Shocked doctors forced to admit cancer cure works

Shocked Doctors Forced to Eat Crow . . .after patients use The 31-Day Home Cancer Cure

“Congratulations! You're cancer free!” declared Rev. Cobus Rudolph's doctor after Rev. Rudolph cured his stage four colon cancer at home “You’re a miracle from God!” said Richard Wiebe's doctor after he cured his terminal brain cancer at home “Are you the terminal patient I saw two months ago? You look great!” remarked Kevin Irish's doctor after Kevin cured his stage four lung cancer at home “Well, I know the cancer is here somewhere” said Frank Woll's doctor while looking through a magnifying glass. But Frank's deadly skin cancer was gone—totally GONE!—after he cured his cancer at home      You’re invited to receive a free special report with all the details on these amazing cures that happened thanks to the the secrets of the 31-Day Home Cancer Cure.      You can see the proof for yourself, presented by Ty Bollinger, one of America’s top experts on alternative cancer treatments. In the free video, Ty tells you about the 31-Day Home Cancer Cure so that you won’t have to watch someone you love die in misery from outdated cancer treatments.      Ty knows exactly what’s it’s like to go through that, because he lost seven close family members to cancer, including his mom and dad. When his mother passed away, it was the last straw. He set out to find a way to beat cancer. He invested 7 years in learning about the treatments that really work. And now he wants to share what he learned with you in this free special report (By the way, you don’t have to give us your email address or anything else.).      If a doctor told you the important information that’s in this video, he’d lose his license and might even go to jail. Ty isn’t a doctor and he doesn’t have that problem. He's free to tell you the truth.      He also doesn’t sell the treatments or make money off of them – unlike establishment doctors who will bill you as much as $850,000 for chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. After they’ve taken your money, you’re almost sure to die anyway -- because only two out of 100 cancer patients survive once the cancer has spread from where it first started.      That's why it makes sense to at least consider the proven alternatives Ty has uncovered. I'm not asking you to believe it yet – first take a look at the proof.      The 31-Day Home Cancer Cure costs so little that just about anybody can afford it – even uninsured patients on Medicaid. No wonder the cancer industry hates it!      The 31-Day Home Cancer Cure could save you or a loved one from dying an early death from cancer. There IS a better way to beat cancer than suffering through the misery of chemo and radiation. But I want YOU to decide if this is on the level. . .if this amazing treatment plan can save you the way it saved the four people at the top of this page. Click here and get the free special report!      As you’ll find out, it really is amazing how many doctors have been forced to eat crow after their “incurable” and “terminal” patients used the 31-Day Home Cancer Cure!

Is this health food really a poison?

