Education Not Medication -- a women's health program by Mike Adams
| Author |
Message |
|
Jan Dre
#1 / 5
|
 Education Not Medication -- a women's health program by Mike Adams The Panel was also informed about a recent epidemiological study carried out
by the US National Cancer Institute.
http://www.{*filter*}{*filter*}cancer.com/press_releases/050516/index.htm
http://www.***.com/
NewsTarget.com printable article
Originally published October 23 2006
Education Not Medication -- a women's health program by Mike Adams
by Mike Adams
The {*filter*} cancer industry is now run by corporations that profit from women
with disease. With nearly all {*filter*} cancer nonprofits being subjugated by
drug companies, the FDA censoring alternative cancer solutions, and the
mainstream media wildly exaggerating the benefits of near-useless cancer
{*filter*} like Herceptin, there's hardly a message heard about {*filter*} cancer
today that doesn't have a profit motive behind it.
The emphasis on {*filter*} cancer "screening," and the circus of holding {*filter*}
cancer awareness months is, of course, all about recruiting more women into
a system of treatment that generates profits for drug companies. Using
fear-based tactics of recruitment (like telling women, "You'll die in six
months if you don't undergo chemotherapy..."), the {*filter*} cancer industry
manages to corral women of all races and ages into treatments that actually
harm far more women than they help.
Find that hard to believe? Researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in
Denmark studied 500,000 women to determine the results of {*filter*} cancer
screening programs. They found that for every one woman helped by {*filter*}
cancer screening, ten were harmed through false diagnosis or unnecessary
treatments that devastated their health.
"What seems like good and obvious advice in everyday life is not always
scientifically or medically sound", said Peter Gotzsche, MD, director of the
center. "So we might say there is a benefit of one but a harm of 10 from
screening for {*filter*} cancer."
In other words, {*filter*} cancer screening is surprisingly harmful to women.
That's partly because the procedure itself irradiates the {*filter*} tissue and
actually causes cancer, but also because practically any screening result
producing a questionable blur on the final image may result in a woman being
manipulated through fear into undergoing aggressive, toxic cancer treatments
even when they never had {*filter*} cancer in the first place. (False positives
are extremely common in {*filter*} cancer screening, and in some cases, the
machinery is incorrectly calibrated and doesn't even meet radiology
standards.)
Preventing prevention
And yet {*filter*} cancer screening is the only form of "prevention" offered by
the cancer industry. Only it isn't prevention, it's detection. {*filter*} cancer
screening does nothing to educate women how to really prevent {*filter*} cancer,
nor does it teach women how to change their diets and lifestyles so that
{*filter*} cancer never develops in the first place. In fact, the strategy of
the cancer industry today can be best described as waiting for women to get
cancer, then treating it with toxic {*filter*}.
While tens of millions of women are developing undetectable, early-stage
{*filter*} cancer right now, the cancer industry does nothing. They will not
tell these women how to halt the growth of cancer tumors; they will only
wait until the cancer becomes large enough to see on a screening test, and
then they will scare the women to death with harmful, authoritative medical
demands and toss them into chemotherapy -- a treatment that causes
permanent, irreversible harm to the brain, heart, liver, kidneys and other
organs.
Yet even the World Health Organization admits that 70 percent of all cancers
can be prevented through simple changes in cooking.net">food and lifestyle. That number
is probably conservative, though. My own opinion is that 90 percent of all
cancers can be prevented through simple cooking.net">food and lifestyle changes. Yet no
one in the cancer industry is interested in teaching any of these strategies
to women. In the cancer industry, there is no incentive to teach women how
to avoid {*filter*} cancer, because to do so would eliminate a future customer!
That's why I started the Education Not Medication program. It is a humble
effort to teach women how to prevent their own {*filter*} cancer through
scientifically-supported natural health strategies that are easy to
understand and simple to follow. They include things like eating more
broccoli and garlic, getting more natural sunlight on your skin (to generate
the anti-cancer nutrient Vitamin D) and avoiding cancer-causing chemicals in
manufactured foods (such as sodium nitrite, found in bacon, sausage and
virtually all packaged meats). A more detailed list is offered below.
The cancer industry depends on more cancer
The cancer industry remains silent about these cancer prevention solutions.
Ever wonder why? It's because the livelihood of the industry depends on more
cancer! If cancer rates plummeted by 70 percent or more, the industry would
be devastated. The incomes, egos and power positions of cancer industry
operators depends entirely on the continued spread of cancer among the
population.
Ever notice that cancer centers are not called, "Anti-Cancer Centers?" You
see them in virtually every city and state across the country: The
Washington Cancer Center, or the San Francisco Cancer Center. Here in
Arizona, we have a massive, new building being constructed, and it's named
the Arizona Cancer Center. These are all monuments to cancer, and they are
for-profit businesses constructed for the purpose of making money from a
woman's disease. They turn cancer into profit, and they depend on continued
cancer to stay in business.
That's why there's no real effort underway to teach women how to prevent
{*filter*} cancer. There's no program in place to teach women about the
anti-cancer effects of sunlight and vitamin D (in fact, cancer industry
groups like the American Cancer Society run public service ads warning
people about sunlight!), there's no honest effort to teach women about the
natural anti-cancer medicine founds in certain foods, and no one is telling
women the truth about the cancer-causing chemicals in perfumes, laundry
detergent, cosmetics and personal care products.
