Bowie State Honored with Division II Athletic Directors Association Academic Achievement Awards

CLEVELAND, OH - The Division II Athletics Directors Association (D2ADA) announced the 2012-13 recipients of the D2ADA Academic Achievement Awards.  The Academic Achievement Awards is a program that recognizes the academic accomplishments of student-athletes at the Division II level. 

A record number of institutions (169) and student-athletes (6,801) are recognized for the 2012-13 Academic Achievement Awards.  Bowie State University had nine student-athletes recognized from five different athletic programs.  The Bulldogs joined Chowan, Elizabeth City State, Fayetteville State, Saint Augustine's, Shaw and Virginia State among CIAA schools to academic achievements through D2ADA.

Representing Bowie State were Kassandra Bishop (Tennis), Cassandra Clayborne (Softball), Megan Alexander (Softball), Gregory Koepping (Football), Hayley Flint (Softball), Mariela Hernandez (Softball), Iyabode Sodipo (Tennis), Paige McIntosh (Volleyball) and Ayanna Tweedy (Track and Field).

“I would like to congratulate our nine award winners,” said Bowie State Athletic Director Anton Goff. “It is a testament to their dedication and hard work in achieving a high level of success in the classroom and on the field and court.  It is also a reflection of the priority that our coaches and staff put on academics.  I am extremely proud to have our student-athletes recognized in this manner.”

In order to receive an Academic Achievement Award, the student-athlete must:

·         Have a cumulative grade point average of 3.5 or higher on a 4.0 scale

·         Have attended a minimum of two years (four semesters) of college level work

·         Have been an active member of an intercollegiate team during his/her last academic year

"The D2ADA would like to thank and congratulate the institutions that took part in honoring the record number of student-athletes with 2012-13 Academic Achievement Awards," stated D2ADA President Anita Barker, director of athletics at Chico State University.  "We continuously strive to recognize and honor deserving Division 2 student-athletes.  This award gives us the platform to showcase these individuals and their efforts in the classroom, as well as on the playing field."

The D2ADA is the first organization of its kind to provide educational and networking opportunities; enhancement of acceptable operating standards and ethics; and establishment of the overall prestige and understanding of the profession of Division 2 athletics directors. For more information about the D2ADA, please visit www.div2ada.com. The D2ADA is administered by the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics (NACDA), which is in its 49^th year. For more information on NACDA and the 13 professional associations that fall under its umbrella, please visit www.nacda.com.