Could This Popular Health Food be Secretly Poisoning Your Diet?     There's a lot of controversy over whether eating soy is outright dangerous, especially for males. For one thing, it's rich in phytoestrogens, which are plant estrogens that are similar to but not identical to human estrogens. Estrogens are female hormones. Generally speaking, you don’t want to eat them if you're a male.     As to whether phytoestrogens are good for you, the answer you get depends on who you ask. [Grammarians: Please don't write to tell me I should have said "whom".] It's very confusing and hard to figure out whether soy is healthy or toxic. We made up our minds to find out what's what, and my research staff came up with some answers that are going to surprise you. . . Continued below... Why Most Health Foods are a Waste of Money By Lee Euler     You can take vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants by the handful and stillsuffer poor health. Now we know why. Our diets lack a vital food -- a type of nutrient that even alternative doctors don’t know about. Thanks to this supplement, a mother’s lifelong migraines disappeared, and a man with "terminal" kidney cancer was alive 15 years later. He’s just one of thousands of cancer patients who have taken this supplement and seen remarkable results.     There’s more: It’s one of the most popular pain relievers in Germany, used by that country’s Olympic team to help athletes get rid of pain and accelerate healing from sports injuries. It outperforms prescription blood clot drugs — in my opinion, patients should take this supplement instead of blood-thinning drugs like warfarin. And it even helps 9 out of 10 autistic children. The mother of a 7-year-old autistic child starting giving him this supplement after reading my Special Report The Missing Ingredient — and he started speaking after having been nonverbal his whole life!     How can ONE supplement possibly do all this? Just ask yourself: What if you were getting NO vitamins in your diet? You’d be very sick. This nutrient is just as important and you’re getting almost none. Read more here about The Missing Ingredient, and consider trying it yourself.     Some authorities believe soy plays no role in cancer, and particularly hormone-related cancers (like estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer, uterine cancer, or ovarian cancer). Others point to animal studies suggesting that genistein, a main isoflavone in soy, actually promoted breast cancer growth.     Then along came further research showing that rats and mice metabolize phytoestrogens like genistein differently than humans, so the whole question is up in the air again.     Scientists in the past have said eating soy actually protects you from diseases like cancer, but most of those studies have been observational. In other words, researchers collect diet information from individuals and follow them for several years to see who develops cancer and who doesn't.     But as with any observational study, it could be that the connection between lower cancer risk and soy is due to an overlooked factor related to eating soy, particularly since people who eat soy might be more likely to exercise and eat more vegetables. The exercise and all the other healthy foods that soy eaters eat might offset the bad effects (if any) of eating soy.     Observational studies are prone to error because they don't get at cause and effect. All they can do is point out that "people who have characteristic X also tend to have characteristic Y." A classic example occurred decades ago when a big observational study seemed to indicate that people who drink coffee are more likely to get cancer and heart disease. It turned out it wasn't the coffee. Heavy coffee drinkers were more likely to smoke, and it was smoking that brought on the diseases. One study says don't, others say do…     We all know prostate cancer is serious business, particularly in the U.S. where one in six men will develop the disease during his lifetime. Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in American men, eclipsed only by lung cancer.     For years, men with prostate cancer or even the likelihood of developing prostate cancer have been told to eat soy products. Part of that thinking comes from laboratory studies that show soy contains substances with anti-cancer properties, including isoflavones.     Another part of the pro-soy logic stems from what's been observed in Asia, where soy is a constant in the diet starting at birth. Prostate cancer rates there are much lower than in the U.S., though it does raise the question of whether soy consumption early in life plays a role or whether it's possible to begin a healthy soy regimen at a later age. It also raises the same questions as any observational study: Asians do a lot of things differently than Americans. How do we know it's soy that causes them to enjoy lower prostate cancer rates?     The thing is, there's no hard evidence that soy keeps prostate cancer at bay. And now there's a new study that throws even more cold water on the idea. According to Dr. Maarten Bosland, professor of pathology at the University of Illinois at Chicago and lead researcher in a recent soy study, daily consumption of soy after surgery for prostate cancer "does not reduce the risk of recurrence."     The study led by Bosland and published in the July 10 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, included over 150 men with an increased risk of prostate cancer. Each had undergone a radical prostatectomy, which didn't remove all the cancer cells.     Each of the men was assigned to drink either a powdered soy protein drink or a placebo beverage every day for two years. At the end of the study, no significant difference between the two groups could be found in terms of cancer recurrence. Just over a quarter of the men in each group had prostate cancer recurrence within two years.     Dr. Bosland says soy is still safe to take and that it has no adverse side effects, but some studies say otherwise. According to other authoritative figures, like Dr. Anthony D'Amico, chief of radiation oncology at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, soy supplementation brings no harm and may offer a benefit. Dr. D'Amico advises against using the recent study—which he says was quite small—as evidence that people should stop eating soy for health benefits. The multiple hazards of soy consumption     Another unsolved puzzle is whether soy foods play a different role in the body than do soy supplements. Some say straight soy beats supplements any day, while others point to the shocking prevalence of GMO soy. And if you follow anything GMO-related, you know that it never leads to good news or healthy outcomes. Several reports say as much as 99 percent of soy has been genetically modified, and most soybean plants are treated with a high level of pesticides.     Does that mean organic soy is the way to go? Possibly, but here are some more soy-related facts that should give you pause. Soy is high in something called phytic acid, which blocks the absorption of minerals like calcium and magnesium. That's one reason third-world countries with grain- and legume-based diets (and thus high phytic acid levels) tend to have widespread mineral deficiencies. Soybeans have toxins that are so powerful, they're not destroyed during cooking. Many of the toxins are known as enzyme inhibitors, which complicate your ability to digest protein. In one study, animals that consumed enzyme inhibitors ended up developing pancreatic problems, including pancreatic cancer. Yikes! Soy products tend to have higher-than-normal levels of aluminum, which is known to have negative health effects. It comes from aluminum tanks where the beans are washed and heat-treated. I don't think this is a major worry, but I toss it out there for your consideration.     This brings us back to the Asia question, and why Asian cultures have been safely consuming soy for thousands of years. One theory is that they only began soy consumption after they figured out how to ferment it; before that, they avoided soybeans because of the toxins.     Fermentation makes the nutrients in soy more available on a biological level while destroying their natural toxins. Fermented soy foods include natto, miso, and tempeh. But the downside to those foods is that they're high in sodium. Again, I don't feel this is a major worry, but if you think you're salt sensitive, you need to know it.     The evidence I've seen for fermented soy is highly favorable. I see it as healthy food to eat, with benefits in treating and preventing a variety of diseases including cancer and heart disease. For more on this, check out our Issue #88. When in doubt, don't eat it     Other than fermented, soy is a minefield. I don't eat it — in defiance of my integrative doctor, a smart man who continues to believe soy is a healthy food. It's just about impossible to reach any definite conclusions about it. That's enough reason to avoid it. Kindest regards, Lee Euler, Publisher References: "Newest Research On Why You Should Avoid Soy." by Sally Fallon & Mary G. Enig, Ph.D. Mercola: Health Articles. http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/avoid_soy.htm "Soyfoods & Cancer." By Lindsey Getz, Today's Dietitian, Vol. 15 No. 4 P. 30. http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/040113p30.shtml  "Soy and Hormone Related Cancers." By Suzanne Dixon, MPH, MS, RD, on behalf on the ON DPG, Oncology Nutrition. http://www.oncologynutrition.org/erfc/hot-topics/soy-and-hormone-related-cancers/ "Soy products linked to cancer in lab tests." By Zach C. Miller, Natural News, 16 July 2013. http://www.infowars.com/soy-products-linked-to-cancer-in-lab-tests/ "Soy Won't Prevent Prostate Cancer's Return: Study." By Steven Reinberg, HealthDay. WebMD, Prostate Cancer News. http://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/news/20130709/soy-wont-prevent-prostate-cancers-return-study "What are the key statistics about prostate cancer?" American Cancer Society: Prostate Cancer. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostatecancer/detailedguide/prostate-cancer-key-statistics

