On Alternative Cancer Programs

Current law restricts health claims to drugs only
The FDA says, ridiculously, that only pharmaceutical drugs are capable of preventing or treating disease. Even though this is scientifically false, the agency has structured the rules to categorize anything that treats or prevents disease as a drug. So if you eat walnuts, and those walnuts lower high cholesterol (which they do), the FDA declares your walnuts to be "drugs."

Existing law dictates that if anything is advertised as providing health benefits without the FDA's approval, it's automatically considered to be an "unapproved drug", even if it's a common, everyday food like walnuts, cherries, grapes or oranges.

Amazingly, references to peer-reviewed scientific studies are not allowed to be made by companies without permission from the FDA because the agency considers this to be an illegal health claim. So if you sell walnuts, and your website merely links to published scientific studies that describe the cholesterol-lowering benefits of walnuts, then you can be threatened, arrested, imprisoned and fined millions of dollars by the FDA for selling "unapproved drugs."



The FDA thinks walnuts are drugs
If you're skeptical that what I'm saying here is true, take a look at the warning letter the FDA sent to Diamond Food, Inc. back in February concerning the health claims the company had been making about its walnuts.

Diamond Food, Inc., a large producer of nuts and nut products, had put some information on its website about the health benefits of walnuts (which are rich in omega-3 fatty acids). Some of this information included the following statements (all of which are verifiably true):

1) "Studies indicate that the omega-3 fatty acids found in walnuts may help lower cholesterol; protect against heart disease, stroke and some cancers; ease arthritis and other inflammatory diseases; and even fight depression and other mental illnesses."

2) "[O]mega-3 fatty acids inhibit tumor growth that is promoted by the acids found in other fats..."

3) "n treating major depression, for example, omega-3s seem to work by making it easier for brain cell receptors to process mood-related signals from neighboring neurons."

4) "The omega-3s found in fish oil are thought to be responsible for the significantly lower incidence of breast cancer in Japanese women as compared to women in the United States."

All of these statements are true and have been demonstrated in various scientific studies about omega-3s. In fact, the University of Maryland has a complete reference page about the benefits of omega-3s that verifies the statements made by Diamond Food. Sixty-five different scientific studies are cited on that reference page alone!

But apparently the FDA has little concern with truth and science, because the agency wrote in its warning letter to Diamond that, "ecause of these intended uses, your walnut products are drugs... they are not generally recognized as safe and effective for the above referenced conditions." It goes on to say that, "they may not be legally marketed with the above claims in the United States without an approved new drug application."

When all was said and done, Diamond was essentially coerced into removing virtually all the truthful information about the health benefits of walnuts from its website in order to stay in compliance with the FDA's ridiculous demands.

So when science discovers the amazing health-promoting and healing abilities of natural, whole foods, you are not allowed to actually tell people about it. If you do, those foods automatically become unapproved drugs, according to the FDA, and they are subject to seizure. This is how the FDA enforces nutritional ignorance across America. The agency is actually an ANTI-EDUCATION group of knowledge destroyers who want the American people to remain ignorant of the health benefits of natural foods and supplements.


FDA flip-flop on the walnut issue
What's interesting about this recent Diamond walnut case is that, back in 2004, the FDA (sort of) approved a request made on behalf of the California Walnut Commission to include information about the benefits of walnuts for lowering cholesterol and reducing the risk of coronary heart disease.

The petition to the FDA included references to scientific information that backs these claims (which were largely rejected by the agency), but it did allow a modified version of the claim to be made that included the phrase "Supportive but not conclusive research shows...". Some other details included a reference to eating a diet low in saturated fat.

But in the Diamond case, the FDA decided to launch an all-out attack on true health claims about walnuts, despite comprehensive evidence that they are extremely beneficial to your health in many scientifically-proven ways.


The FDA does not believe in nutrition, period!
It's important to note here that the FDA believes there is no such thing as any food, vitamin, herb or supplement that has ANY beneficial effect on the human body. Sadly, this outrageously ridiculous and indefensible position has become the law of the land in the USA.

All foods are inert, the FDA claims. And the vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals in those foods have no effect on your body. This impossible belief is what the FDA continues to maintain as "scientific" fact.

But it's obvious to anyone with a couple of brain neurons still firing that the FDA's position is pure madness. Of course foods have beneficial health effects on the human body! Foods contain more than mere calories... they are storehouses of phytochemicals and nutrients that have medicinal effects on the body.


