Top 15 foods that are so dangerous they’ve been banned from entering other countries, but is fed to Americans

Source:

image

A grapefruit being injected with four syringes containing colour fluids

Top 15 foods that are so dangerous they’ve been banned from entering other countries, but are served in the U.S.

By Ian Greenhalgh
Originally published July 10, 2016

No wonder the US is suffering epidemic levels of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and other nutrition-related conditions

As someone who suffered terribly with a food allergy that was eventually traced to the horrible artificial sweetener Aspartame and has transformed his life through changing his diet to eat as ‘clean’ as possible, this list fills me with dread and certainly doesn’t make me want to eat any American food.

__________

D. Samuelson — News Target
Top 15 foods that are so dangerous they’ve been banned from entering other countries, but are served in the U.S.

Many savvy and health conscious shoppers analyze food labels to know exactly what’s concocted in that jar, can or box. Conversely, millions of Americans, brainwashed by trendy advertising and/or scientific propaganda, remain clueless about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and other ubiquitous genetically engineered ingredients like MSG, maltodextrin, soy protein isolate, et.al. Food manufacturers spend lots of money concocting chemical additives to addict you. Some of these “foods” shoved down American throats are flat out banned in other nations. Distractify.com gives even the occasional junk eater fifteen reasons to just say no.

1. Pink Slime – This is not finely textured beef. It’s to the bone meat scraps mixed with ammonia to bulk up cheap burgers and hot dogs. Not allowed in E.U.

2. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) – For twenty years, Americans and their animals have been guinea pigs eating food with pesticides or herbicides embedded in the DNA. You’ll find GMOs in 80% of all processed food and feed. Animals experience birth defects, intestinal problems and sterility. 38 nations, including Russia, Italy, Venezuela, Scotland and Austria have banned them.

3. Carrageenan – Just cause it’s made from seaweed doesn’t mean it’s healthy. It thickens up U.S.food – yogurt, milk, infant formula – and is a culprit in gastrointestinal disorders. The E.U. bans this in their baby food.

4. Atrazine – This herbicide is an endocrine disrupter and most likely in your drinking water. Exposed male frogs are “chemically castrated” by atrazine and it’s banned in the E.U.

5. Artificial Hormones – We feed these to the cattle to fatten ’em up. Humans may get cancer as a result of eating the meat or milk laden with these synthetic hormones, which are banned in Japan, E.U., China and Australia.

6. Chickens in Arsenic – You know arsenic is a poison, but it makes your raw chicken purchase look pinker. Cows eat arsenic laced chicken manure. You might too, if you eat conventional meat. This process is banned in the E.U.

7. Ractopamine Pork – No, it’s not a dinosaur, Ractopamine is an asthma medication for pigs. It increases their muscle and the money they bring. You might get headaches, insomnia or gain weight or worse. Ractopamine additives are banned in Russia, China and the E.U.

8. Brominated Vegetable Oil (BVM) – if you drink energy/sport drinks, this poisonous flame retardant keeps your drink from separating. And may cause cancer, birth defects, schizophrenia and worse in rats. It’s so bad, 100 countries have banned it.

9. Artificial Coloring – You’re ingesting petroleum and coal tar when eating Red 40 or Yellow 5. It’s in candy and many other brightly colored foods. Read the label, because hyperactivity and brain cancer are risks. Banned in many parts of the E.U.

10. Bromine Bread – This increases the bulk and revs up the speed in bread production. Rats have bulked up with cancer, nervous system and kidney problems, among others. Canada. China. Brazil and the E.U. have banned it.

11. Azodicarbonamide – A chemical for whiter flour, yoga mats and rubber soles. Check your bread products. Asthma is a risk. It’s banned in Singapore.

12. Butylated Hydroxyanisole and Butylated Hydroxytoluene – This stops food spoilage. And may cause cancer. In butter, meat and gum. Japan, the UK say No!

13. Antibiotics – Given to animals to keep ’em healthy and fatter in CAFOs. Linked to antibiotic resistance and banned in New Zealand, E.U. and Australia.

14. Irradiation – Fukashima for food! Radiation is used to extend shelf life and killing bacteria. Used on meats, fruits and vegetables. Banned in the E.U.

15. Phosphate Additives – Added to meats for “flavor enhancement” and less shrinkage. Also sodas. Distractify.com calls it an “arterial toxin and increases heart disease risk.”

Support your local farmer and grow your own food .

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns.

Posted by Ian Greenhalgh on July 10, 2016, With 7027 Reads Filed under Investigations. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.

Here are some very insiteful responses ny readers regarding: “Top 15 foods that are so dangerous they’ve been banned from entering other countries, but are served in the U.S.”

Countries banning these things are smart. Here in the “USA” we have FDA-USDA-EPA and so many other agencies, approving poisons as “food” to guarantee profits to big pharma-medical and insurance corporates, who get to bankrupt their victims! very similarly MONSATAN cropdusts an organic farmer’s land and if anything is left standing afterwards they sue the farmer for stealing their “patented” GMO crap, instead of them being sued for the GMO contaminating a REAL crop! the “legal system” and “banksters” are in on it of course.

“supermarket loyalty discount cards” were NEVER needed for inventory or shelf re-stocking. they spent billions putting card systems in place mid-late 90’s, to more individually track the toxic junk you eat. they can know how much what color how stinky this week, and through “relational database shared information system” (big SIS) the “doctors” know what to hand out to treat the symptoms, insurers know how big a “health risk” to charge more (and more!).. but most people can’t add the 1+1+1 of it, mindlessly dismissing it all as “conspiracy theory” when all the components are right in front of them!
   
HFCS is made from GMO garbage “corn”, making it worse. I was “lucky” 30+ years ago finding out “aspartame” (ONE soda!) would give me a 12-14 hour migraine, only took 4-5 sodas over a couple months time to make the conclusion. thought and said it “watch this s#it cause brain tumors!”, which is happening but “doctors” are programmed to deny it as they pitch band-aid symptom treatment bankrupting people. same for “krones” (sp?), its not a “disease” its a symptom of poisons being approved for sale as “food”. a “doctor” or “nurse” poisoning patients to feel important and needed would normally be locked away for being a psychopath attempting murder, but now it’s the whole “system” doing it, for PROFITS!!!!
   
  

    Once, drying seeds from fresh produce would yield healthy growing seeds . Since irradiation has been used, this is no longer the case.
  

        Save heirloom seeds. I save seeds from my heirloom vegetable plants for the next growing season because I get the same plants year after year. I also grow organically to avoid nasty chemicals in the soil or on my veggies.
   
   
    Foods are “irradiated” by exposure to gamma rays emitted from cobalt -60. This does not make the food radioactive, but does make it sterile. Cobalt-60 was used as a source of gamma rays in radiotherapy.
    Cancer patients did not become radioactive from treatments .Pasteurization also makes foods sterile.
   
   
U.S. Beef banned all over due its Prion Disease making everybody in this country loony-Tunes which you can see by putting stuff like this in…

  
    For those interested in the water fluoridation issue read these two articles:
    IN HONOR OF DR. JOHN YIAMOUYIANNIS
    FLOURIDE ACTION NETWORK
    OCT. 11, 2000
    AND
    IN MEMORIAM — DEAN BURK (1904-1988), FLUORIDE, 22:3, 1989 July
    by H.L. McKinney, University of Kansas; Lawrence, Kansas
    These are the two pioneers in this fight. John Yiamouyiannis., Ph.D. was a top biochemist who was the most formidable opponent in any debate on water fluoridation. He was so good, others would avoid debating him! Dean Burk, Ph.D. was considered one of the greatest biochemists of the 20th Century and earned his Ph.D. from UC Berkeley in Plant Nutrition and Chemistry at the young age of 23! While skeptical at first, he became interested

       
  
        DR. JOHN YIAMOUYIANNIS’s priceless book published over 2 decades back. I read it soon after.
   