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!

Damon Wilson Gains Valuable Experience as NFL's St. Louis Rams Intern

ST. LOUIS, MO. – Bowie State Head Football Coach Damon Wilson recently completed a summer internship with St. Louis Rams as part of the Bill Walsh NFL Minority Coaching Fellowship. The annual program is administered by the NFL Management Council and NFL Player Engagement.

The program's objective is to use NFL Clubs’ training camps, offseason workout program and minicamps to give talented minority coaches opportunities to observe, participate, gain experience and ultimately gain a full-time NFL coaching position.

“The Rams are a first class organization and Coach Fisher and his staff really continued to improve my development as a Head coach and the CEO of Bowie State University football program”, said Wilson.

During his internship with the Rams, Wilson had the opportunity to participate in all of the offensive/Defensive and Special teams meetings along with personnel meetings. Wilson primarily worked with Coach Ben Sirmans (Running Backs) and Coach Brian Schottenheimer (Offensive Coordinator).  “Coach Schottenheimer along with his offensive staff have a wealth of knowledge and have an excellent way of teaching their players”, stated Wilson.

Designed as a vocational tool to increase the number of full-time NFL minority coaches, all 32 NFL Clubs participate in the program on an annual basis. Specific aspects of the program (including hiring, salary and coaching duties) are administered on a Club-by-Club basis.  No elements of the Fellowship are mandated to the Clubs by the League office, but several “best practices” have been strongly recommended to the Club, including: Participants are hired for the duration of training camp, including all pre-season games. Clubs are encouraged to hire a minimum of four (4) participants.

As part of the programs’ evolution, in 2012 the NFL announced the formation of the Bill Walsh Minority Coaching Fellowship Advisory Council, comprised of a distinguished group of NFL coaches and general managers.

“I believe this was the best possible organization for me to land an internship with because of the youth on their roster and the experience of the coaching staff, said Wilson. “The Rams have one of the youngest rosters in the NFL, which for me was great because it reminded me of a college atmosphere at practice and in meetings.  I was also afforded the opportunity to meet with the Pro and College scouting department.  This was great because it gave me the opportunity to confirm that what we are teaching and telling our student-athletes at Bowie State University is in line with what’s being taught at the highest level.  We are very fortunate with graduating our players and to have two players from BSU in the last four years remain on NFL rosters.  In order to continue to prepare our players for the possible opportunity to play at the highest level, I believe that my coaching staff and I must take advantage of every opportunity that we receive to experience an internship like this one.”