In other words, when it comes to preventing cancer, the cancer industry is
silent. Why should they say anything, anyway? If they teach women how to
prevent {*filter*} cancer, they lose customers. Besides, the scheme they're
running right now is working brilliantly. They maximize revenues and profits
by preventing prevention and waiting for women to get cancer, then treating
them with high-profit pharmaceuticals, radiation and surgical procedures.
They have the easiest business model in the world: All they have to do is
keep their mouths shut about what causes cancer, and wait for new customers
to fill the cancer centers. And to help them out, corporations, media
organizations and volunteers (many are women!) actually help them raise more
money! It makes about as much sense as holding a fundraiser for Bill Gates.
It's time to teach genuine cancer prevention to women
The cancer industry has been getting away with this scam for years, but I
say enough is enough. It's time to declare, "The Emperor has no clothes!"
and that the best way to help protect the lives of women is to teach them
how to avoid {*filter*} cancer rather than waiting for them to get it.
And doing so is surprisingly simple. All you have to do is raise awareness
about the things that cause {*filter*} cancer vs. the things that prevent {*filter*}
cancer. This can be done through public service announcements, information
handouts, or even internet campaigns like this one.
I also suggest that all these cancer treatment centers donate 100 percent of
their profits to cancer prevention campaigns. It's wrong to profit from a
woman's cancer, is it not? If these businesses really cared about stopping
cancer, they'd refuse to profit from the disease and, instead, use the money
to help stop cancer in future generations of women (and men, for that
matter).
What an idea, huh? That these ultra-wealthy non-profits and billion-dollar
corporations might spend some money on teaching women how to prevent
cancer...
If it ever really happens, of course, it will only be as a cover-your-ass
reaction to public awareness about the corporatization of the {*filter*} cancer
industry. As word spreads, these non-profits will have to do something to
save their reputation, so they'll start running tiny "prevention" campaigns
to save face. But underneath the facade, make no mistake: cancer is big, big
business, and the cancer industry is driven by profiting from a woman's
body, not protecting it from cancer.
The real answers to {*filter*} cancer prevention
Here, for the benefit of women everywhere, is a partial list of the things
that cause cancer and things that don't. You're not going to find full
descriptions and citations here, as that would require an entire book all by
itself, but this is a very useful reference list that tells the truth about
what causes or prevents cancer in the human body.
18 things that CAUSE cancer: (in no particular order)
a.. Smoking cigarettes
b.. Drinking non-organic milk or eating non-organic dairy products
c.. Hydrogenated oils and trans fatty acids - See Poison In the cooking.net">food or
articles on hydrogenated oils
d.. Mammography radiation - see articles on mammograms
e.. Chemotherapy and radiation
f.. Perfumes and fragrance products
g.. Cosmetics and personal care products - see articles on personal care
products
h.. Home cleaning products, including laundry detergent, dryer sheets,
etc.
i.. Plastic cooking.net">food containers - includes plastic lining inside cooking.net">food cans
j.. Sodium nitrite - found in most processed meats, see articles on sodium
nitrite
k.. Pesticides, PCBs, chlorine and other chemicals
l.. Acrylamides (formed during high-heat cooking.net">food processing such as frying)
m.. Watching television / lack of exercise
n..
... read more »
|
| Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:50:05 GMT |
|
 |
|
Net
#2 / 5
|
Education Not Medication -- a women's health program by Mike Adams Quote:
> The Panel was also informed about a recent epidemiological study carried out > by the US National Cancer Institute. > http://www.{*filter*}{*filter*}cancer.com/press_releases/050516/index.htm
> http://www.***.com/
> NewsTarget.com printable article
> Originally published October 23 2006
> Education Not Medication -- a women's health program by Mike Adams
> by Mike Adams
> The {*filter*} cancer industry is now run by corporations that profit from women
> with disease. With nearly all {*filter*} cancer nonprofits being subjugated by
> drug companies, the FDA censoring alternative cancer solutions, and the
> mainstream media wildly exaggerating the benefits of near-useless cancer
> {*filter*} like Herceptin, there's hardly a message heard about {*filter*} cancer
> today that doesn't have a profit motive behind it.
> The emphasis on {*filter*} cancer "screening," and the circus of holding {*filter*}
> cancer awareness months is, of course, all about recruiting more women into
> a system of treatment that generates profits for drug companies. Using
> fear-based tactics of recruitment (like telling women, "You'll die in six
> months if you don't undergo chemotherapy..."), the {*filter*} cancer industry
> manages to corral women of all races and ages into treatments that actually
> harm far more women than they help.
> Find that hard to believe? Researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in
> Denmark studied 500,000 women to determine the results of {*filter*} cancer
> screening programs. They found that for every one woman helped by {*filter*}
> cancer screening, ten were harmed through false diagnosis or unnecessary
> treatments that devastated their health.
> "What seems like good and obvious advice in everyday life is not always
> scientifically or medically sound", said Peter Gotzsche, MD, director of the
> center. "So we might say there is a benefit of one but a harm of 10 from
> screening for {*filter*} cancer."
> In other words, {*filter*} cancer screening is surprisingly harmful to women.
> That's partly because the procedure itself irradiates the {*filter*} tissue and
> actually causes cancer, but also because practically any screening result
> producing a questionable blur on the final image may result in a woman being
> manipulated through fear into undergoing aggressive, toxic cancer treatments
> even when they never had {*filter*} cancer in the first place. (False positives
> are extremely common in {*filter*} cancer screening, and in some cases, the
> machinery is incorrectly calibrated and doesn't even meet radiology
> standards.)
> Preventing prevention
> And yet {*filter*} cancer screening is the only form of "prevention" offered by
> the cancer industry. Only it isn't prevention, it's detection. {*filter*} cancer
> screening does nothing to educate women how to really prevent {*filter*} cancer,
> nor does it teach women how to change their diets and lifestyles so that
> {*filter*} cancer never develops in the first place. In fact, the strategy of
> the cancer industry today can be best described as waiting for women to get
> cancer, then treating it with toxic {*filter*}.
> While tens of millions of women are developing undetectable, early-stage
> {*filter*} cancer right now, the cancer industry does nothing. They will not
> tell these women how to halt the growth of cancer tumors; they will only
> wait until the cancer becomes large enough to see on a screening test, and
> then they will scare the women to death with harmful, authoritative medical
> demands and toss them into chemotherapy -- a treatment that causes
> permanent, irreversible harm to the brain, heart, liver, kidneys and other
> organs.
> Yet even the World Health Organization admits that 70 percent of all cancers
> can be prevented through simple changes in cooking.net">food and lifestyle. That number
> is probably conservative, though. My own opinion is that 90 percent of all
> cancers can be prevented through simple cooking.net">food and lifestyle changes. Yet no
> one in the cancer industry is interested in teaching any of these strategies
> to women. In the cancer industry, there is no incentive to teach women how
> to avoid {*filter*} cancer, because to do so would eliminate a future customer!
> That's why I started the Education Not Medication program. It is a humble
> effort to teach women how to prevent their own {*filter*} cancer through
> scientifically-supported natural health strategies that are easy to
> understand and simple to follow. They include things like eating more
> broccoli and garlic, getting more natural sunlight on your skin (to generate
> the anti-cancer nutrient Vitamin D) and avoiding cancer-causing chemicals in
> manufactured foods (such as sodium nitrite, found in bacon, sausage and
> virtually all packaged meats). A more detailed list is offered below.
> The cancer industry depends on more cancer
> The cancer industry remains silent about these cancer prevention solutions.
> Ever wonder why? It's because the livelihood of the industry depends on more
> cancer! If cancer rates plummeted by 70 percent or more, the industry would
> be devastated. The incomes, egos and power positions of cancer industry
> operators depends entirely on the continued spread of cancer among the
> population.
> Ever notice that cancer centers are not called, "Anti-Cancer Centers?" You
> see them in virtually every city and state across the country: The
> Washington Cancer Center, or the San Francisco Cancer Center. Here in
> Arizona, we have a massive, new building being constructed, and it's named
> the Arizona Cancer Center. These are all monuments to cancer, and they are
> for-profit businesses constructed for the purpose of making money from a
> woman's disease. They turn cancer into profit, and they depend on continued
> cancer to stay in business.
> That's why there's no real effort underway to teach women how to prevent
> {*filter*} cancer. There's no program in place to teach women about the
> anti-cancer effects of sunlight and vitamin D (in fact, cancer industry
> groups like the American Cancer Society run public service ads warning
> people about sunlight!), there's no honest effort to teach women about the
> natural anti-cancer medicine founds in certain foods, and no one is telling
> women the truth about the cancer-causing chemicals in perfumes, laundry
> detergent, cosmetics and personal care products.
> In other words, when it comes to preventing cancer, the cancer industry is
> silent. Why should they say anything, anyway? If they teach women how to
> prevent {*filter*} cancer, they lose customers. Besides, the scheme they're
> running right now is working brilliantly. They maximize revenues and profits
> by preventing prevention and waiting for women to get cancer, then treating
> them with high-profit pharmaceuticals, radiation and surgical procedures.
> They have the easiest business model in the world: All they have to do is
> keep their mouths shut about what causes cancer, and wait for new customers
> to fill the cancer centers. And to help them out, corporations, media
> organizations and volunteers (many are women!) actually help them raise more
> money! It makes about as much sense as holding a fundraiser for Bill Gates.
> It's time to teach genuine cancer prevention to women
> The cancer industry has been getting away with this scam for years, but I
> say enough is enough. It's time to declare, "The Emperor has no clothes!"
> and that the best way to help protect the lives of women is to teach them
> how to avoid {*filter*} cancer rather than waiting for them to get it.
> And doing so is surprisingly simple. All you have to do is raise awareness
> about the things that cause {*filter*} cancer vs. the things that prevent {*filter*}
> cancer. This can be done through public service announcements, information
> handouts, or even internet campaigns like this one.
> I also suggest that all these cancer treatment centers donate 100 percent of
> their profits to cancer prevention campaigns. It's wrong to profit from a
> woman's cancer, is it not? If these businesses really cared about stopping
> cancer, they'd refuse to profit from the disease and, instead, use the money
> to help stop cancer in future generations of women (and men, for that
> matter).
> What an idea, huh? That these ultra-wealthy non-profits and billion-dollar
> corporations might spend some money on teaching women how to prevent
> cancer...
> If it ever really happens, of course, it will only be as a cover-your-ass
> reaction to public awareness about the corporatization of the {*filter*} cancer
> industry. As word spreads, these non-profits will have to do something to
> save their reputation, so they'll start running tiny "prevention" campaigns
> to save face. But underneath the facade, make no mistake: cancer is big, big
> business, and the cancer industry is driven by profiting from a woman's
> body, not protecting it from cancer.
> The real answers to {*filter*} cancer prevention
> Here, for the benefit of women everywhere, is a partial list of the things
> that cause cancer and things that don't. You're not going to find full
> descriptions and citations here, as that would require an entire book all by
> itself, but this is a very useful reference list that tells the truth about
> what causes or prevents cancer in the human body.
> 18 things that CAUSE cancer: (in no particular order)
> a.. Smoking cigarettes
> b.. Drinking non-organic milk or eating non-organic dairy products
> c.. Hydrogenated oils and trans fatty acids - See Poison In the cooking.net">food or
> articles on hydrogenated oils
> d.. Mammography radiation - see articles on mammograms
> e.. Chemotherapy and radiation
> f.. Perfumes and fragrance products
> g.. Cosmetics and personal care products - see articles on personal care
> products
> h.. Home cleaning products, including laundry detergent, dryer sheets,
> etc.
> i.. Plastic cooking.net">food containers - includes plastic lining inside cooking.net">food cans
> j.. Sodium nitrite - found in
... read more »
|
| Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:11:27 GMT |
|
|
|
Net
#3 / 5
|
Education Not Medication -- a women's health program by Mike Adams All I know is, I was diagnosed with {*filter*} cancer and had a mastectomy followed up by aggressive chemotherapy (the strongest two {*filter*} on the market at the time, Adriamycin and Taxotere, after my last chemotherapy treatment---2 years later, my kidneys and liver failed, I did not know I was in the world, as the result of that hospital stay, it was found that the chemotherapy was still in my body-- 2 YEARS AFTER MY LAST CHEMO TREATMENT, just running around in my body eating up all my good cells doing all kinds of damage, I now have heart damage, liver damage, kidney damage, nerve damage, neuromuscular damage, neuroskeletal damage, lumbar/caudal joint syndrome, neuropathy, pancreatic damage, bone damage, the list goes on. I have several other things wrong with me now that I had no problem with before I had {*filter*} cancer whether or not they are related to the {*filter*} cancer treatment, I don't know: like, disc degeneration in my back, no cartilage in one knee and very little in the other, mini strokes, i.e. TIA's, myalgia, fibromyalgia, degeneration of my lumbar disc, myositis, diabetes, osteoporosis, bells palsy, and the list goes on. As far as I am concerned, the chemotherapy did more damage to me than the {*filter*} cancer, yes I lost part of my body but the surgeon said she got it all, the chemotherapy ravaged my body and took my health away, my independence, words cannot describe how I feel inside. They have found a tumor on my lung, I have moved since my last cancer bout, we are "watching" this tumor on my lung every 2 months--more radiation in my body every 2 months to see if it has progressed or if it is just sitting there. I am determined not to have chemotherapy again. Why would I? It almost killed me! {*filter*} cancer did not almost kill me, chemotherapy did! I had to have {*filter*} transfusions to get the chemotherapy out of my body. We lost our house, our land, our cars, etc. things we had worked our whole lives for, our pensions, retirement, everything but each other due to the extensive medical expense for the quote "specialists" needed for each of the above damaged areas and their required "tests" and more radiation tests to see exactly how much damage was done, when one test, the pet scan, I am sure you know what that is, could tell them all exactly what damage was done in each area if they would only share the test. But, that would not have been profitable, would it. The thoughts of having chemotherapy again chills me to the bone. The thoughts of having {*filter*} cancer again do not scare me as bad as having chemotherapy. What does that tell you? Thanks for listening. Just thought I would add my "adventure" to your remarks. Makes one think twice about what you have to say, I think. Quote:
> The Panel was also informed about a recent epidemiological study carried out > by the US National Cancer Institute. > http://www.{*filter*}{*filter*}cancer.com/press_releases/050516/index.htm
> http://www.***.com/
> NewsTarget.com printable article
> Originally published October 23 2006
> Education Not Medication -- a women's health program by Mike Adams
> by Mike Adams
> The {*filter*} cancer industry is now run by corporations that profit from women
> with disease. With nearly all {*filter*} cancer nonprofits being subjugated by
> drug companies, the FDA censoring alternative cancer solutions, and the
> mainstream media wildly exaggerating the benefits of near-useless cancer
> {*filter*} like Herceptin, there's hardly a message heard about {*filter*} cancer
> today that doesn't have a profit motive behind it.
> The emphasis on {*filter*} cancer "screening," and the circus of holding {*filter*}
> cancer awareness months is, of course, all about recruiting more women into
> a system of treatment that generates profits for drug companies. Using
> fear-based tactics of recruitment (like telling women, "You'll die in six
> months if you don't undergo chemotherapy..."), the {*filter*} cancer industry
> manages to corral women of all races and ages into treatments that actually
> harm far more women than they help.
> Find that hard to believe? Researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in
> Denmark studied 500,000 women to determine the results of {*filter*} cancer
> screening programs. They found that for every one woman helped by {*filter*}
> cancer screening, ten were harmed through false diagnosis or unnecessary
> treatments that devastated their health.
> "What seems like good and obvious advice in everyday life is not always
> scientifically or medically sound", said Peter Gotzsche, MD, director of the
> center. "So we might say there is a benefit of one but a harm of 10 from
> screening for {*filter*} cancer."
> In other words, {*filter*} cancer screening is surprisingly harmful to women.
> That's partly because the procedure itself irradiates the {*filter*} tissue and
> actually causes cancer, but also because practically any screening result
> producing a questionable blur on the final image may result in a woman being
> manipulated through fear into undergoing aggressive, toxic cancer treatments
> even when they never had {*filter*} cancer in the first place. (False positives
> are extremely common in {*filter*} cancer screening, and in some cases, the
> machinery is incorrectly calibrated and doesn't even meet radiology
> standards.)
> Preventing prevention
> And yet {*filter*} cancer screening is the only form of "prevention" offered by
> the cancer industry. Only it isn't prevention, it's detection. {*filter*} cancer
> screening does nothing to educate women how to really prevent {*filter*} cancer,
> nor does it teach women how to change their diets and lifestyles so that
> {*filter*} cancer never develops in the first place. In fact, the strategy of
> the cancer industry today can be best described as waiting for women to get
> cancer, then treating it with toxic {*filter*}.
> While tens of millions of women are developing undetectable, early-stage
> {*filter*} cancer right now, the cancer industry does nothing. They will not
> tell these women how to halt the growth of cancer tumors; they will only
> wait until the cancer becomes large enough to see on a screening test, and
> then they will scare the women to death with harmful, authoritative medical
> demands and toss them into chemotherapy -- a treatment that causes
> permanent, irreversible harm to the brain, heart, liver, kidneys and other
> organs.
> Yet even the World Health Organization admits that 70 percent of all cancers
> can be prevented through simple changes in cooking.net">food and lifestyle. That number
> is probably conservative, though. My own opinion is that 90 percent of all
> cancers can be prevented through simple cooking.net">food and lifestyle changes. Yet no
> one in the cancer industry is interested in teaching any of these strategies
> to women. In the cancer industry, there is no incentive to teach women how
> to avoid {*filter*} cancer, because to do so would eliminate a future customer!
> That's why I started the Education Not Medication program. It is a humble
> effort to teach women how to prevent their own {*filter*} cancer through
> scientifically-supported natural health strategies that are easy to
> understand and simple to follow. They include things like eating more
> broccoli and garlic, getting more natural sunlight on your skin (to generate
> the anti-cancer nutrient Vitamin D) and avoiding cancer-causing chemicals in
> manufactured foods (such as sodium nitrite, found in bacon, sausage and
> virtually all packaged meats). A more detailed list is offered below.
> The cancer industry depends on more cancer
> The cancer industry remains silent about these cancer prevention solutions.
> Ever wonder why? It's because the livelihood of the industry depends on more
> cancer! If cancer rates plummeted by 70 percent or more, the industry would
> be devastated. The incomes, egos and power positions of cancer industry
> operators depends entirely on the continued spread of cancer among the
> population.
> Ever notice that cancer centers are not called, "Anti-Cancer Centers?" You
> see them in virtually every city and state across the country: The
> Washington Cancer Center, or the San Francisco Cancer Center. Here in
> Arizona, we have a massive, new building being constructed, and it's named
> the Arizona Cancer Center. These are all monuments to cancer, and they are
> for-profit businesses constructed for the purpose of making money from a
> woman's disease. They turn cancer into profit, and they depend on continued
> cancer to stay in business.
> That's why there's no real effort underway to teach women how to prevent
> {*filter*} cancer. There's no program in place to teach women about the
> anti-cancer effects of sunlight and vitamin D (in fact, cancer industry
> groups like the American Cancer Society run public service ads warning
> people about sunlight!), there's no honest effort to teach women about the
> natural anti-cancer medicine founds in certain foods, and no one is telling
> women the truth about the cancer-causing chemicals in perfumes, laundry
> detergent, cosmetics and personal care products.
> In other words, when it comes to preventing cancer, the cancer industry is
> silent. Why should they say anything, anyway? If they teach women how to
> prevent {*filter*} cancer, they lose customers. Besides, the scheme they're
> running right now is working brilliantly. They maximize revenues and profits
> by preventing prevention and waiting for women to get cancer, then treating
> them with high-profit pharmaceuticals, radiation and surgical procedures.
> They have the easiest business model in the world: All they have to do is
> keep their mouths shut about what causes cancer, and wait for new customers
> to fill the cancer centers. And to help them out, corporations, media
> organizations and volunteers (many are women!) actually help them raise more
> money! It makes about as much sense as holding a fundraiser for Bill Gates.