    Thanks for this important article. This simply shows again the FDA is a totally corrupt cesspool bought and paid for by the Pharmaceutical and Food Processing companies, just as corrupt as most of the rest of our worthless government. The late John P. Dobbins Sc.D., who had a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from UC Berkeley, an electrical engineering degree from a top school in Germany and a doctor’s degree in physics from the Swiss Federal Institute in Zurich, after a distinguished career in industry, he became interested in human health. He submitted a detailed report “The Health Dangers of Sugar” to the FDA and proved it is a toxic poison and requested they remove it from the AFL or approved foods list. He won the argument but of course
   

    Thank you Ian. We will continue the fight to remove these toxins from America. The only thing I might add to your compilation is that “fluoride” is found in the water supply of most major cities here. Thus, commercial food and drink manufacturing (soups / bottled drinks etc) are tainted with this toxic substance that is also banned in several European countries and a multitude globally.
   

About
Veterans Today (VT) is an independent online journal representing the positions and providing news for members of the military and veteran community in areas of national security, geopolitical stability and domestic policy. All writers are fully independent and represent their own point of view and not necessarily the point of view of any other writer, administrator or entity.

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

Mercury poison over our heads

image

Rat poison

image

image

image

chemicals in our food are the problem - Demand Natural, Grow your own food

If Cannabis Can Kill “Incurable” Brain Cancer, Why Is It Criminalized?

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2016/11/if-cannabis-can-kill-incurable-brain-cancer-why-is-it-criminalized-video-2-3432875.html

Nov 1 22:01

By The Sleuth ​Journal

If Cannabis Can Kill “Incurable” Brain Cancer, Why Is It Criminalized? (VIDEO)

November 1, 2016 15:13

(Before It’s News)

image

brain-cancer-cure

cannabis-medical-marijuana

Cannabis contains a compound that may kill brain cancers that chemotherapy and radiation can’t touch, so why isn’t it being used today?

In recent years, we’ve focused heavily on educating our readers about the still relatively unknown role that cancer stem cells play in cancer, both in terms of conventional cancer treatment failure and the exceptionally promising role that natural interventions play in targeting these highly malignant cells.

It is encouraging to witness a growing awareness that cancer has been completely misunderstood, and that in order to make progress against the global epidemic we will have to go back to the wisdom of the ancients by using foods and spices instead of toxic chemicals and radiation to fight a disease that should be classified more as a survival mechanism unmasked than an inexorably lethal, genetically-driven condition. Even the National Cancer Institute now admits that it had been wrong for decades about “early stage” breast (DCIS) and prostate (HGPIN) “cancers,” and that they should be reclassified as indolent or benign lesions of epithelial origin, i.e. not “cancer” at all! Essentially, therefore, millions were overdiagnosed and overtreated for cancers they never had. Even now, despite this admission, the vast majority of conventional doctors have yet to account for, acknowledge, or integrate this radically different definition of cancer and its implications for treatment into their “standard of care.”

Only last week, we featured a new review on natural therapies that target cancer stem cells, many of which included common foods and spices. You can view it here. But one substance conspicuously absent from the list was cannabis, which is the herb we now turn to to give it a fair representation in the context of this topic.

A recent article published in the Journal Neuroimmune Pharmacology titled, “The Antitumor Activity of Plant-Derived Non-Psychoactive Cannabinoids,” reviewed the therapeutic potential of a non-psychoactive class of phytochemicals found in cannabis known as cannabinoids. Unlike THC, cannabinoids do not activate the cannabinoid 1 and cannabinoid 2 receptors in the central nervous system in any significant way, making their activity less controversial as they do not produce changes in perception and sensation associated with “recreational” and/or “psychedelic” drugs. There are actually over 60 cannabinoids in cannabis, but the second most abundant one, cannabidiol (CBD), has been found to inhibit and/or kill a wide range of cancers in the animal model, including gliobastoma (a difficult-to-treat type of brain cancer), breast, lung, prostate, and colon cancer. There have been a wide range of mechanisms identified behind these observed anti-tumor activities, including anti-angiogenic (preventing new blood vessel formation), anti-metastatic, anti-cell viability, but the one we wish to focus on in this report is its ability to to inhibit the stem-like potential of cancer cells.

Stem cells are unique within the body as they are capable of continual self-renewal, theoretically making them immortal relative to regular body cells (somatic cells), which die after a fixed number or replication cycles. In their normal state of function they are essential for healing and bodily regeneration, as they are capable of differentiating into the wide range of cells that make up the body and need to be regularly replaced when damaged.

This so-called pluripotent property of stem cells is also observed in tumor formation and maintenance, as cancer stem cells are capable of producing the entire range of different cells that make up a tumor colony. Unlike regular tumor cells, cancer stem cells are uniquely tumorigenic because they are capable of breaking off from an existing lesion or tumor and forming a new tumor colony of cells. In this sense, they are “mother cells” at the heart of cancer malignancy, whose ability to colonize other tissues by producing all the “daughter cells” necessary to form a new tumor make their existence highly concerning from the perspective of cancer prevention and treatment. Radiation and chemotherapy, while capable of reducing the size of a tumor, actually enrich the post-treatment residual lesion or tumor with higher levels of cancer stem cells, and in some cases transform non-cancer stem cells into cancer stem cells, ultimately making the post-treatment state of the treated tissue far worse than its pre-treatment condition. This is why identifying and using natural, safe, effective and affordable ways to target cancer stem cells versus the non-tumorigenic tumor cells in a lesion or tumor is the only rational way to treat cancer, and should be the primary focus of present day cancer treatment approaches.

The new review discussed the way that cannabidiol targets and/or inhibits the cancer stem cell subpopulation in cancers such as the highly treatment-resistant form of brain cancer known as glioblastoma, which is widely considered by conventional medicine as “incurable.” A 2013 study,1 mentioned in the review, found that patient-derived glioblastoma cells when exposed to cannabidiol saw a significant down-regulation of the genetic tumor marker Id-1, which has been closely correlated with brain cancer cell invasiveness. They also found that cannabidiol was capable of inhibiting neurosphere formation (a sign of cancer stem cell tumor formation), as well as was capable of inhibiting glioblastoma tumor invasiveness in an animal model.

The results of this preclinical study were so compelling that the researchers concluded cannibidiol might make an ideal adjunct treatment:

With its lack of systemic toxicity and psychoactivity, cannabidiol is an ideal candidate agent in this regard and may prove useful in combination with front-line agents for the treatment of patients with aggressive and high-grade glioblastoma tumors.

Integrative approaches often focus on using natural interventions as “adjuncts” to conventional, inherently toxic approaches like chemotherapy and radiation, we believe that another possibility exists, namely, that cannabidiol in combination with a wide range of other natural substances studied for targeting glioblastoma is more effective (and certainly far safer) than a combination approach. To view other anti-glioblastoma substances, view our database on the subject.

Another highly relevant study published in 2007 titled, “Cannabinoids induce glioma stem-like cell differentiation and inhibit gliomagenesis,”2 found that cannabinoids target the stem-like properties of glioma cells, encouraging their differentiation into functioning, non-tumorigenic cells, and inhibiting the dysregulated increased production of glioma cells.

A more recent 2015 study,3 found that glioblastoma cells treated with cannabidiol inhibited their self-renewal by down-regulating “critical stem cell maintenance and growth regulators.”

Another study, published last month, found that cannabidiol inhibits glioma stem-like proliferation by inducing autophagy, a natural form of programmed cell death.4

Consider, finally, that the cancer stem cell targeting and killing properties of cannabidiol are only one of a wide range of potential mechanisms through which cannabis as a whole plant, comprised of hundreds of different phytochemicals and phytonutrients, can treat cancer. We have indexed hundreds of studies on cannabis’ therapeutic properties, a good subset concerning its ability to prevent, kill, or regress a wide range of different cancer types. You can view them all on our cannabis research database.

Research on cannabis and brain cancer has only just begun, but considering the abject failure if not also sheer violence of conventional approaches, waiting for sufficient quantities of Pharma or government capital to flow in the direction of a non-patentable substance already saddled with archaic laws in some cases criminalizing its possession is a no win proposition. Anecdotes of healing with cannabis are not uncommon. One such report can be viewed on our colleague Dr. Jeffrey Dach’s website, titled, “Cannabis Oil Brain Tumor Remission,” demonstrating just how powerful cannabis and its cannabinoids may be for accomplishing what conventional approaches can not. A couple years ago, we reported on a similar case of temporary remission in childhood leukemia using cannabis extract. Also, consider reports like this one, where a woman clearly being victimized by conventional medicine was able to replace 40 different medications through using raw cannabis juice.

The short of it is that the future of medicine, if it is to continue to advertise itself to be concerned with alleviating human suffering and being guided by “evidence,” must incorporate this safe, time-tested, affordable and effective healing agent into its standard of care. Failing to do so will not de-validate cannabis, rather, but the medical system itself. One might ask, if cannabis can treat “incurable” brain cancers, and is safer and more effective than chemotherapy and radiation, shouldn’t withholding it or information about its healing properties be considered criminal? Instead we still live in a time and age where simply possessing it or using it is in some jurisdictions classified as a criminal offense of dire if not irreparable consequence to our civil liberties. Perhaps we are at a critical turning point now and the aforementioned research will lead us all forward to a more enlightened medical ethos that respects the right of a patient to choose his or her treatment as long as it does no harm to others.

References

1 Soroceanu L, Murase R, Limbad C, Singer EL, Allison J, Adrados I, Kawamura R, Pakdel A, Fukuyo Y, Nguyen D, Khan S, Arauz R, Yount GL, Moore D, Desprez PY, McAllister SD (2013) Id-1 is a Key transcriptional regulator of glioblastoma aggressiveness and a novel therapeutic target. Cancer Res 73:1559–1569

2 Tania Aguado, Arkaitz Carracedo, Boris Julien, Guillermo Velasco, Garry Milman, Raphael Mechoulam, Luis Alvarez, Manuel Guzmán, Ismael Galve-Roperh. Cannabinoids induce glioma stem-like cell differentiation and inhibit gliomagenesis. J Biol Chem. 2007 Mar 2;282(9):6854-62. Epub 2007 Jan 2.

3 Singer E, Judkins J, Salomonis N, Matlaf L, Soteropoulos P, McAllister S, Soroceanu L (2015) Reactive oxygen species-mediated therapeu- tic response and resistance in glioblastoma. Cell Death Dis 6:e1601

4 Nabissi M, Morelli MB, Amantini C, Liberati S, Santoni M, Ricci-Vitiani L, Pallini R, Santoni G. Cannabidiol stimulates Aml-1a-dependent glial differentiation and inhibits glioma stem-like cells proliferation by inducing autophagy in a TRPV2-dependent manner. Int J Cancer. 2015 Oct 15;137(8):1855-69. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29573. Epub 2015 May 8. PubMed PMID: 25903924.

© November 1, 2016 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post If Cannabis Can Kill “Incurable” Brain Cancer, Why Is It Criminalized? (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

The Death over Our Heads

The Death over Our Heads: Energy Saving Light Bulbs Are Poisonous

Source
http://wp.me/p2APzz-awk

The Death over Our Heads: Energy Saving Light Bulbs Are Poisonous To the Brain, Nervous System, Liver, Kidneys and Heart

fluro-danger

image

Mercury Dangers

Ecological light bulbs contain mercury. Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that is particularly toxic to children and pregnant women. Mercury is particularly toxic by the brain, nervous system, liver and kidneys.

Many of us are aiming to save energy and money replaced the old standard bulbs with new ecological lamps that save energy.

However, a new generation of energy-efficient light bulbs is so toxic that the Environmental Protection Agency United States launched an extraordinary protocol implemented in the event of breakage of the bulb and release toxic gas.

cfl danger

A study carried out by scientists from Fraunhofer Wilhelm Klaudic Institute has shown that these light bulbs, if they break indoors, they emit 20 times more mercury than the maximum allowed.

Energy-efficient light bulbs can cause:

    Dizziness
    Headaches
    Migraines
    Seizures
    Fatigue
    Inability to concentrate
    Nervousness

Why the need to restore the ordinary light bulbs?

Eco bulbs contain mercury. Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that is particularly toxic to children and pregnant women. It is particularly toxic by the brain, nervous system, liver and kidneys. It can also cause damage to the cardiovascular, immune and reproductive systems. Mercury can lead to tremors, nervousness, insomnia, memory loss, headaches, cancer and Alzheimer’s.

    Organic light bulbs can cause cancer

    Eco bulbs emit a large amount of UV radiation

New research conducted by Peter Brown in Berlin has shown that these bulbs contain toxic carcinogens that can cause cancer:

    Phenol is a mildly acidic toxin in the form of crystals which are obtained from coal tar and is used in the chemical industry.
    Naphthalene, flammable compound in the form of crystals, which is formed by the distillation of coal tar, which is used as a raw material in the chemical industry.
    Styrene, unsaturated hydrocarbon liquid which is obtained as a by-product in the production of petroleum.

Energy saving lamps that emit UV-B radiation and a small amount of UV-C radiation. It is universally recognized that UV radiation harms the skin (causes skin cancer) and eyes. Radiation from energy-efficient light bulbs directly affects the immune system and damages the skin tissue to such an extent that prevents the formation of vitamin D.

Finally, these bulbs are so toxic that should not be thrown in the regular trash. They are hazardous waste.

If you break one in the house, open the windows and doors and leave the house at least 15 minutes in order to minimize exposure to toxic gases.

Unfortunately, the bad news is that the old bulbs will soon no longer be available.

Article from:

Healthy Cures

Look into alternative lighting. Research everything. Research online see if you can find a supply of the old bulbs. Or just go LED that is a very cost effective lighting source.

I personally don’t buy these types of bulbs and use LED it is a soft light but does the job.

People need to boycott bad products and hold the criminals accountable for their genocidal practices.

image

The Truth About Chemo and Radiation

Chemo and Radiation Actually Make Cancer More Malignant

Waking Times

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the developed world, and yet we are still in the dark ages when it comes to treating and understanding it.

WIKI-Chemo-Bottles-200x300

The colossal failure of conventional cancer treatments reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what cancer – the “enemy” – actually is.  For one, chemotherapy and radiotherapy are both intrinsically carcinogenic treatments. The only justification for their use, in fact, is that they are highly effective at damaging the DNA within cells – with the hope that the cancer cells will be more susceptible to being harmed than the healthy ones (sadly, not always true).

The reality, however, is that the “collateral damage” from treatment is inevitable; it is not a matter of “if,” but to what degree the damaging side effects will occur. As in real modern warfare, the decision to strike is often based on deciding how much collateral damage to “civilian” populations is deemed acceptable. This is not unlike the fixation in toxicological risk assessments for drugs, environmental pollutants, food additives, etc., where determining “an acceptable level of harm” (a rather horrible oxymoron) to the exposed population is the first order of business.

Chemo Agent Classified by the WHO as Carcinogenic

The DNA-damaging, or genotoxic effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, according to the prevailing wisdom, are the #1 cause of cancer initiation and promotion. This is known as the “Mutational Theory” of cancer, and has been the dominant explanation for half a century. Therefore it is absolutely disconcerting that the standard of care in cancer treatment today is still the use of genotoxic agents versus substances that are able to selectively harm the “bad” cells, leaving the “good” ones intact; which is also known as “selective cytotoxicty,” and is a property characteristic of natural anti-cancer compounds and whole plant extracts. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the case of fruit-derived compounds, such as graviola, where research indicates that fruit extract may be up to 10,000 times more effective at killing certain cancer cells versus adriamycin (not so affectionately named the “red devil” for its lethal side effects) and is highly selective in which cells it kills.

Take the cancer drug tamoxifen, for example. It is classified by the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society as a human carcinogen, and has been documented to cause over two dozen health-destroying side effects, and yet it is still being used as a first line treatment for certain types of breast cancer. Does that really make sense?  Even if tamoxifen was effective (which increasingly it is not), does it really matter if it “cures” breast cancer only to cause endometrial or liver cancer (which is often far more deadly than breast cancer) as a direct result of the treatment? Tamoxifen and chemotherapy resistance is increasingly a problem. In the same way that certain pathogenic bacteria become resistant to antibiotics – even becoming stronger after being challenged with them – drug resistance and multi-drug resistance to chemoagents is the canary in the coal mine, indicating the entire paradigm, hinged as it is on patented, highly toxic chemicals, is rearing to collapse.

Radiation Therapy Known To Cause Cancer & Enhance Malignancy

Similarly, radiotherapy is known to induce secondary cancers, along with a wide range of serious adverse effects. A woman whose breast is irradiated is more likely to develop lung cancer, for instance. But its effects may actually be far worse on the primary cancer it is being used to treat…

When a breast tumor is exposed to radiation, the cells within that tumor are not uniform, but have great heterogeneity. Some of the cells are fast-replicating, whereas some are slow-replicating and benign. Some cells are older, technically senescent, and by their very existence are keeping neighboring cells within the tumor and with greater potential for malignancy from breaking out into invasive growth. There are also cancer stem cells, which are technically slower-replicating and therefore less likely to be destroyed by chemotherapy or radiotherapy, and yet which are responsible for re-seeding and fueling the growth of the tumor itself with a theoretical limitless resupply of daughter cells.

Radiotherapy has been shown to increase the survival and self-renewing capacity of these breast cancer initiating cells by up to 30-fold, which means that while a radiation treatment may initially regress a tumor’s volume/mass, it may actually be selecting out the more radiation-resistant and aggressive subpopulation of tumor cells which ultimately lead to higher malignancy. This promotion of self-initiating cancer cells is also true for chemotherapy, of course. Incidentally, the low-dose radiation used to diagnose breast cancers in x-ray mammography is likely causing far more cancers in women over time than it is said to prevent. If you read the actual peer-reviewed medical literature on the subject you may be surprised to find that the low-dose ionizing radiation is actually far more carcinogenic (3-4 fold higher) than the high-dose radiation it is often compared to in radiation risk assessments. In fact, one of the most well known breast cancer associated genes, namely, BRCA1/BRCA2, confers greater susceptibility to radiation induced breast cancer in those who have it.  In other words, staying away from medical radiation, diagnostic or therapeutic, may be essential to avoid the cancer it is being used to both “prevent” and “treat.”

Why Conventional Treatment Fails & Will Continue To Do So

The failure of chemotherapy can work in the same way. When you expose a diverse population of breast tumor cells to a highly toxic agent, a normal response is to become damaged to the point of dying. But cancer may not be a strict random mutation process, but an ancient survival program unmasked; that is, the cancer cell may be drawing from a far more ancient evolutionary and genetic “tool kit” which enables it to survive far harsher cellular environments, e.g. chemical exposure, low oxygen, higher availability of glucose/fructose, acidic pH, etc. and therefore the addition of highly toxic chemotherapy-type chemicals will selectively kill the weaker, and technically healthier (more benign) cells within a breast tumor, while creating the very conditions within which the malignant and more chemoresistant cancer cells may thrive. Multidrug-resistance genes and proteins are involved. When attacked by a chemical (xenobiotic) the cancer cell may “regress” and activate the genetic equipment that enables it to efficiently push out (efflux) the chemoagent being used, surviving, while its neighboring weaker (though technically more normal and healthier) cells die off.

Can you see, then, how radiotherapy and chemotherapy may be responsible for driving a cancer into greater malignancy, at the very moment that it is harming the rest of the body, compromising the immune system (damage to the bone marrow and direct harm to the immune cells)? The incurability of pancreatic cancer vis-à-vis chemotherapy and radiation, therefore, may reflect how the standard treatments themselves are driving the patient into premature death. When the average pancreatic cancer patient (using most chemo and radiation protocols) lives no more than 6 months, do we say that the cancer killed them, or the treatments?

