They are vital for your brain and heart. They can boost your immunity, improve athletic performance, tame inflammation, fight diabetes, eliminate depression and even help you lose weight.

Now, a new study shows that compounds in omega-3 fats can help fight leukemia.

The research comes from Dr. Sandeep Prabhu’s lab in the veterinary and biomedical sciences department at Penn State University. Dr. Prabhu is an associate professor of immunology and molecular toxicology at the university.

He discovered that a compound known as D12-PGJ3 targeted and killed leukemia stem cells in animals. That compound is produced from an ingredient found in fish oil.

“Past research on fatty acids has shown their health benefits on cardiovascular system and brain development,” says Dr. Prabhu. “But we have shown some metabolites of omega-3 can selectively kill leukemia-causing stem cells.”

Why Drugs Can’t Kill This Cancer

The compound used to treat leukemia in this study is derived from eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA). It’s one of the major omega-3 fatty acids found in fish and fish oil. The other, as you may know, is DHA.

Now, you may be wondering how fish oil can help combat cancer.

Leukemia is a cancer of the white blood cells. Cancer-causing stem cells divide and create more cancer cells. But the EPA in fish oil targets these stem cells and prevents them from dividing.

Leukemia is often treated with drugs. In some cases, these drugs can extend a person’s life by lowering leukemia cell counts. But they fail to cure the disease. The only way to cure leukemia is to target the stem cells.

In his study, Dr. Prabhu injected mice with 600 nanograms of D12-PGJ3 (the compound derived from EPA) every day for a week.

After a week, the follow-up tests showed that the mice were completely free of leukemia. Their blood counts normalized. Their spleens returned to normal size. Best of all, the disease didn’t relapse.

Dr. Prabhu is now planning to take his research to human trials.

Choose Your Oil Wisely

Omega-3 fatty acids are critically important to your health. And they are grossly deficient in most people’s diet. That’s why, in addition to grass-fed beef, wild salmon and sardines, we recommend you take a fish oil supplement.

Although the optimum dosage has yet to be determined, we consulted with three doctors. The ranges they suggest are the following:

• 900 – 2700 mg EPA
• 600 – 1800 mg DHA

If you take fish oil to treat a health condition (or if you are over 200 pounds), lean toward the higher range. If you take fish oil for prevention, aim for somewhere in the middle. And for children, the lower range is more appropriate.

But here’s the rub. Standard fish oil capsules contain 180 mg EPA and 120 mg DHA. That would mean anywhere from 5 to 15 capsules per day. That’s why we recommend Carlson’s liquid fish oil. It has 800 mg EPA and 500 mg DHA per teaspoon. So all you need are one to three teaspoons daily.

Carlson’s also received the highest marks for purity and quality from the independent firm, Consumer Labs. This is important, because some inferior brands may contain harmful chemicals, like PCBs and dioxins.

To your best health,

Michael Jelinek,

Managing Editor, NHD “Health Watch”

by AndreasMoritz

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 colonremoved 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 inthe 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." – AlanLevin, M.D.

An investigation by the Department of Radiation Oncology, Northern Sydney CancerCentre, 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 NorthShore 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 patientis 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 intumor 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 aretreated 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 upand 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 inthe 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 explainwhy 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. Ordering Information

About the author

Andreas Moritzis a medical intuitive; a practitioner of Ayurveda, iridology, shiatsu, and vibrational medicine; a writer; and an artist. He is the author of TheAmazing Liver and Gallbladder Flush, Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation, Lifting the Veil of Duality, Cancer Is Not a Disease, It's Timeto 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.

The news comes from Professor Laurence Patterson. He's the director of the UK Institute for Cancer Therapeutics (ICT). He also leads cancer research for the University of Bradford in England. "Many agents used in the treatment of cancer are poisons," he says. "Chemotherapy can be the death of a patient." But this new flower extract treatment is different. It targets cancer cells while leaving healthy cells unharmed. And it works for many types of cancer. "It's a new treatment that could be effective against pretty much all types of tumor," he says. "And it will not cause damage to normal tissue."

Other cancer experts are supporting his findings, which are published in the journal Cancer Research. "This new approach targets tumor blood vessels that cancers need for growth," says Dr. Paul Workman, who leads the cancer research department for the University of London. "The results look promising," says Dr. Workman. "This approach could be very useful for various cancers."

Natural Extract Wipes Out 70 Percent of Cancer Cells

Prof. Patterson's tests were conducted on mice specially bred to display human cancerous tumors. These mice were then injected with the natural extract…and the results were impressive. The extract killed 70 percent of cancer cells after one dose. Tumors in all of the mice shrank significantly. And in half the mice, the tumors were completely eliminated.

Prof. Patterson and his team then tested the extract against different types of cancer. It worked on them all, without any harmful side effects. "We've looked at colon, prostate, breast and lung (cancer) so far, and all have responded very well to this treatment," he says.

How the "Killer" Extract Works

The extract comes from a flower called the autumn crocus. These flowers contain a compound called colchicine. Colchicine is a naturally occurring poison that's been shown in various studies to have anti-cancer properties. But it's never been used to treat cancer. Why? Because, until now, it's been too poisonous to use.

But Prof. Patterson has found a way to deliver the poison to the cancerous cells without killing the healthy ones around them. He did this by attaching a molecular protein "tail" to it. The tail keeps the compound safe and inactive as it travels through the body.

However, the chemical tail breaks off when the compound comes into contact with a very particular enzyme found in high concentration in cancerous tumors. This enzyme activates the cancer-killing colchicine…which then attacks blood vessels within the tumor, cutting off the supply of nutrients and shutting down cell growth. "Our delivery method attacks and breaks down cancer blood vessels, destroying the tumor's lifeline," says Prof. Patterson. "If you starve the tumor of that blood supply, then you shut off its ability to grow."

Hope for the Future

So far, these tests have only been done on mice. And while the research is encouraging, it's still preliminary. The novel use of this compound needs to be tested on humans next. And researchers at St. James's University Hospital, England, are already preparing to do this. If the human trials support the findings, the way doctors fight cancer could change for the better. The scientists behind this study believe that a solution could be on the market within five years.

We'll be sure to follow these trials and keep you updated on the results. In the meantime, the best way to "treat" cancer is to prevent it from happening in the first place.

That means avoiding exposure to toxins and known carcinogens, including chemical-based personal products, pesticides and food additives, like sodium nitrite in processed deli meat. Of course, if you smoke, quit. And keep your body in balance and your immune system strong by eating an organic diet rich in antioxidants and anti-inflammatory foods. But diet is the not the only way to strengthen your immunity. Be sure to enjoy some time in the sun as often as possible. Volumes of research show that your risk of cancer is much lower when you can optimize your levels of vitamin D.

Finally, there's one more thing you need to know: Short duration, high intensity exercise is also a powerful immune booster.

We'll bring you more information on all these topics in future issues and we'll continue to keep you posted on the latest promising cancer research as it happens.

