Bacon is a greasy guilty pleasure for most people. However, according to a study, it could also increase your risk of developing breast cancer. The results of a 2018 meta-analysis have revealed that bacon and other types of meat are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.
Data from the meta-analysis was published in September 2018 in the International Journal of Cancer Research.
For the meta-analysis, researchers examined 15 previous studies, which involved a total of over 1.2 million women, to determine a connection between breast cancer and processed meat.
Data from the study revealed that people who ate the most processed meat, or at least 0.9 ounces to one ounce (25 to 30 grams) daily, had about a nine percent higher risk of breast cancer unlike those who ate the least processed meat (about 0 to 0.07 ounces or 0.17 ounces (two to five grams) a day. (Related: Confirmed AGAIN: Sodium nitrite preservative in processed meat causes breast cancer.)
Processed meats and cancer risk
Take note that not all studies regarding processed meats and cancer have arrived at the same conclusion. For example, a 2015 World Health Organization-affiliated study showed that while processed meats aren’t linked to breast cancer, the results implied that these kinds of food may increase colorectal cancer risk.
Dr. Marji McCullough, a senior scientific director of epidemiology research at the American Cancer Society, warned that breast cancer is a common disease among women. She added that processed meats such as hot dogs are popular food choices and that together, these factors highlight the importance of considering processed meats as a potential cancer risk. In fact, an earlier meta-analysis on the topic also reached similar conclusions.
The power of the elements: Discover Colloidal Silver Mouthwash with quality, natural ingredients like Sangre de Drago sap, black walnut hulls, menthol crystals and more. Zero artificial sweeteners, colors or alcohol. Learn more at the Health Ranger Store and help support this news site.
Other processed meats that may increase your cancer risk include:
- Beef jerky and dried meat
- Canned meat
- Corned beef
- Salted and cured meat
- Smoked meat
There are limitations, however. Research that points to a link between specific kinds of foods and the risk of certain health conditions have been inconclusive. For links between cancer and processed meats, current data suggests that the researchers could only assess the impact of high- and low-processed meat consumption since there was insufficient information about the risks of consuming 0.35 ounces to 0.5 ounces (10 or 15 grams) of meat products.
According to Andrew Milkowski, a meat science researcher and an adjunct professor of animal sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who wasn’t involved with the new meta-analysis, some of the studies involved in the analysis had participants recall “what their diet had been like at certain points in the past.” Milkowski, who worked for Oscar Mayer before joining the University of Wisconsin back in 2006, advised that this research technique heavily relies on memories with a lot of room for under- and overestimation.
To address this concern, Maryam Farvid, the lead author on the latest project, and the research team only reviewed studies that surveyed women before they received any diagnosis. Farvid, who is also a researcher at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, explained that the method she and her team used ensures that the women were less likely to confuse their pre- and post-cancer diets.
Milkowski posited that to gather accurate data, researchers needed to administer controlled diets to participants before they were diagnosed with anything. Researchers must then monitor the participants closely to identify any changes in their health. However, he admitted that these conditions are “extremely difficult to pull off.”
Milkowski added that the nine percent increase in risk noted in the report may be due to a statistical error and that it is not enough to be a cause for concern. Others pointed out the same thing when the results of the 2015 WHO-associated report were released since it stated that processed meats are “likely carcinogens” and that these types of food increased colon cancer risk by 18 percent.
Meanwhile, Farvid said that other dietary factors are also linked to breast cancer risk, like the amount of fiber or fruits and vegetables in an individual’s diet. She said that while these factors can also decrease or increase the risk of the disease by similar margins, not much is heard about these findings.
Avoidable cancer risk factors
Farvid advised that while study findings on the matter sometimes contradict each other, the fact that eating less processed meat can lower cancer risk is still significant, especially since other factors like genetics are unchangeable. It can be hard to change your dietary habits, but it doesn’t mean that doing so is impossible.
Both Farvid and McCullough warn that people should start paying attention to their consumption of processed meat. McCullough added that it is also part of the American Cancer Society’s current dietary recommendations for minimizing cancer risk.
Browse other articles about the dangers of processed meats and how they can cause cancer at Cancer.news.
A common drug used to control blood pressure and help prevent heart failure was recalled by the US Food and Drug Administration on Friday, a week after 22 other countries recalled it because the drug contains a chemical that poses a potential cancer risk.
Valsartan is off patent and is used as a component of other generic medicines, but not all medicines containing the ingredient are involved, according to the FDA. The US recall includes the versions of valsartan that are made by Major Pharmaceuticals, Solco Healthcare and Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. as well as valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) sold by Solco Healthcare and Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.
There was outrage among meat lovers after researchers revealed their beloved bacon and sausages cause cancer.
But while your daily slice of ham may cause you to develop the disease, there are many other products in the modern world that could get you first.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is the World Health Organization‘s source for information about cancer, has released the definitive list of 116 things that can trigger the disease.
There is good news for carnivores as the IARC was keen to point out although processed meat may be in the same category as tobacco, it is by no meas as dangerous.
The spokeswoman said: “Processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos (IARC Group 1,carcinogenic to humans), but this does not mean that they are all equally dangerous.
“The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.”
The obvious ones are all there, including smoking, sun beds, asbestos and alcohol.