> It's time to teach genuine cancer
... read more »
|
| Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:46:07 GMT |
|
|
|
Net
#4 / 5
|
Education Not Medication -- a women's health program by Mike Adams All I know is, I was diagnosed with {*filter*} cancer and had a mastectomy followed up by aggressive chemotherapy (the strongest two {*filter*} on the market at the time, Adriamycin and Taxotere, after my last chemotherapy treatment---2 years later, my kidneys and liver failed, I did not know I was in the world, as the result of that hospital stay, it was found that the chemotherapy was still in my body-- 2 YEARS AFTER MY LAST CHEMO TREATMENT, just running around in my body eating up all my good cells doing all kinds of damage, I now have heart damage, liver damage, kidney damage, nerve damage, neuromuscular damage, neuroskeletal damage, lumbar/caudal joint syndrome, neuropathy, pancreatic damage, bone damage, the list goes on. I have several other things wrong with me now that I had no problem with before I had {*filter*} cancer whether or not they are related to the {*filter*} cancer treatment, I don't know: like, disc degeneration in my back, no cartilage in one knee and very little in the other, mini strokes, i.e. TIA's, myalgia, fibromyalgia, degeneration of my lumbar disc, myositis, diabetes, osteoporosis, bells palsy, and the list goes on. As far as I am concerned, the chemotherapy did more damage to me than the {*filter*} cancer, yes I lost part of my body but the surgeon said she got it all, the chemotherapy ravaged my body and took my health away, my independence, words cannot describe how I feel inside. They have found a tumor on my lung, I have moved since my last cancer bout, we are "watching" this tumor on my lung every 2 months--more radiation in my body every 2 months to see if it has progressed or if it is just sitting there. I am determined not to have chemotherapy again. Why would I? It almost killed me! {*filter*} cancer did not almost kill me, chemotherapy did! I had to have {*filter*} transfusions to get the chemotherapy out of my body. We lost our house, our land, our cars, etc. things we had worked our whole lives for, our pensions, retirement, everything but each other due to the extensive medical expense for the quote "specialists" needed for each of the above damaged areas and their required "tests" and more radiation tests to see exactly how much damage was done, when one test, the pet scan, I am sure you know what that is, could tell them all exactly what damage was done in each area if they would only share the test. But, that would not have been profitable, would it. The thoughts of having chemotherapy again chills me to the bone. The thoughts of having {*filter*} cancer again do not scare me as bad as having chemotherapy. What does that tell you? Thanks for listening. Just thought I would add my "adventure" to your remarks. Makes one think twice about what you have to say, I think. Quote:
> The Panel was also informed about a recent epidemiological study carried out > by the US National Cancer Institute. > http://www.{*filter*}{*filter*}cancer.com/press_releases/050516/index.htm
> http://www.***.com/
> NewsTarget.com printable article
> Originally published October 23 2006
> Education Not Medication -- a women's health program by Mike Adams
> by Mike Adams
> The {*filter*} cancer industry is now run by corporations that profit from women
> with disease. With nearly all {*filter*} cancer nonprofits being subjugated by
> drug companies, the FDA censoring alternative cancer solutions, and the
> mainstream media wildly exaggerating the benefits of near-useless cancer
> {*filter*} like Herceptin, there's hardly a message heard about {*filter*} cancer
> today that doesn't have a profit motive behind it.
> The emphasis on {*filter*} cancer "screening," and the circus of holding {*filter*}
> cancer awareness months is, of course, all about recruiting more women into
> a system of treatment that generates profits for drug companies. Using
> fear-based tactics of recruitment (like telling women, "You'll die in six
> months if you don't undergo chemotherapy..."), the {*filter*} cancer industry
> manages to corral women of all races and ages into treatments that actually
> harm far more women than they help.
> Find that hard to believe? Researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in
> Denmark studied 500,000 women to determine the results of {*filter*} cancer
> screening programs. They found that for every one woman helped by {*filter*}
> cancer screening, ten were harmed through false diagnosis or unnecessary
> treatments that devastated their health.
> "What seems like good and obvious advice in everyday life is not always
> scientifically or medically sound", said Peter Gotzsche, MD, director of the
> center. "So we might say there is a benefit of one but a harm of 10 from
> screening for {*filter*} cancer."
> In other words, {*filter*} cancer screening is surprisingly harmful to women.
> That's partly because the procedure itself irradiates the {*filter*} tissue and
> actually causes cancer, but also because practically any screening result
> producing a questionable blur on the final image may result in a woman being
> manipulated through fear into undergoing aggressive, toxic cancer treatments
> even when they never had {*filter*} cancer in the first place. (False positives
> are extremely common in {*filter*} cancer screening, and in some cases, the
> machinery is incorrectly calibrated and doesn't even meet radiology
> standards.)
> Preventing prevention
> And yet {*filter*} cancer screening is the only form of "prevention" offered by
> the cancer industry. Only it isn't prevention, it's detection. {*filter*} cancer
> screening does nothing to educate women how to really prevent {*filter*} cancer,
> nor does it teach women how to change their diets and lifestyles so that
> {*filter*} cancer never develops in the first place. In fact, the strategy of
> the cancer industry today can be best described as waiting for women to get
> cancer, then treating it with toxic {*filter*}.
> While tens of millions of women are developing undetectable, early-stage
> {*filter*} cancer right now, the cancer industry does nothing. They will not
> tell these women how to halt the growth of cancer tumors; they will only
> wait until the cancer becomes large enough to see on a screening test, and
> then they will scare the women to death with harmful, authoritative medical
> demands and toss them into chemotherapy -- a treatment that causes
> permanent, irreversible harm to the brain, heart, liver, kidneys and other
> organs.
> Yet even the World Health Organization admits that 70 percent of all cancers
> can be prevented through simple changes in cooking.net">food and lifestyle. That number
> is probably conservative, though. My own opinion is that 90 percent of all
> cancers can be prevented through simple cooking.net">food and lifestyle changes. Yet no
> one in the cancer industry is interested in teaching any of these strategies
> to women. In the cancer industry, there is no incentive to teach women how
> to avoid {*filter*} cancer, because to do so would eliminate a future customer!
> That's why I started the Education Not Medication program. It is a humble
> effort to teach women how to prevent their own {*filter*} cancer through
> scientifically-supported natural health strategies that are easy to
> understand and simple to follow. They include things like eating more
> broccoli and garlic, getting more natural sunlight on your skin (to generate
> the anti-cancer nutrient Vitamin D) and avoiding cancer-causing chemicals in
> manufactured foods (such as sodium nitrite, found in bacon, sausage and
> virtually all packaged meats). A more detailed list is offered below.
> The cancer industry depends on more cancer
> The cancer industry remains silent about these cancer prevention solutions.
> Ever wonder why? It's because the livelihood of the industry depends on more
> cancer! If cancer rates plummeted by 70 percent or more, the industry would
> be devastated. The incomes, egos and power positions of cancer industry
> operators depends entirely on the continued spread of cancer among the
> population.
> Ever notice that cancer centers are not called, "Anti-Cancer Centers?" You
> see them in virtually every city and state across the country: The
> Washington Cancer Center, or the San Francisco Cancer Center. Here in
> Arizona, we have a massive, new building being constructed, and it's named
> the Arizona Cancer Center. These are all monuments to cancer, and they are
> for-profit businesses constructed for the purpose of making money from a
> woman's disease. They turn cancer into profit, and they depend on continued
> cancer to stay in business.
> That's why there's no real effort underway to teach women how to prevent
> {*filter*} cancer. There's no program in place to teach women about the
> anti-cancer effects of sunlight and vitamin D (in fact, cancer industry
> groups like the American Cancer Society run public service ads warning
> people about sunlight!), there's no honest effort to teach women about the
> natural anti-cancer medicine founds in certain foods, and no one is telling
> women the truth about the cancer-causing chemicals in perfumes, laundry
> detergent, cosmetics and personal care products.
> In other words, when it comes to preventing cancer, the cancer industry is
> silent. Why should they say anything, anyway? If they teach women how to
> prevent {*filter*} cancer, they lose customers. Besides, the scheme they're
> running right now is working brilliantly. They maximize revenues and profits
> by preventing prevention and waiting for women to get cancer, then treating
> them with high-profit pharmaceuticals, radiation and surgical procedures.
> They have the easiest business model in the world: All they have to do is
> keep their mouths shut about what causes cancer, and wait for new customers
> to fill the cancer centers. And to help them out, corporations, media
> organizations and volunteers (many are women!) actually help them raise more
> money! It makes about as much sense as holding a fundraiser for Bill Gates.
> It's time to teach genuine cancer
... read more »
|
| Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:46:14 GMT |
|
|
|
Colea
#5 / 5
|
Education Not Medication -- a women's health program by Mike Adams So sorry to hear of all your complications. Try to count your blessings and hang in there. You've had a really tough go of it. Hugs,
Coleah
Quote: > All I know is, I was diagnosed with {*filter*} cancer and had a mastectomy > followed up by aggressive chemotherapy (the strongest two {*filter*} on the > market at the time, Adriamycin and Taxotere, after my last chemotherapy > treatment---2 years later, my kidneys and liver failed, I did not know > I was in the world, as the result of that hospital stay, it was found > that the chemotherapy was still in my body-- 2 YEARS AFTER MY LAST > CHEMO TREATMENT, just running around in my body eating up all my good > cells doing all kinds of damage, I now have heart damage, liver damage, > kidney damage, nerve damage, neuromuscular damage, neuroskeletal > damage, lumbar/caudal joint syndrome, neuropathy, pancreatic damage, > bone damage, the list goes on. I have several other things wrong with > me now that I had no problem with before I had {*filter*} cancer whether or > not they are related to the {*filter*} cancer treatment, I don't know: > like, disc degeneration in my back, no cartilage in one knee and very > little in the other, mini strokes, i.e. TIA's, myalgia, fibromyalgia, > degeneration of my lumbar disc, myositis, diabetes, osteoporosis, bells > palsy, and the list goes on. As far as I am concerned, the > chemotherapy did more damage to me than the {*filter*} cancer, yes I lost > part of my body but the surgeon said she got it all, the chemotherapy > ravaged my body and took my health away, my independence, words cannot > describe how I feel inside. They have found a tumor on my lung, I have > moved since my last cancer bout, we are "watching" this tumor on my > lung every 2 months--more radiation in my body every 2 months to see if > it has progressed or if it is just sitting there. I am determined not > to have chemotherapy again. Why would I? It almost killed me! {*filter*} > cancer did not almost kill me, chemotherapy did! I had to have {*filter*} > transfusions to get the chemotherapy out of my body. We lost our > house, our land, our cars, etc. things we had worked our whole lives > for, our pensions, retirement, everything but each other due to the > extensive medical expense for the quote "specialists" needed for each > of the above damaged areas and their required "tests" and more > radiation tests to see exactly how much damage was done, when one test, > the pet scan, I am sure you know what that is, could tell them all > exactly what damage was done in each area if they would only share the > test. But, that would not have been profitable, would it. The > thoughts of having chemotherapy again chills me to the bone. The > thoughts of having {*filter*} cancer again do not scare me as bad as having > chemotherapy. What does that tell you? Thanks for listening. Just > thought I would add my "adventure" to your remarks. Makes one think > twice about what you have to say, I think.
>> The Panel was also informed about a recent epidemiological study carried >> out >> by the US National Cancer Institute. >> http://www.{*filter*}{*filter*}cancer.com/press_releases/050516/index.htm
>> http://www.***.com/
>> NewsTarget.com printable article
>> Originally published October 23 2006
>> Education Not Medication -- a women's health program by Mike Adams
>> by Mike Adams
>> The {*filter*} cancer industry is now run by corporations that profit from
>> women
>> with disease. With nearly all {*filter*} cancer nonprofits being subjugated
>> by
>> drug companies, the FDA censoring alternative cancer solutions, and the
>> mainstream media wildly exaggerating the benefits of near-useless cancer
>> {*filter*} like Herceptin, there's hardly a message heard about {*filter*} cancer
>> today that doesn't have a profit motive behind it.
