Connect with us

Awareness

The First Three Things I Would Do If I Were Diagnosed With Cancer

Published

on

Cancer rates are skyrocketing, and with so much of our attention focused on raising money to find a cure, very little effort is going toward researching and educating people about cancer prevention — about the lifestyle choices which contribute to this disease, and the lifestyle changes which can help prevent it. It’s hard to believe that approximately one in every two people will develop some form of cancer within their lifetime. More frustrating still, there are only two approved treatments for cancer: radiation treatment and chemotherapy.

advertisement - learn more

What exactly are we constantly raising money for? Dr. Linus Pauling, a two time Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, told us long ago that “everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.” (source)(source)

There are numerous examples of cancer fraud to draw from. One of them is the Brooklyn-based National Children’s Leukemia Foundation that was recently shut down, many years after they raised millions of dollars through professionally run fundraisers. They lured people in, claiming that the funds would be used to conduct cancer research and locate bone marrow donors while they ran their “Make a Dream Come True” campaign. Unfortunately, less than 1 percent of the millions of donated dollars actually went to helping leukaemia patients. (source)(source)

This is disturbing information, but it’s not the first time that a major cancer charity has been called into question, not by a long shot. For example, a complaint filed by the Federal Trade Commission describes four connected groups, all with cancer in their name, as “sham charities,” saying they instead “operated as personal fiefdoms characterized by rampant nepotism, flagrant conflicts of interest, and excessive insider compensation.” One of those groups was the Cancer Fund of America Inc. These groups stand accused of taking in almost 200 million dollars. (source)

This is not to say that every single cancer charity is fraudulent, or that efforts to raise money for cancer research are useless. But after decades of research and relatively little success, I think it’s time to talk about cancer prevention strategies.

1. I Would Research Chemotherapy’s Success Rate

In 2016, it’s estimated that there will be 1,685,210 new cancer diagnoses in the United States. It’s also estimated that approximately 600,000 of these people will die from the disease. And we can be reasonably sure that the majority of these people will be receiving cancer treatment.   (source)

advertisement - learn more

Worldwide. the number of new cancer cases is expected to reach 22 million within the next two decades.

If the cancer cannot be removed with surgery, doctors recommend chemotherapy. Even if the cancer can be removed, they will still recommend chemotherapy. According to a 2004 report by Morgan, Ward, and Barton, the contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3 percent in Australia and 2.1 percent in the United States. It concluded that, “it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required.” (source)

While chemotherapy has been shown to be quite effective for people who have early stage cancer, we have no studies comparing its effectiveness to ‘alternative treatments.’ We have no data comparing the relative success rates of chemotherapy and ‘alternative’ treatments, and this is to our detriment, as many people anecdotally report overwhelming success with these treatments.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a large majority of patients with metastatic lung and colorectal cancers — cancers which doctors did not expect them to survive — did not understand that chemotherapy was not a curative measure, but would merely prolong their life by a few weeks or months. (source) Despite their cancers being terminal, the focus on treatment led patients to believe they had a chance of survival. Yet, as a recent study conducted by researchers at Stanford University has revealed, approximately 90% of doctors would themselves choose to abstain from chemotherapy if they had terminal cancer, wishing instead for a better quality of remaining days. (source)

Even if cancer is in a perceived ‘curable’ stage, is chemotherapy the right answer? Unfortunately, regardless of a physician’s beliefs on the matter, they have to tell you about chemotherapy and radiation treatment because they are the only two approved treatments. Recommending anything else could result in a lawsuit or loss of medical license.

In 1985, a survey found that only about one-third of physicians and oncology nurses would have consented to chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer. Today, willingness to undergo cancer treatment by doctors who prescribe it is still lacking. While some would undergo treatment, many have still stated that they would not. Unfortunately there is little research on this available today. (source)

While chemotherapy has saved lives, it has also ended many. Alternative treatments have likewise helped some and not helped others. There are two ends of the spectrum here; the problem is that one is ignored and even ridiculed.  Below is a great video by Kimberly Carter Gamble that illustrates what many people are feeling today — that the modern day cancer industry has no interest in healing people but rather in keeping people sick so they can continue to profit from their illness.

2. I Would Research How I Contracted Cancer

As I stated in the introduction to this article, we are so focused on curing cancer that we have neglected to discuss cancer prevention. We have also failed to consider what causes cancer in the first place. I understand the medical community is under a lot of restrictions in terms of what claims they can make, but to say there is no known cause for cancer is simply dangerous and misleading. Cancer rates have risen in tandem with our increasingly toxic lifestyles. Everything from the toxic household products we use and the hormone disrupting chemicals found in our cosmetic products to the chemicals sprayed on our food and land and the processed, hormone injected food — even the polluted air that we breath — has been linked to cancer. A simple 10 minute session of independent research will show you this. In my opinion, there is no mystery behind the cancer epidemic. Our lifestyles are making us sick, and only until we recognize this fact — and make the appropriate changes — can we hope to get better.

Incorporating cancer prevention strategies into your life is an absolute necessity. These include following a primarily plant-based and organic diet, getting adequate physical activity, avoiding chemicals, and reducing stress.

I were diagnosed with cancer, I would ask myself, have I been eating food sprayed with various chemicals? Have I been cleaning my home with bleach and other harmful household products? Have I been eating processed foods and meats? Have I been getting enough exercise? Am I constantly angry, upset, stressed, and irritated? Do I wear cosmetic products? What’s in my deodorant? There are so many questions to be asked, and it all starts with the environment we choose to surround ourselves with.

3. I Would See If People Are Having Success Using Alternative Treatments

A growing trend among people who have been diagnosed with cancer is to seek out alternative treatment, and this is largely because so many people have reported such positive results. We can also attribute this shift to the vast amount of published scientific literature pointing people in this direction. For example, here is a quick video clip of Dr. Christina Sanchez, a molecular biologist who explains the power of THC. Other ingredients within cannabis have also been shown to annihilate cancer tumours.

Decades of research have shown that certain ingredients within cannabis completely destroy cancer cells, and this is well established in medical literature, yet no human clinical trials have been conducted to prove its efficacy. It’s a shame, because when a pharmaceutical drug shows the same promise, clinical trials seem to be set up right away.

Mykala Comstock is a wonderful example of cannabis’ effectiveness; she had T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, a very rare and aggressive form of childhood leukaemia. In July of 2012, doctors discovered a basketball-sized mass of lymphoblasts in her chest. Her mass was so large that she was not able to be sedated for risk of death from the pressure on her esophagus and heart. Once she started using cannabis oil, her cancer disappeared. You can click on her name above to find out more information on that story.

There are countless stories out there of people who have had success using alternative treatments. These include things like cannabis oil and even simply dietary changes. These stories are not difficult to find, yet we never hear about them. Unfortunately, most people receive their information from a television screen. Independent research and critical thinking, especially when in comes to diseases like cancer, are not being employed nearly enough by the general public.

There are dozens upon dozens of promising studies showing various substances, including healthy food, to be potent cancer killers, but again, no human clinical trials are being conducted. Fortunately, this hasn’t stopped people from using and incorporating these substances into their diets.

For example, a fairly recent study published in the journal BioMed Research International emphasizes how exploring natural plant products and essential oils for their anti-cancer properties is becoming very popular and argues that these substances should be studied further.

Other studies, like this one, have shown that active ingredients in Indian cooking play an import role in the prevention and treatment of various cancers. Promising results have been seen with certain spices like fennel, garlic, clove, and cinnamon, but the industry doesn’t seem to care. And since the medical research doctors are given to read has been funded by pharmaceutical companies, most are simply unaware of these options.

According to studies published in Life Sciences, Cancer Letters, and Anticancer Drugs, artemesinin, a derivative of the wormwood plant commonly used in Chinese medicine, can kill off cancer cells and do it at a rate of 12,000 cancer cells for every healthy cell. (source)

The list literally goes on and on, and there are hundreds of substances out there with cancer killing properties that people are having success with. But doctors feel they cannot recommend these options because no human clinical trials for these interventions have been conducted.

Why More Research Is Needed For ‘Natural Alternatives’

Rigorous research into these options is desperately needed. People have no idea what to take or how to take it. There are still many unknowns here, and the fact that more and more people are choosing to use options other than chemotherapy and radiation treatment means these types of studies need to be conducted. Unfortunately, pharmaceutical companies are not at all interested in supporting anything they can’t profit from; drugs are profitable, but real healthcare is not.

Some good quotes below summarize what I am talking about.

“The field of U.S. cancer care is organized around a medical monopoly that ensures a continuous flow of money to the pharmaceutical companies, medical technology firms, research institutes, and government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and quasi-public organizations such as the American Cancer Society (ACS).”

– Ralph Moss, Ph.D., quoted by John Diamond, M.D., & Lee Cowden, M.D. in Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide to Cancer

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”  

 Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (source)(source)

*This goes without saying, this is not meant to be taken as medical advice but encourages us to take power back when it comes to a topic that so many fear and yet don’t know much about. 

Free Franco DeNicola Screening: The Shift In Consciousness

We interviewed Franco DeNicola about what is happening with the shift in consciousness. It turned out to be one of the deepest and most important information we pulled out within an interview.

We explored why things are moving a little more slowly with the shift at times, what is stopping certain solutions from coming forward and the important role we all play.

Watch the interview here.
Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

Boy or Girl – Baby Gender Selection Issues

Published

on

Some parents have the possibility to opt for gender selection; however, being able to decide whether to have a baby boy or girl is a controversial issue.

Many couples expecting a baby do not think it’s a big issue whether they have a boy or a girl; however there are several medical, social, and personal reasons that could influence parents to recur to some form of gender selection.

Like many other controversial practices, the legality of gender selection, also known as sex selection, varies from country to country.

The Legality of Baby Gender Selection

The United States has perhaps some of the most relaxed laws regarding baby gender selection in the world. Most European countries and Australia, on the other hand, have bans on sex selection and only allow it for medical reasons. For example, if a parent is a carrier of a mutation or gene with more chances of manifesting itself in a certain gender, baby gender selection is valid. However, if parents simply wish to balance the ratio of boys and girls in their family, they are not allowed to recur to sex selection.

This has generated a form of medical tourism in which couples from countries where gender selection is illegal, like the UK, travel to the US in order to be able to choose whether to have a baby boy or girl.

On the other hand, sex selection is illegal in the two most populated countries on Earth, China and India. In these countries, baby gender selection has been performed clandestinely for many years and for reasons other than family balancing or avoiding genetic diseases. In these societies, having a baby boy is preferred mainly for cultural and economic reasons. Parents believe that boys have better chances of earning income and eventually support them when they reach an old age.

advertisement - learn more

Methods of Baby Gender Selection

There are two major types of gender selection methods: the first one is called sperm sorting, and involves separating X-chromosome sperm from Y-chromosome sperm by flow cytometry, a purification technique in which chromosomes are suspended in a stream of sperm and identified by an electronic detector before being separated. Intra-uterine insemination or in-vitro fertilization can then be performed with the enriched sperm. The success rates for this method vary from 80% to 93%.

The other method, called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, consists in generating several embryos through in-vitro fertilization, which are then genetically tested to determine a baby’s gender. The chosen embryos can then be implanted. This method has a success rate of almost 100%; however, it can be quite expensive, costing up to $15,000.

Issues Regarding Baby Gender Selection

While there are few objections against baby gender selection when it is performed for medical reasons, it has become a highly controversial issue when it is used for balancing the number of boys or girls in families. Some people raise the obvious ethical question of whether people who opt for gender selection are “playing God” by manipulating whether to have a baby boy or girl. Others believe that new parents will raise a baby more appropriately if he or she belongs to their preferred gender.

Gender Imbalance Caused by Baby Gender Selection

Gender selection has caused demographic concern in China and India since it has contributed to generate a gender imbalance in the populations of those countries. In some regions of China, for example, the sex ratio for newborns is 118:100, boys to girls. This phenomenon has in turn been associated with social problems such as an increase in violence and prostitution.

It seems like a logical solution for governments around the globe to legalize baby gender selection but to analyze the personal reasons why each couple intends to select a baby boy or girl. Gender selection for medical reasons should even be encouraged, since it could prevent serious genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, and Haemophilia A. Balancing the gender ratio of a family should be accepted if by doing this, a healthy family environment is created. On the other hand, China and India have shown that baby gender selection as a result of a bias towards a particular gender can not only create a gender imbalance in the population, but contribute to social problems as well.

Free Franco DeNicola Screening: The Shift In Consciousness

We interviewed Franco DeNicola about what is happening with the shift in consciousness. It turned out to be one of the deepest and most important information we pulled out within an interview.

We explored why things are moving a little more slowly with the shift at times, what is stopping certain solutions from coming forward and the important role we all play.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Awareness

Organic Certification: What the USDA Organic Label Means

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Organic and natural labels mean different things, and various types of labels tells you what percentage of ingredients are actually organic. We'll explore what to look for.

  • Reflect On:

    Do you sometimes buy products thinking they are organic or fully natural based on their wording? Have you later found out that those products aren't natural or organic at all? Read labels more closely at grocery stores to be aware.

Don’t get conned by fraudulent claims of “natural” or “organic.” Learn what to look for, and why it’s important, to ensure you’re getting the quality you are paying for.

The industrial age of the 20th century brought about changing agricultural practices that have generated increasing alarm about the effects of these practices on the environment and health. The use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, irradiated and genetically altered food and fiber products has created a groundswell of rightful concern. It has led to the growing demand for non-toxic, organic products that many are willing to pay a higher price for to ensure the healthful purity of food and clothing provided for their families.

With such profit opportunities, it’s little wonder that the lucrative organic product market has suffered abuse with so-called “organic” labels being fraudulently placed on products that have not earned the right. As a result of pressure from farming and consumer groups, legislation for the standardization of organic certification was introduced in the 1980s. It has been updated to include more vigorous enforcement and control methods since, with the current standards established in 2002 by the USDA.

The Standards of USDA Organic Certification

Specific standards must be met in order to legally claim a product as USDA certified organic. Organic producers must utilize methods that conserve water, maximize soil health, and reduce air pollution. The specific standards to earn USDA organic certification include:

Free of synthetic chemicals such as insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers, hormones, antibiotics, and additives

Free from irradiation and genetically modified organisms

advertisement - learn more

Agricultural products grown on land that has been free of prohibited substances for a period of three years

Animals used for meat, eggs, milk or other animal products must be exclusively fed foods that are organically grown, may not be given antibiotics or hormones, and must have access to outdoors.

Clean and sanitized harvesting and processing equipment throughout the process from harvest to finished, packaged product

Detailed chain-of-handling records from the field through final sales

Physical separation of certified organic products from non-organic products throughout the process of production

Regular on-site inspections from USDA-approved inspectors to ensure compliance

Understanding the Certified Organic Label

Once the rigorous process of certification has been completed, organic producers may place the USDA certified organic seal on their products. Currently, there are four levels of certified organic products, with a specific definition of the percentage of organic ingredients the final products contains. They are as follows:

• 100% organic: all production methods and ingredients are USDA certified organic.

• Organic: at least 95% of the production methods and ingredients are USDA certified organic with remaining ingredients included on the National List of allowed ingredients.

• Made With Organic Ingredients: at least 70% of the ingredients are USDA certified organic with remaining ingredients included on the National List of allowed ingredients.

• No organic wording or seal: less than 70% of the ingredients are USDA certified organic and no claims may be made on the front or back of the product.

Manufacturers or producers who knowingly label a product “organic” when it does not meet the USDA standards are subject to fines up to $11,000 per violation.

Why Organic Certification is Important

When you see the official USDA organic certification seal on food, clothing, and bedding products, you can be assured that these products have met the meticulous standards required and are free of chemicals, toxins, antibiotics, and hormones. When you see the USDA certified organic label, you will understand the value of the higher priced organic products as compared to non-organically produced products.

With the current stringent organic certification requirements enforced by regular inspections from USDA accredited agents, the USDA certified organic label has great meaning and importance to the consumer. Look for the label to know that you are getting the quality you are paying for.

Free Franco DeNicola Screening: The Shift In Consciousness

We interviewed Franco DeNicola about what is happening with the shift in consciousness. It turned out to be one of the deepest and most important information we pulled out within an interview.

We explored why things are moving a little more slowly with the shift at times, what is stopping certain solutions from coming forward and the important role we all play.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Awareness

WHO Finds Global Lack Of Inactivity Rising Especially In Wealthier Countries — What You Can Do

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Inactivity is on the rise and it's the cause of a wide range of health concerns. Our population is only becoming more inactive, not less, and it's time to change that.

  • Reflect On:

    There are many factors of our modern world that make us less active. Our jobs, driving rather than walking/biking, too much screen time. What can you do differently to bring more activity into your life? What story stops you from starting?

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that more than a quarter of the entire population on this planet are not getting enough physical exercise, this number has barely improved since 2001. There are many factors that contribute to this, but just how much damage are we doing by failing to be active?

The lack of physical exercise raises the risk of many health problems, such as heart disease, type-2 diabetes and various types of cancers.

Interestingly, according to their study published in The Lancet Global Health, higher income countries, such as the UK, were among the least active population. Women were also found to be more sedentary throughout the world, excluding two regions in Asia.

The study looked at self-reported data on activity levels from 358 population based surveys covering 168 countries and included 1.9 million people.

The populations of higher income countries, which include the UK and USA showed an increase in the proportion of inactive people and had actually risen from 32% in 2001 to 37% in 2016, in the lower income countries it remained at 16%.

Those who were classified as inactive did less than 150 minutes of moderate exercise and around 75 minutes of intense activity per week.

advertisement - learn more

It was found that women were less active than men overall, except for in South and Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and higher-income Western countries. The authors believe that this was caused by a few different factors including extra childcare duties and cultural perspectives that may have made it more difficult for them to exercise.

Why More Inactivity In Wealthier Countries?

According to the researchers, in the wealthier countries, many of the jobs have transitioned to more office or desk jobs, meaning a more sedentary type of lifestyle. On top of that much of the population of these countries drive automobiles or take public transit to and from work which in many cases accounts for a lot of their time.

In the lower income countries, many of the jobs require the people to be more active, are physically demanding and people often have to walk to and from their jobs.

The WHO has had a goal to reduce the global levels of inactivity by 10% by 2025, the authors of the study feel that at the rate we are currently going, this target will be missed.

Lead author of the study, Dr. Regina Guthold said, “Unlike other major global health risks, levels of insufficient physical activity are not falling worldwide, on average, and over a quarter of all adults are not reaching the recommended levels of physical activity for good health.”

Regions with increasing levels of insufficient physical activity are a major concern for public health and the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases.”

Co-author, Dr. Fiona Bull added, “Addressing these inequalities in physical activity levels between men and women will be critical to achieving global activity targets and will require interventions to promote and improve women’s access to opportunities that are safe, affordable and culturally acceptable.”

According to the WHO,

Exercise guidelines for 19- to 64-year-olds

How much?

  • at least 150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity or 75 minutes of vigorous aerobic activity every week
  • strength exercises on two or more days a week that work all the major muscles
  • break up long periods of sitting with light activity

What is moderate aerobic activity?

  • Walking fast, water aerobics, riding a bike on level ground or with a few hills, doubles tennis, pushing a lawn mower, hiking, skateboarding, rollerblading, volleyball, basketball

What counts as vigorous activity?

  • Jogging or running, swimming fast, riding a bike fast or on hills, singles tennis, football, rugby, skipping rope, hockey, aerobics, gymnastics, martial arts

What activities strengthen muscles?

  • lifting weights, working with resistance bands, doing exercises that use your own body weight, such as push-ups and sit-ups, heavy gardening, such as digging and shovelling, yoga

What activities are both aerobic and muscle-strengthening?

  • circuit training, aerobics, running, football, rugby, netball, hockey

Final Thoughts

I was surprised to see that the WHO didn’t touch on inactivity due to too much screen time — watching television, Netflix, Facebook scrolling, messaging, texting, browsing etc. Certainly, the increase in screen time plays a roll with the amount of inactivity, especially in the higher income countries. If you are someone who spends too much time staring at a screen, then it is important to consider the above information. Can you limit your screen time and replace it with something active? Or would you consider jumping rope, or rebounding while watching the television? Our health is our greatest wealth and having awareness about an issue is the first way to create change and take responsibility for our lives.

Could you walk or bike to work instead of drive? What about trying a new sport? Could you commit to adding a few hours each week of physical activity? These small decisions could have a profound impact on your health, longevity and overall well-being.

Much Love

Free Franco DeNicola Screening: The Shift In Consciousness

We interviewed Franco DeNicola about what is happening with the shift in consciousness. It turned out to be one of the deepest and most important information we pulled out within an interview.

We explored why things are moving a little more slowly with the shift at times, what is stopping certain solutions from coming forward and the important role we all play.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL