Connect with us

Awareness

Inform Yourself About Cannabis & Join The Movement That’s Saving Lives

Published

on

We want to be healthy. We want our children to be healthy.

advertisement - learn more

We want to prevent disease, and we surely want to treat disease compassionately. We want nutritionally complete food and we want safe and effective medicine. Well, where do we all start?

Before we go any further here, let’s be clear, we’re talking about the responsible use of cannabis for parents, our children, and the children of the future. We are talking about the lack of access to safe medicine.

Let’s start with the Jamaican study.

health-081612-002-617x416

In Jamaica cannabis is culturally acceptable and considered to be a safe and effective way to relax and relieve stress, as well a natural medicine. A controlled study was done comparing the health of babies born from a group of women who were smoking and consuming cannabis in a tea and a group of women that were not using cannabis during pregnancy. The results are surprising.

advertisement - learn more

Not only were there no significant differences between the groups of newborns, but the newborns from the cannabis group scored a little higher in autonomic stability and reflexes at one month of age. These babies were actually more social than the babies from the non-using group and had significantly higher scores in: habituation to auditory and tactile stimuli, degree of alertness, capacity to be consoled, and self-regulation. [1]

They had less irritability, fewer startles and tremors, a higher and better quality of alertness, and were more rewarding for their caregivers than the neonates of the non-using group of mothers. At 5 years of age there were no significant differences anymore. Why would these children have scored higher in autonomic stability and reflexes at 30 days old, but then be scoring around the same at 5 years of age?

Science offers us answers.

breastfeed

Human breast milk contains cannabinoids including THC, some of the same cannabinoids that are found in cannabis. It’s no secret that
breast milk is better for infants and children than cow’s milk or formula, and cow’s milk is actually an acidic animal protein and a carcinogen that wreaks havoc on our bodies and the bodies of our children. Most formulas actually contain several carcinogens in their ingredients and most formulas also contain genetically modified (GMO) ingredients as well. So if human breast milk contains the same cannabinoids that are found in cannabis, shouldn’t these huge corporations be adding cannabinoids to their formula instead of carcinogens?

Studies show that “the blocking of cannabinoid receptor activation during early development is considered to have ‘catastrophic’ effects.” So if the cannabinoids in human breast milk that are crucial to the development of an infant aren’t added to the infant formulas, where are babies getting them?

Well, they are not receiving cannabinoids at all.

nrc1188-i1

This isn’t something we should just be writing off either. It’s something that should have our full attention, as infant formulas are supposed to replace the nutrition our babies are getting from breast milk, and these corporations honestly fall far short of what should be their goal. And even worse, pregnant women are being offered medications with dangerous side effects instead of being offered natural options.

Benzodiazepines, such as Valium, Xanax, Klonopin, and Ativan, cause a 3-5% increase in babies born with a birth defect, defects including cleft lip and/or cleft palate. They are also highly associated with preterm delivery, low birth weight, and other perinatal outcomes. So why would women take medications with such terrible side effects while pregnant? Most women feel that there are no better alternatives. And it’s not any better for the developing fetus if mom is stressed out and anxious all of the time. In most of the US and Canada, a child can be taken away from their parents because of the mother’s decision to use cannabis while pregnant instead of toxic pharmaceutical medications. Children are routinely taken away from parents who use cannabis in their home. Children this year have died in foster custody and CPS custody after being taken away from pot-using parents who provided a safe and nurturing environment for their children. All year long I’ve been reading articles about families and hearing stories from friends and acquaintances that have had their children taken from them for using cannabis responsibly. Where is the justness? Drugs like Xanax, however, are considered to be safe and acceptable.

Pdms

One of the most important reasons for breast milk containing cannabinoids is the reaction in which a baby learns to suck out milk and start using their jaw muscles (a similar reaction to when a cannabis user develops the “munchies”). In a 2004 study published in the European Journal of Pharmacology we learn that “[E]ndocannabinoids have been detected in maternal milk and activation of CB1 (cannabinoid receptor type 1) receptors appears to be critical for milk sucking … apparently activating oral-motor musculature”. This means that some infants experience failure to thrive which can lead to a whole host of other problems on a developmental level. This is outrageous.

And how do formula manufactures get our babies to consume their formulas when cannabinoids aren’t present? By making formula taste sweet, with ingredients like sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, and other dangerous sweeteners. According to Dr. Mercola, “the CDC found perchlorate, a chemical from rocket fuel, in 15 brands of infant formula, including two brands that accounted for 87 percent of the market share in 2000.” The top offenders included Similar and Enfamil. Other contaminants discovered in some infant formulas include:

  • Melamine (linked to kidney failure)
  • Dioxin
  • BPA
  • AGEs (advanced glycoprotein end products)
  • Genetically engineered ingredients

Cannabis Reverses and Treats Stress and Mental Illness

I am a parent who cares about doing everything right for my children so much that I easily slip into mindsets like depression, anger, stress, anxiety, guilt, and sleep deprivation if I’m stressed about the well-being of my children. My wife is one of those parents, and many of our friends are those parents. These emotions take us over and inhibit us from being the type of parents we want to be, the type of parents we feel like on the inside when we’re at peace. These emotions prevent us from responding the way we know we should to our children when they need our support and direction, and we know this, but we accept it as the vicious cycle it is.