>> The emphasis on {*filter*} cancer "screening," and the circus of holding
>> {*filter*}
>> cancer awareness months is, of course, all about recruiting more women
>> into
>> a system of treatment that generates profits for drug companies. Using
>> fear-based tactics of recruitment (like telling women, "You'll die in six
>> months if you don't undergo chemotherapy..."), the {*filter*} cancer industry
>> manages to corral women of all races and ages into treatments that
>> actually
>> harm far more women than they help.
>> Find that hard to believe? Researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in
>> Denmark studied 500,000 women to determine the results of {*filter*} cancer
>> screening programs. They found that for every one woman helped by {*filter*}
>> cancer screening, ten were harmed through false diagnosis or unnecessary
>> treatments that devastated their health.
>> "What seems like good and obvious advice in everyday life is not always
>> scientifically or medically sound", said Peter Gotzsche, MD, director of
>> the
>> center. "So we might say there is a benefit of one but a harm of 10 from
>> screening for {*filter*} cancer."
>> In other words, {*filter*} cancer screening is surprisingly harmful to women.
>> That's partly because the procedure itself irradiates the {*filter*} tissue
>> and
>> actually causes cancer, but also because practically any screening result
>> producing a questionable blur on the final image may result in a woman
>> being
>> manipulated through fear into undergoing aggressive, toxic cancer
>> treatments
>> even when they never had {*filter*} cancer in the first place. (False
>> positives
>> are extremely common in {*filter*} cancer screening, and in some cases, the
>> machinery is incorrectly calibrated and doesn't even meet radiology
>> standards.)
>> Preventing prevention
>> And yet {*filter*} cancer screening is the only form of "prevention" offered
>> by
>> the cancer industry. Only it isn't prevention, it's detection. {*filter*}
>> cancer
>> screening does nothing to educate women how to really prevent {*filter*}
>> cancer,
>> nor does it teach women how to change their diets and lifestyles so that
>> {*filter*} cancer never develops in the first place. In fact, the strategy of
>> the cancer industry today can be best described as waiting for women to
>> get
>> cancer, then treating it with toxic {*filter*}.
>> While tens of millions of women are developing undetectable, early-stage
>> {*filter*} cancer right now, the cancer industry does nothing. They will not
>> tell these women how to halt the growth of cancer tumors; they will only
>> wait until the cancer becomes large enough to see on a screening test,
>> and
>> then they will scare the women to death with harmful, authoritative
>> medical
>> demands and toss them into chemotherapy -- a treatment that causes
>> permanent, irreversible harm to the brain, heart, liver, kidneys and
>> other
>> organs.
>> Yet even the World Health Organization admits that 70 percent of all
>> cancers
>> can be prevented through simple changes in cooking.net">food and lifestyle. That
>> number
>> is probably conservative, though. My own opinion is that 90 percent of
>> all
>> cancers can be prevented through simple cooking.net">food and lifestyle changes. Yet
>> no
>> one in the cancer industry is interested in teaching any of these
>> strategies
>> to women. In the cancer industry, there is no incentive to teach women
>> how
>> to avoid {*filter*} cancer, because to do so would eliminate a future
>> customer!
>> That's why I started the Education Not Medication program. It is a humble
>> effort to teach women how to prevent their own {*filter*} cancer through
>> scientifically-supported natural health strategies that are easy to
>> understand and simple to follow. They include things like eating more
>> broccoli and garlic, getting more natural sunlight on your skin (to
>> generate
>> the anti-cancer nutrient Vitamin D) and avoiding cancer-causing chemicals
>> in
>> manufactured foods (such as sodium nitrite, found in bacon, sausage and
>> virtually all packaged meats). A more detailed list is offered below.
>> The cancer industry depends on more cancer
>> The cancer industry remains silent about these cancer prevention
>> solutions.
>> Ever wonder why? It's because the livelihood of the industry depends on
>> more
>> cancer! If cancer rates plummeted by 70 percent or more, the industry
>> would
>> be devastated. The incomes, egos and power positions of cancer industry
>> operators depends entirely on the continued spread of cancer among the
>> population.
>> Ever notice that cancer centers are not called, "Anti-Cancer Centers?"
>> You
>> see them in virtually every city and state across the country: The
>> Washington Cancer Center, or the San Francisco Cancer Center. Here in
>> Arizona, we have a massive, new building being constructed, and it's
>> named
>> the Arizona Cancer Center. These are all monuments to cancer, and they
>> are
>> for-profit businesses constructed for the purpose of making money from a
>> woman's disease. They turn cancer into profit, and they depend on
>> continued
>> cancer to stay in business.
>> That's why there's no real effort underway to teach women how to prevent
>> {*filter*} cancer. There's no program in place to teach women about the
>> anti-cancer effects of sunlight and vitamin D (in fact, cancer industry
>> groups like the American Cancer Society run public service ads warning
>> people about sunlight!), there's no honest effort to teach women about
>> the
>> natural anti-cancer medicine founds in certain foods, and no one is
>> telling
>> women the truth about the cancer-causing chemicals in perfumes, laundry
>> detergent, cosmetics and personal care products.
>> In other words, when it comes to preventing cancer, the cancer industry
>> is
>> silent. Why should they say anything, anyway? If they teach women how to
>> prevent {*filter*} cancer, they lose customers. Besides, the scheme they're
>> running right now is working brilliantly. They maximize revenues
... read more »
|
| Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:04:04 GMT |
|
| |
|
