Bras and the Breast Cancer Cover-Up: FOR LADIES ONLY

Personal note from Miriam:
A few months ago I decided to put this to the test because it made so much sense. What do you know? It made a big difference to get rid of my underwire bras and go wireless (Kohl's carries Vanity Fair Body Superior Support, the most flattering of all the wireless styles). At home, it's bra-free! Later, I pushed it a step further and quit drinking coffee with caffeine in it. Another improvement in being pain-free! By the way, I read an article saying that underwire bras act as an antenna when you're using the cell phone! Ladies, we are the cause of so many of our own problems. We need to start questioning everything of this world and ask God for wisdom in all matters that affect us and our families and living the life of "separation" that He has called us to.

Bras and the Breast Cancer Cover-Up
By Sydney Ross Singer

We asked those questions in 1995, at the end of our book, Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras. Before writing our book, we sent details of our research to the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, President's Cancer Panel, American Women's Medical Association, National Organization for Women, National Women's Health Network, and National Women's Health Resource Center. There was no response. Not one. Given the lack of interest, we decided to publish our findings in a book, getting the information directly to the women who needed to hear it.

But are women getting the message?

It has been 12 years since our book was first published. Over that time, more than 500,000 women in the US alone have died from breast cancer, with another 2,000,000 having been diagnosed with this terrible disease -- a disease that is in most cases preventable by simply loosening up or eliminating the bra. And yet, this lifesaving information has been actively suppressed and censored by the medical and lingerie industries.

Examples of Suppress and Censorship

A large public relations firm in New York City was willing and eager to help us release this information to the public. "My wife just had breast cancer, and I'm sure you are right," the head of the firm confessed. A big media announcement and celebration were planned. Days later, however, the firm withdrew its offer to help, stating that one of their clients, a large medical center, objected to their working with us.

A Sydney, Australia public relations firm agreed to help publicize our work when we were doing outreach efforts in their country. But it, too, reversed itself. We had asked if they had any conflicts of interest, such as lingerie industry clients. They said they had none. But as it turned out, they did represent a pharmaceutical company that makes a breast cancer treatment drug, and the prevention of breast cancer and its treatment are in conflict, they explained.

The Intimate Apparel Council (which is the US trade association for the multi-billion dollar bra industry) threatened our publisher, Avery Publishing Group, with a lawsuit if Dressed To Kill was released. The publisher said the publicity would help spread the word. The lawsuit never materialized.

After the book was released, the NBC television news show, Dateline, was interested in doing a story on our work. We were extensively interviewed by a skeptical reporter who became a supporter. The story was then abruptly terminated. The producer confidentially explained that the policy of General Electric, which owns NBC, is to avoid airing news stories that can adversely impact on other GE interests. As it happens, GE is a manufacturer of mammography machines.

Women's magazines, such as Glamour, Self, and others, ran critical stories condemning our work, and finding "experts" to encourage women to continue wearing bras. Elle magazine planned a positive story about the bra/cancer link, but was coerced into pulling the story by bra advertisers. In various newspapers around the world, such as the Guardian in the UK, stories were pulled prior to publication because of fear that they may "panic the public", including their lingerie advertisers.

The British Fashion Council (which is the UK's equivalent of the Intimate Apparel Council) published the Breast Health Handbook in 1996 to oppose our efforts. They announced the formation of the Breakthrough Breast Cancer Foundation, which was to receive donations from bra sales to fund genetic research into breast cancer. The book criticized our work, claiming, "The idea that wearing a bra encourages cancer by trapping toxins was recently put forward by researchers at the Institute for Culturogenic Studies (sic) in Hawaii. Researchers from more august establishments promptly dismissed it as claptrap." Without any medical evidence or research, the book informs women that wearing bras is a health necessity, and should be worn as early in life as possible to prevent breast damage.

Our original publisher, Avery, was purchased by giant Penguin Putnam in 1998. The new publisher did not list the book for three years and refused to revert publication rights to the copywrite holders, Singer and Grismaijer. The book was virtually unavailable, and it was thought to have gone out of print. Finally, after repeated requests, the publishing rights were released to us in October, 2001. (ISCD Press has been keeping it in print since then.)

A television documentary was produced in the year 2000 by Channel 4 in the UK, called, Bras- The Bare Facts. In the documentary, 100 women with fibrocystic breast disease went bra-free for 3 months to document the effect on breast cysts and pain. Two prominent British breast surgeons conducted the study. The results were astounding, and clearly demonstrated that the bra is a serious health hazard. We were interviewed for the program to discuss the bra/cancer connection, which was considered highly plausible and important by the doctors interviewed. Some theorized that, in addition to lymphatic impairment, the bra could also cause cancer by overheating the breasts. The documentary made newspaper headlines in British Commonwealth countries throughout the world, but no mention of it was made at all in the US. The following day, headlines in the U.K. tried to suppress fears of the bra/cancer link, and the doctors in the study quickly distanced themselves from the cancer issue, telling women to continue wearing bras. Their research for the documentary was supposed to be published in a medical journal, but never was. And no further research ever materialized to follow-up on their work, which they said they would do. Extensive news coverage of the program was available on the Internet soon after it aired, but most articles were removed shortly thereafter.