We become frustrated and we raise our voice, when we know that talking louder or yelling isn’t going to benefit us or our kids. We leave the room while they’re crying even though we know it’s up to us to solve the problem of why they are upset, and to support them while they are going through the emotions. They just want to be held, but our backs and shoulders are tired, our necks are sore, and we get headaches. We sit down with them to play, but within minutes we’re fidgety, thinking about stuff we could be getting done, or for many parents, our minds are taking us back and forth to the barbaric and unnecessarily interventional hospital birth that was far from what we planned for our first baby, or a stressful visit to the pediatrician. We replay stressful scenarios in our heads using our imaginations to worry constantly.

Or often, in the case of parents who’ve experienced great hardship or abuse as children, we start to think more about memories from our past that we may have buried or forgotten about. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is much more common than what is actually being recognized. I believe that when a lot of people hear “PTSD” they think of war veterans returning home with “flashbacks”, but PTSD can result from having Post-Natal Mood Disorders or depression and can affect us for the rest of our lives if we don’t pay attention to it, treat it, and work through it properly.

Most people that have used cannabis, whether or not they support it, will agree that it has relaxing properties. Cannabidiol (CBD), one of the many medicinal molecules in cannabis, actually helps us forget about bad experiences and helps us work through them and process them properly all the while removing damaged brain cells and helping us to become mentally stronger and more efficient.

It’s a simple remedy.

We inhale or consume cannabinoids, and we relax.  Suddenly that day dream of depression is replaced with an ear to ear grin. The attention problems that have us wanting to get up and do something else are overcome with patience and a fascination for building blocks and coloring books. Suddenly the stress that results in a loss of appetite and the anxiety that is a thick clammy blanket over our skin are hung out to dry as we become hungry and realize how incredible good food tastes when we feel this way. Everything in our life becomes simplified with the addition of a single plant.

Some people would argue that smoking cannabis is dangerous because the smoke itself, like tobacco smoke, contains hazardous chemical. Interestingly, studies show that smoking cannabis can actually be beneficial for our lungs in that it improves lung capacity and actually can retard or in some cases reverse lung, throat, and oral cancers. THC opens up our lungs to remove smoke and dirt, while nicotine does the complete opposite, causing our lungs to bunch up and make it harder to cough. Studies also show that we do not provide others with a “contact high” when we are smoking around them. To the best of my knowledge there are no studies to date on the effects of third-hand smoke from Cannabis, but it is not dangerous on the level that cigarette smoke is.

weedmaps

That being said, there is a simple way to inhale cannabinoids without burning them.
Vaporizers are cleaner and safer instruments for inhaling cannabinoids. Unlike joints, pipes, and bongs, vaporizers only release enough heat for the cannabis material to release the cannabinoids as you inhale them. For a lot of users, it’s a more preferred method to smoking because it’s not harsh on the lungs and doesn’t produce smoke. All in all it’s a safer and more responsible method when using around other people who don’t smoke and when using in front of children, but for most people vaporizing is a more expensive option. Until there are studies that show that the smoke from cannabis is dangerous, there is no reason to discriminate against one method or the other. Some users prefer not to inhale cannabinoids at all, while some people prefer only to inhale them.

cannabis-vaporizer

It would be easy for skeptical parents to say that parents who are using pot are not as responsible as parents who don’t use cannabis, but the fact is that it is irresponsible for any parent to raise their children in an environment where stress is present every day. We need to be accountable for our own actions and we shouldn’t make judgments about the decisions of other parents, especially when those decisions are clearly what best benefits the whole family. Children deserve happy parents, and if cannabis helps parents be happy and healthy, and reverse disease in the process, then everyone should be able to respect that.

Let’s look at an example of what happens in a society where we use judgments and control instead of compassion and common sense.

About 1% of our population has epilepsy. It one of the most common and chronic health conditions for women who are pregnant. Epileptic seizures typically become more frequent while pregnant because estrogen increases seizures. The Mayo Clinic has this information to offer about taking seizure medication:

“Any medication you take during pregnancy can affect your baby. Birth defects — including cleft palate, neural tube defects, skeletal abnormalities, and congenital heart and urinary tract defects — are the primary concern with seizure medications. In addition, taking certain seizure medications, such as those that contain valproate, or more than one seizure medication during pregnancy can increase the risk that your baby will have impaired cognitive development. Valproate products include valproate sodium (Depacon), divalproex sodium (Depakote, Depakote ER) and valproic acid (Depakene, Stavzor). Other problems caused by seizure medications might include minor birth defects that affect the baby’s appearance, such as wide-set eyes or a short upper lip — though it isn’t clear whether this is related to the drugs or the disease.”

