Breaking News: Obama Announces New Initiative To Fix Obamacare

In light of the abject failure so far of the rollout of Obamacare, the signature achievement of his presidency, President Obama today announced that he will be taking a new tack to ensure help reverse the problem. Speaking before reporters in the Rose Garden, Obama declared,"Starting today, wherever I go, I will tirelessly give speeches about Obamacare until everyone in America has affordable health insurance. And by affordable, I mean insurance plans that mandate that come with higher premiums and deductibles, reduce access to physician because the plans have bumped your doctors from their networks, offer single males comprehensive maternity care coverage and fully insured access to mammograms, offer people who have never abused drugs or alcohol coverage for the addictions they don't have, and offer the millions of Americans who choose not to use pharmaceutical drugs because of the many safer and far less expensive natural options out there-not to mention the fact that such drugs kill over 100,000 people every year and cause another two million more to be hospitalized-have comprehensive drug coverage.

"Never mind about keeping your plan if you like it. That's no longer important. What's important is having the type of coverage that I and my advisors - the lobbyists for Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Hospital and other special interest groups whose profits are now soaring because of my landmark legislation - which is so popular that people now refer to it by my name - have deemed to be in your best interests. Trust me, we enacted the Abominably Craven Act for your own good! So it is that I am proud to stand before the American people today to let them know that I will now unceasingly blow hot air up everyone's asses and continue to deflect blame onto Sebelius, my campaign donor cronies and Michelle's friend's company to whom I've allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to create the ACA's state-of-the-art website that on its first day of operation saw over 4.7 million Americans visit it and an enrollment of 6 Americans within its first 24 hours of being online, thus shattering every record for lowest conversion rate in history! Be proud, America! For you can be assured that, as I continue to speechify, while simultaneously ducking all responsibility for everything that happens under my administration, my aides and I will be doing everything we can to foster media attention of newsworthy stories that deflect attention away from me and my nonachievements as president.

"Yes, that's right. Right now my staff is reaching out to Miley Cyrus, the Kardashians, and any and all other publicity whores, ahem...hahaha...I mean groundbreaking movers and shakers ready to take up the cause. Haha...Did you see what I did there? Movers and shakers? That was me being sophisticated and alluding to twerking. Because, as president, it is my solemn duty to keep abreast of current events. See what I did there? Abreast? Trust me, Bill Clinton's got nothing on me! I am the first real black president, after all, and let's all forget that my mother is white, meaning I am also a white American, but let's not go there, since fostering racial unrest is crucial to the success of my plan for America.

"Now, back to the Asinine Crud Act, let me be clear. I shall not rest until the media does it's job and returns to subserviently kissing my ass 24/7 and starts running stories about the grand success this historic legislation is. For instance, no other law has ever directly caused 85 percent of all physicians, and an almost equal number of nurses, to seriously consider leaving their professions precisely at the time that our nation's incidence of disease has been at its highest. And while it is true that Medicare caused medical expenses in the US to rise by 60% within its first few years of enactment, I can assure you that these cost increases will be like candlelight to the sun once everything within the Assbackwards Catastrophe Act is fully implemented. It may take some time, but I can promise you that I am bringing the same degree of initiative to this issue that I've given to restoring our economy, ending the nightmare years of the Bush surveillance state, closing Guantanamo and so forth. As a result of my attention to these areas, the average American today is actually worse off than during the years immediately following the Great Recession, the NSA is now eavesdropping on every single person with access to a phone or the Internet, and Guantanamo is...well, that's still open, but...haha...as we all know, that's Bush's fault and if you disagree, you're a racist. Now, then, if you excuse me, I'm late for another fundraiser, but I promise you, I have a lot more speeches within me and I will not rest until I've given every single one of them. And, in closing, let me just send a shout out to those folks who manufactured and maintain my teleprompter. Can you imagine if that task had been assigned to the people creating the healthcare.gov website!?! But seriously...let me be clear...um...ah...um...uh..."

Obamacare and the How We Got To It

In early 2010, soon after Congress passed and President Obama signed Obamacare into law, I wrote the following:

Obamacare is a sham in every way and, once implemented, will serve to make health care in the US worse than it is today. Moreover, despite all the rhetoric claiming otherwise, it will be a very profitable windfall for both Big Pharma and Big Insurance. Obama secretly negotiated with Big Pharma prior to any of the legislation even being drafted, and Time magazine reported that Big Insurance is now actively working to see that Obamacare is implemented ASAP. So much for attacking the evil insurance companies!

(It should surprise no one that the insurance companies are now on board – Obamacare just guaranteed them 32 million more customers each and every month, which will more than offset whatever they may lose from pre-existing conditions and caps on coverage over the life of their policies. Moreover, even the Democrats have admitted that premiums will still continue to rise, by a predicted average of 13% next year alone.) (During his campaign for president, Obama repeatedly said publicly that his health care plan would save an average of $2500 per policy. You can easily find him saying so, since it’s now a viral online video.) (Of course, he also pledged to allow the public 5 full days to read any legislation awaiting his signature before he signed it into law, stating that all such legislation would be posted online. 36 hours after Obamacare passed the convoluted and craven House Sunday night, he had his latest photo op, using 22 pens to enable the federal government to takeover 16% - and now sure to grow – of our nation’s GDP.)

But these are the least of the travesties to be found in what happened Sunday, “ the day that will live in infirmary”, as Matt Drudge of the DrudgeReport so brilliantly put it.

The real crime is that Obamacare is now mandating that all of us literally buy into a system of "health care" which cares nothing for health at all and never has. It’s a profit-driven, disease-fostering system that is the antithesis of everything that humankind knows about health and wellness, and it’s that way intentionally, ever since John D Rockefeller (in the USA) and IG Farben (in Germany – those gentle folks who, among other things, enabled Hitler’s rise to power, owned the factories at Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps, and used their own criminal scientists to subject the camps’ Jew, Gypsies, and other unfortunates to a wide range of horrific “scientific experiments” before they were killed or died from the experimentation) decided to jointly create a stranglehold over Western medicine. (IG Farben, by the way, like Rockefeller’s multicorporate business entities within the umbrella of Standard Oil, made a fortune as a direct result of World War Two and not only emerged unscathed despite their known criminality, they even got the US government – meaning US taxpayers – to indemnify them for the destruction of their factory plants caused by Allied bombing sorties over Germany – You can’t make this stuff up. Additionally, many of today’s best known pharmaceutical companies today are offshoots of IG Farben, including Bayer, as in, yes, Bayer aspirin.) (Aspirin, by the way, was recently found to NOT be effective in preventing heart attacks and also dangerous when used for that purpose. It’s long been known that regular aspirin use, as well as aspirin substitutes like ibuprofen, which are even worse, also kills an average of 10,000 Americans each year when taken properly because it thins the stomach lining and causes stomach bleeding. Despite recent published findings – from the American Medical Association, no less – that aspirin provides no benefit at all for people at high risk of heart attacks, and a recent Wall Street Journal article entitled The Danger of Taking Aspirin Daily, you can bet that Big Pharma, the AMA, and most doctors in the US will continue to tout daily aspirin as a good way to reduce heart attack risk.) But I digress…

Here’s how today’s US medical system came to be dominated by drug companies.

At the start of the 20th century, when our federal government was still properly in place the way our Founding Fathers intended it always to be – very small and very limited in scope – at least 25% of all health care providers in the US practiced some form of what is now disparaged as “alternative medicine”. This included diet, nutrition, herbology, naturopathic medicine, osteopathy (back when it was not a mirror image of conventional MD medicine, as it is today), chiropractic, homeopathy (very popular at the time, and still a very powerful healing modality in the right hands), etc. Then came the discovery of penicillin and the widespread belief that humanity was on the verge of having “wonder drugs” for all of their ills. Admittedly, penicillin was very much a wonder drug back in the day, and was responsible for saving the lives of millions of people. So far so good. (Not so good today. Penicillin’s antibiotic heirs are directly responsible for the still rising tide of drug-resistant bacteria. Which, irony of ironies, are found in highest concentrations in hospitals.)

Most of the wonder drugs back then were also petrochemicals. Petro means oil. Guess who had the monopoly on oil in the US and much of the rest of the Western world. Ole John D, of course, via Standard Oil (broken up in an antitrust suit around the same time this was occurring, only to have its separate parts emerge even more powerful and monopolistic, which is the only reason Rockefeller allowed the US government at the time to appear to be standing up for “the little man.”) Ever one to maximize profit any way he could, John D realized all of the natural (meaning nondrug-based, and therefore nonpatentable) forms of medicine at the time stood in the way of the complete and utter domination by pharmaceutical drugs. Therefore they had to be destroyed.

Here’s where it gets fun. (And seriously, I have long admired the high level of intelligence that elitist bastards like John D exhibit. If only they put it towards better use!) Obviously Johnny couldn’t simply put the natural-based forms of medicine out of business openly. The public would never have stood for it. So, crafty devil that he was, he did what all folks who pull the world’s puppet strings do. He got the public to demand the very thing he wanted to see accomplished, doing so without ever once suspecting they were playing right into his hands. In short, he used the proven 3-step formula for moving the populace where you want them. (Lyndon B Johnson did it after the now-known-to-be-false “Gulf of Tonkin incident”, GW Bush did it after 9/11, and Obama did it with Obamacare.)