No follow-up studies have been done to refute or confirm our research. None. While a Harvard study, published in the European Journal of Cancer in 1991, discovered that bra-free women have a lower rate of breast cancer, the results were not central to the research they were conducting and were considered unimportant and not followed-up. In fact, apart from our initial 1991-93 Bra and Breast Cancer Study, discussed in detail in Dressed To Kill, and our follow-up research in Fiji, discussed in our book, Get It Off!, there are still no other studies on the bra/cancer link. Not even a letter or discussion of the issue can be found in any medical journal. After decades of breast cancer research, the bra is still completely ignored as even being a potential factor for consideration. It's like studying foot disease and ignoring shoes.

Keeping the Public Mystified

This lack of research, and the consequent ignorance, are then used by cancer organizations to justify further suppression of the issue. As the American Cancer Society states on its website, (ignoring the Harvard study), "There are no scientifically valid studies that show a correlation between wearing bras of any type and the occurrence of breast cancer. Two anthropologists made this association in a book called Dressed To Kill. Their study was not conducted according to standard principles of epidemiological research and did not take into consideration other variables, including known risk factors for breast cancer. There is no other, credible research to validate this claim in any way." And they don't seem interested in funding any such studies in the near future, either. There are other organizations that are similarly critical of the bra/cancer link for lack of research evidence, while at the same time discouraging any research on the subject.

Of particular interest is when breast cancer organizations antagonistic to the issue declare the bra/cancer link to be "misinformation" or a "myth", without any scientific study supporting their claims. They say bras are important for women to wear for support, without any evidence showing bras are safe or necessary. They then encourage regular mammograms, cancer prevention drug therapy (not realizing that "prevention therapy" is an oxymoron), and even preventative mastectomies (which means that those who are high risk for breast cancer but who don't want to get it can have their breast removed as a prevention strategy). Of course, it is better to remove the bra instead of the breasts, but bra removal is not a billable procedure.

Keep in mind that bras have been associated with other health problems, such as headaches, numbness in the hands, backache and other postural problems, cysts, pain, skin depigmentation, and more. And lymphatic blockage, which is the result of bra constriction, has already been associated with various cancers. Clearly, the bra/cancer link needs further research, while women take the precaution of loosening up.

Why the resistance?

What harm could there be in following our simple advice, or in even researching this issue? Why the defensive reaction?

There are three reasons:

1. The bra industry fears class action lawsuits. Many insiders have admitted to us that for years the industry suspected underwires were causing cancer. They know that tight bras cause cysts and pain. It is only a matter of time until a lawsuit is made against a bra manufacturer. As a defense, the industry is shifting the blame to the customer, claiming that most women are wearing their bras too tightly, and should get professional fittings. (How do you get a properly fitted push-up bra?) Breaking ranks with their industry peers, and trying to capitalize on the bad news, are several bra manufacturers that now offer newly patented bras claiming to mitigate the damage, including cancer, caused by conventional bras.

2. The medical industry is making billions each year on the detection and treatment of breast cancer. As mentioned above, there is a conflict between the prevention and the treatment of disease, especially if the prevention does not include drugs or surgery. The fact is that our treatment-focused, profit-oriented medical system is making a killing treating this disease, and has billions to lose if breast cancer goes out of fashion along with bras.

In addition, the bra issue will revolutionize the breast cancer field, embarrassing many researchers. Breast cancer research to date that has ignored the bra issue is seriously flawed as a result, which is why the "experts" are still unable to explain the cause of over 70% of all breast cancer cases. Career cancer researchers who have ignored the bra issue will have to admit this fatal flaw in their work, which they are not inclined to admit in their lifetimes.

3. Finally, there is the dogmatic, fearful resistance from some women who find their personal identity so connected to their bras that they would rather risk cancer than be bra-free (which some women have actually told us.) Women are cultural entities, and so long as our culture scorns a natural bustline, many women will submit to the pain, red marks and indentations, cysts, and even the threat of cancer rather than face potential public ridicule (which never really happens.)

There are also women who believe the myth that bras will prevent droopy breasts. The bra industry admits this is a myth, while it still promotes it to improve sales. In fact, bras cause breasts to droop, as the breasts become dependent on the bra for support and the natural supportive mechanisms atrophy from non use.

Despite the resistance, however, some women have gotten the message. And many health care professionals, who have also suspected bras for years, are now spreading that message. As women hear the news and discover that eliminating the bra also eliminates cysts and pain, the news further spreads by word of mouth.

There are now thousands of websites on this subject, many from health care professionals including medical doctors, naturopathic doctors, osteopathic doctors, chiropractors, massage therapists, lymphatic specialists, nutritionists, and others who care about women and helping end this epidemic. Grassroots efforts to keep this information alive and spreading have supplanted the traditional medical research approach, which has disqualified itself for lack of interest and conflict of interest.

When a disease is caused by the culture and its habits, attitudes, fashions and industries, there is bound to be resistance to change. Industries that contribute to disease will be defensive, and industries that profit from disease will be conflicted. However, the truth has a way of getting out, despite the resistance and suppression. Thank Goodness the truth does have a way of getting out.

Sydney Ross Singer is a medical anthropologist and director of the Institute for the Study of Culturogenic Disease, located in Hawaii. His unique form of applied medical anthropology searches for the cultural/lifestyle causes of disease. His working assumption is that our bodies were made to be healthy, but our culture and the attitudes and behaviors it instills in us can get in the way of health. By eliminating these causes, the body is allowed to heal. Since most diseases of our time are caused by our culture/lifestyle, this approach has resulted in many original discoveries into the cause, and cure, of many common diseases. It also makes prevention possible by eliminating adverse lifestyle practices. Sydney works with his co-researcher and wife, Soma Grismaijer, and is the author of several groundbreaking health books.

Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer can be reached at the Institute for the Study of Culturogenic Disease, P.O. Box 1880, Pahoa, Hawaii 96778 (808) 935-5563. sydsinger@gmail.com

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

http://ezinearticles.com/?Bras-and-the-Breast-Cancer-Cover-Up&id=795041

What Does A Healthy Kitchen Look Like?

by Rev. George Malkmus
1/25/2011

In recent Health Tips we have evaluated the “size” of your family and what items are found in a weight-gaining kitchen.

In this Health Tip we are going to explore what comprises a healthy kitchen; those items that will not only produce health, but also produce a body that is slim and trim and fit for the Master’s use. We will also consider those items that do not qualify to be in a healthy kitchen.

What Does A Healthy Kitchen Look Like?

We are going to begin our search for the answer to that question by going to the source of all truth, the Bible, and see what we can learn from God, the Creator of mankind, about the subject:

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust (dirt, minerals) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward of Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.” (Genesis 2:7-8)

“And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food. . . . And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.” (Genesis 2:15-16)

Then God gives us an even more detailed description of what food items should be in a healthy kitchen in the following verses:

“AND GOD SAID, Behold, I have given you every herb (vegetable) bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat (food). . . . AND GOD SAW everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” (Genesis 1:29,31a)

What Did God’s “Kitchen” Look Like?

First, God’s kitchen was located outside in a garden. Because this garden was in a warm climate where food was able to grow year-round, food was readily available on a daily basis. God then created the first “gardeners” – Adam and Eve.

“And the Lord God said it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. . . . And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon ADAM , and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man, made he a woman. . . . And Adam called his wife’s name EVE.” “Genesis 2:18, 21-22, 3:20)

“And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:23-24)

So what have we learned thus far? God has created a man and then a woman, and placed them in a garden that was to be the source of nourishment for their physical bodies.

From these beginning verses in the book of Genesis (the book of Beginnings) we have already learned a lot of information that will help us on our journey to discovering “What a Healthy Kitchen Looks Like.”

What Foods Qualify To Be In A Healthy Kitchen?

First, let’s take a look at what qualifications God said a food must have in order to qualify as a food to be in the kitchen of Adam and Eve:

“AND GOD SAID, Behold I have given you every herb (vegetable) bearing SEED, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding SEED; to you it shall be for meat (food).” (Genesis 1:29)

In other words, the only foods that qualified to meet God’s standard to be in that first kitchen (Adam & Eve’s kitchen) were plant-sourced.

Furthermore, these foods had to be living foods that had their enzymes (life force) still intact, and also had the ability to reproduce from a seed. This fact was extremely important, because if the food didn’t have the ability to reproduce for all eternity to support human life, the food supply would run out! This would be the end of man’s ability to live and perpetuate the human race on planet earth.

The foods that qualified to be in that first kitchen included all enzymatically alive fruits and vegetables capable of reproducing from the seed contained in the food or on the plant from which the food came, including (but not limited to):

Fruits: Apples, peaches, pears, plums, nectarines, watermelon, cantaloupe, bananas, persimmon, grapes, blueberries, etc., as well as those foods we often consider vegetables which are technically fruits because they contain the seed within (tomatoes, squash, cucumbers, peppers, avocados, etc).
Vegetables: Called “herbs” in the Bible, these would include all leafy greens such as lettuce, kale, and collards, as well as celery, cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, carrots, beets, potatoes, sweet potatoes, kohlrabi, onions, leeks, garlic, as well as the grains of corn, barley, etc, and beans.
What Foods Do NOT Qualify To Be In A Healthy Kitchen?

The listing of foods that would not qualify to be in Adam and Eve’s kitchen is a very long one but these disqualified foods are really easy to determine…

Any food that does not come from a seed, have its enzymes intact and the ability to reproduce would be disqualified.

These include all animal flesh, because it is not plant-based as God clearly instructed Adam it must be in Genesis 1:29. Nor is animal flesh enzymatically alive.

Other disqualified foods include all manufactured and processed foods found in any type container, and technically any food that has been cooked. Once a food has been cooked, even though it qualified before cooking to be in a healthy kitchen, loses its ability to reproduce because the heat destroys its enzymes (life-force).

How Close Can We Come to Meeting God’s Criteria Today?

Meeting God’s criteria for a healthy kitchen isn’t as hard as it might at first appear. While most people do not live in a warm climate, or in a garden, people who live in a house with even a small lawn or amount of ground bordering their home can have a raised bed garden in which they can grow an amazing amount of food during the growing season.

For instance, in just one square yard of ground, 16 lettuce plants could be grown per month during growing season; 64 carrots; or one cherry tomato bearing 100’s of small tomatoes. Or you can grow an amazing amount of fresh garden foods in containers or large pots on a porch or patio that receives sun most of the day.

Rhonda and I have three 4×12 foot raised beds near our kitchen door in which we grow most of our vegetables from April through November. In addition we have planted an edible landscape for our fruit foods. A person who has as little as one eighth of an acre can create an edible landscape around their home and literally live in a garden.

Rhonda and I currently have 47 blueberry bushes, 5 thornless blackberries, six scuppernong (muscadine) grape vines, three fig trees, plus two apple trees, a peach and pear tree, along with a persimmon tree. All our garden foods are grown organically, and we plan to slowly increase the varieties in coming years.

For those who do not live in a house where there is available space, we are so blessed today to have health food stores that often carry fresh organic garden produce. Many of today’s supermarkets are also carrying increasing varieties of fresh organic produce.

Now that we have learned what foods qualify for a Healthy Kitchen, we need to share how a person can set up a healthy kitchen… stay tuned for that in next week’s Health Tip!

I will take you on a literary tour of Rhonda’s kitchens (she has two of them), and share how she has set them up to promotes health rather than disease and sickness.

http://healthtip.hacres.com/index.php/2011/01/25/what-does-a-healthy-kitchen-look-like/?utm_source=eblast&utm_medium=email&utm_content=feature&utm_campaign=health-tip

Anesthesiologists spread dangerous infections during surgery because they don't wash their hands

Note from Miriam:
Stay healthy and stay out of hospitals! We either pay small now or pay big later.
------------------


Thursday, January 20, 2011 by: S. L. Baker, features writer

(NaturalNews) With all the amazing and advanced medical technology available in the 21st century, operating rooms must be extremely safe when it comes to being sterile and clean for surgery. At least, that is what most of us assume. But now a new study just reported in Anesthesia & Analgesia, the official journal of the International Anesthesia Research Society (IARS), shows that's a dangerous assumption. In fact, bacteria -- including some very dangerous varieties -- are commonly found on the hands of anesthesia providers, resulting in high rates of transmission of these germs to the surgical field during operations.

The reason behind this hand contamination is nothing less than astounding. It turns out, anesthesiologists simply aren't washing their hands or washing them well enough. The study points out that while other factors contribute to bacteria being spread in operating rooms, the problem is mostly from a lack of compliance with plain, old-fashioned hand-washing.

"As anesthesiologists, we like to think that the surgical drapes protect the patient from tens of trillions of microorganisms that are in and on our bodies," Dr. Steven L. Shafer of Columbia University, who is Editor-in-Chief of Anesthesia & Analgesia, said in a statement to the media. "Nope! These studies provide evidence that our bacterial flora contribute to surgical site infections."

Dr. Randy W. Loftus and colleagues of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, New Hampshire, carried out a detailed study to investigate the specific origin of bacteria transmitted to the surgical field in 164 operating room procedures that all involved general anesthesia. The researchers performed culture tests and discovered that bacteria were transmitted to the stopcock valves of the intravenous lines in 11.5% of procedures. And in about 50% of these cases, the bacteria found in the intravenous lines were the same as those identified on the hands of anesthesia providers, including attending anesthesiologists, residents, and nurse-anesthetists

What's more, before the start of surgical procedures, contamination with potential disease-causing bacteria was identified on the hands of anesthesia providers in 66% of cases. And bacteria were transmitted in the operating room in an astounding 89% of procedures.

The study found there were several factors that were linked with an increased risk of bacterial transmission. For example, germ transmission was more likely when the anesthesiologist had to supervise more than one operating room simultaneously. The spreading of bacteria was also more likely in older patients, and when the patient was sent directly from the operating room to the intensive care unit.

"Contamination of provider hands before patient care represents an important modifiable risk factor for bacterial cross-contamination," Dr. Loftus and colleagues wrote in the journal article. "These findings support initiatives designed to improve intraoperative hand hygiene of anesthesia providers both before and during patient care, as well as intraoperative decontamination strategies."

An editorial accompanying the study pointed out there that while there's a need to improve decontamination measures, there's little doubt that what the authors call "abysmal compliance with hand-washing recommendations" is the major contributor to the spread of surgical infections.

