Thursday, August 21, 2014

Immune Boosting Nutrients for Healing After Chemo

7 Immune Boosting Nutrients to Repair Your Body After Chemo
on March 24, 2014
It would be wonderful if our “Healthcare System”  would focus on true prevention and healing the body with non-toxic, plant-derived products. But the reality is that the majority of women still undergo the traditional treatments of radiation, surgery and chemotherapy. We have a ways to go before integrative oncology can have a bigger impact on shifting the paradigm of the cancer industry.
In the meantime, the best way to be supportive of women with Breast Cancer, regardless of their treatment choice, is to keep educating and giving proof of the power of Natural Medicine. Granted, while undergoing chemotherapy treatments, most oncologists will warn against taking any supplements because they are unsure of the effect this may have on the toxic treatment.
I am not an oncologist or medical doctor and make no claims to be one, but common sense tells me that if your body is suffering and is toxic, food-derived nutrients can certainly support the body nutritionally without having a detrimental effect. Keep in mind that cancer cells are very resistive to dying because they manufacture specific proteins that prevent them from dying. But, we are blessed with an array of amazing plant compounds that display selective toxicity that kill only cancer cells, and at the same time boost our Immune System.
If my best friend was doing chemotherapy, this is what I would recommend to her, to help repair her body before, during and after treatment.
1.)  Broccoli Sprouts
There are over 100 research articles on the plant compound Sulforaphane that is found in cruciferous vegetables. However, there are 20 – 50 times more Sulforaphane in a sprout compared to the mature vegetable. Sulforaphane is a potent inhibitor of Breast Cancer, induces Breast Cancer cells to die and boosts your Natural Killer Cell Activity.
2.)  Curcumin
There are over 200 studies in the US National Library of Medicine that specifically addresses the effect of curcumin on Breast Cancer. Curcumin has many anti-cancer properties such as prevention of tumor development and inducing cancer cell death. But it has also even been shown to be beneficial against multi-drug resistant Breast Cancers.
3.)  Salicinium
Salicinium (Orasal is the product name) is a plant based glyco-nutrient that alters cancer cell fermentation and weakens cancer cells. It is non-toxic and can be used orally and intravenously. Dr. John Forsythe, a board certified Homeopath and Oncologist has found an 85% success rate with Breast Cancer patients. (in combination with Poly MVA and other nutrients)  
4.)  Poly MVA
This is a unique liquid formula of specific minerals, amino acids and vitamins that support normal cellular energy production by increasing oxygen pathways inside the cell. We know that cancer cells “breathe” though sugar fermentation and don’t like oxygen because it interferes with the cancer cells’ metabolism.
5.)  Beta Glucans
If you want to supercharge your Immune System, this extract from medicinal mushrooms is very powerful. It increases the activity of the immune cells that gobble up cancer cells and affects the expression of important genes in Breast Cancer cells.
6.)  Melatonin
More commonly known as a “sleep-inducing” hormone, Melatonin is actually a very powerful cytotoxic hormone. It displays anti-estrogen effects on estrogen receptors and causes Breast Cancer cells to

commit cell suicide. Many clinical studies have shown the benefits of Melatonin for cancer patients.  
7.)  Vitamin D  
The Canadian Cancer Society has now endorsed the use of Vitamin D as a cancer prevention therapy. Higher levels of blood serum Vitamin D are associated with a reduced risk of post-menopausal Breast Cancer, reduced Breast Cancer cell growth and stimulation of the macrophages to attack cancer cells.
There are many, many more Immune Modulating products and foods that strengthen your Immune System and weaken cancer cells at the same time. In order to truly heal the body, you must address the cause that brought you to the cancer journey in the first place. You must be willing to change your diet, your lifestyle and your attitude towards your life. Since the average success rate for chemotherapy alone is 2.1%, I would encourage you to provide your body with powerful nutrients that may improve your body’s ability to heal.
If you would like more information on these 7 nutrients, follow these links:
2.)  Curcumin
3.)  Salicinium
4.)  Poly MVA

Is Shrimp Good for You?