The FDA is good at giving lip service
It's important to note that a new drug application is not the only way certain health claims can be made. Similar to how the California Walnut Commission issued its request, producers and manufacturers can request permission from the FDA to make certain health claims about products, and the agency makes it sound as if it is more than willing to approve such claims as long as proper evidence is given. But in reality, no matter how much evidence is provided to back a set of claims, it's almost never enough for the FDA to actually approve them.

Omega-3s are one of the most studied nutrients in recent years, but the FDA apparently considers all this research useless. It hides behind all kinds of legal mumbo jumbo in defending its position to reject credible science about the health benefits of omega-3s. To anyone paying attention, it's becoming abundantly clear that the agency is completely irrational in the way it approaches the regulation of health claims and the definition of a "drug."

Based on its track record of how it handles truthful health claims, it's also clear that the FDA doesn't actually care about the truth. The agency has decided that only drugs prevent and treat disease, and that's the end of it. So only those companies that complete its expensive drug application process will be granted permission to make health claims -- and the only organizations with the funding to do this are drug companies!

It's sort of like the old floating witch test: Throw the suspected witch in a pond. If she floats, she's a witch and gets burned at the stake. If she sinks, she wasn't a witch... may she rest in peace after drowning. The test is rigged for failure by the "authorities." And yes, the FDA's assault on dietary supplements is a metaphorical witch hunt.


FDA threatened cherry growers in 2006
Of course this isn't the first time the FDA has gone on a witch hunt to stop health claims from being made about healing foods. Back in 2006, the FDA demanded that 29 companies cease making claims about the health benefits of cherries.

Of course all the claims were true and backed by scientific studies, but this didn't matter to the FDA or the FTC, which acts as the enforcement arm of the FDA. The agencies threatened to take action against these companies if they didn't comply with removing the health claims, indicating that they would even go so far as to seek a court order to seize the products that were in violation.

An interesting fact about this case is that many of the scientific studies that supported the health claims being made were funded by none other than the USDA, another arm of the U.S. federal government. Talk about a bureaucratic failure!

All of this seems almost too crazy to actually be true, but it's all quite real, I assure you. It happens all the time. Millions of taxpayer dollars are spent trying to reclassify food as drugs, censor truthful health claims and rid the market of safe, healthy items like raw dairy products. Meanwhile, drug companies are fraudulently marketing dangerous chemical medications that injure and kill milliosn of people every year around the world. But these chemicals are, of course, "generally recognized as safe and effective" by the FDA.

Cherries and walnuts, in other words, are dangerous. But statin drugs, antidepressants and rat poison blood thinners are all backed and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.


Frito-Lay snacks are 'heart healthy'
Like almost everything else the FDA does, there's a double standard in the enforcement of health claims. Over at the Frito-Lay website, there are a whole lot of ridiculous health claims being made about Frito-Lay snack foods that the FDA doesn't seem too concerned about.

Statements include the following, which are in reference to "how much good stuff goes into your favorite snack":

"Good stuff like potatoes, which naturally contain vitamin C and essential minerals. Or corn, one of the world's most popular grains, packed with Thiamin, vitamin B6, and phosphorus - all necessary for healthy bones, teeth, nerves and muscles."

Too bad all these ingredients are fried at really high temperatures and can't be considered "healthy" by any stretch of the imagination. The page goes on to claim that its frying oils are filled with "good fats" that help to lower cholesterol (seriously, I'm not making this up).

Somehow Frito-Lay, a division of PepsiCo, gets away with marketing its junk food snack products as healthy, making all kinds of ludicrous claims about them, but walnut and cherry growers are the target of FDA investigations about labeling fraud.

The message? Raw natural foods and non-processed fruits and nuts are bad for you, but fried snack foods, dead foods and processed foods are incredibly healthy. In opposition to all common sense, this is the position the FDA now maintains.

Things are seriously out of control.

The Life Extension Foundation has also written about the madness of this situation. Read "FDA Says Walnuts are Illegal Drugs" at: http://www.lef.org/featured-article...


The Free Speech About Science Act
There is some good news, though. My friends over at the Alliance for Natural Health have come up with a solution to take back our freedom to tell the truth about the health benefits of natural products. It's called the Free Speech About Science Act, or HR 4913.

You can read the entire legislative text of the bill at the following link:
(http://www.anh-usa.org/wp-content/u...)

The bill is only seven pages long, and you can read it fairly quickly if you want to. Here's a quick summary of its primary objectives with some added commentary:

1) Food producers and manufacturers, dietary supplement makers, and any others who sell or market natural health products will no longer be restricted from referencing and citing independent and respected scientific research that highlights the health benefits of natural products. (Current FDA guidelines are in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits government restrictions on free speech, even those that relate to natural health.)

