Several articles here fyi... Scroll to end for prevention suggestions. If you already have been diagnosed, you can go to www.preventionforever.com/stopcancer.htm for a nutritional supplement cure, or read further here for other perspectives. Two other websites offering natural cancer cures are worth your while: www.curenaturalicancro.com and www.germannewmedicine.ca. Biophysicist who cured himself is now helping others to heal By Teresa Tsalaky http://www.alternativedr.com/catalog/article_info.php?articles_id=909 David Walker wanted to live long enough to see his children graduate from high school. He asked his oncologist if he'd make it that long. The doctor hung his head and said Walker had no more than three to five years before the colon cancer would take his life. Nearly a decade later, Walker is cancer free. Thanks to his training as a biophysicist, he was able to decipher a biochemical riddle that enabled him to cure himself. He created a treatment protocol that consists of herbs, enzymes, phytonutrients, detoxification and a bio-resonance therapy that recharges depleted energy in cells. He then shared his knowledge, helping hundreds of other cancer patients eliminate the disease. In 2001, the Federal Trade Commission and Washington State attorney general sued to stop him. A government investigator reviewed Walker's records and reported that 14 percent of the people using his protocol had died. The report did not include the mortality rate over the same period of time for cancer patients who undergo the approved cancer therapies: radiation and chemotherapy. That rate is five times higher than the rate for Walker's protocol. When the court case ended in 2002, Walker had become one of thousands of individuals and companies whose effective, alternative treatments have been stifled. The treatment that didn't work Walker's story begins on March 6, 1994 -- the day he had surgery for a ruptured appendix. Surgeons discovered advanced cancer and removed a colon tumor larger than a grapefruit. The doctor gave Walker little hope of living beyond five years and prescribed chemotherapy. Friends and relatives began sending him alternative health products and books about cancer. They suggested he use various non-allopathic treatments. But Walker would do nothing of the sort. "I entered in this treatment of surgery and chemotherapy with only one thing in mind: to follow doctor's orders and dedicate myself to this schedule and treatment," he said. "My thoughts were that medicine today is the best ever, and if I'm going to beat this, I'm doing all traditional approaches." Then he discovered the side effects of "traditional" approaches. The surgery left him unable to fully use his left leg. Repairing the damage required six months of physical therapy. The chemo was worse. It caused open sores in his mouth, and his skin began deteriorating. When he made a fist, then opened his hand, it bled from every crack. He could pull the skin off his hands in layers. "After seven months of chemotherapy, my doctor sent me home, saying the side effects are too severe and that maybe we can try again in three months," Walker recalled. "I never returned. During that three months of detoxing from the chemo, I knew I would rather die sooner with dignity and quality of life than go through the chemical poisoning again." That's when he empowered himself. If the experts didn't have the tools to cure him, he would try to find those tools himself. "When I sat and thought about it, I tried to understand what was killing me," he said. He searched the Internet and watched University of Washington Medical School videos. He researched nutrients, blood oxygen, cellular energy and cellular communication. With a doctoral degree in biophysics, with minors in microbiology and biochemistry, he had the knowledge to understand the research reports and scientific data. He said he discovered nothing new. He simply put what is already known to use to reverse the process that leads to cancer. "I just found some keys and unlocked some doors of knowledge," he said. Replacing the cell cycle's missing dominos In layman's terms, here's the information that Walker used to come up with the cancer treatment protocol that saved his life: Every day, billions of cells in your body are damaged and discarded, and billions more new, healthy cells take their place in an endless cycle of cell regeneration. The new ones are created by the cells subdividing. Cells contain energy measured in millivolts. A healthy cell contains between 70 and 90 millivolts of energy. When a free radical attaches to a cell, its energy drops to 15 millivolts. (Free radicals punch holes in cell membranes and damage DNA and enzyme systems. Some free radicals are created when the immune system does its battles; others come from pollutants in our food, water and air.) The cell's DNA and RNA orchestrate the process of cell regeneration. The DNA in each cell has something called a telomere strand, which becomes dormant when a cell loses energy. As a result, the cell mutates. The P53 gene, which is in charge of destroying mutated cells, needs more than 15 millivolts to do its job. So when the cell's energy drops, damaged and mutated cells are no longer destroyed. But the MYG gene -- the one in charge of cell subdivision -- doesn't need much energy to do its job. Even at 15 millivolts or less, it keeps dividing the cells -- even the mutated ones that were supposed to be destroyed. This, Walker says, is how cancer gets started. And this is why Walker's protocol includes re-energizing the cells. Walker also learned in his research that cancer cells have high toxin counts, and that people with cancer have low blood oxygen levels and their immune systems' natural killer cells have been depleted. He learned that certain antigens (substances that cause the formation of an antibody or elicit a cellular response) exist in high counts in cancer cells, and certain enzymes can keep these antigens at bay. When these enzymes are depleted, cellular communication fails. All of this contributes to the mutated cells growing out of control. And that's called malignancy. Walker compares the cycle of cell regeneration to a set of dominos: "If you took 40 dominos and stood them up in a circle, a free radical attachment represents a removed domino. If the P53 gene can't fire, remove another domino. Take out a couple more failed-communication dominos, and your cell won't be regenerated as a healthy cell, only a mutated mass." He said he has identified six parts of the cell-regeneration cycle that have failed in all cases of cancer, as well as in more than 200 other diseases and conditions. The trick to stopping cancer, therefore, is to replace the six dominos so that the cells can operate properly, allowing the body to heal itself. And so Walker set out to find the products that would replace the missing dominos. He found the products, used them faithfully, and he felt better and better. After two years, he worked up the courage to go back to his doctor. The test results came back clear: Walker had no cancer in his body. The treatment protocol Walker's treatment protocol includes numerous possible supplements and procedures, ranging from colostrum to colonics, but the following seven are the basic elements that Walker recommends for everyone with cancer. 1. An herbal supplement called Bio-X that contains bloodroot, galangal, yellow dock, licorice root, zinc chloride, protoplasm and water treated with 12 enzymes. 2. Sodium micelle -- an enzyme that increases oxygen levels in the blood. 3. Glycoproteins and phytonutrients: Of the nine glycoproteins essential for the cell to reproduce itself, only one is made by the body, so food must provide the rest. Phytonutrients are nutrients harvested from mature plants. 4. Diet modification: Walker recommends eliminating red meat, margarine and white processed sugar and flour. 5. Detoxification: Many methods are available for removing toxins from the body. 6. Inholtra: This over-the-counter pain remedy is recommended to eliminate the need for codeine or morphine. 7. Bio-resonance therapy: You'll recall that free-radical damage drops the cell's charge to 15 millivolts and leads to mutated cells dividing and multiplying. Several machines have been developed that bring that charge back up to a healthy range through resonance. These multi-wave oscillators put out a full-spectrum field of energy. Each cell and system of the body picks out its optimal frequency and begins oscillating at that rate. It's similar to plucking a string of a violin and thereby producing the same note in a nearby violin. Sued for helping others heal A few people heard about Walker's success eliminating his terminal cancer and called asking about his protocol. He gave them the names of companies that sell the products he used. If they couldn't afford the products, Walker paid for them. He had survived a cancer death sentence, and he wanted to help others do the same. Word of mouth spread, and soon he had hundreds of people calling for advice. He put up a Web site and began keeping records of the people who came to him for help. The success stories began accumulating, and he decided it was time to set up clinical trials. He inquired whether the National Institutes of Health would be interested in setting up a study and also approached several clinics. "I got laughed at, kicked out of clinics, and most medical doctors refused to listen," Walker recalled. Then a patient with breast cancer told her physician she had used Walker's regimen to eliminate her cancer. "The doctor claimed to have lost $350,000, because the breast cancer went away," said Walker, who believes the doctor called the Federal Trade Commission, which, under pressure from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, sued him. Then the FTC, which regulates e-commerce, decided that Walker, through his Web site, was practicing medicine without a license. The Washington State Attorney General's Office filed 240 counts against him. The state's health department filed an Investigation for Unlicensed Practice of Medicine, and the FDA accused Walker of selling illegal, over-the-counter drugs. By then, he had helped hundreds of people, had records on about 500 on them, and had gathered about 2,500 testimonials about the products he recommended. Most of the people he helped -- 86 percent -- had survived their cancers, according to the government's investigation of his case. The FTC decided it was Walker's constitutional right to review cancer patients' medical records and offer treatment advice, as long as he didn't sell anything. But the attorney general's office pressed on with support from the FDA, prevailing on two counts. Even though Walker won the other 238 counts, the judgment against him for the two counts was $860,000. He lost his house and everything he owned. In spite of the loss, it was worth it, Walker said. "Material things are nothing anymore. That's one lesson you learn when facing the end. To me, they are just a convenience now. What it was worth is I got to see all three of my kids graduate -- something my oncologist said could not happen." After the court case ended, Walker was offered several jobs with titles such as head of product development, director of complementary and alternative medicine and university professor. But he had to consider continuing his work helping people with cancer. During the previous 10 years, he had survived advanced cancer, helped hundreds of other people do the same, and experienced government suppression of alternative treatments. And, while visiting hospitals, he had seen the devastation that allopathic cancer treatments cause. "I visited the cancer wards or just sat in the waiting room, watching people waiting their turn for poison injections, irradiation and, most of all, hope. Many times, I had to leave because of the emotional impact, memories, and knowing each person I saw was putting their trust in the slaughtering process," Walker said. He concluded that oncologists, through no fault of their own, "are nothing more than legally licensed executioners." So he made a list of all the pros and cons of continuing his work with cancer patients. One side of the list had two entries: "government antagonist" and "self-destruction." If he continued, he would be antagonizing the government that wanted to stop him, and it could destroy him. The other side of the list had 500,002 entries, including the 500,000 new cancer patients every year. The other two entries were "my contributions to mankind" and "family -- the future of my children and grandchildren." "Needless to say, it was not a difficult decision," Walker said. So he left Washington State and moved to Mexico, where he opened a hospital to help people who want an alternative treatment for cancer. "My work will go on." Walker said. "Too many people have been helped, and I'm not done." This article has been reprinted here for the public good. WHY WE CAN'T PREVENT CANCER By Peter Montague In 1999, cancer surpassed heart disease as the number one killer of people younger than 85 in the U.S.[1] Now a detailed report on the causes of cancer tells us why: cancer has been steadily increasing in the U.S. for 50 years as people have been exposed to more and more cancer-causing agents, including chemicals and radiation. Richard Clapp, Genevieve Howe, and Molly Jacobs Lefevre have just lished "Environmental and Occupational Causes of Cancer; A Review of Recent Scientific Literature" and it is a real eye-opener. But before we dive into this report looking for nuggets, let's set the background. About half of all cancer cases are fatal, and death by cancer is often prolonged, painful, and very expensive. Those who manage to survive cancer live out their lives molded by the after-effects of harsh treatments popularly known as "slash and burn" -- surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, or some combination of the three. As more people are kept alive each year with their breasts or testicles removed, the "cancer establishment" chalks up another "victory" -- and no doubt the victims are glad to be alive -- but we should acknowledge that there's something very wrong with calling this "victory." Slash and burn seems more like a dreadful defeat. The truth is, an epic struggle has been going on for 50 years between the "slash and burn=victory" camp, versus those who think the only real victory is prevention of disease. The struggle occurs across a fault line defined by money. To be blunt about it, there's no money in prevention, and once you've got cancer you'll pay anything to try to stay alive. Cancer treatment is therefore a bbooming business, and cancer prevention is nowhere. That is the basic dynamic of the debate. Cancer surgeons can achieve the status of rock stars among their peers. Those who advocate prevention will most likely find themselves without funding, ridiculed and despised by the chemical industry, the pesticide industry, the asbestos industry, the oil industry and all their minions -- lawyers, bankers, engineers, reporters, professors, and politicians -- who make a fat living off those who pump out cancer-causing products and dump out cancer-causing by-products, aka toxic waste. The debate began 50 years ago when a powerful voice for prevention spoke out from inside the National Cancer Institute (NCI). In 1948. Wilhelm Hueper, a senior NCI scientist, wrote, "Environmental carcinogenesis is the newest and one of the most ominous of the end-products of our industrial environment. Though its full scope and extent are still unknown, because it is so new and because the facts are so extremely difficult to obtain, enough is known to make it obvious that extrinsic [outside-the-body] carcinogens present a very immediate and pressing problem in public and individual health." In 1964, Hueper and his NCI colleague, W. C. Conway, described, patterns in cancer incidence as "an epidemic in slow motion": "Through a continued, unrestrained, needless, avoidable and, in part reckless increasing contamination of the human environment with chemical and physical carcinogens and with chemicals supporting and potentiating their action, the stage is being set indeed for a future occurrence of an acute, catastrophic epidemic, which once present cannot effectively be checked for several decades with the means available nor can its course appreciably be altered once it has been set in motion," they wrote.[pg. 28] Hueper of course was right. This is why 50% of all men and 40% of all women in the U.S. now hear the chilling words, "You've got cancer" at some point in their lives. That's right, 1 out of every 2 men now get cancer in the U.S., and more than 1 out of every 3 women. Clapp, Howe and Lefevre tell us that between 1950 and 2001 the incidence rate for all types of cancer increased 85%, using age-adjusted data, which means cancer isn't increasing because people are living longer. People are getting more cancer because they're exposed to more cancer-causing agents. Contrary to well-funded rumors, the culprit isn't just tobacco or the hundreds of toxic chemicals intentionally added to tobacco products. Tobacco products remain the single most significant preventable cause of cancer, but they have not been linked to the majority of cancers nor to many of the cancers that have increased most rapidly in recent decades including melanoma, lymphomas, testicular, brain, and bone marrow cancers.[pg. 1] No, it's more complicated than just tobacco with its toxic additives. Most plastics, detergents, solvents, and pesticides and the toxic-waste by-products of their manufacture came into being after World War II. From the late 1950s to the late 1990s, we disposed of more than 750 million tons of toxic chemical wastes.[pg. 27] Over 40 years, this represents more than two tons of toxic chemical wastes discharged into the environment for each man, woman and child in the U.S. No wonder some of it has come back to bite us. Since the U.S. EPA began its Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program in 1987, total releases have been reported as declining (though EPA does not check the accuracy of industry's self-reporting). Despite the reported decline, in 2002, the most recent year reported, 24,379 facilities in the U.S. reported releasing 4.79 billion pounds of over 650 different chemicals. (And TRI data do not include other enormous discharges: toxic vehicle emissions, the majority of releases of pesticides, volatile organic compounds, and fertilizers, or releases from numerous other non-industrial sources.) In 2001, more than 1.2 billion pounds of pesticides were intentionally discharged into the environment in the United States and over 5.0 billion pounds in the whole world.[pg. 27] While all this chemical dumping has been going on, incidence rates for some cancer sites have increased particularly rapidly over the past half century. From 1950-2001, melanoma of the skin increased by 690%, female lung & bronchial cancer increased by 685%, prostate cancer by 286%, myeloma by 273%, thyroid cancer by 258%, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma by 249%, liver and intrahepatic duct cancer by 234%, male lung & bronchial cancer by 204%, kidney and renal pelvis cancers by 182%, testicular cancer by 143%, brain and other nervous system cancers by 136%, bladder cancer by 97%, female breast cancer by 90%, and cancer in all sites by 86%.[pg. 25] In the most recent 10-year period for which we have data (1992-2001), liver cancer increased by 39%, thyroid cancer increased by 36%, melanoma increased by 26%, soft tissue sarcomas (including heart) by 15%, kidney and renal pelvis cancers by 12%, and testicular cancer increased by 4%.[pg. 25] OK, so dumping chemicals into the environment has been a major industrial pastime for 50 years, and cancers are increasing. But why do we think these things are connected? What real evidence do we have that environmental and occupational exposures contribute to cancer? That's what the new Clapp-Howe-Lefevre report is about. It is a review of recent scientific literature -- with emphasis on human studies, not studies of laboratory animals. Indeed, the bulk of the new Clapp-Howe-Lefevre report is a cancer-by-cancer compendium of what recent human studies tell us about environmental and occupational exposures that contribute to cancers of the bladder, bone, brain, breast, cervix, colon, lymph nodes (Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma), kidney, larynx, liver and bile ducts, lungs, nasal passages, ovaries, pancreas, prostate, rectum, soft tissues (soft tissue sarcoma), skin, stomach, testicles, and thyroid, plus leukemia, mesothelioma, and multiple myeloma. (It is worth pointing out -- and Clapp-Howe-Lefevre do point it out -- that this compendium owes a great debt to a data spreadsheet on cancer and its environmental causes prepared by Sarah Janssen, Gina Solomon and Ted Schettler, for which thanks are due the Collaborative on Health and Environment.) Many of the bad actor chemicals are well-known to us all: metals and metallic dusts (arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium,nickel); solvents (benzene, carbon tet, TCE, PCE, xylene, toluene, among others); aromatic amines; petrochemicals and combustion byproducts (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs); diesel exhaust; ionizing radiation (x-rays, for example); non-ionizing radiation (magnetic fields, radio waves); metalworking fluids and mineral oils; pesticides; N-nitroso compounds; hormone-disrupting chemicals (found in many pesticides, fuels, plastics, detergents, and prescription drugs); chlorination byproducts in drinking water; natural fibers (asbestos, silica, wood dust); man-made fibers (fiber glass, rock wool, ceramic fibers); reactive chemicals (such as sulfuric acids, vinyl chloride monomer, and many others); petroleum products; PCBs; dioxins; mustard gas; aromatic amines; environmental tobacco smoke; and outdoor air pollution. But there is additional evidence linking chemicals with cancer: ** Elevated cancer rates follow patterns -- the disease is more common in cities, in farming states, near hazardous waste sites, downwind of certain industrial activities, and around certain drinking-water wells. Patterns of elevated cancer incidence and mortality have been linked to areas of pesticide use, toxic work exposures, hazardous waste incinerators, and other sources of pollution.[pg. 26] ** The U.S. EPA's long-delayed and heavily industry-influenced "Draft Dioxin Reassessment" released in 2000 admitted that the weight of the evidence from human studies suggests that, "the generally increased risk of overall cancer is more likely than not due to exposure to TCDD [dioxin] and its congeners [chemical relatives]." The report goes on to conclude, "The consistency of this finding in the four major cohort studies and the Seveso victims is corroborated by animal studies that show TCDD to be a multisite, multisex, and multispecies carcinogen with a mechanistic basis."[pg. 26] ** Farmers in industrialized nations die more often than the rest of us from multiple myeloma, melanoma, prostate cancer, Hodgkin's lymphoma, leukemia, and cancers of the lip and stomach. They have higher rates of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and brain cancer. Migrant farmers experience elevated rates of multiple myeloma as well as cancers of the stomach, prostate, and testicles.[pg. 26] ** The growing burden of cancer on children provides some of the most convincing evidence of the role of environmental and occupational exposures in causing cancers. Children do not smoke, drink alcohol, or hold stressful jobs. Their lifestyles have not changed appreciably in recent years. In proportion to their body weight, however, "children drink 2.5 times more water, eat 3 to 4 times more food, and breathe 2 times more air" than adults." In addition, their developing bodies may well be affected by parental exposures prior to conception, exposures while growing in the uterus, and the contents of breast milk. Clapp-Howe-Lefevre put it this way: "We have learned how to save more lives, thankfully, but more children are still diagnosed with cancer every year. The incidence of cancer in all sites combined among children ages 0-19 increased by 22% from 13.8/100,000 in 1973 to 16.8 in 2000 and most of this increase occurred in the 1970s and 1980s. Epidemiologic studies have consistently linked higher risks of childhood leukemia and childhood brain and central nervous system cancers with parental and childhood exposure to particular toxic chemicals including solvents, pesticides, petrochemicals, and certaiindustrial by-products (namely dioxins and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs])."[pg. 26] All in all, the Clapp-Howe-Lefevre report makes a compelling case that many industrial chemicals contribute to many kinds of cancers. But where this report really shines is in its clear call for prevention. In all, there are relatively few products or substances associated with cancer.[pgs. 10-11, 37-40] Everything doesn't cause cancer, and many of the things that do could be shunned and phased out. In principle, a great deal of prevention is possible. Thirty years into the prevention-vs-treatment debate -- in 1981 -- two famous British scientists -- Sir Richard Doll and Sir Richard Peto -- published an extremely influential study in which they estimated that "only" 2 to 4% of all cancers are caused by environmental or workplace exposures. With 1.2 million new cases of cancer each year in the U.S., half of them fatal, 2% to 4% = 12,000 to 24,000 deaths each year, most of them preventable. Doll and Peto said tobacco caused 30% of all cancers and food caused another 35%. We now know that cancer results from the interaction of our genes with exposure to several cancer-causing agents. All the necessary exposures must occur to cause a cancer -- if any one of them is missing, the cancer will not occur. This is why prevention is important -- it really can work. Because cancer requires multiple exposures to cancer-causing agents, it is wrong and misleading to say that "Exposure to product A causes X percent of all cancers." It simple doesn't work like that. Perhaps Doll and Peto in 1981 did not know how such things worked, and they boldly proceeded to estimate what percent of all cancers were attributable to particular exposures. It was wrong, but their report served as powerful ammunition for the prevention-is-pointless crowd. If "only" 2 to 4% of all cancers were caused by environmental exposures, then there was little incentive to prevent human exposure to environmental agents, the argument went. What a welcome message this was for the cancer-creation industries (petrochemicals, metals, pesticides, asbestos, radiation, and others) and for the cancer treatment industry! Damn the torpedoes -- full speed ahead! The prevention-is-pointless crowd latched onto the Doll and Peto study and spread it everywhere. By the end of 2004, the original 1981 Doll-and-Peto paper had been cited in 441 subsequent scientific papers.[pg. 4] But even more importantly, the federal National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society (which, together, you could call the "cancer establishment") adopted the Doll-Peto perspective, that cancer is a lifestyle disease -- the victims themselves are responsible -- and that prevention of environmental and occupational exposures is not worth the effort. Remember this was the beginning of the Reagan counterrevolution and the Doll-Peto paper fit right into the new ideology -- government is bad, big corporations are good, we're all individually responsible for whatever bad things happen to us, and greed is good because it makes the world go 'round. In any case, the NCI and the ACS largely adopted the Doll-Peto perspective, and they poured the bucks into new cancer treatments, pretty much ignoring prevention. Meanwhile, cancer incidence rates climbed relentlessly -- making the cancer-treatment industry healthier and wealthier, which allowed it to further erode support for prevention. Now we are starting to shake off the stupor induced by the misleading Doll-Peto arithmetic, which pretended to prove that environment and occupational exposures are of no consequence. Listen to this marvelously clear-eyed conclusion from the lapp-Howe-Lefevre report: "Comprehensive cancer prevention programs need to reduce exposures from all avoidable sources. Cancer prevention programs focused on tobacco use, diet, and other individual behaviors disregard the lessons of science."[pg. 1] And this: "Preventing carcinogenic exposures wherever possible should be the goal and comprehensive cancer prevention programs should aim to reduce exposures from all avoidable sources, including environmental and occupational sources."[pg. 6] And this: "Further research is needed, but we will never be able to study and draw conclusions about the potential interactions of exposure to every possible combination of the nearly 100,000 synthetic chemicals in use today. Despite the small increased risk of developing cancer following a single exposure to an environmental carcinogen, the number of cancer cases that might be caused by environmental carcinogens is likely quite large due to the ubiquity [presence everywhere] of carcinogens. Thus, the need to limit exposures to environmental and occupational carcinogens is urgent."[pg. 29] And this: "The sum of the evidence regarding environmental and occupational contributions to cancer justifies urgent acceleration of policy efforts to prevent carcinogenic exposures. By implementing precautionary policies, Europeans are creating a model that can be applied in the U.S. to protect public health and the environment. To ignore the scientific evidence is to knowingly permit tens of thousands of unnecessary illnesses and deaths each year."[pg. 1] What a blast of fresh air! The latest strategy from the cancer-creation industries is to claim that we can't take action to prevent environmental and occupational exposures because we don't have enough information. We're simply too ignorant to make a move. More study is needed. [See Rachel's #824, #825.] Clapp-Howe-Lefevre allow the eloquent writer Sandra Steingraber to answer this argument. They say, "A main concern for Sandra Steingraber, author of Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment, is not whether the greatest dangers are presented by dump sites, workplace exposures, drinking water, food, or air emissions: "I am more concerned [writes Steingraber] that the uncertainty over details is being used to call into doubt the fact that profound connections do exist between human health and the environment. I am more concerned that uncertainty is too often parlayed into an excuse to do nothing until more research can be conducted."[pg. 29] Clapp, Howe and Lefevre go on: "At the same time, uncertainty and controversy are permanent players in scientific research. However, they must not deter us from enacting regulations and policies based on what we know and pursuing the wisdom of the precautionary principle. This is not new thinking, as demonstrated by Sir Austin Bradford Hill's 1965 address to the Royal Society of Medicine: "All scientific work is incomplete [wrote Sir Austin Bradford Hill] -- whether it be observational or experimental. All scientific work is liable to be upset or modified by advancing knowledge. That does not confer upon us a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have, or to postpone action that it appears to demand at a given time."[pg. 29] Clapp, Howe and Lefevre then offer some guidelines for preventive action: (1) The least toxic alternatives should always be used. (2) Partial, but reliable, evidence of harm should compel us to act on the side of caution to prevent needless sickness and death. (3) The right of people to know what they are being exposed to must be protected. Clapp, Howe and Lefevre observe that "the United States has much to learn" from the proposed European chemicals policy, known as REACH: (1) requiring that industry be responsible for generating information on chemicals, for evaluating risks, and for assuring safety; another way of saying this is, "No data, no market." (2) extending responsibility for testing and management to the entire manufacturing chain -- everyone who uses a chemical has a duty to familiarize themselves with the consequences; (3) using safer substitutes for chemicals of high concern; and, (4) encouraging innovation in safer substitutes.[pg. 29] In the words of ecologist Sandra Steingraber: "It is time to start pursuing alternative paths. From the right to know and the duty to inquire flows the obligation to act."[pg. 29] But while we're working in clear-eyed mode here, let's take our exploration a bit further and look this problem squarely in the face. The U.S. economy and culture are premised on endless growth. If I loan you $100 in the expectation that you will pay me back $103 next year, that extra 3% must come from somewhere. That "somewhere" has physical dimensions -- something must be dug up or grown to produce the additional 3%. That something must also be moved, processed, moved again, packaged, promoted and sold, moved again, used, moved again, and eventually discarded. Even if it is recycled many times, ultimately it will be discarded into a natural ecosystem somewhere (at which point nature begins moving it once again). The inescapable second law of thermodynamics tells us that each of these steps will inevitably be accompanied by waste, disorder and other disruptive unintended consequences. Even if you create the extra 3% per year by providing a "service" instead of a "product," you still require food, water, shelter, energy, clothing, tools, transportation, commercial space, medical care, municipal support services (like police, fire, emergency services, and sewage treatment), leisure activities, communications and information, schooling, and on and on. An economy that is growing at 3% per year is doubling in size every 23 years -- requiring, every 23 years, a doubling in the number of cities, food sources, mines, factories, power plants, vehicles, highways, parking lots, schools, sewage treatment plants, hospitals, prisons, discards, trash and dumps. For a very long time this kind of rapid growth seemed tolerable. But now things are different -- the earth is full of people and their artifacts. We can no longer throw things "away" without affecting someone somewhere. Something else is new as well. The modern, globalized financial environment (in which money flows easily across international borders), creates tremendous competitive pressure to attract investment by increasing return to investors. That in turn creates pressure to pass costs along to the general public. Economists call it "externalizing" costs. If I dump my chemicals and make you sick, I gain if I can get you to pay your own medical bills, and I gain again if I can get taxpayers to clean up my mess. Firms have a natural incentive to externalize their costs to the extent possible, but the present "globalized" financial environment has increased that incentive greatly, to improve return to investors. In sum, let us review the pressures that prevent prevention. (1) In general, it is difficult to make prevention pay, but remediation can pay handsomely; this is certainly true for the cancer industry. In general, financial-political-legal incentives are set up to reward those who create problems and those who supply remedies. (2) Economic growth entails the continual creation of ever-more and ever-larger messes. Even if we managed to "green" commerce in every way we can think of today, damage to nature would still be roughly proportional to the size of the human economy because the second law of thermodynamics cannot be evaded. And we now know that damage to nature gives rise to human disease in myriad ways. (For evidence, follow leads found here, here, here, and here.) Now that the earth is full, a growing economy creates palpably-growing health problems, including immune system degradation giving rise to cancers. (3) The modern economy creates irresistible pressure to increase stock prices, which in turn creates relentless pressure to eternalize costs by hook or by crook. So let's not kid ourselves. Yes, cancer must be prevented because for the most part it can't be cured -- it can only be slashed and burned away at enormous cost, personal, social and monetary. But saying cancer must be prevented is one thing. Expecting that it can be prevented within the framework of the modern economy is another. We can never stop working to prevent cancer -- and precautionary policies will always make sense no matter what kind of economy we have -- but until we shift to an economy that doesn't quire growth, we'll find ourselves right where we are now -- on an accelerating rat wheel. As a result, we can expect to be living with more and more cancer at greater and greater cost to ourselves and to our children, accompanied by ever-increasing pain. It is not a pretty picture. But at least we can now see it clearly. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Exercise Raises Growth Hormone Levels Entrepreneurs claim that grow*th hor*mone (GH) levels decrease with age, and that their products will help you combat the effects of this process. It is true that GH levels drop as a person ages, but there is no evidence whatever that lack of GH causes aging or that taking GH slows aging, and the evidence that GH grows muscle and gets rid of fat is highly controversial. Furthermore, it is against the law to sell GH without a prescription, so these products do not contain any GH. Products that are sold as "GH releasers" are just amino acids, the building blocks of protein, that are the same as the protein you get in your food. Anything that you eat can be called a GH releaser because all foods raise blood levels of GH temporarily. When you eat protein, blood levels of GH rise even higher. GH releaser pills cost much more than food and have not been shown to raise blood levels better than the ordinary foods you eat every day. Exercise can also be called a GH releaser because every time that you exercise, blood levels of GH rise. Exercise raises GH levels more than and longer than eating does. Recent research shows that GH levels are lowered by having lots of fat stored in your belly. However, no one knows whether these GH manipulations have any effect on the aging process since we have no dependable tests for aging. The commonly used tests to measure aging actually measure fitness. To reduce the effects of aging and improve your performance on all medical tests of aging, start an exercise program. If you want to gain muscle and lose fat, reduce your intake of refined carbohydrates and fatty foods; eat plenty of the foods that come from plants (fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans and other seeds); and maintain a regular, vigorous exercise program. ************************************************* *************************************************** Testosterone makes the world go round When women reach menopause, their testosterone levels may drop by as much as 50 percent. And anyone who's surprised that testosterone plays a role in female sexuality may be doubly surprised to find that testosterone is the hormone primarily responsible for prompting an active libido in women. Testosterone therapy has become a fairly common treatment for men who have lost some of their youthful drive. But according to a recent Newsweek article, about 20 percent of all testosterone prescriptions are written for women who want to boost their libido. The downside: Testosterone is a hormone. So what we're talking about is a form of- all together now - hormone replacement therapy (HRT). And what happened when millions of women took that other HRT for years and years? They increased their risk of breast cancer, heart disease and stroke. Last year, the FDA declined approval of a testosterone patch designed for women. The product was found to be only slightly more effective than a placebo patch, while the side effects included liver dysfunction, acne and unwanted hair growth. So whether they're aware if it or not, all of those women who are trying out other testosterone products are participating in a risky experiment. Fortunately, there are a number of botanicals that have been shown to enhance sexual drive and enjoyment by helping to maintain balanced hormone levels, including testosterone. For instance, saw palmetto (commonly used to promote prostate health) has been prescribed for centuries as a sexual stimulant for both women and men. The ancient Mayans used an herb called damiana to energize sexual vitality. Siberian ginseng has long had a reputation for arousing sexuality and enhancing stamina in women. And the herb Nettle has been used as an aphrodisiac for centuries. Also Clavo Huasca, a vine that grows wild in the Amazon rainforest, is traditionally used as a treatment for frigidity. An informal trial with 38 volunteers, all over 50 years of age, who had no known hormonal imbalance was recently conducted by HSI. Clavo has been shown to have little effect on women with low libido due to hormonal imbalance. Each of the subjects used Clavo Huasca for one month, while keeping a journal and submitting weekly reports. The final responses were split right down the middle: 19 women experienced no changes, while 19 reported benefits. In the latter group, six said the benefits were slight, while 13 felt the formula significantly improved their sexual relations. Aside from the sexual benefits, a number of women reported that even when they didn't experience a change in libido, they slept better, had a better attitude, and felt more energetic. And among all 38 women, none reported any adverse side effects. *************************************************** In recent years, vitamin E has taken a few undeserved hits. In studies that turned out to be flawed or poorly designed, vitamin E was found to have little effect on heart health. One study even found the vitamin to be dangerous. But here's another message that the public deserves to hear: Vitamin E may prevent heart attacks and deaths due to heart disease among diabetics. A study published in Diabetes Care used data collected from a 2000 trial known as Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE). This trial examined the way several antioxidants affected cardiovascular health. When researchers in Israel examined the HOPE data for a specific subgroup, something amazing happened: Vitamin E was recast as a potential lifesaver. Previous research by the Israeli team had shown that certain diabetics who have a very specific "2-2" form of haptoglobin (a blood protein) may also have a risk of heart disease several hundred times higher than diabetics who don't have the 2-2 haptoglobin. In their HOPE data study the researchers demonstrate that this high-risk subgroup reduced their risk of heart attack by more than 40 percent and their risk of dying from heart disease by well over 50 percent when they took 400 IU of vitamin E daily. The Israeli team estimates that as many as 40 percent of diabetics are in the 2-2 haptoglobin group. If you have diabetes, ask your doctor to check this important marker in your next blood test. *************************************************** How do you like your clone chops? About 80 miles east of Austin, out where the fire ants bite and men still doff their baseball hats when greeting women, 20 cows pregnantwith calves cloned by ViaGen have just arrived. Stampeding down a chute from a tractor-trailer, the cattle join a menagerie of cloned pigs and cows that include Elvis and Priscilla, calves cloned from cells scraped from sides of high-quality beef hanging in a slaughterhouse. The cloning of barnyard animals has become so commonplace and mechanized that ViaGen, an Austin biotech company, says it's more than ready to efficiently produce juicier steaks and tastier chops through cloning. It now looks like federal regulators will endorse the company's plan to bring cloned animal products to America's dinner tables. No law prevents cloned food, but ViaGen has voluntarily withheld its products pending a ruling from the Food and Drug Administration. Over the past three years it has worked to create elite bovine and porcine gene pools that can produce prodigious ``milkers,'' top quality beef cattle and biotech bacon. It has aggressively gobbled up competitors and locked up patents, including the one granted to the creators of Dolly the sheep. All that really stands in ViaGen's way, besides a nod from the FDA, are squeamish consumers and skeptical food producers. The FDA is widely expected to soon endorse the findings of a 2002 National Academy of Sciences report it commissioned that found food products derived from cloned animals do not ``present a food safety concern.'' Acknowledging the many critics who have raised ethical objections as well as safety concerns, the FDA commissioner said Sept. 19 that ``within weeks'' the agency was prepared to publish results of its examination of the issues in a scientific journal -- a rare move for the agency, which used a similar forum to make public its position on genetically modified crops in 1992. But then the commissioner, Lester Crawford, abruptly resigned, leaving the top ranks of the FDA in turmoil. FDA spokeswoman Rae Jones said in an e-mail Wednesday that Crawford ``was talking about a draft risk assessment that FDA is now preparing to release. This release was not related to Dr. Crawford or his resignation.'' But Jones said ``we do not have a timeline'' for the assessment's release. Without a government cloning endorsement, the deep-pocketed corporate customers ViaGen hopes to court are staying on the sidelines. ``The National Milk Producers Federation does not at this time support milk from cloned cows entering the marketplace until FDA determines that milk from cloned cows is the same as milk from conventionally bred animals,'' said Chris Galen, a spokesman for the trade group, which represents the $23 billion dairy industry. Dairy farmers worry that without the federal government's blessing, American consumers will blanch at pouring milk from cloned cows on their breakfast cereal. Beef and pork producers have similar concerns. A March survey by the International Food Information Council, an industry trade group, reported that 63 percent of consumers would probably not buy food from cloned animals, even if the FDA determined the products were safe. Rapid advances in genetic technology are increasingly being applied further up the food chain. It's one thing for traditional crops like corn to be engineered to be pest-resistant, and people already eat genetically engineered soy beans in all manner of processed food. But biotech companies run into what bioethicists call the ``yuck factor'' when they begin tinkering with animals. An application to market salmon genetically engineered with genes from other fish to grow faster has been formally pending with the FDA for more than two years. That's why ViaGen insists that its work has nothing to do with combining the genetic material of two different species. It likens it to now-common reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination. To clone, scientists replace all the genetic material in an egg with a mature cell containing the complete genetic code from the donor. Cloners argue that the resulting animal is simply the donor's twin, containing an identical makeup, yes, but destined for its own distinct fate influenced by environment and chance. The coat of the first cat cloned, for instance, was a different color than that of its genetic donor. So there are no guarantees that the cloned calf Elvis will yield the highest quality beef -- the USDA's ``prime yield 1'' designation -- that gave him his life, but it certainly increases the odds he will produce prime meat. As it stands, ``prime yield 1'' ratings come along once every 12,000 cows. ViaGen founder Scott Davis says knowing which cow is likely to yield premium beef could bring a $250 premium per heifer, a big markup in the notoriously low-margin industry. He said the price of a cloned cow continues to drop and, depending on the order volume, can cost as little as $8,000 an animal. ``Cloning is at a commercially viable place now,'' Davis said. Full Article: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2005/10/09/2003275117 *************************************************** Flu Proposal Misguided By Steven Milloy November 4, 2005, FoxNews.com Faced with growing frenzy about the possibility of pandemic flu, President Bush reached back into the politician’s bag of traditional “solutions” this week and proposed that taxpayers pay an additional $7.1 billion to prepare for the possibility of an outbreak. The president attempted to justify his proposal in large part by raising the specter of the 1918 influenza pandemic, which he noted “killed over half-a-million Americans and more than 20 million people across the globe.” Spending that kind of money to avert that kind of catastrophe may sound reasonable, but in this case, it’s misguided... The full column is at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174521,00.html Also, for more, go to article on the bird flu hoax on this website. Sound nutritional treatment.... Cancer Is A Fermentative Cell Fermentation Is A Cell Making Energy In The Absence of Oxygen Learn How to Starve a Fermentative Cell and Dissolve Them From The Body Cells in a state of fermentation use sugar as their primary fuel supply. You never want to eat white sugar or white bread if you have cancer. Fermentative cells convert sugar into lactic acid. Lactic acid then snuffs out oxygen in the surrounding tissues. Tissues without enough oxygen mutate into cancer or fermentative cells. That is a cell that makes energy in the absence of oxygen. Hence fermentative cells or cancer cells are created by an acidic pH. They are fed by sugar in the diet. Some cancer therapies recommend using a food supplement called Ensure for weight gain. Ensure is full of sugar, toxic proteins and fats that feed the cancer itself. How far from the target can the advice get coming from allopathic mouths? Very far. There is a combination of herbs in a product called Trophorm that is effective in interrupting fermentative cells ability to metabolize sugar. This means that it starves the fermentative cells. Wouldn’t it be nice to have an herb you can take to stop a tumor cells ability to make energy? Well Trophorm may be just such a product. It has been known for hundreds of years that when a woman gets cancer, if she gets pregnant, after about the seventh week the tumor starts to go away. After a few months of pregnancy the tumor disappears. Why is this? The reason is that the baby’s pancreas at seven weeks is large enough to produce pancreatic enzymes. These enzymes then enter into the circulation and digest the woman tumor. As far back as 1911 Dr. John Baird did experiments with injecting pancreatic enzymes into tumors and getting them to dissolve. In 1963 Dr. William Donald Kelly DDS was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and given 2 months to live. There was no conventional treatment that Medical Doctors could offer him. So he went natural. In 18 months his pancreatic cancer death sentence was reversed. He used high dosages of pancreatic enzymes, coffee enemas to clean his liver, raw beef liver to rebuild his body and a diet to support his healing. The diet is listed in his book we carry “Cancer Curing the Incurable”. He spent the next 40 years teaching all who came to him with cancer what he did. Studies done on 30,000 of his case histories showed he had a 97% success rate when no chemo was used and a 93% success rate when chemo had been used prior to coming to him. The power of synergism in nutrition 1+1 = 3 or 500 depending upon what you are combining not just 2. One of the greatest reasons for our outstanding success rate here at Cocoon Nutrition comes from the power of synergism that I’ve learned is so essential to healing and fantastic health. Do not ever think again that one product is going to do very much. It requires a combination of supplements with a living foods and diet including raw animal proteins. i.e. Raw Sirloin, Raw Ocean Caught Fish, Raw Milk and Raw Organic Eggs to name a few. Find excellent supplements at our favorite nutritional resource, Cocoon Nutrition. Their website is www.cocoonnutrition.org. Speaking of prevention, here are some simple ideas: Three almonds a day (compliments of Edgar Cayce) Broccoli, sauerkraut, cabbage, garlic -- one of these every day Feeling gratitude, compassion and love at every possible moment Walking in nature, breathing deeply and looking up at the trees and the birds Singing aloud or finding a song in your heart that lifts your spirits. Send us your suggestions for prevention or visit our sister site: Natural Breast Cancer Prevention, which contains information relevant to many types of cancer besides breast cancer. Return to the Home page or click your Back button. Contact Us | My Daily Dragon Home |

Copyright © 2009, . All rights reserved.