by: Dr. Randy Wysong
There is the underlying assumption that modernity translates into better health. A corollary of this logic is that we can live our lives pretty much as we want because we can always buy a repair. You know, the car won't start, the TV is broken, the telephone is dead – no problem. Just call in an expert, spend some money and all is well.
People carry this over to their thinking about health. Our ticker falters, joints creak or an unwanted growth pops up – no problem. Buy some modern medical care. If that doesn't work, it's a problem of money, better insurance, more hospital funding, more research for the "cure," more doctors, better equipment and more technology. Right?
Wrong.
Don't take my word for it. Listen to the perpetrators themselves. The following is taken right from the pages of the Journal of the American Medical Association (July 26, 2000): "Of 13 countries in a recent (health) comparison, the United States (the most modern and advanced in the world) ranks an average of 12th (second from the bottom)..."
For example, the U.S. ranks:
· last for low birth weight
· last for neonatal and infant mortality overall
· 11th for post neonatal mortality
· last for years of potential life lost
· 11th for female life expectancy at one year, and next to last for males
· 10th for age adjusted mortality
The World Health Organization, using different indicators, ranked the U.S. 15th among 25 industrialized nations. (If ranked against "primitive" cultures eating and living as humans were designed, the whole industrialized world would be at the bottom of the heap.)
Some might say these dismal results are because of smoking, alcohol, cholesterol, animal fats and poor penetration of medical care. Not so. Countries where these health risks are greater have better overall health according to epidemiological studies. It's also not due to lack of technology. The U.S. is, for example, second only to Japan in the number of magnetic resonance imaging units (MRIs) and computed tomography scanners per unit of population. Neither can lack of medical personnel be blamed since the U.S. has the greatest number of employees per hospital bed in the world.
So what is the problem? Here are some clues as revealed in the same journal cited above:
· 12,000 deaths per year from unnecessary surgery
· 7,000 deaths per year from medication errors in hospitals
· 20,000 deaths per year from other hospital errors
· 80,000 deaths per year from nosocomial (originating in a hospital) infections
· 106,000 deaths per year from adverse effects of medications
That totals 225,000 deaths per year, the third leading cause of death, behind heart disease and cancer. Another study – we're talking just hospital related deaths here – estimates 284,000 deaths per year. An analysis of outpatient care jumps these figures by 199,000 deaths for a new total of 483,000 medically related deaths per year. And this assumes doctors and hospitals eagerly report all their mistakes. Think so?
The poor health ranking in the U.S. is in large part not because of lack of modern medical care, it is because of it! This does not deny that each person’s life choices do not impact health as well. People cannot live with abandon and then expect anybody to fix it regardless of their technology and skills. You can imagine the frustration physicians must feel faced day-to-day with patients wanting a quick fix for a lifetime of unhealthy life choices. Be that as it may, it does not deny that modern medicine in and of itself is a huge risk to those who surrender to it.
Why do we not hear more about this? It is just too difficult to come to grips with the inevitable – and unbelievable – conclusion: When all the deaths (not counting the hundreds of thousands who are maimed or otherwise harmed but don't die) reported and not reported are tallied, medical intervention is arguably the leading cause of death in our country.
Time to splash some cold water on the rely-on-modern-medicine inebriation. And remember folks, the above are just cold statistics. Take any one of these numbers and humanize it to the real pain, suffering, financial devastation, grief and family disruption, and each one is a heart rending story deserving of anyone's deep concern and sympathy. It is a tragedy of a magnitude unequalled by anything in human history. And it's repeated every year. It makes 9-11, all the deaths in all U.S. wars, deaths by auto, homicides and everything else pale in comparison. (Not to minimize the tragedy of each of those things.)
The media should be shouting about medical risks from atop their broadcast towers. But there is mostly silence, just reports in obscure (to the public) medical and scientific publications. In the meantime, trusting people keep flocking to the slaughter. From just 1995 to 2002, pharmaceutical sales jumped from $65 billion to over $200 billion. That's about one prescription for each man, woman and child in the country every month. This escalation in medical dependency is paralleled in surgeries, lab tests, emergency room admissions, elective procedures and outpatient visits.
You can do something about it. Begin today to take control of your own health destiny. The philosophical paradigm of conventional, allopathic, symptom based, reductionistic, crisis care, episodic, after-the-fact medicine is seriously flawed ... and very deadly. Good and well meaning doctors are hamstrung by wrong philosophical premises. They are crippled every bit as much as those who once believed in a flat Earth. Trying to achieve health with modern allopathic medicine is like trying to fix computers with a hammer, just because that's the only tool you were taught to use or believe in.
Don't wait for the system to change. Old ideas die too hard. The mega-medical industry is not going to be quick in either admitting error or revamping itself. Your health is at stake. Think prevention and natural holistic cure. Study, learn, grow, be skeptical, change lifestyle, be self-reliant – be a thinking person. That's your best road to health.
About the author:
Dr. Wysong is a former veterinary clinician and surgeon, college instructor in human anatomy, physiology and the origin of life, inventor of numerous medical, surgical, nutritional, athletic and fitness products and devices, research director for the present company by his name and founder of the philanthropic Wysong Institute. He is author of The Creation-Evolution Controversy now in its eleventh printing, a new two volume set on philosophy for living, several books on nutrition, prevention and health for people and animals and over 15 years of monthly health newsletters. He may be contacted at Wysong@Wysong.net and a free subscription to his e-Health Letter is available at http://www.wysong.net.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Welcome to Worldwithoutcancer.org.uk
According Cancer Society, this year 550,000 Americans will die from cancer. One out of every three will develop cancer in their lifetime. That is eighty-eight million people in the United States alone.
What you are about to read does not carry the approval of organised medicine. The Food and Drug Administration, the American Cancer Society, and the American Medical Association have labelled it "fraud" and "quackery". In fact, the FDA and other agencies of government have used every means at their disposal to prevent this story from being told. They have arrested citizens for holding public meetings to tell others of their convictions on this subject. They have confiscated films and books. They even have prosecuted doctors who apply these theories in the effort to save the lives of their own patients.
The purpose of this web-site is to show that this great human tragedy can be stopped now entirely on the basis of existing scientific knowledge.
The information you are about to read marshals the evidence that cancer is a nutritional-deficiency disease, like scurvy or pellagra. It is not caused by a bacterium, virus or mysterious toxin, but by the absence of a substance that modern man has removed from his diet. That substance is Vitamin B-17, also known as Amygdalin or Laetrile. If that analysis is correct, then the treatment and prevention of cancer can be made simple. All that needs to be done is to restore that easily obtained and inexpensive food factor to our daily meals. An increasing number of doctors all over the world are now are testing and proving 9in their own clinics that the vitamin concept of cancer is true.
As you shall see in the pages that follow, there is a great deal of evidence supporting the nutritional-deficiency concept of cancer -- more than enough to convince most people that the thesis is proven. This concept is not approved by orthodox medicine. Yet the evidence is clear that here, at last, is the final answer to the cancer riddle.
http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/index.html
What you are about to read does not carry the approval of organised medicine. The Food and Drug Administration, the American Cancer Society, and the American Medical Association have labelled it "fraud" and "quackery". In fact, the FDA and other agencies of government have used every means at their disposal to prevent this story from being told. They have arrested citizens for holding public meetings to tell others of their convictions on this subject. They have confiscated films and books. They even have prosecuted doctors who apply these theories in the effort to save the lives of their own patients.
The purpose of this web-site is to show that this great human tragedy can be stopped now entirely on the basis of existing scientific knowledge.
The information you are about to read marshals the evidence that cancer is a nutritional-deficiency disease, like scurvy or pellagra. It is not caused by a bacterium, virus or mysterious toxin, but by the absence of a substance that modern man has removed from his diet. That substance is Vitamin B-17, also known as Amygdalin or Laetrile. If that analysis is correct, then the treatment and prevention of cancer can be made simple. All that needs to be done is to restore that easily obtained and inexpensive food factor to our daily meals. An increasing number of doctors all over the world are now are testing and proving 9in their own clinics that the vitamin concept of cancer is true.
As you shall see in the pages that follow, there is a great deal of evidence supporting the nutritional-deficiency concept of cancer -- more than enough to convince most people that the thesis is proven. This concept is not approved by orthodox medicine. Yet the evidence is clear that here, at last, is the final answer to the cancer riddle.
http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/index.html
Water Fluoridation-Linked To Cancer
Studies based upon the U.S. Vital Statistics for fluoridated versus non-fluoridated U.S. cities indicate a significant (greater than 99% confidence level) increase in cancer death rates occurring within the first two years of artificial fluoridation. The nine organ sites affected and their increase above the normal are:
Mouth, 15%; Oesophagus, 48%; Stomach, 22%; Large Intestine, 31%; Rectum, 51%; Kidney, 10%; Bladder and other urinary organs 22%; other organs specifically female: Breast 15%; Ovary and Fallopian Tube, 15%.
Patients having cancers of these organ sites should be advised that they should not continue to drink or cook with fluoridated city water but should substitute bottled spring water or distilled water.
Mouth, 15%; Oesophagus, 48%; Stomach, 22%; Large Intestine, 31%; Rectum, 51%; Kidney, 10%; Bladder and other urinary organs 22%; other organs specifically female: Breast 15%; Ovary and Fallopian Tube, 15%.
Patients having cancers of these organ sites should be advised that they should not continue to drink or cook with fluoridated city water but should substitute bottled spring water or distilled water.
G. Edward Griffin - A World Without Cancer - The Story Of Vitamin B17
G. Edward Griffin marshals the evidence that cancer is a deficiency disease - like scurvy or pellagra - aggravated by the lack of an essential food compound in modern man's diet. That substance is vitamin B17. In its purified form developed for cancer therapy, it is known as Laetrile. This story is not approved by orthodox medicine. The FDA, the AMA, and The American Cancer Society have labeled it fraud and quackery. Yet the evidence is clear that here, at last, is the final answer to the cancer riddle. Why has orthodox medicine waged war against this non-drug approach? The author contends that the answer is to be found, not in science, but in politics - and is based upon the hidden economic and power agenda of those who dominate the medical establishment. With billions of dollars spent each year on research, with other billions taken in on the sale of cancer-related drugs, and with fund-raising at an all-time high, there are now more people making a living from cancer than dying from it. If the solution should be found in a simple vitamin, this gigantic industry could be wiped out over night. The result is that the politics of cancer therapy is more complicated than the science.
The Science and Politics of Cancer A discourse by G. Edward Griffin
FULL VERSION! Two opposed views of cancer. Pancreatic enzymes and food factors in the control of cancer. How the pharmaceutical cartel captured the medical profession. How (and why) Sloan Kettering falsified research to discredit Laetrile. Is there a conspiracy to withhold a control for cancer?
Breast Cancer Prevention And Cure
by: Loring A. Windblad
Cancer is the second leading cause of death in North America (after heart and other cardiovascular diseases) and breast cancer is among the leading causes of death among women. Cancer prevention, not cancer research or cure, is therefore a top priority for all women. Of known cancer causes, smoking tobacco accounts for about a third of the cases and diet is blamed for another 30-50 per cent, although the relationship between food and cancer is hazier than for tobacco and there are no pat answers.
But "prevention" may simply not be possible. If it is, and there is some evidence that change of diet and occupation (reduced stress levels) in combination with a special herbal dietary supplement may be effective in preventing some types of cancer in women, so much the better. If it isn't, the alternative is early detection and surgery. But not just surgery, surgery in combination with other treatments which may include any or all of chemotherapy, radiation, lymphectomy, tamoxaphen (tamoxifen, and a new replacement called Arimidex which may have frightening side effects) and even radical mastectomy (complete breast removal).
Mammograms may be painful. All reports indicate that they are. However, the alternative, breast cancer left long enough to detect by conventional means (pain, lumps, etc) is virtually always resultant in radical mastectomy, chemotherapy and often in death. Check this web site for basic information on cancer, breast cancer, side effects, etc.
My wife has had 10 tumors removed from her breasts. The first two, in the late 1980's, and the last two (1 each breast each occurrence), about 1996-7, were benign. The six in between (four in the right breast, two in the left breast) were malignant. Although the diagnosis of breast cancer is a devastating experience, most women face up to and cope well with it. In fact, studies show that many respond with renewed vigour and enjoyment of life and stronger interpersonal ties. But there is an inevitable period of adjustment, usually improved by knowing as much as possible about the disease.
My wife has been “free of cancer” for well over 8 years, but at her last mammogram checkup, in Jan ‘05, they discovered a growth they could not otherwise account for and wanted to do another biopsy-type lump removal. This inevitably raises the heady and frightening spectre of “cancer” once again. As I began to write, this “ectomy” was still in our future, the results and reactions were also “still in our future”. We’ve been there, several times, but that didn’t make a diagnosis of malignancy any easier, any less emotionally stressful, even though the “period of adjustment” was eased somewhat.
So after 8-9 years cancer free she was diagnosed in January, 2005 with another lump and it was removed in early April, 2005. Yes, it was malignant, but, in the doctor’s words, it was a “friendly” tumor. Our “period of adjustment” has been much easier this time around.
My mother had a radical left-breast mastectomy when she was about 77-78. She lived another 11-12 years cancer free.
At what age am I most at risk for breast cancer? Actually, most at risk is probably after 40. But breast cancer has occurred in teenagers. I'm not sure if it occurs in pre-teens? Breast cancer is extremely rare but not unknown in men, also. The age group most at risk of dying of breast cancer is the younger women because "I'm too young to have breast cancer" and so the warning signs are ignored until it is too late.
What are the causes of breast cancer? There are many. They include stress, diet and lifestyle, and genetic tendencies (inherited).
What are the methods of detection of breast cancer? Intermittent or continuous breast pain or breast discomfort for no apparent reason should be quickly investigated. "Feeling" a "lump" or "hard spot" in one's breast should also be quickly investigated. But the best "early detection" method remains, as painful as it may be, a mammogram. My sweetie has had 7 malignant lumps successfully removed from her breasts (four from the right, three from the left) as well as 4 benign lumps (2 each breast), all detected by mammogram. Had she not had those mammograms she would long since have died of breast cancer; as it is, she also still has both breasts (slightly reduced in size).
How do we prevent breast cancer? The first thing is to eliminate undue stress. This may require a radical lifestyle change and could hinge upon something as simple as running one's household in a period of low income - just making ends meet! The next step is to make certain one's diet is not counter-productive to a cancer-free existence. A regular program of exercise, such as walking a mile or two a day, every day, is beneficial (golf is excellent exercise). Finally, an herbal dietary supplement taken as a preventive may be beneficial? However, even doing all of the above is no assurance one will not develop breast cancer. So make sure you get your mammogram.
Disclaimer: This article in no way should be taken as “medical advice” on any product, condition or course of action, nor does it constitute in any way “medical advice” endorsing any specific product, specific result, nor any possible cure for any condition or problem. This article is meant as a source of information upon which you may base your decision as to whether or not you should begin using any vitamin, mineral and/or herbal supplement for better health, or begin using a “greens” product as a dietary supplement.
If in doubt, or if you have questions, you should consult your physician and, if possible, consult a second physician for a possible different opinion. The author does not bear any responsibility for your decisions nor for the outcome of your actions based upon those decisions.
About the Author
Loring Windblad has studied nutrition and exercise for more than 40 years, is a published author and freelance writer.
This article is Copyright 2005 by http://www.organicgreens.us and Loring Windblad. This article may be freely copied and used on other web sites only if it is copied complete with all links and text, including the Authors Resource Box, intact and unchanged except for minor improvements.
Cancer is the second leading cause of death in North America (after heart and other cardiovascular diseases) and breast cancer is among the leading causes of death among women. Cancer prevention, not cancer research or cure, is therefore a top priority for all women. Of known cancer causes, smoking tobacco accounts for about a third of the cases and diet is blamed for another 30-50 per cent, although the relationship between food and cancer is hazier than for tobacco and there are no pat answers.
But "prevention" may simply not be possible. If it is, and there is some evidence that change of diet and occupation (reduced stress levels) in combination with a special herbal dietary supplement may be effective in preventing some types of cancer in women, so much the better. If it isn't, the alternative is early detection and surgery. But not just surgery, surgery in combination with other treatments which may include any or all of chemotherapy, radiation, lymphectomy, tamoxaphen (tamoxifen, and a new replacement called Arimidex which may have frightening side effects) and even radical mastectomy (complete breast removal).
Mammograms may be painful. All reports indicate that they are. However, the alternative, breast cancer left long enough to detect by conventional means (pain, lumps, etc) is virtually always resultant in radical mastectomy, chemotherapy and often in death. Check this web site for basic information on cancer, breast cancer, side effects, etc.
My wife has had 10 tumors removed from her breasts. The first two, in the late 1980's, and the last two (1 each breast each occurrence), about 1996-7, were benign. The six in between (four in the right breast, two in the left breast) were malignant. Although the diagnosis of breast cancer is a devastating experience, most women face up to and cope well with it. In fact, studies show that many respond with renewed vigour and enjoyment of life and stronger interpersonal ties. But there is an inevitable period of adjustment, usually improved by knowing as much as possible about the disease.
My wife has been “free of cancer” for well over 8 years, but at her last mammogram checkup, in Jan ‘05, they discovered a growth they could not otherwise account for and wanted to do another biopsy-type lump removal. This inevitably raises the heady and frightening spectre of “cancer” once again. As I began to write, this “ectomy” was still in our future, the results and reactions were also “still in our future”. We’ve been there, several times, but that didn’t make a diagnosis of malignancy any easier, any less emotionally stressful, even though the “period of adjustment” was eased somewhat.
So after 8-9 years cancer free she was diagnosed in January, 2005 with another lump and it was removed in early April, 2005. Yes, it was malignant, but, in the doctor’s words, it was a “friendly” tumor. Our “period of adjustment” has been much easier this time around.
My mother had a radical left-breast mastectomy when she was about 77-78. She lived another 11-12 years cancer free.
At what age am I most at risk for breast cancer? Actually, most at risk is probably after 40. But breast cancer has occurred in teenagers. I'm not sure if it occurs in pre-teens? Breast cancer is extremely rare but not unknown in men, also. The age group most at risk of dying of breast cancer is the younger women because "I'm too young to have breast cancer" and so the warning signs are ignored until it is too late.
What are the causes of breast cancer? There are many. They include stress, diet and lifestyle, and genetic tendencies (inherited).
What are the methods of detection of breast cancer? Intermittent or continuous breast pain or breast discomfort for no apparent reason should be quickly investigated. "Feeling" a "lump" or "hard spot" in one's breast should also be quickly investigated. But the best "early detection" method remains, as painful as it may be, a mammogram. My sweetie has had 7 malignant lumps successfully removed from her breasts (four from the right, three from the left) as well as 4 benign lumps (2 each breast), all detected by mammogram. Had she not had those mammograms she would long since have died of breast cancer; as it is, she also still has both breasts (slightly reduced in size).
How do we prevent breast cancer? The first thing is to eliminate undue stress. This may require a radical lifestyle change and could hinge upon something as simple as running one's household in a period of low income - just making ends meet! The next step is to make certain one's diet is not counter-productive to a cancer-free existence. A regular program of exercise, such as walking a mile or two a day, every day, is beneficial (golf is excellent exercise). Finally, an herbal dietary supplement taken as a preventive may be beneficial? However, even doing all of the above is no assurance one will not develop breast cancer. So make sure you get your mammogram.
Disclaimer: This article in no way should be taken as “medical advice” on any product, condition or course of action, nor does it constitute in any way “medical advice” endorsing any specific product, specific result, nor any possible cure for any condition or problem. This article is meant as a source of information upon which you may base your decision as to whether or not you should begin using any vitamin, mineral and/or herbal supplement for better health, or begin using a “greens” product as a dietary supplement.
If in doubt, or if you have questions, you should consult your physician and, if possible, consult a second physician for a possible different opinion. The author does not bear any responsibility for your decisions nor for the outcome of your actions based upon those decisions.
About the Author
Loring Windblad has studied nutrition and exercise for more than 40 years, is a published author and freelance writer.
This article is Copyright 2005 by http://www.organicgreens.us and Loring Windblad. This article may be freely copied and used on other web sites only if it is copied complete with all links and text, including the Authors Resource Box, intact and unchanged except for minor improvements.
Could Underarm Deodorant Be Linked To Breast Cancer?
The Dangers About Your Personal Care Products That May Shock You Or Harm You
I would like to ask you these shocking questions:
Could the underarm deodorant you're using be linked to Alzheimer's disease and breast cancer?
It could if it has aluminum in it. Check the the back of the label.
Could the mouthwash you use be linked to oral/throat cancer?
It could if it has alcohol in it. Again, check the back of the label.
Could you be using engine degreaser or garage floor cleaner to wash your hair and brush your teeth?
Could you be rubbing antifreeze and/or break fluid all over you and your children without even knowing it? If you think that people are aware of these statistics, they are not, and that can be terribly dangerous!
What You Don't Know Can Hurt You
Take a look at the ingredients on the back of those lotions, moisturizers, hair conditioners, wrinkle creams, or baby wipes. Just about everybody has at least one of these five products in their homes. If you check the back of the label of those products just mentioned, most likely you will find an ingredient called Propylene Glycol. Did you know that you can find this same ingredient in the back of a container of prestone antifreeze. That ingredient has been proven to cause kidney and liver damage once it's absorbed into the bloodstream.
Next, take a look in the back of a label of a bottle of shampoo, or a tube of toothpaste. Most likely, you will find something called Sodium Lauryl or Laureth Sulfate (SLS or SLES) which are found in engine degreasers and garage floor cleaners. Once these lethal ingredients are absorbed into the bloodstream, studies have shown that they can cause abnormal development of children eyes, cataracts, and even hair loss! That's something I never knew and really surprised me!
This Information Was Not Meant To Scare You, But To Inform You
This information wasn't given to you to scare you, but to help you make a wise decision about your health and your families as well when it comes to personal care products. Scientists say that long term exposure to ingredients such as Sodium Lauryl or Laureth Sulfate (SLS or SLES) could start to build up on your liver, kidneys, and many other vital organs and tissues, which could eventually lead to cancer. The government knew that these ingredients were being added to these personal care products and didn't do anything about it.
I would like to ask you these shocking questions:
Could the underarm deodorant you're using be linked to Alzheimer's disease and breast cancer?
It could if it has aluminum in it. Check the the back of the label.
Could the mouthwash you use be linked to oral/throat cancer?
It could if it has alcohol in it. Again, check the back of the label.
Could you be using engine degreaser or garage floor cleaner to wash your hair and brush your teeth?
Could you be rubbing antifreeze and/or break fluid all over you and your children without even knowing it? If you think that people are aware of these statistics, they are not, and that can be terribly dangerous!
What You Don't Know Can Hurt You
Take a look at the ingredients on the back of those lotions, moisturizers, hair conditioners, wrinkle creams, or baby wipes. Just about everybody has at least one of these five products in their homes. If you check the back of the label of those products just mentioned, most likely you will find an ingredient called Propylene Glycol. Did you know that you can find this same ingredient in the back of a container of prestone antifreeze. That ingredient has been proven to cause kidney and liver damage once it's absorbed into the bloodstream.
Next, take a look in the back of a label of a bottle of shampoo, or a tube of toothpaste. Most likely, you will find something called Sodium Lauryl or Laureth Sulfate (SLS or SLES) which are found in engine degreasers and garage floor cleaners. Once these lethal ingredients are absorbed into the bloodstream, studies have shown that they can cause abnormal development of children eyes, cataracts, and even hair loss! That's something I never knew and really surprised me!
This Information Was Not Meant To Scare You, But To Inform You
This information wasn't given to you to scare you, but to help you make a wise decision about your health and your families as well when it comes to personal care products. Scientists say that long term exposure to ingredients such as Sodium Lauryl or Laureth Sulfate (SLS or SLES) could start to build up on your liver, kidneys, and many other vital organs and tissues, which could eventually lead to cancer. The government knew that these ingredients were being added to these personal care products and didn't do anything about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)