For babies whose mothers take seizure medication, the risk of birth defects is 4 to 8 percent — compared with 2 to 3 percent for all babies — according to the Epilepsy Foundation. The risk seems to be highest when more than one seizure medication is taken, particularly at high doses. Without medication, however, uncontrolled seizures might deprive the baby of oxygen. Seizures can also increase the risk of miscarriage or stillbirth.

abc_depakote_pregnancy_090416_ms

This is what the Mayo Clinic says you can expect if you have epilepsy and become pregnant:

“Women who have epilepsy face a higher risk of pregnancy-related complications, including:

  • Severe morning sickness

  • Anemia

  • Vaginal bleeding during and after pregnancy

  • Premature separation of the placenta from the uterus (placental abruption)

  • High blood pressure and excess protein in the urine after 20 weeks of pregnancy (preeclampsia)

  • Premature birth

  • A low birth weight baby

  • Failure to progress during labour and delivery

  • Babies with congenital anomalies”

I hope you’re thinking what I’m thinking…there is absolutely no mention of cannabis. And not only would this medicine prevent these seizures, but it regulates hormone levels, reverses hemorrhoids and anal fissures, treats nausea while increasing appetite, speeds up and balances metabolism, and the list goes on.

Medicine made from cannabis is non-toxic.

High CBD strains of cannabis controls seizures almost completely, and if the THC levels are lower than the CBD levels, there is no high experienced with smoking or consuming it. THC is the chemical in cannabis that becomes psychoactive when heated, and although also non-toxic, some people generate anxiety or experience paranoia from psychoactive THC, and with too high of a dose a person can experience temporary psychosis.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta recently apologized for his previous stance on medical marijuana and put together a documentary called “Weed” which follows the lives of several people, but namely a child named Charlotte who has Dravet’s Syndrome, a rare form of childhood epilepsy. Starting around the time she was a year of age, she started having seizures, soon averaging up to 300 seizures a week. Her parents were out of options when Charlotte’s doctors wanted to put her in a medically induced coma, when her father saw information online about another child where his seizures were being prevented with oil made from a high CBD strain of cannabis.

I encourage anyone who hasn’t seen the film yet to watch it, but long story short she is now having an average of one seizure a week or less. And not only that, but the medicine is also restoring much of her cognitive function. Another aspect of cannabis that has been well studied and documented is that cannabis works with the cannabinoid receptors in our bodies to do amazing things for us, one being that cannabis cleans out our dusty old damaged brain cells while supercharging our mitochondria. These same cannabinoids also reverse inflammation, which in turn can reverse neuro-degenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and even Autism, especially in children.

Cannabis & Cancer

We’ve known for many years that using cannabis as a medicine alongside chemotherapy has many benefits including: pain relief, increase in appetite, regular sleep, fighting depression, etc….but it is relatively new to most people to hear that cannabis actually kills cancer cells. The US Government has known since as early as 1974 that cannabis kills cancer cells, but as soon as the DEA found this out they shut down the Lewis Lung Carcinoma study. Cancer has been increasingly more profitable for the pharmaceutical industry as the years have gone by, especially when considering that chemotherapy treatments in the US cost an average of $100,000 a year per person, and 1 in 2 people on this continent get cancer at some point in their lives. The US Government even went as far as to take out a patent on cannabis in 1999 as a neuroprotectant and antioxidant, while claiming at the same time that cannabis has no medicinal value and is as dangerous as heroin to ensure they can attack, arrest, and incarcerate people that choose to use it as a medicine while continuing to profit from cannabis prohibition.

Mykayla-and-her-mom-cannabis-is-my-medicine-and-it-cured-my-cancer

Most people, including children, see a complete reversal of their cancers in just a couple of months with no side effects from treatment. And sadly, the effort to silence the success of the children making these miraculous recoveries is tremendous. Take 3 year old Landon Riddle for example, who is in remission from leukemia thanks to the cannabis oil his mom has been giving him, but the doctors who are treating him have made it clear that Landon will be taken away from his mother unless he continues chemotherapy even though he’s in remission, the same chemo that caused him to go 25 days without eating at one point.

This should infuriate every parent, but for some reason it’s still happening to children all over the country. Another example would be Daniel Hauser, a 13 year old boy from Minnesota. There was a warrant out for his mother, as she had been forced to break laws to help her son hide from authorities who literally forced chemotherapy on him, something that he did not want or need in his body. There are many cases of children being ordered by courts to undergo chemotherapy. This is happening all over the continent.

So if we, or our children, suffer from seizures, cancer, or other chronic conditions, and we don’t live somewhere that respects our right to use this plant, what are the options?

There are many options obviously, and all of them carry with them extreme consequences. But a better question is why would anyone want to live anywhere in the world where a plant with this much potential is treated like a dangerous drug with no medical potential, so dangerous that people in the US have served as much as 30 years in prison for using it and selling it? A place where our older children are locked up and punished for simply following their own intuition, or just following peer pressure, and using the plant? This is a travesty.

Collectively, we’ve let ourselves be fooled. In the 1930’s Harry J. Aslinger came to the conclusion that making cannabis illegal would be very profitable for certain industries, and thus began an enormous campaign of propaganda and fear tactics to disseminate misinformation in all western countries. Keep in mind that hemp makes clean fuel, extremely strong fibres, durable building materials (hemp bricks are mold and fire resistant), nutritious food, potent medicine, greener paper production, cleaner plastic, than almost any other material on our planet. It’s completely renewable and can be grown again every year, where trees take hundreds of years to grow back. But the corporations that run this world are not interested in renewable, as we already know.

So what can we do to protect ourselves and our children from disease if our government won’t protect us from their own laws?