Some of these risk factors, like wood dust, paint fumes and coal tar pitch are limited to people working in trades such as furniture making and roofing.
But other cancer causers come into contact with far more people, including the contraceptive pill, which is taken by 3.5million women in the UK.
Diesel exhaust, which is in the air most of us breathe, is also a trigger.
The drug Tamoxifen is also on the list, which is actually given to breast cancer sufferers to reduce pain and tenderness.
The inventory provides further ammunition for the anti-fracking lobby as it reveals the development of shale gas releases toxic chemicals, including shale oil, into the environment.
The catalogue also shows diseases can increase the risk of cancer, including hepatitis B and C as well as HIV.
On Monday, the results were released of a study carried out by 22 experts from 10 countries which found that each 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%.
The researchers also found red meat probably caused cancer, through more research needed to be done. Dr Kurt Straif, Head of the IARC Monographs Programme said: “For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed.
“In view of the large number of people who consume processed meat, the global impact on cancer incidence is of public health importance.”
But despite the scarily long list of carcinogens, a spokeswoman from Cancer Research UK, said there were plenty of ways to cut your risk.
Casey Dunlop, health information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: “Although there’s a long list of things that we know cause cancer, there are things we can do to reduce our risk.
“Smoking is the single largest preventable cause of cancer so the best thing you can do is to give up. Keeping a healthy weight, cutting back on alcohol, eating less red and processed meat and more fibre, and being active can help stack the odds in your favour to reduce your cancer risk.
“Anyone who works with hazardous materials linked to cancer, such as asbestos, should follow health and safety guidance.”
The full list
1. Tobacco smoking
2. Sunlamps and sunbeds
3. Aluminium production
4. Arsenic in drinking water
5. Auramine production
6. Boot and shoe manufacture and repair
7. Chimney sweeping
8. Coal gasification
9. Coal tar distillation
10. Coke (fuel) production
11. Furniture and cabinet making
12. Haematite mining (underground) with exposure to radon
13. Secondhand smoke
14. Iron and steel founding
15. Isopropanol manufacture (strong-acid process)
16. Magenta dye manufacturing
17. Occupational exposure as a painter
18. Paving and roofing with coal-tar pitch
19. Rubber industry
20. Occupational exposure of strong inorganic acid mists containing sulphuric acid
21. Naturally occurring mixtures of aflatoxins (produced by funghi)
22. Alcoholic beverages
23. Areca nut – often chewed with betel leaf
24. Betel quid without tobacco
25. Betel quid with tobacco
26. Coal tar pitches
27. Coal tars
28. Indoor emissions from household combustion of coal
29. Diesel exhaust
30. Mineral oils, untreated and mildly treated
31. Phenacetin, a pain and fever reducing drug
32. Plants containing aristolochic acid (used in Chinese herbal medicine)
33. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) – widely used in electrical equipment in the past, banned in many countries in the 1970s
34. Chinese-style salted fish
35. Shale oils
37. Smokeless tobacco products
38. Wood dust
39. Processed meat
42. Aristolochic acids and plants containing them
44. Arsenic and arsenic compounds
49. Beryllium and beryllium compounds
50. Chlornapazine (N,N-Bis(2-chloroethyl)-2-naphthylamine)
52. Chloromethyl methyl ether
54. 1,4-Butanediol dimethanesulfonate (Busulphan, Myleran)
55. Cadmium and cadmium compounds
57. Methyl-CCNU (1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-(4-methylcyclohexyl)-1-nitrosourea; Semustine)
58. Chromium(VI) compounds
60. Contraceptives, hormonal, combined forms (those containing both oestrogen and a progestogen)
61. Contraceptives, oral, sequential forms of hormonal contraception (a period of oestrogen-only followed by a period of both oestrogen and a progestogen)
64. Dyes metabolized to benzidine
65. Epstein-Barr virus
66. Oestrogens, nonsteroidal
67. Oestrogens, steroidal
68. Oestrogen therapy, postmenopausal
69. Ethanol in alcoholic beverages
71. Ethylene oxide
72. Etoposide alone and in combination with cisplatin and bleomycin
74. Gallium arsenide
75. Helicobacter pylori (infection with)
76. Hepatitis B virus (chronic infection with)
77. Hepatitis C virus (chronic infection with)
78. Herbal remedies containing plant species of the genus Aristolochia
79. Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (infection with)
80. Human papillomavirus type 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59 and 66
81. Human T-cell lymphotropic virus type-I
83. Methoxsalen (8-Methoxypsoralen) plus ultraviolet A-radiation
84. 4,4′-methylene-bis(2-chloroaniline) (MOCA)
85. MOPP and other combined chemotherapy including alkylating agents
86. Mustard gas (sulphur mustard)
88. Neutron radiation
89. Nickel compounds
90. 4-(N-Nitrosomethylamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK)
91. N-Nitrosonornicotine (NNN)
92. Opisthorchis viverrini (infection with)
93. Outdoor air pollution
94. Particulate matter in outdoor air pollution
95. Phosphorus-32, as phosphate
96. Plutonium-239 and its decay products (may contain plutonium-240 and other isotopes), as aerosols
97. Radioiodines, short-lived isotopes, including iodine-131, from atomic reactor accidents and nuclear weapons detonation (exposure during childhood)
98. Radionuclides, α-particle-emitting, internally deposited
99. Radionuclides, β-particle-emitting, internally deposited
100. Radium-224 and its decay products
101. Radium-226 and its decay products
102. Radium-228 and its decay products
103. Radon-222 and its decay products
104. Schistosoma haematobium (infection with)
105. Silica, crystalline (inhaled in the form of quartz or cristobalite from occupational sources)
106. Solar radiation
107. Talc containing asbestiform fibres
110. Thiotepa (1,1′,1′-phosphinothioylidynetrisaziridine)
111. Thorium-232 and its decay products, administered intravenously as a colloidal dispersion of thorium-232 dioxide
114. Vinyl chloride
115. Ultraviolet radiation
116. X-radiation and gamma radiation
I am recommending that all of my friends take just one minute for this quiz to find out your personal risk for cancer.