Is Shrimp Good For You? 5 Scary Shrimp Nutrition Facts

If you didn’t know it already, in both the religious and nutritional world shrimp is a controversial topic.
But regardless of your religious beliefs, you’re about to find out why farmed shrimp is unhealthy and toxic to everyone.  In fact, it’s been proven to be even more toxic than farmed tilapia and catfish which rank as the 2nd and 3rd most polluted foods from the sea.
Shrimp Nutrition Facts
25% of the seafood consumption in the United States is shrimp and the average american consumes four pounds of shrimp every year.
When you look at the nutrition facts of farmed shrimp they don’t seem all that bad.  They contain a good amount of protein and are high in certain vitamins and minerals like niacin and selenium.
Also, another aspect to note is that shrimp are one of the most cholesterol-rich foods in the world. Four to five shrimp contains more than 150 milligrams of cholesterol, which is 50% of your daily-recommended allowance. This isn’t a big deal if the shrimp is wild because it contains the other nutrients that should keep cholesterol from rising.
But, it’s similar to looking at the problems with conventional beef and processed dairy. They contain large amounts of antibiotics, chemicals and their nutritional values are thrown off because of what they are fed.
I want to mention a lot of what I’m about to cover is focused on farmed shrimp which is what is available in almost all restaurants and grocery stores today and wild shrimp is a better option, but still not as good as other sources of protein.
5 Reasons to Never Eat Shrimp Again
There are 5 primary reasons that I advise people to stay away from shrimp at all costs:
1. 90% of Shrimp are Farm-Raised
According to a report from Food and Water Watch:
“90 percent of the shrimp we eat has been imported, but less than two percent of that gets inspected by US regulatory agencies. What’s the big deal? 
Imported shrimp, more than any other seafood, has been found to be contaminated with banned chemicals, pesticides… and it skirts food-safety authorities only to wind up on your plate. The number one reason for all that: the dirty conditions in which farmed shrimp are raised.”
In China where the majority of shrimp come from, there are millions of shrimp packed together in ponds and diseases can run rampant.
In addition to antibiotics, shrimp farmers use large quantities of chemicals like pesticides and herbicides in their ponds which are cancer causing substances. The most common chemicals found in fish and shrimp farms include:
Organophosphates – contain carbaryl and have been linked to memory loss, headaches and are toxic to the nervous system. A study published in the Mt. Sinai Journal of Medicine found this chemical to be linked to toxicity in pregnant women.
Malachite Green – is an anti-fungal used on shrimp eggs that has been linked to cancerous tumors in studies on mice.
This is a key point because farm-raised seafood has been shown as containing significantly elevated rates of chemicals and contaminants detrimental to human health.
2. Shrimp Farms and Packaging are Disgusting  
According to the Rodale report:
“A report published in the November 2012 issue of Bloomberg magazine revealed some truly disgusting facts about the conditions in which shrimp are packaged and shipped.
At one particular facility in Vietnam, the magazine’s reporters found processing-plant floors littered with garbage, flies buzzing around, and shrimp that wasn’t being stored at proper temperatures.
The shrimp itself was packed in ice made from local tap water, which public health authorities warned should be boiled before using due to microbial contamination, potentially exposing the shrimp (and eaters) to more bacterial contamination. 
According to Bloomberg, FDA inspectors have rejected 1,380 loads of seafood from Vietnam since 2007 for filth and salmonella, including 81 from the plant the reporters visited.”
3. Imported Shrimp Contain Antibiotic Drugs!
Most of the shrimp that Americans eat originate from places without restrictions on illegal contaminants such as dioxins, PCBs, and other banned chemicals.
In an effort to destroy the pathogenic bacteria that plague shrimp farms, they are given daily doses of antibiotics.  The most common antibiotics given include oxytetracycline and ciprofloxacin, both of which are used to treat human infections and can increase the risk of anti-biotic resistant bacteria.
In a 2003 study in Thailand, they found 74% of shrimp to contain antibiotic residue. And in 2007, the FDA found that 25% of shrimp samples to contain other illegal medications in shrimp.
Ready-to-eat shrimp actually contains up to 162 separate varieties of antibiotic-resistant bacteria!
4. Shrimp Farming is Destroying the Earth 
First of all, shrimp farming has proven to be fatal to fish. It routinely takes up to three pounds of wild-caught fish to feed and produce a single pound of farmed shrimp, which has caused fish populations to plummet.
Secondly, shrimp farmers are destroying the world’s mangroves at an unprecedented rate.  Current reports claim that almost 40% of mangroves have been devastated to make room for shrimp ponds, and this damage is permanent.
Third, according to a Yale University research paper, “The introduction of brackish-water shrimp aquaculture… has, in turn, caused massive de-population and ecological crisis throughout the region” of Bangladesh. Essentially, shrimp farming is making certain parts of the world completely uninhabitable!
5. Shrimp Contain Xeno-Estrogens
One of the preservatives used for shrimp is 4-hexylresorcinol, which is used to prevent discoloration in shrimp. It was found by International Programme on Chemical Safety to be a xenoestrogen; a harmful chemical, which has been shown to increase the risk of developing breast cancer in women and reducing sperm counts in men.
Is Wild Shrimp Good For You?
To be quite frank, I don’t think “healthy” shrimp exists. Even if you can somehow harvest them naturally in a wild-caught environment free of toxins, I still wouldn’t consume them because they are naturally bottom feeders.
However, if you are convinced you must eat shrimp, consuming wild caught is a much better option.
If you want to learn more about the dangers of farmed raised fish, check out this article on The Truth About Tilapia.
What to Eat Instead of Shrimp
Just because shrimp isn’t a healthy food option, doesn’t mean you should skimp on the seafood.  Wild caught fish, like salmon, is an excellent option.  Try this recipe for healthy, omega-3 rich homemade salmon patties that I know you and your family will enjoy!
How about you? What is YOUR opinion of eating shrimp?


Dr. Josh Axe is on a mission to provide you and your family with the highest quality nutrition tips and healthy recipes in the world...Sign up to get VIP access to his eBooks and valuable weekly health tips for FREE!

Buddhism is life, not religion

Buddhism is life, not religion

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

She healed cancer with raw food, then ran 366 marathons in a row! (part 1)

She healed cancer with raw food then ran 366 marathons in a row

Janette Murray-Wakelin is one of the most remarkable cancer survivors I have interviewed.
In 2001, she refused conventional treatment and healed aggressive breast cancer with a raw food diet.
Then in 2013, she and her husband Alan (both in their 60s) ran around the entire continent of Australia. This involved running a marathon every single day for 366 consecutive days.
In the process they broke and set a new world record.
And they were exclusively fueled by raw fruits and veggies.

These grandparents put my level of fitness to shame. To shame!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, August 20, 2014 Can Vitamin C Cure Ebola?


Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, August 20, 2014

Can Vitamin C Cure Ebola?

Commentary by Steve Hickey PhD, Hilary Roberts PhD, and Damien Downing MBBS, MSB.

(OMNS Aug 20, 2014) If there were a drug that worked on Ebola you should use it. There isn't. There is only vitamin C. But you must be extremely careful what you believe, because, as it ever was, the Internet is full of dangerous loonies. For coming up to a decade now the OMNS has reported on nutritional therapies; we leave the medical politics to one side and work from the facts. Here are the facts about vitamin C and Ebola.
1. Taking a gram or so of day of vitamin C won't protect you against anything except acute scurvy; it doesn't matter whether the vitamin is liposomal, nano-particles, or even gold-plated. Beware of websites, companies, and Youtube clips making wild and unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of vitamin C.
2. Clinical reports suggest that taking vitamin C almost to bowel tolerance every day (in divided doses) will help to protect you against all viruses. Reports by independent physicians have been consistent for decades. However, the doctors also stipulated most emphatically that the dose and the way you take it must be right - or it will not work. There is no direct placebo controlled "evidence" that massive doses of vitamin C will work on Ebola, and nobody would volunteer to take part in that study. But massive doses are reported to have helped against every virus it has been pitched against. This includes Polio, Dengue and AIDS, and it even makes vaccination work better. In the 1980s when no other treatment was available it was reported that full blown AIDS could be reversed and the patient brought back to reasonable health.[i,ii]

At risk or worried about Ebola? This is what you should do.