Sadly, the only option for a lot of parents is to move somewhere where cannabis is legal medicinally or recreationally. Some parents have been dropping everything to bring their children to Colorado in hopes of being able to use high CBD medicines safely and legally. Although they are still breaking Federal Law, Attorney General Eric Holder has stated that they will not be using resources to interfere with patients that are using it legally as a medicine. But he’s not a man recognized for telling the truth, and it is obvious that we cannot rely on our government to protect those of us who choose to use this plant when they are still killing and incarcerating men, women, and children to keep this plant illegal in the interest of profit.

Another option for us is to BE OUR MESSAGE.

We can choose not to keep this information to ourselves. We can choose not to feel like this issue is too taboo for general discussions. We can share this information with everyone we know, and ask them to support their fellow human beings in one of the most important issues of our time. We can fight by peacefully surrendering our wilful ignorance and decide for ourselves that this plant is going to be legal. We can donate money to families trying to relocate to legal states for their children. We can change the laws where we live by sharing information. We can make our own change instead of waiting for the times to change. We can do what’s right for our families and empower other families to do the same. We deserve to live free and happy.

About the author:

Martin Wuest is a proud parent, husband, and an activist from Detroit, Michigan. Martin advocates strongly for the legalization and decriminalization of Cannabis. He works with others to raise awareness about the benefits of Cannabis and a plant-based diet for preventing and reversing diseases and developmental disorders. Martin works from home and spends most of his free time writing and gardening.

http://www.parents4pot.org/
http://ocdgrow.org/

Sources:

1.) http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/can-babies.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1957518

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pregnancy/PR00123

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2002/1015/p1489.html

http://www.epilepsyfoundation.org/livingwithepilepsy/gendertopics/womenshealthtopics/social-consequences-of-epilepsy-in-women.cfm

http://altering-perspectives.com/2013/11/effect-cannabis-pregnant-women-newborns.html

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/mother-forced-to-give-son-chemo-even-though-he-is-in-remission/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/19/minnesota.forced.chemo/

http://www.freedomisgreen.com/cannabinoids-breast-milk-and-development/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2881461/

http://www.naturalnews.com/036526_cannabinoids_breast_milk_THC.html

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/08/05/which-infant-formulas-contain-secret-toxic-chemicals.aspx

http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/marijuana-info/marijuana-vs-cigarettes/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1668226

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

Research Reveals How Sugar CAUSES Cancer

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    This article was written by Sayer Ji, Founder of Greenmedinfo.com where it first originally appeared. Posted here with permission.

  • Reflect On:

    The average American consumes their body weight annually in this cancer-causing substance, and yet hospitals freely feed it to their cancer patients, seemingly oblivious to the harm it does.

Hospitals feed cancer patients sugar and high carbohydrate diets for a simple reason: they are abysmally ignorant of the role of nutrition in health and disease — hence their burgeoning growth, packed rooms, and ‘return customers.’

Even though the science itself shows – at least since the mid-20’s with Otto Warburg’s cancer hypothesis — that tumors prefer to utilize sugar fermentation to produce energy rather than the much more efficient oxygen-based phosphorylation* – hospitals have actually invited corporations like McDonald’s to move into their facilities  to ‘enhance’ their patient’s gustatory experience, presumably to provide comfort and take the edge off of the painful surgery, radiation and chemo treatments erroneously proffered to them as the only reasonable ‘standard of care.’

But the times are changing, with new research requiring these medical institutions to reform their dietary strategies, at least if they wish to claim that their interventions are in fact ‘evidence-based,’ as they so often claim.

Study Reveals Sugar Doesn’t Just Feed But Causes Cancer

A groundbreaking study, uncovered by one of our volunteer researchers at Greenmedinfo, is the first of its kind to identify sugar, not only as fuel source for an already existing cancer, but as a primary driver in oncogenesis – i.e. the initiation of cancerous characteristics (phenotype) within previously healthy cells.

Published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation and titled, Increased sugar uptake promotes oncogenesis via EPAC/RAP1 and O-GlcNAc pathways, researchers addressed a common perception (or misperception) in the cancer research community regarding sugar’s relationship to cancer: namely, “increased glycolysis [sugar based metabolism] is frequently viewed as a consequence of oncogenic events that drive malignant cell growth and survival.”

advertisement - learn more

Contrary to this conventional view, the new study “provide[s] evidence that increased glycolytic activation itself can be an oncogenic event.”  That is to say, the activation of sugar-based metabolism in a cell – driven by both the presence of increased quantities of glucose and the increase glucose receptors on the cell membrane surface (i.e. “overexpression of a glucose transporter”) – drives cancer initiation.

Moreover, the study found that “Conversely, forced reduction of glucose uptake by breast cancer cells led to phenotypic reversion.” In other words, interfering with sugar availability and uptake to the cell causes the cancer cell to REGRESS towards its pre-cancer structure-function (phenotype).

What Are The Implications of This Research to the Diet?

What this new research indicates is that sugar – of which Americans consume an astounding 160 lbs annually (imagine: 31 five-pound bags for each of us!) – is one of the primary causes of metabolic cell changes in the body consistent with the initiation and promotion of cancer. And, the research indicates that removing it from the diet, and depriving the cells of it, could REVERSE cancer. Why is this so surprising? It’s because Americans have been lead like lambs to the slaughter to think of “prevention” as “early detection,” focusing not on identifying and removing the well known nutritional and environmental causes of cancer, rather, to spend their time, energy, and money on cause-marketing campaigns focused on “finding a cure” — as if one didn’t already exist right in front of our noses, or more aptly, on the end of our forks.