Do it for yourself but also for everyone who loves you and that you love. It’s very easy to reduce your risk for cancer but
the first step is finding out your own personal risk. Click on “Start Quiz” below – one minute of your time can literally save your life!
Berkeley orders mobile phone vendors to warn buyers of radiation risk; industry front group still hiding cancer link from public
The progressive California town of Berkeley has passed a new resolution mandating that the safety information typically buried deep within the fine print of mobile phone user manuals instead be emblazoned as a prominent safety warning that consumers will actually notice and acknowledge.
The Guardian reports that Berkeley lawmakers crafted the resolution to address what they see as “an important right-to-know issue,” contending that key safety information warning users about cancer and other health risks associated with mobile phone use is typically too obscure for the average person to understand.
As it currently stands, most wireless-capable devices like smartphones already carry Federal Communications Commission (FCC)-mandated safety warnings about how far a mobile device should be kept away from the body to avoid injury. The official recommendation is that most devices remain at a distance of 5 to 25 millimeters away from the skin to limit radiation exposure.
Most users don’t know about these warnings because they’re often hidden in the fine print of circumlocutory instruction manuals that are obnoxiously abstruse. The goal is to make accessing this already-provided safety information simpler so that consumers can make safe, smart choices about how they use their mobile phones.
“To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines,” reads the mandated safety information warning. “If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation.”
“This potential risk is greater for children. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely.”
190 scientists from 39 countries affirm that mobile phones increase the risk of cellular stress, genetic damage and cancer
The mandate came about after a poll of Berkeley residents found that 66 percent of respondents who regularly carry mobile phones in their pockets reported being unaware of the FCC’s safety guidelines concerning the dangers associated with keeping one’s mobile phone too close to the body.
“… while 74% of respondents carried their phones in a pocket — considered close contact — 66% were unaware that cell phone manufacturers recommend the products be carried away from the body or used in conjunction with hands-free devices,” explains The Guardian.
“The Berkeley ordinance would require sellers to post the safety information in public view and hand out a separate flyer to buyers who purchase or lease a phone.”
There’s nothing all that novel about the requirement other than the fact that it reiterates what the FCC has already determined concerning mobile phone safety. CTIA – The Wireless Association, a trade organization that represents key wireless industry players, has condemned the move as failing to provide information “grounded in science or sound policy.”
CTIA has an agenda to promote the interests of wireless carriers, phone manufacturers and others within the industry that face increased scrutiny if more users become aware of the proven dangers associated with mobile devices. This industry group, along with various others, hold heavy influence over media and government when it comes to how much the public is told about cell phone risks.
The fact of the matter is that the mandated warning is based on sound science, contrary to what CTIA claims, and an open letter penned by 190 scientists from 39 countries reiterates this.
“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines,” reads the letter, which calls for the United Nations and the World Health Organization (WHO) to conduct an impartial study on the subject.
“Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans.”
Bearing in mind that skin is the body’s largest organ and absorbs substances readily, it’s always a good rule of thumb to avoid exposing skin to anything we wouldn’t ingest. And yet, a common routine is poisoning us on a daily basis – specifically, chlorinated showers and baths. Used in water treatment facilities to destroy harmful bacteria, viruses and fungi, chlorine is a potent disinfectant. But the darker side of water chlorination is rarely acknowledged, namely, that it causes serious harm to humans in ways which often remain unnoticed until major illness strikes.
A hot, steamy shower or bath is a great way to relax and unwind – or so we thought. In reality, we are exposing ourselves to an array of toxins with significant consequences. We would never suspect that we are bathing in an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified pesticide. According to the Global Healing Center post “Chlorine, Cancer, and Heart Disease”:
“There is a lot of well-founded concern about chlorine. When chlorine is added to our water, it combines with other natural compounds to form Trihalomethanes (chlorination byproducts), or THMs. These chlorine byproducts trigger the production of free radicals in the body, causing cell damage, and are highly carcinogenic. The Environmental Defense Fund warns that, ‘Although concentrations of these carcinogens (THMs) are low, it is precisely these low levels that cancer scientists believe are responsible for the majority of human cancers in the United States.’”
A case in point is a study involving women from Hartford, Connecticut, which found that those with breast cancer have much higher levels of chlorine byproducts (by 50 – 60 percent) than women who are cancer-free.
Likewise, research in Spain discovered a higher incidence of bladder cancer in people exposed to chlorine through bathing, showering, ingestion and swimming in pools.