Beware of mainstream reporting about cancer

Don't Let Mainstream Mis-reporting about Cancer Kill Your Chances of Good Health     I know I'm not the only person disappointed with the news media. It's rife with sensationalism and biased stories. Worst of all are the "journalists" who go in search of tabloid-style stories and don't bother with the details.     What happens in these cases? We end up watching biased stories that appear to be objective but aren't. I recently saw a bogus news segment on thermograms, so I want to set the record straight on how this early detection tool can save you from breast cancer despite what some know-nothing journalists may say. It could save your life. Continued below... Video of the Week: "Shocking Confessions of a Drug Company Insider"     In this exposé, a top executive of a major pharmaceutical company spills the naked truth about the drugs you and your family take... which drugs heal, and which ones KILL... what doctors turn to when they don't know the cure... what they do when they themselves or their loved ones are stricken with disease or illness... what life-saving resource they insist should be in every home. Watch this must-see video now because your life -- or the life of your loved ones -- may depend on it. Mammograms versus thermograms     The news report I saw knocking thermograms was based on ONE case of a woman who received a false negative, indicating she didn't have cancer when in fact she did. The reporter then trotted out sound bites from a couple of radiologists (who make their living off of X-rays) to say that of course thermograms aren't good for much and women should stick to mammograms.     The news report didn't say a word about the terrible inaccuracy of mammograms, the countless false negatives and false positives. If we're going to condemn screening procedures for one false negative, mammograms would have been outlawed years ago.     Early detection is key when it comes to any cancer, and breast cancer in particular. And it's a fact that thermograms are a safe, valuable early detection tool for breast cancer.     The problem is, no single early detection tool is flawless. Mammograms are the most well-known, and they certainly detect some cancers. But they're also virtually useless when it comes to detecting tumors in the dense tissue of younger women.     On top of that, mammograms can deliver false-negatives, false-positives, over-diagnosis, over-treatment, and radiation exposure. Last I checked, the false-negative rate was around 20 percent—meaning mammograms will miss one out of five breast cancer tumors.     They're also virtually useless for women under age 40—and though rare, it's the younger-than-forty crowd that develops some of the most malicious strains of breast cancer. Consider thermograms instead     Thermography is not "alternative medicine" as such. It's legal in the United States and widely used in Europe. In the U.S., conventional medicine has thrown it on the alternative medicine dust heap because it poses a threat to mammography, a huge, profitable industry with tens of thousands of people making a living off it.     The FDA approves thermography as safe but doesn't officially support it and says it's not an alternative to mammography. But given the FDA's poor track record in supporting safe, non-invasive, proven health treatments, you shouldn't let that stop you from reaping the benefits of thermography screening.     If you don't know about it, thermography is a form of digital infrared imaging that's completely safe—no radiation exposure whatsoever. It's based on the concept that early tumor sites project more heat than normal breast tissue. This is because of the increased blood vessel circulation and metabolic changes that take place when a tumor first develops.     A thermogram pinpoints the abnormal heat levels that cancerous and — this is important — pre-cancerous areas generate. These areas pour out excessive heat long before a mammogram or any physical examination can detect a thing.     But when it comes to thermograms, the key thing is to look at changes over time. So anyone who gets a single thermogram and thinks that's the last word on their risk factor is missing out on crucial information. The single-bullet approach     While I absolutely do think some screening tests are better than others, it riles me when a news program puts out a sensational story that paints a tool as worthless. It's like the medical industry taking a single-bullet approach to healthcare, trying to pigeon-hole illnesses into one-size-fits-all problems and solutions. Healthcare isn't that easy, and it never will be.     Here's what you have to remember. Most high-tech screening procedures are flawed in some way. Take mammograms, for instance. They're just X-ray pictures of the breast. Not only do they not work well on dense breast tissue, as mentioned, but they're subject to error. The machine can malfunction. The technician who interprets your results can screw up. Or a tumor just won't show.     In a thermogram, the tumor site needs to be caught at a certain growth stage. And again, interpretation is subject to human error. The images have to be interpreted by a skilled, experienced thermographer. And as I said earlier, it's the changes seen in a series of images, taken over a period of years, that most accurately flags cancer risk.     If this sounds alarming, it really isn't. The abnormally hot areas that turn up in thermograms can take many, many years to develop into cancer. Immediate treatment isn't needed. You've got time to observe how they change — and to proceed to other tests such as biopsies and mammograms if they seem warranted. Cancerous areas literally get hotter every year, and a thermogram can often see this occurring long before an X-ray could ever detect a mass.     We already know one in five cancers can't be detected by mammography. Some of those cancers can be picked up by a thermogram. On the flip side, there is the occasional tumor site that won't show up on a thermogram, but may with a mammogram or other screening test. In fact, some studies show an increased survival rate when mammography and breast thermography are used together. It's in your hands…     I'd say the best possible tool for fighting breast cancer is simply awareness. Know your options and choose what feels best for you based on your age, genetic risk, tissue density, and access. I'm not a fan of some of the diagnostic tools out there, but if you opt to use them, make sure you go in with eyes wide open. Ask questions. Don't be a meek little lamb who does whatever doctor says. If you ever have any kind of doubts, get a second opinion. Push for it. It's your life we're talking about.

Life-and-death danger for men on BPH drugs

Warning to Men on Drugs for Enlarged Prostate: They've been Linked to Cancer!     Some of the latest news about some popular prostate drugs links them to cancer. If confirmed true, it's disastrous news indeed, because about half of all men in their sixties have enlarged prostate (BPH), and as many as 90 percent of men in their seventies and eighties suffer from it.     American men are bombarded day and night with commercials urging us to take prescription drugs for BPH, and millions have heeded the call.     Are we in the middle of a massive health catastrophe? Let's take a look. I also have somegood news about BPH and cancer, and you don't see much of that, so keep reading! Continued below. . . Read This Only if You Want to Double Your Testosterone Without a Prescription Doctors won’t tell you this because they don't know. . .     But all you need to double your testosterone level is a two-nutrient combo that you can buy over-the-counter.     Your cost per day? About two bucks.     Give your body these two foods and it will do the rest.     Compare that to about $6,000 a year — $16 a day — for doctor-prescribed testosterone that actually damages your own body’s ability to make the testosterone you need to be a man. . . Get all the details here     In June 2011, the Food and Drug Administration issued an official warning1 about an increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer linked to the drugs finasteride (Proscar) and dutasteride (Avodart).     They even went on to update the Warnings and Precautions section of labels for this class of drugs known as 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (alpha blockers).     Just so you're clear on some of the brand names, Avodart, Jalyn, and Proscar are approved to treat symptoms of prostate swelling — benign prostatic hyperplasia or BPH.     And small doses of another drug, Propecia, are approved to treat hair loss in men. Propecia and Proscar are both brand names for finasteride.     Dunno about you… but I'd think twice before swallowing anything that's sporting the "may cause cancer" label! I think I'd rather go bald, or deal with the frequent urination caused by BPH.     Now if you have a taste for irony, you'll love this: Just a few months before this announcement, the FDA put the kybosh on plans to market these drugs as ones that could help PREVENT prostate cancer!     For a change, Big Pharma got a much-needed smackdown in December 2010.     GlaxoSmithKline, maker of dutasteride (brand name Avodart), wanted to add language to the label indicating the drug's ability to reduce prostate cancer risk in men who: Had a prior negative biopsy, and Have an elevated PSA.     Instead, the FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 17-0 that GlaxoSmithKline's dutasteride and Merck's finasteride should NOT be used to prevent prostate cancer. Why?     They said the drugs had been linked to a higher incidence of high-grade tumors. At least now we'll be spared a barrage of commercials claiming these drugs are cancer answers.     The FDA decided that any benefits seen in the reduction of less-risky tumors were outweighed by the development of more life-threatening cancers is some subjects.     Despite the risks from these drugs, many men still take them when seeking relief from a swollen prostate. Here's why… Are you battling a bulging prostate?     Here are a few key facts to know about your prostate gland: It's about the size of a walnut and located just under your bladder It surrounds part of the urethra—the tube that carries urine from the bladder and out of the body Thousands of prostate cells supply fluids that are part of semen The prostate has two major growth spurts -- during puberty and in your young manhood     A healthy, mature prostate should remain the size of a walnut. At most, a healthy prostate may grow to the size of a small plum.     But if your prostate grows much bigger than that (as most do, the older you get), then you can experience serious discomfort and problems with urination.     What's worse, an overgrown prostate can put the squeeze on nerves that help control your erections. This can make it difficult—if not impossible—to perform sexually.     But here's a good question (and one I've often wondered about): Does BPH mean you're at greater risk of cancer? Not necessarily… BPH doesn't mean cancer     Keep in mind that the "B" in BPH stands for "benign." It means the growth is non-cancerous. Scientists have not been able to determine for sure whether prostate swelling is a precursor to prostate cancer.     All the same, BPH symptoms can mimic those related to malignant abnormal cell growth, such as: Slow or weak urine stream Pushing or straining to begin passing urine Blood in your urine caused by straining to void     In time, these problems can cause your bladder to become more irritable… to contract even when it only has a small amount of urine… and give you more frequent and sudden urges to pee. No doubt you've seen those commercials with older men dashing for the nearest restroom all day long, or getting up several times a night to urinate.     It's annoying. But it's not cancer.     And here's more good news if you're experiencing any of these symptoms… Dangerous drugs are NOT your only option!     Prescriptions for BPH drugs can be expensive and may produce unwanted side effects such as headaches, dizziness, fatigue, and even sudden fainting. A large number of men also report a loss of sex drive, and some say it doesn't come back even after they stop taking the drug.     We covered this simmering scandal in our Special Report Maximum Manhood. If I say so myself, every man over 40 should read this report. It not only covers the dangers of prescription BPH drugs, but it goes over all your natural treatment options.     The report also covers testosterone supplements (natural AND prescription) in greater depth than any other publication you can find. It just so happens that getting your testosterone up may bring you relief from BPH and the never-ending trips to the bathroom.Click here to learn more.     I would avoid taking BPH drugs. And in fact I DO avoid it. I'm in the midst of trying the most widely recommended natural solutions for BPH. No success so far, I have to tell you. But I do know they work for some men. They're worth a try. And meanwhile I'm going to keep looking for one that works for me.     Maximum Manhood covers the natural BPH solutions in depth, but here are some of the best-known ones: Saw Palmetto— According to the American Family Physician Journal, many studies have proven saw palmetto remarkably effective at shrinking an enlarged prostate. No guarantees, but some men do have success with it. Selenium—Dr. Larry Clark of the University of Arizona headed a landmark 10-year study which showed selenium reduced abnormal cell growth in the prostate by a remarkable 63 percent. Nettle—eliminates up to 86 percent of prostate symptoms! According to the University of Maryland Medical Center, Urtica dioica—or stinging nettle—has been called a natural finasteride for slowing prostate cell growth. I haven't tried this yet, but it's on my list. Pumpkin seeds—reduce prostate-enlarging DHT! According to Preventionmagazine, the phytosterols in pumpkin seeds may help shrink the prostate. These seeds contain chemicals that prevent testosterone from changing into DHT. High levels of DHT are associated with an enlarged prostate.     There are a number of high-quality supplements that contain some or all of these (and many other natural substances) to help keep your prostate growth in check.

How cancer doctors rip off patients

This Secret Hustle has Cancer Doctors Rolling in Dough!     Have you heard about the "chemotherapy concession?"     The term refers to the scheme that enables some cancer doctors to make a boatload of money by prescribing certain chemotherapy drugs. It raises the question, "Is my doctor prescribing me the drug that's best for me, or the one that gives him the highest profit margin?"     Well, we know the answer. . .keep reading. . . Continued below... Improve your hearing without implants or surgery     Most people think that hearing loss is a part of aging and that they have to live with it. They tend to believe the only way out is to wear hearing aids or undergo invasive implant surgery.     They are wrong! New breakthrough studies have unlocked the powerful secret that helps relieve ringing in the ears and improves your hearing even if you're 70, 80 or 90 years old!     The best news is that your hearing can start to improve in as little as 7 days. To know more about this amazing secret, Click Here.     Unlike other specialists, oncologists who prescribe chemotherapy can profit directly from prescribing certain drugs if they administer treatments in their offices. It only works for an oncologist who has an independent practice. Those employed by hospitals can't enrich themselves this way. In those cases it's the hospital that's reaping massive profits.     But the profiteers in private practice can buy the drugs at wholesale prices, then bill Medicare or private insurance for whatever they can get—and pocket the difference.     You've heard the expression "cutting out the middle man"? That's exactly what the independent oncologist does. He or she is acting as your doctor and your pharmacy at the same time.     A New York Times article1 about these de facto drug-company kickbacks features a quote from Ari Straus, the chief operating officer of Aurora Healthcare Consulting. The group focuses on helping doctors increase their profits.     Straus told the Times that in 2002 many physicians were earning upwards of $1 million per year on drug sales alone!     The General Accounting Office studied federal payments for cancer drugs in late 2001. The GAO determined that, on average, doctors got discounts as high as 86 percent on some drugs! They pay fourteen cents and charge the cancer patient a dollar.     Having observed for some years how the medical system operates, my guess is that many doctors prescribe the chemotherapy drugs that pay them the highest profits, not those that are best for the patient — and certainly not those that are a bargain for the patient.     This is sometimes justified by telling the patient the drug is brand new and represents some kind of improvement. New drugs, still under patent, are the most expensive ones. But it's a well-known fact that few new drugs are any better than off-patent drugs that have been around for years.     The proof for the claimed "improvement" may be that cancer patients in clinical trials survived just a few more weeks than the control group that received an older, cheaper chemo drug. Most of the time, the so-called improvement is bogus, because the system permits drug companies to cook the results in a variety of ways. Crazy Markups     A study published in the journal Health Affairs2 gives an example of the crazy markups in the case of breast cancer patients.     Researchers from the University of Michigan and Harvard University found that just increasing a doctor's reimbursement by ONE DOLLAR resulted in the use of chemo drugs that cost $23 more!     In other words, the doctors in this study are willing to see you or your insurance company billed a much higher amount as long as they get an extra buck or two out of it.     You can be sure that many oncologists jump on the bandwagon of running an in-office pharmacy for profit. But your average thinking person probably would want to know… Does anyone else smell a conflict of interest?     Imagine the problems the "cancer concession" creates for a doctor who's supposed to be helping patients decide if they should undergo chemotherapy at all… or if they should continue a treatment that doesn't appear to be working… or if they should choose an off-patent drug instead of the newest, most expensive one…     Because the profit margins vary widely, the greediest doctors focus on prescribing medications with the highest margins.     Medicare attempted to crack down on the practice in 2005 by changing the markups they would pay for the drugs.     Prior to 2005, Medicare paid a markup of 20 percent to 100 percent on many drugs. And private insurers were willing to pay even higher markups! (A 100 percent markup means half of what you're paying for the drug goes into the doctor's pocket, while the other half goes to the drug company.)     The 2005 Medicare reforms capped drug reimbursement at only 6 percent above the average price of the drug paid by all doctors. If successful, this would mean the doctor is passing on the drugs to you at just a little bit above his cost.     This change caused the overall amount that doctors billed Medicare for injectable drugs to fall by 6 percent—that is, from $10.6 billion in 2004 to $10.3 billion in 2005.     But many private insurers continue to pay higher markups.     Because of the Medicare cutbacks, some doctors decided to suspend office treatments in favor of sending patients to hospitals for chemotherapy.     This might sound like a minor adjustment, but the added commuting time and expense can be far more than an inconvenience for a person battling a life-threatening cancer diagnosis. Personally I'd rather get the chemo infusion in a private office — as long as the doctor isn't price-gouging.     But at least the 6 percent Medicare markup cap has put the kybosh on the outrageous charges, right?     In a perfect world, maybe this would be true. But the reality is… New study links chemotherapy prescriptions with rising cancer costs!     The findings of the University of Michigan and Harvard University study were confirmed again by a 2012 study from researchers at University of California, Los Angeles.     The study, published online December 26th in the Journal of Clinical Oncology,3 confirms financial incentives continue to exist for some US oncologists in the prescribing of chemotherapy drugs.     The study was led by Jennifer Malin, MD, PhD at UCLA, who is also medical director of oncology at the managed care company WellPoint.     The authors stated that profits from the chemotherapy concession represent about 65 percent of revenue in a typical oncology practice, effectively "dwarfing the income from evaluation and management."     The authors recommend shutting down this profit source completely.     They said one workaround solution could be to develop "specialty pharmacy programs" that work with payers to supply clinics with drugs. This would effectively eliminate the current "buy and bill" process.     But the researchers acknowledge the challenges involved in implementing such programs.     These include managing storage and administration of the drugs, as well as "concerns about waste if site-of-care laboratory testing indicates that the drug should not be given."     Despite the challenges with eliminating the chemotherapy concession, many folks concerned about skyrocketing medical costs would welcome the idea of eliminating outrageous profits to doctors who capitalize off of the medical misery of others. Hospitals have their own scam to profit from the suffering of cancer patients     The government permits hospitals to engage in a practice that's similar to the one in private oncology. What's more, this "340B" program has been vastly expanded under Obamacare.     340B was originally meant to help about 90 hospitals to buy drugs to treat the poor. Under the program, drug companies are forced to sell the hospitals drugs at 25 to 50 percent off. As government programs have a habit of doing, the program has expanded to 1675 hospitals and has become one of the biggest boondoggles in medicine.     In the words of the Wall Street Journal (July 31, 2013), "The arrangement gives 340B-qualified hospitals a big incentive to search for patients and prescribe a lot of drugs. The costlier the drugs, the bigger the spread. So expensive cancer drugs are especially appealing."     The article cites one hospital that purchased $54.8 million in drugs under the discount program and sold them to patients for $131.8 million for a profit of $76.9 million. The hospital's total profits from ALL diseases and injuries was $190 million. This means cancer patients are paying a large portion of the bills for the entire health system.     This government program is such a goldmine, eligible hospitals are buying up private oncology practices as fast as they can. Just since the passage of Obamacare, hospitals have acquired 400 oncology practices, according to the Wall Street Journal article. "Acquiring a single oncologist and moving the doctor's prescriptions under a hospital's 340B program can generate an additional profit of $1 million for a hospital."     The hospital conglomerates are rushing to buy up so-called "satellite pharmacies" for the same reason. They want to get their hands on the chemotherapy profits.     The overhead in a hospital is higher than in a private doctor's office, so the same chemotherapy costs the patient something like $6,500 more. That means an additional $650 in copays for many patients, plus other expenses.     Before consenting to undergo chemotherapy in a hospital OR a private practice, you should ask yourself, "Are they doing this because it's good for me or because it's good for them?"     I think the answer is pretty obvious. The suffering of cancer patients pays their bills     The conventional medical industry has no incentive to look for alternatives to chemotherapy and radiation, or to find a "cure" for cancer (as they always claim they're trying to do.) They depend on the profits from cancer. They live off of those dying people.     A "cure' would be a disaster for them. Just remember that when you read those hopeful news stories about some gene therapy or whatever that holds out hope for a cure. To be sure, some exciting research is going on at the genetic and molecular level, but the "cure" (if any) is always years away and involves highly exotic and speculative technology that will probably cost a fortune if it's ever FDA approved.     One line of research they're all excited about involves designer viruses — genetically modified microbes designed to kill a particular type of cancer cell while leaving the patient unharmed. Naturally, Big Science pours money into this sort of thing, while visions of Nobel prizes dance in the heads of the researchers. Little thought is given to the possible dangers of these man-made, Frankenstein microbes.     Meanwhile, there are promising herbs and phytonutrients that could be validated for a few hundred million dollars out of the hundreds of billions wasted on chemotherapy.

[for guys only] natural ways to JACK UP growth hormone

3 Sneaky Ways Your Sleep Habits Are Messing Up

Muscle Growth

By Joseph Arangio, MS, CSCS

Seemingly innocent activities before bedtime can screw up the

natural release of muscle-building substances, like GH and

testosterone.

Sleep Tip #1: Avoid Stimulants

As a general rule, avoid caffeine six to eight hours before

bedtime. Caffeine blocks brain receptors that promote

sleep. "It causes physiological arousal which makes it more

difficult to fall asleep," says Shawn Youngstedt, Ph.D., sleep

scientist from the University of California, San Diego.

Plus caffeine decreases the deep, growth hormone-rich stages of

sleep.

Sleep Tip #2: Reduce Stress

Balancing your checkbook immediately before bed or discussing

business on the telephone is not a good idea.

In addition, watching scary stuff (like The Exorcist... google it)

too close to bedtime might make you anxious and unsettled and make

the transition into sleep tricky. "Anything that causes autonomic

nervous system arousal will impair sleep due to increases in heart

rate, breathing, and sweat production," says Dr. Youngstedt.

Sleep Tip #3: Skip the Nightcap

Sure, alcohol may make you sleepy after dinner, but the sleep that

you get is superficial and hardly restful. Alcohol prevents

you from achieving the deep, restorative sleep associated

with growth hormone production.

And when you don't recover from your workouts, muscle growth

suffers.

If you consume alcohol, moderation and timing are the keys to

ensuring deep, continuous sleep.

Want superhero muscles? One drink, six hours before bedtime, is the

limit.

==================

If you think this can help one of your drinking buddies, pass it

along.

Train hard,

Did a Leading Cancer Doctor Really Admit This?

If you asked oncologists what they really think of cancer treatments, you’d be shocked.

According to one report, when a leading doctor at the Sloan‐Kettering Cancer Center found out that he had advanced‐stage cancer, he told his colleagues, “Do anything you want—but no chemotherapy!”

And he’s not alone. Another official reportedly refused to allow his mother to undergo “state‐of‐the‐art” therapy at his own hospital. What did he do? He sent her to Germany for “alternative” care.

But it’s not surprising when you consider the side effects of traditional treatment…hair loss, nausea, fatigue, cancer even!

So then why wouldn’t you hear more about a natural treatment? One that not only destroys cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched?

A study on people who received this treatment for cancer and other ailments noted that “the results have been spectacular; the only side effect is ‘chronic good health.’”

You read that correctly. Chronic good health was the only side effect. That’s a far cry from any of the conventional methods you’ll hear about.

Go HERE to find out all the details including how the mainstream almost killed one of the greatest cancer discoveries in history. Prepare to be outraged.

German Cancer Breakthrough

2103 Cancer Control Society Convention

41st Annual
Cancer Control Society 
 2013 Convention

OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND PROFESSIONALS
Aug. 31st Sept 1 & 2, 2013
Sat., Sun. & Mon. - Labor Day Weekend
SHERATON UNIVERSAL HOTEL
Universal City, CA (Across from Universal Studios Hollywood)
For Hotel Reservations Call 1-800-325-3535 - Say Attending “CCS Convention”
Singles and Doubles $155.00
Meet Recovered Cancer Patients with Encouraging Reports
LECTURES . MOVIES . EXHIBITS

LEARN ABOUT THE PREVENTION & CONTROL OF CANCER THROUGH NUTRITION, TESTS & NON-TOXIC CANCER THERAPIES SUCH AS LAETRILE, GERSON, HOXSEY, KOCH, ENZYMES & IMMUNOTHERAPY FROM MEDICAL DOCTORS, CLINICAL RESEARCHERS, NUTRITIONISTS & AUTHORS. IN ADDITION, LEARN ABOUT CHELATION, DMSO, OXYGEN, HERBAL, CELLULAR &
ELECTRO-MAGNETIC THERAPIES. AND MUCH MORE…

Only $40.00/Day

For more information and programs contact:
CANCER CONTROL SOCIETY
2043 N. Berendo St.
Los Angeles, CA 90027 
(323) 663-7801
www.cancercontrolsociety.com 
DOCTOR'S Symposium - $75.00
Tuesday, Sept. 3rd - ALL PROFESSIONALS & PUBLIC INVITED.
TOUR OF MEXICAN CANCER CLINICS - $100.00
Wed., Sept. 4th, Sat., Sept. 14 
PRE-REGISTRATION

Read this BEFORE your next lawn treatment…     Most lawns and gardens experience pesky weed growth that can choke your grass—and make you step up your weed-whacking efforts.     For many folks this means a trip to the local hardware store to purchase herbicides.     But before you resort to chemical weed killers, you should know that a recent study found the world's most popular brand may be linked to a host of health problems including Alzheimer's disease, cancer, infertility and Parkinson's disease! Keep reading and I'll explain... Continued below. . . You Will Probably Live To 100 Years Whether You Want To Or Not     The "rules" of aging have changed enormously in the days since I went to medical school. They still keep changing; life expectancy moves relentlessly upwards.     We are all growing older, it's true. But that doesn't mean we have to age.     Despite continuous propaganda from the authorities who want to bilk you of their retirement pension, humans are living longer than ever. Retirement age now means nothing.     The fact is that at 65 years you are barely half-way through even today's lifespan. Some people alive now will reach 200 years of age and still be in good shape.     Not sure? Did you know that, of all the people who ever reached the age of 65 years, half of them are still alive!     What will put you in your grave, eventually, is not aging. It's ignorance. I promise you that you will die early if you don't know about anti-aging. You'll lose years that could be rightfully yours.     In my remarkable eBook "Get Healthy For Your Next 100 Years" I tell you all the latest science, organ by organ, system by system, explaining what you need to know and what you need to do to stay healthy. Best Regards, Keith Scott-Mumby MD, MB ChB, PhD     Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant from Arthur D. Little, Inc., made these claims in a study published in the journal Entropy1.     The authors dubbed the active ingredient in Monsanto's product Roundup® "the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment!" It has been available under different brand names since the Monsanto patent expired in 2000.     Whatever the brand name, the ingredient we're talking about is glyphosate, a chemical that is commonly sprayed over genetically modified (GM) crops designed to tolerate it.     This means the toxin has made its way to your dinner table.     According to Samsel and Seneff, the chemical residues you ingest in foods slowly disrupt normal body functions and can cause inflammation and disease throughout the body.     Now you can bet the reaction from the chemical manufacturers was fast and furious! Are these accusations based on bad science?     Monsanto was quick to respond to the study conclusions, and attempted to tear holes in Samsel and Seneff's claims. A company blog post2 accused the authors of producing a paper of "low scientific quality" using "no new data and a piecemeal approach."     Basically, Monsanto objected to the fact that the authors didn't conduct any new research. The company said Samsel and Seneff just compiled a review of recent literature to arrive at their cause-and-effect hypotheses.     The blog post also attacked the scientists' credibility based on their ties to activist groups lobbying against GM foods.     These counterattacks might make you less willing to condemn the popular weed killing product, at least until you have more information.     But remember, Monsanto admits that these folks reviewed existing studies and literature.     Clearly this means that other people have been investigating a connection between glyphosate and disease.     For example, scientists raised similar concerns about the health effects of glyphosate in a study published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology3.     These researchers determined that glyphosate has estrogenic properties that feed breast cancer tumors.     What's more, a 2011 study4 from the U.S. Geological Survey found the chemical present in 60 to 100 percent of rain and air samples in the U.S! That surprised me, because I don't think of herbicides as an air pollution issue.     The problem isn't confined to the United State. In Europe, testing showed that people in 18 countries had glyphosate in their bodies!     With such a widespread presence on the planet, you can bet that humans aren't the only ones suffering the nasty side effects… Glyphosate is an equal opportunity poison     In a January 16, 2011 open letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack, plant pathologist Dr. Don Huber warned of a link between Roundup Ready® (RR) crops and serious plant diseases, animal infertility and spontaneous abortions.     Roundup Ready crops are genetically modified to withstand the effects of Roundup herbicide, so they survive the poison while weeds are killed.     Dr. Huber said a new infectious agent had been found in heavy concentrations in the RR soybean and corn crops. He was especially disturbed by what he called "an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal disease and disorders."     Huber urged USDA to launch a multi-agency investigation and place a moratorium on deregulating RR crops until the relationship between glyphosate and these plants could be investigated more fully.     So how did the government react to his requests?     The administration fully deregulated Monsanto's RR alfalfa and sugar beets less than three weeks after receiving Dr. Huber's letter!     Now, Dr. Huber’s letter concerned Roundup-Ready plants, not the weed killer as such. But it’s hard to separate the two because when you consume an RR crop presumably you’re eating herbicide residue, too. In fact, Dr. Huber maintains the herbicide actually becomes part of the plant. You can’t wash it off or remove it in any way.     Maybe you'll find comfort in knowing that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting a standard registration review of glyphosate.     They've decided to render a decision about whether to limit glyphosate use by the year2015. I find this disturbing. The safety of the product should be established before it's deregulated.     In the meantime, you can at least avoid using the weed killer on your own lawn and garden if you'd like to reduce your exposure.     This might mean you'll have to pull out the electric weed whacker… hire a gardener… or resign yourself to weeding the old-fashioned way — on your knees and with your hands…     Any of these choices may be a safer, healthier alternative to the chemicals in the food supply that may be harming your health.

These fruits tested best for stopping cancer cells

The Fruits that Tested Best for Stopping Cancer Cells     Imagine if doctors started prescribing certain fruits to fight cancer—the second leading cause of death worldwide. You'd hear things like: "Take this berry for stomach cancer. Use this citrus fruit to treat your lung cancer." And so on.     Incredibly, we're in the early stages of seeing that become a reality. Nutraceuticals—that is, foods used as drugs— are getting more attention every year as a way to fight or prevent the development of cancer.     Now comes a study that directly compares the effect of different fruits on cancer cells. I was surprised by what they found. . . Continued below... The Blood Pressure Lie EXPOSED!     If you've been told you have high blood pressure, you're probably scared to death.     It is called "the silent killer."     With a name like that, it has to scare you.     And, if that's not scary enough, you were probably told to start taking a blood pressure drug immediately.     But, that wasn't all, was it? I bet you had to go and see a cardiologist next.     And, did the cardiologist tell you that if one drug didn't bring your pressure down, you might have to take a second drug at the same time? Often, there's even a third drug.     I know how the system works. I've been fighting against it for you for almost 30 years.     And, I know you don't want to be part of that group who's taking blood pressure medication for the rest of their lives.     So I'll let you in on a little secret... How one small fruit effectively halted liver cancer     Recent evidence suggests not all fruits are created equal when it comes to halting the growth of cancer. Different fruits pack massively different combinations of phytonutrients. Wild bananas, for instance, contain anthocyanins. But not yellow bananas.     So, in a petri-dish study using liver cancer cells, researchers decided to test the individual power of various fruits. As a control, they dripped water on the cancer cells—and nothing happened. The growth of the cancer cells didn't slow down at all.     Next came a test for pineapples, then pears, then oranges. None made any appreciable difference in the cancer cell growth rate. But when the researchers tested high peach concentrations on the cancer cells, cancer cell proliferation dropped roughly 10 percent.     That surprised me, because I've never seen peaches mentioned as a particularly healthy fruit. In view of this study, I think it's likely they contain a powerful phytonutrient that scientists haven't identified yet.     That's alright by me. Peaches in season are my favorite fruit. Blueberries (not tested in this study) come in second for me. But purchasing fresh peaches is tricky because they have very heavy loads of pesticides when grown conventionally. An organic farmer once told me that it's almost impossible to grow them without some chemicals, so in farmer's markets you'll find a lot of "low-spray" peaches but probably few that can honestly claim to be "no-spray." But peaches weren't the most powerful anti-cancer fruit. . .     Grapefruits and bananas each halted growth by about 40 percent. Apples, strawberries, and red grapes slowed cancer cell proliferation by 50 percent. Those figures are far higher than the score for peaches.     But keep reading. This gets better. . .     The two fruits really worth noticing were lemons and cranberries, with cranberries coming out on top. They both caused a dramatic drop in proliferation, and at tiny doses. For a fascinating video on the subject, click http://www.care2.com/greenliving/which-common-fruit-fights-cancer-better.html.     Does this mean that anybody suffering from liver cancer should start downing cranberries? It certainly wouldn't hurt, considering fruit treatments are generally quite safe. But we have to consider whether the same reaction would take place inside the human body. Studies in petri dishes are great. But they can't and don't tell the whole story. We need studies in live humans — not easy to do because it wouldn't be ethical to treat a cancer patient with nothing but bananas or lemons. Fruits aren't the only edible treatment on the rise…     This isn't the only promising study on fruits halting cancer. In another study, researchers took people who already had pre-cancerous changes in their mouths—a precursor to oral cancer, which has a very high death rate.     Now, we know that in petri dish experiments, black raspberries can inhibit the growth of pre-malignant and malignant cells without affecting the growth of normal cells. But again, that's not the same as testing the effects on humans.     Here's where it gets interesting. Researchers took those folks with pre-cancerous growths in their mouths and asked them to rub a black raspberry gel on the growths daily for six weeks. Incredibly, most of the lesions improved. Some completely regressed.     The gel was chosen so test subjects wouldn't have to consume berries all day long, and because the gel stuck better to the gums where the lesions were. Because of the promising results, one group of researchers is working to create injectable berry implants.     One reason to hope they come through with the implants is that it's hard to get access to black raspberries on a regular basis. You've probably noticed the stores usually stock red raspberries. Now, red raspberries are also a known cancer-fighter, but since this oral cancer study was conducted on black raspberries, those are the ones you'd want to use to have the best shot at getting the same results.     Freeze-dried black raspberry powder is available, but then there's the risk of lost nutrition. Still, it's worth a try.     Let me point out here that it's not just fruit that might save the day from cancer. Spinach appears to be the best vegetable for fighting breast cancer … and to be honest, it's at or near the top among salad greens for fighting a lot of other cancers including brain tumors, kidney cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, stomach cancer, and pediatric brain tumors.     But we're still a ways away from hearing doctors prescribe hefty doses of berries and vegetables to ward off cancer. Regardless ... I don't think it's far-fetched to believe that day might come, and maybe sooner than we think. Whole foods diet wins out again     The best you can do for now is to stick to a whole foods diet with lots of fresh greens and fruits. If you missed last week's article on juicing, look it up and consider this easy way of consuming large amounts of fresh, uncooked vegetables and fruit.     Because it's nearly impossible to know which specific cancers you're most at risk for, your best bet is to eat a wide variety of the good stuff from nature. That'll cover your bases until we know more about which fruit or vegetable is best for which cancer.     In the meantime, you may be wondering about the most palatable way to eat a cranberry. Cranberry juice from the store is not a great idea, because it's pasteurized, which destroys valuable nutrients. Instead, make your own cranberry juice. Blend a handful of frozen cranberries, water, and your natural sweetener of choice (I recommend agave or, better yet, xylitol). Then drink and enjoy—you'll get less than half the sugar of store-bought cranberry juice, and loads more phytonutrients.     And whatever you do, try hard to buy organic fruits and vegetables to avoid the chemicals.

eFax®: Top 5 Reasons to use eFax® for Business Communications

Hello,

As you are well aware, online faxing is a much easier and efficient way of faxing these days. What you might not be so privy to is that online faxing can be a much safer way to share important business documents than other forms of communication. Here are the top five reasons to use eFax^® for business communications: 

1. Virus Threats: Faxes are delivered as a Portable Document Formats (PDF), which unlike emails are less likely to harbor viruses.
2. Spam Filters: Faxes do not get blocked like emails by spam filters.
3. Data Privacy and Encryption: Faxes are natively encrypted and can't be hacked or decoded. Emails on the other hand can be intercepted and read if not encrypted.
4. Legal Acceptance: Email and file attachments can be great for every day communication but are not generally accepted for legal documentation because attached files do not provide a time-stamped image of a document.
5. Flexibility with File Size: It is easier to send large files through online fax than email because online fax dos not fall under any file size caps put in place by email hosts.