Hidden Sugar, Crouching Cancer

It has been estimated by the USDA that the average American consumes 200 lbs of grain products annually. Why is this relevant to the question of sugar in the diet? Because refined carbohydrate products – e.g. crackers, bread, pasta, cereal – are actually ‘hidden’ forms of sugar. In fact, puffed rice causes your blood to become sweeter (and presumably feeds more cancer cells sugar) than white sugar, as it is higher on the glycemic index. Adding the two figures together – annual per capita consumption of sugar and grain-based products – we get a jaw dropping 360 lbs of sugar (both overt (table sugar/high fructose corn syrup) and covert (grain carbs) annually – all of which may contribute to promoting the ideal metabolic situation of cancer cells: aerobic glycolysis.

This is one reason why the ketogenic diet – that is, a fat- and protein-focused diet devoid of carbohydrate, both in simple (sugar) and complex (grain product) form – has been found so useful in the most aggressive of cancers: including brain cancer. Once you ‘pull the rug out’ from under the sugar/carb-craving cancer cells, they are forced to either undergo programmed cell death (apoptosis) or re-differentiate back into non-cancerous phenotypes.

If It’s So Bad For Us, Why Do We Eat So Much?

One of the primary reasons why we eat sugar and carbohydrate rich diets is because they are addictive. Within minutes of consuming sugar/carbs our body goes through a neuroendocrine roller coaster. Your brain can not survive very long without glucose, the fundamental energy unit of the cell, and will ‘freak out’ if deprived of a steady stream of this ‘nutrient’ within only 2-3 minutes. The endocrine system, on the other hand, perceives the danger of high sugar – namely, glycation associated damage to protein and lipid structures within the cells of our body; think: blood caramelizing, getting sticky, and gumming up the finely tuned works – and will release hormones such as insulin, adrenaline and cortisol, in order to try to get the elevated sugar in the blood and tissues under control. Insulin forces the sugar into storage within the cell, both as glycogen and as fat, but often does its job too well, causing available glucose levels in the brain to be depleted – setting off a vicious cycle of ’emergency signals’ telling the body to release more cortisol and adrenaline to increase the levels of glucose in the blood. This, of course, will result in additional insulin production and release, causing the same cycle to be repeated over and over again.

This seemingly endless vicious cycle is responsible for the insatiable cravings a high carb/sugar diet generates – not to mention the fructose-based hedonic effects generated in the brain that modulate both opioid and dopamine receptors in the nervous system (not unlike alcohol), and the pharmacologically active peptides in many gluten-containing grains, which also drive addictive behaviors and an almost psychotic fixation on getting carbs at each meal.

No wonder we have an epidemic of cancer in a world where the Westernized diet prevails. Certainly, we do not mean to indicate that a sugar/carb-rich diet is the only cause of cancer. There are many other factors that contribute to cancer initiation and promotion, such as:

  • Chemical exposure
  • Radiation exposure
  • Chronic stress that suppresses the immune system
  • Vaccines containing hidden retroviruses and cancer causing viruses
  • Natural infection with bacteria and viruses that are cancer causing
  • Lack of sleep
  • Insufficient nutrients (lack of methyl donors such as B12, folate, and B6 will prevent the body from ‘turning off’ (methylating) cancer-promoting genes

Even though cancer is a complex, multi-factorial phenomena, with variables we can not always control, one thing we can do is control what goes into our mouth. Sugar, for instance, does not belong there if we truly want to prevent and/or treat cancer.  And don’t forget, carbohydrates that don’t taste sweet on the front end – bread, crackers, cereal – certainly convert to sugar in the body within minutes post-consumption.

In a nutshell, if you are concerned about cancer, have cancer, or would like to prevent recurrence, removing sugar and excess carbohydrates is a must. Not only is it common sense, but it is now validated by experimental research.

Additional Research

Note: another recent study found that Candida albicans (yeast) also contributes to cancer initiation and promotion. C. albicans thrives on sugar, lending additional support to the notion that sugar (consumed excessively) may be a primary driver of the cancer epidemic in those consuming the modern Western diet. For information on sugar alternatives that are not synthetic toxicants like Splenda (sucralose), read my latest article on the topic:  4 Sugar Alternatives That Won’t Poison You.


 *Note: Cancer cells prefer to ferment sugar as a form of energy even when there is sufficient oxygen available to the cells to do so; hence Warburg’s description of cancer metabolism as ‘aerobic glycolysis’ or the so-called ‘Warburg effect’

Originally published: 2017-12-04

Article udpated: 2019-07-19


Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here.


Link to the original article

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

The Medical Journals’ Sell-Out—Getting Paid to Play

Published

on

[Note: This is Part IX in a series of articles adapted from the second Children’s Health Defense eBook: Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health. The first eBook, The Sickest Generation: The Facts Behind the Children’s Health Crisis and Why It Needs to End, described how children’s health began to worsen dramatically in the late 1980s following fateful changes in the childhood vaccine schedule.]