Toxins are not only easily absorbed through pores opened by hot water but also through inhalation of chloroform – a toxic byproduct of water chlorination. In the article “Is your daily shower making you sick?,” Chris Kresser, L.Ac, observes:
“While our bodies can filter out much of the chlorine from our drinking water, the THMs and other disinfectant byproducts we inhale during showers and baths may be much more harmful, since the chlorine gas we inhale enters directly into our blood stream. “
As stated by the EPA, chloroform exposure affects the central nervous system and liver. It can also provoke depression and irritability. Unfortunately, chloramine (ammonia combined with chlorine) is often added to the water supply as well, creating an even heavier toxic load.
Short of swearing off bathing permanently, a few simple methods are effective in reducing contact with chlorine. Needless to say, a high-quality shower filter is the first line of defense. Bathwater filters are also available. However, most only remove chlorine – unless the filter specifically utilizes vitamin C for reducing chloramine as well. Ultimate protection from both chlorine and chloramine would entail a whole-house water filtration system. Budget-friendly options include:
Dissolving 1000 milligrams of vitamin C in bathwater to neutralize chlorine and chloramine (up to 99 percent)
Taking less frequent or shorter showers
Reducing the temperature of bath and shower water
Turning off water while lathering
Chlorine most likely won’t disappear from our water supply anytime soon. As a seemingly cheap disinfectant, it’s here to stay. But through awareness and proactive steps, we can substantially reduce exposure and lessen health risks.
[For more information, please see: Is Chlorine in Our Drinking Water and Swimming Pools a Health Hazard?]
Source: http://wakeup-world.com/2014/08/07/is-this-one-daily-habit-increasing-your-risk-of-cancer/ Author: Carolanne Wright
It’s an absolute miracle, an alliance of divine life, how the Earth is positioned, so delicately in relation to the sun. Two stellar bodies communicating with such intricacy and harmony in space and time, one sphere rotating in seasonal rhythm, the other projecting flares of brilliant heat and light.
Every living thing — from dragonflies to orangutans, from dandelions to oak trees, from mushrooms to humans — peers beyond their plot on the sphere of Earth, looking up through the atmosphere to absorb the ever-powerful rays of the flaming sun.
In the industrialized world, many men and women have fled to the shade, working under roofs day in and day out. Naturally, the skin craves the sun’s light; it yearns for its immune-system-stimulating vitamin D, but humans today often go for long periods without absorbing these powerful rays. Spending a little time basking in this great energy source creates a disconnection between humans and their health, between humans and their energy fields.
Do you see the sun as cancer-causing or cancer-preventing?
We are less acclimated to the natural heat and light of the sun. We are less at one with this life-giving power. Our skin can easily lack vital antioxidants, too. The sun’s rays are not always used effectively anymore, especially when the skin and body are not properly acclimated to absorb the sun’s energy. The sun may burn, may cause skin to peel, creating fear of sun and fear of skin cancer.
But the majestic energy source we call the sun may not be to blame, even though some medical authorities have suggested that it is the evil behind many skin cancer cases today.
According to studies conducted by Professor Rachel Neale from the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute in Brisbane, Australia, cancer risk can actually be slashed significantly, in HALF, when people are exposed to more time in the sun. In her studies, she found out that those who lived in areas receiving higher levels of UV rays had a 30 to 40 percent lower chance of being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Some epidemiology studies showed how excess sun exposure can cut the risk of certain cancers by 50 percent.
“We certainly are not hand on heart saying this is definitely true, in these types of epidemiological studies we are always very cautious about saying something is casual, but we do see an association between UV exposure and some cancers,” she said.
30 minutes of sun a day can be the powerful medicine that keeps the doctor away
To back up her study, Professor Neale is recruiting 25,000 Australians over 60 to participate in a study examining how vitamin D reduces esophageal, ovarian and pancreatic cancers. The five-year study will also investigate the difference between vitamin D pills and vitamin D obtained straight from the sun. From her experience, Professor Neale believes that everyone should be getting sun exposure every day. “Even if it’s only for 2-3 minutes each day, it will be enough to get that source of vitamin D,” Professor Neale said.
The Cancer Council proposes that everyone obtain at least 30 minutes of sun exposure in the middle of each day, to keep the doctor away.
“Exposing more skin in a short period of time is better than less skin in the long run. Go outside and lift your shirt or pants up — show your tummy and legs.” This is especially important for naturally dark-skinned people, expecting mothers or those who work indoors. Additionally, children can develop rickets when they don’t have enough vitamin D circulating in their blood. This causes soft bones in adulthood.
The sun is basically the freest of all medicines, available to all. Utilizing this energy and harnessing its timeless power ultimately increases levels of circulating vitamin D, empowering the immune system, which is ultimately the vessel that cures a body’s cancerous state.
Sources for this article include:
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/046328_sun_exposure_cancer_risk_vitamin_D.html#ixzz39WIpO8Ea Author: L. J. Devon
Sleep is vital to one’s health and well being. It has been implicated that loss of sleep can directly affect the immune system and increase the risk of various cancers. The immune and hormonal systems communication seems to be a key factor in preventing cancer cells from dividing beyond the immune system’s ability to keep them in check. Melatonin and cortisol are two of the most important hormones in preventing cancer. When these hormones are balanced, the risk of cancer and the rate of its progression can be reduced.
It has been estimated that up to 88 percent of cancer patients are affected by sleep disorders. Sleep apnea is more common in those with cancer than the general public and cancer patients are twice as likely to experience insomnia. A patient’s immune system can be impaired by restless nights from sleep disorders.
According to researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, sleep apnea has been shown to have a strong correlation with death from cancer. Researchers found that almost 30 percent of patients reporting cancer-related fatigue were diagnosed with sleep apnea and 60 percent were diagnosed with insomnia.
Researchers at Stanford and the University of Louisville School of Medicine showed that a patient’s circadian rhythm may influence cancer progression. The circadian rhythm is the night and day cycle affecting metabolism, physiology and hormonal production.
Melatonin and cortisol
Melatonin increases during sleep and has anti-oxidant properties. With an altered circadian rhythm, the body produces less melatonin and the cell’s DNA may be more susceptible to cancer-causing mutations. Melatonin has another key role in slowing the ovaries’ production of estrogen. For those with breast and ovarian tumors, estrogen stimulates the cancerous cells to continue dividing.
Another influential hormone is cortisol, which is high in the morning and declines throughout the day. Cortisol has a regulating factor on immune system activity, including natural-killer cells which destroy cancer cells. The Stanford study found that people who are at high risk for breast cancer have an altered cortisol rhythm, meaning those with a shifted cortisol cycle may be more cancer susceptible. It was also found that women with breast cancer who had their cortisol cycle disrupted, with peak levels in the afternoon rather than at dawn, died earlier from the disease and slept more poorly.
Melatonin has also been shown to reduce the growth of prostate cancer. According to a study in the journal Cancer, Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, results showed that men who had trouble sleeping were twice as likely to develop prostate cancer compared to those who slept well. The correlation was even stronger for cases of advanced prostate cancer and the risk increased relative to the severity of the sleep problems. The study implied that sleep may become a potential target for intervention to reduce the risk of prostate cancer.
Approximately 15-20 percent of employees in the USA work an overnight shift. This timing of work can lead to circadian disruption including melatonin synthesis. Studies have shown a potential link between exposure to light at night and risk of breast cancer.
Having proper melatonin and cortisol levels has a major impact on sleep. When these hormones are in the normal range they can help improve quality and quantity of sleep. These levels should be tested to screen for potential hormone and immune imbalances so they can be corrected before cancer has a chance to get a foothold. This should be a foundation of any alternative cancer treatment protocol.
Sources for this article include:
OncoLog, Feb. 2013, Vol. 58, No. 2
Stanford University Medical Center. (2003, October 1)
J Pineal Res. 2005 Nov;39(4):360-6. PMID: 16207291
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev May 2013 22; 872
Med Pr. 2011;62(3):323-38.
Article source: http://www.naturalnews.com/044797_cancer_risk_sleep_apnea_melatonin.html
About the author:
Dr. Keith Nemec is a holistic doctor who has been treating patients for the last 30 years. Dr. Nemec is the director of the Total Health Institute, an alternative and integrative medical facility which offers both inpatient and outpatient services. Total Health Institute is a treatment and teaching facility that has both natural physicians and alternative minded medical doctors working together as a team in Wheaton, Illinois. Thousands of people have restored their health at the Institute over the last 30 years. Dr. Nemec has published three books: “Total Health = Wholeness”, “Seven Basic Steps to Total Health”, “The Perfect Diet From a Macronutrient Perspective”. Dr. Nemec also hosts the radio show “Your Total Health” five days a week in Chicago. For more information about Dr. Nemec and the Total Health Institute visit www.totalhealthinstitute.com
Taking vitamin and calcium supplements may reduce women’s risk of breast cancer by as much as 40 percent, according to a study conducted by researchers from the Ponce School of Medicine in Puerto Rico, and presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
“It is not an immediate effect. You don’t take a vitamin today and your breast cancer risk is reduced tomorrow,” researcher Jaime Matta said. “However, we did see a long-term effect in terms of breast cancer reduction.”
The researchers conducted the study on 457 healthy women and 268 with breast cancer, all of whom had been taking vitamin and mineral supplements for the past five years. The women filled out a questionnaire about which vitaminsand minerals they were taking, how regularly they took them, and if they were still taking them.
They then took samples of each woman’s blood and measured her DNA’s ability to repair itself of damage.
“This process involves at least five separate pathways and is critical for maintaining genomic stability,” Matta said. “When the DNA is not repaired, it leads to mutation that leads to cancer.”
The researchers found that calcium supplements significantly increased a woman’s DNA repair capacity. Taking calcium supplements also decreased a woman’s risk of breast cancer by 40 percent, while vitamin supplements decreased it by 40 percent.
Women who had a low DNA repair capacity, a family history of breast cancer, and no history of breast feeding were all more likely to suffer from breast cancer. When the researchers adjusted for calcium’s effect on DNA repair capacity, they found little remaining effect on breast cancer risk.
This suggests that calcium helps prevent cancers by boosting DNA’s ability to regenerate from damage. The mechanisms by which vitamin supplements protect the body from cancer were not determined.
“The importance of the study is that it’s addressing normal doses, the recommended amount of vitamins, not high-dose supplements,” said Victoria Seewaldt of Duke University.
.I get my supplements only from www.awesomesupplements.com
New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention
Exciting new research conducted at the Creighton University School of Medicine in Nebraska has revealed that supplementing with vitamin D and calcium can reduce your risk of cancer by an astonishing 77 percent. This includes breast cancer, colon cancer, skin cancer and other forms of cancer. This research provides strong new evidence that vitamin D is the single most effective medicine against cancer, far outpacing the benefits of any cancer drug known to modern science.
The study involved 1,179 healthy women from rural Nebraska. One group of women was given calcium (around 1500 mg daily) and vitamin D (1100 IU daily) while another group was given placebo. Over four year, the group receiving the calcium and vitamin D supplements showed a 60 percent decrease in cancers. Considering just the last three years of the study reveals an impressive 77 percent reduction in cancer due to supplementation. (The full press release of this study is included below. It provides more details about the findings.)
Note that these astonishing effects were achieved on what many nutritionists consider to be a low dose of vitamin D. Exposure to sunlight, which creates even more vitamin D in the body, was not tested or considered, and the quality of the calcium supplements was likely not as high as it could have been (it was probably calcium carbonate and not high-grade calcium malate, aspartate or similar forms). What does all this mean? It means that if you take high-quality calcium supplements and get lots of natural sunlight exposure or take premium vitamin D supplements (such as those made from fish oil), you could easily have a greater reduction than the 77 percent reduction recorded in this study.
American Cancer Society opposes vitamin D
This research on vitamin D is such good news that the American Cancer Society, of course, had to say something against it. An ACS spokesperson, Marji McCullough, strategic director of nutritional epidemiology for the American Cancer Society, flatly stated that nobody should take supplements to prevent cancer.
If it seems surprising to you that the American Cancer Society — which claims to be against cancer — would dissuade people from taking supplements that slash their cancer risk by 77 percent, then you don’t know much about the ACS. In my opinion, the ACS is an organization that actually prevents prevention and openly supports the continuation of cancer as a way to boost its power and profits. The ACS is the wealthiest non-profit in America and has very close ties to pharmaceutical companies, mammography equipment companies and other corporations that profit from cancer. Notice the name, too: It isn’t the American Anti-Cancer Society, it’s the American Cancer Society! What they really stand for is right in the name!
The cancer industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, and I’ve written extensively about the criminal organizations that protect and promote the industry. Just about everything the public is told about cancer by these cancer institutions is a lie. Those “race for the cure” cancer walks are a complete scam (they really aren’t searching for any way to prevent cancer or cure cancer, they’re only searching for new patented drugs to profit from cancer).
This research on vitamin D is a huge threat to the cancer industry profit mongers because it reveals a way to prevent cancer for free — by seeking natural sunlight exposure and letting your skin manufacture your own powerful anti-cancer medicine (vitamin D). The idea that the cancer industry could lose 80% of its patients due to widespread education about vitamin D and sunlight scares the living daylights out of the cancer industry. Billions of dollars in cancer profits are at stake here, so the pro-cancer groups have to do everything they can to discredit vitamin D by creating doubt and confusion. The degree of dishonesty at work here is almost unbelievable to those who don’t really know what’s happening in the cancer industry.
Ten questions to ask yourself about the cancer industry
Consider these questions:
#1: Why does the cancer industry refuse to educate people about cancer prevention?
#2: If people keep donating money for the “search” for a cancer cure, why won’t drug companies pledge to “open source” their patents on cancer drugs to benefit the people whose donations funded them in the first place? In other words, why do people donate money for cancer research but then get charged for cancer drugs?
#4: Why have all the really good cancer supplements, clinics and naturopaths been banned, arrested or run out of the country? (Look up the FDA’s oppression of Lane Labs over MGN-3 for a fascinating review of this…)
#5: The U.S. has poured billions of dollars into the cancer industry over the last three decades. Cancer cures were promised in the 1970’s. Why are cancer rates still essentially the same today as they were in the 1970’s?
#6: Why does the cancer industry continue to use chemotherapy, radiation and other toxic procedures to “kill tumors” when the latest science clearly shows that cancer tumors are only the symptoms, not the cause, of cancer? Chemotherapy destroys immune function and causes permanent damage to the heart, brain and liver…
#7: The World Health Organization says that 70% of all cancers are easily preventable through dietary and lifestyle changes. This latest research shows that sunlight and low-cost calcium supplements can slash cancer risk by 77% in women. Why won’t conventional medicine embrace this low-cost, safe and highly effective method for preventing cancer?
#8: The cancer industry routinely attacks anti-cancer herbs, superfoods and supplements. Why is the cancer industry opposed to anti-cancer nutrition? Why does it believe that only man, not nature, can manufacture anti-cancer medicines?
#9: Dark skin pigmentation blocks ultraviolet radiation, meaning that people with black skin need far more time under the sun to generate the same amount of vitamin D as someone with white skin. Not surprisingly, black women suffer extremely high rates of breast cancer while black men show similarly high levels of prostate cancer. The white-dominated medical industry pretends to be “mystified” by all this. Why won’t conventional medicine simple tell black people the truth about vitamin D, skin pigmentation and cancer? Why do oncologists try to keep black people ignorant about their vitamin D deficiencies?
#10: Why is it illegal for nutritional supplement manufacturers to tell the truth about the anti-cancer effects of their products? Broccoli, garlic, onions and sprouts all have powerful anti-cancer effects, as do dozens of rainforest herbs (Cat’s Claw, for example), Chinese herbs and Western herbs. But the FDA threatens and censors any company that dares to mention cancer prevention on its supplement products. Why is the FDA enforcing a policy of nutritional ignorance with U.S. consumers? Why does the federal government want people to remain ignorant of methods for preventing or treating cancer?
You probably already know the answer to all these questions, because the answer is the same for each one: Corporate profits. Cancer is hugely profitable to treat. Substantially preventing cancer would result in a loss of billions of dollars in profits for the oncologists, drug companies, hospitals and clinics that currently prey upon the finances of cancer victims.
The cancer industry is operated like a criminal racket, using false information, intimidation, political pressure and propaganda to protect its power base and keep its corporations profitable. And that, my friends, is exactly why the industry is against the use of sunlight to prevent cancer. Free medicine from the sky? The very thought of it makes the cancer industry cringe. Sunlight doesn’t even need a prescription, you see, and it can’t be patented, either.
Preventing cancer the healthy way
Let me tell you how I prevent cancer. I take long walks in the desert with no shirt on, and I don’t wear sunscreen. I soak up the sun’s rays for many hours each week, and I never get a sun burn because I eat lots of antioxidant-rich superfoods, berries and fresh produce.
I drink a raw superfood smoothie each morning, made of fresh produce and superfoods. My two favorite recipes are chocolate (with raw cacao, coconut oil or macadamia nut oil, raw avocado, spirulina, quinoa, banana and almond milk) and super berry (fresh berries, freeze-dried berries, egg white protein, stevia, aloe vera gel, fresh cucumber or watermelon, celery).
I put no personal care products on my skin whatsoever: No deodorants, no fragrance, no skin creams, no cosmetics and no sunscreen. This alone saves me from exposure to hundreds of cancer-causing toxic chemicals added to personal care products. I refuse to use chemical laundry detergent and, instead, use natural laundry soap that grows on trees: Natural soap berries that we sell as a replacement for chemical laundry detergents.
Corporate-controlled U.S. government doesn’t want to prevent cancer
The U.S. government doesn’t want the population to be free of cancer. That’s a strong statement, so let me offer you an undeniable piece of strong evidence to back that up: The artificially low RDA numbers for vitamin D.
One of the best ways to keep the population suffering from cancer is to enforce long-term nutritional deficiencies that lead to cancer. The US government accomplishes this by keeping the recommendations for vitamin D artificially low, practically guaranteeing that anyone who follows the recommendations will eventually be diagnosed with cancer. Vitamin D deficiency is the leading cause of breast cancer.
Most educated nutritionists agree that the daily dose of vitamin D for an adult should be at least 1000 IUs, perhaps as high as 1400. But the U.S. Institute of Medicine (IoM), which controls the recommendations on these things, currently states that adults under 50 only need 200 IUs of vitamin D a day. This policy is, in my opinion, an organized conspiracy to keep the American people diseased by making sure they stay deficient in anti-cancer nutrients. It serves the interests of all the powerful corporations and non-profits that run Washington. And yes, it is a conspiracy. I’ve documented it in far more detail in my book,Natural Health Solutions and the Conspiracy to Keep You From Knowing About Them, which reveals shocking details, documents and photographs showing how modern medicine is a system that’s literally designed to keep the people in a state of chronic disease.
The FDA doesn’t want people to prevent cancer either. That’s why they’ve aggressively attacked companies offering anti-cancer nutrients, and completely censored the very mention of the word “cancer” by supplement companies. In fact, the only reason I can print the information you’re reading right now is because I sell no food or supplements and my free speech writing is not regulated by the FDA. If I were selling supplements and writing these same words you’re reading right now, I would be arrested, charged with federal crimes, and put out of business by state and federal authorities. That’s the reality of the oppressive medical environment under which we live today: Health is outlawed, and only disease is allowed to be promoted.
The cancer industry, you see, is not merely incompetent; it is criminal. Intentionally keeping a population sick so that you can profit from disease is a crime against humanity. And yet this is business as usual in America’s modern cancer industry.
Discrediting simple, free and safe cancer prevention strategies is also criminal, and yet this is what the American Cancer Society seems to do at every opportunity.
Plotting to profit from the suffering of other humans beings is evil. And yet the entire revenue base of the cancer industry is based on precisely that: Keeping people alive long enough to “treat” them with overpriced toxic chemicals that can be billed to Medicare at 50,000% markups over their manufacturing cost.
Cancer is big, big business. And curing cancer is a threat to all the criminals participating in that industry: The non-profit employees, oncologists, doctors, federal regulators, drug company executives, med school propaganda teachers, pharmaceutical reps and many others. These people cannot allow cancer to be prevented or cured. Their jobs and careers are at stake.
A world free from cancer and full of abundance
Personally, I believe we could create a world virtually free of cancer. We could accomplish it in two generations by taking tough action to outlaw cancer-causing chemicals and investing in genuine cancer prevention education. Drug companies would lose trillions of dollars in profits, hospitals would lose huge amounts of patients, and pro-cancer non-profit groups would lose power, money and prestige. But guess what? We’d all be better off without cancer.
