I have heard that most of the infant formulas in the market contain lots of sugar, but I didn't really dig on it to find out how much, nor did I expect that it would be more than 50%!
Similac, I used to think that being such highly recommended brand by pediatrician, should be better in nutritional quality than the others. I could never have been more wrong. While this is about Similac in America (not sure where our Similac is manufactured), but I don't think the formula will be much different for those Similac that we have here in Malaysia.
Every breastfeeding mothers out there, please keep up the good job in breastfeeding your baby, you are providing your child the best start in the world!
Below is the whole article from Mike Adam.
http://www.naturalnews.com/029863_Similac_infant_formula.html
*******************************************************
It's not the bugs in Similac that make me sick - let's recall the other ingredients (opinion)
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
(NaturalNews) It has been a few days since Abbott Laboratories, makers of Similac infant formula, issued a recall after discovering some of its products may have been contaminated with beetles (and beetle larvae). The mainstream media ran with this story and parents everywhere suddenly got concerned that their babies might be drinking beetle parts.
But are beetles really the scariest thing in Similac? Not by a long shot if you know anything about nutrition.
I purchased a 24-oz container of Similac Go & Grow soy-based formula, emblazoned with a cute teddy bear on the front label and positioned towards "9 to 24 months." It comes with the claim "balanced nutrition for older babies." But is it really balanced nutrition?
42.6% corn syrup solids
The very first ingredient, shown right on the label, is 42.6% CORN SYRUP SOLIDS.
I took a picture of the ingredients label so you can see it for yourself. Click here to see the pic: http://naturalnews.com/images/Similac-Label-Ingredients.jpg
Stop right there. Are they saying that Similac infant formula is 42.6% corn syrup solids? That's a form of highly processed sugar. Is this really what infants need -- nearly half their formula to be made of corn syrup sugars? Nutritionists would strongly disagree.
But it gets even better: The next ingredient is 14.7% SOY PROTEIN ISOLATE. Most soy protein, as NaturalNews readers already know, is derived from a hexane chemical extraction process that we've covered in previous articles: http://www.naturalnews.com/026303_soy_protein_hexane.html
Beyond the hexane question, did you know that 91% of the soy fields grown in America contain genetically modified soy? The Similac can does not say "non-GMO soy" because it's not required to be put on the label (thanks to the FDA shell game). But Consumer Reports actually bought and tested infant formula for genetically engineered DNA and found that Similac was using GMO soy in their products. (http://www.consumersunion.org/food/gefny999.htm)
The next ingredient in the Similac can I bought is 11.5% HIGH OLEIC SAFFLOWER OIL, followed by 10.1% SUGAR (SUCROSE).
If you're doing the math on this, that makes Similac 52.7% sugar (corn syrup solids plus the sucrose) with soy protein. I can hardly think of a better way to raise diabetic, obese children than to feed them a diet that's over 50 percent sugar. It also seems like a great way to get infants addicted to sugar -- a curse that will haunt them through the rest of their lives.
Next on the list is 8.4% SOY OIL (most likely from GMO soybeans, too) and then 7.8% COCONUT OIL (which is, in my opinion, the only healthy ingredient in the entire product).
Basically, then, this Similac product is sugared-up soy protein with safflower and soy oil.
Plus it has some chemical "vitamins" on the label such as CYANOCOBALAMIN, the cheapest form of vitamin B-12 available to food manufacturers. It actually binds the vitamin to a cyanide molecule, just in case you were wondering.
As wikipedia explains, "B12 refers to a group of cobalt-containing vitamer compounds known as cobalamins: these include cyanocobalamin (an artifact formed as a result of the use of cyanide in the purification procedures)."
It then adds, "the cyanocobalamin form of B12 does not occur in nature normally, but is a byproduct of the fact that other forms of B12 are avid binders of cyanide (-CN) which they pick up in the process of activated charcoal purification of the vitamin after it is made by bacteria in the commercial process. Since the cyanocobalamin form of B12 is easy to crystallize and is not sensitive to air-oxidation, it is typically used as a form of B12 for food additives and in many common multivitamins." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12)
Why Similac should have been recalled long before the beetle incident
With this in mind, what we really have with Similac infant formula is powered sugars, genetically modified soy protein, more sugar, safflower and soy oils, a bit of coconut oil and some vitamin chemicals made with cyanide molecules. They also throw in some DHA to make moms think it must somehow resemble breast milk fats.
Are you beginning to see why the beetles are the least of the problems with this product?
Keep in mind that ignorant moms are feeding this stuff to their babies every single day! They think it's good for their babies because they don't take the time to read ingredient labels (or they are unable to understand what the labels mean). But make no mistake: I can't think of a single informed nutritionist who would recommend feeding babies a powder that's more than 50% sugar combined with genetically modified soy protein. To do so is actually nutritional child abuse in my view.
That's why I say Similac should be recalled just based on what's on the label! In my opinion, this is a dangerous combination of sugars and genetically modified ingredients that are likely to promote diabetes, obesity and nutritional imbalances in babies. To feed this to babies is to nutritionally cause them harm, in my opinion... and to think that Abbott Laboratories is making money selling this sugared-up GMO soy protein to consumers just makes me sick.
I think their slogan should be something like, "Similac - Creating tomorrow's diabetics, one baby at a time."
See the ingredients label yourself right here: http://naturalnews.com/images/Similac-Label-Ingredients.jpg
Help spread the word
Please share this story and send it to moms, dads and anyone who has an infant. Don't let them feed their babies sugars and GMO soy protein!
You have my permission to post this story in full, but please give credit back to this page on NaturalNews.com and cite Mike Adams as the author.
We need to reach all the parents who are buying Similac and unknowingly feeding their babies corn syrup solids, GMO soy protein, soy oil, sucrose and other ingredients that I consider to be "pure junk." No society should allow this junk to be fed to their babies, especially if they're trying to prevent obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other chronic health problems that are already bankrupting the nation.
In my opinion, Similac might be the perfect product to raise a generation of Big Pharma customers who will need a whole battery of prescription drugs to "treat" all the degenerative health conditions caused by eating dead, processed, sugared-up and genetically modified foods. To imagine that this could somehow be a replacement for the rich, complex nutritional abundance of mother's milk is nutritionally insane.
Ridiculously overpriced
With Similac, there's also the price issue. Considering how cheap these ingredients are, this product seems ridiculously overpriced. If you really wanted to feed your baby something almost identical to this, you could just buy your own table sugar (cheaper than dirt), isolated soy protein (also cheaper than dirt), safflower oil (almost cheaper than dirt) and some coconut oil or flax oil (not so cheap, but you don't need to use much) then mix it all up and add water.
But what mom in her right mind would do such a crazy thing? No mom in her right mind would mix up 50% table sugar in a bottle and feed it to her baby, but that's essentially what she's doing when feeding her baby this variety of Similac that I purchased.
Nutritional insanity has reached a new low with Similac, I submit, and the beetles are the least of the problems with this product line that borders on "nutritional child abuse."
There should seriously be a law against infant formula being made with corn syrup solids and sucrose, not to mention GMO ingredients.
Spread the word, folks. That's the only way people will find out the truth about this and start choosing something that's healthier for their babies. If we hope to have healthy adults in the future, we have to stop nutritionally abusing them when they're infants.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Truth About Pesticides and GMO
Came across this video, speech from an 11-year-old boy. In the video below he breaks things down about our food system and nails it! An 11-year-old understands the value of health and try to do something about it, are we adults willing to make the change?
More information at the url below:
http://www.bewellbuzz.com/general/truth-pesticides-gmo/
An 11 Year Old Who Gets It!
More information at the url below:
http://www.bewellbuzz.com/general/truth-pesticides-gmo/
An 11 Year Old Who Gets It!
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Is supplement our friend or foe?
Supplements are so common now a days that we find a lot of people consume supplements daily. And the types of supplements usually we can find from the stores included antioxidant, single nutrient supplements, vitamins etc. But do all these supplements provide benefits to our body? Or will it bring harm to us?
This article from the link below was published few months ago, with the finding of high doses of artificial antioxidant being able to increase genetic abnormalities in cell that brings to cancer development.
Copy the link to read the whole article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100504173821.htm
Does that mean that we should not take supplements at all? Actually, supplements are encouraged by many parties in view of the highly polluted environment that we are staying in, in addition to the nutrient-poor + chemical-rich foods that we are ingesting in the modern world.
However, we should educate ourselves with the correct knowledge in choosing those supplements that works best with the nature of our body. Whole food, natural source type of supplement should be chosen, instead of artificial or extracted type of supplements.
Why choose natural whole food supplements? Simply due to our body recognizes only natural whole food and regards everything else as foreigners. When body recognizes the food, it will be able to tell the relevant system to produce the right enzymes and co-enzymes for the digestion and assimilation. If we ingest the artificially produced type of 'food', our body will regard it as foreign particle and will trigger the defense system of our body to be on guard and ready to get rid of it. In other words, the artificial supplement will trigger such stressful response instead of bringing us the benefits that we expect when we consume it. When its quantity is over the threshold of our body to handle it or when our body is too stressful after long time of handling it, it causes all sort of dis-ease and problem.
Usually we choose the natural whole food supplements that are categorized as superfoods, or foods that are densely packed with nutrients, antioxidant and phytochemicals, such as spirulina, chia seeds, maca powder, berries, chlorella, fruits/fruits powder, wheatgrass juice/powder, alfafa greens, cruciferous greens and etc. Let foods become not only our fuel and eating pleasure, but also our natural medicine. The nature has it all.
When we befriended nature, natural whole food supplements become our greatest friends!
This article from the link below was published few months ago, with the finding of high doses of artificial antioxidant being able to increase genetic abnormalities in cell that brings to cancer development.
Copy the link to read the whole article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100504173821.htm
Does that mean that we should not take supplements at all? Actually, supplements are encouraged by many parties in view of the highly polluted environment that we are staying in, in addition to the nutrient-poor + chemical-rich foods that we are ingesting in the modern world.
However, we should educate ourselves with the correct knowledge in choosing those supplements that works best with the nature of our body. Whole food, natural source type of supplement should be chosen, instead of artificial or extracted type of supplements.
Why choose natural whole food supplements? Simply due to our body recognizes only natural whole food and regards everything else as foreigners. When body recognizes the food, it will be able to tell the relevant system to produce the right enzymes and co-enzymes for the digestion and assimilation. If we ingest the artificially produced type of 'food', our body will regard it as foreign particle and will trigger the defense system of our body to be on guard and ready to get rid of it. In other words, the artificial supplement will trigger such stressful response instead of bringing us the benefits that we expect when we consume it. When its quantity is over the threshold of our body to handle it or when our body is too stressful after long time of handling it, it causes all sort of dis-ease and problem.
Usually we choose the natural whole food supplements that are categorized as superfoods, or foods that are densely packed with nutrients, antioxidant and phytochemicals, such as spirulina, chia seeds, maca powder, berries, chlorella, fruits/fruits powder, wheatgrass juice/powder, alfafa greens, cruciferous greens and etc. Let foods become not only our fuel and eating pleasure, but also our natural medicine. The nature has it all.
When we befriended nature, natural whole food supplements become our greatest friends!
Friday, September 17, 2010
My Fav Green Smoothies - Using Thermomix
I have been using Vitamix for almost 2 years to make all my smoothies, be it green smoothies or fruits smoothies. And I love it. But now, I have discovered a new tool to make my smoothies, THERMOMIX!! And the best thing is it does not heat up the smoothies like Vitamix!
Have been using my Thermomix for 2 weeks and love it so much! Other than using it to blend smoothies, I finally can make homemade pau/bread on my own, and it is so easy! Grinding dry seeds has never been faster and easier, and without the worry of heating the seeds up before they are ground. Cooking with less heat yielded nice tasting and juicy vegetables, plus there is no need to stand there to stir. Just dump everything in and press the button and wait for a few minutes. I even make use of the few minutes to clean up the preparation work. It saves time and energy, no oily kitchen, no fussy cleaning procedure, but delicious and nutritious homemade dishes. Really salute the person who invented the machine.
I highly recommend this to anyone who cares for their family's health and loves homemade foods. Welcome to contact me for more details.
Have been using my Thermomix for 2 weeks and love it so much! Other than using it to blend smoothies, I finally can make homemade pau/bread on my own, and it is so easy! Grinding dry seeds has never been faster and easier, and without the worry of heating the seeds up before they are ground. Cooking with less heat yielded nice tasting and juicy vegetables, plus there is no need to stand there to stir. Just dump everything in and press the button and wait for a few minutes. I even make use of the few minutes to clean up the preparation work. It saves time and energy, no oily kitchen, no fussy cleaning procedure, but delicious and nutritious homemade dishes. Really salute the person who invented the machine.
I highly recommend this to anyone who cares for their family's health and loves homemade foods. Welcome to contact me for more details.
用菩薩心教自己的孩子，用父母心愛別人的孩子
上人囑 「莫只顧自己的孩子；若別人的孩子沒有教好，將來也可能來傷害自己的孩子。所以要重視『易子而教』——教好別人的孩子，樹立典範；別的老師也會以同樣的心情，教好自己的孩子。」
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Can You Trust Chemotherapy To Cure Your Cancer?
For a mere 2.3% contribution of chemotherapy to cancer survival, will you still go for it or would you still let your loved one go through all the uncomfortable, horrible yet expensive chemotherapy process for just the 2.3% chance? Are you willing to take this slim chance by pouring all your lifetime-saved-money to the unknown people while wasting your own life away?
May be we should seek the alternative rather than follow blindly what the doctors say...
You may read the article pasted here or go to the link below:
http://www.ener-chi.com/trustchemo.htm
**********************************************
by Andreas Moritz
Former White House press secretary Tony Snow died in July 2008 at the age of 53, following a series of chemotherapy treatments for colon cancer. In 2005, Snow had his colon removed and underwent six months of chemotherapy after being diagnosed with colon cancer. Two years later (2007), Snow underwent surgery to remove a growth in his abdominal area, near the site of the original cancer. "This is a very treatable condition," said Dr. Allyson Ocean, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Weill Cornell Medical College. "Many patients, because of the therapies we have, are able to work and live full lives with quality while they're being treated. Anyone who looks at this as a death sentence is wrong." But of course we now know, Dr. Ocean was dead wrong.
The media headlines proclaimed Snow died from colon cancer, although they knew he didn't have a colon anymore. Apparently, the malignant cancer had "returned" (from where?) and "spread" to the liver and elsewhere in his body. In actual fact, the colon surgery severely restricted his normal eliminative functions, thereby overburdening the liver and tissue fluids with toxic waste. The previous series of chemo-treatments inflamed and irreversibly damaged a large number of cells in his body, and also impaired his immune system -- a perfect recipe for growing new cancers. Now unable to heal the causes of the original cancer (in addition to the newly created ones), Snow's body developed new cancers in the liver and other parts of the body.
The mainstream media, of course, still insist Snow died from colon cancer, thus perpetuating the myth that it is only the cancer that kills people, not the treatment. Nobody seems to raise the important point that it is extremely difficult for a cancer patient to actually heal from this condition while being subjected to the systemic poisons of chemotherapy and deadly radiation. If you are bitten by a poisonous snake and don't get an antidote for it, isn't it likely that your body becomes overwhelmed by the poison and, therefore, cannot function anymore?
Before Tony Snow began his chemo-treatments for his second colon cancer, he still looked healthy and strong. But after a few weeks into his treatment, he started to develop a coarse voice, looked frail, turned gray and lost his hair. Did the cancer do all this to him? Certainly not. Cancer doesn't do such a thing, but chemical poisoning does. He actually looked more ill than someone who has been bitten by a poisonous snake.
Does the mainstream media ever report about the overwhelming scientific evidence that shows chemotherapy has zero benefits in the five-year survival rate of colon cancer patients? Or how many oncologists stand up for their cancer patients and protect them against chemotherapy treatment which they very well know can cause them to die far more quickly than if they received no treatment at all? Can you trustingly place your life into their hands when you know that most of them would not even consider chemotherapy for themselves if they were diagnosed with cancer? What do they know that you don't? The news is spreading fast that in the United States physician-caused fatalities now exceed 750,000 each year. Perhaps, many doctors no longer trust in what they practice, for good reasons.
"Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy... Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade. Yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors... Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemo than without it." - Alan Levin, M.D.
An investigation by the Department of Radiation Oncology, Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Australia, into the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival in 22 major adult malignancies, showed startling results: The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA." [Royal North Shore Hospital Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2005 Jun;17(4):294.]
The research covered data from the Cancer Registry in Australia and the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results in the USA for the year 1998. The current 5-year relative adult survival rate for cancer in Australia is over 60%, and no less than that in the USA. By comparison, a mere 2.3% contribution of chemotherapy to cancer survival does not justify the massive expense involved and the tremendous suffering patients experience because of severe, toxic side effects resulting from this treatment. With a meager success rate of 2.3%, selling chemotherapy as a medical treatment (instead of a scam), is one of the greatest fraudulent acts ever committed. The average chemotherapy earns the medical establishment a whopping $300,000 to $1,000,000 each year, and has so far earned those who promote this pseudo-medication (poison) over 1 trillion dollars. It's no surprise that the medical establishment tries to keep this scam alive for as long as possible.
In 1990, the highly respected German epidemiologist, Dr. Ulrich Abel from the Tumor Clinic of the University of Heidelberg, conducted the most comprehensive investigation of every major clinical study on chemotherapy drugs ever done. Abel contacted 350 medical centers and asked them to send him anything they had ever published on chemotherapy. He also reviewed and analyzed thousands of scientific articles published in the most prestigious medical journals. It took Abel several years to collect and evaluate the data. Abel's epidemiological study, which was published on August 10, 1991 in The Lancet, should have alerted every doctor and cancer patient about the risks of one of the most common treatments used for cancer and other diseases. In his paper, Abel came to the conclusion that the overall success rate of chemotherapy was "appalling." According to this report, there was no scientific evidence available in any existing study to show that chemotherapy can "extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers."
Abel points out that chemotherapy rarely improves the quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as "a scientific wasteland" and states that even though there is no scientific evidence that chemotherapy works, neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on it. The mainstream media has never reported on this hugely important study, which is hardly surprising, given the enormous vested interests of the groups that sponsor the media, that is, the pharmaceutical companies. A recent search turned up exactly zero reviews of Abel's work in American journals, even though it was published in 1990. I believe this is not because his work was unimportant -- but because it is irrefutable.
The truth of the matter would be far too costly for the pharmaceutical industry to bear, thus making it unacceptable. If the mass media reported the truth that medical drugs, including chemotherapy drugs, are used to practically commit genocide in the U.S. and the world, their best sponsors (the pharmaceutical companies) would have to withdraw their misleading advertisements from the television media, radio stations, magazines, and newspapers. But neither group wants to go bankrupt.
Many doctors go as far as prescribing chemotherapy drugs to patients for malignancies that are far too advanced for surgery, with the full knowledge that there are no benefits at all. Yet they claim chemotherapy to be an effective cancer treatment, and their unsuspecting patients believe that "effective" equals "cure." The doctors, of course, refer to the FDA's definition of an "effective" drug, one which achieves a 50% or more reduction in tumor size for 28 days. They neglect to tell their patients that there is no correlation whatsoever between shrinking tumors for 28 days and curing the cancer or extending life. Temporary tumor shrinkage through chemotherapy has never been shown to cure cancer or to extend life. In other words, you can live with an untreated tumor for just as long as you would with one that has been shrunken or been eliminated by chemotherapy (or radiation).
Chemotherapy has never been shown to have curative effects for cancer. By contrast, the body can still cure itself, which it actually tries to do by developing cancer. Cancer is more a healing response than it is a disease. The "disease" is the body's attempt to cure itself of an existing imbalance. And sometimes, this healing response continues even if a person is subjected to chemotherapy (and/or radiation). Unfortunately, as the previously mentioned research has demonstrated, the chances for a real cure are greatly reduced when patients are treated with chemotherapy drugs.
The side effects of the treatment can be horrendous and heartbreaking for both patients and their loved ones, all in the name of trustworthy medical treatment. Although the drug treatment comes with the promise to improve the patient's quality of life, it is just common sense that a drug that makes them throw up and lose their hair, while wrecking their immune system, is doing the exact opposite. Chemo-therapy can give the patient life-threatening mouth sores. It attacks the immune system by destroying billions of immune cells (white blood cells). Its deadly poisons inflame every part of the body. The drugs can slough off the entire lining of their intestines. The most common side effect experienced among chemo patients is their complete lack of energy. The new additional drugs now given to many chemo patients may prevent the patient from noticing some of the side effects, but they hardly reduce the immensely destructive and suppressive effect of the chemotherapy itself. Remember, the reason chemotherapy can shrink some tumors is because it causes massive destruction in the body.
If you have cancer, you may think that feeling tired is just part of the disease. This rarely is the case. Feeling unusually tired is more likely due to anemia, a common side effect of most chemotherapy drugs. Chemo drugs can dramatically decrease your red blood cell levels, and this reduces oxygen availability to the 60-100 trillion cells of your body. You can literally feel the energy being zapped from every cell of your body -- a physical death without dying. Chemo-caused fatigue has a negative impact on day-to-day activities in 89% of all patients. With no energy, there can be no joy and no hope, and all bodily functions become subdued.
One long-term side effect is that these patients' bodies can no longer respond to nutritional or immune-strengthening approaches to cancerous tumors. All of this may explain why cancer patients who do not receive any treatment at all, have an up to four times higher remission rate than those who receive treatment. The sad thing is that chemotherapy does not cure 96% to 98% of all cancers anyway. Conclusive evidence (for the majority of cancers) that chemotherapy has any positive influence on survival or quality of life does not exist.
To promote chemotherapy as a treatment for cancer is misleading, to say the least. By permanently damaging the body's immune system and other important parts, chemo-therapy has become a leading cause of treatment-caused diseases such as heart disease, liver disease, intestinal diseases, diseases of the immune system, infections, brain diseases, pain disorders, and rapid aging.
Before committing themselves to being poisoned, cancer patients need to question their doctors and ask them to produce the research or evidence that shrinking a tumor actually translates to any increase in survival. If they tell you that chemotherapy is your best chance of surviving, you will know they are lying or are simply misinformed. As Abel's research clearly demonstrated, there is no such evidence anywhere to be found in the medical literature. Subjecting patients to chemotherapy robs them of a fair chance of finding or responding to a real cure and deserves criminal prosecution.
Andreas Moritz's book, Cancer is not a Disease - It's a Survival Mechanism, explains the root causes of cancer and how to eliminate them for good.
About the author
Andreas Moritz is a medical intuitive; a practitioner of Ayurveda, iridology, shiatsu, and vibrational medicine; a writer; and an artist. He is the author of The Amazing Liver and Gallbladder Flush, Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation, Lifting the Veil of Duality, Cancer Is Not a Disease, It's Time to Come Alive, Heart Disease No More, Diabetes No More, Simple Steps to Total Health, Diabetes -- No More, Ending the AIDS Myth and Heal Yourself with Sunlight. More Information About These Books
May be we should seek the alternative rather than follow blindly what the doctors say...
You may read the article pasted here or go to the link below:
http://www.ener-chi.com/trustchemo.htm
**********************************************
by Andreas Moritz
Former White House press secretary Tony Snow died in July 2008 at the age of 53, following a series of chemotherapy treatments for colon cancer. In 2005, Snow had his colon removed and underwent six months of chemotherapy after being diagnosed with colon cancer. Two years later (2007), Snow underwent surgery to remove a growth in his abdominal area, near the site of the original cancer. "This is a very treatable condition," said Dr. Allyson Ocean, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Weill Cornell Medical College. "Many patients, because of the therapies we have, are able to work and live full lives with quality while they're being treated. Anyone who looks at this as a death sentence is wrong." But of course we now know, Dr. Ocean was dead wrong.
The media headlines proclaimed Snow died from colon cancer, although they knew he didn't have a colon anymore. Apparently, the malignant cancer had "returned" (from where?) and "spread" to the liver and elsewhere in his body. In actual fact, the colon surgery severely restricted his normal eliminative functions, thereby overburdening the liver and tissue fluids with toxic waste. The previous series of chemo-treatments inflamed and irreversibly damaged a large number of cells in his body, and also impaired his immune system -- a perfect recipe for growing new cancers. Now unable to heal the causes of the original cancer (in addition to the newly created ones), Snow's body developed new cancers in the liver and other parts of the body.
The mainstream media, of course, still insist Snow died from colon cancer, thus perpetuating the myth that it is only the cancer that kills people, not the treatment. Nobody seems to raise the important point that it is extremely difficult for a cancer patient to actually heal from this condition while being subjected to the systemic poisons of chemotherapy and deadly radiation. If you are bitten by a poisonous snake and don't get an antidote for it, isn't it likely that your body becomes overwhelmed by the poison and, therefore, cannot function anymore?
Before Tony Snow began his chemo-treatments for his second colon cancer, he still looked healthy and strong. But after a few weeks into his treatment, he started to develop a coarse voice, looked frail, turned gray and lost his hair. Did the cancer do all this to him? Certainly not. Cancer doesn't do such a thing, but chemical poisoning does. He actually looked more ill than someone who has been bitten by a poisonous snake.
Does the mainstream media ever report about the overwhelming scientific evidence that shows chemotherapy has zero benefits in the five-year survival rate of colon cancer patients? Or how many oncologists stand up for their cancer patients and protect them against chemotherapy treatment which they very well know can cause them to die far more quickly than if they received no treatment at all? Can you trustingly place your life into their hands when you know that most of them would not even consider chemotherapy for themselves if they were diagnosed with cancer? What do they know that you don't? The news is spreading fast that in the United States physician-caused fatalities now exceed 750,000 each year. Perhaps, many doctors no longer trust in what they practice, for good reasons.
"Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy... Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade. Yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors... Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemo than without it." - Alan Levin, M.D.
An investigation by the Department of Radiation Oncology, Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Australia, into the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival in 22 major adult malignancies, showed startling results: The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA." [Royal North Shore Hospital Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2005 Jun;17(4):294.]
The research covered data from the Cancer Registry in Australia and the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results in the USA for the year 1998. The current 5-year relative adult survival rate for cancer in Australia is over 60%, and no less than that in the USA. By comparison, a mere 2.3% contribution of chemotherapy to cancer survival does not justify the massive expense involved and the tremendous suffering patients experience because of severe, toxic side effects resulting from this treatment. With a meager success rate of 2.3%, selling chemotherapy as a medical treatment (instead of a scam), is one of the greatest fraudulent acts ever committed. The average chemotherapy earns the medical establishment a whopping $300,000 to $1,000,000 each year, and has so far earned those who promote this pseudo-medication (poison) over 1 trillion dollars. It's no surprise that the medical establishment tries to keep this scam alive for as long as possible.
In 1990, the highly respected German epidemiologist, Dr. Ulrich Abel from the Tumor Clinic of the University of Heidelberg, conducted the most comprehensive investigation of every major clinical study on chemotherapy drugs ever done. Abel contacted 350 medical centers and asked them to send him anything they had ever published on chemotherapy. He also reviewed and analyzed thousands of scientific articles published in the most prestigious medical journals. It took Abel several years to collect and evaluate the data. Abel's epidemiological study, which was published on August 10, 1991 in The Lancet, should have alerted every doctor and cancer patient about the risks of one of the most common treatments used for cancer and other diseases. In his paper, Abel came to the conclusion that the overall success rate of chemotherapy was "appalling." According to this report, there was no scientific evidence available in any existing study to show that chemotherapy can "extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers."
Abel points out that chemotherapy rarely improves the quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as "a scientific wasteland" and states that even though there is no scientific evidence that chemotherapy works, neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on it. The mainstream media has never reported on this hugely important study, which is hardly surprising, given the enormous vested interests of the groups that sponsor the media, that is, the pharmaceutical companies. A recent search turned up exactly zero reviews of Abel's work in American journals, even though it was published in 1990. I believe this is not because his work was unimportant -- but because it is irrefutable.
The truth of the matter would be far too costly for the pharmaceutical industry to bear, thus making it unacceptable. If the mass media reported the truth that medical drugs, including chemotherapy drugs, are used to practically commit genocide in the U.S. and the world, their best sponsors (the pharmaceutical companies) would have to withdraw their misleading advertisements from the television media, radio stations, magazines, and newspapers. But neither group wants to go bankrupt.
Many doctors go as far as prescribing chemotherapy drugs to patients for malignancies that are far too advanced for surgery, with the full knowledge that there are no benefits at all. Yet they claim chemotherapy to be an effective cancer treatment, and their unsuspecting patients believe that "effective" equals "cure." The doctors, of course, refer to the FDA's definition of an "effective" drug, one which achieves a 50% or more reduction in tumor size for 28 days. They neglect to tell their patients that there is no correlation whatsoever between shrinking tumors for 28 days and curing the cancer or extending life. Temporary tumor shrinkage through chemotherapy has never been shown to cure cancer or to extend life. In other words, you can live with an untreated tumor for just as long as you would with one that has been shrunken or been eliminated by chemotherapy (or radiation).
Chemotherapy has never been shown to have curative effects for cancer. By contrast, the body can still cure itself, which it actually tries to do by developing cancer. Cancer is more a healing response than it is a disease. The "disease" is the body's attempt to cure itself of an existing imbalance. And sometimes, this healing response continues even if a person is subjected to chemotherapy (and/or radiation). Unfortunately, as the previously mentioned research has demonstrated, the chances for a real cure are greatly reduced when patients are treated with chemotherapy drugs.
The side effects of the treatment can be horrendous and heartbreaking for both patients and their loved ones, all in the name of trustworthy medical treatment. Although the drug treatment comes with the promise to improve the patient's quality of life, it is just common sense that a drug that makes them throw up and lose their hair, while wrecking their immune system, is doing the exact opposite. Chemo-therapy can give the patient life-threatening mouth sores. It attacks the immune system by destroying billions of immune cells (white blood cells). Its deadly poisons inflame every part of the body. The drugs can slough off the entire lining of their intestines. The most common side effect experienced among chemo patients is their complete lack of energy. The new additional drugs now given to many chemo patients may prevent the patient from noticing some of the side effects, but they hardly reduce the immensely destructive and suppressive effect of the chemotherapy itself. Remember, the reason chemotherapy can shrink some tumors is because it causes massive destruction in the body.
If you have cancer, you may think that feeling tired is just part of the disease. This rarely is the case. Feeling unusually tired is more likely due to anemia, a common side effect of most chemotherapy drugs. Chemo drugs can dramatically decrease your red blood cell levels, and this reduces oxygen availability to the 60-100 trillion cells of your body. You can literally feel the energy being zapped from every cell of your body -- a physical death without dying. Chemo-caused fatigue has a negative impact on day-to-day activities in 89% of all patients. With no energy, there can be no joy and no hope, and all bodily functions become subdued.
One long-term side effect is that these patients' bodies can no longer respond to nutritional or immune-strengthening approaches to cancerous tumors. All of this may explain why cancer patients who do not receive any treatment at all, have an up to four times higher remission rate than those who receive treatment. The sad thing is that chemotherapy does not cure 96% to 98% of all cancers anyway. Conclusive evidence (for the majority of cancers) that chemotherapy has any positive influence on survival or quality of life does not exist.
To promote chemotherapy as a treatment for cancer is misleading, to say the least. By permanently damaging the body's immune system and other important parts, chemo-therapy has become a leading cause of treatment-caused diseases such as heart disease, liver disease, intestinal diseases, diseases of the immune system, infections, brain diseases, pain disorders, and rapid aging.
Before committing themselves to being poisoned, cancer patients need to question their doctors and ask them to produce the research or evidence that shrinking a tumor actually translates to any increase in survival. If they tell you that chemotherapy is your best chance of surviving, you will know they are lying or are simply misinformed. As Abel's research clearly demonstrated, there is no such evidence anywhere to be found in the medical literature. Subjecting patients to chemotherapy robs them of a fair chance of finding or responding to a real cure and deserves criminal prosecution.
Andreas Moritz's book, Cancer is not a Disease - It's a Survival Mechanism, explains the root causes of cancer and how to eliminate them for good.
About the author
Andreas Moritz is a medical intuitive; a practitioner of Ayurveda, iridology, shiatsu, and vibrational medicine; a writer; and an artist. He is the author of The Amazing Liver and Gallbladder Flush, Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation, Lifting the Veil of Duality, Cancer Is Not a Disease, It's Time to Come Alive, Heart Disease No More, Diabetes No More, Simple Steps to Total Health, Diabetes -- No More, Ending the AIDS Myth and Heal Yourself with Sunlight. More Information About These Books
Friday, September 3, 2010
Lower Your Cancer Risk With Cruciferous Vegetables
We know that broccoli is very good, but how good is it? Here's an article about all the cruciferous vegetables in general, with spotlight on broccoli.
These vegetables are easily available and not expensive. They can be added to our daily meal easily. Steamed broccoli with miso is my favorite. Enjoy the delicious dish while getting all the benefits from it in preventing diseases.
********************************************
Wednesday, October 4, 2006 - 1:35pm
By Erin Dummert RD, CD
Thousands of scientific studies prove that a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains can prevent cancer and other diseases. Not only are these foods low in calories, they are excellent sources of vitamins, minerals, fiber, and beneficial plant chemicals. More specifically, cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, bok choy, and kale have been shown to be especially potent cancer fighters. While the sulfur-like odor of cruciferous vegetables may make them less desirable than other vegetables, the very chemical that causes this potent smell provides the most impressive protection against cancer.
Cruciferous vegetables: the benefits
Cruciferous vegetables contain many plant chemicals that are associated with a lower risk of cancer. By stimulating the body to produce enzymes which break down cancer-causing substances, these naturally occurring chemicals help slow the growth of cancer cells in the breast, endometrium, lung, colon, liver, and cervix. In addition, various studies have associated diets high in cruciferous vegetables with lower risks of lung, stomach, colorectal, bladder, and prostate cancers.
Guidelines for consumption of curciferious veggies
A small amount of cruciferous vegetables goes a long way. One clinical study showed that men between the ages of 40 and 64 who ate 3 or more half-cup servings of cruciferous vegetables a week were 41 percent less likely to develop prostate cancer. Another study among men and women ranging in age from 50 to 74 showed participants who ate an average of 3.7 half-cup servings of cooked broccoli weekly were 50 percent less likely to develop colorectal cancer as subjects who said they never ate broccoli. Researchers have also discovered that the beneficial plant chemicals in cruciferous vegetables work together to produce a greater cancer fighting effect.
Incorporating cruciferous veggies into your diet
Incorporating cruciferous vegetables into your diet is easier and more delicious than you might think. To take advantage of their cancer fighting potential, add a half-cup serving of any of the following a few times a week:
• Arugula
• Beet greens
• Bok choy
• Broccoli
• Broccoli sprouts
• Brussels sprouts
• Cabbage
• Cauliflower
• Chinese cabbage
• Collard greens
• Daikon
• Horseradish
• Kale
• Kohlrabi
• Mustard greens
• Radishes
• Rutabaga
• Swiss chard
• Turnips
• Watercress
Spotlight on sprouts: super cruciferous broccoli
In part because it contains the cancer-fighting chemical sulforaphane, broccoli always tops the list of healthiest vegetables. However, broccoli sprouts contain 20 to 50 times more sulforaphane than mature broccoli. That means a few tablespoons of broccoli sprouts contain as much sulforaphane as is found in a pound of mature broccoli. When scientists at Johns Hopkins University fed broccoli sprouts to rats for several days and then gave them carcinogens, the animals developed smaller, fewer and slower-growing tumors than the ones that did not eat sprouts.
These vegetables are easily available and not expensive. They can be added to our daily meal easily. Steamed broccoli with miso is my favorite. Enjoy the delicious dish while getting all the benefits from it in preventing diseases.
********************************************
Wednesday, October 4, 2006 - 1:35pm
By Erin Dummert RD, CD
Thousands of scientific studies prove that a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains can prevent cancer and other diseases. Not only are these foods low in calories, they are excellent sources of vitamins, minerals, fiber, and beneficial plant chemicals. More specifically, cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, bok choy, and kale have been shown to be especially potent cancer fighters. While the sulfur-like odor of cruciferous vegetables may make them less desirable than other vegetables, the very chemical that causes this potent smell provides the most impressive protection against cancer.
Cruciferous vegetables: the benefits
Cruciferous vegetables contain many plant chemicals that are associated with a lower risk of cancer. By stimulating the body to produce enzymes which break down cancer-causing substances, these naturally occurring chemicals help slow the growth of cancer cells in the breast, endometrium, lung, colon, liver, and cervix. In addition, various studies have associated diets high in cruciferous vegetables with lower risks of lung, stomach, colorectal, bladder, and prostate cancers.
Guidelines for consumption of curciferious veggies
A small amount of cruciferous vegetables goes a long way. One clinical study showed that men between the ages of 40 and 64 who ate 3 or more half-cup servings of cruciferous vegetables a week were 41 percent less likely to develop prostate cancer. Another study among men and women ranging in age from 50 to 74 showed participants who ate an average of 3.7 half-cup servings of cooked broccoli weekly were 50 percent less likely to develop colorectal cancer as subjects who said they never ate broccoli. Researchers have also discovered that the beneficial plant chemicals in cruciferous vegetables work together to produce a greater cancer fighting effect.
Incorporating cruciferous veggies into your diet
Incorporating cruciferous vegetables into your diet is easier and more delicious than you might think. To take advantage of their cancer fighting potential, add a half-cup serving of any of the following a few times a week:
• Arugula
• Beet greens
• Bok choy
• Broccoli
• Broccoli sprouts
• Brussels sprouts
• Cabbage
• Cauliflower
• Chinese cabbage
• Collard greens
• Daikon
• Horseradish
• Kale
• Kohlrabi
• Mustard greens
• Radishes
• Rutabaga
• Swiss chard
• Turnips
• Watercress
Spotlight on sprouts: super cruciferous broccoli
In part because it contains the cancer-fighting chemical sulforaphane, broccoli always tops the list of healthiest vegetables. However, broccoli sprouts contain 20 to 50 times more sulforaphane than mature broccoli. That means a few tablespoons of broccoli sprouts contain as much sulforaphane as is found in a pound of mature broccoli. When scientists at Johns Hopkins University fed broccoli sprouts to rats for several days and then gave them carcinogens, the animals developed smaller, fewer and slower-growing tumors than the ones that did not eat sprouts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)