Here are the formula’s three simple, almost fail-proof (they fail miserably when the public pays attention, which is why Thomas Jefferson – my favorite president – warned: “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” Our nation’s in the mess it’s in primarily because said advice hasn’t been heeded for at least a century, probably much longer), ahem … here’s the three simple, almost fool-proof steps:

1. Create a problem.

2. Create a public reaction (“Somebody do something!”)

3. Provide a solution. (“Here I come to save the day!)

Of course, this 3-step tango only works if the solution to be provided is known before the problem is created. And the problem ALWAYS has to be based in fact.

For Johnny Boy’s purposes, this was all too easy. Being that – here’s the basis in fact – medical training at the turn of the 20th century had no minimum standards of curriculum. Quite the opposite. People could call themselves doctors in many cases simply after they attended what today would be called a weekend workshop at the end of which certification was provided. Or they could train diligently for a year or two. And everything in between. Some of the training was good. And some of it wasn’t.

So, step 1 for Good Ole John was to make sure the public knew about this. To which end, he and his cronies, all of whom also stood to profit from their brilliant gambit, hired a guy named Flexnor to investigate the system of medical education in the US at the time. Which Flexnor promptly did, all under the guise of altruism and having the public good at heart. After traveling around the country to purportedly examine our nation’s medical schools of the time, he issued what the American Medical Association still today calls the “most important” medical report of the 20th century.

In essence, it said:

OUR NATION’S SYSTEM OF MEDICAL EDUCATION IS A TRAVESTY. HELP! SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING!

As mentioned, at the time, the US government was properly limited in scope and therefore had no authority (Constitutionally, it still has no authority for most of what it does, including, now, Obamacare, but – too late! – the Constitution “is just a goddam piece of paper,” as Dubya said, and Obama completely agrees, and so do the vast majority of the other whores and puppets in DC) to make the changes that – Step 2 – the American public soon started to clamor for, thanks to Johnny’s pal William Randolph Hearst and others like him, stoking the flames of public outrage in their papers across the US. The changes being, of course, a uniform standard of medical education (again, note the brilliance, such a standard WAS absolutely necessary).

But if the federal government couldn’t step in and make this happen (you know, with back room deals and photo-op signings, etc, like they do today), well, Oh, Dear! Who could?

Never fear, good people. Here come’s Johnny D and his pals to – Still paying attention? Here comes step 3! – save the day!

And so they did. Supposedly.

What actually happened is that Johnny Boy and his pals sent their reps to every one of our nation’s medical schools via the benign posture of the charitable foundations. And these noble men (no women, at the time – exclusive boys club then) spent the next ten years telling each medical school, Look, the public is demanding change. Now, we know you are in no position to fund such change yourselves. We know how expensive that would be. But don’t worry. We, out of the goodness of our hearts and our love for our fellow man, are here to bear the cost for you. You’ll never have to pay us back, and we’ll provide you with annual funding in perpetuity. All, as we said, out of the goodness of hearts.

Oh, and, yes, there is one small thing, but it’s no matter really. What is it? Oh, nothing much, as we said. Only that, since we ARE after all providing you with desperately needed funds, we’re sure you’ll agree it’s only reasonable if we have a say in your curriculum from this point forward. Sound good? Excellent, please sign here, here, and here. What’s that? The part in the contract that mentions selling your souls? Oh, you know how it is. That’s just lawyerspeak.

Within that ten-year period, all but a handful (less than a dozen, by some estimates) of medical schools in the US had either accepted that deal or they went entirely out of business. As for those that stayed in business, gladly accepting Johnny’s moolah and that of his pals (all via charitable endowments), they very rapidly tossed out any mention of any natural therapy beyond superficial gleanings on diet (the average med school student today receives 25 hours of education of diet during his/her entire 8 or more years of medical training). (Don’t worry, there’s a pill for that.)

Instead, the curriculum is focused nearly entirely on drugs, drugs, and more drugs. And when the drugs fail, try even more drugs. And then even more. Rinse, repeat, and if worse comes to worse, well, we also have surgery. Very good, surgery is. Handsome profits to be had there too. And have we mentioned cancer-causing diagnostic devices like CT scans? You’ll love these. Real cash cows, as well.

All of the above is basically what happened. Not that you’ll learn any of it in modern medicine’s official story. And so things stand today.

(An historical aside: Despite never missing an opportunity to publicly rail against homeopathy and other forms of alternative medicine as “quackery,” Rockefeller used as his personal physician the same doctor used by England’s Royal Family. This physician’s specialty? Homeopathy! Allegedly, Rockfeller paid him well to keep his mouth shut. Rockefeller also became the largest donor to the AMA, which was formed in the 1800s in the US two years AFTER the formation of the much more highly regarded – at the time – American Homeopathic Association. In the early 20th century, the AMA was still a straggling, struggling organization. Johnny changed all that, making them the medical behemoth they are today. He also is largely responsible for our current Cancer Industry - along with IG Farben - but that, too, is another long screed for another time.)

Today, thanks to Rocky D and his boys, our medical system kills approximately 750,000 Americans each and every year, causes millions more to be hospitalized, and harms tens of millions of others, albeit not seriously enough to cause hospitalization. All of these facts are brilliantly spelled out in the book Death By Medicine by Carolyn Dean, MD and Gary Null.


And this is the corrupt system that Obamacare is now mandating all Americans partake in, whether they want to or not.

And that’s why I am so opposed to it. For me, it is not an issue of Dems v GOP issue, left, v right or whatever. The GOP is just as culpable for its passage as the Democrats are, and if they truly were serious about passing their own so-called free market reforms (most of which I support, by the way, and I despise the GOP as much as I despise the Democratic party), they could have easily done so during Dubya’s first term in office, But they were more interested in miring our nation in two illegal wars, the blowback from which we are only now starting to experience, along with shredding the Bill of Rights with passage of the so-called Patriot Act (another ploy of the puppetmasters – always use Orwellian “doublespeak” at all times – there is nothing at all patriotic in that abomination). (I maintain that our current economic crisis is karmic, in part, given that 90% of the nation at one time supported Bush’s warmongering – loss of jobs and homes and nest eggs in no way compares to what innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan are enduring, including the fact that both nations are going to be birth defect and cancer hot zones for centuries - barring new technologies - due to all the depleted uranium US troops have bombarded them with.)

Back to Obamacare, to me the issue is far more serious than one’s political views. In essence, it comes down to a matter of freedom. No person or entity has the right to mandate that I, or anyone else, buy anything. Period. That alone makes Obamacare wrong in every respect. And certainly no one has the right to demand that I, or anyone else, partake of a so-called health care system that quite simply most of the time does not work.

But as I said, Obamacare isn’t about health care reform at all. It’s about government control. (Why else is the IRS responsible for overseeing its compliance?) Which is something desired by both the Dems and the GOP. They just go about it in different ways. Yet the results are always the same – continued erosion of our freedoms and continued expansion of the behemoth bureaucracy that is the exact opposite of what our Founding Fathers risked their lives to create.