2) Referencing valid research will no longer convert food and dietary supplements into "unapproved drugs" in the eyes of the FDA.

3) Only legitimate research may be referenced, and guidelines for what is considered legitimate include studies that are conducted in accordance with sound scientific principles (because natural health is not in opposition to science; science actually supports the healing properties of foods and supplements).

4) The FDA and FTC will still be permitted to go after fraudulent claims, but they will no longer be able to censor the truth about healing foods and supplements.


Help end FDA tyranny against food and supplement companies
As it currently stands, most Americans are unable to make responsible, informed lifestyle decisions about foods and supplements because truthful information is restricted by agencies like the FDA and FTC. Mainstream society is flooded with drug advertising making all sorts of false claims, but true claims about natural products are routinely censored.

It's time to put a stop to this FDA madness, and one way to go about that is to support the Free Speech About Science Act. Every American deserves access to the truth so that he or she can make informed lifestyle choices, and you can help make that happen by supporting this bill.

The Alliance for Natural Health has created a convenient legislative portal by which you can contact your Congressman and urge support for the bill.

By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship

Even as headlines and broadcast news are dominated by BP’s fire-ravaged, sunken offshore rig and the ruptured well gushing a reported 210,000 gallons of oil per day into the Gulf of Mexico, there’s another important story involving Big Oil and pollution " one that shatters not only the environment but the essential First Amendment right of journalists to tell truth and shame the devil.

(Have you read, by the way, that after the surviving, dazed and frightened workers were evacuated from that burning platform, they were met by lawyers from the drilling giant Transocean with forms to sign stating they had not been injured and had no first-hand knowledge of what had happened?! So much for the corporate soul.)

But our story is about another petrochemical giant " Chevron " and a major threat to independent journalism. In New York last Thursday, Federal Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ordered documentary producer and director Joe Berlinger to turn over to Chevron more than 600 hours of raw footage used to create a film titled Crude: The Real Price of Oil.

Released last year, it’s the story of how 30,000 Ecuadorians rose up to challenge the pollution of their bodies, livestock, rivers and wells from Texaco’s drilling for oil there, a rainforest disaster that has been described as the Amazon’s Chernobyl. When Chevron acquired Texaco in 2001 and attempted to dismiss claims that it was now responsible, the indigenous people and their lawyers fought back in court.

Some of the issues and nuances of Berlinger’s case are admittedly complex, but they all boil down to this: Chevron is trying to avoid responsibility and hopes to find in the unused footage " material the filmmaker did not utilize in the final version of his documentary " evidence helpful to the company in fending off potential damages of $27.3 billion.

This is a serious matter for reporters, filmmakers and frankly, everyone else. Tough, investigative reporting without fear or favor " already under siege by severe cutbacks and the shutdown of newspapers and other media outlets " is vital to the public awareness and understanding essential to a democracy. As Michael Moore put it, “The chilling effect of this is, [to] someone like me, if something like this is upheld, the next whistleblower at the next corporation is going to think twice about showing me some documents if that information has to be turned over to the corporation that they’re working for.”

In an open letter on Joe Berlinger’s behalf, signed by many in the non-fiction film business (including the two of us), the Independent Documentary Association described Chevron’s case as a “fishing expedition” and wrote that, “At the heart of journalism lies the trust between the interviewer and his or her subject. Individuals who agree to be interviewed by the news media are often putting themselves at great risk, especially in the case of television news and documentary film where the subject's identity and voice are presented in the final report.

“If witnesses sense that their entire interviews will be scrutinized by attorneys and examined in courtrooms they will undoubtedly speak less freely. This ruling surely will have a crippling effect on the work of investigative journalists everywhere, should it stand.”

Just so. With certain exceptions, the courts have considered outtakes of a film to be the equivalent of a reporter’s notebook, to be shielded from the scrutiny of others. If we " reporters, journalists, filmmakers " are required to turn research, transcripts and outtakes over to a government or a corporation " or to one party in a lawsuit " the whole integrity of the process of journalism is in jeopardy; no one will talk to us.

In his decision, Judge Kaplan wrote that, “Review of Berlinger’s outtakes will contribute to the goal of seeing not only that justice is done, but that it appears to be done.” He also quoted former Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis’ famous maxim that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”

There is an irony to this, noted by Frank Smyth of the Committee to Protect Journalists. Brandeis “made his famous sunlight statement about the need to expose bankers and investors who controlled ‘money trusts’ to stifle competition, and he later railed against not only powerful corporations but the lawyers and other members of the bar who worked to perpetuate their power.”