Vitamin C

Vitamin C is the primary antioxidant in the diet. Most people do not take enough to be healthy. While this is true of many nutrients, vitamin C is a special case. Ignore governments telling you that you only need about 100 mg a day and can get this amount from food. The required amount of vitamin C varies your state of health. A normal adult in perfect health may need only a small intake, say 500 mg per day, but more is needed when someone is even slightly under the weather. Similarly, to prevent illness, the intake needs to be increased.
The intake for an otherwise healthy person to have a reasonable chance of avoiding a common cold is in the region of 8-10 grams (8,000-10,000 mg) a day. This is about ten times what corporate medicine has tested in their trials on vitamin C and the common cold. Ten grams (10,000 mg) is the minimum pharmacological intake; it may help if you have a slight sore throat but more (much more) may be needed. To get rid of a common cold, you may need anything from 20 to 60 grams (60,000 mg) a day. With influenza the need might be for 100 grams (100,000 mg) a day. Since it varies from person to person, and from illness to illness, the only way to find out is to experiment for yourself.

Dynamic flow

The problem with oral intakes is that healthy people do not absorb vitamin C well due to something Dr Robert Cathcart called bowel tolerance. [iii] Take too much of the vitamin in a single dose and it will cause loose stools. In good health, a person might be able to take a couple of grams at a time without this problem. Strangely, when a person becomes sick they can take far more without this side effect: as much as 20-100+ grams a day, in divided doses. [iv]
High dose vitamin C has a short half-life in the body. The half-life is the time for the level in the blood plasma to fall back to half its concentration. Until recently, some people claimed that the half-life of vitamin C was several weeks. We have shown that this long half-life applies only to very low doses.[v] By contrast, the half-life for high blood levels is only half an hour. This short half-life means that for high dose vitamin C the period between doses needs to be short - a few hours at most.

The aim is to achieve dynamic flow, to get vitamin C flowing continuously through the body. Dynamic flow requires multiple high doses taken throughout the day. When separated in time, each dose is absorbed independently. Two doses of 3 grams, taken 12 hours apart, are absorbed better than 6 grams taken all at once. Multiple large doses, say 3 grams four times a day, produce a steady flow of the vitamin from the gut, into the bloodstream and out, via the urine. Some of the intake is not absorbed into the blood and stays in the gut, as a reserve against the early onset of illness. As illness begins, the body pulls in this "excess" to help fight the virus.
The idea behind dynamic flow is that the body is kept in a reduced (antioxidant) state, using high doses. There is always vitamin C available, to refresh the body and other antioxidants. Each vitamin C molecule (ascorbic acid) has two antioxidant electrons, which it can donate to protect the body. It then becomes oxidised to dehydroascorbate (DHA). This oxidized molecule is then excreted, so the body has gained two antioxidant electrons. The kidneys reabsorb vitamin C, but not DHA; the vitamin C molecule is absorbed, used up, and then the oxidized form is thrown out with the rubbish.

The effectiveness of vitamin C is not directly proportional to the dose; it is non-linear. There is a threshold above which vitamin C becomes highly effective. Below this level, the effect is small; above it, the effect is dramatic. The problem is that no-one can tell you in advance what intake of vitamin C you need. The solution is to take more - more than you think necessary, more than you consider reasonable. The mantra is dose, dose, dose.

Types of Vitamin C

Straightforward, low cost ascorbic acid is the preferred form of supplement. Vendors may try to sell you "better absorbed" forms with minerals or salts such as sodium, potassium or calcium ascorbate, and so on. These are irrelevant, if not counterproductive, for high intakes. It is worth noting the following:
  1. Timing is more important than form. Two large doses of ascorbic acid taken a little time apart are better absorbed than a single dose of mineral ascorbate.
  2. Mineral ascorbates are salts and do not carry the same number of antioxidant electrons. Ascorbic acid has two electrons to donate while a salt typically has only one. With high doses, the "improved" forms are thus only about half as effective. This is consistent with reports that mineral forms are correspondingly ineffective in combating illness.
  3. Ascorbic acid is a weak acid, much weaker than the hydrochloric acid in the stomach. Mineral ascorbates may be better tolerated, as they make the stomach more alkaline than ascorbic acid. However, an alkaline stomach is not a good idea - there are reasons the body secretes hydrochloric acid into the stomach, including preventing infection. Furthermore, if you are coming down with a haemorrhagic viral infection, mild discomfort will not be something of great concern.
  4. For high intakes, capsules of ascorbic acid are preferable to tablets. This is because tablets are packed with fillers and it is not wise to take massive doses of these chemicals. Check the ingredients - you want to take ascorbic acid and very little else. Bioflavonoids are alright, and the capsules may be made with gelatine or a vegetarian equivalent.
  5. The cheapest way to take ascorbic acid is as powder, dissolved in water. If you do this, use a straw to avoid it getting on the tooth enamel, as it is slightly acidic. You will need a set of accurate electronic scales to monitor the dose. If you do not weigh it carefully, it will be difficult to keep close to bowel tolerance.
Intravenous Vitamin C

Ideally, infected people would be given a continuous intravenous (IV) infusion of massive doses of vitamin C (sodium ascorbate is preferred as ascorbic acid is irritant to veins).
  1. People who are sufficiently ill will not be able to take vitamin C by mouth.
  2. IV provides the highest possible blood levels
  3. IV means continuous drip, not an injection (short half-life)
Unless you are a medical professional who can treat yourself and your family, or are exceptionally rich, IV ascorbate will not be an option in an Ebola outbreak.

