We live in a culture of inflammation which is being linked more often to cancer, heart disease, and other deadly illnesses. If you are not familiar with turmeric and its healing properties, this video will surprise you. Lou
We live in a culture of inflammation which is being linked more often to cancer, heart disease, and other deadly illnesses. If you are not familiar with turmeric and its healing properties, this video will surprise you. Lou
Comedian and stoner Tommy Chong says ‘I kicked cancer’s ass!’ with a variety of treatments including diet and supplements
Monday 13 May 2013
Tommy Chong, the veteran star of the dope-fuelled Cheech and Chong films, says he has beaten prostate cancer with a combination of cannabis use and a special diet.
Chong, 74, was diagnosed with cancer in June last year following a three-year period in which he said he had been drug free. He now says he is 99% free of the disease after a Canadian doctor helped him change his diet to include a variety of special supplements, as well as hemp oil. He then sat for a number of sessions with a practitioner named Adam Dreamhealer, described as a “world-renowned healer”.
“That’s right, I kicked cancer’s ass!” Chong wrote on the website CelebStoner.com. “So the magic plant does cure cancer with the right diet and supplements. I’m due for another blood test, MRI, etc, but I feel the best I’ve felt in years. And now for a celebration joint of the finest Kush …”
Together with collaborator Cheech Marin, Chong starred in eight films between 1971 and 1985, including the pair’s classic debut Up in Smoke. During that period the duo also released eight albums, three of which hit the US top 10. The duo split in the mid-80s, but began touring together again in 2008.
By Lance Devon
May 14, 2013
The Susan G. Komen for breast cancer awareness reports on their site that breast cancer will strike more than 1.3 million women annually over the next 20 years. They are proud to report that 70 percent of women 40 and older receive regular mammograms now. What they aren’t telling the public is that their pharmaceutical and radiation-funding “awareness” project is giving millions of women false diagnoses by the very mammogram technology they promote. As a matter of fact, the New England Journal of Medicine has identified approximately 1.3 million cases of misdiagnosed breast cancer, concluding that mammograms are leading millions of women astray, making them believe they have cancer when they really don’t.
This means that the highly entrusted mammograms are manifesting millions of fake cancers, sending millions of unsuspecting women through further unneeded tests, procedures, medications, and radiation.
Instead of “ending breast cancer forever”, as the Susan G. Komen cause claims, they are actually funding perpetual mammogram testing and subsequent medication and radiation that is only feeding the medical industry and the cancer itself. The Komen Race for the Cure alone has raised $2 billion. Where is this money going? It’s definitely not going to find a cure, but rather fooling millions of women into believing they have cancer, when they really don’t.
It’s all very much a corporate scam. The Susan G. Komen awareness is really a company, with a long list of high paid employees, marketers and executives, who do nothing but promote a color and a title. Thirty-nine-point-one percent of their $390 million worth of assets goes toward public health education, which obviously doesn’t point anyone toward proper nutrition utilization, but instead teaches women to get their routine screening and swallow their pill. The money they raise practically goes straight into buying the very mammogram testing machines that are perpetuating the problem. According to the cause, the single most effective screening tool to fight breast cancer is in fact, the holy mammogram The rest of their money goes right into fundraising and radio ads that promote their deceptive process.
Most mammograms detect cancer at ‘stage zero.’ This non-invasive cancer, left untreated, does not progress, does not cause further harm, and does not become invasive. It regresses without medication, without radiation. Sadly though, millions of women are being put through the system, unintentionally lied to, even as evidence suggests that all these stage zero breast cancer detections are misleading. The whole screening system is just bloating statistics of breast cancer in the US and ramming new patients through the system.
The Komen cause proudly reveals that the largest group of cancer survivors in the US is breast cancers survivors (3 million). This fact is only true because most breast cancer survivors “survived” cancer that was non-invasive or was regressive in the first place. In fact, according to the journal Lancet Oncology, a cohort study verified that even most “invasive” cancers appear to regress with time if left untreated.
The scientific study also points out that “The introduction of screening mammography in the United States has been associated with a doubling in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer that are detected each year.” And yet, they noted, “Only 6.5 percent of these early-stage breast cancer cases were expected to progress to advanced disease.”
Mammograms put off low energy x-ray 30kVp radiation, which is 300 percent more carcinogenic than high energy radiation that comes from atomic bomb blasts! This fact goes unnoticed, because today’s radiation risk models were developed before DNA was even discovered.
What scientists should be developing is real scanning technology that goes after the mammogram itself, exposing its low energy radiation effects on human cells!
When DNA is exposed to low energy radiation put off by mammograms, the genes that are susceptible to breast cancer, BRCA1 and BRCA2, actually interfere with the body’s self repairing DNA mechanism. As the body tries to reduce the carcinogens that are welcomed in by the radiation, it becomes more susceptible to developing cancer.
The medical community must understand that x-ray based mammography is not preventing but actually enabling future breast cancer by ‘torturing’ DNA.
Women everywhere shouldn’t feel obligated to submit to radiation mammograms that are misdiagnosing and actually causing cancer, and the Susan G. Komen “breast cancer awareness” needs to tell women the truth. The pink parade is over.
Sources for this article include:
03 May 2013
Doctors identified 10,068 new cases of breast cancer among under-50s in Britain in 2010, the first time the total has hit five figures, a report shows.
It represents an 11 per cent rise since 1995, when the number of diagnoses in the same age group was 7,712, or an increase from 38 to 42 cases in every 100,000 women.
The rise in younger patients developing breast cancer contributed to an overall increase in diagnosis rates among women of all ages from 37,107 cases in 1995 to a new high of 49,564 in 2010, figures released by Cancer Research UK show.
Higher alcohol consumption, a growing tendency to have fewer children, having them later in life, and use of the contraceptive pill were last night linked to the increase in cases among younger women.
Binge drinkers are most at risk, but every daily drink raises the risk of the condition even for women who are careful to stay within the Government’s recommended limits, experts warned.
Prof Mark Bellis, director of the Centre for Public Health at Liverpool John Moores University, said: “The big issue is that a lot of people think there is a safe limit, particularly with cancer, and there isn’t.
“There is a substantive amount of breast cancer associated with what is often called ‘sensible drinking’, when people do not even think they are taking a risk … the risk starts pretty well from drinking any amount.
“Given what we know about the relationships between alcohol and cancers, an increase in breast cancers linked to increased alcohol consumption is inevitable.”
The number of women drinking more than 14 units of alcohol, or seven glasses of wine, per week increased from 15 per cent in 1998 to 18 per cent in 2009, according to the Office for National Statistics.
Having fewer children and starting motherhood later in life can also raise the risk of breast cancer because of the effect on hormone levels.
Even taking the contraceptive pill can temporarily add to the chance of developing the condition.
Jessica Harris, the senior health information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: “Because breast cancer is one [cancer] that tends to be related to your hormone levels it can have quite a strong impact. The more children women have and the earlier in age they have them, the lower the risk. So when there is a trend in society for women to have fewer children and have them later, that would impact on the risk of [breast] cancer.
“The Pill has a small effect: it does increase the risk of breast cancer, but only while women are taking it. At the age at which women tend to take the Pill the risk of breast cancer is low, so that’s why it has only a small effect.”
Official figures published last year show that the number of women giving birth after the age of 40 rose by 16 per cent between 2007 and 2012, and the average British family now has 1.7 children compared with two in 1971.
While postmenopausal women are most at risk of breast cancer, the new figures show that one in five cases of the disease now occurs in women under the age of 50.
The NHS routinely offers breast screening for over-50s, but the programme has not been extended nationally to the 40 to 50 age group because of concerns about the reliability of the results.
Cases of breast cancer in the under-50s have increased steadily in recent years, numbering 9,312 in 2008 and 9,528 in 2009 before reaching 10,068 in 2010.
Cancer Research UK said the figures alone could not prove what is causing the higher rate of cases among younger women, but that increasing alcohol intake is likely to play an important part.
Despite the increase in cases, death rates from the disease among under-50s fell from nine deaths per 100,000 women in 1995 to five per 100,000 in 2010 due to research, increased awareness and improved care.
The charity said that women of all ages should monitor alterations in size, shape or feel of their breasts and report any changes to their doctor, even if they have been screened for the condition.
Chris Askew, chief executive of the Breakthrough Breast Cancer charity, added: “These figures show that breast cancer still affects more and more families every year in the UK and the need for research into the disease remains vital.
“Although breast cancer is more common in older women, it’s worrying to see an increase in the number of younger women diagnosed with the disease. We must invest in vital research for new treatments and disease prevention.”
A Department of Health spokesman said: “It is important that the signs of breast cancer are spotted early so women can start treatment and improve their chances of survival. That is why we encourage women of all ages to be breast aware, know what is normal for them, and report any changes to their GP as soon as possible.”
Kent Mao, Contributor
The secret is out: marijuana is medicine. And not to the surprise of the pharmaceutical industry, who is slowly but surely gaining exclusive rights to the medical properties of this age-old plant.
But wait. How can a company, other than Monsanto, patent a plant? That’s not a serious question, but it brings up a serious point. Patents on marijuana have yet to cover genetic modifications of the plant itself, but rather involve the cannabinoids found in marijuana that are responsible for its medical effects.
The most recent patent filing on cannabinoids comes from none other than GW Pharmaceuticals – the UK-based company that manufactures Sativex (1). Sativex is an oral spray that contains cannabinoids derived from the cannabis plant itself, specifically THC and CBD. Although Sativex is not yet available in the U.S., it has already gained approval in Canada, the UK and eight other European countries.
GW Pharma has been quick to recognize the market potential of cannabis and their most recent patent application makes this more than clear. Just from the title of the patent, one gets a good sense of what GW Pharma has been trying to claim as their own. “Phytocannabinoids” simply means cannabinoids derived from plants, referring to the cannabis plant in this case.
Unsurprisingly, it appears as though GW Pharma encountered difficulties in trying to claim such a broad “invention”. In fact, the updated version of their patent application shows that more than half of their original patent claims were retracted, and for good reason too. Looking back in time, GW Pharma made claims to just the use of isolated cannabinoids in the treatment of cancer, which is no more of an invention than it is a theft from individuals who first proclaimed marijuana’s cancer-fighting abilities decades ago.
On the other hand, GW Pharma’s remaining claims might just pass through the Patent Office without further questioning. GW Pharma seems to be familiar with the pharmaceutical industry’s shrewd patent strategies, which involves modifying pre-existing compounds that have already been proven to work.
In this case, all GW Pharma had to do was claim that they invented a cannabis-based botanical drug substance for treating cancer – botanical drug substance meaning any form of marijuana prepared by methods as simple as aqueous or ethanolic extraction. There you have it. GW Pharma invented neither cannabis nor a method of extraction, but still consider themselves to be inventors of “phytocannabinoids in the treatment of cancer”.
Perhaps the most infamous marijuana-related patent belongs to the U.S. federal government themselves. Indeed, while federal agents have been keeping busy trying to defend their stance on pot prohibition, they also made sure to file patents on the medical components of the very same Schedule I drug. The funny thing is, this particular patent dates all the way back to 1998 when Bill “didn’t inhale” Clinton was still president.
Although federal patent writers made sure to include a long list of synthetic cannabinoids within their claims, carefully tucked away is none other than cannabidiol, also known as CBD. Once again, the inventive step in this patent seems to be severely lacking, but maybe the federal government gets more flexibility with their patent filings.
Regardless, it seems as though the use of CBD for the treatment of “stroke and trauma”, “Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and HIV dementia” and a “wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases” all belongs to the White House, at least for the next 10 years until their patent expires.
It might be easy to blame an outdated patent system for what seems to be just another one of the many injustices that plague the private health care system. But the truth is, it’s not really the Patent Office’s fault that marijuana is being taken over by capital-backed corporations and government agencies.
Rather, the fault lies in the restrictive nature of medical marijuana research, which is overseen by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) – the only source of legal marijuana in the U.S.
According to researchers (2) who have attempted to conduct clinical trials on cannabis, the NIDA is simply uninterested in supplying cannabis for medical studies, in accordance with a mandate from Congress that limits NIDA researchers to investigating the marijuana’s dangers. And being the overwhelmingly benign substance (3) that it is, marijuana hasn’t been the subject of many NIDA studies for a while now.
But perhaps the worst outcome of this situation is not the fact that clinical research on medical marijuana is severely lacking. No, the worst part is that the gap in research is eagerly being filled by corporations like GW Pharma. Indeed, while there were a total 37 clinical studies (4) conducted on cannabinoids between 2005-2009, only 8 of them involved actual marijuana. On the other hand, 9 of the 37 studies involved Sativex, with the rest consisting of a variety of synthetic THC formulations, no doubt sponsored by their respective manufacturers as well.
So where does this leave the rest of us? Not too far from where we started off it seems, since it’s no surprise to anyone that healthcare will continue to be driven by privately funded research, even in the case of marijuana. But all that research money has to come from somewhere, and you can bet it’s not coming from the deep pockets of GW Pharma’s executive board.
As it turns out, a couple of shrewd businessmen with knowledge of medicine realized long ago that sick and dying individuals will pay almost any price for the promise of relief, even if it happens to be all of their life savings and then some. What happened to these businessmen? Oh, they’re still around. We just call them Big Pharma.
Kent Mao is a contributor to Waking Times and the editor of TruthOnPot.com, an online resource for medical marijuana facts, information and research. TruthOnPot.com actively engages in the online discussion of marijuana research and policy. You can learn more by visiting www.truthonpot.com. Kent is also a contributor to Waking Times.
This is not a new story but I feel like it should be spread until everyone knows about it. Lou.
Letter from Rick Simpson
My name is Rick Simpson. I have been providing people with instructions on how to make Hemp Oil medicines for about 8 years. The results have been nothing short of amazing. Throughout man’s history hemp has always been known as the most medicinal plant in the world. Even with this knowledge hemp has always been used as a political and religious football.
The current restrictions against hemp were put in place and maintained, not because hemp is evil or harmful, but for big money to make more big money, while we suffer and die needlessly. Look at a proposal such as this; if we were allowed to grow hemp in our back yards and cure our own illnesses, what do you think the reaction of the pharmaceutical industry would be to such a plan? Many large pharmaceutical companies that still exist today sold hemp based medicines in the 1800′s and early 1900′s. They knew then what I have recently found out. Hemp oil if produced properly is a cure-all that the pharmaceutical industry can’t patent.
Two years a go I contacted the Liberals, the Conservatives and the New Democratic Party about this situation. I also provided them with evidence to backup what I was saying. No one lifted a finger, in most cases I was lucky to get a reply. I contacted the R.C.M.P. along with many other organizations and Public Interest TV shows, with little or no response.
Why are all these people trying to avoid such a simple truth? If I am in some way wrong in what I have been saying then I invite the system to come and prove it. I would be happy to put on a public demonstration of what this oil can do. That would answer this question for the Canadian public once and for all. It seems unbelievable that we have a law in Canada that will not allow us to cure our own diseases with a natural herbal remedy.
Read full text—>>>
by Mike Barrett
April 17th, 2013
Soda is quite possibly the most vilified food/beverage on the market, and for good reason. The beverage offers zero nutritional value, all while increasing the risk of countless diseases. But even with everything we know as a society, soda sales continue upward, and so do the number of studies showcasing the negative effects of the popular drink. According to one recent study, consuming about 1 soda per day increases a man’s risk of prostate cancer by 40% compared to someone who never touches the beverage.
The Swedish study, coming from Lund University and recently published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, focused on the associations between carbohydrates and their food sources in regards to prostate cancer risk. The researchers followed 8,128 men ages 45-73 for an average of 15 years. All were reported to be in good health.
Overall, it was found that fast-releasing carbohydrates and sugary drinks increased the risk of the most aggressive forms of prostate cancer. But for soda specifically, the researchers found that men who drank 300ml of soda each day (slightly less than one can) were more likely to develop the type of prostate cancer which required treatment. Lead researcher Dr. Isabel Drake commented by saying ”among the men who drank a lot of soft drinks or other drinks with added sugar, we saw an increased risk of prostate cancer of around 40 percent.”
In addition to the concerning association between soda consumption and increased prostate cancer risk, the researchers also found that:
Also outlining an association between soda and increased cancer risk, another study from University of Minnesota School of Public Health found that 87 percent of over 60,000 test subjects were likely to develop pancreatic cancer, and soda played a role.
“The important take away from our study is that habitual consumption of soft drinks may be linked to an increased risk of pancreatic cancer. In response to any criticisms, I’d like to point out that our results align with a recent Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health meta-analysis of studies on this topic, including ours, which found that soft drink consumption was indeed positively associated with pancreatic cancer risk,” ,” Noel Mueller, University of Minnesota School of Public Health Ph.D. student and first author on Pereira’s study, told AlterNet.
With soda increasing your risk of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and even cancer, it’s more important than ever to reduce soda consumption on a national and global level. The average person is consuming 300% more sugar than recommended each day, while kids are taking in 7 trillion calories of sugar from soda each year. By dropping the cola, you can dramatically reduce your risk of countless ailments and improve overall health exponentially.
Steven Eaton, 47, a researcher for US pharmaceutical firm Aptuit, was discovered to be manipulating important safety tests on several potentially new drugs.
The scientist, who worked at the company’s drug discovery and development site in Riccarton, near Edinburgh, was sentenced to three months in prison after becoming the first person to be prosecuted under laws introduced 14 years ago.
Edinburgh Sheriff Court heard that Eaton’s actions could have had serious implications for the health of cancer patients if they had been given a drug based on his data.
Sheriff Michael O’Grady QC, said that a three month prison term was the longest sentence he could give Eaton under the Good Laboratory Practice Regulations.
He said: “I feel that my sentencing powers in this are wholly inadequate. You failed to test the drugs properly – you could have caused cancer patients unquestionable harm.
“Why someone who is as highly educated and as experienced as you would embark on such a course of conduct is inexplicable.”
Eaton, from Cambridgeshire, had been working on preclinical trials in animals to assess the efficacy of new treatments on behalf of several major drug companies, including AstraZeneca and Roche. Aptuit had been carrying out the work on their behalf.
Such tests are carried out to help determine what doses of a drug can be given at safely and to screen for any potentially harmful side effects.
Over a six-year period between 2003 and 2009, however, Eaton selectively reported data he was using to assess the concentration of a drug in blood samples.
This ensured that experiments were deemed to be successful even when they had in fact failed.
Eaton’s actions could have persuaded his bosses that the drugs were suitable for use in trials with patients.
But his scam was detected when Aptuit spotted irregularities in his analysis results.
They then alerted the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) who conducted an investigation into the results.
Aptuit stopped work on Eaton’s projects and the drugs were not given to patients until further testing had been carried out, the MHRA said.
The MHRA reviewed hundreds of drugs that had been tested by Aptuit as part of a two-year investigation in order to check their safety
Jim Stephenson, the defence solicitor advocate representing Eaton, said his client had been under a lot of pressure at the time and had been having trouble with his personal life.
He said that Eaton had not gained financially but the court was offered no motive for why Eaton had manipulated the data.
Gerald Heddell, director of inspection enforcement and standards at the MHRA, said that Eaton’s actions had delayed the development of several medicines, including one to treat depression.
His conviction is the first time anyone has been prosecuted under the Good Laboratory Practice Regulations 1999.
He said: “Mr Eaton’s actions directly impacted on the validity of clinical trials.
“The sentence sends a message that we will not hesitate to prosecute those whose actions have the potential to harm public health.”
Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, said: “Good science is based on reliable observation and the data can only be relied upon if scientists are open and honest.
“People in the UK generally trust science because they know that experimentation is the most reliable route to knowledge.
“Anything that could be seen to jeopardise both the process and the trust it engenders is dangerous and needs to be rooted out.”
24-year-old Kristina Marie was diagnosed with a brain tumor and given a death sentence by establishment doctors. She decided to reject chemotherapy and treat herself with Rick Simpson’s hemp oil instead. After three MRI’s her tumors have shrunk considerably.
With thanks to http://www.activistpost.com/
by Press Core
In 1975, during the Church Committee hearings, the existence of a secret assassination weapon came to light. The CIA had developed a poison that caused the victim to have an immediate heart attack. This poison could be frozen into the shape of a dart and then fired at high speed from a pistol. The gun was capable of shooting the icy projectile with enough speed that the dart would go right through the clothes of the target and leave just a tiny red mark. Once in the body the poison would melt and be absorbed into the blood and cause a heart attack! The poison was developed to be undetectable by modern autopsy procedures.
Can you give a person cancer?
If cancer in animals can be caused by injecting them with cancer viruses and bacteria, it would certainly be possible to do the same with human beings!
In 1931, Cornelius Rhoads, a pathologist from the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, purposely infects human test subjects in Puerto Rico with cancer cells; 13 of them died. Though a Puerto Rican doctor later discovers that Rhoads purposely covered up some of the details of his experiment and Rhoads himself gives a written testimony stating he believes that all Puerto Ricans should be killed, he later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Fort Detrick Maryland (origin of the HIV/AIDS virus, the Avian Flu virus and the Swine Flu / A-H1N1 virus), Utah and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, where he begins a series of radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients.
The answer to the question – Can you give a person cancer – is yes. After nearly 80 years of research and development there is now a way to simulate a real heart attack and to give a healthy person cancer. Both have been used as a means of assassination. Only a very skilled pathologist, who knew exactly what to look for at an autopsy, could distinguish an assassination induced heart attack or cancer from the real thing.
Is death by heart attack, burst aneurysm, of cerebral hemorrhage a “natural cause”? Not if government agencies have found a way to influence your heart rate, blood pressure, or vascular dilatation. Neurological research has found that the brain has specific frequencies for each voluntary movement called preparatory sets. By firing at your chest with a microwave beam containing the ELF signals given off by the heart, this organ can be put into a chaotic state, the so-called heart attack. In this way, high profile leaders of political parties who are prone to heart attacks can be killed off before they cause any trouble. Jack Ruby died of cancer a few weeks after his conviction for murder had been overruled in appeals court and he was ordered to stand trial outside of Dallas – thus allowing him to speak freely if he so desired. There was little hesitancy in Jack Ruby killing Lee Harvey Oswald in order to prevent him from talking, so there is no reason to suspect that any more consideration would have been shown Jack Ruby if he had posed a threat to people in the US government who had conspired to murder the president of the United States – John F Kennedy.
Matt Simmons, an oil industry expert, was assassinated for turning whistle blower over the Obama administration coverup of the BP Gulf Oil Spill. Investment banker Matt Simmons, who died suddenly, was an energy industry insider and presidential adviser whose profile soared when he wrote that Saudi Arabia is running out of oil and world production is peaking. Simmons, 67, died at his vacation home in Maine. An autopsy by the state medical examiner’s office concluded Monday that he died from accidental drowning “with heart disease as a contributing factor.”
His 2005 best-selling book, Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, brought him a wider audience. The book argued that Saudi Arabia vastly overstated the size of its oil reserves and that the world was on the verge of a severe oil shortage as the largest oil fields become depleted. This revelation is backed up by Iran. Iran knows the Middle East oil supply is quickly drying up and for that reason it is now focusing on building nuclear reactors. Once the oil runs out Iran will be the only country in the Middle East that will be energy self-sufficient. All of the other Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia will become Third World impoverished states.
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic was also assassinated. He was found dead in the detention center at The Hague tribunal. Mr Milosevic faced charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his alleged central role in the wars in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo during the 1990s. He also faced genocide charges over the 1992-95 Bosnia war, in which 100,000 people died.
Milosevic wrote a letter one day before his death claiming he was being poisoned to death in jail. An autopsy verified his claim as it showed that Milosevic’s body contained a drug that rendered his usual medication for high blood pressure and his heart condition ineffective, causing the heart attack that led to his death.
Former MI6 agent Richard Tomlinson told reporters that he saw documents in 1992 that discussed assassinating Milosevic by means of a staged car accident, where the driver would be blinded by a flash of light and remote controlled brake failure enacted to cause the crash. This exact same technique was utilized for real in the murder of Princess Diana.
If Milosevic was murdered, who would ultimately be responsible? NATO.