Top Scientist: Fluoride Already Shown to Cause 10,000 Cancer Deaths

April 17, 2012

Natural Society

By Mike Barrett

“If you are still using toothpaste with fluoride or drinking tap water, you might want to reconsider.” –KTRN

Water fluoridation is a highly controversial topic, with many individuals voicing massive concern over the practice.

In contrast, some stick to the concept that there isn’t any association between fluoride and any real negative effects.

Fluoride, however, is indeed a toxic substance, and has been tied with numerous health complications in well-established research. Fluoride can be found in many water supplies, toothpaste, and even food at alarming levels. While it may sound shocking to many, some research is even drawing a close connection between fluoride and an increased cancer risk.

One paper entitled Fluoride – A Modern Toxic Waste says the following:

Yiamouyiannis documents research showing that fluoride increases the tumor growth rate by 25% at only 1 ppm, produces melanotic tumors, transforms normal cells into cancer cells and increases the carcinogenesis of other chemicals. For the original references to these studies, refer to Yiamouyiannis’ pamphlet, Lifesavers Guide to Fluoridation.

In 1997, it was shown that fluoridation caused about 10,000 cancer deaths in epidemiological studies by Dr. Dean Burk, former head of the Cytochemistry Section at the National Cancer Institute and Yiamouyiannis. Despite the findings occurring in 1997, they were not reluctantly released until 1989. After analyzing the study results in rats, it was found that animals who drank fluoridated water:

Click here for the report.

FDA Keeps Americans In The Dark On Health Benefits Of Walnuts

January 27, 2012

Activist Post

By Rady Ananda

Americans are being kept in the dark about a natural cure for prostate cancer and osteoporosis by none other than the US Food and Drug Administration.

More scientific evidence confirms that walnuts have some amazing properties: not only did they reduce tumor size in mice, but they also lowered LDL, the “bad” kind of cholesterol that leads to heart disease, according to a new study published in the British Journal of Nutrition last week.

“If additional research determines that walnuts have the same effect in men as they do in mice, adhering to a diet that excludes walnuts to lower fat would mean that prostate cancer patients could miss out on the beneficial effects of walnuts,” said lead researcher Paul Davis.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in American men. One in six men will be diagnosed with it, but only one in 36 will die from the disease because most tumors do not spread beyond the local site, according to the National Cancer Institute.

“These characteristics of prostate cancer make adding walnuts to a diet attractive as part of prostate cancer prevention,” Davis added.

Walnuts have also been shown to reduce bone loss, a serious issue especially for post-menopausal women. But food packages cannot contain such information per the FDA.

Heart disease is a growing problem for the elderly. Because walnuts have a high level of linoleic and linolenic acid, they reduce the risk of heart disease by decreasing LDL-cholesterol and increasing HDL-cholesterol, research has shown several times, even as far back as 1993.

Adding further support to the benefits of a whole food diet, the 2012 study also led researchers to conclude, “The walnut diet’s beneficial effects probably represent the effects of whole walnuts’ multiple constituents and not via a specific fatty acid or tocopherols.”

The California Walnut Board funded the research, and is also funding a follow-up mouse study (co-funded by the American Institute for Cancer Research), to validate the findings and explore possible reasons for the beneficial effects of walnuts.

Click here for the full report from the Activist Post.

You Are Giving Yourself Cancer

Something caught my eye the other day and I wanted to share it with you because I know you aren’t hearing this information from the mainstream media. Here’s the headline: National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society Skewered in New Book by Leading Cancer Expert. A new book by a leading cancer expert, Dr. Samuel Epstein, basically blasts the hell out of the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society, and blames the organizations for America losing the war against cancer.  The book is called, National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interests.  Epstein argues that the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society have spent tens of billions of taxpayer dollars focusing on patentable treatments to the exclusion of spending any money on prevention, which has allowed cancer rates to skyrocket.

Now folks, I have to tell you something here about cancer. Right now there is a 50/50 chance you are going to get cancer. 50/50!  And there is a 50/50 chance you are going to have heart disease. That means you almost have a 100% chance of getting cancer or heart disease. Let’s just stop there.  Bottom line, you are going to get cancer, especially if you are 30-40 years old. The reason is, nobody is addressing the causes of cancer. Cancer doesn’t just magically appear in your body.

You have created a state in your body where cancer will proliferate.  So, what is causing cancer to grow in your body?

Click here to find out what is causing cancer in your body and how to eliminate it: http://bit.ly/no61RI

Yours in health…
KT

Cancer Expert Blames Agencies For Losing War Against Cancer

August 22nd, 2011

Natural News

By: Neev M. Arnell

A new book by leading cancer expert, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, skewers the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society and blames the organizations for America losing the war against cancer.

In the book, “National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest,” Epstein argues that the NCI and ACS have spent tens of billions of taxpayer and charity dollars focusing on treatment to the exclusion of prevention, which has allowed cancer rates to skyrocket, with the disease now affecting nearly one in two men and more than one in three women. Furthermore, the author claims that not only do numerous conflicts of interest exist within the NCI and ACS, but the NCI and ACS are also withholding a mass of information on avoidable causes of cancer.

Epstein, who has served as a consultant for the U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works, is an internationally recognized authority on avoidable causes of cancer, particularly carcinogen exposure through conduits such as food, air, water, household products, cosmetics, prescription drugs or industrial carcinogens in the workplace.

Epstein is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health and chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition. He has published more than 270-peer reviewed articles and 20 books, including the prize-winning 1978 The Politics of Cancer, and has appeared on national media, including NPR, 60 Minutes, Face the Nation, Meet the Press, The McNeil/Lehrer News Hour, Good Morning America and The Today Show. He was a key expert in the banning of hazardous products including DDT, chlordane and aldrin. In his new book, he is now the leading critic of the cancer establishment for its indifference to prevention of the disease, which, for the ACS, he claims, borders on hostility.

Cancer funding skyrockets along with cancer rates, followed by exaggerated claims of progress

The cancer industry has made a series of misleading claims about the advances in the war against cancer over the past three decades, wrote Epstein.

Some of the false claims, according to Epstein, include the industry’s 1984 announcement by the NCI that cancer mortality would be halved by 2000, the 1998 NCI and ACS Report Card announcement of a reversal in the almost twenty-year trend of increasing cancer incidence and death, and the 2003 pledge by NCI Director and former ACS president-elect Andrew von Eschenbach to “eliminate suffering and death from cancer by 2015.”

The NCI, ACS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also claimed that “considerable progress has been made in reducing the [number of people with cancer] in the U.S. population” in its 2003 “Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975-2000.”

The claim, however, is not consistent with NCI’s own data, Epstein said, which shows the overall number of people with cancer and incidence rates actually increased by 18 percent. The data also shows a dramatic increase in nonsmoking-related cancers, according to Epstein, including a 104 percent increase in liver cancer, an 88 percent increase in prostate cancer, a 54 percent increase in thyroid and testicular cancer, a 29 percent increase in breast cancer and a 14 percent increase in brain cancer. Epstein also notes the overall cancer mortality rates have remained unchanged and have increase by 6 percent for blacks.

It seems that the more we spend on cancer, the more cancer we get, Epstein said, because while the number of people with cancer goes up, so does the NCI budget paid for by tax payers and charity. The NCI budget has increased 25-fold, from $220 million to $4.6 billion, between 1971 and 2000.

Prevention is the key

The fixation on “damage control” instead of prevention is the root cause of the booming cancer rates in the face of billions of dollars aimed at elimination of the disease, according to Epstein.

He claims the NCI priorities are all wrong. The opening statement of the NCI’s 2001 Cancer Facts report says that “cancer prevention is a major component and current priority — to reduce suffering and death from cancer.” Meanwhile the report claimed that only 12 percent of the NCI’s then $3.75 billion budget was allocated to prevention.

Epstein shows that the actual attention to prevention is probably even less, by citing an analysis of a 1992 NCI budget showing that less than 2.5 percent of its then $2 billion budget was spent on prevention.

Epstein further crucifies NCI stating that prevention tactics defined by NCI only covered the value of avoiding smoking and a bad diet, while wholly ignoring the myriad of environmental and occupational carcinogens.

Click here for the full report from Natural News

Author Exposes Organizations for Losing War Against Cancer

June 14, 2011

Natural News

Neev M. Arnell

A new book by leading cancer expert, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, skewers the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society and blames the organizations for America losing the war against cancer.

In the book, “National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest,” Epstein argues that the NCI and ACS have spent tens of billions of taxpayer and charity dollars focusing on treatment to the exclusion of prevention, which has allowed cancer rates to skyrocket, with the disease now affecting nearly one in two men and more than one in three women. Furthermore, the author claims that not only do numerous conflicts of interest exist within the NCI and ACS, but the NCI and ACS are also withholding a mass of information on avoidable causes of cancer.

Epstein, who has served as a consultant for the U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works, is an internationally recognized authority on avoidable causes of cancer, particularly carcinogen exposure through conduits such as food, air, water, household products, cosmetics, prescription drugs or industrial carcinogens in the workplace.

Click here to read the full report from NaturalNews.com.

Half the Calories Consumed By Kids In the US Come From Junk Foods

December 30th, 2010

Natural News

By: David Gutierrez

Nearly half of the calories consumed by the average US child are empty junk food calories, according to a study conducted by researchers from the National Cancer Institute and published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.

Researchers evaluated the diets of children aged two to 18 using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. They found that the average child consumes 2,200 calories per day, more than that recommended for an adult woman. An astonishing 40 percent of these calories come from added sugars (365 calories) or solid fats (433 calories).

The top sources of overall calories were grain deserts, providing 138 calories per day; pizza, providing 136; and soda, providing 118 calories per day. Fruit juices supplied another 56 calories from sugar each day.

Beyond contributing to obesity and all its related health problems, high consumption of empty calories can also produce another serious health problem: malnutrition in the form of nutrient deficiency.

“Some people ask, ‘How can we be malnourished if we’re eating so much that we’re all overweight?’ ” writes Mike Adams in his book The Seven Laws of Nutrition.

“The answer is simple. We’re eating empty calories,” Adams writes. “We’re eating plenty of food if you just count the calories, but not nearly enough of the right kinds of foods that provide nutrition in the form of phytonutrients, minerals, enzymes, healthy oils, vitamins, and other important nutrients. ”

Mary Story of the University of Minnesota, who was not involved in the study, said the results were “alarming” but not surprising.

“If you go to convenience stores or corner stores that are close to schools, [these foods] are really cheap and plentiful,” she said. “We should not be surprised by this — we should be outraged.”

Click here for the full report from Natural News

Processed Deli Meat Could Cause Bladder Cancer

November 17th, 2010

Natural News

By: David Gutierrez

Processed meats have once again been linked with an increased risk of cancer — this time of the bladder — in a study conducted by researchers from the National Cancer Institute and published in the journal Cancer.

Researchers examined the diets of 300,000 adults in eight U.S. states, and used that data to estimate participants’ intake of nitrates and nitrites, which are used to preserve processed meat and have been implicated as carcinogens.

“Nitrate and nitrite are precursors to N-nitroso compounds (NOCs), which induce tumors in many organs, including the bladder, in multiple animal species,” the researchers wrote.

Participants were aged between 50 and 71, and were followed for eight years. The researchers found that while consumption of non-processed meat was not linked with bladder cancer, higher consumption of nitrates from processed meats increased the risk by nearly 30 percent.

High consumption of red meat (both processed and unprocessed) was associated with a non-Hispanic white ethnicity, being a current smoker, having a high body mass index (a measure of obesity), having a higher beverage and daily calorie consumption, less physical activity, lower educational level, younger age, and a lower intake of fruits, vegetables and vitamins C and E.

The study is only the most recent in a long chain of studies linking processed meat consumption to an elevated risk of numerous cancers.

“A recent study conducted at the University of Hawaii shows that even moderate consumption of processed meats causes a 6,700 percent increase in pancreatic cancer (that’s a 67-fold increase in cancer risk!),” writes Mike Adams in Spam Filters for Your Brain.

“Thus, consuming these foods causes cancer. Yet, these packaged meat products appear to be perfectly healthy, thereby distracting you from their true nature, which is that of chronic disease.”

Click here for the full report from Natural News

Cancer Patients Exploited By High-Profit Screening Scams

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

Not Enough Fruit in the U.S. Food Supply to Keep Population Healthy

September 20, 0210

Natural News

By David Gutierrez

Not enough fruits and vegetables are produced or imported to supply every resident of the United States with a healthy diet, researchers from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) have concluded.

“If everyone wanted to eat healthily, there would not be enough,” said the institute’s Susan Krebs-Smith.

In coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the NCI researchers analyzed how much food of various kinds is produced, imported and distributed in the United States. They also calculated national rates of exercise.

The researchers found that there are not enough fresh fruits and vegetables in the U.S. food supply to supply the recommended five servings per person per day. In part, this food shortage may be produced by lack of demand due to unhealthy eating habits.

“Our intakes of fruit are low,” Krebs-Smith said. “Our intake of vegetables is low but especially our intake of dark green and orange vegetables and legumes.”

Supplies of less-healthy but more popular foods, on the other hand, are abundant.

“The fruit in the food supply is about half what it needs to be, but we have plenty of calories from fat and added sugars,” Krebs-Smith said.

“The food supply does supply enough meat and beans.”

To make matters worse, studies suggest that the typical U.S. eater drastically underestimates the amount of junk food they eat. And while a maximum of about 11 percent of a person’s daily calories should come from sugary or fatty snacks, the typical U.S. consumer actually relies on such foods for 38 percent of their daily energy intake.

At the same time, the National Cancer Institute found that less than 5 percent of the U.S. population gets the recommended minimum of 30 minutes of moderate exercise per day. Yet 30 to 40 percent of those polled consistently estimate that they get enough exercise.

The National Cancer Institute estimates that obesity and physical inactivity together are responsible for 25 to 30 percent of breast, colon, endometrial, esophageal and kidney cancers.

Click Here For Full Report

Herbal Supplements ‘Shunned’ By Feds

September 14, 2010

Wall Street Journal

by Laura Landro

Elderberry extract and acai to boost the immune system. Black cohosh to lessen the discomforts of menopause. Soy capsules to prevent bone loss and prostate cancer.

Many botanical supplements—made from the seeds, bark, leaves, flowers and stems of a wide range of plants—have been widely used as folk remedies for centuries. Americans have been consuming growing quantities of the supplements in hopes of warding off disease and easing symptoms of various conditions. But there is scant scientific evidence to support their health benefits.

Now, the federal government is stepping up research into the safety and effectiveness of a wide range of over-the-counter supplements, including plant oils, garlic, soy, elderberry, licorice, black cohosh, St. John’s wort and the Asian herb dong quai. The aim is to better understand how compounds in the plants affect health and to help consumers make more informed choices about supplements, which can interact with prescription drugs, cause side effects or lead to new health risks. Sales of botanical supplements in the U.S. topped $5 billion last year, up 17% from five years earlier, according to the non-profit American Botanical Council.

“Sometimes people assume because a product is natural, it is also safer. But these compounds can have both benefits and potential side effects and we need to understand both of those,” says Floyd Chilton III, director of the Center for Botanical Lipids and Inflammatory Disease Prevention at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center in Winston-Salem, N.C. Dr. Chilton’s center received a $7.5 million federal grant to study botanicals, including whether plant oils such as echium and borage can help play a role in preventing cardiovascular disease, asthma and diabetes.

“People are using supplements for purposes for which they were not intended,” such as treating health conditions they have self-diagnosed, or using multiple supplements in combination with prescription medications, says Marguerite Klein, director of the Botanical Centers Research program at the National Institutes of Health. One concern, she says is the heavy use by women of black cohosh to treat menopause symptoms, such as hot flashes. Limited research seems to support the black cohosh’s benefit. But it isn’t known how the botanical works. Black cohosh has been linked in some patients to liver damage, and breast-cancer patients are often advised to avoid using it because its effects on breast tissue are unknown.

Helping to spur the research initiative are the Office of Dietary Supplements and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, both part of the National Institutes of Health. The agencies last month awarded grants totaling about $37 million to five dietary supplement research centers, expanding a program that has already awarded more than $250 million in research grants for herbs and botanicals since 2002. The NIH is also funding research into botanical products through the National Cancer Institute, which is interested in how components in botanicals might influence cancer risk and tumor growth.

Studies funded by the federal grants have so far shown that chamomile capsules may help reduce anxiety compared to a placebo and that an extract from the milk thistle plant can interfere with the life cycle of the hepatitis C virus. They also have refuted some purported benefits of botanicals, showing, for instance, that ginkgo biloba does not prevent heart attack, stroke, or cancer, or stem memory loss and that St. John’s wort was no better than a placebo in treating symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and teens.

Unlike drugs, which must be tested in clinical trials and approved by the Food and Drug Administration before they can be marketed, botanicals and other supplements don’t require regulatory approval. The FDA in June began requiring all supplement makers to follow strict quality manufacturing standards, but the agency only periodically inspects plants.

An investigation published in May by the General Accounting Office found deceptive marketing practices at a number of online retailers, including claims that supplements could prevent or cure conditions such as diabetes, cancer, or cardiovascular disease. The investigation also found trace amounts of potentially hazardous contaminants, such as lead or bacteria, in 37 of 40 herbal dietary supplement products it tested.

Tod Cooperman, president of ConsumerLab.com, which tests supplement brands for quality, says the group finds problems with about 25% of all supplements, and especially with herbal products, many with ingredients from overseas. A recent review of supplements made from ginseng—commonly taken to boost energy and vitality—found that 45% failed quality tests because they didn’t contain the advertised amount of ginseng or were contaminated with lead. Test results and other information are available to members, who pay $30 annually.

Consumers also can find information about potential uses, benefits and risks of dietary supplements at federal websites ods.gov and nccam.gov. Another government site, Medlineplus.gov, grades scientific evidence on a variety of supplements.

William Cefalu, director of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, says researchers are only beginning to understand how thousands of different compounds in a single plant may interact, and how the concentration of a particular plant chemical affects its potency. For example, peppermint tea is considered safe to drink, but peppermint oil, often taken for irritable bowel syndrome or indigestion, is much more concentrated and can be toxic if used in high doses.

Because the potency of wild plants can vary, some researchers are cultivating their own. At the Center for Botanical Interaction Studies at the University of Missouri in Columbia, 600 types of soybean seeds are being cultivated to study different concentrations of the same compounds in the plants and how they might work to prevent prostate cancer. The center is also growing 60 types of elderberries to study the plant’s possible role in boosting the immune system against infection and fighting cancer and inflammation in the body. Center director Dennis Lubahn says there may be variations in individual plants that will make a difference in how well they fight disease. “We’ve come a long way from the traditional medicine woman sampling leaves in the forest,” he says.

Click here to read the full report

Next Page »