Imagination and Health

Imagination and Health A number of years ago, I awoke from a dream with the following thought in my head: I seem to be a figment of my own Imagination. I was so struck by this that I wrote it down. Also years ago, I had the pleasure of teaching students in my grade school alma mater in an after school creative writing class. One of the first things I told them was that, when it comes to creative writing, the first and final authority on how stories, poems, etc., ought to be told is the writer him or herself. Similarly, I told them, when it comes to our lives and how it ought to be lived, there is only one expert – ourselves. With that encouragement, all 12 students in my class soon developed more confidence in themselves and their creative output soared from week to week, affording me one of the most fulfilling experiences I’ve ever had. In our class, we also discussed Imagination, which I redefined as I Make A Nation, since, when we imagine stories in poems, that is a fair approximation of what we do – literally making up the worlds, characters, themes and plots that we create. At the same time, I encouraged my students to take full responsibility for their creative efforts so that what they wrote rang true for them. Responsibility, I told them, to me means “respond ability” or “ability to respond,” which is just another way of saying freedom. When we take responsibility, we don’t make excuses. If something doesn’t “ring true,” we admit it and then work to the best of our best ability to rectify things. To writers, this process is known as editing and revision (re vision). I no longer lead that class, yet the lessons my students and I explored continue to serve me. Over the past few years, I’ve been exploring how they apply to health and illness. In doing so, I’ve also returned to the first idea I shared above: I seem to be a figment of my own Imagination. The more I explore that idea, the more I am realizing how true it is. As far as I’m concerned, it literally means that the many roles I play in life are roles that either I or someone else has literally made up for me. This is something I’ve long known. What’s new and exciting for me these days is my realization that the roles can be changed any time I wish to do so. Meaning that my life, just as anything else I “write,” can be edited and revised, which further means that there are no true limitations as to how my life story unfolds. The key, of course, lies in my taking responsibility for it. As I’ve been examining the various roles I play, I am asking myself if they are roles I want to continue in because I truly enjoy them. Those that are I then give further attention to by imagining how I might make those roles even more enjoyable for myself. As I do so, I then imagine that those changes already exist. And then I let them occur organically without worrying about the hows and whys that might be involved in making what I’ve imagined reality. Whenever I manage to do this as eloquently as I’m describing it here, the positive changes I decide I want tend to have a way of showing up pretty rapidly. For example, a few months ago, I decided that I wanted to create more free time for myself so that I can start to spend time exploring various things that my previous writing schedule didn’t allow for. As soon as I made that decision, I then imagined an ideal set of circumstances that would allow for that to happen. Soon thereafter I received an email a that resulted in the exact circumstances I imagined. Before going further, let me make one thing clear. This process of Imagination that I am discussing here has little to do with the namby-pamby New Age mumbo jumbo that was touted in the film and movie, The Secret. It requires time and effort and a fair deal of work to honestly and effectively re-imagine and recreate our lives. In other words, it takes a lot of responsibility. Yet, in our society, there is a pervasive tendency to want a quick fix solution for our problems (a pill, an herb, a book) and/or a demand that someone else fix them for us (family, spouses, partners, doctors, gurus, government officials, etc). Such a tendency has nothing to do with responsibility, as far as I’m concerned. Having said that, let’s explore how Imagination is related to health. As we consider this question, one thing that becomes clear is that, as a nation, we seem to be putting an increasing amount of attention not on health, but disease. Which, I think, accounts for how widespread chronic illness is in our country. (We get what we focus on.) We also spend a lot of time talking about various causes of disease and what can be done to prevent them or at least minimize our exposure to them. There is nothing wrong with that. After all, part of taking responsibility for one’s health involves knowing what risks to be aware of and then making lifestyle choices accordingly. Yet, if eating healthily, leading a healthy lifestyle, and minimizing our bodies’ toxic burden and so forth were all that were necessary to be and stay healthy, how do we account for the fact that some people who do all of those things die young or succumb to chronic degenerative diseases, while others who smoke, drink and eat whatever they feel like eating can live to a ripe old age with no health problems to speak of? A clue to answering this question might be found in a comment made by a man in Japan some years ago. At the time he was thought to be the oldest person in the world. Well past 100 years of age, he was still going strong when he was interviewed. The interviewer noted that he was a chain smoker and that he drank lots of sake throughout the day. Asked what he considered to be the secret to his longevity, the man shrugged, then smiled and said, “I only do things that make me happy.” When we follow the lead of our Imagination and actually take action to make what we imagine real, happiness, I find, inevitably results. As what we imagine becomes reality, satisfaction follows. Moreover, the creative process that results in “editing reality” brings with it a feeling of excitement that further fuels our creativity and increases our confidence that we can continue to adventurously create our lives from ever increasing levels of boldness. Even so, how many of us actually live our lives this way on a regular basis? I certainly don’t, although now that I have tasted how delicious doing so is I am doing so more and more. This lack of living from our Imagination, I believe, is precisely why so many of us become sick. In fact, I have long been convinced that illness of any sort is actually a gift we give to ourselves in order to reevaluate our lives so that we can better recognize what needs our attention and changing. This view is supported by people I’ve interviewed who recovered from cancer despite being told by their doctors that there was nothing more that could be done for them. Each long-term cancer survivor I’ve interviewed has told me that getting cancer was “the best thing that ever happened” to them precisely because of how it forced them to reconsider the lives they were living. In every case, these same people discovered things about their lives that no longer served them and then took action to stop engaging in them. In some cases, that meant leaving careers and/or relationships and then committing themselves to living their dreams in whatever time they had left to them. Many of these people, upon doing so, experienced spontaneous remissions and are now living far different lives than those they had before they were diagnosed with cancer. And all of them claim to be far happier and more fulfilled. The way that all of this ties into health and Imagination has, I think, mostly to do with a willingness on our part to first truly imagine what it is we want for ourselves, and then to be willing to do whatever is necessary on our part to make it happen. This means foregoing excuses and putting an end to relying on others and/or external circumstances for our fulfillment. For our happiness, like our health, is first and foremost our responsibility. Moreover, if, as my dream implied, we really are figments of our own Imagination, why not imagine that best version of ourselves that we can possibly be. This includes being as healthy as you want to be. So, if you are currently experiencing less than optimal health, here is an experiment I invite you to try: Imagine that there exists a version of yourself who is a radiant picture of health. Really bring your senses into this and allow yourself to fully explore what a radiantly healthy you would be like. How does this radiant you life his or her life? What choices does s/he make and what activities does s/he partake in? Imagine all of this on a daily basis for at least five to ten minutes at a time, and as you do so really feel what it is like to be that radiantly healthy you. And then assume that you are that person. And then watch yourself start to become that version of yourself. In the field of mind/body medicine, there are many documented cases of people who have cured themselves of illness, including cancer, using versions of this technique, which is known by various names, such as creative visualization and guided imagery. I prefer calling it Make Believe because that sounds like more fun. Will your health improve if you engage in this exercise? You won’t know unless you try it. I encourage you to do so.

How The FDA Works to Suppress Knowledge about Nutritional Supplement Benefits

What follows is an actual letter sent by the FDA to owners of a health food store in upstate NY. By reading it, you can see how the FDA literally uses words to make it a crime to share actual, scientifically-verified facts about nutritional and botanical supplements. I explain more about this after the letter.

From the FDA:

This is to advise you that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reviewed your website..and has determined that the products "Kyolic Original Formula 100" (200 cap), "Nature's Way Sarsaparilla Root" (100 cap), "Nutrition Now PB 8 Pro-Biotic Acidophilus" (60 cap), and "Nature's Way Alfa-Max" (100 cap) are promoted for conditions that cause the products to be drugs under section 201 (g)(1)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(B)]. The therapeutic claims on your website establish that the products are drugs because they are intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease. (emphasis added) The marketing of these products with these claims violates the Act.

Examples of some of the claims observed on your website include:

Kyolic Original Formula 100 (200 cap)

• "Kyolic Formula 100 ... may be beneficial for ... blood pressure, cholesterol levels, heart disease ... arteriosclerosis, arthritis, asthma, cancer ... infections of the eyes, ears, throat, respiratory infections ... flu ... fungal infections, viral infections ...."

Nature's Way Sarsaparilla Root (100 cap)

• "Sarsaparilla [an ingredient in your product] may help in the treatment of congestive heart failure, high blood pressure impotence ... swelling and discomfort from rheumatism and arthritis ... psoriasis ... syphilis ...."

Nutrition Now PB 8 Pro-Biotic Acidophilus (60 cap)

• "Acidophilus [an ingredient in your product] ... has anti-fungal activity ... and play [sic] a role in yeast infections, urinary tract infections, cancer prevention, cholesterol levels ...."

Nature's Way Alfa-Max (100 cap)

• "Alfalfa [an ingredient in your product] ... may be used for allergies, anemia, arthritis, asthma, blood disorders ... high cholesterol and diabetes ...."

Your products are not generally recognized as safe and effective for the above referenced uses and therefore, the products are "new drugs" under section 201(p) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(P)]. New drugs may not be legally marketed in the U.S. without prior approval from FDA as described in section 505(a) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 355(a)]. FDA approves a new drug on the basis of scientific data submitted by a drug sponsor to demonstrate that the drug is safe and effective. Furthermore, because your products are offered for conditions that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners, adequate directions cannot be written so that a layman can use the products safely for their intended uses. Thus, your products "Kyolic Original Formula 100" (200 cap), "Nature's Way Sarsaparilla Root" (100 cap), "Nutrition Now PB 8 Pro-Biotic Acidophilus" (60 cap), and "Nature's Way Alfa-Max" (100 cap) are also misbranded within the meaning of section 502(f)(1) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 352(f)(1)] in that the labeling for these drugs fails to bear adequate directions for use. The introduction of a misbranded drug into interstate commerce is a violation of § 301(a) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 331(a).

The above violations are not meant to be an all-inclusive list of deficiencies in your products and their labeling. While reviewing your website, we noticed that you were promoting other products for disease treatment and/or prevention. The unlawful disease treatment and prevention claims on your website were too numerous to list in this letter. It is your responsibility to ensure that products marketed by your firm comply with the Act and its implementing regulations. We advise you to review your website, product labels, and other labeling and promotional materials for your products to ensure that the claims you make for your products do not cause them to violate the Act.

You should take prompt action to correct the violations described above and prevent their future recurrence. Failure to do so may result in enforcement action without further notice. The Act authorizes the seizure of illegal products and injunctions against manufacturers and distributors of those products [21 U.S.C. §§ 332 and 334].

Please notify this office, in writing, within fifteen (15) working days of the receipt of this letter, as to the specific steps you have taken to correct the violations noted above and to assure that similar violations do not occur. Include any documentation necessary to show that correction has been achieved. If corrective actions cannot be completed within fifteen working days, state the reason for the delay and the time within which the corrections will be completed.


My Comments

Note this sentence from the FDA's letter: "The therapeutic claims on your website establish that the products are drugs because they are intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease." By claiming the definition and usage of the word "drug", the FDA makes it illegal for any nutritional supplement company to share any health benefits related to their supplements without prior permission from the FDA (permission that will not be granted).

Also note that in the majority of examples the FDA cites, the website only said "may" in terms of the potential health benefits that the products might provide. More importantly, science does support the benefits attributed to the product. Kyolic, for instance, is a garlic supplement, and garlic has been shown to be beneficial for the conditions the website cites.

But as soon as someone shares these facts in conjunction with selling supplements, the FDA accuses them of a crime because doing so, they claim, means they are marketing "drugs."

But it's perfectly OK for drug companies to hawk their drugs to anyone without such FDA interference. Despite the fact that drugs, properly prescribed and taken, kill over 100,000 Americans each and every year, hospitalize another 2 million people, and cause additional harm to 20 million more, and these are conservative estimates.

This abominable double standard is just one example of how deeply the FDA is in bed with Big Pharma.