Standard operating procedures is to write off the patients death as being “caused” by an “exceptionally aggressive” form of cancer, rather than to admit that the very treatments may have transformed a relatively slow growing tumor into a rapidly proliferating and invasive one. Think of it this way: if you were being blasted with chemicals and radiation, and you were seeing your neighbors dropping like flies, would you relocate? Can you, therefore, blame a subpopulation of tumor cells, having survived chemotherapy and radiotherapy while it’s neighboring cells did not, moving to another tissue – say, bone, or brain – in order to survive? Cancer, after all, is something our body does (and likely to survive) and not something that happens to it, as if the genes in our body just went off one day like a cancer time-bomb, fatalistically predetermined by the less than perfect genes we inherited from our predecessors.

Given the likelihood that the conventional cancer industry is often not only failing to improve the quality and length of the lives of those who it treats, but quite the opposite, reducing the quality and length of their lives, the time has come to look for safe, effective, affordable, inexpensive and accessible alternatives to patented chemicals and ionizing radiation in the prevention and treatment of cancer. And the solution may be as close to us as our kitchen spice racks:

The Case For Turmeric

While US law presently forbids the medicinal use of natural substancesturmeric has been used in ancient Indian medicine for thousands of years, and curcumin, which gives the spice its golden hue, is one of the most extensively studied natural compounds of all time, with 4,588 references to studies performed on it on the National Library of Medicine’s bibliographic database known as Medline [as of 2.25.2012]. Yet, despite having been shown to have therapeutic value in more than 500 diseases in animal and test tube studies, it still has not been the subject of extensive human clinical trials.  As a public service GreenMedInfo.com has indexed curcumin’s anti-cancer properties in more than 50 cancers, with the top 10 most compelling cancers applications in cancer prevention and treatment listed below:

What Has the Actual Research Shown?

Type of Cancer Curcumin Has Potential Value In Preventing or treating Number of Peer-Reviewed Studies Supporting Its Therapeutic Properties
Breast Cancer 58
Colorectal Cancer 23
Colon Cancer 51
Prostate Cancer 42
Pancreatic Cancer 24
Cancers: Drug Resistant 40
Lung Cancer 37
Liver Cancer 27
Cancer Metastasis 32
Skin Cancer 15

Sources: curcumin

As one can see by the density of research referenced above, curcumin holds great promise. First, it has an exceedingly high margin of safety relative to conventional drugs.  As an example, the dose at which it will acutely kill 50% of the animals given it is 2,000 mg/kg, whereas it only takes 115 mg/kg of 5-fluorouracil (conventional chemo agent) to produce the same effects. What is even more amazing is that it  has been repeatedly demonstrated to possess  both chemoprotective and chemosensitizing properties, which means that it will both enhance the positive cancer-killing effects of conventional chemotherapy, while at the same time protect healthy cells which may be susceptible to being harmed by chemotherapy.  GreenMedInfo.com contains 57 studies on its chemosensitizing properties and 70 on its chemoprotective properties for reference.  As if this wasn’t impressive enough, it also has profound radioprotective and radiosensitizing properties.  Radioprotective substances protect the healthy cells in the body from being damaged by radiotherapy, and radiosensitizing substances help the radiation kill the cancer cells, making them “more sensitive” to the radiation treatments.  GreenMedInfo contains 15 studies on curcumin’s radiosensitizing properties and 23 studies on its radioprotective properties.

Given this growing and compelling body of research, should not curcumin be considered for use in cancer treatment? And if not as a first-line treatment,  then at the very least as an adjuvant in integrative cancer care?

Thank You President Trump

Draining The SwampDecember 15, 2018
Pray for President Trump, the White Hats, our Military and all benevolent beings helping to Free Humanity . Be in JOY and in PEACE. Love others as you Love yourself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Be an example of Love and Joy. Peace will be ours and so it is.

Angel4Light777@gmail.com

Join 2,137 other followers