Rectal Vitamin C

Rectal administration of sodium ascorbate is a method that can be used in emergencies, and in developing world circumstances, when IV is unavailable or unsuitable. Nurses can quickly be trained to mix 15-30 g of sodium ascorbate in 250-500 ml clean water, and give it by enema. It can be safely and effectively used in children. An enema also removes from the bowel material that may be challenging. This has been done successfully with aboriginal people in the Australian outback.


In healthy people, liposomes help the absorption of oral vitamin C; in some circumstances this is also true for sick people. However, we need to dispel some popular myths.
In a healthy person, higher blood levels (about 600 microM/L) can be achieved using liposomal vitamin C compared with standard ascorbic acid (about 250 microM/L). We were the first to demonstrate this fact experimentally.[vi] However, the two absorption methods are different and if both are used together the resultant plasma levels are additive (something like 600 + 250 = 850 microM/L). Since ascorbic acid is much cheaper than liposomal vitamin C, it is cost effective for a healthy person to start with ascorbic acid and top up with liposomes as required.

When a person becomes ill they can absorb massive doses of standard ascorbic acid, using the dynamic flow approach. So if you are sick, taking a gram of liposomal vitamin C instead of a gram of cheap ascorbic acid will provide little extra benefit. Both will be well absorbed , and the liposome contains sodium ascorbate which is less effective. Liposomes only provide added benefit once the sick person has approached bowel tolerance levels, using standard ascorbic acid.

Liposomal vitamin C is NOT more effective than IV for fighting acute infections. This suggestion is unscientific and unsupported by data. We prefer liposomes for chronic infections and cancer, but this does not extend to acute illness. There is also a lot of hype around the fact that liposomes can be absorbed directly into cells. Many liposomes are absorbed from the gut and pass into the liver, where they are stored and the vitamin C released. Liposomes may also float around in the bloodstream, lymph nodes, and so on, waiting to release their contents or be taken up by cells. But the cells that take up the liposomes are not necessarily those that are most in need of vitamin C. Moreover cells may suffer side effects; liposomes are basically nanotechnology and have additional theoretical issues.


To have a reasonable chance of avoiding a major viral infection, a daily intake of at least 10 grams of ascorbic acid is needed. The idea is to start low, taking say 500 -1,000 mg four times a day. Build up the intake to close to bowel tolerance; increased wind and large soft stools will occur before diarrhea signals that bowel tolerance has been exceeded. At this stage, back off the dose a little, to a reasonably comfortable level.
At the first hint of an infection - feeling unwell, itchy throat, fatigue, and so on - take more ascorbic acid. If the hint of impending sickness is mild, take perhaps 5 grams every half hour or even more frequently. Anything more than a hint of infection, take as large a dose as you feel could be tolerated and follow this by taking 5 grams every half hour. The rule is to take as much as you can without going over the tolerated level: you will probably be taking too little, even though you are trying hard to take a massive dose.

If you are already in dynamic flow and want extra protection, then add liposomal vitamin C. Take it at the same intervals as the ascorbic acid; that is several times a day. The limit is once again bowel tolerance - take too much and it will give you loose stools. This will provide the maximum preventive effect, for the lowest cost.


We assume that you are not a medical professional and do not have access to IV ascorbate. However, if IV sodium ascorbate is available, it should be given slowly and as continuously as possible. For children, enemas may be the most practical method (we hope to publish practical instructions for this soon). Medical professionals can deal with such things with little difficulty, but others may do more harm than good.
The first important thing is to start the treatment early. The longer a person waits after the initial symptoms, the less effective the treatment will be. Also if the illness is allowed to develop the sick person may become unable to take anything orally.

Once again, the idea is to get dynamic flow going with as much ascorbic acid as can be tolerated. In this case, the doses are massive. Five to ten grams every half hour, through the day, will provide 120 to 240 grams a day. Even at this high intake, the blood plasma levels may be low or undetectable; at most 250 microM/L will be achieved. So the question then becomes how much additional liposomal vitamin C the patient can tolerate.
A practical approach would be to start with 5 grams of ascorbic acid and a similar amount of liposomal vitamin C in very frequent doses. Remember the key is dose, dose, dose. More vitamin C!

How it Works

The mechanism of action of high dose vitamin C is known and understood. In normal healthy tissues it acts as an antioxidant. In other tissues, it generates hydrogen peroxide, the chemical that platinum blondes use to bleach their hair. This happens in sick and inflamed tissues, for example in a malignant tumour. The process is typically a form of Fenton reaction, generating free radicals. The oxidation and free radicals arising from the hydrogen peroxide kill bacteria and inactivate viruses. In other words, vitamin C acts as a targeted bleach and antiseptic.
Vitamin C is unique, because it has low toxicity and can be taken safely in massive amounts. Other antioxidants and supplements will not have a similar effect. Do not be confused and think that Echinacea, for example, will help. Yes, there may be supplements and herbs that provide a little immune system support, but this is Ebola we are talking about - get real!

Note, vitamin C is not some magical antitoxin; this idea is a metaphor. A disease such as Ebola is not caused by toxins that are inactivated by vitamin C. Free radicals are not toxins. Oxidants are not toxins. Vitamin C nearly always acts by transferring electrons, as an oxidant or antioxidant. It is just basic chemistry. Also, it does not matter if you have poor dental hygiene, this will hardly affect how massive intakes of vitamin C tackle an acute viral infection.


Sugar interferes with the uptake of vitamin C. If you are using vitamin C to combat a viral infection do not eat any sugar or carbohydrates (long chain sugars) or the vitamin C will not be absorbed properly. We stress that this means no sugar and no carbs, at all.

Smoking releases enormous amounts of oxidants and free radicals into the bloodstream. The vitamin C will expend itself, trying to mop up the chemicals from the smoking. We have no moral objections to people smoking: it is a personal choice. However, smoking will hinder even massive doses of vitamin C from preventing infection. Once infected with Ebola, smoking will stop the vitamin C from keeping you alive.

It is sensible also to supplement with a little chelated magnesium, such as magnesium citrate, which helps overcome the (largely theoretical) risk of kidney stones.

The reaction that generates hydrogen peroxide in sick tissues can be enhanced a little by taking selenium with the vitamin C. A little caution is needed as too much selenium will cause diarrhoea, fatigue, garlic breath, and hair and nail loss; severe toxicity can have more severe effects but is hard to achieve. Methylselenocysteine is a less toxic form and this would be our choice. The normal intake is perhaps 100-200 micrograms (0.1-0.2 mg) a day; we would take 400 micrograms a day during an epidemic and up this to 1,000 micrograms (one milligram) a day, at the initial onset of symptoms. It is possible to go up to 3 mg for short periods, with medical supervision.
Other supplements may be synergistic with vitamin C. Alpha-lipoic acid can be taken at reasonably high levels reasonably safely. We would take up to a gram or two a day (1,000-2,000 mg) in the short term. Vitamin K also helps with blood clotting and is safe in the recommended amounts - we would get the highest dose vitamin K2 supplement available. Note vitamin K is contraindicated in those with clotting disease or those on blood thinners such as warfarin.


The only established side effects of ascorbate therapy are wind, loose bowels and chronic good health. There are some contraindications; people with kidney disease, iron overload disease, or glucose-6-phosphatase deficiency should not immediately take high doses of vitamin C. In the setting of an epidemic they can start as we recommend but should increase more cautiously, with appropriate medical monitoring.

Why Put This Out?

People need to know that vitamin C is an option for fighting Ebola, and how it works. There is a great deal of misinformation, particularly on the internet, both from vested interests and from "loonies". Moreover, in an Ebola epidemic vitamin C supplements may be hard to source.

This account is intended for intelligent adults, who can make their own rational decisions and take responsibility for their health. We strongly promote the idea that medicine should be based on rational patients, rather than authoritarian doctors. Doctors are there to provide the information for patients, to help them choose between available options. This is information only - what you decide to do with it is up to you.

In our opinion the use of vitamin C in Ebola is a no-brainer. Get the illness and, it is said, you have at best a 50-50 chance of surviving without vitamin C-based therapy. Corporate medicine has no effective treatment. Furthermore, if a drug were available, it would be untested and almost certainly unavailable to you, dear reader. Vitamin C is considered safe and should do no harm. The cost of treatment is low. The clinical reports of vitamin C in viral infection are that if you get the dose right, you will survive. Vitamin C is known experimentally to inactivate viruses. In the event, we hope people make rational decisions.

For further reading:

There are lots of other sources but these make a good fast start for a person beginning an investigation into the antiviral properties of vitamin C.
Hickey S., Saul A. (2008) Vitamin C: The Real Story, the Remarkable and Controversial Healing Factor, Basic Health. The book gives an easy readable account of the story of vitamin C.
Archive of the Journal or Orthomolecular Medicine. Decades worth of clinical observations and reports on vitamin C are available.
Pubmed contains mostly abstracts of medical research papers. Unfortunately, most of these have been selected to exclude observations on high doses of vitamin C.


i Cathcart R. (1984) Vitamin C in the treatment of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), Medical Hypothesis, 14(4), 423-433.
ii Brighthope I, Fitzgerald P. (1988) The AIDS Fighters, Keats.
iii Cathcart R. (1981) Vitamin C, Titration to Bowel Tolerance, Anascorbemia, and Acute Induced Scurvy, Medical Hypothesis, 7, 1359-1376.
iv Cathcart R. (1985) Vitamin C, the nontoxic, nonrate-limited antioxidant free radical scavenger, Medical Hypothesis, 18, 61-77.
v Hickey D.S. Roberts H.J. Cathcart R.F. (2005) Dynamic Flow: A New Model for Ascorbate, J Orthomolecular Med, 20(4), 237.
vi Hickey S. Roberts H. and Miller N.J. (2008) Pharmacokinetics of oral ascorbate liposomes, J Nutritional Environmental Med, July, 10. 1080/13590840802305423.

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: and also the OMNS archive link
Like ·

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Data on Serious Hospital Errors Will Now Be Withheld from the Public

