One of the most common problems in cancer patients who choose to undergo conventional cancer therapy is recurrence. They might think they have beaten their cancer with chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery, only to find a few years later that tumors have spread into other tissues -- usually the lungs, brain, or even the reproductive organs. Conventional medicine has not yet caught on to what's happening here, but the reason why this phenomenon occurs is quite simple: Conventional cancer treatments only treat the symptoms of cancer (tumors or growths) and do not actually do anything to help the patient regain a level of health necessary to keep cancer in check.A tumor is not technically a disease. It is a symptom of an underlying imbalance in the patient. Unless you treat and reverse the underlying imbalances, you will never eliminate the underlying cause of the cancer. You will continue to see more tumors and complications, even if you are able to treat the first tumors.Think of it like this: suppose you have a dam holding up a body of water such as a lake. One day, due to poor maintenance, the dam begins to crack and water starts leaking through. In the world of conventional cancer treatment, they would say the problem is the water, and they would begin treating the water. They would try to evaporate the water or eliminate the water from flooding the valley below. But the problem isn't the water leaking through the dam; the problem is the integrity of the dam itself. Unless you diagnose the problem with the dam and repair it, then you will never stop the leaking water. The same is true with cancer. Unless you address the underlying integrity of the immune system and the body's self-repairing technology, all you're doing is chasing symptoms. You can treat all the cancer tumors in the world and still do nothing to actually help the cancer patient solve his or her underlying problem.
The cancer industry remains ignorant of useful treatmentsAmazingly, after decades of research, and billions of dollars spent on cancer research, the conventional cancer industry remains oblivious to this simple truth about cancer. They don't teach cancer prevention, and they don't believe in cancer cures even though many exist. They are still treating the water rather than the dam by treating the tumors rather than the underlying problem. Conventional cancer treatments actually harm the patient and the patient's immune system, making it even more difficult to overcome cancer in the future. Chemotherapy harms the immune system and impairs organs such as the brain, liver, and the heart. It's sort of like using TNT to blow out the water leaking through the dam. You destroy the dam at the same time. It leaves the patient unable to stop the progression of the cancer. The real answers to cancer prevention and cure are found in nutrition, exercise, reduction of stress, and avoidance of environmental chemicals and toxins. Chemotherapy is not a cure for cancer, nor is radiation, because both of those treatments actually cause cancer.When you poison the immune system and irradiate tissues, you create physical imbalances which in turn can create cancer. This is the simple reason why so many people who subject themselves to conventional cancer treatments find themselves battling recurring cancer years later.
Where to start with curing cancerThe bottom line is that conventional cancer treatments are a sham and they do nothing to help the patient overcome the causes of cancer. They do a great job of creating repeat business for the cancer industry, however, and pharmaceutical companies now have a reliable market for the anticancer chemicals that have now become mainstream treatments for this entirely preventable and curable disease. But if you want to really cure cancer, you've got to focus on detoxification and healing from the inside out. Nearly all cases of cancer are caused in part by a burden of toxic, synthetic chemicals lodged in the liver, heart and digestive tract. Eliminating those is the first step towards a real cure, and cleansing the liver is probably the single most important thing to do when seeking to cure your own cancer (or to have a "permanent remission" as conventional oncologists might call it, since they don't believe there is such a thing as a cure for cancer).So, how do you cleanse your liver? I could write an entire article just on that, but here's something to get you started on what to investigate: The best modalities for liver cleansing are, in my opinion, Traditional Chinese Medicine and rainforest herbs (Amazon herbs). I'll be writing a lot more about Amazon Herbs in the next day or two, so come back to read more about that if you want to learn about which herbs and herbal products are best at removing toxins from your liver (and restoring healthy liver function).
Friday, September 7, 2007
Canadian Cancer Society announces national program to prevent cancer using vitamin D
Canada has done what the U.S. refuses to do: Protect the health of its people through a national program of encouraging vitamin D supplementation. While U.S. cancer groups like the American Cancer Society stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the benefits of vitamin D supplements in cancer prevention, the Canadian Cancer Society is launching a program to make sure every Canadian citizen receives a level of vitamin D sufficient to prevent most cancers, including breast cancer.The U.S., in contrast, has no interest in preventing cancer... even when a simple, virtually free substance like vitamin D could drop national cancer rates by more than 75 percent.New research published this month shows that vitamin D supplementation produces an astonishing 77 percent reduction in all cancers in women, making it the single most effective medicine for preventing cancer that has ever been discovered by modern medical science. The American Cancer Society, however, seems stuck in the nutritional dogma of the 1950's and continues to claim that only drugs, radiation and surgery can treat cancer, and that nutritional supplements have no role to play whatsoever in cancer prevention. This view is so out of date that it belongs in a museum of medicine, not on the agenda of an advanced nation. (Stating that vitamin D has no useful role in preventing cancer is as hopelessly outdated as claiming the Earth is flat.)
The politics of cancer: Keep 'em sick!As usual, America's abandonment of the world's best natural anti-cancer medicine has nothing at all to do with science, but everything to do with politics and profits. If vitamin D were a cancer drug made by Pfizer, the American Cancer Society would likely be pushing it as the next "miracle" drug and calling for everyone to be put on the drug. But since it's a nutrient that cannot be patented, and can actually be manufactured for free by exposing your skin to natural sunlight, the entire U.S. cancer industry now laughingly pretends that vitamin D supplementation offers no benefits.Each day that the American Cancer Society, the AMA, the FDA and others in conventional medicine refuse to acknowledge the benefits of vitamin D supplements for preventing cancer, they lose yet more credibility and slip one step closer towards global humiliation and irrelevance. It is difficult to imagine how anyone from conventional medicine can show up at a health event and say, with a straight face, that they're doing everything they can to fight cancer when in reality they are willfully ignoring a prevention medicine that really works: Vitamin D. It's simple, safe and virtually free, and it has no negative side effects, requires no patent royalties, and is available right now to everyone.If there were ever a cancer prevention strategy to get behind, this is it! The people in the cancer industry, if they had any sense, should be leaping out of their chairs, fumbling over each other in a mad rush to the press conference podium to announce their support for vitamin D. And yet what do we hear in the United States? Complete apathy. It's as if these people somehow believe that a vitamin manufactured by the human body itself has no role in human nutrition. The depth of blind ignorance at work here is mind boggling. Someone should actually start a psychological study of the people in the cancer industry to figure out how their minds can work that way. It should be called, "The Madness of Crowds and the Illusion of Cancer Treatments in Western Medicine."To not get behind vitamin D is to miss the cancer prevention opportunity of a lifetime. Imagine: For every 100 women that will someday get breast cancer, more than 75 of them could entirely avoid breast cancer through the use of vitamin D. That's 75 women out of 100 who could have their health (and their lives) given back to them through a nutrient that is essentially free. (Add in green tea and some rainforest herbs, and this number leaps to around 90 percent, by the way.) Why wouldn't everyone in the cancer industry want to save 75% of these women from breast cancer?I'll tell you why, and you won't like the answer. It's because the cancer industry depends on all 100 of those women being diagnosed with cancer and treated with profitable cancer "management" protocols like chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. Preventing cancer in 75 percent of women (or more) would deny the cancer industry three-fourths of its revenue. It would shrink the industry, reduce funding, and result in a mass exodus of cancer jobs. Donations would dry up and cancer non-profits (which thrive on the continuation of cancer) would lose big. This is why they won't support cancer prevention that really works. Preventing cancer is simply not in the self interest of the cancer industry. Prevention is bad for business.
When will America show interest in cancer prevention?Canada, not surprisingly, is a little quicker to catch on to the enormous benefits of vitamin D in preventing cancer. "We are monitoring the evidence and believe there is a real role for vitamin D to reduce our risk for cancer and so far there are very few side effects," the Cancer Society's Heather Logan said in a CTV News report. Actually, there are side effects: Reduced risk of diabetes, obesity, depression, mental disorders and all sorts of cancers. Vitamin D is the miracle medicine the cancer industry claims it's searching for when it asks you to donate for those "run for the cure" events. But the cure already exists, and it's available for free.When it comes to the cancer industry, Canada is the first western nation to stand up and say, "The Emperor has no clothes!" It makes you wonder how long it's going to take before America will finally stop supporting the cancer industry at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives each year and, instead, start getting serious about cancer prevention. How many Americans have to die before the criminally-operated U.S. cancer industry will be forced to let go of its stranglehold over the American public and finally acknowledge that we can slash national cancer rates by nearly 80% right now by urging people to get more sunlight and vitamin D?Corporations and governments, of course, view lives as expendable. Encouraging sickness, disease and cancer is a high priority to those who profit from such sickness. And if a few hundred thousand Americans have to die in order to meet next quarter's corporate profits, then so be it. Americans are expendable. Lives are cheap. They're so cheap, in fact, that most of the people living in America today take no steps to protect themselves against cancer. I guess some corporations figure, hey, if the people are willingly giving themselves cancer through their foods, cigarettes, toxic cosmetics and chemical exposures, then why should we stop them?
Screening and treatment = Recruiting and profit-takingThe more cancer there is, the richer the drug companies and radiological equipment manufacturers become. More cancer means more profit, and more profit means more influence in Washington. And that explains why nobody in Washington seems to express any interest whatsoever in actually preventing cancer in this country. (Trying to get lawmakers to pass a cancer prevention bill is about as useless as trying to get them to pay off the national debt and balance the federal budget.)With the cancer industry, the entire focus is on "screening" and "treatment." Those terms can be more accurately translated into "recruiting" and "profit-taking." Screening is simply a way to recruit patients into a highly profitable assembly line of cancer treatments which offer no cures and no prevention, only the "management" of the disease so that the maximum profits can be extracted from the patient without actually eliminating their disease. It's quite a clever scam, and it explains why screening is so often offered for free: It's just like a crack dealer offering a free hit, but only once. After you're hooked, you gotta pay.The cancer industry tries to promote this "recruiting & profit-taking" propaganda through lies like, "Early detection saves lives." Oh really? Actually, early detection generates more profits, since 9 out of 10 "early detection" positives are, in fact, completely bogus. The cancer detection technology today is so incredibly advanced that it can even detect cancers that aren't there! (And then the patient is urged to undergo chemotherapy "just in case.")
Prevention is the only real solutionThe only way out of this cancer madness is through prevention. As Dr. Cedric Garland, professor at University of California, San Diego, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine and Moores Cancer Center said about Canada's decision, "I think this is an important and historic step in the right direction. I think it will offer leadership in the world... as Canada will be the first country in the world to adopt this public health recommendation... Over time, this finding has the potential of eliminating a quarter of a million cases of cancer in North America annually and about 100,000 deaths from cancer annually."The U.S., of course, will likely be the last modern nation to reluctantly admit that cancer can be prevented with vitamin D. That's because the U.S. is "profit central" for the disease industry that preys upon cancer victims and, in fact, encourages cancer by actively preventing cancer prevention. To learn more, click here to see my previous article on the cancer industry and vitamin D.The U.S. government has no interested in protecting its citizens from disease. Rather, the government actually conspires with pharmaceutical companies and non-profit disease groups to keep the American public in a state of chronic disease through nutritional deficiencies, exposure to toxic chemicals and side effects of pharmaceuticals. And it's working! The U.S. is the most diseased nation in the world, sporting higher rates of degenerative disease (cancer, diabetes, heart disease, depression and obesity, combined) than any other nation. On top of that -- get this -- we pay the highest health care costs in the world!All that money apparently isn't doing any good. Meanwhile, free cures for cancer are available right now in the form of natural sunlight. Nearly-free prevention methods are well documented and include nutritional supplementation with vitamin D. We know how to prevent cancer, it's just that the corrupt politicians and dirty non-profits in charge of this country won't allow the disease to be prevented at all. There's too much money to be made in treating cancer, and there's no incentive whatsoever to teach the public how to prevent cancer and avoid becoming cancer patients.
The curtain is closing on America's futureAmerica is a public health disaster. And it's going to pay the ultimate price: As I've stated before, I believe that health care costs and the mass poisoning of the American people will ultimately cause this nation to self destruct. The "America experiment" is nearly over, and when the whole giant mass of disease and debt collapses, we're going to be left with a nation of mutant humans hopped up on pharmaceuticals... infertile, mentally impaired, emotionally imbalanced and nutritionally devastated.We have very nearly lost the battle for the future of this country. The next generation of Americans is already being raised on junk foods, dosed on Ritalin, injected with mercury vaccines, coated in toxic sunscreen chemicals and taught a lifestyle of debt, over-consumption and use of natural resources that simply cannot be sustained for even one more generation. When reality hits the fan, these kids are going to be shocked beyond belief. They have no clue of the tidal wave of poverty, misery and destruction headed their way, courtesy of the extremely corrupt political leaders who have sold out the future of this country in order to win their next election.Cancer is one area where the science clearly and inarguably shows how we could save trillions of dollars and millions of lives over the next century. Here's a segment repeated from my previous story on vitamin D. It's important. Soak this in:Did you know that reducing the cancer death rate by just 1% would be worth almost $500 billion to the U.S. economy over the next hundred years or so? (Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.) Drop the cancer rate by 10% and it's worth $5 trillion dollars to the economy. These gains are due to increased productivity and life spans of working, contributing people.We know right now that vitamin D and calcium can slash cancer rates by 77 percent. Do the math on that, and you realize that sunlight and calcium could result in a $38.5 trillion boost to the U.S. economy over the next century.That's enough economic productivity to pay off our entire national debt, build new schools in every town and city in the country, provide free college educations to all young people who wish to go to college, invest billions in new energy technologies and even fund massive health education campaigns to keep our population healthy. With that kind of increased abundance, we could build a whole new society of health, wealth and education.That's the future being denied by the cancer industry today. They have sold out our future in a desperate grab for next quarter's profits. They're not interested in the future of America, or the health of future generations or even the pain and suffering of people battling cancer right now. They're only interested in one thing: Power. Power over people and money. And the more cancer that exists in the world, the more power they have. Cancer prevention is a threat to the cancer industry, pure and simple. And yet, at the same time, the cancer industry is a threat to America's future. We cannot save this nation from self destruction if half our population is dying from cancer. (That statement should seem obvious, but it's way over the head of just about every politician in Washington these days.)
Action itemsHere's what you do:1) Get natural sunlight on your skin as often as you can. The darker your skin, the more sunlight you need. Read our free report on sunlight and vitamin D for more detailed tips.2) Never, ever submit to chemotherapy or radiation. These procedures cause severe harm and can ultimately kill you. Seek naturopathic cancer therapies only. Don't submit to mammograms, either, since they actually cause cancer!3) Don't ever give financial support to prominent cancer non-profits, which are almost universally allied with drug companies and radiology equipment manufacturers.4) Don't get suckered into visiting an oncologist. Using fear, intimidation and authority, they will lure you into an extremely harmful system of treatments that are dangerous to human health. Instead, visit naturopathic physicians only (N.D.).5) Prevent cancer in your own life by getting sunlight, eating lots of raw, fresh produce, taking superfood supplements (like spirulina, green tea and rainforest herbs) and engaging in regular exercise. Two of the best anti-cancer supplements I know of are Blood Support from www.BaselineNutritionals.com and Arcozon from the Amazon Herb Company: www.amazondreams.amazonherb.net (Note: I have absolutely no financial interest in any products mentioned in this article)6) Avoid all cancer-causing food ingredients (like sodium nitrite), cosmetics (all popular brands), personal care products, home cleaning products, cigarettes, etc. Nearly everyone who has cancer gave it to themselves! You can avoid that by avoiding the things that promote cancer (like hair coloring chemicals, nail polish, chlorine pools, etc.)7) Educate yourself. The more ignorant you remain of cancer, the more easily the cancer industry can manipulate you and seduce you into their system of harmful treatments. By teaching yourself the truth about cancer prevention, you'll avoid being exploited by an oncologist.Finally, I'd like you to know that among the well informed natural health practitioners, cancer is considered as easily curable disease in stages 1 - 3. (Only late-stage cancer is challenging.) One alternative cancer doc I know of describes cancer as, "More easily curable than the common cold." He has helped thousands cure cancer. Curing cancer is incredibly easy when you use natural medicine and make radical changes to your diet and lifestyle. Conventional medicine, however, is clueless, and conventional therapies like chemotherapy actually make the patient weaker and more susceptible to cancer. Once you undergo chemotherapy, all bets are off. Your immune system is severely compromised. So in my opinion, avoiding chemotherapy is essential to curing cancer.And don't think you can "play it safe" and do both chemotherapy and natural medicine. You have to make a choice: Death or life. If you want death, go with chemotherapy. It's known as "legalized euthanasia" in medical circles. But if you want to live, go with natural medicine.
There's really no such thing as "cancer"Remember this: I've had cancer a thousand times in my life already. So have you. We beat it automatically, unknowingly, routinely... with a functioning immune system and a little help from nature's medicines (found in foods and botanicals). Every person gets cancerous cells in their body, no exceptions. So don't be scared by talk that you've "GOT cancer." There is actually no such thing as a "cancer" disease. It's simply a name that doctors have given to observable symptoms that they can make money treating. A cancer tumor is not a disease, it is a symptom of a severe metabolic or immunological imbalance. You can't cure cancer by removing the symptom, you can only cure it by rebalancing the body and activating the body's own natural anti-cancer defenses.Preventing cancer is child's play. It's so simple that it should be taught in the first grade. And yet the whole subject mystifies all the cancer doctors and researchers who remain stuck in the upside-down universe of chemical treatments and medical reductionism. It's amazing how people who are so smart can ultimately act so stupid. But it just goes to show you: Being book smart doesn't necessarily help you in the real world. I'd rather be "sun smart" and soak up some healthy rays while the pale-skinned genius cancer docs are choking down chemo drugs and trying to figure out why they're all so diseased.Some folks just don't get it. You won't find answers in that microscope, my friends. Back away from the technical gear and start to look at the big picture: The human experience, the planet, the universe... nature! This is where the answers are found, on the macroscopic scale, not the microscopic. Mark my words: Cancer will never be cured chemically. It can only be prevented and overcome holistically. The massive "search for a cure" was doomed to fail from the very start, because it could not (and still cannot) view a patient from a holistic perspective.
The politics of cancer: Keep 'em sick!As usual, America's abandonment of the world's best natural anti-cancer medicine has nothing at all to do with science, but everything to do with politics and profits. If vitamin D were a cancer drug made by Pfizer, the American Cancer Society would likely be pushing it as the next "miracle" drug and calling for everyone to be put on the drug. But since it's a nutrient that cannot be patented, and can actually be manufactured for free by exposing your skin to natural sunlight, the entire U.S. cancer industry now laughingly pretends that vitamin D supplementation offers no benefits.Each day that the American Cancer Society, the AMA, the FDA and others in conventional medicine refuse to acknowledge the benefits of vitamin D supplements for preventing cancer, they lose yet more credibility and slip one step closer towards global humiliation and irrelevance. It is difficult to imagine how anyone from conventional medicine can show up at a health event and say, with a straight face, that they're doing everything they can to fight cancer when in reality they are willfully ignoring a prevention medicine that really works: Vitamin D. It's simple, safe and virtually free, and it has no negative side effects, requires no patent royalties, and is available right now to everyone.If there were ever a cancer prevention strategy to get behind, this is it! The people in the cancer industry, if they had any sense, should be leaping out of their chairs, fumbling over each other in a mad rush to the press conference podium to announce their support for vitamin D. And yet what do we hear in the United States? Complete apathy. It's as if these people somehow believe that a vitamin manufactured by the human body itself has no role in human nutrition. The depth of blind ignorance at work here is mind boggling. Someone should actually start a psychological study of the people in the cancer industry to figure out how their minds can work that way. It should be called, "The Madness of Crowds and the Illusion of Cancer Treatments in Western Medicine."To not get behind vitamin D is to miss the cancer prevention opportunity of a lifetime. Imagine: For every 100 women that will someday get breast cancer, more than 75 of them could entirely avoid breast cancer through the use of vitamin D. That's 75 women out of 100 who could have their health (and their lives) given back to them through a nutrient that is essentially free. (Add in green tea and some rainforest herbs, and this number leaps to around 90 percent, by the way.) Why wouldn't everyone in the cancer industry want to save 75% of these women from breast cancer?I'll tell you why, and you won't like the answer. It's because the cancer industry depends on all 100 of those women being diagnosed with cancer and treated with profitable cancer "management" protocols like chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. Preventing cancer in 75 percent of women (or more) would deny the cancer industry three-fourths of its revenue. It would shrink the industry, reduce funding, and result in a mass exodus of cancer jobs. Donations would dry up and cancer non-profits (which thrive on the continuation of cancer) would lose big. This is why they won't support cancer prevention that really works. Preventing cancer is simply not in the self interest of the cancer industry. Prevention is bad for business.
When will America show interest in cancer prevention?Canada, not surprisingly, is a little quicker to catch on to the enormous benefits of vitamin D in preventing cancer. "We are monitoring the evidence and believe there is a real role for vitamin D to reduce our risk for cancer and so far there are very few side effects," the Cancer Society's Heather Logan said in a CTV News report. Actually, there are side effects: Reduced risk of diabetes, obesity, depression, mental disorders and all sorts of cancers. Vitamin D is the miracle medicine the cancer industry claims it's searching for when it asks you to donate for those "run for the cure" events. But the cure already exists, and it's available for free.When it comes to the cancer industry, Canada is the first western nation to stand up and say, "The Emperor has no clothes!" It makes you wonder how long it's going to take before America will finally stop supporting the cancer industry at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives each year and, instead, start getting serious about cancer prevention. How many Americans have to die before the criminally-operated U.S. cancer industry will be forced to let go of its stranglehold over the American public and finally acknowledge that we can slash national cancer rates by nearly 80% right now by urging people to get more sunlight and vitamin D?Corporations and governments, of course, view lives as expendable. Encouraging sickness, disease and cancer is a high priority to those who profit from such sickness. And if a few hundred thousand Americans have to die in order to meet next quarter's corporate profits, then so be it. Americans are expendable. Lives are cheap. They're so cheap, in fact, that most of the people living in America today take no steps to protect themselves against cancer. I guess some corporations figure, hey, if the people are willingly giving themselves cancer through their foods, cigarettes, toxic cosmetics and chemical exposures, then why should we stop them?
Screening and treatment = Recruiting and profit-takingThe more cancer there is, the richer the drug companies and radiological equipment manufacturers become. More cancer means more profit, and more profit means more influence in Washington. And that explains why nobody in Washington seems to express any interest whatsoever in actually preventing cancer in this country. (Trying to get lawmakers to pass a cancer prevention bill is about as useless as trying to get them to pay off the national debt and balance the federal budget.)With the cancer industry, the entire focus is on "screening" and "treatment." Those terms can be more accurately translated into "recruiting" and "profit-taking." Screening is simply a way to recruit patients into a highly profitable assembly line of cancer treatments which offer no cures and no prevention, only the "management" of the disease so that the maximum profits can be extracted from the patient without actually eliminating their disease. It's quite a clever scam, and it explains why screening is so often offered for free: It's just like a crack dealer offering a free hit, but only once. After you're hooked, you gotta pay.The cancer industry tries to promote this "recruiting & profit-taking" propaganda through lies like, "Early detection saves lives." Oh really? Actually, early detection generates more profits, since 9 out of 10 "early detection" positives are, in fact, completely bogus. The cancer detection technology today is so incredibly advanced that it can even detect cancers that aren't there! (And then the patient is urged to undergo chemotherapy "just in case.")
Prevention is the only real solutionThe only way out of this cancer madness is through prevention. As Dr. Cedric Garland, professor at University of California, San Diego, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine and Moores Cancer Center said about Canada's decision, "I think this is an important and historic step in the right direction. I think it will offer leadership in the world... as Canada will be the first country in the world to adopt this public health recommendation... Over time, this finding has the potential of eliminating a quarter of a million cases of cancer in North America annually and about 100,000 deaths from cancer annually."The U.S., of course, will likely be the last modern nation to reluctantly admit that cancer can be prevented with vitamin D. That's because the U.S. is "profit central" for the disease industry that preys upon cancer victims and, in fact, encourages cancer by actively preventing cancer prevention. To learn more, click here to see my previous article on the cancer industry and vitamin D.The U.S. government has no interested in protecting its citizens from disease. Rather, the government actually conspires with pharmaceutical companies and non-profit disease groups to keep the American public in a state of chronic disease through nutritional deficiencies, exposure to toxic chemicals and side effects of pharmaceuticals. And it's working! The U.S. is the most diseased nation in the world, sporting higher rates of degenerative disease (cancer, diabetes, heart disease, depression and obesity, combined) than any other nation. On top of that -- get this -- we pay the highest health care costs in the world!All that money apparently isn't doing any good. Meanwhile, free cures for cancer are available right now in the form of natural sunlight. Nearly-free prevention methods are well documented and include nutritional supplementation with vitamin D. We know how to prevent cancer, it's just that the corrupt politicians and dirty non-profits in charge of this country won't allow the disease to be prevented at all. There's too much money to be made in treating cancer, and there's no incentive whatsoever to teach the public how to prevent cancer and avoid becoming cancer patients.
The curtain is closing on America's futureAmerica is a public health disaster. And it's going to pay the ultimate price: As I've stated before, I believe that health care costs and the mass poisoning of the American people will ultimately cause this nation to self destruct. The "America experiment" is nearly over, and when the whole giant mass of disease and debt collapses, we're going to be left with a nation of mutant humans hopped up on pharmaceuticals... infertile, mentally impaired, emotionally imbalanced and nutritionally devastated.We have very nearly lost the battle for the future of this country. The next generation of Americans is already being raised on junk foods, dosed on Ritalin, injected with mercury vaccines, coated in toxic sunscreen chemicals and taught a lifestyle of debt, over-consumption and use of natural resources that simply cannot be sustained for even one more generation. When reality hits the fan, these kids are going to be shocked beyond belief. They have no clue of the tidal wave of poverty, misery and destruction headed their way, courtesy of the extremely corrupt political leaders who have sold out the future of this country in order to win their next election.Cancer is one area where the science clearly and inarguably shows how we could save trillions of dollars and millions of lives over the next century. Here's a segment repeated from my previous story on vitamin D. It's important. Soak this in:Did you know that reducing the cancer death rate by just 1% would be worth almost $500 billion to the U.S. economy over the next hundred years or so? (Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.) Drop the cancer rate by 10% and it's worth $5 trillion dollars to the economy. These gains are due to increased productivity and life spans of working, contributing people.We know right now that vitamin D and calcium can slash cancer rates by 77 percent. Do the math on that, and you realize that sunlight and calcium could result in a $38.5 trillion boost to the U.S. economy over the next century.That's enough economic productivity to pay off our entire national debt, build new schools in every town and city in the country, provide free college educations to all young people who wish to go to college, invest billions in new energy technologies and even fund massive health education campaigns to keep our population healthy. With that kind of increased abundance, we could build a whole new society of health, wealth and education.That's the future being denied by the cancer industry today. They have sold out our future in a desperate grab for next quarter's profits. They're not interested in the future of America, or the health of future generations or even the pain and suffering of people battling cancer right now. They're only interested in one thing: Power. Power over people and money. And the more cancer that exists in the world, the more power they have. Cancer prevention is a threat to the cancer industry, pure and simple. And yet, at the same time, the cancer industry is a threat to America's future. We cannot save this nation from self destruction if half our population is dying from cancer. (That statement should seem obvious, but it's way over the head of just about every politician in Washington these days.)
Action itemsHere's what you do:1) Get natural sunlight on your skin as often as you can. The darker your skin, the more sunlight you need. Read our free report on sunlight and vitamin D for more detailed tips.2) Never, ever submit to chemotherapy or radiation. These procedures cause severe harm and can ultimately kill you. Seek naturopathic cancer therapies only. Don't submit to mammograms, either, since they actually cause cancer!3) Don't ever give financial support to prominent cancer non-profits, which are almost universally allied with drug companies and radiology equipment manufacturers.4) Don't get suckered into visiting an oncologist. Using fear, intimidation and authority, they will lure you into an extremely harmful system of treatments that are dangerous to human health. Instead, visit naturopathic physicians only (N.D.).5) Prevent cancer in your own life by getting sunlight, eating lots of raw, fresh produce, taking superfood supplements (like spirulina, green tea and rainforest herbs) and engaging in regular exercise. Two of the best anti-cancer supplements I know of are Blood Support from www.BaselineNutritionals.com and Arcozon from the Amazon Herb Company: www.amazondreams.amazonherb.net (Note: I have absolutely no financial interest in any products mentioned in this article)6) Avoid all cancer-causing food ingredients (like sodium nitrite), cosmetics (all popular brands), personal care products, home cleaning products, cigarettes, etc. Nearly everyone who has cancer gave it to themselves! You can avoid that by avoiding the things that promote cancer (like hair coloring chemicals, nail polish, chlorine pools, etc.)7) Educate yourself. The more ignorant you remain of cancer, the more easily the cancer industry can manipulate you and seduce you into their system of harmful treatments. By teaching yourself the truth about cancer prevention, you'll avoid being exploited by an oncologist.Finally, I'd like you to know that among the well informed natural health practitioners, cancer is considered as easily curable disease in stages 1 - 3. (Only late-stage cancer is challenging.) One alternative cancer doc I know of describes cancer as, "More easily curable than the common cold." He has helped thousands cure cancer. Curing cancer is incredibly easy when you use natural medicine and make radical changes to your diet and lifestyle. Conventional medicine, however, is clueless, and conventional therapies like chemotherapy actually make the patient weaker and more susceptible to cancer. Once you undergo chemotherapy, all bets are off. Your immune system is severely compromised. So in my opinion, avoiding chemotherapy is essential to curing cancer.And don't think you can "play it safe" and do both chemotherapy and natural medicine. You have to make a choice: Death or life. If you want death, go with chemotherapy. It's known as "legalized euthanasia" in medical circles. But if you want to live, go with natural medicine.
There's really no such thing as "cancer"Remember this: I've had cancer a thousand times in my life already. So have you. We beat it automatically, unknowingly, routinely... with a functioning immune system and a little help from nature's medicines (found in foods and botanicals). Every person gets cancerous cells in their body, no exceptions. So don't be scared by talk that you've "GOT cancer." There is actually no such thing as a "cancer" disease. It's simply a name that doctors have given to observable symptoms that they can make money treating. A cancer tumor is not a disease, it is a symptom of a severe metabolic or immunological imbalance. You can't cure cancer by removing the symptom, you can only cure it by rebalancing the body and activating the body's own natural anti-cancer defenses.Preventing cancer is child's play. It's so simple that it should be taught in the first grade. And yet the whole subject mystifies all the cancer doctors and researchers who remain stuck in the upside-down universe of chemical treatments and medical reductionism. It's amazing how people who are so smart can ultimately act so stupid. But it just goes to show you: Being book smart doesn't necessarily help you in the real world. I'd rather be "sun smart" and soak up some healthy rays while the pale-skinned genius cancer docs are choking down chemo drugs and trying to figure out why they're all so diseased.Some folks just don't get it. You won't find answers in that microscope, my friends. Back away from the technical gear and start to look at the big picture: The human experience, the planet, the universe... nature! This is where the answers are found, on the macroscopic scale, not the microscopic. Mark my words: Cancer will never be cured chemically. It can only be prevented and overcome holistically. The massive "search for a cure" was doomed to fail from the very start, because it could not (and still cannot) view a patient from a holistic perspective.
Aspartame found to cause breast cancer, leukemia and lymphomas in latest animal experiments
A new study on aspartame conducted by the Ramazzini Foundation reveals that aspartame causes a dose-dependent increase in cancers (lymphomas, leukemias and breast cancers) when consumed at levels approaching those consumed by humans in diet soft drinks. Specifically, the study shows (reprinted from the abstract):a) a significant dose-related increase of malignant tumor-bearing animals in males, in particular in the group treated at 2000 ppm; b) a significant increase of the incidence in lymphomas/leukemias in males treated at 2000 ppm and a significant dose-related increase of the incidence of lymphomas/leukemias in females, in particular in the group treated at 2000 ppm; c) a significant dose-related increase of the incidence of mammary cancer in females, in particular in the group treated at 2000 ppm. Conclusions. The results of this carcinogenicity bioassay not only confirm, but also reinforce the first experimental demonstration of [aspartame's] multipotential carcinogenicity at a dose level close to the acceptable daily intake (ADI) for humans. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that when lifespan exposure to [aspartame] begins during fetal life, its carcinogenic effects are increased.The study, entitled "Lifespan Exposure to Low Doses of Aspartame Beginning During Prenatal Life Increases Cancer Effects in Rats" has been accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), the most widely-read environmental science journal in the world.This is the second study conducted by the Ramizzini Foundation documenting the cancer-causing effects of aspartame in animals. Most sane people, when faced with such evidence, would ask the obvious questions: Could aspartame also cause cancer in humans? Should we review the safety of aspartame just in case?
Shutting down good science to protect profitsVirtually the entire health and medical system in the United States is not interested in these questions. Following the publication of this study, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a statement flatly denying aspartame poses any safety risk whatsoever, rejecting the idea that its safety or approval as a food ingredient should be reviewed at all. Specifically, FDA spokesperson Michael Herndon said, "...the FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food."In other words, the FDA is not interested in any new science that might challenge a decision it already made. Long live scientific-sounding dogma!As reported by the CSPI in a recent press release, According to a 1996 report in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the FDA rejected repeated proposals by NIEHS to test aspartame using more modern methods than were originally used. David Rall, the former director of NIEHS and its National Toxicology Program, said, "any compound that is that widely used needs to be retested with modern methods every once in a while." The State of California, too, has urged new testing of aspartame. The FDA also rejected NIEHS's proposal to test acesulfame potassium, which CSPI says was "abysmally tested" by its manufacturer and showed signs of causing cancer in animals.Clearly, the FDA only hears what it wants to hear when it comes to protecting the highly profitable aspartame market. Those who have studied a bit of aspartame history know that aspartame was pushed through the FDA by none other than Donald Rumsfeld. Click here to read more articles on aspartame and its dubious history. Since the very beginning, the FDA has done everything in its power to protect the aspartame industry, including denying approval for the natural herbal sweetener stevia as a way to suppress the competition and protect the market for corporate-manufactured chemical sweeteners like aspartame.
CSPI urges re-evaluation of aspartame safetyThis latest study on aspartame and cancer caused the CSPI to issue a public press release calling for the FDA to review the study to determine whether aspartame is really safe. CSPI also downgraded its rating on aspartame and is now recommending that everyone should avoid using aspartame.(For the record, I've been recommending people avoid aspartame since I first began writing about nutrition. The toxicity of this chemical sweetener was obvious to me, and in my opinion there is no safe dose of a substance that breaks down into formaldehyde in the human body. In my view, aspartame is an obvious neurotoxin, not to mention its cancer-promoting effects. No one should consume it, and children or expectant mothers should avoid it like a poison.)Also reported by CSPI: Among those who today called on FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach to review the new aspartame study are former Occupational Safety and Health Administration officials John Froines (now at UCLA) and Peter F. Infante (now at George Washington University); James Huff, current Associate Director for Chemical Carcinogenesis at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS); and Kamal M. Abdo, a toxicologist formerly at the National Toxicology Program of the NIEHS.
Let's poison America!With its stubborn refusal to even review the safety record on aspartame, the FDA seems to be shouting out loud, "Let's poison America!" Of course, the FDA has no intention of initiating anything resembling real scientific scrutiny on aspartame because aspartame was never proven safe in the first place! It was force-fed through the FDA's approval process based purely on distorted, junk science constructed to win approval for a chemical that would earn billions of dollars for powerful corporations (and the powerful, evil bastards who run them).And ever since, aspartame has been poisoning Americans each and every day, contributing to seizures, blindness, migraine headaches, vision problems, neurological disorders and possibly even cancers. The fact that no health authority in America is interested in taking a new look at the safety of aspartame is nothing short of astonishing. That is, until you consider the fact that most medical authorities suffer from a severe case of Groupthink and posses no ideas other than the ones spoonfed them by their politically-motivated bosses. It takes real courage to break with the herd and actually state the obvious these days. Most people are satisfied just to go along with whatever the masses say, even if it makes no sense.Some people call this refusal by the FDA to review aspartame's safety an "oversight" or "mistake" on the part of the agency. Who are they kidding? I call it a crime against the People of America, because to knowingly allow a dangerous, cancer-causing, nerve-damaging chemical to be used in the national food supply -- even while receiving tens of thousands of health complaints from the people consuming aspartame -- is nothing less than negligent homicide. It's a felony, and those responsible for allowing this poison to contaminate America's food supply are, indeed, unindicted felons who deserve to be arrested and prosecuted for their crimes. (A fitting punishment, as always, would be to force-feed them high doses of aspartame and see what happens. If it's really as safe as they claim, there's no harm, is there?)Anybody with a brain that still functions in this country -- and I admit that number is shrinking by the hour -- knows that all the pro-aspartame studies upon which the FDA based its previous safety approval were partially or fully funded by the corporations making money from the sale of aspartame. The entire history of aspartame boils down to corruption, influence and profit-mongering.
Shutting down good science to protect profitsVirtually the entire health and medical system in the United States is not interested in these questions. Following the publication of this study, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a statement flatly denying aspartame poses any safety risk whatsoever, rejecting the idea that its safety or approval as a food ingredient should be reviewed at all. Specifically, FDA spokesperson Michael Herndon said, "...the FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food."In other words, the FDA is not interested in any new science that might challenge a decision it already made. Long live scientific-sounding dogma!As reported by the CSPI in a recent press release, According to a 1996 report in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the FDA rejected repeated proposals by NIEHS to test aspartame using more modern methods than were originally used. David Rall, the former director of NIEHS and its National Toxicology Program, said, "any compound that is that widely used needs to be retested with modern methods every once in a while." The State of California, too, has urged new testing of aspartame. The FDA also rejected NIEHS's proposal to test acesulfame potassium, which CSPI says was "abysmally tested" by its manufacturer and showed signs of causing cancer in animals.Clearly, the FDA only hears what it wants to hear when it comes to protecting the highly profitable aspartame market. Those who have studied a bit of aspartame history know that aspartame was pushed through the FDA by none other than Donald Rumsfeld. Click here to read more articles on aspartame and its dubious history. Since the very beginning, the FDA has done everything in its power to protect the aspartame industry, including denying approval for the natural herbal sweetener stevia as a way to suppress the competition and protect the market for corporate-manufactured chemical sweeteners like aspartame.
CSPI urges re-evaluation of aspartame safetyThis latest study on aspartame and cancer caused the CSPI to issue a public press release calling for the FDA to review the study to determine whether aspartame is really safe. CSPI also downgraded its rating on aspartame and is now recommending that everyone should avoid using aspartame.(For the record, I've been recommending people avoid aspartame since I first began writing about nutrition. The toxicity of this chemical sweetener was obvious to me, and in my opinion there is no safe dose of a substance that breaks down into formaldehyde in the human body. In my view, aspartame is an obvious neurotoxin, not to mention its cancer-promoting effects. No one should consume it, and children or expectant mothers should avoid it like a poison.)Also reported by CSPI: Among those who today called on FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach to review the new aspartame study are former Occupational Safety and Health Administration officials John Froines (now at UCLA) and Peter F. Infante (now at George Washington University); James Huff, current Associate Director for Chemical Carcinogenesis at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS); and Kamal M. Abdo, a toxicologist formerly at the National Toxicology Program of the NIEHS.
Let's poison America!With its stubborn refusal to even review the safety record on aspartame, the FDA seems to be shouting out loud, "Let's poison America!" Of course, the FDA has no intention of initiating anything resembling real scientific scrutiny on aspartame because aspartame was never proven safe in the first place! It was force-fed through the FDA's approval process based purely on distorted, junk science constructed to win approval for a chemical that would earn billions of dollars for powerful corporations (and the powerful, evil bastards who run them).And ever since, aspartame has been poisoning Americans each and every day, contributing to seizures, blindness, migraine headaches, vision problems, neurological disorders and possibly even cancers. The fact that no health authority in America is interested in taking a new look at the safety of aspartame is nothing short of astonishing. That is, until you consider the fact that most medical authorities suffer from a severe case of Groupthink and posses no ideas other than the ones spoonfed them by their politically-motivated bosses. It takes real courage to break with the herd and actually state the obvious these days. Most people are satisfied just to go along with whatever the masses say, even if it makes no sense.Some people call this refusal by the FDA to review aspartame's safety an "oversight" or "mistake" on the part of the agency. Who are they kidding? I call it a crime against the People of America, because to knowingly allow a dangerous, cancer-causing, nerve-damaging chemical to be used in the national food supply -- even while receiving tens of thousands of health complaints from the people consuming aspartame -- is nothing less than negligent homicide. It's a felony, and those responsible for allowing this poison to contaminate America's food supply are, indeed, unindicted felons who deserve to be arrested and prosecuted for their crimes. (A fitting punishment, as always, would be to force-feed them high doses of aspartame and see what happens. If it's really as safe as they claim, there's no harm, is there?)Anybody with a brain that still functions in this country -- and I admit that number is shrinking by the hour -- knows that all the pro-aspartame studies upon which the FDA based its previous safety approval were partially or fully funded by the corporations making money from the sale of aspartame. The entire history of aspartame boils down to corruption, influence and profit-mongering.
Eating blueberries slashes colon cancer risk by 57 percent, animal study finds
A compound found in blueberries shows promise of preventing colon cancer, according to a new study. Scientists at Rutgers University and the U.S. Department of Agriculture conducted a joint study on animals, and found that the compound -- called pterostilbene -- lessened pre-cancerous lesions and inhibited genes involved in inflammation. Researchers presented the study at the American Chemical Society's annual meeting in March. "This study underscores the need to include more berries in the diet, especially blueberries," said study leader Bandaru Reddy, Ph.D., a professor in the chemical biology department at Rutgers. Although the blueberry compound won't cure colon cancer, it represents a strategy for preventing the disease naturally, said Reddy, who specializes in studying the relationship between nutrition and colon cancer.The researchers studied 18 rats in which colon cancer had been induced in a manner similar to human colon cancer development. All of the animals were placed on a balanced diet, with half of the animals' diets supplemented with pterostilbene. After eight weeks, the rats fed pterostilbene had 57 percent fewer pre-cancerous colon lesions compared to the control group. The researchers also noted that pterostilbene inhibited certain genes involved in inflammation, considered a colon cancer risk factor. Colon cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the U.S. It has been linked to a high intake of saturated fats and calories common in Western diets. Pterostilbene may be able to reverse this process, possibly by lowering lipids, Reddy said. Reddy cited a recent study by co-author Agnes Rimando of the Department of Agriculture. Rimando demonstrated that blueberries, particularly their skins, can lower cholesterol when fed to animals. Some thirty different species of blueberries are native to North America. The berries are rich in anthocyanins, widely recognized for their antioxidant qualities. Blueberries are also a good source of ellagic acid, which blocks metabolic pathways that can lead to cancer.
Absurd vaccine marketing calls for cervical cancer vaccinations for young boys!
The headline for this story is not a typo. The push to sell more vaccines and pharmaceuticals has now reached a level of absurdity that should astonish any intelligent person. The mainstream media is now reporting -- and I'm not kidding -- that young boys should be vaccinated with Gardasil (the drug now being pushed onto teenage girls to supposedly prevent cervical cancer) based on the idea that if they have oral sex with girls who carry HPV, they might get throat cancer!This is an incredible stretch of scientific credibility, and it's such a preposterous marketing campaign that only Big Pharma could have come up with it. It's obviously nothing more than a massive scare campaign to try to dream up some way to market this high-profit vaccine to a whole new group of customers who don't need it: teenage boys!Even the idea of mandatory vaccinations for teenage girls is little more than desperate disease mongering designed to sell vaccines. Carrying HPV doesn't automatically lead to cervical cancer any more than carrying chicken pox turns you into a walking biological weapon. Most people who carry the virus show no symptoms at all, and girls with healthy immune systems and healthy lifestyles (diet, nutrition, etc.) have a near-zero risk of ever developing cervical cancer, even if they're exposed to HPV on a repeated basis. The virus isn't the disease: It's the terrain of the person carrying the virus! If they're unhealthy and vulnerable, then of course they're not going to be able to keep the virus in check.We don't live in a sterile world, after all. There are more bacteria cells in your body right now than human cells, and we're surrounded by viruses, fungi and other germs. The whole idea of vaccinating against one particular strain that might someday, possibly, perhaps cause a problem if you have sex is just medical nonsense.But vaccinating young boys is an even dumber idea. It's so stupid that I can't find the words to even describe how low on the IQ chart these drug marketing "experts" must be to come up with this one. They must think the public is so gullible that they can just make up any sex-related story and use it to sell drugs. Next, we'll be hearing about young boys giving themselves HPV through masturbation! And the cries for vaccinating all young boys will be something along the lines of, "If you masturbate, VACCINATE!"Sadly, most consumers are so ignorant about reproductive health and germs in general that they'd probably buy into it. And if that campaign is successful, they'll go for the ultimate stupid scare tactic: The Doorknob Campaign (keep reading, if you dare...).
Warning: Doorknobs can give you cancerHere's how this campaign works. (Warning: This contains some graphic language, but it's the only way I can accurately describe just how stupid these vaccination scare tactics have become. If you're offended by certain words, you probably shouldn't be reading anything on this website in the first place...) To pull this off, the drug companies start floating scare stories about how anyone can get cancer by touching doorknobs. How? Because you never know when some HPV carrying person might have touched a doorknob after touching themselves. Therefore, doorknobs can give you sexually transmitted diseases, and if you happen to touch yourself after touching the doorknob, then -- watch out! -- suddenly you're going to die from cervical cancer, throat cancer, crotch cancer or whatever other fear mongering diseases they can dream up. Doorknobs are dangerous, didn't you know?The only way to protect yourself from these germified doorknobs is to get a vaccine. And since doorknobs are everywhere, everybody should get the vaccine! This includes children, teens, adults and senior citizens. It's a brilliant way to sell hundreds of millions of doses of a dangerous injected substance that nobody actually needs, and it's all made possible by the doorknob scare campaign! (And if doorknobs aren't convincing enough, they can start scare stories about public toilet seats instead.)
Drug companies have turned the United States into a nation of hypochondriacsIf they can convince parents that their male children need to be vaccinated against a virus linked to cervical cancer, I suppose they can sell just about anything to anyone. What's next? Are they going to demand that all girls be vaccinated against prostate cancer just in case they engage in oral sex with men who have enlarged prostate glands? Yes, this sounds stupid. It IS stupid. And yet it's not too stupid to be embraced by Big Pharma.Remember, Big Pharma is the same industry that has essentially declared womanhood to be a disease. They have a pill that stops all menstruation -- for life, and the marketing materials imply that a woman having a monthly period is some sort of disorder that needs to be halted to live a normal, happy life. It won't be long before they've got women scared half to death about simply being a woman! (Notice, too, that conventional medicine is dominated by males who all too easily declare various female experiences to be "diseases" or "disorders.")Big Pharma's primary weapon in promoting these silly scare stories is the mainstream media. All they have to do is start floating stories about how dangerous oral sex can be, and then once everybody is scared half to death of oral sex, they can float the "solution" as yet another vaccine.
Inventing the problem, then marketing the "solution"Did you ever notice how the press never even talked about Restless Legs Syndrome until the drug companies had a new pharmaceutical for sale that claimed to treat the condition? The press sets up the fear campaigns for one fictitious disease after another, and then Big Pharma just happens to introduce a new high-profit chemical that treats the disease. In this latest example, the press has been floating stories about the dangers of oral sex for several days, and then -- whammo! -- a story magically appears about vaccinating young boys to protect them from the dangers of oral sex.You have to understand that almost nothing appears in the mainstream media without an agenda. The news isn't news, it's a way of shaping public perception in order to market something: War, drugs, products, paradigms, etc. The U.S. press is a vehicle of shaping the belief systems of the public. It invents and promotes cultural fears, beliefs and perceptions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with bringing people useful news and information. Instead, it is almost entirely focused on getting people to believe what the folks in charge want them to believe.The current news about the housing bubble, for example, is all designed to delay the coming collapse of both the global real estate market and the U.S. stock market (not to mention the U.S. dollar). By shaping public perception and telling people it's only a temporary downturn in the market, they can convince enough people that we should all keep on paying sky-high prices for houses and thereby delay the inevitable real estate market collapse for a little longer.Similarly, virtually every story you read about health is designed to shape your beliefs about nutrition, pharmaceuticals, health care and the (false) causes of diseases. Stories about the genetic causes of disease, for example, are designed to strip away your power and get you to believe that you have no control over your own health. Stories about the dangers of nutritional supplements are designed to convince you to fear nutrition and trust only in pharmaceuticals. Stories about oral sex, as we've seen here, are designed to rally the nation into a state of irrational fear out of which they will react by calling for mandatory vaccinations of teenage boys.David Icke describes this as "Problem - Reaction - Solution." First, they set up the fictitious problem and scare everybody, then they wait for the public reaction (which is quite predictable and actually planned out from the beginning). Finally, they introduce the "solution" which is war, or martial law, or forced vaccinations or whatever was on their agenda in the first place. It's the way all power brokers have ever managed to get things done in a society that pretends to be free. If you want to sell useless pharmaceuticals to hundreds of millions of people who don't need them, you can't just march in and force people to buy them. That would never fly. Instead, you have to convince the people to demand the vaccinations themselves! And you do that by propagandizing scare stories like this one on the dangers of oral sex. If you scare the people enough, they'll demand that you take action, and then your "solution" looks like you're just responding to the needs of the people.Modern medicine is a hoax. It mostly comes down to brainwashing doctors, playing mind games with the public and controlling the media. Disease mongering is rampant, and drug companies are now resorting to the most absurd, ridiculous leaps of the imagination to try to convince people they need more vaccines and medications. Just five years ago, the idea that teenage boys needed to be vaccinated against a cervical cancer virus would have been considered lunacy, but today, the Big Pharma propaganda machine is pushing it with a straight facing, hoping that within a year or two, the population will be so utterly frightened over oral sex viruses that every sexually active person in the country will line up and fork over cash for their "sex vaccines."
Warning: Doorknobs can give you cancerHere's how this campaign works. (Warning: This contains some graphic language, but it's the only way I can accurately describe just how stupid these vaccination scare tactics have become. If you're offended by certain words, you probably shouldn't be reading anything on this website in the first place...) To pull this off, the drug companies start floating scare stories about how anyone can get cancer by touching doorknobs. How? Because you never know when some HPV carrying person might have touched a doorknob after touching themselves. Therefore, doorknobs can give you sexually transmitted diseases, and if you happen to touch yourself after touching the doorknob, then -- watch out! -- suddenly you're going to die from cervical cancer, throat cancer, crotch cancer or whatever other fear mongering diseases they can dream up. Doorknobs are dangerous, didn't you know?The only way to protect yourself from these germified doorknobs is to get a vaccine. And since doorknobs are everywhere, everybody should get the vaccine! This includes children, teens, adults and senior citizens. It's a brilliant way to sell hundreds of millions of doses of a dangerous injected substance that nobody actually needs, and it's all made possible by the doorknob scare campaign! (And if doorknobs aren't convincing enough, they can start scare stories about public toilet seats instead.)
Drug companies have turned the United States into a nation of hypochondriacsIf they can convince parents that their male children need to be vaccinated against a virus linked to cervical cancer, I suppose they can sell just about anything to anyone. What's next? Are they going to demand that all girls be vaccinated against prostate cancer just in case they engage in oral sex with men who have enlarged prostate glands? Yes, this sounds stupid. It IS stupid. And yet it's not too stupid to be embraced by Big Pharma.Remember, Big Pharma is the same industry that has essentially declared womanhood to be a disease. They have a pill that stops all menstruation -- for life, and the marketing materials imply that a woman having a monthly period is some sort of disorder that needs to be halted to live a normal, happy life. It won't be long before they've got women scared half to death about simply being a woman! (Notice, too, that conventional medicine is dominated by males who all too easily declare various female experiences to be "diseases" or "disorders.")Big Pharma's primary weapon in promoting these silly scare stories is the mainstream media. All they have to do is start floating stories about how dangerous oral sex can be, and then once everybody is scared half to death of oral sex, they can float the "solution" as yet another vaccine.
Inventing the problem, then marketing the "solution"Did you ever notice how the press never even talked about Restless Legs Syndrome until the drug companies had a new pharmaceutical for sale that claimed to treat the condition? The press sets up the fear campaigns for one fictitious disease after another, and then Big Pharma just happens to introduce a new high-profit chemical that treats the disease. In this latest example, the press has been floating stories about the dangers of oral sex for several days, and then -- whammo! -- a story magically appears about vaccinating young boys to protect them from the dangers of oral sex.You have to understand that almost nothing appears in the mainstream media without an agenda. The news isn't news, it's a way of shaping public perception in order to market something: War, drugs, products, paradigms, etc. The U.S. press is a vehicle of shaping the belief systems of the public. It invents and promotes cultural fears, beliefs and perceptions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with bringing people useful news and information. Instead, it is almost entirely focused on getting people to believe what the folks in charge want them to believe.The current news about the housing bubble, for example, is all designed to delay the coming collapse of both the global real estate market and the U.S. stock market (not to mention the U.S. dollar). By shaping public perception and telling people it's only a temporary downturn in the market, they can convince enough people that we should all keep on paying sky-high prices for houses and thereby delay the inevitable real estate market collapse for a little longer.Similarly, virtually every story you read about health is designed to shape your beliefs about nutrition, pharmaceuticals, health care and the (false) causes of diseases. Stories about the genetic causes of disease, for example, are designed to strip away your power and get you to believe that you have no control over your own health. Stories about the dangers of nutritional supplements are designed to convince you to fear nutrition and trust only in pharmaceuticals. Stories about oral sex, as we've seen here, are designed to rally the nation into a state of irrational fear out of which they will react by calling for mandatory vaccinations of teenage boys.David Icke describes this as "Problem - Reaction - Solution." First, they set up the fictitious problem and scare everybody, then they wait for the public reaction (which is quite predictable and actually planned out from the beginning). Finally, they introduce the "solution" which is war, or martial law, or forced vaccinations or whatever was on their agenda in the first place. It's the way all power brokers have ever managed to get things done in a society that pretends to be free. If you want to sell useless pharmaceuticals to hundreds of millions of people who don't need them, you can't just march in and force people to buy them. That would never fly. Instead, you have to convince the people to demand the vaccinations themselves! And you do that by propagandizing scare stories like this one on the dangers of oral sex. If you scare the people enough, they'll demand that you take action, and then your "solution" looks like you're just responding to the needs of the people.Modern medicine is a hoax. It mostly comes down to brainwashing doctors, playing mind games with the public and controlling the media. Disease mongering is rampant, and drug companies are now resorting to the most absurd, ridiculous leaps of the imagination to try to convince people they need more vaccines and medications. Just five years ago, the idea that teenage boys needed to be vaccinated against a cervical cancer virus would have been considered lunacy, but today, the Big Pharma propaganda machine is pushing it with a straight facing, hoping that within a year or two, the population will be so utterly frightened over oral sex viruses that every sexually active person in the country will line up and fork over cash for their "sex vaccines."
Choline in meat, dairy products linked to colon cancer risk in women
Researchers may have discovered a relationship between the risk of colorectal cancer in women and their consumption of choline, which has until now been thought to be an essential nutrient. The link was reported in a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.Choline is a nutrient found in eggs, meat (especially liver) and dairy products. It plays an important role in the functioning of cells and the distribution of nutrients through the body, including a process called one-carbon metabolism. Prior studies have shown that people with a high dietary intake of other nutrients involved in one-carbon metabolism, such as folate, have a decreased risk for colorectal polyps.Colorectal polyps are often-benign tumors that develop in the colon and can eventually lead to cancer. In the first study to examine the issue, researchers expected to find that consumption of choline, like folate, decreased a person's risk of developing colorectal polyps.To their surprise, researchers found the opposite. In a survey of 39,246 women, researchers used food-frequency questionnaires to estimate the choline contents of participants' diets. All the women had no cancer or polyps when the study began, and had at least one endoscopy between 1984 and 2002. Increased consumption of choline was found to be correlated with a higher risk of colorectal polyps."Clearly, one-carbon metabolism and its role in [cancer development] is more complicated than originally anticipated, and our understanding of the underlying mechanisms is probably incomplete," wrote Regina Ziegler and Unhee Lim, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, in an accompanying editorial.While a correlation does not necessarily mean that choline is to blame for the increased colon cancer risk, the authors speculated that it may indeed play a role."Once a tumor is initiated, growth into a detectable [polyp] depends in part on choline availability, because choline is needed to make membranes in all rapidly growing cells," they wrote.Prior studies have linked choline deficiency to fatty liver and muscle damage.
Thwarting Skin Cancer with Sun Sense
by Carolyn J. Strange
"This looks like skin cancer," the dermatologist told the woman as he examined the spot on her leg. Later, after removing the tumor and several other precancerous growths from her face and hands, he looked her in the eyes and said, "You've had enough sun."
More and more people are hearing similar messages from their doctors. Viewed as an undeclared epidemic by dermatologists, skin cancer is the most prevalent of all cancers, and it's increasingly common. About a million Americans will develop skin cancer this year.
"Skin cancer is now about as common as all other cancers combined," says Martin A. Weinstock, M.D., Ph.D., director of Brown University's Dermatoepidemiology Unit and Chief of Dermatology at the Providence (R.I.) Veterans Affairs Medical Center. And there's no evidence that the epidemic has peaked.
But there is a bright side. Skin cancer is quite curable when treated early. More than 90 percent of skin cancers are completely cured. Even better, it's largely preventable, simply by avoiding sun and sunlamp exposure.
As more consumers become sun smart, they're finding new ways to protect themselves. For example, FDA has cleared for marketing one manufacturer's clothing for sun protection. Eating a healthier diet can't hurt--less fat, more fruits, vegetables and grains--and preliminary studies indicate it may help. And the National Weather Service provides a measure of ultraviolet (UV) exposure with its UV Index, which is part of the daily weather forecast for many cities.
Experts agree that sunlight, particularly the UV wavelengths, damages the skin. UV radiation causes the obvious short-term damage seen in a sunburn or a tan, as well as the long-term damage that accumulates with each exposure. Not only is there no such thing as a safe tan, "There's no known safe amount of sun," Weinstock says.
Americans are getting the message. Increasingly, we're protecting ourselves from the sun, according to a 1994 survey commissioned by the American Academy of Dermatology. But we're not all sun savvy yet. Only 2 in 5 people consistently use sunscreen whenever they're in the sun. Fewer people say they sunbathe, but about 1 in 5 adults still does. And some people have the mistaken impression that sunlamps or tanning salons are somehow better or safer than natural sunlight. They aren't. No matter what the source, UV exposure increases your risk of skin cancer. (See "Sunlamps--Not a Bright Idea.")
There are three main types of skin cancer. Melanoma is the least common but most serious because this killer is responsible for three-quarters of the nearly 10,000 skin cancer deaths per year. The other two types--basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas--are often referred to together as non-melanoma skin cancer. Basal cell cancer is by far the most common skin cancer, followed by squamous cell carcinoma, which can also become a killer. Between 1980 and 1989, the incidence of non-melanoma skin cancers increased 65 percent, and melanoma 21 percent. And skin cancer is striking at ever younger ages. One-quarter of the more than 30,000 people expected to develop melanoma this year will be 39 or younger.
A fourth type of growth, actinic or solar keratosis, is also of concern because it can progress into cancer. It's the most common pre-malignant skin condition, occurring in more than 5 million Americans.
UV's Double Whammy
While there's no question that UV damages DNA, scientists had long suspected that it delivers a double whammy. Recent research supports that idea. Developing skin cancer is at least a two-step process, involving initiation and promotion of malignant growth. "UV plays both roles," says Douglas Brash, Ph.D., a biophysicist at Yale University School of Medicine. In studies with mice, Brash and colleagues showed that UV harms a mechanism for repairing cell damage. Once the repair system is impaired, cells become increasingly vulnerable to injury. Subsequent UV exposures just make matters worse, and can initiate malignancy.
After UV exposure, the repair mechanism normally directs damaged cells to commit suicide. That's why skin peels after a sunburn. "It's a mop-up operation," says Brash. But previously damaged cells with a malfunctioning repair system escape this mop up. Genetic damage accumulates as normal cells die and abnormal ones survive.
Brash said the level of UV used in their experiments was about equivalent to exposure from a day at the beach. Skin doesn't have to be badly sunburned, he said, adding that such damage also accumulates with chronic, everyday exposure.
To increase awareness of the damaging potential of UV radiation, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Weather Service developed the UV Index. Besides skin cancer, UV radiation also increases the risk of cataracts and certain other eye problems, and can suppress the immune system. And although dark-skinned people are generally less likely to get skin cancer than light-skinned people, they are just as susceptible to cataracts or immune suppression.
The UV Index number, ranging from 0 to 10+, indicates the amount of UV radiation reaching the Earth's surface during an hour around noon. (See "UV or not UV.") It's forecast daily for 58 cities, based on local predicted conditions. The UV Index is valid only for about a 30-mile radius from the city, and, as with any forecast, local variability in cloud cover and other factors may change actual levels experienced. But it serves as a reminder to take precautions against UV exposure.
For many people, sunscreens are the first line of defense.
"With most sunscreens it's important to apply them before you're in the sun," says FDA microbiologist Jeanne Rippere, who evaluates over-the-counter drugs, including sunscreens. They should be applied liberally, and reapplied at least every two hours (more often if you're sweating) or after swimming or toweling off. Sunscreens are rated by an SPF (sun protective factor) number, which is a multiplier of your skin's exposure time before burning. For example, an SPF of 4 means you can stay in the sun four times longer before burning than if you were wearing no sunscreen. Keep in mind that you can't add SPF numbers. If an SPF 4 product gives you an hour in the sun, reapplying won't give you another hour. Your time's up. If you want longer exposure, next time use a higher SPF before going into the sun.
Something else to remember is that two types of UV radiation reach the Earth, UVA and UVB. Both contribute to skin damage, including skin cancer. There are no "safe" UV rays. But the SPF numbering system was devised as a guide to protect against sunburn, which is caused mostly by UVB. Because sunscreens allow you to stay out in the sun longer without burning, you may be increasing your exposure to UVA.
FDA has not approved a rating system for UVA protection because experts haven't reached a consensus as to what constitutes a good test. FDA is working to develop one, but until such a test exists, there's no way to compare products or verify claims made for UVA protection. Manufacturers are allowed to claim UVA or broad-spectrum protection on a product, as long as it contains an ingredient that absorbs UVA.
The American Academy of Dermatology recommends that everyone use a broad-spectrum sunscreen having an SPF of at least 15, and advises consumers to check for ingredients that screen UVA: benzophenone, oxybenzone, sulisobenzone, titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, and butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane (also called avobenzone and known by the trade name Parsol 1789).
"People should not depend totally on sunscreens," Rippere says.
While sunscreens protect against sunburn, they don't necessarily prevent cancer. If you use sunscreens to spend more time in the sun, your skin could collect about the same total exposure to damaging radiation. So it's still a good idea to stay out of the sun at midday, and to protect yourself with a wide-brim hat and clothing.
Wear Some Shade
Clothing offers the advantages of even, non-sticky protection that you don't have to remember to reapply. But many summer-weight fabrics don't give enough protection. Some are well below the minimum SPF 15 that dermatologists recommend. And fibers like cotton offer even less protection when wet.
"You can't just put on any old shirt and expect it to protect you," says Julian Menter, Ph.D., research professor of medicine at Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Ga. "Fabrics can differ greatly in their ability to shield you from UV radiation."
The ideal sun protective fabrics are lightweight, comfortable, and protect against exposure even when wet. Clothing that is labeled or promoted as providing protection against the sun or limiting exposure to UV rays is considered a medical device and is regulated by FDA. Sun Precautions, Inc., of Seattle, Wash., has received FDA clearance to market its Solumbra clothing for sun protection and is allowed to claim an SPF of 30 for its products.
In an experiment with mice, Menter and colleagues compared a so-called "typical" summer clothing fabric (a tightly woven cotton used in a gardening shirt) with the Solumbra fabric, a proprietary, tightly woven synthetic. With an SPF of 6.5, the cotton fabric protected mice against short-term UV effects, but it didn't protect against long-term skin damage, including skin cancer. In fact, the incidence of tumors in these mice was comparable to that of the mice who received no UV protection. Mice not subjected to any UV radiation and the mice protected by the Solumbra fabric showed no signs of skin damage.
How do fabrics block UV? "It's a combination of factors--fabric thickness, composition of the fiber itself, and especially tightness of weave," says Deborah F. Lumbardo, an FDA biomedical engineer. Dye can be a factor too, she says.
"But remember that you still need to be using sunscreen on whatever areas are exposed," Lumbardo says.
Inside-Out Protection?
Some studies estimate that diet may be involved in 40 to 60 percent of all cancers. More specifically, a high-fat diet has been implicated in colon and breast cancers. In animal studies, a high fat intake increased the likelihood of skin cancer after exposure to UV radiation, while switching to a low-fat diet after exposure reduced the incidence of skin cancer.
Homer S. Black, Ph.D., a researcher at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Houston, and his colleagues found a dietary effect in humans as well. In their study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a low-fat diet decreased the incidence of actinic keratosis in non-melanoma skin cancer patients. "The risk factors for actinic keratosis and non-melanoma skin cancer are basically the same," says Black.
The high-fat group ate their usual diet, consuming 36 to 40 percent of their caloric intake as fat, about average for Americans. In the low-fat group, no more than 20 percent of total caloric intake was fat. Overall, the high-fat group had a nearly five times greater risk of developing one or more actinic keratoses during the two-year study.
"Reduced incidence of this common skin tumor is just another added benefit to a long litany of those that can be attributed to a low-fat diet," Black says.
The National Academy of Sciences recommends a diet in which 30 percent or less of the calories come from fat. The National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, and other health organizations support this recommendation.
Although many researchers are studying the effects of certain vitamins and various other nutrients on skin cancer, it's too soon to make specific recommendations. But so far, the research trends point toward what we already know to be a healthier diet--less fat, more fruits, vegetables and grains.
Once cancer develops, early detection and treatment are the best defense. Get familiar with your skin and your own pattern of moles and freckles with monthly skin self-exams. If any growth, mole or discoloration appears suddenly or begins to change, or if a sore appears that doesn't heal, see a dermatologist.
For any type of skin cancer, treatment involves removing the lesion, usually in an outpatient procedure. The treatment goal is to remove or destroy the growth completely with as little damage as possible to healthy tissue. Doctors evaluate numerous factors in planning treatment. Considerations include type of cancer, tumor size and location, extent of disease, whether it's new or recurrent, potential for scarring, and the patient's overall health.
Types of surgery include cryosurgery (destruction by freezing), laser surgery (using a laser beam to cut away or vaporize growths), and curettage and electrodessication (using a spoon-like blade to scoop out the growth, followed by destruction of surrounding tissue with an electric needle). Occasionally, other treatments, such as radiation therapy or chemotherapy, may be used alone or in combination.
Even after successful treatment, people who have had skin cancer remain at increased risk of developing it again. Protecting their skin from UV exposure is critical in helping to prevent a recurrence. It should become a life-long habit.
Carolyn J. Strange is a science writer in Saratoga, Calif.
Sunlamps--Not a Bright IdeaLike the sun, sunlamps give off UV radiation--both UVA and UVB--and can be harmful. Exposure to UV radiation from sunlamps adds to the total amount of UV radiation your skin accumulates during your lifetime, and increases the risk of skin cancer. Other risks include premature skin aging, skin and eye burns, allergic-type reactions, cataracts, reduced immunity, and blood vessel damage.
FDA has a radiation safety performance standard for sunlamp products. Such products must have a warning label, an accurate timer, an emergency stop control, and include an exposure schedule and protective eyewear.
Tanning devices aren't recommended for anyone, and should never be used if:* You sunburn easily and don't tan. Skin that doesn't tan in the sun probably won't tan with sunlamps either.* You get frequent cold sores. UV radiation may cause them to appear more frequently.* You're taking medicines that can make you more sensitive to UV radiation. Check with your doctor or pharmacist.
If you choose to ignore the risks and seek an indoor tan, follow all the safety precautions. Stick to your time limit. Be sure to wear the goggles provided, making sure they fit snugly and aren't cracked.
Remember that there's no safe tan and there's no safe UV radiation. That's why tanning devices are best avoided altogether.
--C.J.S.
UV or Not UV?It's a good rule of thumb to guard against overexposure whenever sunlight is strong enough that you can see your shadow. But you can't rely on your perception of brightness and shadows to gauge UV exposure because your eyes can't see UV wavelengths. Up to 80 percent of UV radiation can pass through clouds. The UV Index can help.
While you should always guard against UV exposure, be extra vigilant when the UV Index is 5 or higher. Remember that exposure doesn't come only from above--snow, sand, water, and even concrete reflect UV radiation. Also, UV radiation increases at higher elevations. The UV Index for mountain cities takes this into account, but keep it in mind if you travel.
Protect your eyes and skin from UV radiation with these simple safeguards:* Wear a wide-brim hat to protect your eyes, ears, face, and the back of your neck.* Wear sunglasses that block 99 to 100 percent of UV radiation. Check the label.* Protect as much of your skin as possible with clothing.* Use sunscreen with an SPF of 15 or higher. Reapply every two hours and after swimming.* Avoid midday sun--10 a.m. to 2 p.m.--when UV radiation is strongest.
"This looks like skin cancer," the dermatologist told the woman as he examined the spot on her leg. Later, after removing the tumor and several other precancerous growths from her face and hands, he looked her in the eyes and said, "You've had enough sun."
More and more people are hearing similar messages from their doctors. Viewed as an undeclared epidemic by dermatologists, skin cancer is the most prevalent of all cancers, and it's increasingly common. About a million Americans will develop skin cancer this year.
"Skin cancer is now about as common as all other cancers combined," says Martin A. Weinstock, M.D., Ph.D., director of Brown University's Dermatoepidemiology Unit and Chief of Dermatology at the Providence (R.I.) Veterans Affairs Medical Center. And there's no evidence that the epidemic has peaked.
But there is a bright side. Skin cancer is quite curable when treated early. More than 90 percent of skin cancers are completely cured. Even better, it's largely preventable, simply by avoiding sun and sunlamp exposure.
As more consumers become sun smart, they're finding new ways to protect themselves. For example, FDA has cleared for marketing one manufacturer's clothing for sun protection. Eating a healthier diet can't hurt--less fat, more fruits, vegetables and grains--and preliminary studies indicate it may help. And the National Weather Service provides a measure of ultraviolet (UV) exposure with its UV Index, which is part of the daily weather forecast for many cities.
Experts agree that sunlight, particularly the UV wavelengths, damages the skin. UV radiation causes the obvious short-term damage seen in a sunburn or a tan, as well as the long-term damage that accumulates with each exposure. Not only is there no such thing as a safe tan, "There's no known safe amount of sun," Weinstock says.
Americans are getting the message. Increasingly, we're protecting ourselves from the sun, according to a 1994 survey commissioned by the American Academy of Dermatology. But we're not all sun savvy yet. Only 2 in 5 people consistently use sunscreen whenever they're in the sun. Fewer people say they sunbathe, but about 1 in 5 adults still does. And some people have the mistaken impression that sunlamps or tanning salons are somehow better or safer than natural sunlight. They aren't. No matter what the source, UV exposure increases your risk of skin cancer. (See "Sunlamps--Not a Bright Idea.")
There are three main types of skin cancer. Melanoma is the least common but most serious because this killer is responsible for three-quarters of the nearly 10,000 skin cancer deaths per year. The other two types--basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas--are often referred to together as non-melanoma skin cancer. Basal cell cancer is by far the most common skin cancer, followed by squamous cell carcinoma, which can also become a killer. Between 1980 and 1989, the incidence of non-melanoma skin cancers increased 65 percent, and melanoma 21 percent. And skin cancer is striking at ever younger ages. One-quarter of the more than 30,000 people expected to develop melanoma this year will be 39 or younger.
A fourth type of growth, actinic or solar keratosis, is also of concern because it can progress into cancer. It's the most common pre-malignant skin condition, occurring in more than 5 million Americans.
UV's Double Whammy
While there's no question that UV damages DNA, scientists had long suspected that it delivers a double whammy. Recent research supports that idea. Developing skin cancer is at least a two-step process, involving initiation and promotion of malignant growth. "UV plays both roles," says Douglas Brash, Ph.D., a biophysicist at Yale University School of Medicine. In studies with mice, Brash and colleagues showed that UV harms a mechanism for repairing cell damage. Once the repair system is impaired, cells become increasingly vulnerable to injury. Subsequent UV exposures just make matters worse, and can initiate malignancy.
After UV exposure, the repair mechanism normally directs damaged cells to commit suicide. That's why skin peels after a sunburn. "It's a mop-up operation," says Brash. But previously damaged cells with a malfunctioning repair system escape this mop up. Genetic damage accumulates as normal cells die and abnormal ones survive.
Brash said the level of UV used in their experiments was about equivalent to exposure from a day at the beach. Skin doesn't have to be badly sunburned, he said, adding that such damage also accumulates with chronic, everyday exposure.
To increase awareness of the damaging potential of UV radiation, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Weather Service developed the UV Index. Besides skin cancer, UV radiation also increases the risk of cataracts and certain other eye problems, and can suppress the immune system. And although dark-skinned people are generally less likely to get skin cancer than light-skinned people, they are just as susceptible to cataracts or immune suppression.
The UV Index number, ranging from 0 to 10+, indicates the amount of UV radiation reaching the Earth's surface during an hour around noon. (See "UV or not UV.") It's forecast daily for 58 cities, based on local predicted conditions. The UV Index is valid only for about a 30-mile radius from the city, and, as with any forecast, local variability in cloud cover and other factors may change actual levels experienced. But it serves as a reminder to take precautions against UV exposure.
For many people, sunscreens are the first line of defense.
"With most sunscreens it's important to apply them before you're in the sun," says FDA microbiologist Jeanne Rippere, who evaluates over-the-counter drugs, including sunscreens. They should be applied liberally, and reapplied at least every two hours (more often if you're sweating) or after swimming or toweling off. Sunscreens are rated by an SPF (sun protective factor) number, which is a multiplier of your skin's exposure time before burning. For example, an SPF of 4 means you can stay in the sun four times longer before burning than if you were wearing no sunscreen. Keep in mind that you can't add SPF numbers. If an SPF 4 product gives you an hour in the sun, reapplying won't give you another hour. Your time's up. If you want longer exposure, next time use a higher SPF before going into the sun.
Something else to remember is that two types of UV radiation reach the Earth, UVA and UVB. Both contribute to skin damage, including skin cancer. There are no "safe" UV rays. But the SPF numbering system was devised as a guide to protect against sunburn, which is caused mostly by UVB. Because sunscreens allow you to stay out in the sun longer without burning, you may be increasing your exposure to UVA.
FDA has not approved a rating system for UVA protection because experts haven't reached a consensus as to what constitutes a good test. FDA is working to develop one, but until such a test exists, there's no way to compare products or verify claims made for UVA protection. Manufacturers are allowed to claim UVA or broad-spectrum protection on a product, as long as it contains an ingredient that absorbs UVA.
The American Academy of Dermatology recommends that everyone use a broad-spectrum sunscreen having an SPF of at least 15, and advises consumers to check for ingredients that screen UVA: benzophenone, oxybenzone, sulisobenzone, titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, and butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane (also called avobenzone and known by the trade name Parsol 1789).
"People should not depend totally on sunscreens," Rippere says.
While sunscreens protect against sunburn, they don't necessarily prevent cancer. If you use sunscreens to spend more time in the sun, your skin could collect about the same total exposure to damaging radiation. So it's still a good idea to stay out of the sun at midday, and to protect yourself with a wide-brim hat and clothing.
Wear Some Shade
Clothing offers the advantages of even, non-sticky protection that you don't have to remember to reapply. But many summer-weight fabrics don't give enough protection. Some are well below the minimum SPF 15 that dermatologists recommend. And fibers like cotton offer even less protection when wet.
"You can't just put on any old shirt and expect it to protect you," says Julian Menter, Ph.D., research professor of medicine at Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Ga. "Fabrics can differ greatly in their ability to shield you from UV radiation."
The ideal sun protective fabrics are lightweight, comfortable, and protect against exposure even when wet. Clothing that is labeled or promoted as providing protection against the sun or limiting exposure to UV rays is considered a medical device and is regulated by FDA. Sun Precautions, Inc., of Seattle, Wash., has received FDA clearance to market its Solumbra clothing for sun protection and is allowed to claim an SPF of 30 for its products.
In an experiment with mice, Menter and colleagues compared a so-called "typical" summer clothing fabric (a tightly woven cotton used in a gardening shirt) with the Solumbra fabric, a proprietary, tightly woven synthetic. With an SPF of 6.5, the cotton fabric protected mice against short-term UV effects, but it didn't protect against long-term skin damage, including skin cancer. In fact, the incidence of tumors in these mice was comparable to that of the mice who received no UV protection. Mice not subjected to any UV radiation and the mice protected by the Solumbra fabric showed no signs of skin damage.
How do fabrics block UV? "It's a combination of factors--fabric thickness, composition of the fiber itself, and especially tightness of weave," says Deborah F. Lumbardo, an FDA biomedical engineer. Dye can be a factor too, she says.
"But remember that you still need to be using sunscreen on whatever areas are exposed," Lumbardo says.
Inside-Out Protection?
Some studies estimate that diet may be involved in 40 to 60 percent of all cancers. More specifically, a high-fat diet has been implicated in colon and breast cancers. In animal studies, a high fat intake increased the likelihood of skin cancer after exposure to UV radiation, while switching to a low-fat diet after exposure reduced the incidence of skin cancer.
Homer S. Black, Ph.D., a researcher at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Houston, and his colleagues found a dietary effect in humans as well. In their study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a low-fat diet decreased the incidence of actinic keratosis in non-melanoma skin cancer patients. "The risk factors for actinic keratosis and non-melanoma skin cancer are basically the same," says Black.
The high-fat group ate their usual diet, consuming 36 to 40 percent of their caloric intake as fat, about average for Americans. In the low-fat group, no more than 20 percent of total caloric intake was fat. Overall, the high-fat group had a nearly five times greater risk of developing one or more actinic keratoses during the two-year study.
"Reduced incidence of this common skin tumor is just another added benefit to a long litany of those that can be attributed to a low-fat diet," Black says.
The National Academy of Sciences recommends a diet in which 30 percent or less of the calories come from fat. The National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, and other health organizations support this recommendation.
Although many researchers are studying the effects of certain vitamins and various other nutrients on skin cancer, it's too soon to make specific recommendations. But so far, the research trends point toward what we already know to be a healthier diet--less fat, more fruits, vegetables and grains.
Once cancer develops, early detection and treatment are the best defense. Get familiar with your skin and your own pattern of moles and freckles with monthly skin self-exams. If any growth, mole or discoloration appears suddenly or begins to change, or if a sore appears that doesn't heal, see a dermatologist.
For any type of skin cancer, treatment involves removing the lesion, usually in an outpatient procedure. The treatment goal is to remove or destroy the growth completely with as little damage as possible to healthy tissue. Doctors evaluate numerous factors in planning treatment. Considerations include type of cancer, tumor size and location, extent of disease, whether it's new or recurrent, potential for scarring, and the patient's overall health.
Types of surgery include cryosurgery (destruction by freezing), laser surgery (using a laser beam to cut away or vaporize growths), and curettage and electrodessication (using a spoon-like blade to scoop out the growth, followed by destruction of surrounding tissue with an electric needle). Occasionally, other treatments, such as radiation therapy or chemotherapy, may be used alone or in combination.
Even after successful treatment, people who have had skin cancer remain at increased risk of developing it again. Protecting their skin from UV exposure is critical in helping to prevent a recurrence. It should become a life-long habit.
Carolyn J. Strange is a science writer in Saratoga, Calif.
Sunlamps--Not a Bright IdeaLike the sun, sunlamps give off UV radiation--both UVA and UVB--and can be harmful. Exposure to UV radiation from sunlamps adds to the total amount of UV radiation your skin accumulates during your lifetime, and increases the risk of skin cancer. Other risks include premature skin aging, skin and eye burns, allergic-type reactions, cataracts, reduced immunity, and blood vessel damage.
FDA has a radiation safety performance standard for sunlamp products. Such products must have a warning label, an accurate timer, an emergency stop control, and include an exposure schedule and protective eyewear.
Tanning devices aren't recommended for anyone, and should never be used if:* You sunburn easily and don't tan. Skin that doesn't tan in the sun probably won't tan with sunlamps either.* You get frequent cold sores. UV radiation may cause them to appear more frequently.* You're taking medicines that can make you more sensitive to UV radiation. Check with your doctor or pharmacist.
If you choose to ignore the risks and seek an indoor tan, follow all the safety precautions. Stick to your time limit. Be sure to wear the goggles provided, making sure they fit snugly and aren't cracked.
Remember that there's no safe tan and there's no safe UV radiation. That's why tanning devices are best avoided altogether.
--C.J.S.
UV or Not UV?It's a good rule of thumb to guard against overexposure whenever sunlight is strong enough that you can see your shadow. But you can't rely on your perception of brightness and shadows to gauge UV exposure because your eyes can't see UV wavelengths. Up to 80 percent of UV radiation can pass through clouds. The UV Index can help.
While you should always guard against UV exposure, be extra vigilant when the UV Index is 5 or higher. Remember that exposure doesn't come only from above--snow, sand, water, and even concrete reflect UV radiation. Also, UV radiation increases at higher elevations. The UV Index for mountain cities takes this into account, but keep it in mind if you travel.
Protect your eyes and skin from UV radiation with these simple safeguards:* Wear a wide-brim hat to protect your eyes, ears, face, and the back of your neck.* Wear sunglasses that block 99 to 100 percent of UV radiation. Check the label.* Protect as much of your skin as possible with clothing.* Use sunscreen with an SPF of 15 or higher. Reapply every two hours and after swimming.* Avoid midday sun--10 a.m. to 2 p.m.--when UV radiation is strongest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)