This could be more dangerous than cancer itself

This Major Risk Could Be More Dangerous than Cancer Itself     A cancer diagnosis can be downright terrifying.     And then, almost without pause, come rounds of treatments. And in millions of cases, it's a false alarm, a wrong diagnosis… a physically and emotionally draining event that can do terrible damage to body, mind and spirit.     That's why the some of the top dogs in the cancer industry now want to change the definition of cancer…     They woke up and discovered that too many people were being misdiagnosed and given treatments they don't need. Read on… Continued below... Millionaire's Amazing Secret Can Radically Transform Your Health     For most people, wrinkles... forgetfulness... low energy... sleep trouble... and an onslaught of health problems are the normal part of aging.     But one Beverly Hills millionaire proved they don't have to be!     At 65 years of age, "Mister B" is at the peak of health. He's bursting with energy... never gets sick... has normal blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar levels... boasts a laser-sharp memory... and looks decades younger than his chronological age.     What's his secret?     He does ONE thing differently than most everyone else.     Click here to discover his age-defying, fountain-of-youth recipe—and dramatically improve your health. Have we finally identified the REAL enemy in the war on cancer?     A new report by the National Cancer Institute confirms what many of us in the alternative cancer care world have been saying for years…     The famous "war on cancer" has been targeting the wrong enemy — and you may become a victim of friendly fire.     In late July, a National Cancer Institute report published by JAMA online made the shocking statement that benign or premalignant conditions should no longer be called cancer.     This includes low-risk lesions like DCIS -- ductal carcinoma in situ, a breast condition we wrote about in Issue #154. We were already warning our readers back then that it was nothing to worry about. We called it "zero stage cancer" — in other words, not cancer at all     HGPIN is another condition that — suddenly -- is no longer defined as cancer. HGPIN stands for high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, a prostate condition diagnosed in millions of men and then over-treated.     These are normally non-invasive conditions that don't require treatment at all — let alone the aggressive treatment they're often given. They aren't the enemy after all.     As readers of this newsletter know, we've often questioned the use of repeated, cancer-causing x-ray breast screenings and potentially misleading PSA tests. They cause a great deal of needless fear and painful over-treatment. And it turns out the emotional terror can do you great harm. The War on Cancer: A bunch of hot air     This new study has grave implications, such as: Millions have received so-called life-saving early diagnosis, followed by rounds of needless and damaging treatment — especially women with DCIS and men with HGPIN. Will these folks now be reclassified as victims of iatrogenesis (medical treatment gone wrong) with full rights to sue? (Iatrogenesis is defined as harm caused by medical treatment or by medical practitioners, and may include negligence, improper sanitation, medical error, misdiagnosis, drug adverse effects or interactions, and more.) Anyone who is screened for cancer needs to reconsider the recommended treatment plan in light of this new definition of cancer. It's important to remember that the likelihood of a false positive over a 10-year period is already higher than 50 percent if you do annual breast screening. But if all doctors now give "stage zero cancer" a different name, it will become even more frightening to be told cancer is in stages one through four. I wouldn't hold my breath on all doctors applying the proposed standard universally though, even if it's accepted. The money-grubbing, publicity-hungry pink-ribbon industry may be forced to rebrand its message, as it has propagated false ideas about cancer and has promoted the over-diagnosis and overtreatment of millions of women.     There's no doubt that the practice of oncology in the U.S. (and many other parts of the world) needs major reform. "Treatment" can make your cancer cells 30 times more malignant     The current rash of over-diagnoses stems from the fact that these "cancers" are by and large slow-growing ones with no symptoms. They would almost never progress to harmful status if left alone and ignored. Keep in mind, the medical establishment has a motive for diagnosing phony cancers and then "curing" them (besides the money): It helps pad the statistics for survivors and survival rates. How easy it is to survive a cancer that wasn't a cancer!     In fact, it's the fast-growing tumors that are much more challenging to detect early. And this might surprise you: Even in those cases, many of them would never progress to a lethal state.     What's worse… certain of these tumors are enhanced and become more malignant because of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation.     UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center researchers recently found that radiation therapy transforms breast cancer cells into highly malignant cancer cells — with 30 times higher malignancy after radiation treatments.     What they found is that even when radiation kills half the tumor cells, the surviving ones become resistant to treatment. So, radiation cuts the total cancer cell population, giving the false impression that the treatment is working… when in reality it increases the percentage of highly malignant cells that can lead to treatment-induced death.1     This means it's not only possible you never had cancer in the first place, but now the treatment is causing cancer cells to proliferate inside your body. Talk about a double whammy. Is cancer really an enemy attacking you?     