Some Facts About Addiction In Light of Whitney Houston's Death

In light of a variety of very judgmental comments about Whitney Houston’s death now appearing on Facebook and elsewhere, I thought I’d weigh in on the issue of addiction. Some people claim it’s a choice, others that it’s a disease.

The truth is that it’s both.

It begins as a choice, but it can very quickly become a disease. Not everyone who chooses to drink, smoke, do drugs, or engage in other addictive activities will develop the need (literally) to continue to do so. Those who do develop such a need are usually biologically predisposed towards addiction (due to biochemical imbalances in their brain and/or genetics) and most often suffering from some level of emptiness within their psyche. The addictive substance or substances they expose themselves to temporarily calm the biological aspects and provide an illusory relief of whatever mental/emotional issues are affecting the user.

In such people, a very vicious cycle soon develops. Each time they use whatever they are addicted to, receptor sites within the brain are formed which literally cry out for the substance or substances that they are linked to. The more the addictive substance is used, the more these receptor sites form, so that the brain increasingly demands more use of the substance (or activity, e.g., sex, gambling, and even running for those who are addicted to experiencing the “runner’s high”). This is why addiction treatments based on the AA model so often fail – because they do nothing to address the receptor sites.

As this cycle unfolds, the need for ever greater amounts of the addictive substance is also something that addicts typically experience, because there are now more receptor sites in the brain to satisfy. As an example, where once one or two beers each day was enough to leave someone satisfied, in alcoholics that level is nowhere near enough, and so drinking becomes heavier and the drinks themselves often change towards those with higher alcohol content. At the same time that all of this is happening, another equally insidious effect in occurring in the brain – namely a literal shutting down of the brains higher level centers that equate with choice, intelligence, and the ability to perceive and do “the right thing.” As these centers of the brain become impaired, simultaneously the “reptilian brain” that cares only about satisfying needs, grows increasingly stronger within addicts.

All of these facts have been proven for decades, as has the fact that addiction is most definitely a disease once it takes hold. As with any other disease, people can still get well, but it requires proper treatment that addresses all of the factors in one’s life that made addiction possible in the first place. Such treatments do not include judgment.

I know too many loved ones who suffer from some form of addiction. Every single one of them, at heart, is a very loving and kind person, and also very intelligent and creative. I’m convinced that they are also too sensitive to the harsh realities of this world.

When viewed from that awareness, the only appropriate response is compassion.

The Cancer Profile Test

Last time, in addition to emphasizing the importance of detecting cancer as early as possible, I also told you how and why conventional diagnostic tests for cancer so often fail to do so. Today I want to tell you about a simple combination blood and urine test that is able to detect changes in your body’s biochemistry that are early warning signs that you may be on the way to developing cancer.

The test is called the Cancer Profile© and is available from American Metabolic Laboratories here in the United States. Developed by Emil Schandl, PhD, AML’s founder, who has a master’s degree in both biochemistry and enzymology and a doctorate in molecular genetics, the test is based on the scientific fact that certain detectable changes in biochemistry occur as the human body progresses from a healthy state towards states that are precancerous and cancerous.

How The Cancer Profile Test Works

The Cancer Profile test incorporates eight tests which, combined, provide a far more accurate indication of whether or not a person’s biochemistry is shifting towards an unhealthy state than if the tests were done separately. The test measures levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), and indicator of thyroid function (low thyroid function, or hypothyroidism, can predispose one to developing cancer) ; DHEA-S, a hormone produced by the adrenal gland that serves as an indicator of adrenal and immune function, as well as a marker for cancer; gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase (GGTP), an enzyme marker for overall liver function (healthy liver function is essential for protecting against cancer); and the cancer markers CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen), PHI (phosphohexose isomerase enzyme), and HCG (human chorionic gonadotropin), the last of which is measured using three different methods to ensure the best possible accuracy.

Based on his many years of research, Dr. Shandl observed that the substances his Cancer Profile test measures tend to become elevated at least 10 or more years before cancer can be detected using conventional screening tests. This is not surprising, since we now know that, in the vast majority of cases, it takes years before cancer develops to the point where it becomes a threat to health. Because of this long timeline, alternative cancer specialists realize that, by looking for shifts in biochemistry such as those the Cancer Profile measures, they can help their patients actually avoid cancer before it gains a foothold inside their bodies, using highly effective approaches such as dietary and lifestyle changes, along with nutritional supplements, detoxification therapies, and other modalities, as necessary.

If you read my last article on the need for early detection, you will recall what I mentioned about the importance of sensitivity and specificity. Briefly put, sensitivity and specificity in combination with each other determine how accurate a cancer screening test is. Sensitivity refers to the probability that a test will show a positive result when cancer actually exists, while specificity refers to the probability that a negative test result will occur when no cancer exists. A test that has high sensitivity and high specificity is far more useful than tests for which one or both of these measures are lower.

Dr. Shandl developed the Cancer Profile test for precisely this reason. He wanted to ensure a high level of accuracy, which simply cannot be achieved when doctors rely on only one of the markers alone. For example, despite the fact that numerous scientific studies show that HCG levels in the body become elevated when cancer cells are present in the body, other studies have found that tests that screen for HCG alone can often fail to detect such increases in elevations, usually because, even though the levels have risen, they may not have done so at levels high enough to be detected. As a result, HCG screening tests by themselves account for approximately 30 percent false negative results. (A false negative reading means a patient is told he or she does not have cancer when in reality cancer is present but was not detected.)

Similarly, other studies have shown that screening for either CEA or PHI alone can also lead to false negative results, whereas when both of these markers are measured, the overall accuracy of such testing increases significantly.

Given these facts, you can understand the advantages that the Cancer Profile test offers in comparison to stand-alone marker tests. Simply put, what a single cancer market test can often miss, the combination of markers included in the Cancer Profile will usually find with far more accuracy. (Testing has shown that the Cancer Profile has an overall accuracy rate of between 87 and 97 percent, depending on the type of cancer that a person may be developing, which far exceeds the rates of most other cancer screening tests.) Even more significantly, as I said, it can detect cancer far earlier than conventional cancer tests.

Another significant advantage of Dr. Shandl’s test is that, unlike stand-alone marker tests that typically screen for only one type of cancer and therefore fail to detect others types of cancer that might be present, the Cancer Profile is able to detect whether cancer is present in general. This saves time and money and can potentially also save lives. As with other blood screening tests for cancer, however, the Cancer Profile by itself cannot definitively prove that cancer is present. Such confirmation can only be obtained with further testing methods, which also can determine which type of cancer a person has.

Finally, another major benefit of the Cancer Profile test is that is can not only be used to screen for cancer, but also to monitor how well patients’ cancer treatments are working. This is vitally important because no cancer treatment, whether alternative or conventional, works 100 percent of the time. This means that even the most promising treatments with the highest success rates are incapable of helping everyone. By using the Cancer Profile test to monitor how well their treatments are working, physicians can quickly know whether they are on the right track for each individual patient, or whether they need to change what they are doing before it is too late. In addition, if surgery is deemed necessary to remove cancerous tumors, the Cancer Profile can be used prior to surgical procedures to provide patients and their physicians with a benchmark to determine whether or not the surgery was successful. Following surgery, a follow-up Profile test can be given. If surgery was indeed successful, the Profile will confirm that by showing lowered levels of the cancer markers it measures. If the markers stay at the same level as before, or continue to rise, then doctors will quickly know that their patients need additional treatment.

Just as importantly, physicians can use the Cancer Profile to monitor how well their patients who achieve remission of their cancer are maintaining their health. As anyone who has had cancer knows (including me), once cancer strikes, it can strike again. Here too conventional cancer tests are often ineffective due to their inability to indicate in a timely fashion whether cancer is returning. For this reason, patients and their physicians alike are often forced to “watch and wait,” hoping that the patient’s remain cancer-free. Unfortunately, too many times cancer does return, and when it does so it is often worse than it was originally, making further treatment more challenging. By using the Cancer Profile, physicians don’t have to wait to detect signs of relapse. Instead, they can see from the Profile how well their cancer patients are doing and, if necessary, take appropriate action much earlier, before the cancer recurrence becomes more serious.


How You Can Obtain the Cancer Profile Test

Despite the benefits that the Cancer Profile test offers, as well as the fact that physicians and patients from all across the United States and around the world have made use of it, the test still remains relatively unknown. For this reason, I urge you not to wait for doctors to find out about it on their own. Instead, learn more about it yourself. You can do so by contacting:

American Metabolic Laboratories
1818 Sheridan Street, Suite 102
Hollywood, FL 33020
(954) 929-4814
http://americanmetaboliclaboratories.net

Your doctor can order the test for you, or you can do it yourself by contacting American Metabolic Laboratories directly. After you receive your results, you can also schedule a free phone consultation with one of the lab’s trained representatives.

The Need To Detect Cancer Early: Why Conventional Cancer Tests Are Not the Answer

One of the main reasons that cancer is such a costly disease—both in terms of human suffering and in the financial cost involved in treating it—is because by and large it is not detected early enough.

When it comes to early detection, conventional medicine is well behind alternative cancer approaches. That’s because conventional diagnostic cancer tests look only for signs of cancer tumors. This is true whether the screening methods are measuring cancer markers or looking for signs of tumors directly, such as through CT scans, MRIs, x-rays, etc.

Most people do not realize that it takes years, and in some cases even decades before cancer develops into a visible tumor that conventional screening can detect. By then, the challenge of treating cancer successfully is more difficult and costly. That’s because, during all of the time that tumors are not detectable by conventional means, cancer is still active in the body.

Since the conventional cancer establishment often refers to its approach to cancer as a “war,” think of detection this way:

In war, doesn’t it make sense to be aware of your enemy before he can come ashore and strike, rather than to wait for years while he stealthily infiltrates your defenses before he strikes in full force? Obviously your chances of defeating your enemy are much greater if you can stop him in his tracks before he has a chance to leave his homeland. Similarly, alternative and integrative cancer physicians recognize that the earliest possible detection of cancer greatly increases the chances of their patients’ long-term recovery and survival. Just as importantly, early detection makes treating cancer far less costly, compared to when it’s detected later on.

Limitations of Conventional Cancer Tests


Conventional cancer tests have a number of limitations, starting with the fact that, as I said, cancer must have developed into a tumor before they can successfully detect it. (For the purposes of this article, I am referring here to “solid state” cancers, meaning those for which tumor formation is involved. Nearly all types of cancer fall into this category, with two notable exceptions: leukemias and lymphomas, such as Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkins lymphoma.) As mentioned, this means that cancer has to be present in the body for a long time before conventional cancer tests can detect it. And even then, small tumors can be missed by such tests, escaping detection until they grow larger, by which time cancer has progressed even further.

In addition, as I’ve written about in the past, a number of conventional cancer tests, such as x-rays and CT scans, are capable of causing cancer themselves due to the radiation they emit when patients are tested.

For this reason, conventional cancer specialists also rely on cancer markers to screen patients for cancer. A cancer marker refers to any of a variety of blood tests that measure the level of a protein material or other chemical that is produced by cancer cells. Marker levels become elevated in the presence of a cancerous tumor.

There are different cancer markers for different kinds of cancer. For example, the marker CEA (carcino-embryonic antigen) is used to screen for colon cancer, while CA 15-3 or CA 27-29 are used to screen for breast cancer. Other common cancer markers are CA 125, used to screen for ovarian cancer, and the PSA (prostate-specific antigen) test for men, which until recently was commonly relied upon by conventional physicians to screen for prostate cancer. (Recent research has shown that the PSA test may not be an accurate indicator of prostate cancer, to the points where its developer has now called on physicians to stop relying upon it for this purpose. The PSA test continues to be an accurate indicator for enlargement of the prostate gland or BPH.)

The most obvious limitation of conventional cancer marker tests is the fact that each of them can only be used to screen for one particular type of cancer. This means, for example, that a woman screened for breast cancer may be given a clean bill of health if her cancer markers show a low score all the while that she may have colon or another type of cancer that the markers cannot screen for.

Nor is that the only problem. Cancer markers can produce inaccurate results known as false positives and false negatives. A false positive results in patients being told they have cancer when in fact they don’t, while a false negative can result in people with cancer being told they are cancer-free. Obviously, either type of false reading is not a good outcome.

False positive and false negative outcomes from cancer marker tests are related to two statistical measures that determine a screening test’s usefulness. These measures are known as sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity refers to the probability that a test will show a positive result when cancer actually exists, while specificity refers to the probability that a negative test result will occur when no cancer exists. A test that has high sensitivity and high specificity is far more useful than tests for which one or both of these measures are lower. Unfortunately, too many conventional cancer marker tests fall into this latter category. They include the PSA test, as well as the CA 27-29 and CEA tests, among others.

False negative outcomes are also quite high with the traditional PAP smear test, which is used to screen for cancer of the cervix. This test examines stained cells from the mucous membrane of the cervix for signs of precancerous changes. Pre-cancer of the cervix is called cervical dysplasia. When detected early enough, it is almost always reversible, but once it progresses into malignancy and becomes invasive it is much more difficult to treat. It is estimated that a full one-third of women who die from cervical cancer do so because it was not accurately detected soon enough for successful treatment to begin.

Given all of the above, you are probably wishing that there were accurate and noninvasive tests that could screen for cancer in its earliest stages, far ahead of the conventional diagnostic tests I’ve mentioned, that could also screen for multiple types of cancer at once, instead of patients needing to have multiple types of tests to know whether or not cancer is present in their bodies.

Fortunately these types of tests do exist, and more and more alternative physicians are now making use of them even though both tests are still ignored by their conventional counterparts. In future articles I will tell you about two of these tests, one from Germany and one that is available right here in the United States, and I will also let you know how you can obtain them. Stay tuned.

Until then, remember this: When it comes to cancer, prevention is your best option, followed by the earliest possible detection methods.

Cancer and Your Immune System

It may surprise you to know that cancer cells are produced in your body each and every day, to the point where they even form tumors. That’s because each of us is constantly being exposed to carcinogens in our food, air and water supply. Fortunately, your body has a powerful weapon that is constantly on the alert for such abnormal cells and is quick to destroy them once they are found. What is this powerful weapon?

Your immune system!

When you are healthy, the cancer cells and tumors mentioned above never make it past the microscopic stage. Instead, they disappear before you even have a chance to know they exist. According to conventional oncologists, this disappearing act is known as “spontaneous regression.” But in reality it’s all due to the ability of the immune system to identify cancer cells early, before they can multiply, and quickly eliminate them as part of the overall protective role that the immune system performs as it helps to maintain your overall health.

Based on these facts, three things are very clear with regard to cancer:

1) The health of immune system is one of the most important factors that determine cancer patients’ survival.

2) The presence of cancer cells in the body is far less important than the immune system’s ability to properly identify and eliminate such cells, even when they are few in number.

3) Cancer takes hold in the body largely as a result of a functional breakdown or imbalance in the immune system, which can occur as a result of many factors, including poor diet, nutritional deficiencies, chronic exposure to toxins that over time overwhelm the immune system, unhealthy lifestyle choices (smoking, alcohol or drug abuse, etc), chronic stress, and unresolved emotional issues, to name just a few.


How Your Immune System Fights Cancer

When functioning properly your immune system protects against cancer in a number of important ways. First, it assesses whether normal cells have been transformed into cancer cells. This task is performed by specialized white blood cells known as T lymphocytes, or T cells. T cells are produced by the thymus glad and travel throughout the body where they seek out abnormal cells and foreign proteins known as tumor-associated antigens that are released by tumor cells.

If cancer cells are present, certain types of T cells signal other types of white blood cells to spring into action. These include B cells that produce antibodies that neutralize foreign matter in both blood and tissues, as well as other lymphocytes that produce anticancer chemicals known as cytokines. Cytokines act like a natural form of chemotherapy and include tumor necrosis factor, interleukin, and interferon. Unlike chemotherapy drugs, cytokines do their work without harming healthy cells.

Other cancer fighters in your immune system’s arsenal include natural killer (NK) cells and macrophages. NK cells are one of your body’s most immediate and powerful agents for protecting against cancer. A specialized class of lymphocytes, NK cells lock onto cancer cell sites and destroy malignant cells before they can multiply and spread. NK cells are especially important in the early stages of cancer, when they descend directly upon tiny tumors to devour them or cause them to disintegrate before the tumors can grow and start to harm the body. NK cells have little effect against large tumors, however.

Like NK cells, macrophages also destroy cancer cells by ingesting them. They also support your body’s detoxification system by scavenging for waste and debris, and help to regulate cell reproduction as well as the activity of other immune cells. Research has shown a direct correlation between increased macrophage activity and a decreased incidence of tumors and tumor growth. For this reason, macrophage function by itself can often accurately determine whether tumors will thrive or die.

Recognizing the Immune System’s Role in Fighting Cancer

Unlike conventional most conventional oncologists, alternative and integrative cancer doctors have long recognized the importance of the immune system when it comes to treating cancer effectively. For this reason, alternative and integrative doctors emphasize immune-boosting therapies as part of their overall strategy for addressing cancer. By contrast, most oncologists ignore immune function, focusing instead on simply killing cancer cells and tumors through the use of chemotherapy and/or radiation, both of which wreck havoc on cancer and healthy cells alike, especially immune cells. This difference in approach helps to explain why alternative and integrative approaches for cancer are often far more effective than conventional cancer treatments, both in the short-term and in the long-term.

What many people do not realize is that many cancer patients who are treated with chemotherapy or radiation actually do not die from their cancer, but from secondary infections such as pneumonia that are able to take hold in the body after conventional treatments have weakened and ravaged the immune system. That’s why helping to improve and maintain immune function is so vitally important when treating most cancers.

Alternative and integrative physicians accomplish this in a variety of ways, starting with improving their patients’ diet so that the foods they eat enhance all of the body’s functions, rather than impede them, which is what happens when you eat the nutritionally deficient standard American diet (SAD). Other therapies that may be employed to bolster the immune system are nutritional and orthomolecular medicine, herbal medicine, detoxification therapies, hyperthermia (heat-based therapies), and mind/body medicine (for stress relief and to heal painful emotions), to name just a few.

In addition, alternative cancer specialists, should they deem that chemotherapy or radiation is necessary, will use lab tests to help them determine the most appropriate chemo drugs to use that are most specific to each patient’s needs. By tailor-making chemotherapy treatments to match each individual’s unique needs, the chemo drugs that are employed are usually able to be administered at far lower doses than normal because they have been screened for their effectiveness. This not only increases their usefulness, but it also dramatically reduces the otherwise harmful side effects chemotherapy is noted for, sparing the immune system from harm.