Wishing you good natural health,

Ian Robinson,
Editorial Director, NHD "Health Watch"

If you have a diseased tooth, or if you’ve already had a root canal, I highly recommend consulting a biological dentist about have it extracted.

Read the Rest of the Story Here…

On October 25, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices issued the recommendation that Merck's vaccine against the human papilloma virus (HPV), Gardasil, be given to males between the ages of 11 and 21.

They further recommend the vaccine series can be given to boys as young as nine, as well as to men up to the age of 26, especially if they engage in homosexual sex—allegedly to offer partial protection against genital warts, and cancers of the penis and rectum.

Another key part of the recommendation is the claim that reducing HPV in men will reduce transmission to girls and women, and thereby prevent cervical cancer deaths.

But according to a recent study, which is based on a mathematical study of HPV transmission, this is not an effective strategy.

Rather, the authors concluded that:

"Increasing vaccine uptake among preadolescent girls is more effective in reducing HPV infection than including boys in existing vaccination programs.

As a rule, directing prophylactic immunization at the sex with the highest prevaccine prevalence results in the largest reduction of the population prevalence."

According to an MSNBC report:

"Because many countries have started vaccinating girls against HPV, these countries should stick to vaccinating girls, said study researcher Johannes Bogaards, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam. Only once most girls are vaccinated should efforts begin to vaccinate boys, and even then, only if there will be an added benefit to male vaccination, Bogaards said."

There's NO Evidence that Gardasil Reduces Cervical Cancer Incidence

Despite Merck's claims, the question of whether Gardasil will reduce cervical cancer deaths in real-world conditions has actually never been answered. The company-sponsored studies on the subject looked at cervical changes that aren't indicative of cervical cancer in the first place.

According to Discover Magazine:

"Merck says that in males, the vaccine is 89 percent effective against genital warts and 75 percent effective against anal cancer. On closer inspection, some of the numbers don't just deflate, they evaporate … So how did the HPV vaccine become a multi-billion-dollar winner for Merck? Well you might not be surprised to hear that the company happily lavished money on doctors, professional societies, and over 100 legislators."

Vanishing Efficacy Rates

In her Discover article, medical investigative journalist Jeanne Lenzer goes on to expose how misleading Merck's stated efficacy rates really are:

"On May 10, 2007, Merck published the results of a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that claimed an astounding 98 percent efficacy in preventing changes in the cervix used as a marker for cervical cancer.

But…[to] achieve the 98 percent efficacy claim, Merck excluded from analysis anyone who "violated" the study protocol. In other words, all real-world problems that arose were excluded from analysis. Problems like girls who refused to take a second or third shot after they became sick and (correctly or incorrectly) blamed the vaccine…

To Merck's credit, they reported that when all women in the study were analyzed, the vaccine's efficacy dropped to 44 percent… [But the] 44 percent benefit included only those women with the two specific cancer-causing HPV strains found in the vaccine… [W]hen the researchers looked at negative cervical changes from any causes, they found that changes occurred in unvaccinated women at a rate of 1.5 events per 100 person-years, while vaccinated women had 1.3 events—dropping the benefit to 17 percent.

Moreover, most of the cervical changes tracked by the researchers weren't even indicative of cervical cancer in the first place. Most were innocent cellular abnormalities that either disappear entirely on their own, or never progress to cancer. In fact, when they looked more closely at advanced cervical changes most likely to progress to cancer versus more innocent changes that go away spontaneously, it was the innocent changes that accounted for the decline." [Emphasis mine]

Gardasil has already proven to be a reactive vaccine with potentially devastating side effects. In order to accept a high level of risk to your child's health, don't you think you deserve some pretty overwhelming proof that it is in fact worth this risk? Ultimately you need to carefully review the risk/benefit ratio of this vaccine and carefully consider this important decision.

Why Expose Millions to Potential Harm in Order to Save a Handful?

According to a recent CNN report, the cost to vaccinate 11- and 12-year old boys would be $38 million. How can this in any way be justified as cost-effective, when anal cancer, for example, has so far stricken a mere 5,820 men and women this year. The annual death rate from anal cancer is 770 individuals—300 men and 470 women!

Gardasil is claimed to be 75 percent effective against anal cancer in men, so crunch the numbers… This is nothing short of crazy. They actually want to place millions of people at risk with this dangerous vaccine in order to reduce anal cancer deaths that claims less than 300 men per year? That's incredible! Likewise, cervical cancer accounts for less than ONE percent of all cancer deaths, so this vaccine is certainly not aimed at any major health threat, no matter which way you look at it. But it gets worse. As explained by Lenzer in the featured article:

"First off, let's define the problem: The annual number of deaths from anal-rectal cancer among all men in the U.S. is 300. And how did Merck get its happy statistics on efficacy? Once again, they reported an idealized benefit by excluding from analysis 1,250 study violators out of 4,055 total test subjects. When the real-world analysis was conducted, the numbers plunged—right down to plum nothing. After evaluating tissue changes in male genitalia that were suggestive of a cancer precursor, Merck reported that vaccine efficacy against such lesions "was not observed."

Believe me, this is a health emergency in the making. Please do not be deceived into giving this dangerous vaccine to your kids, regardless of their gender. As Angela Raffle, a specialist in cervical cancer screening, told the New York Times three years ago:

"Oh, dear. If we give it to boys, then all pretenses of scientific worth and cost analysis goes out the window."

Gardasil Sorely Lacking in Safety

While cost-effectiveness is an important concern, I believe safety would certainly trump it. It's important to realize that while Gardasil has not been proven to actually prevent cancer in the long term, there is mounting evidence showing it carries tremendous long-term health risks, including:

According to the featured article:

"… Nizar Souayah, MD, of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in Newark, says he and his colleagues found "clear evidence from our database of an increased incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome in the first six weeks, especially the first two weeks, after [HPV] vaccination."

There's also another important factor to take into account when discussing the potential risks versus alleged benefits of the HPV vaccine, and that is the effect the vaccine will have on other cancer-causing HPV strains. Might it actually promote more aggressive cancers? No one knows… This issue was however raised in the September issue of New Scientist:

"[W]hat effect will the vaccine have on the other cancer-causing strains of HPV? Nature never leaves a void, so if HPV-16 and HPV-18 are suppressed by an effective vaccine, other strains of the virus will take their place. The question is, will these strains cause cervical cancer?

Results from clinical trials are not encouraging. Vaccinated women show an increased number of precancerous lesions caused by strains of HPV other than HPV-16 and HPV-18. "

Why Risk Your Life to Prevent an Avoidable Disease?

Deadly blood clots, acute respiratory failure, cardiac arrest and "sudden death due to unknown causes" have all occurred in girls shortly after they've received the Gardasil vaccine. These are atrocious risks to potentially prevent cervical cancer someday down the road. And for boys, these are profound risks to prevent the spread of HPV to girls, and to potentially prevent 300 anal cancer deaths a year…

According to the CDC more than 6 million women contract HPV annually, yet less than 3,900 women will die from cervical cancer out of those 6 million. This is because, in 90 percent of all cases, your immune system can clear up the HPV infection on its own. Furthermore, the infection is primarily spread through sexual contact, so it is behaviorally avoidable.

The bottom line is that Gardasil is largely ineffective, potentially very dangerous, both for girls and boys, and a major waste of money. Of course, you need to do your own careful research, but I simply cannot recommend this vaccine for anyone. There are far better ways to protect yourself and your sons and daughters against HPV infection, and all potentially related cancers.

Also, be aware that the vaccine doesn't work if you've already been exposed to the viruses against which it protects. Health officials know this – in fact, both HPV vaccine manufacturers say this in their prescribing inserts for physicians.

• Talk to your kids about HPV. The infection is transmitted through direct skin-to-skin contact. Its main mode of transmission is sexual (genital-to-genital contact), so for sexually active persons, condoms can reduce the risk of HPV by 70 percent. Since condoms cannot offer 100 percent protection, it's important to understand that other factors that increase your chances of getting HPV include having multiple sex partners, having a low immune system, having other sexually transmitted diseases, and using hormonal contraceptives.
• Keep your immune system strong. A healthy immune system is better able to handle a heavier emotional and physical stress load. The ideal healthy habits to keep your body and mind strong are detailed in these 12 changes that will cut your cancer risk in half.

Keep Educating Yourself on Vaccines

It is becoming increasingly necessary to continue to educate yourself and your family on the issues surrounding vaccinations of all kinds. There are so many problems; no one article can possibly cover them all. You can find and search all vaccine related articles on my Latest Vaccine News page. I also recommend you familiarize yourself with the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) web site. As a leader for vaccine safety, the NVIC offers information on everything from laws to informed consent to late-breaking vaccine news.

For information about Gardasil and HPV infection, please see this fact page.

What You Can Do to Make a Difference

While it seems "old-fashioned," the only truly effective actions you can take to protect the right to informed consent to vaccination and expand vaccine exemptions, is to get personally involved with your state legislators and the leaders in your community.

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.

Mass vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level, and it is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.

Signing up for NVIC's free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org not only gives you access to practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community, but when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips to make sure your voice is heard.

So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Contact Your Elected Officials

Write or email your elected state representatives and share your concerns. Call them, or better yet, make an appointment to visit them in person in their office. Don't let them forget you!

It is so important for you to reach out and make sure your concerns get on the radar screen of the leaders and opinion makers in your community, especially the politicians you elect and are directly involved in making vaccine laws in your state. These are your elected representatives, so you have a right and a responsibility to let them know what's really happening in your life and the lives of people you know when it comes to vaccine mandates. Be sure to share the "real life" experiences that you or people you know have had with vaccination.

Share Your Story with the Media and People You Know

If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please talk about it. If we don't share information and experiences with each other, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is only presenting one side of the vaccine story.

I must be frank with you; you have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the "other side" of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.

We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies to dominate the conversation about vaccination. The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than "statistically acceptable collateral damage" of national one-size-fits-all mass vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn't be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the following web pages on the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) website at www.NVIC.org:

• NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
• If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
• Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment by doctors or government officials for making independent vaccine choices.

Connect with Your Doctor or Find a New One that Will Listen and Care

If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don't want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination.

However, there is hope.

At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they're starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.

So take the time to locate a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.

Posted By Dr. Mercola | January 29 2012

Dr. Titorenko is a professor of biology at Concordia University in Montreal, and his research has been published in many credible journals. This new study, backed by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, was published in the journal Oncotarget.

Dr. Titorenko has good reason to believe he's onto something big. "[This acid] doesn't just kill individual cancer cells," he says. "It could also prevent the entire tumor from growing."

The acid is naturally produced in the liver during digestion. And it appears to specifically target the cancer cells found in brain and breast tumors.

A Promising Alternative to Conventional Treatments

The acid is LCA – lithocholic acid. The research team knew that it helps make fat soluble for absorption into the body. But its cancer-fighting properties came as a surprise. And because it leaves normal cells alone, while stopping cancer cells from spreading, it could be a big improvement over chemotherapy and radiation.

So how does it work?

Dr. Titorenko theorizes that cancer cells might be more sensitive to LCA than normal cells. And when they're exposed to LCA, strong signals are sent to the cell's mitochondria that prompt the mitochondria to self-destruct. With the main energy source of the cell gone, the cell is also destroyed.

The Future of LCA

Dr. Titorenko is continuing to test LCA on animals, exploring its potential with different types of cancers. (He believes it will prove to be effective for many.) Eventually, he expects to get approval to do human trials.

As always, we want to make you aware of the best cancer research out there. And LCA is one important natural option that researchers are actively working on.

We will, of course, continue to update you. Unfortunately, LCA won't be available as a supplement for some time. But there is something you can do right now to reduce your risk of breast cancer.

In a recent article, we told you about one type of food to avoid – and one specific food that should definitely be in your diet. You can read that article here.

To your best health,

Michael Jelinek,
Managing Editor, NHD "Health Watch"

Cancer accounts to a death of 6 million human lives per year. Modern medicine is aging with breath taking advances in cancer care with increasing awareness, preventing, detection, therapy, research and symptom management. Last 15 years has been a revolution. It is likely to fight Cancer out by getting an early detection especially at a pre cancer stage thus yielding best cure with much shorter treatment time, lesser cost, lesser body insult.

Am I at risk for breast cancer? Breast cancer is the most common malignancy-affecting woman in North America and Europe. Every woman is at risk for breast cancer. Close to 200,000 cases of breast cancer were diagnosed in the United States in 2001. Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in American women behind lung cancer. The lifetime risk of any particular woman getting breast cancer is about 1 in 8 although the lifetime risk of dying from breast cancer is much lower at 1 in 28. The diagnosis once confirmed by Doctor shocks in such a way that not only the patient suffers but entire family suffers the shock. Thus the patient and family both suffer differently and that adds to the total burden of cancer related illness.

Know your breast: The breast is a collection of glands and fatty tissue that lies between the skin and the chest wall. The glands inside the breast produce milk after a woman has a baby. Each gland is called as lobule and many such lobules make up a lobe. There are 15 to 20 lobes in each breast. The milk gets to the nipple from the glands by way of tubes called ducts. The glands and ducts get bigger when a breast is filled with milk, but the tissue that is most responsible for the size and shape the breast is the fatty tissue. There are also blood vessels and lymph vessels in the breast. Lymph is a clear liquid waste product that gets drained out of the breast into lymph nodes. Lymph nodes are small, pea-sized pieces of tissue that filter and clean the lymph. Most lymph nodes that drain the breast are under the arm in what is called the axilla.

Risk factors for breast cancer: They can be divided into those that you cannot change and those that you can change. Some factors that increase your risk of breast cancer that you cannot alter include being a woman, getting older, having a family history (having a mother, sister, or daughter with breast cancer doubles your risk), having a previous history of breast cancer, having had radiation therapy to the chest region, being Caucasian, getting your periods young (before 12 years old), having your menopause late (after 50 years old), never having children or having them when you are older than 30, and having a genetic mutation that increases your risk. Genetic mutations for breast cancer have become a hot topic of research lately. Between 3-10% of breast cancers may be related to changes in either the gene BRCA1 or the gene BRCA2.

Women can inherit these mutations from their parents and it may be worth testing for either mutation if a woman has a particularly strong family history of breast cancer (meaning multiple relatives affected, especially if they are under 50 years old when they get the disease). If a woman is found to carry either mutation, she has a 50% chance of getting breast cancer before she is 70. Family members may elect to get tested to see if they carry the mutation as well. If a woman does have the mutation, she can get more rigorous screening or even undergo preventive (prophylactic) mastectomies to decrease her chances of contracting cancer. The decision to get tested is a highly personal one that should be discussed with a doctor who is trained in counseling patients about genetic testing.

Certain factors which increase a woman's risk of breast cancer can be altered including taking hormone replacement therapy (long term use of estrogens with progesterone for menopause symptoms slightly increases your risk), taking birth control pills (a very slight increased risk that disappears in women who have stopped them for over 10 years), not breastfeeding, drinking 2 to 5 alcoholic drinks a day, being overweight (especially after menopause), and not exercising. All of these modifiable risk factors are not nearly as important as gender, age, and family history, but they are things that a woman can control that may reduce her chances of developing a breast malignancy. Remember that all risk factors are based on probabilities, and even someone without any risk factors can still get breast cancer. Proper screening and early detection are our best weapons in reducing the mortality associated with this disease.

What are the signs of breast cancer? Unfortunately, the early stages of breast cancer may not have any symptoms. This is why it is important to follow screening recommendations. As a tumor grows in size, it can produce a variety of symptoms including: lump or thickening in the breast or underarm, change in size or shape of the breast, nipple discharge or nipple turning inward, redness or scaling of the skin or nipple, ridges or pitting of the breast skin

Can you prevent breast cancer? The individual cannot control the most important risk factors for the development of breast cancer. There are some risk factors that are associated with an increased risk, but there is not a clear cause and effect relationship. In no way can strong recommendations be made like the cause and effect relationship seen with tobacco and lung cancer. There are a few risk factors that may be modified by a woman that potentially could influence the development of breast cancer. If possible, a woman should avoid long-term hormone replacement therapy, have children before age 30, breastfeed, avoid weight gain through exercise and proper diet, and limit alcohol consumption to 1 drink a day or less. For women already at a high risk, their risk of developing breast cancer can be reduced by about 50% by taking a drug called Tamoxifen for five years. Tamoxifen has some common side effects (like hot flashes and vaginal discharge), which are not serious and some uncommon side effects (like blood clots, pulmonary embolus, stroke, and uterine cancer) which are life threatening. Tamoxifen isn't widely used for prevention, but may be useful in some cases.

There are limited data suggesting that vitamin A may protect against breast cancer but further research is needed before it can be recommended for prevention. Other things being investigated include phyto estrogens (naturally occurring estrogens that are in high numbers in soy), vitamin E, vitamin C, and other drugs. Further testing of these substances is also needed before they can be recommended for breast cancer prevention. Right now, the most important thing any woman can do to decrease her risk of dying from breast cancer is to have regular mammogram screening, perform breast self-exams once a month. Follow a few, easy steps, you will soon know what is normal for you and will quickly be aware of any changes. If you find a lump or other change, note down where it is and make an appointment to see your doctor as soon as possible.

Question for young women's are how to look? Well it is medically suggested that you stand up straight in front of a mirror with your arms loosely by your sides. Raise your arms above your head and move from side to side so you can see your breasts in the mirror, from different angles. What should you look for? A change in the size of either breast, change in the shape or position of nipple, bleeding or discharge from the nipples, unusual dimpling or puckering.

How do you feel for changes? Lie flat on your back with your head on a pillow. Put a folded towel under the shoulder on the side of the breast you are checking. This helps to spread the tissue so that it is easier to feel. Examine one breast at a time. Put the hand on the same side of the breast that you are going to examine under your head. With your other hand flat and fingers together, use the flats of your fingers to feel around the breast in small, circular movements, in an anticlockwise direction. Cover the whole of the breast including the nipple. Check your armpit for lumps in the same way, starting in the hollow and moving down towards the breast.

Now examine the other breast in the same way. If you think you have found something, feel the same area on the opposite breast. If they are the same it's probably just your shape, but if you are at all worried, do visit your doctor. Breast cancer happens when cells in the breast begin to grow out of control and can then invade nearby tissues or spread throughout the body. Large collections of this out of control tissue are called tumors. However, some tumors are not really cancer because they cannot spread or threaten someone's life. These are called benign tumors. The tumors that can spread throughout the body or invade nearby tissues are considered cancer and are called malignant tumors. Theoretically, any of the types of tissue in the breast can form a cancer, but usually it comes from either the ducts or the glands. Because it may take months to years for a tumor to get large enough to feel in the breast, we screen for tumors with mammograms, which can sometimes see disease before we can feel it.

The earlier that a breast cancer is found, the more likely it is that treatment can be curable. Screening mammograms are simply x-rays of each breast. The breast is placed between two plates for a few seconds while the x-rays are taken. If something appears abnormal, or better views are needed, magnified views or specially angled films are taken during the mammogram. Mammograms often detect tumors before they can be felt and they can also identify tiny specks of calcium that could be an early sign of cancer. Regular screening mammograms can decrease the mortality of breast cancer by 30%. Woman should get a yearly mammogram starting at age 40 (although some groups recommend starting at 50), and women with a genetic mutation that increases their risk or a strong family history may want to begin even earlier. Between the ages of 20 and 39, every woman should have a clinical breast exam every 3 years and after age 40 every woman should have a clinical breast exam done each year.

There are some experimental screening modalities that are currently being studied. These include MRI, ductal lavage, ultrasound, optical tomography, PET scan, and digital mammograms. Depending on the results of the mammograms and/or ultrasounds, your doctors may recommend that you get a biopsy. A biopsy is the only way to know for sure if you have cancer, because it allows your doctors to get cells that can be examined under a microscope. There are different types of biopsies; they differ on how much tissue is removed. Some biopsies use a very fine needle, while others use thicker needles or even require a small surgical procedure to remove more tissue. Your team of doctors will decide which type of biopsy you need depending on your particular breast mass. Once the tissue is removed, a pathologist will review the specimen. The pathologist can tell if it is cancer or not; and if it is cancerous, then the pathologist will characterize it by what type of tissue it arose from, how abnormal it looks (known as the grade), whether or not it is invading surrounding tissues, and if the entire lump was excised, the pathologist can tell if there are any cancer cells left at the borders (also known as the margins). The pathologist will also test the cancer cells for the presence of estrogen and progesterone receptors as well as a receptor known as HER-2/neu. Basic 4 stages of breast cancer are called as

Stage 0 (called carcinoma in situ) Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) refers to abnormal cells lining a gland in the breast. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) refers to abnormal cells lining a duct.

Stage I – early stage breast cancer where the tumor is less that 2 cm across and hasn't spread beyond the breast

Stage II - early stage breast cancer where the tumor is either less than 2 cm across and has spread to the lymph nodes under the arm; or the tumor is between 2 and 5 cm (with or without spread to the lymph nodes under the arm); or the tumor is greater than 5 cm and hasn't spread outside the breast

Stage III – locally advanced breast cancer where the tumor is greater than 5 cm across and has spread to the lymph nodes under the arm; or the cancer is extensive in the underarm lymph nodes; or the cancer has spread to lymph nodes near the breastbone or to other tissues near the breast

Stage IV – metastatic breast cancer where the cancer has spread outside the breast to other organs in the body

Depending on the stage of your cancer, your doctor may want additional tests to see if you have metastatic disease. If you have a stage III cancer, you will probably get a chest x-ray, CT scan and bone scan to look for metastases. Each patient is an individual and your doctors will decide what is necessary to adequately stage your cancer.
What are the treatments for breast cancer?

Surgery: Almost all women with breast cancer will have some type of surgery in the course of their treatment while some women will be candidates for what is called breast conservation therapy (BCT) where surgeons perform a lumpectomy which means they remove the tumor with a little bit of breast tissue around it but do not remove the entire breast. Some patients will have a sentinel lymph node biopsy procedure first to determine if a formal lymph node dissection is required. Sometimes, the surgeon will remove a larger part (but not the whole breast), and this is called a segmental or partial mastectomy. Most patients with DCIS that have a lumpectomy are treated with radiation therapy to prevent the local recurrence of DCIS.More advanced breast cancers are usually treated with a modified radical mastectomy. Modified radical mastectomy means removing the entire breast and dissecting the lymph nodes under the arm.

Chemotherapy: is the use of anti-cancer drugs that go throughout the entire body. The higher the stage of cancer you have, the more important it is that you receive chemotherapy; however, even stage I patients may benefit from chemotherapy in certain cases. In early stage patients, the risk of recurrence may be small, and thus the benefits of the chemotherapy are even smaller. There are many different chemotherapy drugs, and they are usually given in combinations for 3 to 6 months after you receive your surgery. Depending on the type of chemotherapy regimen you receive, you may get medication every 3 or 4 weeks; and you may have to go to a clinic to get the chemotherapy because many of the drugs have to be given through a vein. Two of the most common regimens are AC (doxorubicin and cycolphosphamide) for 3 months or CMF (cycolphosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil) for 6 months. There are advantages and disadvantages to each of the different regimens that your medical oncologist will discuss with you. Based on your own health, your personal values and wishes, and side effects you may wish to avoid, you can work with your doctors to come up with the best regimen for your lifestyle.

Radiotherapy: uses high-energy rays (similar to x-rays) to kill cancer cells. It comes from an external source, and it requires patients to come in 5 days a week for up to 6 weeks to a radiation therapy treatment center. The treatment takes just a few minutes, and it is painless. Radiation therapy is used in all patients who receive breast conservation therapy (BCT). It is also recommended for patients after a mastectomy that had large tumors, lymph node involvement, or close/positive margins after the surgery. Radiation is important in reducing the risk of local recurrence and is often offered in more advanced cases to kill tumor cells that may be living in lymph nodes.

Hormonal Therapy: When the pathologist examines your tumor specimen, he or she finds out if the tumor is expressing estrogen and progesterone receptors. Patients whose tumors express estrogen receptors are candidates for therapy with an estrogen-blocking drug called Tamoxifen. Tamoxifen is taken by pill form for 5 years after your surgery. This drug has been shown to drastically reduce your risk of recurrence if your tumor expresses estrogen receptors. However, there are side effects commonly associated with Tamoxifen including weight gain, hot flashes and vaginal discharge that patients may be bothered by. There are also very uncommon side effects like blood clots, strokes, or uterine cancer that may scare patients from choosing to take it. You need to remember that your chances of having a recurrence of your cancer are usually higher than your chances of having a serious problem with Tamoxifen, but the decision to undergo hormonal therapy is a personal one that you should make with your doctor. There are also newer drugs, called aromatase inhibitors that act by decreasing your body's supply of estrogen; these drugs are reserved for patients who have already gone through menopause. Talk to your doctors about these new therapies.

Biologic Therapy: The pathologist also examines your tumor for the presence of HER-2/neu over expression. A compound called Herceptin (or Trastuzumab) is a substance that blocks this receptor and helps stop the breast cancer from growing.

Follow-up testing: Once a patient has been treated for breast cancer, they need to be closely followed for a recurrence. At first, you will have follow-up visits every 3-4 months. The longer you are free of disease, the less often you will have to go for checkups. After 5 years, you could see your doctor once a year. You should have a mammogram of the treated and untreated breasts every year. Because having had breast cancer is a risk factor for getting it again, having your mammograms done every year is extremely important. If you are taking Tamoxifen, it is important that you get a pelvic exam each year and report any abnormal vaginal bleeding to your doctor.

Drink Green Tea: Generations of families in India and Asia have been turning to tea to cure what ails them. Green tea could benefit at least five vital organs, including the heart. Earlier, green tea was thought to improve urinary and brain function, combat beriberi disease, and alleviate indigestion. In other words, green tea was considered to be a multi-purpose elixir, able to treat a wide variety of health problems. But this ancient remedy has now found a place in modern scientific literature, thanks to a new wave of studies on the medicinal properties of green tea. While studies on human subjects have been inconclusive, initial evidence from the laboratory looks incredibly promising.

While green tea can be beneficial in attacking everything from high cholesterol to depression, it has perhaps gotten the most attention for its impact on cancer.

Antioxidants are important because they can stop the enzyme activities that give rise to cancer. In essence, they repair DNA problems that have been caused by oxidants or free radicals. Green tea has been considered a godsend for good health because it contains antioxidants known as catechins. These substances have been called impressive inhibitors of cancer growth. Here's how they do it: lab tests show that they combat oxidants prior to cell injuries, stop the growth of tumor cells, and reduce the occurrence of tumors.

This article is meant to give you a better understanding of breast cancer. Use this knowledge when meeting with your physician, making treatment decisions, and continuing your search for information.

Stay Healthy, as Health is Wealth!

It will perhaps astound you to learn that a person who is afflicted with the main causes of cancer (which constitute the real illness) would most likely die quickly unless he actually grew cancer cells. In this work, I provide evidence to this effect.

I further claim that cancer will only occur after all other defense or healing mechanisms in the body have failed. In extreme circumstances, exposure to large amounts of cancer-producing agents (carcinogens) can bring about a collapse of the body's defenses within several weeks or months and allow for rapid and aggressive growth of a cancerous tumor. Usually, though, it takes many years, or even decades, for these so-called "malignant" tumors to form.

Unfortunately, basic misconceptions or complete lack of knowledge about the reasons behind tumor growth have turned "malignant" tumors into vicious monsters that have no other purpose but to kill us in retaliation for our sins or abusing the body. However, as you are about to find out, cancer is on our side, not against us. Unless we change our perception of what cancer really is, it will continue to resist treatment, particularly the most "advanced" methods. If you have cancer, and cancer is indeed part of the body's complex survival responses and not a disease, as I suggest it is, you must find answers to the following pressing questions:

* What reasons coerce your body into developing cancer cells?

* Once you have identified these reasons, will you be able to change them? What determines the type and severity of cancer with which you are afflicted?

* If cancer is a survival mechanism, what needs to be done to prevent the body from taking recourse to such drastic defense measures?

* Since the body's original genetic design always favors the preservation of life and protection against adversities of any kind, why would the body permit self-destruction?

* Why do almost all cancers disappear by themselves, without medical intervention?

* Do radiation, chemotherapy and surgery actually cure cancer, or do cancer survivors heal due to other reasons, despite these radical, side-effect-loaded treatments?

* What roles do fear, frustration, low self-worth and repressed anger play in the origination and outcome of cancer?

* What is the spiritual growth lesson behind cancer?

To deal with the root causes of cancer, you must find satisfying and practical answers to the above questions. If you feel the inner urge to make sense of this life-changing event, (cancer that is), you most likely will recover from it. Cancer can be your greatest opportunity to help restore balance to all aspects of your life, but it can also be the harbinger of severe trauma and suffering. Either way you are always in control of your body.

To live in a human body, you must have access to a certain amount of life-sustaining energy. You may either use this inherent energy in a nourishing and self-sustaining or in a destructive and debilitating way. In case you consciously or unconsciously choose negligence or self-abuse over loving attention and self-respect, your body will likely end up having to fight for its life.

Cancer is but one of the many ways the body tries to change the way you see and treat yourself, including your body. This inevitably brings up the subject of spiritual health, which plays at least as important a role in cancer as physical and emotional reasons do.

Cancer appears to be a highly confusing and unpredictable disorder. It seems to strike the very happy and the very sad, the rich and the poor, the smokers and the non-smokers, the very healthy and the not so healthy. People from all backgrounds and occupations can have cancer. However, if you dare look behind the mask of its physical symptoms, such as the type, appearance and behavior of cancer cells, you will find that cancer is not as coincidental or unpredictable as it seems to be.

What makes 50% of the American population so prone to developing cancer, when the other half has no risk at all? Blaming the genes for that is but an excuse to cover up ignorance of the real causes. Besides, any good genetic researcher would tell you that such a belief is void of any logic and outright unscientific (as explained in the book).

Cancer has always been an extremely rare illness, except in industrialized nations during the past 40-50 years. Human genes have not significantly changed for thousands of years. Why would they change so drastically now, and suddenly decide to kill scores of people? The answer to this question is amazingly simple: Damaged or faulty genes do not kill anyone. Cancer does not kill a person afflicted with it! What kills a cancer patient is not the tumor, but the numerous reasons behind cell mutation and tumor growth. These root causes should be the focus of every cancer treatment, yet most oncologists typically ignore them. Constant conflicts, guilt and shame, for example, can easily paralyze the body's most basic functions, and lead to the growth of a cancerous tumor.

After having seen thousands of cancer patients over a period of three decades, I began to recognize a certain pattern of thinking, believing and feeling that was common to most of them. To be more specific, I have yet to meet a cancer patient who does not feel burdened by some poor self-image, unresolved conflict and worries, or past emotional trauma that still lingers in his/her subconscious. Cancer, the physical disease, cannot occur unless there is a strong undercurrent of emotional uneasiness and deep-seated frustration.

Cancer patients typically suffer from lack of self-respect or worthiness, and often have what I call an "unfinished business" in their life. Cancer can actually be a way of revealing the source of such inner conflict. Furthermore, cancer can help them come to terms with such a conflict, and even heal it altogether. The way to take out weeds is to pull them out along with their roots. This is how we must treat cancer; otherwise, it may recur eventually.

The following statement is very important in the consideration of cancer: "Cancer does not cause a person to be sick; it is the sickness of the person that causes the cancer." To treat cancer successfully requires the patient to become whole again on all levels of his body, mind and spirit. Once the cancer causes have been properly identified, it will become apparent what needs to be done to achieve complete recovery.

It is a medical fact that every person has cancer cells in the body all the time. These cancer cells remain undetectable through standard tests until they have multiplied to several billion. When doctors announce to their cancer patients that the treatments they prescribed had successfully eliminated all cancer cells, they merely refer to tests that are able to identify the detectable number of cancerous cells. Standard cancer treatments may lower the number of cancer cells to an undetectable level, but this certainly cannot eradicate all cancer cells. As long as the causes of tumor growth remain intact, cancer may redevelop at any time and at any rate.

Curing cancer has little to do with getting rid of a group of detectable cancer cells. Treatments like chemotherapy and radiation are certainly capable of poisoning or burning many cancer cells, but they also destroy healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastrointestinal tract, liver, kidneys, heart, lungs, etc., which often leads to permanent irreparable damage of entire organs and systems in the body. A real cure of cancer does not occur at the expense of destroying other vital parts of the body.

Each year, hundreds of thousands of people who were once "successfully" treated for cancer die from infections, heart attacks, liver failure, kidney failure and other illnesses because the cancer treatments generate a massive amount of inflammation and destruction in the organs and systems of the body. Of course, these causes of death are not being attributed to cancer. This statistical omission makes it appear we are making progress in the war against cancer. However, many more people are dying from the treatment of cancer than from cancer. A real cure or cancer is achievable only when the causes of excessive growth of cancer cells have been removed or stopped.

Power in the Word

Cancer is the second leading "cause" of death for Americans. According to the American Cancer Society, about 1.2 million cases will be diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. in 2008. More than 552,000 Americans will die of it. Among men, the top three cancer diagnoses are expected to be prostate cancer (180,400 cases), lung cancer (89,500 cases), and colorectal cancer (63,600). The leading types of cancer among women are breast cancer (182,800 cases), lung cancer (74,600), and colorectal cancer (66,600 cases).

Cancer is not just a word, but also a statement that refers to abnormal or unusual behavior of cells in the body. However, in quite a different context, cancer is referred to as a star sign. When someone tells you that you are a "cancer", are you going to tremble with fear of dying? It is unlikely, because your interpretation of being of the cancer sign does not imply that you have cancer, the illness. But if your doctor called you into his office and told you that you had cancer, you would most likely feel paralyzed, numb, terrified, hopeless, or all of the above.

The word "cancer" has the potential to play a very disturbing and precarious role, one that is capable of delivering a death sentence. Being a cancer patient seems to start with the diagnosis of cancer, although its causes may have been there for many years prior to feeling ill. Within a brief moment, the word "cancer" can turn someone's entire world upside down.

Who or what in this world has bestowed this simple word or statement with such great power that it can preside over life and death? Or does it really? Could it actually be that our collective, social belief that cancer is a killer disease, in addition to the aggressive treatments that follow diagnosis, are largely responsible for the current dramatic escalation of cancer in the Western hemisphere? Too far fetched, you might say! In this book, however, I will make the point that cancer can have no power or control over us, unless we unconsciously allow it to grow in response to the beliefs, perceptions, attitudes, thoughts, feelings we have, and the life choices we make.

Would we be just as afraid of cancer if we knew what caused it or at least understood what its underlying purpose is? Unlikely so! If truth were told, we would most probably do everything to remove the causes and, thereby, set the preconditions for the body to heal itself.

A little knowledge (which is what we call ignorance) is, in fact, a dangerous thing. Almost everyone, at least in the industrialized world, knows that drinking water from a filthy pond or polluted lake can cause life-threatening diarrhea, but still only few realize that holding on to resentment, anger and fear, or eating fast foods, chemical additives, and artificial sweeteners, is no less dangerous than drinking polluted water; it may just take a little longer to kill a person than tiny amoeba can.

Mistaken Judgment

We all know that if the foundation of a house is strong, the house can easily withstand external challenges, such as a violent storm. As we will see, cancer is merely an indication that there is something missing in our body and in life as a whole. Cancer shows that life as a whole (physical, mental and spiritual) stands on shaky grounds and is quite fragile, to say the least. It would be foolish for a gardener to water the withering leaves of a tree when he knows so well that the real problem is not where it appears to be, namely, on the symptomatic level (of withered leaves). By watering the roots of the plant, he naturally attends to the causative level, and consequently, the plant regenerates itself swiftly and automatically.

To the trained eye of a gardener, the symptom of withering leaves is not a dreadful disease. He recognizes that the dehydrated state of these leaves is but a direct consequence of withdrawn nourishment that they need in order to sustain themselves and the rest of the plant.

Although this example from nature may appear to be a simplistic analogy, it offers a profound understanding of very complex disease processes in the human body. It accurately describes one of the most powerful and fundamental principles controlling all life forms on the planet. However skilled we may have become in manipulating the functions of our body through the tools of allopathic medicine, this basic, highly evolved principle of evolution cannot be suppressed or violated without paying the hefty price of side-effect-riddled suffering and pain – physically, emotionally and spiritually.

I fervently challenge the statement that cancer is a killer disease. Furthermore, I will demonstrate that cancer is not a disease at all. Many people who received a "terminal" cancer sentence actually defied the prognosis and experienced total remission.

The Need for Answers

There is no cancer that has not been survived by someone, regardless how far advanced it was. If even one person has succeeded in healing his cancer, there must be a mechanism for it, just as there is a mechanism for creating cancer. Every person on the planet has the capacity for both. If you have been diagnosed with cancer, you may not be able to change the diagnosis, but it is certainly in your power to alter the destructive consequences that it (the diagnosis) may have on you. The way you see the cancer and the steps you take following the diagnosis are some of the most powerful determinants of your future wellness, or the lack of it.

The indiscriminate reference to "cancer" as being a killer disease by professionals and lay people alike has turned cancer into a disorder with tragic consequences for the majority of today's cancer patients and their families. Cancer has become synonymous to extraordinary suffering, pain and death. This is true despite the fact that 90-95 percent of all cancers appear and disappear out of their own accord. There is not a day that passes without the body making millions of cancer cells. Some people, under severe temporary stress make more cancer cells than usual and form clusters of cancerous cells that disappear again once they feel better. Secretions of the DNA's anticancer drug, Interleukin II, drop under physical and mental duress and increase again when relaxed and joyful. Thus, most cancers vanish without any form of medical intervention and without causing any real harm.

Right at this moment, there are millions of people walking around with cancers in their body without having a clue that they have them. Likewise, there are millions of people who heal their cancers without even knowing it. Overall, there are many more spontaneous remissions of cancer than there are diagnosed and treated cancers.

The truth is, relatively few cancers actually become "terminal." However, once diagnosed, the vast majority of all cancers are never even given a chance to disappear on their own. They are promptly targeted with an arsenal of deadly weapons of cell destruction such as chemotherapy drugs, radiation and the surgical knife. The problem with cancer patients is that, terrified by the diagnosis, they submit their bodies to all these cut/burn/poison procedures that, more likely than not, lead them to the day of final sentencing, "We have to tell you with our deepest regret there is nothing more that can be done to help you."

The most pressing question is not how advanced or dangerous a cancer is, but what we need to do to not end up dying from it. Why do some people go through cancer as if it were the flu? Are they just lucky or is there a mechanism at work that triggers the healing? In other words, what is that element that prevents the body from healing cancer naturally, or what is that hidden element that makes cancer so dangerous, if it is dangerous at all?

The answers to all these queries lie with the response of the person who has the cancer, and not with the degree of "viciousness" or advanced stage it appears to have progressed to. Do you believe that cancer is a disease? You will most likely answer with a "yes," given the 'informed' opinion that the medical industry and mass media have fed to the masses for many decades. Yet, the most pressing yet rarely asked question remains: "Why do you think cancer is a disease?" You may say: "Because I know cancer kills people every day." I would question you further: "How do you know that it is the cancer that kills people?" You would probably argue that most people who have cancer die, so obviously it must be the cancer that kills them. Besides, you may reason, all the expert doctors tell us so.

Let me raise another question, a rather strange one: "How do you know for sure that you are the daughter/son of your father and not of another man?" Is it because your mother told you so? What makes you think that your mother told you the truth? Probably because you believe her; and you have no reason not to. After all, she is your mother, and mothers do not lie about these things. Or do they? Although you will never really know that the person you believe to be your father is, in fact, your father, you nevertheless have turned what you subjectively believe into something that you just "know," into an irrefutable truth.

Although there is no scientific proof whatsoever that cancer is a disease (versus a survival mechanism), most people will insist that it is a disease because this is what they were told to believe. Yet their belief is only hearsay information based on other people's opinions. These other people heard it from someone else. Eventually, the "truth" of cancer being a disease can be traced to some doctors who expressed their subjective feelings or beliefs about what they observed and wrote about in some review articles or medical reports. Other doctors agreed with their opinion, and before long, it became a "well-established" fact that cancer is a vicious illness that somehow gets hold of people in order to kill them. However, the truth of the matter may be quite different.

Wisdom of Cancer Cells

Cancer cells are not part of a malicious disease process. When cancer cells spread (metastasize) throughout the body, it is not their purpose or goal to disrupt the body's vitals functions, infect healthy cells and obliterate their host (the body). Self-destruction is not the theme of any cell unless, of course, it is old and worn-out and ready to be turned-over and replaced. Cancer cells, like all other cells, know that if the body dies, they will die as well. Just because some people assume that cancer cells are there to destroy the body does not mean cancer cells have such a purpose or ability.

A cancerous tumor is neither the cause of progressive destruction nor does it actually lead to the death of the body. There is nothing in a cancer cell that has even remotely the ability to kill anything. What eventually leads to the demise of an organ or the entire body is the wasting away of cell tissue resulting from continued deprivation of nutrients and life force. The drastic reduction or shutdown of vital nutrient supplies to the cells of an organ is not primarily a consequence of a cancerous tumor, but actually its biggest cause.

By definition, a cancer cell is a normal, healthy cell that has undergone genetic mutation to the point that it can live in an anaerobic surrounding (an environment where oxygen is not available). In other words, if you deprive a group of cells of vital oxygen (their primary source of energy), some of them will die, but others will manage to alter their genetic software program and mutate in a most ingenious way: the cells will be able to live without oxygen and derive some of their energy needs from such things as cellular metabolic waste products.

It may be easier to understand the cancer cells phenomenon when comparing it with the behavior of common microorganisms. Bacteria, for example, are divided into two main groups, aerobic and anaerobic, meaning, those that need to use oxygen and those that can live without it. This is important to understand since we have more bacteria in our body than we have cells. Aerobic bacteria thrive in an oxygenated environment. They are responsible for helping us with the digestion of food and manufacturing of important nutrients, such as B-vitamins. Anaerobic bacteria, on the other hand, can appear and thrive in an environment where oxygen does not reach. They break down waste materials, toxic deposits and dead, worn-out cells.

The body sees the cancer as being such an important defense mechanism that it even causes the growth of new blood vessels to guarantee the much-needed supply of glucose and, therefore, survival and spreading of the cancer cells. It knows that cancer cells do not cause but, prevent death; at least for a while, until the wasting away of an organ leads to the demise of the entire organism. If the trigger mechanisms for cancer (causal factors) are properly taken care of, such an outcome can be avoided.

It is commonly believed that our immune system protects us against cancer. However, this is only partially true. On the one hand, the immune system readily destroys the millions of cancer cells that a healthy human body produces as part of the daily turnover of 30 billion cells. On the other hand, the immune system takes no action to eradicate cancer cells that develop in response to a build up of toxins, congestion and emotional stress.

Cancers and all other tissues in the body are larded with cancer-killing white cells, such as T-cells. In the case of kidney cancer and melanomas, for example, white cells make up 50 per cent of the mass of the cancers. Since these T-cells easily recognize foreign or mutated cell tissue such as cancer cells, you would expect these immune cells to attack cancer cells right away. However, the immune system allows cancer cells to recruit it to actually increase and spread the cancer to other parts of the body. Cancer cells produce specific proteins that tell the immune cells to leave them alone and help them to grow

Why would the immune system want to collaborate with cancer cells to make more or larger tumors? Because cancer is a survival mechanism, not a disease. The body uses the cancer to keep deadly carcinogenic substances and caustic metabolic waste matter away from the lymph and blood and, therefore, from the heart, brain and other vital organs. Killing off cancer cells would in fact jeopardize its survival. Cleansing the body of accumulated toxins and waste products through the various cleansing methods advocated in my book Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation (www.ener-chi.com) removes the need for cancer.

Cancer is not a disease; it is the final and most desperate survival mechanism the body has at its disposal. It only takes control of the body when all other measures of self-preservation have failed. To truly heal cancer and what it represents in a person's life we must come to the understanding that the reason the body allows some of its cells to grow in abnormal ways is in its best interest and not an indication that it is about to destroy itself. Cancer is a healing attempt by the body, for the body. Blocking this healing attempt can destroy the body. Supporting the body in its healing efforts can save it.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Andreas_Moritz

One study found that a gene test called Oncotype DX can determine whether or not a patient will benefit from chemotherapy. The test measures the activity of 21 genes to predict women’s risk of recurrence.

Currently, chemotherapy is recommended for women with breast cancer that has spread to lymph nodes, which amounts to about 45,000 women each year in the United States. However, the chemo does not help most of those treated.

The study found that as many as 18,000 women each year could safely skip chemo, and the new test is expected to immediately spur doctors to back off on chemotherapy and use it more selectively.

A second study of more than 1,000 women tested two chemotherapy drugs — Adriamycin, a chemo mainstay that raises your risk of heart problems and leukemia, and Taxotere, which is not linked to heart problems.

After seven years, 87 percent of women given Taxotere survived compared with only 82 percent of those given Adriamycin. Further, those given Taxotere were less likely to have had a recurrence. The study suggests that Taxotere, the less harsh drug of the two, may be a better choice for breast cancer patients.

Sources:

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

More than 12 million people were diagnosed with cancer worldwide in 2007, and close to 8 million died of the disease. Yet, even with this magnitude of people affected, the conventional health paradigm is clueless about the origins, and proper treatments, for this disease.

Cancer treatment is one of the most controversial health topics there is, but what cannot be debated are the huge amounts of money at stake. Prices for new cancer therapies can cost you up to $10,000 a month, so it’s no wonder that insurance companies are happily paying for the new Oncotype DX gene test, which at $3,400 could save them big bucks on chemotherapy.

Are these cancer drugs worth it? Hardly. These expensive medications often give patients just a few more months of life — and sometimes they even kill people prematurely or CAUSE CANCER themselves.

What the drug companies do not want you to know is that you have within your body the most powerful weapon against cancer and all disease, and it is yours to use freely: YOUR MIND.

The Mind-Cancer Connection

You’ve heard of the mind-body connection. Well, I’d like to introduce you to a slightly different mode of thinking. Your mind is in direct control of your health, including your risk of and recovery from cancer.

Dr. Hamer, the former head internist in the oncology clinic at the University of Munich, Germany, is at the forefront of an emerging field he calls German New Medicine (GNM).


Conflict Might be the Cause of Breast Cancer

Dr. Hamer’s work speculates that breast cancer is due to an unresolved conflict, as he explains on his Web site:
 

After nearly three decades of scientific work, Dr. Hamer has proven that every disease is caused by a very disturbing emotional trauma. The emotional shock causes a direct physical ailment, such as cancer, which can only be resolved when your emotional conflict has healed.

However, many people, upon hearing they have cancer, cannot resolve their emotional wounds because they are struck with fear and perhaps given a diagnosis of “only three months to live.”

This kind of emotional upset is enough to send a person on a downward spiral. On top of that, conventional medicine adds in chemotherapy, radiation and drugs, which further upset your healing.

Now, listen closely.

Dr. Hamer believes that a person cannot die of cancer in and of itself.

If someone dies during the active phase of disease, it’s because of energy loss, weight loss, sleep deprivation, and emotional and mental exhaustion. The stress of receiving a cancer diagnosis, or being given a negative prognosis, is often enough to deprive a person of their life-force, and conventional cancer treatments only accelerate the downward spiral.

If a patient has not undergone any conventional treatments such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, GNM has a success rate of 95 percent to 98 percent.

Not surprisingly, while trying to publicize his research, Dr. Hamer was stripped of his medical license for refusing to renounce his findings. Remember, there are major forces at work who do not want you to believe that YOU have control over your health.

They want you to believe that you must take their medications to be well, when in reality the opposite is true.

For more on this fascinating field, you can also listen to the interview I did with Bruce Lipton, PhD. about The New Biology, which also speaks volumes about your own power to control your future health destiny.

Of course, while I now believe that your emotional health is the most important factor in preventing cancer, you can also help to reduce your risk by following these 12 changes that will cut your cancer risk in half.