THE 7 MOST DANGEROUS PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

  • #1: Sleeping Pills 
    (Ambien, Lunesta, Restoril)
  • #2: Cholesterol Drugs
    (Statins like Baycol)
  • #3: Blood Pressure Drugs
    (Beta-Blockers, Calcium Channel Blockers)
  • #4: Alzheimer’s Drugs
    (Aricept 23)
  • #5: Arthritis Drugs
    (NSAIDs like Celebrex)
  • #6: Diabetes Drugs
    (Actos, Avandia, Byetta, Metformin)
  • #7: Chemotherapy
    (Tamoxifen)
Advertisements

Sugar & Cancer: The Connection

Sugar & Cancer: The Connection

Dr. Kelly Turner, PhD

Founder, The Radical Remission Project  

There has been a lot of talk about sugar and cancer, and for good reason.  It is an indisputable fact that cancer cells consume (i.e., metabolize) sugar -glucose- at a much faster rate than normal cells do.

This is precisely how a PET scan works: first, you drink a glass of glucose, and then the scan detects where that glucose is being metabolized the fastest in your body.  Those glucose “hot spots” are the areas in your body that are most likely cancerous.

While researchers are still not clear whether a high-sugar diet causes cancer, what we do know is that once cancer cells are in your body, they consume anywhere from ten to fifty times more glucose than normal cells do. Therefore, it makes logical sense for cancer patients to cut as much refined sugar from their diets as possible, in order to avoid “feeding” their cancer cells, and instead rely on the glucose found naturally in vegetables and fruits.

Knowing that the average American eats the equivalent of twenty-two teaspoons of sugar a day– when we should only eat six to nine teaspoons at most- means there is much room for improvement, whether or not we are currently dealing with cancer.

The take-home message is simple: cancer cells behave differently than healthy cells do, and one of the key differences is that they require lots of sugar in order to function.  Therefore, cutting refined sugars out of your diet may be a key way to help “starve” a cancer cell.

Read more: https://mail.google.com/mail/ca/u/0/#inbox/1446a9b06fe86a91

 

Big Medicine goes Functional

Written by Adrian Batten

Genetic breakthrough coming thick and fast is great news, of course. Unfortunately it will be another ten years or so before the New Medicine kicks in. Even then, will you and I be able to afford it when it does? Someone’s got to pay for it all, and we pretty much know who that’s going to be.

Best not get sick.

I don’t joke. We need to protect ourselves and the best way of doing that is by not getting sick if we can possibly avoid it. The bad news is that more and more of us are suffering from complex, chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, cancer, dementia and mental illness, along with autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. These conditions are life style or wear and tear diseases, which means they can be delayed or even avoided if we knew how.

The practice of medicine today is not going to be much help to us in preventing this, scenario, rigged as it is toward acute care. That is to say the diagnosis and treatment of trauma or illness requiring urgent short-term attention. Today physicians apply specific prescribed treatment of surgery or drugs, aimed to treating the immediate problem. The aim is to keep us alive in the short term at any cost. And, put like that, who’s going to argue? The concern, however, goes a bit further than that. We’ve known for many years this interventionist approach just doesn’t work. We pay an increasingly unacceptable cost for being patched up like this, our health continues compromised and no cure is effected.

Instead, what we get is “managed chronic disease”, skilled physicians and technicians, along with our hospitals supported every step off the way by the drug majors and medical insurers, presiding over chronic decline, not cure.

Read more:  http://www.asiasentinel.com/blog/big-medicine-goes-functional/

Angelina Jolie – wise call or insanity?

Angelina was advised by her doctors that because she had been identified as having a mutated BRCA1 gene she stood an 87% risk of getting breast cancer.  If she were to elect to have a bilateral mastectomy she was advised this would drop to <5%.  Given these statistics it’s not surprising that she opted to go with surgery.

However digging a little deeper we find that this figure of 87% comes from the company that created the test designed for identifying the BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutated genes and who stand to make millions from this latest spate of publicity.

Read more: http://www.survive-and-thrive-cancer.com/angelinajoliemastectomy.aspx#.UvuUMvmSx8F