The vaccine industry and its government and scientific partners routinely block meaningful science and fabricate misleading studies about vaccines. They could not do so, however, without having enticed medical journals into a mutually beneficial bargain. Pharmaceutical companies supply journals with needed income, and in return, journals play a key role in suppressing studies that raise critical questions about vaccine risks—which would endanger profits.

Journals are willing to accept even the most highly misleading advertisements. The FDA has flagged numerous instances of advertising violations, including ads that overstated a drug’s effectiveness or minimized its risks.

An exclusive and dependent relationship

Advertising is one of the most obviously beneficial ways that medical journals’ “exclusive and dependent relationship” with the pharmaceutical industry plays out. According to a 2006 analysis in PLOS Medicinedrugs and medical devices are the only products for which medical journals accept advertisements. Studies show that journal advertising generates “the highest return on investment of all promotional strategies employed by pharmaceutical companies.” The pharmaceutical industry puts a particularly “high value on advertising its products in print journals” because journals reach doctors—the “gatekeeper between drug companies and patients.” Almost nine in ten drug advertising dollars are directed at physicians.

In the U.S. in 2012, drug companies spent $24 billion marketing to physicians, with only $3 billion spent on direct-to-consumer advertising. By 2015, however, consumer-targeted advertising had jumped to $5.2 billion, a 60% increase that has reaped bountiful rewards. In 2015, Pfizer’s Prevnar-13 vaccine was the nation’s eighth most heavily advertised drug; after the launch of the intensive advertising campaign, Prevnar “awareness” increased by over 1,500% in eight months, and “44% of targeted consumers were talking to their physicians about getting vaccinated specifically with Prevnar.” Slick ad campaigns have also helped boost uptake of “unpopular” vaccines like Gardasil.

Advertising is such an established part of journals’ modus operandi that high-end journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) boldly invite medical marketers to “make NEJM the cornerstone of their advertising programs,” promising “no greater assurance that your ad will be seen, read, and acted upon.” In addition, medical journals benefit from pharmaceutical companies’ bulk purchases of thousands of journal reprints and industry’s sponsorship of journal subscriptions and journal supplements.

advertisement - learn more

In 2003, an editor at The BMJ wrote about the numerous ways in which drug company advertising can bias medical journals (and the practice of medicine)—all of which still hold true today. For example:

  • Advertising monies enable prestigious journals to get thousands of copies into doctors’ hands for free, which “almost certainly” goes on to affect prescribing.
  • Journals are willing to accept even the most highly misleading advertisements. The FDA has flagged numerous instances of advertising violations, including ads that overstated a drug’s effectiveness or minimized its risks.
  • Journals will guarantee favorable editorial mentions of a product in order to earn a company’s advertising dollars.
  • Journals can earn substantial fees for publishing supplements even when they are written by “paid industry hacks”—and the more favorable the supplement content is to the company that is funding it, the bigger the profit for the journal.

Discussing clinical trials, the BMJ editor added: “Major trials are very good for journals in that doctors around the world want to see them and so are more likely to subscribe to journals that publish them. Such trials also create lots of publicity, and journals like publicity. Finally, companies purchase large numbers of reprints of these trials…and the profit margin to the publisher is huge. These reprints are then used to market the drugs to doctors, and the journal’s name on the reprint is a vital part of that sell.”

… however, even these poor-quality studies—when funded by the pharmaceutical industry—got far more attention than equivalent studies not funded by industry.

Industry-funded bias

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), nearly three-fourths of all funding for clinical trials in the U.S.—presumably including vaccine trials—came from corporate sponsors as of the early 2000s. The pharmaceutical industry’s funding of studies (and investigators) is a factor that helps determine which studies get published, and where. As a Johns Hopkins University researcher has acknowledged, funding can lead to bias—and while the potential exists for governmental or departmental funding to produce bias, “the worst source of bias is industry-funded.”

In 2009, researchers published a systematic review of several hundred influenza vaccine trials. Noting “growing doubts about the validity of the scientific evidence underpinning [influenza vaccine] policy recommendations,” the authors showed that the vaccine-favorable studies were “of significantly lower methodological quality”; however, even these poor-quality studies—when funded by the pharmaceutical industry—got far more attention than equivalent studies not funded by industry. The authors commented:

[Studies] sponsored by industry had greater visibility as they were more likely to be published by high impact factor journals and were likely to be given higher prominence by the international scientific and lay media, despite their apparent equivalent methodological quality and size compared with studies with other funders.

In their discussion, the authors also described how the industry’s vast resources enable lavish and strategic dissemination of favorable results. For example, companies often distribute “expensively bound” abstracts and reprints (translated into various languages) to “decision makers, their advisors, and local researchers,” while also systematically plugging their studies at symposia and conferences.

The World Health Organization’s standards describe reporting of clinical trial results as a “scientific, ethical, and moral responsibility.” However, it appears that as many as half of all clinical trial results go unreported—particularly when their results are negative. A European official involved in drug assessment has described the problem as “widespread,” citing as an example GSK’s suppression of results from four clinical trials for an anti-anxiety drug when those results showed a possible increased risk of suicide in children and adolescents. Experts warn that “unreported studies leave an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of the risks and benefits of treatments.”

Many vaccine studies flagrantly illustrate biases and selective reporting that produce skewed write-ups that are more marketing than science.

Debased and biased results

The “significant association between funding sources and pro-industry conclusions” can play out in many different ways, notably through methodological bias and debasement of study designs and analytic strategies. Bias may be present in the form of inadequate sample sizes, short follow-up periods, inappropriate placebos or comparisons, use of improper surrogate endpoints, unsuitable statistical analyses or “misleading presentation of data.”

Occasionally, high-level journal insiders blow the whistle on the corruption of published science. In a widely circulated quote, Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of NEJM, acknowledged that “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” Dr. Angell added that she “[took] no pleasure in this conclusion, which [she] reached slowly and reluctantly” over two decades at the prestigious journal.

Many vaccine studies flagrantly illustrate biases and selective reporting that produce skewed write-ups that are more marketing than science. In formulaic articles that medical journals are only too happy to publish, the conclusion is almost always the same, no matter the vaccine: “We did not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns.” As an example of the use of inappropriate statistical techniques to exaggerate vaccine benefits, an influenza vaccine study reported a “69% efficacy rate” even though the vaccine failed “nearly all who [took] it.” As explained by Dr. David Brownstein, the study’s authors used a technique called relative risk analysis to derive their 69% statistic because it can make “a poorly performing drug or therapy look better than it actually is.” However, the absolute risk difference between the vaccine and the placebo group was 2.27%, meaning that the vaccine “was nearly 98% ineffective in preventing the flu.”

… the reviewers had done an incomplete job and had ignored important evidence of bias.

Trusted evidence?

In 2018, the Cochrane Collaboration—which bills its systematic reviews as the international gold standard for high-quality, “trusted” evidence—furnished conclusions about the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that clearly signaled industry bias. In May of that year, Cochrane’s highly favorable review improbably declared the vaccine to have no increased risk of serious adverse effects and judged deaths observed in HPV studies “not to be related to the vaccine.” Cochrane claims to be free of conflicts of interest, but its roster of funders includes national governmental bodies and international organizations pushing for HPV vaccine mandates as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation—both of which are staunch funders and supporters of HPV vaccination. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s president is a former top CDC official who served as acting CDC director during the H1N1 “false pandemic” in 2009 that ensured millions in windfall profits for vaccine manufacturers.

Two months after publication of Cochrane’s HPV review, researchers affiliated with the Nordic Cochrane Centre (one of Cochrane’s member centers) published an exhaustive critique, declaring that the reviewers had done an incomplete job and had “ignored important evidence of bias.” The critics itemized numerous methodological and ethical missteps on the part of the Cochrane reviewers, including failure to count nearly half of the eligible HPV vaccine trials, incomplete assessment of serious and systemic adverse events and failure to note that many of the reviewed studies were industry-funded. They also upbraided the Cochrane reviewers for not paying attention to key design flaws in the original clinical trials, including the failure to use true placebos and the use of surrogate outcomes for cervical cancer.

In response to the criticisms, the editor-in-chief of the Cochrane Library initially stated that a team of editors would investigate the claims “as a matter of urgency.” Instead, however, Cochrane’s Governing Board quickly expelled one of the critique’s authors, Danish physician-researcher Peter Gøtzsche, who helped found Cochrane and was the head of the Nordic Cochrane Centre. Gøtzsche has been a vocal critic of Cochrane’s “increasingly commercial business model,” which he suggests is resulting in “stronger and stronger resistance to say anything that could bother pharmaceutical industry interests.” Adding insult to injury, Gøtzsche’s direct employer, the Rigshospitalet hospital in Denmark, then fired Gøtzsche. In response, Dr. Gøtzsche stated, “Firing me sends the unfortunate signal that if your research results are inconvenient and cause public turmoil, or threaten the pharmaceutical industry’s earnings, …you will be sacked.” In March 2019, Gøtzsche launched an independent Institute for Scientific Freedom.

In 2019, the editor-in-chief and research editor of BMJ Evidence Based Medicine—the journal that published the critique of Cochrane’s biased review—jointly defended the critique as having “provoke[d] healthy debate and pose[d] important questions,” affirming the value of publishing articles that “hold organisations to account.” They added that “Academic freedom means communicating ideas, facts and criticism without being censored, targeted or reprimanded” and urged publishers not to “shrink from offering criticisms that may be considered inconvenient.”

In recent years, a number of journals have invented bogus excuses to withdraw or retract articles critical of risky vaccine ingredients, even when written by top international scientists.

The censorship tsunami

Another favored tactic is to keep vaccine-critical studies out of medical journals altogether, either by refusing to publish them (even if peer reviewers recommend their publication) or by concocting excuses to pull articles after publication. In recent years, a number of journals have invented bogus excuses to withdraw or retract articles critical of risky vaccine ingredients, even when written by top international scientists. To cite just three examples:

  • The journal Vaccine withdrew a study that questioned the safety of the aluminum adjuvantused in Gardasil.
  • The journal Science and Engineering Ethics retracted an article that made a case for greater transparency regarding the link between mercury and autism.
  • Pharmacological Research withdrew a published veterinary article that implicated aluminum-containing vaccines in a mystery illness decimating sheep, citing “concerns” from an anonymous reader.

Elsevier, which publishes two of these journals, has a track record of setting up fake journals to market Merck’s drugs, and Springer, which publishes the third journal as well as influential publications like Nature and Scientific American, has been only too willing to accommodate censorship requests. However, even these forms of censorship may soon seem quaint in comparison to the censorship of vaccine-critical information now being implemented across social media and other platforms. This concerted campaign to prevent dissemination of vaccine content that does not toe the party line will make it harder than ever for American families to do their due diligence with regard to vaccine risks and benefits.


Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Continue Reading

Awareness

60% of Kale Samples Contaminated With Cancer Causing Pesticide – Organic Is Key!

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A new analysis by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has found a high level of Dacthal in non-organic Kale.

  • Reflect On:

    Why do we justify the spraying of poison on our food? How does this make any sense? These substances have been linked to several diseases, how are they approved and marketed as safe in many countries? Why are they banned in so many others?

Do you still think organic is not necessary? A recent study published in the journal Environmental Research examined four families who eat conventional diets. Pesticide levels were measured via urine before switching to an organic diet for 6 days. A dramatic drop in pesticide levels was found. Another study conducted by researchers from RMIT University, published in the journal Environmental Research, found that eating an organic diet for just one week significantly reduced pesticide (commonly used in conventional food production) exposure in adults. This study found a dramatic 90 percent drop in pesticide levels. Both studies used urine samples to measure pesticide accumulation. You can access those studies and read more about them here and here.

A lot of these agents were initially developed as nerve gases for chemical warfare, so we do know that they have toxic effects on the nervous system at high doses. Conventional food production commonly uses organophosphate pesticides, among many others, which are neurotoxins that act on the nervous systems of humans by blocking an important enzyme. Recent studies have raised concerns for health effects of these chemicals even at relatively low levels.

There is no question or doubt about it, organic food not sprayed with pesticides is much better for our health, and eating organic is a great way to prevent multiple diseases, including cancer. Despite all of the publications and research on this subject, it’s confusing how cancer awareness initiatives continue to focus on raising money without ever addressing the root causes of the disease, one of which is clearly exposure to herbicides and pesticides.

This is why the Environmental Working Group (EWG) advocates buying organic products. Since its inception in 1993, EWG has fought for consumers’ rights to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. EWG’s very first report in 1993, “Pesticides in Children’s Foods,” played a pivotal role in Congress passing the Food Quality Protection Act two years later. They are a well known group of scientists and activists doing great work.

Recently, they discovered that approximately 60 percent of kale samples sold in the United States were contaminated with another carcinogenic pesticide, according to the  EWG’s analysis of the 2017 Department of Agriculture’s test data.

The pesticide is called DCPA, often marketed as Dacthal,  and it’s a substance that the EPA classified as a possible carcinogen in 1995. In 2005, its major manufacturer voluntarily terminated its registration for use on several U.S. crops, including artichokes, beans and cucumbers, after studies found that its breakdown products were highly persistent in the environment and could contaminate drinking water sources. This is why in 2009, the European Union prohibited all uses of Dacthal, enforcing a complete ban on it. With all this being said, the fact remains that it is still used in the U.S. on crops including kale, broccoli, sweet potatoes, eggplant, turnips, and who knows what else.

advertisement - learn more

Even as kale’s popularity as a health food rich in vitamins and antioxidants has soared in recent years, the level and type of pesticide residues on kale has expanded significantly. EWG’s new analysis places it third on the 2019 Dirty Dozen™, our annual ranking of the fruits and vegetables with the most pesticide residues. Recent EWG-commissioned tests of kale from grocery stores found that on two of eight samples, Dacthal residues were comparable to the average level reported by the USDA.

The USDA has not tested kale for pesticides since 2009, when it ranked eighth on the Dirty Dozen. Between 2007 and 2012, the acres of kale harvested in the U.S. grew by more than 56 percent, with more than 2.5 times as many commercial farms growing it.

Conventional kale farming relies heavily on the use of several synthetic pesticides, including Dacthal. The EPA’s 1995 classification of it as a possible carcinogen noted increases in liver and thyroid tumors. Dacthal can also cause other kinds of harm to the lungs, liver, kidney and thyroid.

According to U.S. Geological Survey data from 2016, about 500,000 pounds of Dacthal was sprayed in the U.S., mostly in California and Washington state. In California, the only state where all pesticide use must be reported, nearly 200,000 pounds were sprayed in 2016.

In states with high Dacthal use, concerns have grown about the capacity of its breakdown products to contaminate surface and groundwater. Not only can Dacthal contaminate areas near its use, but studies indicate it can also travel long distances in the atmosphere as well. (EWG)

You can read more from EWG on the subject here.

The Takeaway

Again, multiple agents can be found on non-organic produce, but this article just outlines one. At the end of the day, the choice is up to you whether or not you buy your fruits and vegetables organic. If you can afford conventional produce, you can afford organically grown produce as well. One helpful tip is to cut out junk food from your purchases if you have any, and that can make room for organic produce. Another way to look at it is spending the extra few bucks to invest in your health.

It’s unfortunate that organic food is more expensive, especially when organic food in general could be provided to the entire world if we actually utilized our fullest potential. It’s actually cheaper to produces, it’s just that governments subsidize convention farmers, not organic ones. At the end of the day, kale is extremely nutritious. It’s high in vitamins A, K and iron, and consumption of leafy greens is associated with reduced risk of various diseases. It’s best if we keep it that way by only growing organic kale.

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod