Komen’s Mammograms Cause Breast Cancer
February 6, 2012 by admin
Filed under News Stories
February 6, 2012
InfoWars
By Ethan A. Huff
The media is abuzz with chatter about Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s flip-flopping on the issue of whether or not to fund Planned Parenthood, the controversial reproductive health services group that provides abortions for women, in order for it to offer breast exams and promote mammograms. But the real controversy is the fact that Komen’s mammograms, which are promoted as a “lifesaving” intervention, actually cause breast cancer.
On January 28, 2012, The Washington Post (WP) announced that Komen had decided to cut funding for Planned Parenthood because the group has been embroiled in a federal investigation as to the legitimacy of its funding. And Komen’s official policies do not permit funding for groups that are in the midst of such a controversy.
But just a few days later, the Los Angeles Times and many other media sources reported that Komen had reversed its decision and decided to continue funding Planned Parenthood after all. Apparently Komen’s policies on funding providers that are at the center of congressional investigations is a little more flexible than we all thought.
Komen’s flip-flopping on this important issue has drawn extensive criticism from both sides of the argument. But the bigger issue here, of course, and one that is not receiving any national attention, is the fact that the screening procedures endorsed and promoted by Komen do not necessarily prevent breast cancer — and in the case of mammograms, they actually cause breast cancer.
The mammograms causing breast cancer issues is one that we have addressed on many occasions here at InfoWars, but it is one that deserves repeated attention, especially since Komen is in the spotlight once again. Mammograms not only cause cancer, but they also result in many false positives that lead thousands of women every year to undergo invasive and detrimental procedures for a disease they do not actually have.
Back in 2009, for instance, a study presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) showed that continual low-dose radiation exposure from mammograms can cause breast cancer.
Roughly one year later, researchers from Oslo University Hospital revealed that mammograms cut the risk of dying from breast cancer by about two percent, at best, while simultaneously causing many women to be falsely diagnosed with cancer.
Click here for the full report from InfoWars.
The Kevin Trudeau Show: 12-17-11
Have you ever realized just how corrupt all these drug companies are? Kevin explores why some drug companies are too big to nail! Plus, the author of Undateable, Anne Coyle, stops by to reveal the secret list of over 311 things that perfectly eligible guys manage to wear, say, or do to make themselves completely undateable. Click here to learn more about Anne Coyle and her hilarious, but overly educational book!
Health:
Monsanto GM Seed Ban Overturned By US Supreme Court
Radiation Causes Breast Cancer
Pain Relievers Can Raise Heart Risks
10 Foods You Should Never Eat
Eating Disorder Label Leaves Many Untreated
Trans Fats and Partially Hydrogenated poison
People Are Finally Waking Up And Looking To Alternative Medicine
Once Scarce, H1N1 Vaccines Now Trashed
Government:
Obama’s Aunt Wins Asylum, Stays In US
Fake Pilot Flew Passenger Jets For 13 Years
Too Many Judges Want Authority Beyond Their Constitutional Role
NWO:
Feds Find Pfizer Too Big to Nail
Wealth:
Spirit Airlines To Charge $45 For Carry-Ons
Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become Kevin’s Friend on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Click Below to Watch the Kevin Trudeau Show LIVE!
Mammograms Don’t Save As Many Lives As Women Think
October 25, 2011 by admin
Filed under News Stories
October 25, 2011
Reuters
By Julie Steenhuysen
“Some people think I’m crazy when I tell them mammograms and colonoscopies don’t help in preventing cancer. Here is more proof. This time it comes from Reuter’s – not some activist health organization.” — Chris KTRN
Many women who have survived breast cancer often say it was a mammogram that “saved their life,” a powerful testimonial that can encourage other women to get regular breast cancer screening tests.
But what are the chances that the test actually saved a woman’s life? Not that great, according to a new analysis published in the Archives of Internal Medicine on Monday.
“The numbers suggest that at most, 13 percent of those diagnosed with breast cancer have been helped. That means the other 87 percent have not been helped,” Dr. Gilbert Welch of Dartmouth College, who led the study, said in a telephone interview.
