Month: July 2017

Chemotherapy found to SPREAD cancer throughout the body

(Natural News) Though conventional medicine claims to be winning the war against cancer, along with the holistic health community, we at Natural News have consistently been trying to expose one of the biggest frauds known in human history: CHEMOTHERAPY.

Brainwashed by doctors, oncologists, and the mainstream media, most cancer patients think their only hope for survival is chemotherapy. In America, treating cancer is BIG business. Since the cancer industry makes billions of dollars each year, a cure is not what they are after.

Did you know that the number one side effect of chemotherapy is cancer? Conventional cancer treatments not only fail miserably, they are also designed to make cancer patients sicker. Though chemotherapy may shrink the initial tumor(s), what is happening in the background is far more important. It is the one dark and criminal truth nobody seems to knows about.

Related: How to Detoxify From Chemotherapy and Repair the Body

A new study published in the journal Science Translational Medicine earlier this month proved what we have been saying for decades; conventional cancer treatments cause more cancer. A team of scientists at New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine has found compelling evidence that chemotherapy is only a short-term solution.

Eventually, the drugs will make you sick again, pushing patients towards a second round of expensive treatments. Clever money generating trick: Instead of helping patients to get rid of the disease, they temporarily put it on hold so they can take the dollars twice.

Chemotherapy kills more patients than cancer itself

In 2017, an estimated 1,688,780 new cancer cases are expected to be diagnosed and about 600,920 people will die from the disease in the United States, according to the annual report by the American Cancer Society.

The New York scientists explained that while shrinking the tumors, chemotherapy simultaneously opens new doorways for tumors to spread into the blood system, triggering more aggressive tumors which often result in death.

The researchers believe toxic chemo drugs switch on repair mechanisms in the body that allow tumors to grow back faster. Furthermore, Dr. George Karagiannis, lead author of the study, and his team found that two common chemo drugs increased the number of “doorways” on blood vessels which allowed cancer cells to spread to other parts of the body. The team also discovered that chemotherapy increased the number of cancer cells circulating the body and lungs of mice.

Related: Chemotherapy vs Placebo

Though this study only investigated the effects of chemotherapy on breast cancer, the researchers are currently experimenting with other types of cancer to see if similar effects occur, reported The Telegraph.

Dr. Karagiannis noted that women receiving preoperative chemotherapy to treat breast cancer should be monitored to check if the cancer isn’t circulating or creating more possibilities to spread. He recommends taking a small amount of tumor tissue after a few doses of preoperative chemotherapy. If the markers are increased, the therapy should be terminated immediately.

This study is not the first to demonstrate the ways in which chemotherapy can trigger secondary or metastatic cancers. In 2010, researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Comprehensive Cancer Center and UAB Department of Chemistry were awarded a $805,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program to investigate the question whether chemo encourages cancer to spread throughout the body.

Many studies later, we can no longer ignore the answer to that question. YES, patients are dying from chemotherapy, not cancer itself. It has been shown to not only cause secondary cancers but also accelerates tumor growth and causes cancer cells to become resistant to treatment.

Seventy-five percent of physicians and scientists would refuse chemotherapy for themselves or their family

What does this number say about the effectiveness and risks of therapy? Do these people know more? And what is the mainstream media hiding from us?

Due to the devastating effects on the entire body and the immune system, and an extremely low success rate, three of every four doctors and scientists would refuse chemotherapy, according to polls taken by the McGill Cancer Center. Additionally, an estimated 97 percent of cancers don’t respond to chemotherapy, yet it remains the go-to treatment for nearly every cancer type.

Think about it. When your body is fighting cancer, the last thing it needs is more cancer-inducing, immune suppressing chemicals, right? Though all scientists and doctors know that chemotherapy is pure poison and can make things worse, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) outlaws doctors from choosing non-chemical routes, such as vitamins, supplements, herbs, superfoods, and other natural cancer solutions, for their patients.

Over the past few years, one study after another has been coming out, linking chemotherapy to cancer. Yet authorities fail to make the healthy call. How much more proof do they need before they start to acknowledge that there are far better, less expensive real cures out there?

Related:
Sources:

Retinal Bleeding, Shaken Baby Syndrome And Vaccines – When Dogma Destroys Deduction

(Natural Blaze – Jim Miller) My name is Jim Meehan, MD. I am an ophthalmologist and former associate editor of the Journal of Ocular Immunology and Inflammation. During my work with the journal I reviewed two papers seeking publication of research reporting an association between the MMR vaccine and retinal vasculitis in children. The research framed a compelling case for the association of recent vaccination with Merck’s MMR vaccine and a type of bleeding in the back of children’s eyes that to this day is considered a cardinal sign for traumatic child abuse.

Despite my support for the publication of the research, I was not surprised when the papers were rejected.

Retinal hemorrhaging can be caused by a vasculitic reaction, an inflammatory reaction in the blood vessels of the retina. The inflammation can be so pronounced that it results in leaking and bleeding of the blood vessels of the retina. This bleeding can be seen on funduscopic examination of the retina (the back of the eye). The pattern of bleeding can appear as “dot-blot hemorrhages,” which, when it’s seen in a child, is taught to be pathognomonic, or a cardinal sign, of child abuse, called Shaken-Baby-Syndrome (SBS). Interestingly, I don’t recall ever being taught to consider adult abuse when I see it in a patient with similar retinal findings. No, in an adult the most common causes are diabetes mellitus, hypertension, vascular occlusive disease, or autoimmune disease.

Nevertheless, there is a large body of compelling ophthalmologic research that supports retinal hemorrhages in a child as a cardinal sign of abuse. Believe me, I’ve read and considered all of it. There’s just this gnawing doubt that we’ve missed something and made up a great story that seems to neatly explain everything. Accept for me and my experience it doesn’t. And like any good scientist I won’t consider the “science settled.”

Related: How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children

I was in my ophthalmology residency training at the time I edited for the journal. At that time, I was still well indoctrinated in the medical orthodoxy of vaccines and vaccine safety. Nevertheless, personal experiences as a first year ophthalmology resident physician had made me skeptical of child abuse as the only possible cause of the retinal bleeding in the babies brought to the ER by their parents.

I was consulted on several cases presumed to be child abuse that presented themselves to the Barnes-Jewish Hospital ER. In these cases I examined the child, their retinas, and interviewed the parents. I never encountered a case in which there was any combination of evidence or testimony that made me think child abuse was a probable cause. However, the “babies with dot-blot hemorrhages are victims of child abuse” is the dogma that the medical orthodoxy teaches, therefore, a diagnosis of retinal hemorrhages in an infant is almost guaranteed to result in a parent or caregiver being presumed guilty.

I clearly recall one such case of retinal hemorrhages presumed to be SBS, in which I argued against the diagnosis because there were no other injuries. Specifically, there were no bruises where the child would have allegedly been held and shaken.

I had a strong background in mechanical engineering taught to me by one of the best engineering schools on the planet, the United States Military Academy at West Point. To my mind, it was beyond improbable that a child could be shaken hard enough to induce shear forces in the vascular layers of the retinal and there NOT be other injuries or evidence on physical exam. My attending physician, a pediatric ophthalmologist and department head, treated me like I had to be an idiot to consider any other diagnosis. Therefore, the diagnosis stood.

I can only assume that charges of child abuse were filed, CPS was called, and a family was broken, because that is what happens when retinal hemorrhages are observed in children.

Related: The MMR Vaccine – A Comprehensive Overview of the Potential Dangers and Effectiveness

If I knew then what I know now.

A few years ago I was drawn back into the vaccine safety controversy when the news of the #CDCwhistleblower, William Thompson, PhD, hit the major media. Dr. Thompson, a lead CDC scientist on THE seminal study published in the Journal of Pediatrics in 2004 investigating the safety of Merck’s MMR vaccine and its association with autism, came forward and admitted the study was fraudulent. Out of his guilt and shame, Dr. Thompson admitted that the he and his fellow CDC coauthors secretly colluded to change the study analysis plan, manipulate data sets, destroy documents, and publish a fraudulent paper that hid the fact that the CDC’s own investigation found strong associations between Merck’s MMR vaccine and autism.

For an excellent presentation on the CDC whistleblower story and the fraud at the CDC, please watch the documentary Vaxxed: From Coverup to Catastrophe.