August 20, 2014 | 13,263 views

By Dr. Mercola
Harm and death caused by medical errors are a huge problem, and a major reason why the current, fatally flawed medical paradigm is in such desperate need of transformation.
Preventable medical mistakes are actually the third leading cause of death in the US, right after heart disease and cancer, claiming the lives of 210,000 Americans each year.
When you add in diagnostic errors, errors of omission, and failure to follow guidelines, the number skyrockets to an estimated 440,000 preventable hospital deaths each year.
According to the most recent estimates published last year,1 preventable medical mistakes account for about one-sixth of all deaths that occur in the US annually. This is more than 4.5 times higher than 1999 estimates.2
When you consider instances where medical errors cause some form of harm but not necessarily death, the incidence rate may be as high as 40,000 per day!3
As a general rule, staying out of the hospital is one of your best ways to prevent dying unnecessarily, and this is one of the reasons why I’m so passionate about sharing preventive health strategies with you -- tips like eating right, exercising, and reducing stress.
Exceptions would naturally include cases of accidental trauma or surgical emergencies. This is where modern medicine can be truly lifesaving.
Federal Government Ends Public Disclosure of Medical Errors
According to Dr. Marty Makary, a surgeon at The Johns Hopkins Hospital and author of the book Unaccountable: What Hospitals Won’t Tell You and How Transparency Can Revolutionize Healthcare, eliminating medical errors must become a national priority.
But rather than tackling the issue, the US federal government has quietly decided to “solve” the problem by burying it and shielding it from scrutiny... USA Today4 recently reported that:
“The federal government this month quietly stopped publicly reporting when hospitals leave foreign objects in patients' bodies or make a host of other life-threatening mistakes.
The change, which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) denied last year that it was making, means people are out of luck if they want to search which hospitals cause high rates of problems such as air embolisms... or giving people the wrong blood type.
CMS removed data on eight of these avoidable ‘hospital acquired conditions’ (HACs) on its hospital comparison site last summer but kept it on a public spreadsheet that could be accessed by quality researchers, patient-safety advocates and consumers savvy enough to translate it. As of this month, it's gone. Now researchers have to calculate their own rates using claims data.”
Low-Income Areas Are More Susceptible to Poor Medical Care Outcomes
Statistics show that some hospitals are far riskier than others, which is why removing data for certain avoidable hospital acquired conditions is a step in the wrong direction.
On the average, you have a 54 percent lower risk of dying in a five-star rated hospital compared to the national average. Hospitals catering primarily to Medicare patients tend to be among the worst.
For example, hospital-acquired infections affect one in 25 patients across the US,5, 6 but among Medicare patients, this statistic jumps to one in nine.7
According to HealthGrades,8 which provides quality ratings on nearly 5,000 American hospitals, more than 164,470 in hospital complications could potentially have been avoided had all Medicare recipients from 2008 through 2010 gone to top rated hospitals for their procedures.
A recent article in Endocrine Today9 notes that diabetics living in low income areas may be 10 times more likely to have their feet or legs amputated compared to diabetics living in more affluent areas.
According to Carl D. Stevens, MD, MPH, who investigated these correlations: “When you have diabetes, where you live directly relates to whether you’ll lose a limb to the disease.”
Hospital-Acquired Infections on the Rise
Hospitals have become particularly notorious for spreading lethal infections. In the United States, more than two million people are affected by hospital-acquired infections each year, and anywhere from 75,000 to 100,000 people die as a result. The most common hospital-acquired infections include:
  • Central line-associated bloodstream infections
  • Catheter-associated urinary tract infections
  • Surgical site infections after surgery
  • Clostridium difficile infections
Most of these cases could likely have been easily prevented with better infection control in hospitals—simple things such as doctors and nurses washing their hands between each patient, for example. Antibiotic overuse and inappropriate use also bears a heavy responsibility for creating this crisis. While antibiotics are certainly overprescribed in medicine, the largest source of antibiotic exposure is actually via your food.
Agriculture accounts for about 80 percent of all antibiotics used in the US. Tens of millions of pounds of antibiotics are administered to American livestock each year for purposes other than treating disease, such as making the animals grow bigger faster.
The antibiotic residues in meat and dairy, as well as the resistant bacteria, are then passed on to you in the foods you eat. As just one example, no less than 80 different antibiotics are allowed in cows’ milk. The CDC10 has previously concluded that as much as 22 percent of antibiotic-resistant illness in humans is in fact linked to food.
We’ve Shifted from Science Based Medicine to Science BIASED Medicine
How in the world did conventional medical treatments become one of the top three leading causes of death? A major part of the problem stems from the fact that we’ve made a rather dramatic shift AWAY from true science based medicine. Instead, what we have now is science biased medicine, and we’re reaping the results thereof.
John Ioannidis, author of the 2005 paper “Why Most Published Research Findings are False”11, 12 published in PLoS Medicine, is one of the world's most important experts on the credibility of medical research. He and his team of researchers have repeatedly shown that the majority of the conclusions biomedical researchers arrive at in their published studies are exaggerated or completely wrong.
Doctors use these studies—90 percent of which may be flawed or incorrect13—to prescribe drugs or recommend surgery. Is it any wonder then that American doctors kill at least 210,000 patients each year? With the odds stacked so sharply against a proper treatment, perhaps we’re lucky that the numbers aren’t even greater than that...
The Challenges of Science Bias
One of the first challenges you come across when trying to analyze the results of a study is to confirm that the study is free of any conflict of interest that would pervert the results and the meaning of the analysis. This means researching the author(s) of the study, its funders, and the motivations behind the design of the study. This is no easy task.
There’s also the problem of study findings being withheld and never published, simply because the results were not in favor of the treatment tested. The only real exception to this is researchers receiving grants from the federal government. They must register their trials on, and they must publish their results regardless of the outcome.
Negative findings are just as critical as favorable findings. You may have twice as many negative findings as positive ones, but if only the positive ones (flawed or not) see the light of day, it will severely skew the overall “scientific basis” for the treatment. In essence, the treatment is based on scientific bias instead... Unfortunately, the vast majority of research is now being funded by industry, which has led to the systematic destruction of scientific integrity and validity.
Another factor that creates scientific bias is that the studies most likely to be published in the first place are those that oversell results that are considered important—results that oftentimes turn out to be false upon further investigation.14 Prestigious journals boast that they’re very selective, turning down the vast majority of submitted papers. The assumption is that they publish only the best scientific work. But Dr. Ioannidis' 2008 study,Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science,15 showed that out of the nearly 50 papers published in leading journals (studies that had been cited by more than 1,000 other scientists -- in other words, well-regarded research) almost a third were refuted by other studies within the span of a few years.
According to a 2013 paper published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings,16 reversals of recommendations based on new information are common across all classes of medical practice. Over the past decade alone, 146 previously established practices, treatments, and procedures have been reversed. The question is, are established treatments being replaced by seriously flawed, science biased ones? It seems likely that this is playing a very large role as to why the death toll from medical mistakes keeps climbing.
More Recent Evidence Showing a Strong Trend Toward Bias in Medical Research
In a recent article, Dr. Robert Pearl, MD brings up even more evidence showing that scientific bias is now par the course in modern medicine:17
  • The 2012 report by the Cochrane Library, “Industry Sponsorship and Research Outcome,18 concluded that industry-funded studies resulted in “more favorable results and conclusions” about the sponsored product compared to studies funded by independent parties.
  • Earlier this year, Harvard Medical School published a study19 assessing the impact of conflicts of interest in plastic surgery. According to the authors: “Studies authored by groups with conflicts of interest are significantly associated with reporting lower surgical complications and therefore describing positive research findings.”
  • Another recent study20 investigating the impact of conflicts of interest in wound therapy research also found that studies funded by a manufacturer were extraordinarily likely to be in favor of the sponsored product. The study looked at 24 peer-reviewed papers published in highly respected medical journals. Nineteen of them were funded by a manufacturer of one of two devices, and 18 of those manufacturer-funded studies ended up favoring the device made by the funding manufacturer; only one study came to a “neutral” conclusion.
  • As noted by Dr. Pearl:21 “From a statistical perspective, this is nearly an impossible outcome. Flip a coin 19 times and there’s a 1 in 524,288 chance it comes up heads each time. We might expect that if the two alternative products were relatively equivalent and the research truly unbiased, the product sold by the non-funding company should come out on top about half the time. To have no study go against the funding company yields nearly impossible odds. And if they are not equivalent, the better product should be identified in nearly all studies, regardless of the source of the researcher’s funding. There is no way to interpret these results, except to assume the researchers themselves were biased based on who paid for their work.”
The question is, how do we prevent this kind of bias from corrupting science? One solution is to shift the burden of financing research back onto the government. As noted by Dr. Pearl, adding a small fee to the sales price of drugs and medical devices could also be used to fund independent research. Another solution suggested in Dr. Pearl’s article could be for peer-reviewed journals to refuse to publish studies funded by one single company. By forcing competitors to fund joint research projects should theoretically promote more unbiased conclusions.
Hospitals Can Be Hazardous to Your Health in Multiple Ways
From my perspective, checking yourself into a hospital should be an option of last resort, when you have exhausted all others (barring an actual life-threatening emergency) and likely facing a potential fatal outcome if you don’t go into the hospital. Medical mistakes and potentially life-threatening infections are not the only risks you take when checking yourself into the hospital. They’re also notorious for giving you the wrong solution for your problem. Drugs and surgery, for example, are both widely overused options that can cause far more problems than they solve.
If a hospital stay is necessary, you would do well to heed the advice of Dr. Andrew Saul, co-author of the book Hospitals and Health: Your Orthomolecular Guide to a Shorter Hospital Stay.22 He suggests making sure you bring a personal advocate with you—a relative or friend who can speak up for you and ensure you’re given proper care if you are too incapacitated to do so yourself.
Help for Victims of Preventable Medical Errors
If you or a loved one find yourself a victim of a preventable medical mistake, you’re advised to start out by writing a letter or calling the patient relations department, which every hospital is mandated to have. If you’re still dissatisfied, write a letter to the hospital’s general council (attorney). You can also connect with patient communities such as:
  • Citizens for Patient Safety23
  • ProPublica Patient Harm24
Basic Tenets of Optimal Health
All in all, leading a common-sense, healthy lifestyle is your best bet to avoid unnecessary hospital visits. I believe there are certain basic tenets of optimal health that remain valid no matter what science decides to come up with next. Following these healthy lifestyle guidelines can go a very long way toward keeping you well and prevent chronic disease of all kinds:
  1. Proper Food Choices: For a comprehensive guide on which foods to eat and which to avoid, see my nutrition plan. Generally speaking, you should be looking to focus your diet on whole, ideally organic, unprocessed foods. Avoid sugar, and fructose in particular. All forms of sugar have toxic effects when consumed in excess, and drive multiple disease processes in your body, not the least of which is insulin resistance, a major cause of chronic disease and accelerated aging. I believe the two primary keys for successful weight management are severely restricting carbohydrates (sugars, fructose, and grains) in your diet, and increasing healthy fat consumption. This will optimize insulin and leptin levels, which is key for maintaining a healthy weight and optimal health.
  2. Regular exercise: To make your exercise as effective as possible, make sure you include high-intensity activities into your rotation. High-intensity interval-type training boosts human growth hormone (HGH) production, which is essential for optimal health, strength, and vigor. HGH also helps boost weight loss.
  3. Stress Reduction: You cannot be optimally healthy if you avoid addressing the emotional component of your health and longevity, as your emotional state plays a role in nearly every physical disease -- from heart disease and depression, to arthritis and cancer. Meditation, prayer, social support, and exercise are all viable options that can help you maintain emotional and mental equilibrium. I also strongly believe in using simple tools such as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) to address deeper, oftentimes hidden, emotional problems.
  4. Drink plenty of pure water
  5. Maintain a healthy gut: About 80 percent of your immune system resides in your gut, and research is stacking up showing that probiotics—beneficial bacteria—affect your health in a myriad of ways; it can even influence your ability to lose weight. Regularly consuming traditionally fermented foods is the easiest, most cost effective way to ensure optimal gut flora
  6. Optimize your vitamin D levels: Research has shown that increasing your vitamin D levels can reduce your risk of death from ALL causes. Sensible sun exposure is the ideal way to optimize your level.
  7. Avoid as many chemicals, toxins, and pollutants as possible: This includes tossing out your toxic household cleaners, soaps, personal hygiene products, air fresheners, bug sprays, lawn pesticides, and insecticides, just to name a few, and replacing them with non-toxic alternatives.
  8. Get plenty of high-quality sleep: Regularly catching only a few hours of sleep can hinder metabolism and hormone production in a way that is similar to the effects of aging and the early stages of diabetes. Chronic sleep loss may speed the onset or increase the severity of age-related conditions such as type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, and memory loss.

  • Spread the Word to
    Friends And Family
    By Sharing this Article.
  • 130

  • Tweet


  • 9

  • Share

  • 2

  • 0
  • 37


  • Print

Diabetes - Nine herbal remedies that can help Wednesday, August 20, 2014 by: Reuben Chow

Most Viewed Articles
Popular on Facebook



(NaturalNews) Diabetes is a health condition which must be taken seriously. While it is useful for diabetics to be under the supervision of a healthcare practitioner, there are some things which you can do to help keep the condition in check. Specifically, numerous herbs contain healthful properties which are beneficial in different ways to persons suffering from diabetes.

Fenugreek contains good amounts of a soluble fiber called mucilage which helps regulate sugar levels in the blood. Furthermore, fenugreek boosts levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, the so-called "good" cholesterol, in the blood while at the same time reducing total cholesterol levels. This in turn helps prevent cardiovascular disease, something which diabetics are susceptible to.

Historically, onions have long been used to help treat diabetes in Europe and Asia. Indeed, modern scientific studies have affirmed the ability of onions to lower blood sugar levels. In addition, onions also protect cardiovascular health by reducing blood pressure and cholesterol levels.

Garlic has benefits for diabetics which are similar to those of onions. Research has shown that it has blood-sugar-lowering properties. And garlic also benefits cardiovascular health. One of the most healthful ways to consume garlic is raw and chopped up about 5 to 10 minutes before consumption.

Bitter melon
Bitter melon, also called balsam pear, is a tropical fruit widely available in Africa, Asia and South America. This fruit, which looks like an ugly cucumber, has been well-used in folk medicine as a diabetes remedy. Clinical studies carried out on humans have shown the blood-sugar-lowering properties of the fruit's fresh juice or the extract of the unripe fruit.

Unripe bitter melon can be found at Asian grocery stores, while bitter melon extracts may be available at health food stores.

Marsh mallow
Marsh mallow root contains good amounts of pectin, a soluble plant fiber which helps lower blood sugar levels.

Milk thistle
Milk thistle, well-known as a liver tonic, was shown in a study published in the journal Phytotherapy Research to lower blood sugar levels in type 2 diabetics. Furthermore, the study subjects also experienced significantly lower levels of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (the so-called "bad" cholesterol), triglycerides and liver enzymes -- these are markers of cardiovascular ailments.

Bilberry leaf tea has historically been used to treat diabetes. This use has been backed by research which has revealed its ability to lower blood sugar levels.

Further, the berries and their extracts offer more benefits to diabetics, including boosting vitamin C levels, reducing breakage of small blood vessels, preventing easy bruising and providing antioxidant effects. They also protect eye health by improving circulation to the retina.

Gurmar is an Indian folk remedy for diabetes which has been shown in some studies in India to help improve insulin production.

Ginkgo biloba
Ginkgo biloba is most well-known as an herb which improves brain health, but at the same time, it is also useful for diabetics, as it has been proven to help boost blood circulation to peripheral tissues in a person's arms, fingers, legs and toes. This is a significant benefit for persons with diabetes, who often suffer from poor blood circulation to the extremities.

Other than a healthy diet and taking the above herbs, the most basic lifestyle change a diabetic can make to improve his or condition is to implement a moderate exercise regimen. Exercise can help diabetics in many ways, including improving blood circulation, regulating blood sugar levels, promoting weight loss and protecting cardiovascular health, and should form a core part of any diabetes treatment plan.

Read more about helpful herbs for diabetics here.

Sources for this article include:

Duke, James A., PhD. The Green Pharmacy. New York, NY: Rodale, 1997. Print.

Murray, Michael, ND, and Pizzorno, Joseph, ND. Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press, 1998. Print.

Stengler, Mark, ND. The Natural Physician's Healing Therapies: Proven Remedies Medical Doctors Don't Know. New York, NY: Prentice Hall Press, 2010. Print.

About the author:
Reuben Chow has a keen interest in natural health and healing as well as personal growth.

BREAKING: Whistleblower Names CDC Scientists In Covering Up Vaccine-Autism Link

Posted on: Tuesday, August 19th 2014 at 6:45 pm
Written By: GMI Reporter

A Study by Focus Autism Foundation Finds: CDC Whistleblower Reveals Widespread Manipulation of Scientific Data and Top-Down Pressure on CDC Scientists to Support the Fraudulent Application of Government Policies on Vaccine Safety.

WATCHUNG, NJ--(Marketwired - August 18, 2014) - A top research scientist working for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) played a key role in helping Dr. Brian Hooker of the Focus Autism Foundation uncover data manipulation by the CDC that obscured a higher incidence of autism in African-American boys. The whistleblower came to the attention of Hooker, a PhD in biochemical engineering, after he had made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for original data on the DeStefano et al MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) and autism study.
Dr. Hooker's study, published August 8 in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Translational Neurodegeneration, shows that African-American boys receiving their first MMR vaccine before 36 months of age are 3.4 times more likely to develop autism vs. after 36 months.
According to Dr. Hooker, the CDC whistleblower informant -- who wishes to remain anonymous -- guided him to evidence that a statistically significant relationship between the age the MMR vaccine was first given and autism incidence in African-American boys was hidden by CDC researchers. After data were gathered on 2,583 children living in Atlanta, Georgia who were born between 1986 and 1993, CDC researchers excluded children that did not have a valid State of Georgia birth certificate -- reducing the sample size being studied by 41%. Hooker explains that by introducing this arbitrary criteria into the analysis, the cohort size was sharply reduced, eliminating the statistical power of the findings and negating the strong MMR-autism link in African American boys.
Dr. Hooker has worked closely with the CDC whistleblower, and he viewed highly sensitive documents related to the study via Congressional request from U.S. Representative Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The CDC documents from Congress and discussions that Hooker had with the whistleblower reveal widespread manipulation of scientific data and top-down pressure on CDC scientists to support fraudulent application of government policies on vaccine safety. Based on raw data used in the 2004 DeStefano et al study obtained under FOIA, Dr. Hooker found that the link between MMR vaccination and autism in African-American boys was obscured by the introduction of irrelevant and unnecessary birth certificate criteria -- ostensibly to reduce the size of the study.
The results of the original study first appeared in the journal Pediatrics which receives financial support from vaccine makers via advertising and direct donations, according to a CBS News report. The DeStefano et al study is widely used by the CDC and other public health organizations to dismiss any link between vaccines and autism -- a neurological disorder on the rise.

Dr. Hooker stated "The CDC knew about the relationship between the age of first MMR vaccine and autism incidence in African-American boys as early as 2003, but chose to cover it up." The whistleblower confirmed this.

Alternate Cancer Treatments