatments. Seven months later, after taking just 3 milligrams a day, her tumors were gone.

    This is a perfectly legal medication any MD can prescribe for you, yet your doctor probably has no idea of its true cancer-fighting power.

    How can the drug companies keep a proven cancer cure from us? Even a legal, FDA-approved drug, no less!     Click here to watch a shocking video presentation about this cancer breakthrough, the patients it's helped, the handful of doctors who will give it to those who need it. . .and how the drug companies have sat on it because there's no money in it for them!
Online Publishing and Marketing
    This suppressed cure is just the tip of the iceberg. Dozens of proven, effective treatments are being kept from us. But now 15 doctors have decided to break the silence and speak out!


    The cancer industry is hoping you don't watch this video because they'll lose billions if word gets out. What's more, their puppets at the FDA force alternative cancer information off the Internet every chance they get. So watch this while you still can.



Outsmart your Cancer
"If I could pick only one treatment to cure cancer, this would be it..."
How to Cure Almost Any Cancer at Home for $5.15 a Day!
Drink this and cancer comes pouring out of your body!
The Missing Ingredient for Good Health
World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative Cancer Treatments


Sunday, January 15, 2012

Where Steve Jobs went wrong-a second look


Press Release Image Online Publishing and Marketing

What I Would Have Told Steve Jobs
if I'd had the Chance

Last September in Issue #113 I wrote about the tragic loss of Steve Jobs to pancreatic cancer. For the benefit of those who don't know, Steve Jobs was a brilliant business leader whose products revolutionized our daily lives.
Just after that article, more information became available about what treatments Jobs had chosen. It turns out Jobs elected to try alternative instead of conventional treatments when he first learned he had cancer. But what alternative treatments did he try? And did he make the right decisions? Keep reading and see for yourself. . .
Continued below. . .

A U.S. President refused America's
outdated cancer treatments —
Here's where he went instead
Americans would be shocked if they knew that President Reagan, while still in the White House, turned his back on American cancer treatments. He secretly sneaked off to a German clinic — and lived another 19 years.
Why? Because German cancer doctors are better — thanks to breakthrough treatments that are labeled "quackery" in the U.S. (maybe because they cost a fraction of American treatments, so there's not much profit for the cancer industry).
Suzanne Somers, Cher, William Holden and Anthony Quinn are among the celebrities who have gone to clinics you'll discover in the first guide to German cancer doctors and treatments ever published in English. Click here to learn more!
Take a nap and wake up free of cancer
Germany's top cancer doctors literally cook cancer out of your body while you nap, and you wake up pain-free! This high-tech breakthrough is banned in America, but German doctors have used it successfully on thousands of patients from all over the world — including patients American doctors gave up on.
America's cancer industry ignores the latest science and goes on pushing failed therapies that cost ten times as much. It's a fact: the hellish cancer treatments Americans take for granted are now obsolete (and that's being generous — they were never any good.) Click here and see for yourself in our guide to German cancer clinics.