I remembered those studies from 14 years prior and the fact that at least two unrelated independent research centers had found an association of retinal hemorrhages in children with Merck’s MMR vaccine. I started asking the questions that any good physician and scientist asks in these situations; the questions that have to be asked if we are going to find the truth. The more questions I asked the more I was opposed by blind orthodoxy, unbelievable rationalizations, and unreasonable arguments. You know, the kind of stuff that allowed experiments on Jewish prisoners in Auschwitz, the Tuskegee airmen, tobacco smokers, and patients treated with dangerously addictive and destructive drugs like OxyCodone, Xanax, Soma, and Adderall.

I learned that I wasn’t the only one to ever question both the medical orthodoxy and the mechanism of injury in SBS:

Despite the powerful medical orthodoxy that teaches otherwise, I am convinced that many cases of retinal hemorrhaging in babies are not caused by the unlikely, arguably improbable, mechanisms of shaking, but by the far more insidious generalized vascular inflammation that occurs when the physiology of a susceptible child’s blood vessels reacts to a vaccine. In fact, on 5/16/2017 Merck added two vasculitic diseases of childhood as adverse events to the package insert for the MMR vaccine(3). So, now we have more evidence that the FDA and Merck both acknowledge that the MMR vaccine can cause exactly the kind of vasculitic pathology capable of producing retinal and brain hemorrhages.

We should also consider how the elements and admission of parental frustration that can sometimes be elicited in these cases. Consider the symptoms of the bleeding vasculitis causing an inconsolable, screaming child, in such pain from the cerebral swelling. A scenarios that might drive any parent to the point of exhaustion and frustration.

Related: Influenza Vaccine – A Comprehensive Overview of the Potential Dangers and Effectiveness of the Flu Shot

I believe that the clinical research studies that a medical journal decided not to publish so many years ago, might have actually been pointing to an important truth. Unfortunately, because that truth was not “the“ truth fully accepted by the medical orthodoxy, the research got passed over. Instead of new science and observations that challenged long held beliefs, we simply had another example of how, because we considered the “science settled,” we continued, repeatedly, for years, to misdiagnose, fail to identify possible, perhaps more probable, causes and sent innocent parents to jail. Now, we need to stop, slow down, reinvestigate, reconsider, open our minds and make sure we haven’t missed identifying potential underlying causes, figure out how to prevent them, and if the problem is vaccine injury, hold the vaccine manufacturers accountable for the injuries they’re products have caused.

Except that with vaccines we can’t hold the manufacturers accountable. Because we made the horrible mistake in 1986 to give vaccine manufacturers, whose products were even then causing so much injury, immunity to product liability lawsuits. Which is the reason that in early 2000 a young ophthalmology resident was reading research suggesting that Merck’s MMR vaccine was associated with retinal hemorrhages at the same time scientists at the CDC were committing fraud to hide the association of the very same vaccine with autism.

In conclusion, I believe what doctors are being taught about what is supposed to be one of the most characteristic signs of child abuse, retinal “dot-blot” hemorrhages in a child, is not such “settled science” that we can afford to stop considering other possible causes and diagnoses. What if retinal hemorrhages in a child aren’t so pathognomonic for child abuse? What if it’s also a sign of vaccine injury but we don’t know because we aren’t considering, asking, or looking? What if we aren’t asking the right questions and conducting the right research because you can’t get your research funded if it doesn’t advance the pharmaceutical industry’s agenda? It’s time that doctors, scientists, and concerned people everywhere reopen the case against vaccines and demand absolute transparency, gold standard clinical testing, and scientific oversight that is neither dependent on, nor corrupted by, Big Pharma’s money.

GOP health care bill would make rural America’s distress much worse

This Thursday, March 9, 2017, photo shows the main entrance to Evans Memorial Hospital in Claxton, Ga. Like many other rural hospitals in the U.S., Evans Memorial has struggled to keep its doors open while treating patients who tend to be older, poorer and often uninsured. (AP Photo/Russ Bynum)

(The Conversaton) Much has been made of the distress and discontent in rural areas during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Few realize, however, this is also felt through unequal health.

Researchers call it the “rural mortality penalty.” While rates of mortality have steadily fallen in the nation’s urban areas, they have actually climbed for rural Americans. And the picture is even bleaker for specific groups, such as rural white women and people of color, who face persistent disparities in health outcomes. In every category, from suicide to unintentional injury to heart disease, rural residents’ health has been declining since the 1990s.