Maybe our entire way of looking at cancer needs to shift from the "enemy attacking you" that requires a raging war… to something your body performs to protect you internally. I recently came across an interesting theory about that, proposed by Paul Davies, of Arizona State University, and Charles Lineweaver, Australian National University scientist.     Davies calls cancer "not a random bunch of selfish rogue cells behaving badly, but a highly-efficient pre-programmed response to stress…"     In other words, cancer may be your body's response to an unhealthy cellular environment. It may be more a symptom than a disease… your body's effort to "right itself" in the context of cellular and environmental conditions gone terribly wrong.     If this is true, we'll need to question the prevailing theory that cancer cells are the result of rogue mutations that can kill us — and the prevailing treatment of killing them with chemotherapy and radiation. Worse than cancer: Crippling fear and needless treatment for a nonexistent cancer     If you view cancer as a chaos-driven, infinitely expanding mass of cells, you'll tend to make bad choices in the panic of the moment.     NCI's panel opined: ...cancers are heterogeneous and can follow multiple paths, not all of which progress to metastases and death, and include indolent disease that causes no harm during the patient's lifetime.     That's why this proposed redefinition of cancer is no small matter. It'll affect millions of people. Every year, 60,000 American women are diagnosed with DCIS, besides men with HGPIN, and the rest of the 2 million Americans with other cancers.     The diagnosis unleashes shock and fear — which in and of itself can be a killer. Research shows that a cancer diagnosis can be as fatal as cancer itself.     Published in the New England Journal of Medicine in April 2012, scientists evaluated 6 million Swedish adults regarding the psychological toll of a cancer diagnosis. After analyzing more than 500,000 cancer diagnoses, they concluded that the risk of suicide was 16 times higher, and the risk of heart-related death was 26.9 times higher — during just the first week following diagnosis — compared to people who were cancer free.     Few women recover from the devastating fear and stress that follows a false-positive breast cancer diagnoses, even three years after they've learned the diagnosis was wrong and they're declared cancer-free. This finding about long-lasting damage is based on measurements of 12 psychological qualities, including a sense of dejection, anxiety, feelings of attractiveness, and negative impact on sleep, behavior, sexuality, and more.     Even after being "cleared of cancer" the psychological impact was equivalent to actuallyhaving breast cancer. This finding is so shocking I can't help but think it's got to be a mistake, but that's what the researchers concluded.     This is extremely likely to affect you or someone you love, considering you have a fifty-fifty chance of getting a false-positive at least once if you get a mammogram every year for ten years. One example: A woman in Texas was told she had Stage 4 terminal breast cancer, and was led down the road of chemotherapy and depression… only to learn much later that the diagnosis was wrong. She didn't have cancer in the first place.     And she's not the only one, by ANY stretch.     Disturbing? Yes. But this doesn't have to happen to you… 7 ways to avoid being the victim of a false positive     You may not be able to avoid being told you have cancer due to a false positive from a screening test, but you can chart your own path and spare yourself the trauma of unneeded treatments.     And it definitely helps to have thought this out beforehand.     You and your loved ones have far more vested interest in your health than any medical professional you'll ever meet. So take the steps you can take, such as: Develop a "what-if" plan for yourself and your loved ones. Now, not later. Eat organic food, exercise regularly and avoid exposure to toxins as much as you can. Say no to tests that have a reputation for false positives. Mammograms and PSA tests are high on the list. Learn about the shortcomings of these deeply flawed tests and don't let yourself be railroaded into treatment. Get a baseline thermogram (if you haven't already) and repeat once in awhile to look for the patterns of body heat and inflammation that are early indicators of cancer. If you don't know what a thermogram is, read the article that follows this one and find out. ALWAYS — and I mean always — get a second and even a third opinion.Many things can and do go wrong with diagnoses. The life you save with a second opinion could be your own. Remember that early-stage cancer is highly treatable and almost always slow-growing. You've got plenty of time to study all your options and to try alternative treatments before consenting to conventional treatments. Don't jump into any conventional treatment protocol until your diagnosis has been confirmed two or three times. The results of surgery, chemo, and radiotherapy can be devastating. Natural treatments, on the other hand, can be started right away. And they'll improve your health in dozens of ways even if you don't have cancer.     Above all, remember that you are in charge of your own health — not your doctor or your genes. Doctors make mistakes. Don't permit yourself to be rushed into anything.

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.