In a 1905 speech before the Harvard Ethical Society, Brandeis said, “Instead of holding a position of independence, between the wealthy and the people, prepared to curb the excesses of either, able lawyers have, to a large extent, allowed themselves to become adjuncts of great corporations and have neglected the obligation to use their powers for the protection of the people.”

Now, more than a century later, Chevron, the third largest corporation in America, according to Forbes magazine, has hauled out their lawyers in a case that would undermine the right of journalists to protect the people by telling them the truth. Joe Berlinger and his legal team have asked Judge Kaplan to suspend his order pending an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As the Independent Documentary Association asserts, “This case offers a clear and compelling argument for more vigorous federal shield laws to protect journalists and their work, better federal laws to protect confidential sources, and stronger standards to prevent entities from piercing the journalists' privilege. We urge the higher courts to overturn this ruling to help ensure the safety and protection of journalists and their subjects, and to promote a free and vital press in our nation and around the world.”


Bill Moyers is president of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy.
Michael Winship is president of the Writers Guild of America, East.
Rebecca Wharton conducted original research for this article.

Cancer deaths to double by the year 2030
U.N. report: 13 million around world will die each year, twice those in 2008

LONDON - Cancer will kill more than 13.2 million people a year by 2030, almost double the number who died from the disease in 2008, the United Nations' cancer research agency said on Tuesday.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) also said that almost 21.4 million new cases of the disease will be diagnosed annually in 2030.

Launching a new database on global incidence of cancer in 2008, the latest year for which figures are available, the IARC said the burden of cancer was shifting from wealthier to poorer nations.
"Cancer is neither rare anywhere in the world, nor confined to high-resource countries," it said in a statement.

In total, 7.6 million people died of cancer in 2008 and there were an estimated 12.7 million new cases diagnosed.

63 percent deaths in developing nations
Around 56 percent of new cancer cases worldwide in 2008 were in developing countries and these regions also accounted for 63 percent of all cancer deaths, the data showed.

IARC director Christopher Wild said the data represented the most accurate available assessment of the global burden of cancer and would help international health policy makers develop their responses.

The most commonly diagnosed cancers worldwide in 2008 were lung cancer, with 1.61 million cases, breast cancer, with 1.38 million, and colorectal cancers, with 1.23 million. The most common causes of cancer death were lung (1.38 million), stomach (0.74 million) and liver cancers (0.69 million)

The projection for annual death rates of 13.2 million and annual diagnosis of 21.4 million were based on assumptions that underlying rates of cancer would remain the same over the next two decades, the IARC said.

Quote from last post:
The projection for annual death rates of 13.2 million and annual diagnosis of 21.4 million were based on assumptions that underlying rates of cancer would remain the same over the next two decades, the IARC said.

Former U.S. astronaut Dr. Brian O'Leary wrote the following letter to Judge Tucker Melancon:Share
Today at 3:29pm
To Judge Tucker Melancon:

Greg Caton is an extraordinary healer whose product Cansema healed my skin cancer which made it unnecessary for me to go under surgery to remove it. He is a legal resident of Ecuador and conducts a legal alternative health product group here. I thoroughly support his work in healing untold thousands of people of cancer and other serious diseases.

My own healing happened when Greg arrived at our home two years ago with Cansema. I had just been diagnosed with basal cell skin cancer after a biopsy had been taken from a very large and deep lesion on my back. I was scheduled for surgery the following week. I cancelled the surgery and Greg applied the Cansema (a black salve consisting of a mixture of herbs and a bit of zinc chloride), and, in 3-4 weeks, a black scab formed that subsequently fell off. After three applications of the salve over 2-3 months, the cancer disappeared, leaving only a slight discoloration where the cancer had been. An examination by a dermatologist at the St. Agustin clinic in Loja, Ecuador, showed that the cancer was completely gone. No new lesions have formed anywhere on my body, and diagnostic blood tests for any systemic cancers recently showed negatives, i.e., no cancer in my body.

On the larger issue of the suppression of alternative possibilities in the health, environmental and technology fields, we see a pattern emerging that the true geniuses of innovation are all too often violently suppressed by authorities who illegally, unethically and immorally punish these true pioneers of our time -- solely because of powerful vested interests that are far less effective in solving the problems presented. This is an outrage, and I ask that, if justice has any meaning left, that Greg be released immediately from his current detention and flown back to his residence in Ecuador. This plea represents one of many coming from those of us who strongly feel that justice can only be served by supporting rather than condemning those of us willing and able to move humanity into a new paradigm of healing and sustainability.