While some have blamed these gaping disparities on “culture” or “lifestyle” factors – such as a supposed fatalism or overconsumption of unhealthy products like Mountain Dew – the truth is that the biggest culprit is limited access to health care and challenging economic circumstances.

The passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 began to change this as more rural Americans gained insurance coverage and the government invested more money into regional health facilities and training.

This progress is now at risk, however, as the Republican Congress inches closer to repealing Obamacare and replacing it with a feeble alternative that greatly weakens rural health care access. As researchers who study the mental and physical health of rural Americans, we believe this would have disastrous consequences.

A protester is escorted away by police as they arrested 43 health care and disability activists at a demonstration outside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s constituent office in Washington. Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

The travails of rural America

Even as rural America feeds the country, hunger is on the rise in rural areas.

Some 98 percent of rural residents live in food deserts – defined as counties in which one must drive more than 10 miles to get to the nearest supermarket. This makes it challenging to maintain healthy and nutritious diets, leading to higher rates of obesity in rural areas that greatly increase the risk for diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers.

As rural workers struggle to sustain employment in a shifting economy, the increasing poverty is contributing to mental distress and substance use. On a larger scale, the economic changes that have hit rural areas have resulted in a declining tax base, lower incomes and strained educational institutions. Together, they challenge rural residents’ health not just in the immediate term but cumulatively over their lives.

Barriers to accessing health care

Yet, despite all these medical issues, rural residents have a tough time getting the health care they need.

The nature of rural employment, for example, is characterized by self-employment, seasonal work and lower-than-average pay. This means rural workers are less likely to get insurance through their jobs and thus face higher premiums when buying their own policies.

The lack of public transportation in most rural areas is also a major hurdle to seeing a doctor, particularly as residents have to travel much farther than those in urban areas to reach health care providers.

Rural residents get most of their services through primary care providers, who take on the work of other practitioners, like behavioral health clinicians, due to longstanding specialist shortages. When handling numerous complaints during a single medical encounter, primary care providers may concentrate on the most acute health concerns of their patients, undermining the ability to diagnose all their conditions and meaningfully discuss their larger health risks, such as exercise, weight and substance use. When providers are rushed or deliver sub-par care, rural residents may wonder if seeking it out is worth the challenge, opting to struggle on their own.

These and other constraints make it tougher for rural Americans to get the screenings necessary to spot serious diseases such as cancer early or to maintain adequate followup on conditions like hearing loss. Finding the regular medical care necessary to manage chronic conditions, such as diabetes, depression or opioid disorders, is even more challenging.

Rural health care has at times been characterized as patchwork. In part, that’s because the costs of sustaining health care infrastructure in rural areas are higher thanks to the large service areas, the inability to negotiate bulk pricing and lack of financial incentives to fill in provider gaps.

Susan Collins is one of a handful of Republican senators who may stand in the way of passage of current legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare. Reuters/Joshua Roberts

The ACA and the AHCA

The ACA, intended to turn this around, has in fact led to dramatic gains in insurance coverage among rural Americans.

Broadly speaking, insurance rates in rural areas reached almost 86 percent in early 2015, up from an estimated 78 percent in 2013.

In Kentucky – a state with high poverty, a large rural population (42 percent of residents) and a successful Medicaid expansion initiative – tens of thousands of newly insured low-income adults began using preventative services after previously being unable to afford it. The state’s uninsured fell by half and, as a result, fewer people skipped taking their medications due to financial hardships relative to other states that didn’t expand Medicaid.

The ACA also strengthened rural health care institutions by investing in upgrades to hospitals and clinics, preventative health programs and support for providers to stay in rural areas. While rural hospitals are often laden with the expense of providing extensive care without payment to indigent patients, rural hospitals in states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA finally were able to better balance their books when caring for this vulnerable group. At the same time, the ACA supported innovative models ideal for rural areas that prioritized outreach, integration of services and collaboration between safety-net players.

Both the House and Senate bills to repeal and replace Obamacare would drastically reduce rural Americans’ insurance coverage and significantly threaten the ability of many rural hospitals and clinics to keep their doors open. Analysts show that the bill would provide insufficient tax credits to pay for rural premium costs, drastically increase the price of rural premiums and increase uncompensated care in rural hospitals.