Here’s a startling statistic: 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. $38 trillion is a lot of money. With that kind of increased abundance, we could build a whole new society of health, wealth and education.
But guess what? The cancer industry won’t let that happen. There’s too much short term profit to be made in keeping everybody sick. The cancer industry is so evil that it will sell out our future in order to maintain power, profits and control over the people today. The cancer industry doesn’t want cancer rates to go down, regardless of the benefits to society or individual lives. The cancer industry wants there to be MORE cancer, which is exactly why it opposes commonsense prevention strategies that would reduce cancers. (It’s true, this industry actually opposes removing cancer-causing chemicals from the workplace…)
Read more at Dr. Sam Epstein’s website: http://www.preventcancer.com
The bottom line in all this? New research shows us that using low-cost calcium and vitamin D supplements (or just natural sunlight), we could slash cancer rates by an astonishing 77 percent. The cancer industry opposes this and is firmly positioned as an opponent of cancer prevention. The industry depends on cancer to grow its own power and profits, and it will invest in the de-education of the public in order to maximize its own revenues.
Cures for cancer exist all around us: Sunlight, rainforest herbs, anti-cancer foods and superfoods, etc. The causes of cancer are well known: Toxic chemicals in foods, cosmetics,personal care products, home cleaning products, and so on. So why don’t we, as a nation, take steps to outlaw the things that cause cancer while promoting the things that prevent cancer?
The reason, once again, is because there’s too much money at stake here. The corporations are in charge, and as long as they’re running the show, cancer cures or prevention strategies that really work will simply not be tolerated.
Creighton press release
Here’s the original press release about the new findings on vitamin D and cancer prevention:
OMAHA, Neb., June 8 — Most Americans and others are not taking enough vitamin D, a fact that may put them at significant risk for developing cancer, according to a landmark study conducted by Creighton University School of Medicine.
The four-year, randomized study followed 1,179 healthy, postmenopausal women from rural eastern Nebraska.* Participants taking calcium, as well as a quantity of vitamin D3 nearly three times the U.S. government’s Recommended Daily Amount (RDA) for middle-age adults, showed a dramatic 60 percent or greater reduction in cancer risk than women who did not get the vitamin.
The results of the study, conducted between 2000 and 2005, were reported in the June 8 online edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
“The findings are very exciting. They confirm what a number of vitamin D proponents have suspected for some time but that, until now, have not been substantiated through clinical trial,” said principal investigator Joan Lappe, Ph.D., R.N., Creighton professor of medicine and holder of the Criss/Beirne Endowed Chair in the School of Nursing. “Vitamin D is a critical tool in fighting cancer as well as many other diseases.”
Other Creighton researchers involved in the study included Robert Recker, M.D.; Robert Heaney, M.D.; Dianne Travers-Gustafson, M.S.; and K. Michael Davies, Ph.D.
Research participants were all 55 years and older and free of known cancers for at least 10 years prior to entering the Creighton study. Subjects were randomly assigned to take daily dosages of 1,400-1,500 mg supplemental calcium, 1,400-1,500 mg supplemental calcium plus 1,100 IU of vitamin D3, or placebos. National Institutes of Health funded the study.
Over the course of four years, women in the calcium/vitamin D3 group experienced a 60 percent decrease in their cancer risk than the group taking placebos.
On the premise that some women entered the study with undiagnosed cancers, researchers then eliminated the first-year results and looked at the last three years of the study. When they did that, the results became even more dramatic with the calcium/vitamin D3 group showing a startling 77 percent cancer-risk reduction.
In the three-year analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in cancer incidence between participants taking placebos and those taking just calcium supplements.
Through the course of the study, 50 participants developed nonskin cancers, including breast, colon, lung and other cancers.
Lappe said further studies are needed to determine whether the Creighton research results apply to other populations, including men, women of all ages, and different ethnic groups. While the study was open to all ethnic groups, all participants were Caucasian, she noted.
There is a growing body of evidence that a higher intake of vitamin D may be helpful in the prevention and treatment of cancer, high blood pressure, fibromyalgia, diabetes mellitus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases.
Humans make their own vitamin D3 when they are exposed to sunlight. In fact, only 10-15 minutes a day in a bright summer sun creates large amounts of the vitamin, Lappe said. However, people need to exercise caution since the sun’s ultraviolet B rays also can cause skin cancer; sunscreen blocks most vitamin D production.
In addition, the latitude at which you live and your ancestry also influence your body’s ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D. People with dark skin have more difficulty making the vitamin. Persons living at latitudes north of the 37th parallel — Omaha is near the 41st parallel — cannot get their vitamin D naturally during the winter months because of the sun’s angle. Experts generally agree that the RDA** for vitamin D needs to be increased substantially, however there is debate about the amount. Supplements are available in two forms — vitamin D2 and vitamin D3. Creighton researchers recommend vitamin D3, because it is more active and thus more effective in humans.
* Study participants came from the Nebraska counties of Douglas, Colfax, Cuming, Dodge, Saunders, Washington, Sarpy, Burt and Butler. ** RDA recommendations for vitamin D are 200 IU/d, birth-age 50; 400 IU/d, 50-70 years; and 600 IU/d, 70 years and older.