Yours sincerely,

Brian O'Leary, Ph.D.
former U.S. astronaut

NaturalNews) Health freedom has just been handed a significant victory by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which ruled last week that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) violated the First Amendment rights of a nutritional supplement company when it censored truthful, scientifically-backed claims about how selenium can help reduce the risk of cancer.

See the ANH announcement at: http://www.anh-usa.org/court-finds-...

Essentially, the FDA applied its doctrine of censorship to these selenium supplements in the same way it oppresses truthful and scientifically-supported health claims across all dietary supplements. The purpose of the FDA's censorship of truthful information about the health benefits of dietary supplements, as NaturalNews readers already know, is to keep the American people nutritionally illiterate and protect the profits of the pharmaceutical industry.

In this court case, ALLIANCE FOR NATURAL HEALTH, et al. vs.
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, et al., the judge ruled that the FDA violated the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs by restricting their free speech about the anti-cancer benefits of their selenium supplements.

As explained by health freedom attorney Jonathan Emord who argued the case before the Court:

"The decision... reaffirms that FDA is subject to the strictures of the First Amendment in its evaluation of health claims and it faults FDA for failing to follow that standard, holding its suppression of the selenium-cancer risk reduction claims unconstitutional."

Emord goes onto explain:

"The Court concludes that the FDA... has not provided any empirical evidence, such as 'studies' or 'anecdotal evidence,' that consumers would be misled by... plaintiffs' claims were they accompanied by qualifications. Moreover, the explanation the FDA offers to demonstrate that plaintiffs' claims are misleading " that the claims leave out pertinent information " is not support for banning the claims entirely..."

Attorney Jonathan Emord from Emord & Associates is widely regarded as one of the most successful and influential attorneys battling the FDA over free speech and health freedoms.

View my video interview with Jonathan Emord here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbJS...

(The video quality is poor, but it's the best we could capture at the Health Freedom Expo.)

Emord is also the author of a hugely important book that I strongly recommend. It's called Global Censorship of Health Information, and you can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Global-Censor...

NaturalNews) Declaring ozone generators an unapproved and untested medical device, the FDA seized the inventory of a California manufacturer on January 29.

"The seized devices are potentially harmful to public health," said the agency's acting associate commissioner for regulatory affairs, Michael Chappell. "The agency will take action to protect the public from FDA-regulated products that are in violation of the law."

According to an FDA press release, Auburn, Calif. manufacturer Applied Ozone Systems has promoted its devices for the treatment of a variety of health conditions including cancer, AIDS, herpes and hepatitis. The use of ozone machines as medical devices has not received FDA approval, however, making it illegal for the company to market them for those uses.

"The FDA advises health care professionals and consumers to discontinue use of these devices," the FDA said.

The battle over the ozone generators began in October 2009, when the FDA applied for and received a warrant to inspect the Applied Ozone Systems factory, after the company's owner allegedly refused inspectors entry without one. Upon inspecting the facility, the FDA concluded that good manufacturing practices were not being used, and confirmed that they were being marketed without FDA approval. The agency sent a letter to the company on Dec. 21, asking it to voluntarily recall the products from the market. According to the FDA, Applied Ozone Systems never responded to this request.

The raid was carried out by U.S. Marshals on behalf of the FDA, in conjunction with the California Department of Public Health, Food and Drug Branch. Marshals seized 77 ozone generators valued at a total of $75,900.

Ozone is classified as a respiratory pollutant, and due to its biocidal properties is also used as a disinfectant. The FDA claims that there is no evidence that ozone can be effective as a medical treatment, and expressed concern that patients undergoing ozone therapy might stop using more proven treatments.

The agency also expressed concern over "infection from potential contamination of the applicator or catheter."

Sources for this story include: www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/Pre....

A California lawsuit is accusing several fish oil supplement manufacturers of selling fish oils that contain unsafe levels of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds, also known as PCBs. The state's Proposition 65 requires products that may contain toxic ingredients above safe levels to have warning labels for consumer safety.

Five supplement companies, CVS and Rite Aid drug stores, and Omega Protein, Inc., the world's largest producer of omega-3 fish oil, are all named in the suit, which the plaintiffs hope will bring light to fish oil contamination problems. They also hope to see more accurate labeling of fish oils that includes specifics about contaminants like PCBs; that way, consumers will be able to make better decisions about which kinds are safe to buy.

The PCB chemical family consists of 209 different chemical compounds, all of which were tested for in the lawsuit by a California lab. That same lab also tested each of the product samples for 12 of the most toxic PCB compounds. It then evaluated each sample in terms of daily exposure to PCBs overall, and daily exposure to PCBs in terms of toxicity.

The brands tested included Nature Made, Twinlab, Now Foods, Solgar and GNC. Each brand included various types of fish oil, including cod liver, shark liver and salmon. Those that tested the lowest for PCBs contained one-70th the amount of those with the highest levels, indicating a significant difference in contamination among various brands, and types, of fish oil.

According to David Roe, the man who filed the lawsuit in San Francisco's Superior Court, the oils that tested highest exceed California's daily limit for PCBs by a factor of ten in terms of cancer risk. On the same token, some of the oils tested very low, and are not of particular concern to consumers.

Both Nature Made and Twinlab issued immediate responses to the lawsuit in defense of their respective brands' safety. Erin Hlasney from the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), a supplement industry trade group, also came to the defense of fish oils in general, explaining that they have been used safely for decades.

But the plaintiffs contend that it is not enough to simply say that a product meets guidelines; consumers have a right to know how a product actually tests for contaminants once it arrives on store shelves. Many brands claim that their fish oils have been purified and treated to reduce or remove contaminants, but few actually explain to what extent these toxins have been removed.

For complete details about the case and to view the fish oil test results, please visit www.fishoilsafety.com.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14501...

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/ConsumerN...

From the pages of Daily Dose

You see, doctors who favor a natural approach to medicine are very concerned about the devastating effects that large doses of chemotherapy can have on the body.

And that was the impetus that spurred the development of this unique protocol that utilizes just a fraction of the chemotherapy that the average oncologist prescribes.


This cutting edge therapy:

Is 10,000 times more effective than standard chemotherapy...

Doesn't cause nausea, hair loss or excessive weight loss...

Draws cancer cells out of hiding and into the open where they're easily eliminated...

Most methods of chemotherapy rely on giving you the strongest possible dose that you can survive... an approach that kills both healthy and damaged cells... then hopes your body can salvage itself after your insides have been poisoned (hopefully, along with the cancer).

But this breakthrough technique relies on the fundamental weakness of cancer: what it feeds on.

Instead of giving strong doses of chemo, doctors injects a powerful natural hormone that literally starves the cancer cells out of hiding. While they're starving, the second stage of the therapy attracts the hungry cancer cells with a fractional dose of chemotherapy that kills them.

This leaves minimal damage to healthy cells in your body, which is why you won't suffer from nausea or hair loss as with standard chemotherapy!

Then They Literally Burns the Cancer Out of Your Body!

This technique is called hyperthermia. It is natural. It is safe. And it has been practiced safely for thousands of years. In fact its origins go back as far as Ancient Egypt.

But you won't hear about hyperthermia on television shows or in magazines. In fact, you won't hear about it in most health publications either. The reason? The big pharmacological companies that make billions from chemotherapy have no money to gain from this natural method.

To develop his method of defeating cancer, a few doctors had to fund all the studies and travel themselves. And they had to do the testing in their own clinics until just the right formula was discovered- the one that doctors on the cutting edge of cancer use today.

This is a natural treatment, but make no mistake about it. This cure is based on science.

You see, cancer cells are weaker than healthy cells. This means they're much more sensitive to heat.

By using a machine manufactured and created in Germany, doctors can safely raise the body's temperature to 104 degrees Fahrenheit for about an hour...

Studies have found that this hyperthermia technique is nearly twice as effective as standard methods of chemotherapy...

But by combining hyperthermia with other therapies, one doctor reports results that are 14 times more effective at eliminating cancer metastases from the body (so they're not lurking around, waiting for a chance to relapse) than using only chemotherapy.

All of your body's healthy cells remain undamaged as your body naturally cools down, but by that time the remaining cancer cells have been burnt to death.

June 28, 2010 -- Giving animals antibiotics in order to increase food production is a threat to public health and should be stopped, the FDA said today.

California is about to sign off on a plan that would allow farmers to use methyl iodide as a pesticide on strawberry plants.

It's a powerful and reliable carcinogen that researchers use to induce cancer in lab animals.

Five Nobel-winning chemists and dozens of other experts have written a letter begging the EPA to keep this poison out of strawberry fields, forever.

It has been linked to thyroid tumors, nerve damage, and brain and lung problems. It's also been known to cause miscarriages in lab animals.

On Wednesday, the essayist Christopher Hitchens announced that he has cancer of the esophagus and will soon begin chemotherapy.

Methyl iodide has an LD50 for oral administration to rats 76 mg/kg, and in the liver it undergoes rapid conversion to S-methylglutathione.[6] It is a possible carcinogen based on ACGIH or NTP classification, but not according to the Environmental Protection Agency.Methyl Iodide (Iodomethane)

http://www.truthpublishing.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=PRINT-CAT21560

That looks interesting. I will do more research on it.

WASHINGTON — Pancreatic tumor cells use fructose to divide and proliferate, U.S. researchers said on Monday in a study that challenges the common wisdom that all sugars are the same.

Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways, the team at the University of California Los Angeles found.

They said their finding, published in the journal Cancer Research, may help explain other studies that have linked fructose intake with pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest cancer types.

"These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation," Dr. Anthony Heaney of UCLA's Jonsson Cancer Center and colleagues wrote.

"They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth."

Americans take in large amounts of fructose, mainly in high fructose corn syrup, a mix of fructose and glucose that is used in soft drinks, bread and a range of other foods.

Politicians, regulators, health experts and the industry have debated whether high fructose corn syrup and other ingredients have been helping make Americans fatter and less healthy.

Too much sugar of any kind not only adds pounds, but is also a key culprit in diabetes, heart disease and stroke, according to the American Heart Association.

Several states, including New York and California, have weighed a tax on sweetened soft drinks to defray the cost of treating obesity-related diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer.

The American Beverage Association, whose members include Coca-Cola and Kraft Foods have strongly, and successfully, opposed efforts to tax soda.

The industry has also argued that sugar is sugar.

Heaney said his team found otherwise. They grew pancreatic cancer cells in lab dishes and fed them both glucose and fructose.

Tumor cells thrive on sugar but they used the fructose to proliferate. "Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different," Heaney's team wrote.

"I think this paper has a lot of public health implications. Hopefully, at the federal level there will be some effort to step back on the amount of high fructose corn syrup in our diets," Heaney said in a statement.

Now the team hopes to develop a drug that might stop tumor cells from making use of fructose.

U.S. consumption of high fructose corn syrup went up 1,000 percent between 1970 and 1990, researchers reported in 2004 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Natural sources of fructose include fruits, vegetables (including sugar cane), and honey.[16] Fructose is often further concentrated from these sources. The highest dietary sources of fructose, besides pure crystalline fructose, are foods containing table sugar (sucrose), high-fructose corn syrup, agave nectar, honey, molasses, maple syrup, and fruit juices, as these have the highest percentages of fructose (including fructose in sucrose) per serving compared to other common foods and ingredients. Fructose exists in foods either as a free monosaccharide, or bound to glucose as sucrose, a disaccharide. Fructose, glucose, and sucrose may all be present in a food; however, different foods will have varying levels of each of these three sugars

wikipedia

NaturalNews) As cereal lovers sat down to enjoy their bowls of Froot Loops, Honey Smacks, Apple Jacks and Corn Pops, they had no idea they were about to eat a petrochemical called 2-methylnaphthalene. This chemical is "a constituent of petroleum, automobile exhaust, ... waste water from coal gasification, coke and shale oil production..." and other similarly bizarre sources. So what was 2-methylnaphthalene doing in boxes of Kellogg cereals?

It turns out this chemical was most likely released from the wax paper cereal liners that hold the cereal. This could have been due to the heating of the wax paper when it's sealed. This causes the off-gassing of chemicals which can then be absorbed by the cereal itself.

The effect was so bad that the FDA received dozens of complaints from consumers who could taste and smell the chemical. Some said the cereal made them feel ill.

Kellogg, of course, immediately recalled 28 million boxes of its cereals, and the FDA began an investigation. The investigation essentially consisted of the FDA asking Kellogg what went wrong, and the Kellogg explained that 2-methylnaphthalene accidentally got into the cereals from the plastic liners, and the FDA said "Okay" and concluded its investigation.

What's missing from this investigation? The question of how toxic 2-methylnaphthalene really is to the human body.


Unknown toxicity
You see, nobody knows the answer to that question. Not Kellogg and not the FDA. 2-methylnaphthalene was one of the 65,000 or so chemicals grandfathered in as "assumed to be safe" under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 -- which we now know to be a scientific whitewash. Just because a chemical is declared to be safe by a regulation doesn't alter the laws of chemistry.

You see, these chemicals have never been tested for human safety. So when consumers are exposed to them, doctors aren't even sure how to treat them. The FDA has no clue what the chemical does either. And just to avoid anyone asking the really tough questions, the FDA's own web page describing this "investigation" doesn't even mention the chemical! (http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Publi...)

The FDA website says, nonchalatantly:

"It appears that the cereals were packaged in cereal boxes with waxed paper liners that imparted bad taste and odor to the food. The wax paper liners appear to be the source of the problem."

No mention of 2-methylnaphthalene, see? Wouldn't want people asking too many questions...

The FDA, for its part, did absolutely nothing to fine Kellogg over this mass exposure of the American public to 2-methylnaphthalene. In fact, even though the FDA knows nothing about the safety of 2-methylnaphthalene, it basically declared the whole issue to be a non-issue and let Kellogg go right back to business packaging its cereals in wax paper liners once again.

But I decided to ask a few questions about 2-methylnaphthalene. For starters, the chemical doesn't sound safe. The last half of the word is, "napthalene" which sounds a whole lot like a petroleum chemical, wouldn't you say?

And of course, it is a petroleum chemical. The Scorecard.org website categorizes it as a "respiratory toxicant," a term it further defines with this general description: (http://www.scorecard.org/health-eff...)

"Exposure to chemical substances can cause adverse effects on the respiratory system, which consists of the nasal passages, pharynx, trachea, bronchi, and lungs. Respiratory toxicity can include a variety of acute and chronic pulmonary conditions, including local irritation, bronchitis, pulmonary edema, emphysema, and cancer."

The Speclab.com website says the "reported effects of methylated naphthalene" (a sister chemical related to 2-methylnaphthalene) include "skin irritation and skin photosensitization."

Related chemicals are commonly used to manufacture moth balls (moth repellants). Some of the potential health reactions caused by exposure to this class of chemicals are described here: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Publ...


Is it safe to eat cereal?
Interestingly, 2-methylnaphthalene isn't the only petrochemical-derived substance found in Froot Loops. The cereal is also made with artificial colors which are derived from petrochemicals. Sometimes I wonder if eating a box of Froot Loops has more in common with swallowing Gulf Coast oil sludge than eating real food, but that's just my opinion.

The question on the minds of many today is as follows: Is it safe to eat breakfast cereals?

The most accurate answer is both yes and no. In the short term, eating Froot Loops laced with 2-methylnaphthalene probably isn't going to kill you. Nobody died from consuming this contaminated cereal. But the bigger question is what happens over a lifetime of exposure to chemicals.

Is it really safe to eat cereals packaged in wax liners? What about cereals in plastic bags? What about BPA and other chemicals?

After writing about foods and health for seven years, I've come to the conclusion that virtually all food packaging materials have some sort of health risk, from the aluminum used in soda cans to the plastic used in deli meats. The best material of all is, of course, glass. Glass is perfectly safe for food contact and it leaches nothing into your food. Then again, it's breakable and is therefore more expensive while even posing a safety hazard to children.

My educated guess is that nearly all foods purchased in grocery stores are contaminated with multiple chemicals. Hence the reason for buying food from farmers markets and food coops. The basic rule of thumb for food safety is that anything in a box or a plastic package might pose some risk of chemical contamination, even though that risk may be miniscule in most products. This risk extends, by the way, to superfoods and nutritional supplements packaged in plastic. They aren't immune to the laws of chemistry, although it could be argued that people consuming superfoods have better health defenses against chemical contaminants.

Most chemical contamination of foods, by the way, goes entirely unnoticed by consumers. People are eating chemical contaminants right now, every single day, that are far more dangerous than the levels of 2-methylnaphthalene found in Froot Loops. Just the sodium nitrite found in hot dogs is undoubtedly orders of magnitude more dangerous to human health. And let's not even talk about aspartame, MSG or partially hydrogenated oils...

So to answer the question: Are Kellogg's cereals safe to eat now? Well, they're no more dangerous than all the other dead processed foods made with petrochemicals and refined sugar. But I personally wouldn't call those products "safe" in the first place.

How can this be news? Normal cells burn oxygen, cancer cells burn glucose. This has been known at least since 1924:

Dr. Warburg was awarded the 1931 Nobel prize for this discovery. He also advocated the obvious preventive measure of never feeding glucose to a healthy person - fruits, honey, and the like have been part of human diet forever but they contain no glucose, only fructose, a different chemical that tumors can't use as fuel. I haven't read the original article you refer to, but think it probable that some other discovery must be involved.