"Although we know that hand-washing is an important step, our compliance is poor, and there is little excuse for hospitals not implementing systems that facilitate compliance with hand-washing guidelines," Dr. Shafer stated.

http://www.naturalnews.com/031061_hand_washing_infections.html

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031061_hand_washing_infections.html#ixzz1Bdq88Kjl

Let’s Discuss…Punctuation (Periods and Question Marks) - FOR LADIES ONLY

Note from Miriam:
The Natracare brand mentioned below is available at discount on www.LuckyVitamin.com. Seventh Generation products are available there also. I thought it was just me, but since I switched to these healthier brands I don't go through as many either. Now I know why. Read on.....

Let’s Discuss…Punctuation (Periods and Question Marks)
By Laura · Jul,14 2009

First let me warn any male readers that may be visting here today. You really probably want to stop reading now and go…I don’t know…hit a few golf balls or something. This discussion is sort of “for girls only, boys not allowed”.

Okay, ladies…have they all left? Would someone in the back please close the door? Alright now…everyone come closer.

I’ve been wanting to have this discussion for a while. About punctuation. Periods to be exact.

I kind of thought I was the crazy one. The only one. Until I had a discussion with some girlfriends of mine several months ago about…punctuation. They were experiencing the SAME things I was.

I never really thought that the brand of “punctuation products” I used mattered very much so I would just use coupons and get regular ol’ Kotex at the store for a pretty good deal.

Then I started developing a minor irritation which month after month turned into an incredibly horrible itchy miserable rash. And it wasn’t on my elbow if you know what I mean.

Not only that, but my uh…punctuation was lasting forever. A long time. Seemed to be longer each month.

I thought it was just me. Not so…according to some of the people I talked to.
According to one of my friends (and I’m really sorry that I can’t find the research to back this up) some companies are actually putting chemicals on their products to make your punctuation last longer and be heavier so that you will go through lots more of their products and buy more. Are you kidding me? (Again, I have no official research to back this up.)

BUT…I immediately ordered the Natracare brand to test it out for myself. They are chemical and additive free. They are biodegradable and contain organic materials.

I noticed a difference right away.

First, the miserable rash went away. Hallelujah!

Second, the very first month I switched over, my punctuation was several days shorter and quite a bit lighter. The second month…same thing. Third month…same thing.

Uh-huh. Amazing. If at all possible I will NEVER use regular punctuation products from the store again. The Natracare products have made a huge difference for me each month and I love it. (Well, as much as you can love monthy puctuation that is.)

I don’t even care that they cost a little bit more. Actually…I bought a whole case at once and considering that I go through less of them each month…I’m actually not spending more. Hah!

Here’s what I got:
Natracare Natural Ultra Pads with Wings, Long, 12-Count Boxes (Pack Of 12)
Natracare Pads Ultra With Wings 14 ct ( Six Pack)
Natracare Natural Pads, Slender, Case of 12- 20 Count Boxes (240 Pads)

There are tons of other varieties…those just happen to be the ones that work best for me. (Wow, do you know way too much about me or what?)

Now, eventually I’d like to look into cloth cotton pads (Sckoon Organic Plus Cloth Menstrual Pads with Leak Resitant Sheet Mini Daisey) in order to save money in the long run and prevent waste. Anyone have any experience with these that they can share?

I realize this sounds like an infomercial. Really it’s not. Natracare is not paying me to tell you these things. It’s just that they made a big difference for me and well…I like all of you an awful lot and wanted to tell you about it just in case they can help you too.
Because it is not fun to have question marks about your periods.
————————————————–

http://heavenlyhomemakers.com/lets-discuss-punctuation-periods-and-question-marks

Thermotherapy alternative to chemotherapy uses heat, not poison, to kill tumors

Tuesday, February 01, 2011
by: David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Yet another study supports the use of heat to kill cancer cells without harming neighboring cells, in a promising alternative to chemo- and radiation therapy.

In a study conducted by researchers from Virginia Tech and Iadavpur University in Kolkata, India, and presented at the 63rd annual meeting of the American Physical Society, researchers injected a solution called a ferrofluid into both cancerous cells in the laboratory and into tumor cells inside living humans.

A ferrofluid is a solution containing nanoparticles that will become strongly magnetized if placed inside a magnetic field.

"These fluids can then be magnetically targeted to cancerous tissues after intravenous application," researcher Ishwar Puri said. "The magnetic nanoparticles, each billionths of a meter in size, seep into the tissue of the tumor cell due to the high permeability of these vessels."

After injecting the fluid, the researchers exposed the tumors to high-frequency alternating magnetic fields, causing the nanoparticles in the ferrofluid to heat up rapidly. This technique is formally known as magnetic fluid hyperthermia, but the researchers have dubbed it "thermotherapy."

Increasingly, researchers are looking to controlled hyperthermia, in which body temperature is deliberately raised above its normal level, as a way of killing cancer cells.

"Compelling evidence exists that hyperthermia therapy as part of a multimodal treatment approach is a viable tool that should be used more often in cancer therapies, either systemically, which involves the whole body, or locally, just around the area of a tumor," write Donald R. Yance and Arlene Valentine in the book "Herbal Medicine, Healing and Cancer: A Comprehensive Program for Prevention and Treatment."

Temperatures as low as 41 to 45 degrees Celsius (106 to 113 degrees Fahrenheit) can slow or halt cancerous growth. The significance of the "thermotherapy" used in the new study is its ability to heat cancer cells without also killing neighboring tissue.

"The ideal hyperthermia treatment sufficiently increases the temperature of the tumor cells for about 30 minutes while maintaining the healthy tissue temperature below 41 degrees Celsius," Puri said.

Sources for this story include: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea....

Articles Related to This Article:

• Killer cancer treatment: How toxic chemotherapy kills both cancer cells and cancer patients

• Can You Trust Chemotherapy to Cure Your Cancer?

• Pharmacists give themselves cancer from dispensing toxic chemotherapy chemicals

• Patrick Swayze dead at 57 after chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer

• LFO singer Rich Cronin dies at age 35 after chemotherapy

• Michael Douglas chooses toxic chemotherapy, radiation to battle throat cancer


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031169_thermotherapy_chemotherapy.html#ixzz1CkHLwHsD

Study reveals top ten violence-inducing prescription drugs

Saturday, January 15, 2011 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) recently published a study in the journal PLoS One highlighting the worst prescription drug offenders that cause patients to become violent. Among the top-ten most dangerous are the antidepressants Pristiq (desvenlafaxine), Paxil (paroxetine) and Prozac (fluoxetine).

Concerns about the extreme negative side effects of many popular antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs have been on the rise, as these drugs not only cause severe health problems to users, but also pose a significant threat to society. The ISMP report indicates that, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System, many popular drugs are linked even to homicides.

Most of the drugs in the top ten most dangerous are antidepressants, but also included are an insomnia medication, an attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) drug, a malaria drug and an anti-smoking medication.

As reported in Time, the top ten list is as follows:

10. Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq) - An antidepressant that affects serotonin and noradrenaline. The drug is 7.9 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

9. Venlafaxine (Effexor) - An antidepressant that treats anxiety disorders. The drug is 8.3 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

8. Fluvoxamine (Luvox) - A selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) drug that is 8.4 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

7. Triazolam (Halcion) - A benzodiazepine drug for insomnia that is 8.7 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

6. Atomoxetine (Strattera) - An ADHD drug that is 9 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

5. Mefoquine (Lariam) - A malaria drug that is 9.5 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

4. Amphetamines - This general class of ADHD drug is 9.6 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

3. Paroxetine (Paxil) - An SSRI antidepressant drug that is 10.3 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs. It is also linked to severe withdrawal symptoms and birth defects.

2. Fluoxetine (Prozac) - A popular SSRI antidepressant drug that is 10.9 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

1. Varenicline (Chantix) - An anti-smoking drug that is a shocking 18 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

Sources for this story include:

http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/...

Articles Related to This Article:

• More drug companies exposed for paying off doctors to illegally prescribe drugs

• Exposed: Drug companies skew trial data to trick the public

• Drug factories flush painkillers down the drain, contaminating streams

• (Part II) The FDA is a clearing house for Food and Drug Corruption

• Inside View - Drug makers conceal the truth from psychiatrists

• Pharma researchers working on drug to erase your memories
Related video from NaturalNews.TV


Your NaturalNews.TV video could be here.
Upload your own videos at NaturalNews.TV (FREE)



Related CounterThink Cartoons:




Related Articles:

• More drug companies exposed for paying off doctors to illegally prescribe drugs

• Exposed: Drug companies skew trial data to trick the public

• Drug factories flush painkillers down the drain, contaminating streams

• (Part II) The FDA is a clearing house for Food and Drug Corruption

• Inside View - Drug makers conceal the truth from psychiatrists

• Pharma researchers working on drug to erase your memories

Take Action: Support NaturalNews.com

Email this article to a friend

Share this article on: NewsVine | digg | del.icio.us

Permalink to this article:

Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK, cite NaturalNews.com with clickable link.

Embed article link: (copy HTML code below):


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031017_violence_prescription_drugs.html#ixzz1Be16S5wn

BREAKING NEWS: International Medical Council on Vaccination refutes vaccine propaganda with myth-busting report

NaturalNews exclusive: International Medical Council on Vaccination refutes vaccine propaganda with myth-busting report

Tuesday, February 01, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) To hear it from proponents of the vaccine industry, vaccines are based on rock-solid science that proves them to be completely safe and widely effective. These beliefs, however, are not factually based on real science but rather a persistent vaccine mythology that has been propagandized by the vaccine industry, medical practitioners and even governments which underwrite vaccine risks.

Today, the International Medical Council on Vaccination (www.VaccinationCouncil.org) has released, exclusively through NaturalNews.com, a groundbreaking document containing the signatures of over 80 family physicians, brain surgeons and professors of pathology, chemistry and immunity, all of which have signed on to a document stating, on the record, that vaccines pose a significant risk of harm to the health of children and that there is no real science backing the "vaccine mythology" which claims that vaccines are somehow good for children.

This groundbreaking document, called Vaccines: Get the Full Story, is available as a free download from NaturalNews.com. Click the report cover image on the right to go directly to the download page, where you'll find downloads available in 9 languages, including Spanish, French, Hebrew and Russian.

You have permission to share this report. Please also share the download page with others so that moms and parents can get educated about the risks associated with vaccines and thereby protect their children from the risk of harm caused by vaccines.

The vaccine industry's message is like a broken record: Vaccines are "safe and effective," they say. But repeating a lie over and over again does not magically make it true. Any such declaration of vaccine safety or effectiveness must be based on actual scientific inquiry, and the real science is utterly lacking on vaccines. Did you know, for example, that MMR and seasonal flu vaccines have never been clinically tested against non-vaccinated individuals?

Did you also know that even though vaccines can cause long-term damage in children, with symptoms appearing months or even years later, they are typically only assessed for side effects for two or three weeks?

What you'll find in this free downloadable report

Here's some of what you'll find in this eye-opening report from the International Medical Council on Vaccination (www.VaccinationCouncil.org)

• A list of the many MDs, PhDs, NDs and other medical professionals who are signing onto this document and taking a stand to critically question the myth that vaccines are proven to be both safe and effective.

• Why vaccines have NEVER been proven safe or effective.

• A list of some of the serious health side effects caused by vaccines.

• Why autism is associated with vaccines.

• The profit motivation behind the pharmaceutical industry's persistent vaccine push.

• A list of which institutions and organizations profit from your sickness.

• The shocking truth about what's used to make vaccines (aborted fetal tissue, 59 different chemicals, DNA from diseased animals and more).

• An overview of some of the most dangerous vaccine ingredients, including aluminum and formaldehyde.

• The truth about conflicts of interest in the vaccine community and why doctors profit from vaccination policies.

• Why vaccinated children have far worse health outcomes than unvaccinated children (and why the vaccine industry refuses to test vaccines against the long-term health outcomes of unvaccinated children).

• How to opt out of "mandatory" vaccines.

• Important advice for parents about how to protect the health of your children while saying NO to vaccines.

• Online resources for learning more about the dangers of vaccines.

• A list of recommended reading materials for further education.

Download this report right now by clicking the report cover image on the right. Yes, you may share this document with others.

NaturalNews is also featuring two interviews this week with two of the physicians who signed this report: Drs Sherri Tenpenny and Suzanne Humphries. Their interviews will be posted in their entirety here on NaturalNews this week. On Friday (if not earlier), we will also be featuring an on-camera interview with Dr Andrew Wakefield, who talks with us about the symptoms of autism, why vaccines are potentially so dangerous to children, and what parents can do to protect their children from vaccine dangers.

Why this is a must-read report

This report by the International Medical Council on Vaccination (www.VaccinationCouncil.org) is an absolute must-read for parents everywhere. It describes little-known facts about vaccines, children and immune health that the vaccine manufacturers and government health authorities don't want circulated. Whether or not you choose to vaccinate yourself or your children, you owe it to yourself to hear both side of the story before making a decision, and this report tells you the side of the story that your doctor probably doesn't know and your government absolutely does not want you to hear.

That's because governments underwrite vaccine risk through their government compensation programs. Thus, it is in the interests of governments that vaccines never be shown to cause harm.

Why the vaccine industry is so desperate to silence dissent

Today, I believe the vaccine industry is crumbling. As the truth is finally getting out about the link between MMR vaccines and autism, about the deaths associated with Gardasil, and about the horrifying ingredients used in vaccines, more and more parents are becoming well-informed and choosing to avoid vaccinating their children.

This is causing the vaccine industry to react with a sense of desperation. That's why the British Medical Journal (BMJ) has resorted to using articles written by a blogger named Brian Deer to spread factually false accusations about some of the top medical specialists in the world who are legitimately questioning the safety of vaccines (such as Dr Andrew Wakefield). Unquestioning obedience to conventional vaccine mythology is so central to the ongoing profitability of the pharmaceutical industry that vaccine manufacturers will resort to practically anything to protect their turf and try to silence anyone who questions what can only be called a dogmatic delusion of vaccine safety and effectiveness.

Vaccine advocates refuse to debate actual facts about vaccines. That's because the facts, if revealed, would reveal the vaccine industry to be based almost entirely on fraudulent science and profit motives. Those facts include:

• Vaccines are almost never scientifically tested in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies using proper placebos such as saline solution. Instead, the industry uses other vaccines as "placebo" in order to try to hide the harm caused by those vaccines.

• The viral ingredients that go into vaccines are absolutely horrifying, and they include stealth viruses that are not listed on the label, as well as DNA taken from diseased animals such as cows and monkeys.

• The chemicals used in vaccines are known neurotoxins, and they include mercury, aluminum and formaldehyde. The use of these chemical toxins is not even denied by the vaccine industry. Even worse, these chemicals are injected into the body, bypassing the digestive / liver systems that normally help neutralize toxic substances that might be swallowed. This is why statements from vaccine pitchmen like Dr Oz who claim "there's more mercury in fish than vaccines" are intellectually dishonest and misleading. People don't inject their children with fish.

• The mainstream media has huge conflicts of interest in reporting on vaccines because virtually all media outlets depend on pharmaceutical advertising money to stay financially afloat. This is why popular news personalities like Anderson Cooper and George Stephanopoulos wildly discredit themselves when they play the roles of on-air attack dogs targeting people like Dr Andrew Wakefield. Notice how they never disclose their own networks' financial ties to Big Pharma?

• Even governments have huge motivations to make sure MMR vaccines (and other types of vaccines) are never shown to be harmful because they have underwritten vaccine risk through the creation of special funds that pay damages to vaccine victims. If the true risks of vaccines were widely known and acknowledged, the resulting claims from parents of children harmed by vaccines would total in the trillions of dollars.

• Speaking of vaccine victims, the United States government routinely admits that vaccines cause autism and other harmful effects in children through its Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund, which has paid out tens of millions of dollars in awards to parents whose children were proven to have been harmed by vaccines.

... this story gets much, much deeper. The more you look at the facts, the more you realize the vaccine industry is steeped in conflicts of interest, quack science, profit motivations, corrupt individuals and the complete disregard for the safety of children. The vaccine industry is, effectively, one of the most dangerous examples of modern organized crime. Its actions are profiteering and monopolistic, and it maintains its power through a persisted campaign of intimidation, censorship, financial influence and quack science.

This story is just beginning to unfold. Watch NaturalNews.com for continued coverage of this developing story.

Why the vaccine industry does not want you to read this report

You will be absolutely stunned at what you learn about the risks and dangers of vaccines, including MMR vaccines, as revealed in this report.

Click here to download this report and see for yourself.

This is the information the vaccine industry does not want you to read. They don't even want doctors learning this, because the more doctors begin to investigate this issue, the more they become convinced that they've been lied to about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

Many doctors, in fact, who used to be strong vaccine proponents are now some of the most outspoken experts warning about the dangers of vaccines. They are now raising critical questions about the lack of legitimate scientific testing of vaccines, and they are realizing that the vaccine industry is engaged in a massive smoke-and-mirrors ploy to sell dangerous medicine that poses serious, lifelong risks to both children and adults.

The doctors who are standing up to the vaccine industry are, of course, subjected to the most insidious and politicized attacks by vaccine proponents, but they are nevertheless being seen as heroes by an increasing number of parents (moms especially) who are now able to see through the lies of the vaccine industry.

Even parents of the children studied in the original Lancet paper by Dr Wakefield are strong supporters of his ethics and his research.

Here's what Julia Ahier said, on the record, about the attacks on Wakefield by the BMJ:

"I am absolutely convinced that the MMR triggered my son's condition, as the first problems with pain occurred on the first evening after the vaccination and the loss of skills happened after also he had been gaining weight at a good rate and after the MMR he only gained 1lb 7ozs in 9 months.

I think that Dr Wakefield has only tried to help these children he has not done anything which we as parents did not want him to do. The allegations were unjust because they did not arise from anyone who had medical investigations carried out on them or their parents.

Doctor Wakefield did not recruit anyone into the study group. In our case our son was given the original referral to Professor Walker-Smith by another hospital and I sought a referral with Dr Wakefield our local pediatrician requested the referral.

Dr Wakefield was the kindest most compassionate doctor who had ever taken an interest in our child's case. He did not perform any procedures on our child, these were done with our consent and agreement by other doctors. None of the tests which were performed on our child were against our wishes. There was no display of callous behavior. I have never had any communication with Brian Deer nor do I ever intend to."

Where to learn more - important websites

I really want to urge you to become a fan of Dr Gary Null (www.GaryNull.com) who is doing the very best investigative journalism on this topic anywhere in the world. His four-hour "deconstruction" of the BMJ, Brian Deer and the barrage of false claims against Wakefield stands as perhaps the single most important investigative piece that has yet been produced on this topic. It makes the BMJ's own report by Brian Deer look like a late-night tweet from a drunken blogger.

With his permission, we have made that audio file available for download here on NaturalNews:

http://www.naturalnews.com/files/Ga...

You can follow Gary Null on www.ProgressiveRadioNetwork.com and www.GaryNull.com

Additional websites to check out:

International Medical Council on Vaccination www.vaccinationcouncil.org
ThinkTwice Global Vaccine Institute www.thinktwice.com
Vaccination Liberation www.vaclib.org
U.S. doctors who don't vaccinate www.novaxdoctors.webs.com
Holistic Moms www.holisticmoms.org
Moms Like Me www.momslikeme.com
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny www.drtenpenny.com
Facebook www.facebook.com/vaccineinfo

Articles Related to This Article:

• Facebook crowdsourced investigation exposes vaccine denials of SIGA Technologies

• Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines

• Flu vaccines revealed as the greatest quackery ever pushed in the history of medicine

• The great thimerosal cover-up: Mercury, vaccines, autism and your child's health

• Are mandatory vaccinations acts of violence against children?

• Flu Vaccines, pharma fraud, quack science, the CDC and WHO -- all exposed by Richard Gale and Gary Null


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031173_vaccines_science.html#ixzz1CkErAGbH