Details about his cancer came out in Steve Jobs, a biography written by a respected author, Walter Isaacson, who enjoyed Jobs's full (or nearly full) cooperation. Isaacson not only interviewed Jobs for hours on end over a period of years, but he also interviewed just about everyone Jobs ever knew who was still alive to tell the tale. Plus he had a generous helping of "hanging out time" with Jobs and his family.
Naturally the book's revelations led the press to crow that "alternative cancer treatments don't work" and Jobs was killed by quackery. A number of concerned readers wrote me to ask what I think.
So let's take a look. It's a fascinating story filled with lessons for anyone who's diagnosed with cancer. As you'll see, the truth is a surprise — and very different from what the press reported AND what I thought when I first wrote about Jobs in September.
Actually, very few of the book's 571 pages deal with the treatments Jobs selected. We still don't have a complete picture. But there's plenty to talk about.
Vegetarianism gone haywire
The biography describes Jobs as a follower of "fad diets" beginning in his early teens. His interest was in spiritual growth; he didn't have a weight problem. He was interested in Eastern religions. Generally, not eating meat is part of the program.
He became a "vegan," but he was unlike any vegan or vegetarian you've ever met. For the record, a vegan is someone who goes beyond avoiding meat and abstains from all animal products including milk, eggs and honey.
Many alternative cancer experts recommend that patients avoid animal protein and eat a diet rich in raw fruits and vegetables, so you can see how Jobs's lifestyle is an easy target for critics. "See, he never touched meat in his life and he died of cancer."
But calling him a vegan isn't even half the story. It would be more accurate to say he had an eating disorder similar to anorexia and bulimia. As long as he was healthy, people thought this disorder was charming and eccentric -- and Jobs was nothing if not eccentric. But once he had cancer, his family realized there was nothing cute about his weird eating habits. They were killing him.
No cancer expert says vegetarianism all by itself is enough to cure or prevent cancer. But put that aside and look at how Jobs actually ate. According to the biography, "When he was young, he learned that he could induce euphoria and ecstasy by fasting." He would do so often.
As an adult, "He would spend weeks eating the same thing — carrot salad with lemon, or just apples — and then suddenly spurn that food and declare that he had stopped eating it."
This isn't a healthy way to eat. No responsible expert would recommend living on nothing but apples for weeks at a time. You can't obtain a full range of nutrients that way. The book doesn't describe how Jobs got the protein he needed — or even if he understood this issue and knew he had to do something about it.
Did drug use contribute to an eating disorder?
At the same time he was discovering he could get high by fasting, he often used LSD, a drug that induces a temporary psychosis, including hallucinations. The use of the drug can result in lifelong mental illness. Some unlucky souls lose their minds the first time they use it.
The drug often induces the belief that the universe is entirely a product of one's own mind — or at any rate, that it's a purely mental phenomenon that can be manipulated by thought. The late John Lennon, like Steve Jobs, was a frequent LSD user and came to hold beliefs of this sort.
Throughout the book, Isaacson describes Jobs again and again as having a "reality distortion field" that led him to believe he could change the world just by thinking or willing it to change. Because he was a genius with a powerful will, this belief actually did empower Jobs to change the world. But I don't recommend it as a general way of looking at things.
This is pure speculation on my part, but the combination of fasting, mind-altering drugs and powerful religious forces may have created Jobs's eating disorder.
Once he had cancer, Jobs's strange attitude toward food became a galloping crisis. Cancer causes weight loss — called cachexia — a "wasting away" syndrome in which the patient becomes thinner and thinner even if he or she tries to eat.
Jobs's insanely picky eating habits became fatal once he had late-stage cancer. His family could hardly get him to eat anything at all. His wife hired a gourmet chef to come in every day to prepare a whole array of vegan dishes in hopes that Jobs would nibble at just one. From what Isaacson says, quite often this didn't work.
On one occasion Jobs turned down every dish but said he might like some pumpkin pie. The chef whipped up a pumpkin pie for him as fast as the thing could be done.
Jobs ate one bite.
I would suggest that this is not a "failure of alternative cancer treatments," but let's move on. The main lessons we can learn from Steve Jobs are still to come.
A cruel irony: He should have chosen
the conventional treatment
Jobs was first diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in October 2003. Pancreatic cancer is almost always fatal — and quick. But Jobs was granted an incredible stroke of luck, or two, really: they caught his cancer early, and it was a rare type of pancreatic cancer that's treatable. It's called an islet cell neuroendocrine tumor.
The pancreas is a vital organ and you can't live without it, nor can you receive a transplant. But a small islet cell neuroendocrine tumor CAN be removed surgically, leaving enough of the pancreas to keep the patient alive. It's said that about half of such patients will survive more than five years.
This is where it gets interesting and holds a lesson for everyone. In my opinion, Jobs should have chosen the surgery — THEN turned down chemo and tried alternative treatments.
Let's try to learn from this. There's a world of difference between early-stage and late-stage cancer. In late-stage cancer, the disease has spread to several sites in the body. Conventional treatments — chemotherapy, surgery, radiation — are nearly useless for late-stage cancer. The five-year survival rates are around 2 percent — two out of every 100 late-stage patients can expect to survive more than five years. The rate is higher for some types of cancer, lower for others.
Conventional treatments are said to "buy time" for late-stage patients. It's a doubtful claim, although everything depends on the individual case. Some studies show that the average late-stage patient who rejects chemotherapy outlives the average patient who accepts chemo.
Early stage cancer is another thing completely. Early stage cancer is confined to the organ or other site where it started. The patient's chances are much better. And — I've said this before — in some cases conventional treatments are successful for early stage cancer. Whether they succeed depends partly on the type of cancer, partly on the strength of the patient (especially the immune system), and partly on just plain luck.
Surprise: Early-stage cancer poses a tougher choice
In my opinion, early-stage cancer patients have a tougher decision. Should they stick to alternative treatments or just go with what the conventional doctor says? In some cases, you've got a chance with conventional treatment (I'd do a lot of research on my type of cancer, and get a second opinion. And a third. And maybe a fourth.)
Late-stage patients face a world of woe, but at least they don't have to make this agonizing roll of the dice. The conventional treatments don't work. With very few exceptions, a patient should choose alternatives. No, they don't work for everyone, but we've interviewed plenty of patients who used them — and lived a long time.
Early-stage prostate cancer is an example where I don't totally discount conventional treatments. I'd still try alternatives first, because prostate cancer is usually slow-growing and you've got some time to try things . Alternatives have a good record with prostate cancer.
But if the alternatives didn't work after a few months to a year, I'd go for surgery. Have the thing cut out. Because some prostate cancers are aggressive, you need to monitor constantly to see whether yours is growing or declining. Aggressive prostate cancer (about one case in ten) is extremely dangerous.
Jobs had a type of cancer where conventional treatment — surgery, in this case — was a reasonable choice. It's easy to say with what we know now, but he should have chosen surgery. This was exactly the quandary I mentioned a moment ago: an early stage cancer where the conventional treatment has a pretty good track record.
I suspect his doctors would have wanted to follow the surgery with chemotherapy. At that point, I like to think I would have said "no," and tried alternatives instead.
What Jobs did instead of surgery
After rejecting surgery, Jobs followed a strict vegan diet with large quantities of fresh carrot and fruit juice (the man did have faith in carrots). According to Isaacson he also tried "acupuncture, a variety of herbal remedies, and occasionally a few other treatments found on the Internet or by consulting people around the country, including a psychic. For a while he was under the sway of a doctor who operated a natural healing clinic in southern California that stressed the use of organic herbs, juice fasts, frequent bowel cleansings, hydrotherapy and the expression of negative feelings."
As you can probably tell from the tone, Jobs's biographer is dismissive of all this. So were Jobs's wife and friends. They strongly urged conventional treatments. The quote in the previous paragraph is all the biographer provides so we really can't say anything about what remedies Jobs used or what healers he went to. Some of it seems sound — the bowel cleansings, for example.
Acupuncture might be useful for pain relief and general well-being. I would never, ever recommend it to someone as a principal cancer therapy. I say this having gone to acupuncturists regularly for about 30 years. It has its benefits, but it's not something that's going to cure a serious medical condition.
The cancer gets out of control
After about nine months of this vaguely described alternative plan, a CAT scan showed that Jobs's pancreatic tumor had grown and possibly spread. He had to admit his alternatives — whatever they were — had not worked. He agreed to have the surgery. But during the surgery three tumors were found on the liver.
In other words, Jobs had late-stage cancer.
The book never mentions pancreatic cancer again, so I infer the operation was a success as far as that goes. From this point it sounds like the liver was the main problem.
Once he'd made the decision to accept conventional treatments, it sounds like Jobs went with them all the way. He underwent chemotherapy following the surgery. Being a man of wealth, he could afford the best, and he was one of the first twenty people in the world to have all of his cancer tumor as well as his normal DNA sequenced, at a cost of more than $100,000.
The DNA sequencing allowed his medical team to match his specific type of cancer cell with the specific drugs that were most likely to kill it. This is called molecular targeted chemotherapy. Some alternative doctors practice a much less expensive version of targeting. The strategy may have bought Jobs time. He lived for about seven years following his July, 2004 pancreas surgery.
He tried other experimental therapies. He flew to Basel, Switzerland to try an experimental hormone delivered radiotherapy. In the Netherlands he underwent an experimental treatment called peptide receptor radionuclide therapy.
In early 2008, it became clear his cancer was spreading. After having been able to eat normally (for him, anyway) he was again finding it hard to eat. He was taking morphine for pain, and this drug reduces the appetite, adding further to the wasting disease that was devouring his body. The loss of part of his pancreas — the source of digestive enzymes -- made it harder to digest foods.
In January, 2009 it was decided he needed a liver transplant. He got on the waiting list in two states — which is legal, if you meet certain conditions. In contrast to what some reporters implied, this wasn't just a case of a rich man working the system. Without a transplant, Jobs was expected to die in April, but a liver came through just in time, in late March.
The liver transplant bought him about a year-and-a-half. A deadly tradeoff was that his immune system was suppressed by the drugs he had to take to keep his body from rejecting the new liver. I think long-term remission would have been next to impossible at this point. He devoted much of this precious extra time to doing the work he loved: overseeing the design of revolutionary and innovative products. Gradually, his health declined and he all but faded away. It's a familiar story if you know anything about cancer, and I don't think we can learn a great deal from the details.
One interesting fact is that during the periods when he was in remission, Jobs could feel the cancer coming back months before his doctors could detect anything. He would tell them he was experiencing pain and losing appetite while their tests could find nothing.
Another thing worth noting is that Jobs attributed the start of his cancer to a period of extreme stress in his life — 1997 -- when he was the CEO of two major corporations. He would arrive home at night so exhausted he couldn't speak. It's well known that stress and fatigue compromise the immune system. And many cancer therapists are firm believers that most cancer cases are triggered by a stressful event such as the death of a loved one or a divorce.
The tragic irony is that when he had early-stage cancer, he rejected conventional treatments at just the point when they might have helped. And when he had late-stage cancer, he chose only conventional treatments, when they were worth little or nothing. You could say he got it exactly wrong. Even at that, the expensive conventional treatments bought him quite a bit of time.
The last comment I'll make, before stepping down from the pulpit, is that no treatment — conventional or alternative — comes with a 100% guarantee. Surgery for Jobs's type of early-stage pancreatic cancer has a 50% success rate, so they say — meaning there's a 50/50 chance he would have died even if he'd made the "smart" move and elected surgery before the cancer spread.
We live in a tragic world, full of hard choices. That's the reality. At least for myself, I don't worry about it too much because I don't think this is our true home. People who don't have faith have to deal with it as best they can. Jobs had faith of a sort — I respect Buddhism and Hinduism — and it did sustain him in his remarkable life. We should all hope to accomplish a tenth of what he did!
One of the remedies Steve Jobs probably should have tried is laetrile, also known as amygdalin. Our last issue published some important new information about this treatment. If you missed it, scroll down and read it now.

Laetrile: How Much Proof Do They Need?
When I first got involved in alternative cancer treatments back in 2005, someone mentioned Laetrile. My reaction was, "You've got to be kidding. That was discredited back in the 1970s."
I didn't say this as a fan of conventional medicine. No way. I'd been devoted to alternative medicine for decades and I knew a great deal about it. But I'd read somewhere or other that it had been "proven" Laetrile doesn't work. No one ever talked about it in the alternative health newsletters I read.
So how did we all get fooled? Keep reading. . .
Online Publishing and Marketing Continued below. . .

The secret to curing cancer:
You've been throwing it in the trash!
In 1921, a British doctor discovered that members of a remote native tribe were almost totally cancer-free. But when members of this tribe move away from their native land and change their diet, they get cancer just like anyone else.
It's all thanks to a food most of us throw away as waste — a food that's rich in amygdalin — what most of us call Laetrile.
Click here now and watch a video presentation about this cancer breakthrough. One cancer expert calls this overlooked food "the key to curing AND preventing cancer" — and you can benefit now — without going to a doctor or buying expensive supplements. This little throwaway food tastes great. Bill Clinton, of all people, eats a certain amygdalin-rich food all the time, and so can you. Click here now to watch the video!

I mention this story to show just what a thorough job Big Medicine does at brainwashing the public. Well-informed people — people who have a whole cabinet full of supplements — ridicule or fear a great many alternative treatments. Not just cancer treatments, but alternative answers to all kinds of health conditions.
The suppression of Laetrile has been a category five health disaster that's cost hundreds of thousands of lives — probably millions of lives.
If you want to learn the truth about this valuable therapy, I suggest you get your hands on a book called Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, by John A. Richardson, M.D. and Patricia Irving Griffin, R.N., B.S.
Dr. Richardson, now deceased, was one of the Laetrile pioneers in the 1970s and paid a terrible price. He had to stand three expensive trials in California courts. All three cases against him were dismissed.
Then he had to go through a longer and even more expensive trial in Federal Court in San Diego, where he was convicted of "conspiring to smuggle Laetrile" and was fined $30,000 (equal to more than $100,000 today). In due course his license to practice medicine was taken away.
Notice he wasn't convicted of smuggling. He was convicted of "conspiring to smuggle" — the sure sign of a lame case. If they can't convict you of a crime they convict you of thinking about a crime.
His book was written in 1975 and describes in detail 62 cases of successful recovery from cancer with the help of Laetrile. I mention it now because the book was updated in 2005, with some shocking new evidence.
You see, the authors tried to locate as many of the original 62 cancer patients as they could, to see if their recoveries were long-term or just a fluke.
They were able find data on 33 of these old cases from the early 1970s, and most of those people lived for years after Laetrile helped clear up their cancer. They were long-term cancer survivors and then some. I heard one of the book's authors, Patricia Griffin, speak at a cancer conference recently. She told the audience she takes Laetrile-rich apricot kernels every morning — and also Laetrile tablets — to prevent cancer.
The REAL people and REAL results mainstream
medicine hoped you'd never uncover!
Dr. Richardson , M.D. was a general practitioner in San Francisco when an office assistant sparked his interest in Laetrile as a cancer cure.
After reading the available resources on the subject, he became convinced that Laetrile—along with certain enzymes and a diet free of animal proteins—could form part of a "natural barrier against the growth of cancer." Notice that he wasn't saying Laetrile is a magic bullet all by itself. He combined it with other therapies.
In Laetrile Case Histories, Dr. Richardson explains that in 1971 he began treating patients with the regimen that he called "metabolic therapy." Here are a few of the 62 case histories in his book. . .
  • Bone cancer banished— in November 1973, doctors said a six-year-old boy with cancer of the right upper arm bone and spinal column had no more than six to nine months to live. Within a month of starting metabolic therapy with Laetrile, he was able to use his arm and remove the sling. During a checkup in January 1977, Richardson reported "the arm looked so good the radiologist could not believe the child ever had osteosarcoma." The mother confirmed in 2005 that her child had remained symptom free for 32 years!
  • Cervical cancer clobbered—a doctor recommended a hysterectomy to a 49-year-old Iowa woman whose Pap smear revealed cervical cancer cells. She opted to ride a bus to California for metabolic therapy in July 1973. After only nine days of treatment—she received cancer-free Pap smear results! As of last contact in June 2005, the woman was still alive and well.
  • Chronic leukemia cast out—a 53-year-old male diagnosed with lymphocytic leukemia started metabolic therapy instead of following doctors' recommendation to watch its progression for six months. Within a week he reported greater energy and more restful sleep. After a year he remained symptom free and a follow-up revealed that he lived for 29 years after the treatment!
  • Prostate cancer pulverized—a 61-year-old man was diagnosed with inoperable prostate cancer in October 1973. After beginning Laetrile treatments the same month, he noted health improvements within 10 days! Despite being told he had little time remaining—the patient remained symptom free and lived an additional 13 years!
You might think these success stories would motivate medical practitioners to take a second look at Dr. Richardson's Laetrile cases. But the reality was altogether different…
Authorities raided Richardson's office and arrested him in June 1972 for violating California's Cancer Law. His conviction in the first trial was overturned on a technicality. And two subsequent trials resulted in hung juries.
The legal establishment failed to stop Richardson's activities, but the medical community didn't stop harassing him. The California Board of Medical Quality Assurance revoked Richardson's California medical license in 1976.
Dr. Richardson subsequently worked in a Mexican clinic and as a homeopathic practitioner in Nevada until his health deteriorated and he passed away in 1988.
You need to know more about this treatment
Here at Cancer Defeated, we've interviewed many, many doctors and patients who have benefited from Laetrile. The most powerful way to receive the treatments is by IV, and the easiest place to do that is at the top Mexican clinics we recommend in our Special Report Adios, Cancer. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get IV Laetrile therapy in the United States.
But if you can't go to Mexico, you can benefit from eating foods that are rich in Laetrile, such as apricot kernels. I've seen cures reported just from eating the foods. But let me add that if you're really serious about getting well, you won't rely exclusively on Laetrile — either taken by mouth or by IV — but will use it in conjunction with other treatments and lifestyle changes.
Adios, Cancer explains how to safely and legally obtain Laetrile-rich foods. My friend Ty Bollinger, author of Cancer — Step Outside the Box, is another great advocate of Laetrile. You can learn more about his book by clicking here.
You may hear laetrile referred to as vitamin B17 or "amygdalin," which comes from the Greek word for almond. This name is appropriate considering that amygdalin is extracted from almonds or the pits of apricots and peaches.
Laetrile is the trade name for a compound chemically related to amygdalin. In the early 1950s, Dr. Ernst Krebs, Sr. , M.D. and his son Ernst Jr. first used amygdalin to treat cancer patients. The work of the Krebs family was the main inspiration for Dr. Richardson's work.
Dr. Krebs theorized that cancer cells contain an enzyme that causes amygdalin to release cyanide. The cyanide destroys the cancer cells while leaving noncancerous tissues unharmed. Healthy cells don't contain the enzyme that stimulates amygdalin to break down into cyanide and other substances; that's why healthy cells remain unharmed. According to people who have studied amygdalin, it releases the killing cyanide only when cancer cells are present.
Dr. Krebs said that, in fact, healthy cells are protected by another enzyme which renders the cyanide harmless.
From the 1950s through the 1970s, Laetrile became a popular alternative cancer treatment in the United States. It took ferocious attacks against practitioners like Dr. Richardson, plus an aggressive campaign of false information, to lead most people to think Laetrile is a quack remedy.
Amygdalin is a naturally occurring substance that cannot be patented—which makes it a prime target for the wrath of "Big Pharma!" The big drug companies invariably try to ban cancer cures that aren't patentable and profitable.
Deny, discredit and destroy
In the book Alternatives in Cancer Therapy, authors Rose Pelton, R. Ph. and Lee Overholser, Ph.D. call Laetrile an "orphan drug" because it gets no love or support from the pharmaceutical industry.
Pelton and Overholser said "no drug company is interested in committing money to research Laetrile's potential." But these advocates aren't willing to tuck their tail between their legs and move on…
Instead, they say orthodox medicine has instituted a full-fledged campaign to:
  • Downplay case histories of patients who've benefited from Laetrile treatments
  • Exaggerate reports of side effects and toxicity
  • Ruin the reputation of doctors who successfully treated patients with Laetrile
  • Strong-arm government officials to ensure Laetrile does not receive exemption from the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
On the issue of toxicity, Pelton and Overholser said some Laetrile users reported symptoms of weakness, dizziness, nausea, and vomiting. They said these symptoms may be related to a person's inability to eliminate toxins resulting from tumor breakdown.
It may also be the result of patients just plain eating too much of the Laetrile-rich foods (usually apricot kernels) and getting sick to their stomachs. The solution is simple: If the foods are making you sick, cut back.
Pelton and Overholser admit there have been credible reports of muscular weakness and respiratory difficulties among Laetrile users. They believe those side effects typically result from patients taking excessively high doses without a doctor's supervision.
And in some cases, children who accidentally took Laetrile tablets did experience cyanide poisoning. But the authors said these incidents cannot be compared to the results of those whose medicine is administered under the watchful care of a medical practitioner.
From what we've been able to learn, it's extremely unlikely the side effects are the result of cyanide poisoning, as Laetrile's enemies would have you believe. Thousands of people have been safely and successfully treated with Laetrile — including intravenous Laetrile — without side effects. If Laetrile was a significant source of cyanide, I'm pretty confident that EVERYONE who's ever taken it by IV would be dead PDQ.
Pelton and Overholser said "cyanide poisoning does not appear to be a major problem in laetrile therapy." As with other medical treatments, it should be administered with proper supervision.
The Laetrile crusade continues!
Richardson was no lone crusader for Laetrile. Pelton and Overholser said "some alternative cancer clinics use laetrile regularly and claim to have a steady stream of patients who respond well."
And Laetrile has had other noteworthy supporters…
Harold W. Manner, Ph.D., chairman of the biology department at Loyola University in Chicago, found that laetrile combined with vitamin A and pancreatic enzymes produced a very high cure rate of breast cancers.
And National Cancer Institute (NCI) biochemist Dr. Dean Burke, Ph.D. performed an experiment that used Laetrile to kill a tissue culture of cancer cells. Dr. Burke was convinced that Laetrile could be an effective cancer cure, a pain reliever for terminal cancer victims, and even useful for preventing cancer1.
You won't be surprised to learn the FDA has not approved Laetrile as a treatment for cancer in the United States. And the National Cancer Institute maintains its stance that Laetrile "has shown little anticancer effect in laboratory studies, animal studies, or human studies."2
Dr. Richardson pointed to a definition of appropriate therapy response, provided by the California Cancer Advisory Council, as an example of what shapes such conclusions. The definition essentially states that only a decrease in tumor size is an acceptable measure of the anti-tumor effect of a substance.
Dr. Richardson believed that other criteria besides tumor shrinkage should be considered when evaluating a cancer remedy. Positive results can include pain relief, increased appetite, weight gain, and a patient's ability to be more active.
Patients on Laetrile often experience these other results. For example, it's very common for such patients to report pain relief. Dr. Richardson drew a distinction between tumor shrinkage and these other effects. As long as a tumor isn't growing, it may be nothing more than a nuisance.
In fact, tumor shrinkage may be a poor measure of a treatment's success or failure. Many substances shrink tumors. The shrinkage is often temporary. As we've often said in our publications, cancer is a systemic disease — it's a disease of the entire body. Treating a local problem such as a tumor is just one part of successful recovery.
Richardson took a dim view of mainstream medicine's obsession with tumor shrinkage. His opinion on this matter is a fitting way to end this article. He said, in part:
"As long as this sophomoric attitude is accepted by orthodox medicine, and especially as long as it is forced on the rest of us by the effect of law, tens of thousands of people will continue to die needlessly every single day, and all the million-dollar grants and all the research in the world will fail to stop it."

Online Publishing and Marketing Kindest regards,

Lee Euler,
Publisher

Footnotes from second article:
1Wilson, B. 2004. The Rise and Fall of Laetrile. Retrieved from http://www.whale.to/cancer/quackwatch_laetrile.html
2National Cancer Institute. 2010. Laetrile factsheet. Retrieved from http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/laetrile/patient


If you’d like to comment, write me at newsletter(at)cancerdefeated.com.  Please do not write asking for personal advice about your health. I’m prohibited by law from assisting you.

Editor in Chief: Lee Euler Contributing Editors: Mindy Tyson McHorse, Carol Parks, Roz Roscoe Marketing: Shane Holley Information Technology Advisor: Michelle Mato Webmaster: 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.


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!