“That is important when we keep hearing these stories from breast cancer survivors,” he said.
Welch said women who tell their stories about surviving breast cancer can be a powerful inducement for other women to get tested for breast cancer, and as mammogram technology has improved, the chances are even greater that doctors will find something suspicious.
But early detection for some women may not be much of a benefit, especially if a cancer is slow growing, Welch and colleagues say. And many women may be diagnosed and treated for a cancer growing so slowly it might never have caused any symptoms or threatened their lives.
The findings add new fodder to the simmering debate over the benefits of screening healthy people for cancer. Earlier this month, the government-backed U.S. Preventive Services Task Force released a draft recommendation against a common blood test for prostate cancer, causing an uproar among cancer specialists who fear more men will die from prostate cancer.
And in 2009, the same group recommended against routine breast cancer screening in women under 50, saying the decision should be an individual one. It also advised women 50 and older to get screening mammograms only every other year, rather than yearly, causing an outcry from breast cancer advocacy groups.
But screening tests have both benefits and risks, says Welch, who views the current debate as positive for patients who are starting to think more about the risks of screening.
An earlier study by Welch found that routine screening for prostate cancer has resulted in as many as 1 million American men being diagnosed with tumors who might otherwise have suffered no ill effects from them.
In the latest study, Welch and colleagues looked to see how much mammography reduces deaths from breast cancer.
They found that for 50-year-old women whose breast cancers were diagnosed by a mammogram, there was a 13 percent chance that the screening test saved her life.
The question, then, becomes how to preserve the benefit of mammogram without exposing so many women to the hazards of overdiagnosis — which include being treated for cancers that might not cause harm, Welch said.
He said breast cancer screening technology has become better and better at spotting tiny cancers on the assumption that the earlier a cancer is detected, the better the chances of cancer survival.
But Welch said as treatments for breast cancer get better, the need for very early diagnosis is less great.
“For years we’ve been looking harder and harder for cancer. I think the time has come to ask the question, ‘What if we looked a little less hard?’”
Dr. Timothy Wilt of the Minneapolis Veterans Administration in Minneapolis, who wrote a commentary on the findings in the same journal, said the study gives doctors science-based information to share with patients, who are often influenced by anecdotes.
“Because survivor stories are often so powerful, but inaccurate, they can result in people making healthcare decisions that are not science based and may be wrong,” he said.
Click here for the full report from Reuters.
Women Endangered By High Rate Of False-Positive Mammograms
October 18, 2011 by admin
Filed under News Stories
October 18, 2011
Natural News
By S. L. Baker
According to mainstream medicine, mammograms are the key to surviving breast cancer because they supposedly catch the disease early for quick treatment. What this advice invariably leaves out is evidence that exposure to the radiation used in the tests may actually cause breast cancer in some women.
For example, a study presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) concluded annual mammography screening significantly increases breast cancer risk in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to the disease .
Now there’s another reason to be concerned about the push for women to have yearly mammograms. In a new study by University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) research shows that among women who receive a decade of annual mammograms, more than half of those women will be called and told the gut-wrenching news that their tests are positive when they are actually cancer-free. The victims of false-positive results — not a malignancy — are then subjected to more tests. In fact, one in twelve of these women will undergo invasive, potentially breast-scarring biopsy surgery.
“This study provides accurate estimates of the risk of a false-positive mammography and breast biopsy for women undergoing repeat mammography in community practice, and so provides important information about the potential harms of undergoing regular mammography,” states Karla Kerlikowske, a professor of medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine. Karla is also the co-author of the study, which was just published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
The research, led by Group Health Research Institute of Seattle for the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, investigated false-positives in mammography by studying the records of approximately 170,000 women between the ages of 40 and 59 from seven regions around the United States. Almost 4,500 of these research subjects were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer.
The study found that women who started having mammograms at age 40 instead of 50 were far more likely to have false-positive findings that resulted in more expensive and needless medical tests, including biopsies.
Just by changing breast screening from every year to every other year, the researchers documented that a woman’s risk of having a false-positive finding dropped from 61 percent to 42 percent (about a third) over the course of ten years. What’s more, they found that if radiologists would simply review a patient’s previous mammograms it “may halve the odds of a false-positive recall.”
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines now recommend biennial mammograms starting at age 50 and continuing until age 74. However, many doctors still recommend annual mammograms, often beginning at age 40.
The new study concluded that after a decade of yearly screening, a majority of women will receive at least one false-positive result. Out of these, 7 to 9 percent will face having a biopsy and the risks that involves — from anesthesia complications to scarring to infection — although these women are, in fact, cancer-free.
And what about the argument that yearly mammograms are needed to catch cancer early enough to cure? The researchers found that women screened every two years were not significantly more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage cancer.
“We conducted this study to help women know what to expect when they get regular mammograms over the course of many years,” study leader Rebecca Hubbard, PhD, an assistant investigator at Group Health Research Institute, explained in the media statement. “We hope that if women know what to expect with screening, they’ll feel less anxiety if – or when – they are called back for more testing. In the vast majority of cases, this does not mean they have cancer.”
Click Here For The Full Report From Natural News.
The Kevin Trudeau Show: 9-24-11
Today, find out who Kevin calls the biggest drug pushers in America, and what the solution is to fix all the problems in this country!
Plus, the author of Undateable, Anne Coyle, stops by to reveal the secret list of over 311 things that perfectly eligible guys manage to wear, say, or do to make themselves completely undateable. Click here to learn more about Anne Coyle and her hilarious, but overly educational book!
Health:
Monsanto GM Seed Ban Overturned By US Supreme Court
Radiation Causes Breast Cancer
Pain Relievers Can Raise Heart Risks
10 Foods You Should Never Eat
Eating Disorder Label Leaves Many Untreated
Trans Fats and Partially Hydrogenated poison
People Are Finally Waking Up And Looking To Alternative Medicine
Once Scarce, H1N1 Vaccines Now Trashed
Government:
Obama’s Aunt Wins Asylum, Stays In US
Fake Pilot Flew Passenger Jets For 13 Years
Too Many Judges Want Authority Beyond Their Constitutional Role
NWO:
Feds Find Pfizer Too Big to Nail
Wealth:
Spirit Airlines To Charge $45 For Carry-Ons
Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become Kevin’s Friend on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Click Below to Watch the Kevin Trudeau Show LIVE!
MRI Scans Lead to Unnecessary Breast Cancer Surgery
January 13, 2011 by admin
Filed under News Stories
January 13th, 2011
Natural News
By: David Gutierrez
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the breasts are so sensitive that they detect large numbers of non-cancerous tumors and lead to unnecessary breast removal surgeries, according to an editorial by surgeon Malcom Kell in the British Medical Journal.
Regular, x-ray-based mammograms have drawn criticism in recent years for their high rate of false positive results – the detection of benign tumors – leading to anxiety in patients and a higher rate of invasive and potentially dangerous procedures such as biopsies and even cancer treatment.
“Women who underwent a surgical biopsy as the result of a false positive mammogram screening ‘were more likely to report their work-up as a stressful experience than those who did not have a biopsy.’ So wrote members of the 1996 Task Force, in a statement of the obvious,” write Gerald E. Markle and Frances B. McCrea in their book What If Medicine Disappeared?
“This anxiety persisted long after the positive test was identified as false.”
Magnetic resonance mammography (MRM) is even more sensitive than standard mammography, and is increasingly being offered to young women who have been judged at high genetic risk for breast cancer. According to a study in The Lancet, MRM detects 92 percent of early breast lesions, while x-ray mammograms detect only 56 percent.
But not all lesions lead to cancer. Indeed, the only major study of MRM use in early cancer detection found that women who used MRM screening had the same risk of cancer recurrence as women who had not used the devices. Breast surgeon Kefah Mokbel of the London Breast Institute estimates that MRMs have a false positive rate of roughly 25 percent.
Even more alarming is evidence that false positives are leading to unnecessary breast removal (mastectomy) surgeries. The same Lancet study found that mastectomy rates were seven times higher among MRM patients than among those not undergoing that type of screening.
“[There is] no compelling evidence that this technique should be routinely used in newly diagnosed breast cancer,” Kell said.
Click here for the full report from Natural News
The Kevin Trudeau Show: 10-27-10
Today, Kevin reveals the secrets of surviving the looming economic catastrophe that they don’t want you to know about!
Self Help:
Nontoxic Make Up
Pure Beauty Products
Information Is Key
Natural Solutions
Health:
Cleaning Products Cause Asthma
Dangers of Artificial Sweeteners
7 Year Old Dies From Botox Injections
FDA OKs Pig Virus In Vaccine
Skinniest People Shop At Whole Foods
8 Foods To Help You Lose Weight
Mammograms Cause Breast Cancer
Common Pain Relievers Raise Heart Risk
Top 10 Riskiest Foods
Government:
FDA Declares War Against Ozone Generators
NWO:
Obama’s Aunt Allowed To Stay In US
WHO Scandal Exposed
Wealth:
Teens Face Worst Summer Job Market In 41 Years
Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Support Kevin!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become Kevin’s Friend on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Click HERE to watch the Kevin Trudeau Show LIVE!
How to Avoid Airport Body Scanners
October 20, 2010 by admin
Filed under News Stories
October 20th, 2010
Natural News
By: Mike Adams
I encountered my first airport naked body scanner while flying out of California today, and of course I decided to “opt out” of the scan. You do this by telling the blue-shirted TSA agents that you simply wish to opt out of the body scanner. Here’s what happened after that:
A TSA agent told me to step to the side and stay put. He then proceeded to shout out loudly enough for all the other travelers and TSA agents to hear, “OPT OUT! OPT OUT!” This is no doubt designed to attract attention (or perhaps humiliation) to those who choose to opt out of the naked body scanner. I saw no purpose for this verbal alert because the same TSA agent who was yelling this ultimately was the one who patted me down anyway.
For the pat down, first I was required to walk through the regular metal detector. From there, I was asked if I wanted to be patted down in a private room, or if I didn’t mind just being patted down in full view of everyone else. Not being a shy person in the first place, I told the agent I didn’t need a private room.
He then explained to me that he was going to pat down my entire body, including my crotch and my buttocks, but that he would use the back of his hands to pat down the crotch and buttocks areas. This is probably designed to make the pat-down seem less “personal” and more detached. That way, air passengers can’t complain of being felt up by TSA agents who might get carried away with the pat-down procedure. He asked if it hurt for me to be touched anywhere, and I told him no, at which point he proceeded with the pat down.
It was a well-scripted pat-down, covering all the areas of my body, including a mild crotch sweep (it wasn’t especially invasive or anything, as doctors will do far worse during a physical exam). He swept my arms, legs, hips, back of the neck, ankles and everywhere else. To the TSA’s credit, this guy was fast, efficient and only used a light touch that was in no way disturbing. But it did take an extra five minutes or so compared to walking through the naked body scanner.
Speaking of the naked body scanners, as I was having my crotch swept by the back of the hand of this TSA agent, I was observing other air travelers subjecting themselves to the naked body scanners. They were told to walk into the body scanner staging area and then hold their arms in the air in a pose as if they were under arrest. They were told to freeze in this position for several seconds (perhaps 10 seconds) during which they were being blasted with ionizing radiation that we all know contributes to cancer.
The TSA, of course, will tell you that these machines can’t possibly contribute to cancer. But they said the same thing about mammograms, and we now know that mammograms are so harmful to women’s health that they actually harm ten women for everyone one woman they help. So I’m not exactly taking the U.S. government at its word that naked body scanner radiation is “harmless.”
As these air travelers were being scanned, their naked body images were appearing on a screen somewhere, of course. Some TSA agent was examining the naked body shape and contours of all these people, and even though we were told by the TSA that the image viewing machines cannot store images, we have since learned that the machines actually do have the capability to store those images. In addition, rogue TSA employees could simply use their cell phones to take snapshots of what they see on the screen. There are no doubt rules against such behavior, but it’s bound to happen sooner or later.
Meanwhile, my own security screening was proceeding fully clothed. I don’t want to broadcast my naked butt cheeks on the TSA’s graphic monitors, thank you very much!
Very few people opt out of the naked body scanners
The most fascinating part about this entire process was not the verbal broadcast of my opt out status, nor having my crotch swept by the latex-covered back hand of some anonymous TSA agent, but rather the curious fact that I was the only one opting out. Although I must have watched at least a hundred people go through this particular security checkpoint, there wasn’t a single other person who opted out of the naked body scan.
They all just lined up like cattle to have their bodies scanned with ionizing radiation.
To me, that’s just fascinating. That when people are given a choice to opt out of being irradiated, they will choose to just go along with the naked body scan rather than risk standing out by requesting to opt out.
You see, I’m not convinced that the TSA’s naked body scanners enhance air travel security at all. Previous security tests conducted by the FAA show quite clearly that the greatest threat to airplane safety isn’t from the passengers but from ground crews, where bombs and other materials can be quite easily smuggled onto planes.
But even though naked body scanners may not enhance air travel security, they do accomplish something far more intriguing: The successful completion of an experiment in human behavior. If you were to pose the question “Will people line up like cattle to be electronically undressed in front of government security officers?” The answer is now unequivocally YES!
Most people, it turns out, will simply do whatever they’re told by government authorities, even if it means giving up their privacy or their freedoms. Almost anything can be sold to the public under the guise of “fighting terrorism” these days, including subjecting your body to what is essentially a low-radiation CT scan at the airport!
I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I should be required to subject myself to ionizing radiation as a condition of air travel security. Of course, the more technically minded readers among you might counter by saying that high-altitude travel is, all by itself, an event that subjects you to low levels of ionizing radiation (which is true). But that’s all the more reason to not add the body’s radiation burden any more than necessary. Americans already get far too much radiation from CT scans and other medical imaging tests (not to mention mammograms). Do we really need to dose peoples’ bodies with yet more radiation every time they board an airplane?
Trusted traveler program?
I don’t know why the TSA never pursued its “trusted traveler” program. I actually suggested this years ago, and there was word that the TSA was working on something similar. The way it worked was very different from the current system. Under the current system, every person entering an airport security line is assumed to be a terrorist, and it is only through the various security screenings that you are eventually deemed to be innocent. This is a “guilty until proven innocent” approach to air security, and it’s the system in place all across America (and around the world) today.
Under a trusted traveler program, people who pass rigorous background screening procedures, criminal history checks and other similar tests would be assumed innocent unless suspected of being guilty. They might carry “trusted traveler” cards linked to a federal database so that their status could be verified as they pass through a security checkpoint. They might even have their fingerprint scanned at that checkpoint in order to biometrically verify their identity.
For whatever reason, the TSA is no longer pursuing any such trusted traveler program (at least not to my knowledge). Perhaps the agency just figures it can trust no one. Hence the need to have everybody line up in front of the naked body scanner machines and raise their arms in a humiliating “I’m being arrested” pose.
It’s actually just like the scene from the movie called The Fifth Element starring Bruce Willis. Remember the scene where the cops are searching the apartment block and they use an X-ray scanner to see through the walls? As they search the apartment building, they announce that all residents must face the wall and place their hands inside the yellow circles on the wall. This scene eerily resembles what the TSA makes U.S. travelers do right now.
And virtually no one protests. That’s the really amazing part about this.
Seasonal flu shots offered at the airport, too
After completing my security pat-down, by the way, I entered the terminal where I walked by a kiosk offering a seasonal flu shot. There was a big sign claiming that the flu shot would prevent you from catching the flu, and a nurse of some sort stood right behind the kiosk, ready to inject you with a vaccine for just $35.
First the naked body scanners, and then the flu shot propaganda. It reminded me that the U.S. government really is trying to push people into self-destructive behaviors that will ultimately benefit the sick-care industry. After all, the more cancer and Alzheimer’s disease people develop (from radiation and vaccines, of course), the more business gets generated for Big Pharma.
I know enough about health and freedom to avoid these little disease bombs, but most Americans don’t know enough to resist the propaganda. They just allow themselves to be irradiated, injected and poisoned, and they think it’s all okay because the government tells them it’s good for them.
It’s odd that people trust the government when the government doesn’t trust them at all. If the government treats you like a criminal, a terrorist, a lab rat and a vaccine depository, doesn’t that only prove they don’t honor you as a sovereign individual?
And that sends a powerful message confirming that the U.S. government has forgotten it is supposed to serve the People, not rule over them.
Just wait and watch how this gets even worse. Today, you can opt out of the TSA’s naked body scanners, but after a year or two — once the sheeple get comfortable with giving up all their freedoms — these scans will become mandatory. That’s the day I give up air travel for good.
Gee, I sure will miss having my crotch swept by the latex-covered back hand of some anonymous TSA agent who’s wasting taxpayer money by treating me like a terrorist.
Click here for the full report from Natural News
Cancer Patients Exploited By High-Profit Screening Scams
October 13, 2010 by admin
Filed under News Stories
October 13th, 2010
Natural News
By: Mike Adams
Want to know the disturbing truth about the greed-driven cancer industry? I’ve written about it using blunt language here on NaturalNews, and awareness is spreading. People are sick of pinkwashing nonsense, and they’re wising up to the fundraising “run for the cure” scams that only funnel more money into corrupt, Pharma-dominated cancer non-profits.
Now a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association sheds new light on just how cruel and greedy the cancer industry really is. It turns out that even when cancer patients are terminal — meaning they’re expected to die soon — the cancer industry herds them into yet more screening, mammograms, biopsies and lab tests in order to generate more profits from Medicare before the patient expires.
It turns out they’re still irradiating women with mammograms even though these women already have “incurable” cancers! (Incurable by conventional medicine, that is.)
Even according to cancer industry doctors, patients who have less than 10 years left to live receive no benefit from cancer screening. So why are such patients being subjected to a barrage of cancer screening tests? Because the tests make more money for the cancer industry!
Hurry, make more money before they die!
It’s almost as if they’re saying, “Gee, these patients are about to expire, and we can’t bill Medicare if they’re already dead, so hurry up and run some tests before they die!”
Never mind the fact that such tests don’t help the patient at all. In fact, these tests can be invasive, painful and psychologically damaging. They put patients through hell in order to rake in some additional profits in the last few days, weeks or months before the cancer patient dies.
That’s the truth about how the cancer industry really operates. To them, people are just profit machines to be exploited.
This is now evidenced by the cancer industry’s own actions, by the way. It’s one thing to accuse the cancer industry of being driven by greed (which I’ve done on many occasions), but it’s another thing entirely for the industry to be caught red handed in a study published in JAMA and funded by the National Cancer Institute that documents this systematic abuse of patients.
Turning a human being into sick profits
The sad, sick truth of the matter is that both cancer screening and cancer treatments are profit centers for hospitals and cancer clinics. The more people they can screen, diagnose and treat with toxic chemotherapy, radiation or surgery, the more money they can collect off that person before they die.
A dying cancer patient is a cash cow to the cancer industry because doctors can try almost anything and say they’re holding out for “hope” that something might work. It’s called “heroic medicine” but there are no heroes, really. Just cowards in the form of the cancer doctors exploiting patients for profit. Many conventional doctors have come to realize that a terminal cancer patient is like a blank check that they can cash in for huge financial gains.
I knew a cancer patient described as terminal by the doctors who was offered an “experimental” cancer drug which would involve a series of weekly injections. The only catch? The bill was $14,000 a month and you have to pay out of pocket since no insurance would cover it.
Drug companies and cancer doctors pressure cancer patients to try these useless “experimental” therapies not as a way to actually cure their cancers but as a way to extract their entire life savings before they die.
No one has ever been cured by chemotherapy
The conventional cancer industry, you see, has cured no one. There isn’t a single person who has ever been cured by chemotherapy because chemotherapy does not cure cancer, it only poisons the body. In fact, cancer doctors practicing today will tell you straight up that “there are no cures for cancer” which is they are “looking for the cure” by selling pink products and taking your donation money.
The cancer industry, you see, has a zero percent success rate at curing cancer. Think about it: After billions of dollars, three decades of research, and millions of cancer victims dead from chemotherapy and radiation, the cancer industry has not produced even a single success story of someone who was CURED of cancer. Not a single one!
How’s that for a failed approach to cancer? And they claim that if they only had a few billion more dollars, then they would be able to find the cure. Do you smell something fishy with that?
Meanwhile, in the world of natural medicine, people are cured of cancer every day. Well, technically they are not cured from the outside but rather are healed from the inside so that their cancer disappears and they regain full immune system health. It’s so common in the world of natural health that the really good cancer doctors don’t even consider cancer to be much of a challenge. I know of one cancer doctor who produces cancer cures every week at his clinic in Florida. But he has one rule: He will not see patients who have poisoned their bodies with chemotherapy. “They’re too far gone and cannot heal themselves,” he explains.
No wonder the conventional industry has zero success stories of people cured of cancer. Now, sure, they have some “remission” stories of people who temporarily “conquered” cancer, but guess what? Cancer always comes back in those people! And why? Because their body’s defenses have now been poisoned by chemotherapy, making them even more vulnerable to tumor growth.
Cancer patients come and go, you see, but the cancer industry keeps churning along, trading bodies for dollars, causing unimaginable human suffering just so it can keep itself alive with an infusion of new daily profits. Now, even the peer-reviewed medical journals are starting to see the ugly truth of just how profit-driven this industry really is.
I am confident that one day this present era of medicine will be characterized as a “Dark Ages” of medicine, driven by egos, profits and greed. Chemotherapy will be seen as utterly senseless, and radiation therapy as barbaric. Future generations will look back upon the pinkwashing, the “Run for the Cure” fundraising and the free mammogram drives and just shake their heads in disbelief, wondering, “How could they have all been so stupid?”
The answer to that is complex, of course. Some people aren’t stupid. They’re the ones reading NaturalNews and taking charge of their health to prevent cancer in the first place. There are lots of smart, informed people around who don’t buy into the cancer industry’s ridiculous propaganda and disease fear mongering. It’s the masses, however, that fall for the cancer industry quackery that has now become so routine that almost no one questions it.
And in understanding their stupidity, you have to remember that they’ve all been dosed with fluoride in the drinking water and injected with brain-harming seasonal flu vaccines. They’re also living on chemically-altered, genetically modified processed junk food. Thus, they probably don’t have their full mental faculties up and running, and it’s difficult for them to think clearly enough to resist cancer industry propaganda.
Click here for the full report from Natural News
Fish Oil Helps Prevent Breast Cancer
October 7, 2010 by admin
Filed under News Stories
October 7th, 2010
Natural News
By: Jonathan Benson
The best way to fight breast cancer is to prevent it from ever occurring in the first place, and you can help do that by supplementing with a high quality fish oil, suggests a new study published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. According to researchers from the Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Wash., current use of fish oil among the population is associated with a 32 percent decreased risk of developing breast cancer.
Theodore Brasky and his team surveyed 35,000 women between the ages of 50 and 76 on their dietary habits, and evaluated the results based on fish oil consumption patterns. Based on a ten-year average of fish oil intake, the team found that women who consume fish oil are at a significantly reduced risk of developing breast cancer than women who do not.
Fish oil is rich in omega-3 fatty acids like eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) which previous studies have already found work to prevent cancer. These nutrients also help to balance out the negative effects of too much omega-6 intake, which research is showing leads to serious disease. You can learn more about fish oil by visiting the NaturalNews fish oil page.
Preventive medicine is the best medicine, but such medicine comes in the form of quality food and nutritional supplements. While health authorities and cancer groups push women to get mammograms and take preventive breast cancer drugs as a supposed solution, nutrition experts and those aware of the healing power of superfoods advise that women simply eat well and avoid processed food, get plenty of sunshine and vitamin D, and take an omega-3 supplement like high-quality fish oil, among other things.
When choosing a fish oil, it is best to find one that has undergone as little processing as possible, and one that has been tested to be free of harmful contaminants. And if you prefer not to consume animal products, some vegetarians alternatives to fish oil include flax and hemp oils.