The Cancer Establishment Is Catching On But Is It Enough?

Over the past few years drug companies and the mainstream cancer establishment has at long last begun to consider the immune system as part of their approach to treating cancer. Earlier this year, for example, an immune-stimulating cancer drug called Yervoy (ipilimumab) was hailed as “breakthrough” drug for combating late-stage melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. Developed by Bristol-Meyers Squibb, it has been approved by the FDA after studies showed that it nearly doubled the number of melanoma patients who survived for three years or more. Since its approval, the drug industry has increased its research into developing other immune-boosting drugs for cancer.

However, the news is not all good. In fact, some of it is downright frightening. That’s because in clinical trials nearly 13% of patients taking Yervoy had severe or fatal autoimmune reactions. In addition, the drug also causes a wide range of side effects, including fatigue, hormone deficiencies, diarrhea, skin rash, and colitis (inflammation of the intestines. Moreover, like many cancer drugs, it is expensive. Plus, because it is new to market, no studies exist showing whether it is safe and effective long-term.

While I applaud the cancer establishment for finally beginning to research immune-boosting drugs, just as I agree that both chemotherapy and radiation have their place as part of physicians’ overall cancer-fighting arsenal, I question the wisdom of relying on drug-based immune-boosting approaches that are not completely safe and also so expensive. Especially when proven safe and natural immune-boosting therapies, such as those I’ve mentioned above, already exist and have a long track record of efficacy.

That’s why I am such a strong proponent of cancer treatments that rely on the “best of both worlds” from both the alternative and conventional fields of medicine. And it’s also why I encourage all cancer patients to explore all of their options from both fields and to seek out doctors who are trained in how to best integrate them. There is no “magic bullet” when it comes to treating cancer, and there most likely never will be. But certainly your body’s immune system is a key part of the complete cancer care picture, and that’s a fact more cancer doctors and patients alike need to recognize.

Conventional Medicine’s Blind and Ignorant Bias Towards Alternative Cancer Therapies

Today I want to share with you the story of a very brave young boy and his equally courageous family. His name is Connah Broom and his story is both a wonderful testament to the power of love and the human spirit and a sad indictment of the ignorance and bias to be found within the conventional medical community when it comes to alternative cancer therapies.

I recently became aware of Connah when I came upon a link to a feature article about him that appeared in the February 10 2009 edition of the Daily Mail, a major newspaper in England. The title of the article is:

The boy with 11 tumours who was sent home to die... and survives after grandparents' alternative therapy treatments.

Briefly, here’s Connah’s story.

In August 2006, after months of intermittent symptoms of pain and a general feeling of illness that physicians initially misdiagnosed, he was found to have a relatively rare and aggressive form of cancer known as neuroblastoma, which attacks the brain and nervous system running along the spinal cord. By the time Connah was properly diagnosed, his cancer was classed as neuroblastoma stage 4. Doctors found that it had spread through his chest near his heart, to his stomach close to several organs including his kidney and intestine, and down his left leg.

Connah received conventional cancer treatments for seven month, at which point his doctors told his family that there was nothing more that they could do for him and that they should “take him home to enjoy his final months” of life. That was in early 2007.


It was at this point that Connah’s grandparents took action. Instead of accepting the doctors’ prognosis, they refused to give up hope and began to educate themselves about any and all potential alternative options that might save their grandson.

The first thing they did was put Connah on an all-organic diet along with filtering his water, after they read doing so could reduce the amount of harmful toxins in his body. “Once we did this, Connah stopped becoming ill,” his grandmother reports.


As they continued their research, Connah’s grandparents (whom he lives with, along with his father) soon added other alternative therapies to his health-care regimen, including reiki, far infrared sauna, laser therapy, ultrasound, and other therapies, some of which they were introduced to when they visited an alternative cancer clinic in Mexico (the newspaper article does not identify which clinic they went to). After being instructed in the use of the therapies they learned about at the clinic, Connah’s grandparents returned home and built their own equipment devices in order to treat Connah on their own. All of the expenses involved were paid for out-of-pocket.

At the time that the Daily Mail article was written—a full two years after Connah’s doctors had given him up for dead—scans showed that ten of Connah’s 11 tumors had shrunk, had no blood flow and appeared to be dead. Today, more than four years after Connah received his death sentence, he is still alive and his latest scans show that “his disease is stable.”

Not only is Connah still with us, he is also living a normal, active life, including pursuing his passion for gymnastics, playing soccer, painting, and winning awards at dance competitions.

As I said, Connah’s story is wonderful.

But what isn’t so wonderful is how the conventional medical community has responded to it. In the same article, the Daily Mail reported that conventional cancer experts remained skeptical and “cast doubt on whether the alternative therapies had made any difference”.

Bear in mind, these are the same types of experts who had handed Connah a death sentence years earlier!


As if that isn’t enough, the article also reported the experts said “levels of toxins in food and drink are unlikely to be high enough to cause cancer”.

Such a claim is not only downright ignorant, it’s also entirely irresponsible. Numerous studies have shown a link between poor diet and cancer, and that includes consuming foods and drinks that contain cancer-causing chemicals. For conventional cancer experts to say otherwise—and for the Daily Mail to allow them to do so unquestioned—verges on criminal negligence.


But the height of the arrogance and ignorance of the conventional cancer establishment is revealed later in the article when the Mail reports that, rather than taking a serious look at the merits of the approach Connah’s grandparents have used to not only keep him alive, but restore him to an active childhood, “They say cancers often go into remission for unexplained reasons.”

In other words, they have no interest whatsoever in admitting that what Connah’s grandparents are doing is not only working, but is actually far superior to the conventional treatment Connah received—treatments which they themselves admitted had failed him!

I wish I could say that this example of ignorance about and bias against viable alternative cancer therapies was rare, but it isn’t. It’s the norm! And because it is, untold numbers of cancer patients around the world are denied the opportunity to explore nonconventional therapies that can quite possibly save their lives. All because they heed the advice of conventional doctors and conventional cancer organizations that say such alternatives are “un proven” and not worthy of consideration.

Fortunately for Connah, his grandparents were smarter than that. Instead of passively accepting the death sentence Connah was given, they did their own due diligence and by doing so, they saved Connah’s life.

My hope is that, should cancer strike you or your loved ones, you too will be like Connah’s grandparents, and also refuse to give up hope.

You can read the Daily Mail article about Connah here.

You can also watch a video about Connah and his grandparents here.

Finally, if you would like to be kept informed about Connah’s progress or make a donation to help support his grandparents’ work, you can visit this website set up in his name:

http://www.connahsappeal.co.uk

Is the Profit Motive Harming and Killing Cancer Patients?

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair

Here is a shocking fact you most likely did not know: Unlike other kinds of doctors, cancer doctors (oncologists) are allowed to profit from the sale of chemotherapy drugs. In fact, most of the annual income oncologists earn comes from the profit that they make from selling these highly toxic drugs to their patients.

That’s not supposition on my part. That’s a fact reported by NBC Nightly News back in 2006. You can watch the report here.

As NBC reported, oncologists buy chemotherapy drugs at wholesale prices and then sell them to their patients at “marked up prices.”


This absurd practice was made legal years ago after Medicare and health insurance companies decided it would be a good idea to move cancer patients out of hospitals and into the care of private practice oncologists. Their reasoning was that this was necessary in order to save money. What happened as a result of this misguided decision was the exact opposite.

Instead of saving money, the cost of chemotherapy drugs skyrocketed to tens of thousands of dollars a year, and in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars per month.

Medical ethicists have for years questioned the wisdom of allowing oncologists to continue to earn the majority of their incomes from the sale of chemotherapy drugs, correctly pointing out that doing so creates a serious conflict of interest between patient welfare and oncologists’ desire to prescribe the drugs that they are going to make the most money from even when they are not what their patients needs. This includes over-prescribing drugs beyond the point in which they are effective.

How many cancer patients have died because their doctors succumbed to the lure of maximizing their profits and administered chemotherapy drugs inappropriately?

No one can say, but in all likelihood at least some cancer patients did die because of their doctors’ desire for profits.

This is a travesty and it needs to stop!

Correctly this great wrong won’t be easy, however, nor can oncologists as a whole be blamed.

Although I strongly disagree with the use of chemotherapy drugs the way they are administered by conventional oncologists—for the simple reason that, in the majority of cases, they do not work—at the same time I recognize that most cancer doctors and their staffs are extremely dedicated professionals who are doing all they can, based on how they have been taught (persuaded, would be the better word) to treat cancer.

In short, it’s not oncologists who are at the root of this problem; it’s the system in which they are trapped!

This fact was admitted to by Dr. Peter Eisenberg, a conventional cancer specialist who was interviewed as part of the NBC report mentioned above. In it, he said, “Patients should feel that their physician has their best interest at heart, always. And the way the system is set up, because of the incentives [for selling chemotherapy drugs to their patients], does something to destroy that.”

So, what can be done about this?

The first step appears clear-cut. The profit motive for oncologists must be eliminated in the arena of cancer care, by eliminating their ability to buy drugs at wholesale and then to sell them at often much higher prices. (Note: Usually, it is not the cancer patients who pay these exorbitant prices; it is health insurance companies and/or Medicare/Medicaid. The end result is higher health insurance premiums for all of us, and a further drain of taxpayer money from our federal government’s already overstrained resources.)

Oncologists must return to administering their drugs in the same way that all other MDs do: Instead of selling drugs directly, they must simply prescribe them, as they once used to do.

But this step alone, will not fix the problem, and here’s where things get more complicated. And more suspect.

You see, the real reason cancer drugs cost so much has very little to do with how much it costs drug companies to develop them and bring them to market. Nor does their cost have anything to do with their potential to save lives. If that were the case for chemotherapy drugs, their price would be extremely low given how abysmal a track record they have for improving cancer patients’ quality of life and extending their survival rates, let alone actually curing cancer, which they most certainly do not (at best, they only temporarily put cancer into remission).

No, the real reason cancer drugs in the United States costs so much (well over $100,000 a year for a single patient in the case of many of the new generation of cancer drugs) is very simple:

Cancer drugs—especially the new generation of drugs—cost so much because they have no competitors.

In other words, drug companies can charge whatever they want for their cancer drugs, and they do exactly that!

You might think that such price-gouging by the drug companies could easily be curtailed if health insurance companies if they simply refused to pay the prices Big Pharma demands for their cancer drugs. In theory, this is correct, but the reality of this situation paints a different story. First, refusing to pay the cost of cancer drugs would garner a lot of ill-will towards health insurance companies by the public, and these companies already have enough of that as it is.

But the bigger issue has to do with Medicare. You see, when it comes to paying for the price of drugs, both cancer drugs and otherwise, health insurance companies take their lead from Medicare. Medicare does not provide coverage for most types of drugs, but it does cover the use cancer drugs. Most health insurance companies simply follow the guidelines for drug reimbursement that are established by the government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). And when it comes to the price of cancer drugs, as far as CMS is concerned, anything goes!

This is in stark contrast to how CMS acts with regard to all other types of drugs. Aside from cancer drugs, CMS controls medical costs by establishing the fees that are paid under Medicare/Medicaid for nearly all other medical procedures, including drug usage, by both doctors and hospitals. Once CMS establishes these fees, health insurance companies set their own rates of coverage to coincide with them.

What this means is very simple to understand: If CMS dealt with the price of cancer drugs in the same way that it does for all other medications, the price of cancer drugs would quickly plummet, largely sparing oncologists of the temptation to try and profit from their use.

When it comes to cancer drugs, CMS must change its policies!

Then there is a third, and equally important factor to consider: The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). PhRMA bills itself as the pharmaceutical industry trade group. In plain English, it means that it’s a drug lobby. And since 1992 its work has paid huge dividends for Big Pharma, from which its funding is derived. You see, PhRMA convinced the US Congress and President Bill Clinton to enact a bill known as the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) of 1992. Once the act was passed and signed into law, Big Pharma effectively became the fox guarding the henhouse of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This came about because the act means that, since its passage, Big Pharma actually helps fund the FDA’s research and approval process of the very pharmaceutical drugs the FDA is supposed to be regulating on our behalf. Not only does Big Pharma’s funding of the FDA create a direct and serious conflict of interest, it also ensures that the FDA provides a speedier approval process of pharmaceutical drugs, many of which later prove to be ineffective, life-threatening, or both!

By now, I’m sure you can understand that one of the most serious underlying problems that have kept conventional cancer treatment in the US focused almost entirely on dangerous and ineffective cancer drugs is the fact that cancer is big business. Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent each and every year on behalf of cancer patients and their loved ones who are desperate to reverse this terrible disease. And all of that money winds up in the pockets of the doctors and clinics that treating cancer with these cancer drugs, and, most especially, the pharmaceutical drug companies who manufacture them and promote their use.

Human nature being what it is, it would be foolish to expect those who profit most from the use of these cancer drugs, including oncologists, will suddenly change course and start investigating the cheaper, safer, and far more effective cancer treatments that I have spent decades of my life investigating. Not when their livelihoods depend so greatly on the status quo of cancer care today.

Therefore, it is up to each and every one of us to pressure our elected officials to clean up this sad state of affairs that we are in. To do so, we must insist on the following:

• Oncologists must be prohibited from buying and reselling cancer drugs for profit.

• The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services must begin to establish the fees that are paid under Medicare/Medicaid for cancer drugs and cancer treatments, just as they do for all other drugs and medical procedures.

• The influence of Big Pharma and their lobbyist group the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America must end, both at the FDA, and within Congress (the drug lobby has more lobbyists in Congress and spends more lobbying money there than any other lobbyist group), and the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992 must be rescinded.

If we as a nation can achieve these goals, then truly effective approaches for treating cancer in the United States may at last come into the full light of day.

Thermography: The Safer, More Effective Alternative To Mammograms

Both holistic and conventional doctors agree that early detection of cancer is very important. Simply put, the earlier cancer is detected, the better the odds are for a full and long-lasting recovery.

One of the most effective ways women can detect breast cancer, as well as other types of cancer, early and safely is by using thermography. Thermography is a safe and effective alternative to mammograms. Let me explain why this is so and why you absolutely must know about thermography in your fight to protect yourself from cancer.

What Is Thermography?

Thermography is the name given to a diagnostic technique that employs thermal (heat) imaging to allow health practitioners to get a clearer idea about what is taking place inside their patients’ bodies. Breast thermography is the name given to thermography when it is used to screen for signs of breast cancer, as well as for determining the overall health of the breast. Unlike mammograms, breast thermography is 100% safe, and is far more accurate in detecting signs of breast cancer than mammograms are. Mammograms fail to detect breast cancer 20 to 40 percent of the time. By contrast, breast thermography successfully detects breast cancer 90%, and has the added benefit of being able to do so up to 8 to 10 years earlier than mammography.

Research published in the American Journal of Radiology confirms how important breast thermography is in the fight against cancer. In addition to confirming thermography’s 90% accuracy rate, the Journal reported that breast thermography has a 90% specificity rate and a 99% sensitivity rate. No other screening method for breast cancer comes close to these rates. For example, the sensitivity rate for physical breast exams is only 18%, while for mammograms and MRIs it is 70 and 71% respectively. Moreover, since 1982 breast thermography has also been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Despite all these facts, few physicians are even aware of the powerful, health-saving benefits thermography can provide, and fewer still ever tell their patients about it. This is a travesty of the highest order! And it exists largely because of the multiyear and multibillion dollar campaign by the American mammography industry to suppress pubic awareness of thermography. All for the sake of profit at the expense of public safety and well-being!

The following facts make it clear why I stress the importance of thermography to doctors and patients alike. I hope you will pay attention to what I am going to share with you next because it’s vitally important.

Cancer cells double every 90 days. That means it takes 90 days for a single cancer cell to turn into two cells, and approximately one full year before that single cancer cell grows to 16 cells. By the end of year two, if left unchecked, that single cancer cell will have grown to 256 cancer cells, forming a tumor that is .25 centimeters in size. Thermography can detect tumor cells that are even smaller than that—about the size of a single grain of rice. When tumors that small are detected, patients have nearly a 100 percent (99%) chance of long-term survival.

Now consider this: at best, mammography can only detect breast tumors that are 2.5 centimeters in size (about the size of a dime and 10 times the tumor size at the end of year two). This equates to tumors comprised of nearly 4.3 billion cancer cells, a number that will not occur until the end of the eight year after the first cancer cell took hold. Most times, however, mammograms fail to detect breast cancer tumors until they have grown to contain between 69 billion to over 1 trillion cancer cells! Meaning that it is not until the 9th or 10th year, or even later, that mammography will detect breast cancer. (The same is true if breast self-exams, too.) By then, the spread of cancer can often prove too much for conventional cancer treatments to reverse, and also more challenging for practitioners of alternative and integrative cancer care to treat.

Based on the above facts, doesn’t it make sense for all women over the age of 35 to replace their annual mammograms with annual thermography checkups instead? Of course it does!

How Thermography Works

Perhaps you are familiar with night vision goggles used by the military and police agencies. These goggles enable their wearers to spot people in the darkness by the heat signature of their bodies. Thermography works in much the same way. It employs a special infrared sensitive camera to digitally record images of the surface temperature of the body. This enables technicians trained in the use of thermography to detect variations in surface body temperature throughout, as well as the entire body. (As a result, thermography is also highly useful for detecting a wide range of other disease conditions, including prostate and other cancers, inflammatory breast disease, fibromyalgia, gastrointestinal disorder, thyroid issues, hiatal hernias, and even early warning signs of heart disease and stroke!)

Abnormal variations in surface body temperature are biomarkers, or “fingerprints”, indicating the sign of tumors or other potential health problems. These temperature variations can be very subtle, but where they occur, it is highly likely that they are signs of a pathology in the breast. That’s because research has shown that the metabolic activity and vascular circulation in both pre-cancerous and cancerous tissues and the surrounding areas of the breast are almost higher, resulting in an increase in surface body temperature compared to that of normal, healthy breast tissue.

This rise in surface body temperature is also due to the way that cancer cells nourish themselves. As cancer cells and tumors grow, they require an ever-increasing supply of nutrients. In order to obtain these nutrients, tumors increase circulation to their cells by diverting nutrients through existing blood vessels, as well as by opening dormant blood vessels and creating new ones (a process called angiogenesis), all of which raises surface body temperature in the areas of the breast wherever blood vessels have been taken over by tumors. These temperature variations are among the very earliest signs that breast tissue has entered into a pre-cancerous or cancerous state. In fact, studies have shown that an abnormal thermography reading is the single most important indication of high risk for developing breast cancer, ten times as significant as a family history of cancer. Currently, only thermography is capable of detecting these temperature variations at their earliest stages.

Another major advantage of thermography is that it is noninvasive and quick, and free of the discomfort associated with mammograms. There is no compression, no direct contact with the body, and no harmful substances to be exposed to, let alone the cancer-causing radiation emitted by mammograms. Instead, all you have to do is allow your body to reach a steady temperature state that is compatible with the special temperature conditions of the thermography room. This usually takes no more than 15 minutes. After that, you will be positioned in front of the thermography camera so that all surfaces of your breasts, upper chest and underarms can be imaged. The images are captured in real time and then transmitted to a sophisticated computer for analysis. The computer allows your doctor to isolate differences in surface body temperature and vascularity. After the images are analyzed, they are graded using a strict standardized system based on five categories. Depending on the results of your exam, further tests may be ordered should there be any indication of breast abnormalities. (It’s important to note that neither thermography nor mammograms can definitively determine whether or not breast cancer is present in patients. Subsequent testing is always necessary for confirmation.) If your reading is normal, then your doctor has a baseline reading of your breasts that she or he can compare to followup thermography readings as part of your annual health checkup.

Now that you know more about thermography I think you will agree with me that thermography belongs on the frontlines of every early cancer detection program.

To locate a thermography center near you, visit www.iact-org.org/links.html

Medical Genocide?

Each an every day in the United States, more than 5400 people die as a direct result of properly prescribed pharmaceutical drugs or because of a medical error. Since doctors rarely report medical errors, some experts claim that over 15,000 Americans die each day from medical errors.

Illness is not due to pharmaceutical drug-deficiencies. This basic fact underlies the primary flaw inherent in most of conventional Western medicine.

The Dangers of Mammograms: What You Need To Know (Part 2)

Last time I explained to you why mammograms are so often ineffective at accurately detecting breast cancer. Today I want to tell you why mammograms can actually increase women’s risk of developing breast and other types of cancer. This shocking fact is well-documented, but you won’t hear it from most doctors. But knowing the truth can safe your life, and sharing the truth about cancer is what my mission is all about.

A Man Ahead of His Time

To fully appreciate the information I’m going to share with you today, you first need to know about one of the most brilliant and accomplished doctors and researchers it was my good fortune to learn from. I’m talking about the late Dr. John W. Gofman. Besides being a doctor, John was also a nuclear chemist and one of the world’s foremost experts on the dangers of low-level radiation, including low-level radiation emitted by x-rays and mammograms.

You may not have heard of John before, but chances are very good that you are familiar with at least one of his scientific developments. You see, it was John who, during the 1940s and 50s, discovered the full range of lipoproteins that exist in the bloodstream. More importantly, John’s work produced the first evidence that high blood levels of certain of these lipoproteins, including LDL (“bad”) cholesterol, were an important risk factor for heart disease. John, in collaboration with his colleague Frank T. Lindgren, created a variety of techniques that led him to discover both LDL and HDL (“good”) cholesterol, as well as a variety of other lipoproteins, including those in the triglyceride-class. Thanks to John, today doctors routinely screen their patients to determine their cholesterol and triglyceride levels to help determine their risk of heart disease.

Because of his pioneering work in this area, John received numerous awards and recognition from his medical peers. In 1954, he received the Modern Medicine Award for his “outstanding contributions to heart disease research.” In 1965, the American Heart Association bestowed him with its Lyman Duff Lectureship Award for his research on atherosclerosis and heart disease, and in 1974 The American College of Cardiology selected him as one of the 25 leading researchers in the field of cardiology of the previous quarter-century.

Impressive as John’s work was in the field of cardiology, his greatest contributions came in the field of nuclear energy, which he began working in during the early 1940s, while still a graduate student at Berkeley University. During this period, John was awarded two patents for his work in developing processes that enabled plutonium to be separated from the uranium and fission products of irradiated nuclear fuel. His work in this field eventually led to him joining the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). At the AEC’s request, at the beginning of the 1960s John established the Biomedical Research Division of the AEC’s Livermore National Laboratory in order to study the effects of nuclear energy on health. As his research in this area continued, John began to focus his attention on studying cancer and chromosomes, and the effect that radiation had on chromosomal mutations and gene stability.

By 1969, John, once a strong proponent of the nuclear energy industry, had concluded that human exposure to ionizing radiation was far more dangerous than scientists, including himself, had previously realized. From that point on, he became a leading spokesman calling for a moratorium on the expansion of nuclear power plants and an end to underground nuclear testing. In 1969, he urged that federal safety guidelines for low-level exposures to radiation be reduced by 90 percent, but was ignored. He was ignored. Soon thereafter, the AEC defunded John’s research on chromosomes and cancer.

After a stint as a professor at U.C. Berkeley, John chose to spend the rest of his life conducting pro-bono (free) research into the effects that radiation has on human health. He also founded the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility. His research led him to conclude that “by any reasonable standard of biomedical proof” there is no safe threshold of ionizing radiation for any human being, and that the use of medical diagnostic tools such as x-rays, mammograms, and CT scans, all of which expose patients to ionizing radiation was a co-factor in approximately 75% of all cases of breast cancer in the United States.

Nor was John afraid to speak his mind on this important topic. Here are excerpts from an interview he gave on the subject in 1994:

“The human experimentation that has been done is bad…But for 25 years the DOE [U.S. Department of Energy] has not shown any concern for the health of Americans. Their concern has been for the health of the DOE. Their falsehoods concerning the hazards of ionizing radiation have put not thousands of people at risk, not millions of people, but billions of people.”

“They have been conducting a Josef Goebels propaganda war, saying there’s a safe dose when there has never been any valid evidence for a safe dose of radiation…We can now say, there cannot be a safe dose of radiation. There is no safe threshold. If this truth is known, then any permitted radiation is a permit to commit murder.”

In spite of these views, John was not against the use of x-rays, mammograms or CT scans altogether. He was all for them if, as he said, “there’s a diagnostic gain for you, something that can really make a difference in your health and your life.” But, as he warned, there is another important part to this equation. As John often pointed out, government studies have repeatedly shown that most hospitals and radiologists “didn’t have the foggiest notion of what dose [of radiation] they were giving you for a procedure,” and that doses could vary by as much as a 20 times higher than what was actually needed for diagnosis.

In his book The Health Effects of Common Exams, which he co-wrote with Egan O’Connor, John showed that simply reducing the average dose of radiation used in medical diagnoses by one-third would prevent 50,000 fatal cancers each and every year. That adds up to saving one million lives in every generation!

Despite John’s stature as one of the world’s leading experts on the health effects of ionizing radiation, his claims about radiation’s link to cancer were strongly refuted by the medical establishment and the nuclear energy industry. But to this day, no one has been able to refute any of John’s claims.

John’s struggle to warn us about the dangers of ionizing radiation, including from mammograms, reminds me of the 19th century physician Ignaz Semmelweis, who was the first Western doctor and surgeon to recommend that physicians wash their hands before treating their patients, and especially before surgery. Dr. Semmelweis made this recommendation after his discovery in 1847 that the incidence of puerperal fever, a common life-threatening condition that killed many women during his time after they gave birth, could be reduced to as low as 1% if physicians would simply first wash their hands before they delivered babies. For making this simple and life-saving recommendation, Semmelweis was ruthlessly attacked by the medical establishment of his time, to the point that he suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum where he died. He was only 47 years old. It wasn’t until years afterward that Semmelweis was proven correct, when Louis Pasteur published his famous theory of germs. Think how many lives might have been saved had Semmelweis been listened to instead of mocked and destroyed!

The Medical Establishment Is Still the Same Today

Though Dr. Gofman was also mocked and attacked by his peers over his findings about the health risks of radiation, x-rays, and mammograms, fortunately he was able to live a long and productive life (he passed away in 2007 when he was 88). And, unlike Dr. Semmelweis, decades didn’t have to pass before others confirmed John’s findings. In fact, others came to his defense even while he was still alive. Among them is Dr. Samuel Epstein, another outspoken critic of the cancer establishment.

In his book The Politics of Cancer Revisited, Dr. Epstein estimates that a 20% increased risk of breast cancer could be expected for pre-menopausal women exposed to ten yearly mammograms with two rads per exposure. Yet women today continue not to be warned about this very serious potential risk. Instead, as Dr. Epstein writes, they are “being falsely assured of the benefits” of mammograms, which are still being highly promoted as a preventive deterrent for cancer.

So, here we are in the 21st century, faced with the same arrogance and obstinance on the part of the medical establishment and our own government that Dr. Semmelweis faced two centuries previously. With the same unfortunate results—untold numbers of women who are developing and dying as a direct result of current widely accepted medical procedures, in this case the overuse of mammograms and other diagnostic techniques that emit ionizing radiation.

Fortunately, information, as they say, is power, and my mission is to empower you so that you can escape the clutches of the medical establishment when their recommendations are harmful. Next time, I will tell you about an alternative to mammograms that are not only much safer (completely safe, in fact), but also capable of detecting cancer up to ten years earlier than mammograms can. It’s called thermography, and I will tell you all you need to know about it in my next post. Be sure not to miss it.

To find out more about Dr. John Gofman and his work, I recommend you visit www.ratical.org.

I also recommend the Cancer Prevention Coalition, which was founded by Dr. Samuel Epstein. To find out more, please visit www.preventcancer.com.