What rural areas need from health care reform

Previous efforts at health care reform show us that rural areas are uniquely vulnerable. Efforts need to take account not only of coverage and access – as has been the focus of the current debate – but also how reform affects rural health care institutions and the larger social factors shaping overall health.

The particular economic factors affecting rural health care institutions make rural areas particularly vulnerable to political shifts that disrupt services for existing patients and for those newly insured, creating immense challenges for rural providers. Steps that fail to account for the impact of financial hardship on these institutions not only hurt their bottom line but contribute to poor morale and workforce turnover and larger-scale decisions to reduce services, which decrease their ability to address patient needs.

At the same time, commitment to improving the health of rural Americans requires attention to the so-called upstream factors shaping rural health. That means preserving the safety net programs so vital in rural areas with underemployment and low-paying jobs, strengthening rural economies and investing in high-quality education.

If our leaders are serious about reform that will lessen the rural-urban mortality gap, they should recognize the unique needs of rural America and ensure health care policy reflects how vital access to quality care is to their financial success – not to mention their well-being.

FDA now wants to eliminate side effect warnings from drug ads

(Natural News) We’ve all seen those drug commercials on TV with pleasant-looking grandparents frolicking in a grassy field with an adorable puppy, living life to the fullest while an announcer talks about how Big Pharma’s latest poison is going to make your life every bit as joyful. Then comes the obligatory rushed reading of a list of side effects. When the commercial is over, the general impression is a positive one: This drug is going to make your life better, but you might have a few minor problems like drowsiness.

Related: If You’re on Prescription Drugs, Don’t Kid Yourself

Drug companies might be required to tell you their side effects, but they have invested a lot of money in finding ways to present this information in the most positive light possible, and when that approach won’t work, they do their best to deliver it in a forgettable manner. These efforts appear to be paying off in more ways than one because now the FDA is considering scrapping them altogether on the grounds that TV viewers simply don’t listen to the side effect lists. With this move, it appears the FDA cares less and less about making their collusion with Big Pharma obvious.

Related: How to Detoxify From Chemotherapy and Repair the Body

In an effort to make the process seem reasoned, health officials proposed a study that will assess whether people actually read the ad warnings. They claim they are worried that critical information is getting lost in the shuffle, causing people to overlook the more serious warnings. Should the study confirm this suspicion, the FDA could scrap the list entirely as they find other ways to “safely” market medication.

In fact, they say that people are more likely to read a medication’s risks on a page-long full summary of safety information than they are to read it in the type of brief summary used in an ad on TV. Of course, you won’t have that information in your hands in the first place until after you’ve “talked to your doctor” as these commercials suggest and somehow convinced him or her to prescribe you the medication. In other words, you’ve already bought and paid for it by the time you can see the drawbacks, which means you’re more likely to take your chances and simply take the meds – and even if you don’t ultimately take the drug, they’ve already got your money.

Must Read: How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children

The director of PharmedOut, a project run by Georgetown Medical Center, Adriane Fugh-Berman believes that allowing drug companies to choose the limited list of side effects they include in ads is highly problematic. She pointed out: “That’s why ads for erectile dysfunction say ‘may cause four-hour erection,’ because that doesn’t sound too bad to guys! Unlike other side effects such as heart attack.”

FDA lets Big Pharma use tricks to distract you from side effects

The U.S. is one of only two countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to place direct-to-consumer TV ads, and Big Pharma has found lots of ways to make the required side effect warnings more palatable. For example, some ads will have one narrator tell viewers about the drug’s benefits and then use a different voice actor to run through the risks using a less engaging voice. Another trick they employ is reading the list of warnings using more complex grammatical structures so it’s not as readily absorbable by viewers. Keeping the voice actor who lists the risks off screen is another common tactic as research shows people absorb more information when they can see a speaker. In addition, they sometimes show distracting images while this list is read so people won’t focus on the words.

Must Read: After Taking Antibiotics, This Is What You Need To Do To Restore Healthy Intestinal Flora

The FDA does not approve ads before they are aired, but they claim they will stop ads that violate the law after their release. Their guidelines do not require drug makers to tell people if lifestyle changes like diet and exercise could help improve their condition, nor do they ban ads for medications that pose serious risks. Now the FDA is poised to remove yet another obstacle for drug makers and make it easier than ever for them to convince people that their poisons are harmless.

Sources: