Sunday, January 31, 2016

Ginger Is 10,000X Stronger Than Chemo (And Only Kills Cancer Cells)-Chemo is BARBARIC and Drs are Brainwashed killers

New Study: Ginger Is 10,000X Stronger Than Chemo (And Only Kills Cancer Cells)

Ginger, cousin spice to one of the most powerful natural cures for multiple disease, has many different properties and uses. But did you know how powerful it really was when it comes to curing cancer?
Turmeric has widely been toted for its effect on cancer, but new research has shown that its cousin ginger is just as powerful. Not only that, it’s been found to be even more effective than some cancer medications at killing cancer. There is even evidence of some cancer medications being ineffective and actually accelerating the death of cancer patients.   OF COURSE IGNORED by the AMA and its HORRID $$ driven medial mafia

The Power Of Ginger

One study, conducted by Georgia State University found that whole ginger extract was able to reduce the size of a prostate tumor by 56% in mice. In addition to its effect on cancer, ginger was also observed to reduce inflammation and supply the mice with life-enhancing antioxidants.
Another study published in PLoS found that one particular component in ginger known as 6-shogaol is superior to conventional cancer medication, namely chemotherapy, at targeting the root cause of breast cancer malignancy: breast cancer stem cells.
Sometimes referred to as ‘mother cells’, cancer stem cells are the cause of a wide range of cancers, not simply breast cancer. These ‘mother cells’ are responsible for creating the different ‘daughter’ cell types that makeup the tumor colony. While cancer stem cells only constitute .2 to 1% of the cell makeup of the tumor, they seem to be almost ‘immortal’.
What that means is, these cancer stem cells are able to self renew, they are capable of continuous differentiation, are resistant to conventional chemotherapeutic agents, and are capable of splitting off and forming new tumor colonies. The only way to fully ensure that your body is cancer free is to destroy the cancer stem cells within a tumor.
This new study found that the pungent constituent in ginger known as 6-shogaol was very active when it came to anti-cancer stem behavior. This constituent is produced when the root is either dried or cooked, to very common uses for ginger already. But there is something very specific about 6-shogaol that makes it superior to chemotherapy treatments for cancer.
Researchers found that these cancer-destroying effects occurred at concentrations that were non-toxic to non-cancer cells. That means that this particular component of ginger only killed cancer cells, leaving healthy cells alone. This makes it very different from conventional cancer treatments that do not display that kind of selective cytotoxicity, meaning they can really harm the patient.
When it comes to breast cancer, 6-shogaol significantly affects the cell cycle, resulting in increased cancer cell death. It induces programmed cell death through the induction of autophagy. It also inhibits breast cancer spheroids (lumps) from forming. But that isn’t the only astounding thing about 6-shogaol.
This study also found, that in tests of the cancer drug taxol, it did not show the same level of effectiveness at destroying cancer stem cells and tumors as 6-shogaol. Even when the concentrations of taxol were increased, it was still found that 6-shogaol was 10,000 times more effective at killing cancer stem cells, stopping tumors from forming, and keeping healthy cells alive.
More research needs to be done to show how ‘modern cancer medicine’ is not as effective as natural medicines. We can not be making our bodies sick while trying to cure a disease, that is simply not enough anymore.
For addition, ginger is one of the strongest natural antibiotics that perfectly kills pathogenic microflora and strenghten our immune system, helps us to beat flew or cold much faster. So use all vital advantages of this amazing root and stay healthy!

Monday, January 25, 2016

Dandelion kills cancer Does Dandelion Root Tea defeat Cancer cells also ?

Dandelion kills cancer?


Dandelion root tea, championed by an elderly leukemia patient, has sparked exciting cancer research at the Univ. of Windsor.
Windsor Regional Hospital oncologist Dr. Caroline Hamm admitted there wasn’t much she could for her chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) patient after rounds of Horid chemotherapy.
The “little old lady” replied she’d “take care of it herself” with some dandelion root tea, and spread the word to another patient in the waiting room.
To Dr. Hamm’s surprise, the patients’ conditions improved, and one patient is still in remission 3 years after a steady diet of dandelion tea.   These results inspired Dr. Hamm to contact Dr. Siyaram Pandey, professor of biochemistry at the University of Windsor.
“I was very pessimistic,” says Dr. Pandey. “Two people doesn’t mean anything scientifically, but… I was surprised to find that simple aqueous extract of this root had pretty good activity in inducing cell suicide in cancer cells.”
Cell suicide, called apoptosis, is a process taking place in our body all the time. If cells are not needed or have damaged DNA, they effectively commit suicide.   “Cancer cells are the ones who evade this process… become resistant to cell death,” explains Dr. Pandey. His research looks to see if dandelion root extract can ‘remind’ the cancer cells to commit suicide, without killing off the healthy cells.
Dandelion root
However, Dr. Pandey’s research suggested the amount of extract obtained from boiling the tea was not sufficient, and so his team started increasing the efficiency of extraction with actual dandelion root obtained from farmers.  “We have increased the potency of the extract,” he explains. “We are excited about it because it is a very simple natural extract, so it’s like you buying the vegetable and cooking it, basically, it is as simple as that, because we are not interfering with any chemicals.”
Preliminary research thus far involved collecting leukemia blood cells from the disposable tissue of nine patients (with their consent). It’s called an ex-vivo study, and took place in a culture dish with the dandelion extract of higher potency described by Dr. Pandey. “All nine blood samples gave a good response that cancer cells committed suicide,” said Dr. Pandey. “In 48 hours, more than 70 per cent were committing suicide. If those cultures were kept for longer, all of them will die-this is our prediction.”
Dr. Pandey donated his own cells as a “healthy” comparison, and showed there was no toxicity and very few cells dying from the healthy blood sample. He explains they have already studied dandelion extract in animals, and found no apparent toxicity and no tissue malfunction.
Also the question is Do Doctors Ever Treat Cancer With Natural Regimens? Cures would SEVERELY damage their Revenues - So  - NO CURES OR NATURAL HEALING !

Human trials

These findings were so encouraging, they have now applied for clinical approval from Health Canada to begin trials in people, which may take between 6 months to a year. Dr. Pandey says the Univ.y of Windsor trial will aim to include 24 patients.
While dandelion extracts have been documented as treatments for leukemia and breast cancer in traditional Native American Medicine and Traditional Chinese Medicine FOR Decades and centuries (TCM), Dr. Pandey is investigating other potential areas the extract could work. So far dandelion root extract has been shown to be active against pancreatic cancer cells, colon cancer cells and melanoma (in cultures, not in patients).   In addition to the potential to kill multiple types of cancer cells, dandelion root extract may have an advantage over other chemotherapy treatments in terms of toxicity.
Taxol is one of the most commonly used drugs for chemotherapy with a $5-billion market at present, according to Dr. Pandey. It’s also a natural product coming from the bark of the yew tree, but unlike dandelion root extract, Taxol is very damaging to normal cells.
“Compared to Taxol, this one is 100 times better in terms of toxicity,” says Dr. Pandey. “Taxol is terribly, terribly toxic to normal cells, it is not selective to cancer. That’s why people have very bad immunity, they lose their immunity, lose hair, and all that.”
Dr. Hamm is also excited to move ahead with a clinical trial pending approval from Health Canada, but doesn’t want to give false hope to cancer patients.  “Right now we have the one patient doing very well and that’s exciting for him..but not everybody’s getting prolonged responses. How can we make it work in more people? That’s the big question,” she says.
Dr. Hamm emphasizes the importance of clinical trials in determining effectiveness, and Dr. Pandey points to the generosity of local Windsor donors who have made their research possible.
The research project has been funded by the Windsor and Essex County Cancer Centre Foundation for Seeds for Hope grant, local charity Knights of Columbus and a heartfelt donation from a Windsor couple who have a personal tie to the research.Dave and Donna Couvillon lost their son Kevin to cancer in 2010, and presented a $20,000 cheque to the Univ. of Windsor this week in honour of what would have been Kevin’s 27th birthday. The Couvillons only read about Pandey’s research shortly before Kevin’s death, and feel their donation is a way to continue Kevin’s fight. The project and lab where the research takes place will soon be known as The Kevin Couvillon Research Project on the Anti-Cancer Effects of Dandelion Root Extract.
About cancer, etc you can read more here.  donportercancer

Sunday, January 24, 2016

The root cause of cancer no one knows (It’s been hidden since 1930’s)

The root cause of cancer no one knows (It’s been hidden since 1930’s)
Most people think that DNA damage is what causes a cell to be cancerous.  While it is true that cancer cells may have DNA damage, it is highly unlikely that DNA damage can cause any cell to become cancerous.  In fact, the DNA damage is a result of the true cause cancer.
So let us discuss what really causes cancer.
There have been many discoveries about cancer in the past 125 years.
For example, William Russell (1852-1940), in 1890, discovered that there are microbes inside and outside of cancer cells. Later it was discovered that the microbes inside cancer cells were “pleomorphic,” that is, they changed shapes and sizes depending on the pH inside the cancer cells.
In 1931, the Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded to Otto Warburg for his discovery in determining that the defining characteristic of cancer cells was low “ATP energy” (ATP is made inside the mitochondria of cells and is called “adenosine triphosphate”).
In 1930, it was proven that if the microbes inside the cancer cells are killed, the cancer cells will REVERT into normal cells.  This discovery was made by Dr. Royal Rife, a microbiologist who developed the use of “harmonic frequencies” to vibrate the microbes until they “exploded” and died. Rather than winning a Nobel Prize for his discovery, Dr. Rife’s lab and inventory were destroyed by the combined consensus of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Medical Association (AMA).
So why was Dr. Rife shut down?  It was because his discoveries led to a 100% cure rate amongst his cancer patients. See    This might seem strange to most readers.  Why would a cancer researcher be shut down for curing cancer?  It is assumed that conventional medicine and the pharmaceutical industry are diligently looking for the cures for cancer.  Nothing could be further from the truth.    What they are looking for are massive, massive profits selling their patented chemicals (i.e. drugs).    Curing cancer is not on their agenda since that would cut into their profits.
So what exactly is the purpose of the Food and Drug Administration?  The FDA is the “private police force” of the pharmaceutical industry.  Their primary objective is to make sure that the profits of the pharmaceutical industry are protected, even if that means shutting down those who know how to cure cancer, such as Dr. Rife. It is all about patents.  Drugs made by the pharmaceutical industry can be patented.  Frequency wave forms and molecules in Mother Nature cannot.
Patents are the main drivers of the war against natural medicine by the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA and the AMA.  They are all “in bed” together.
The media is also part of this conspiracy.  Medical doctors are intentionally glorified on television shows and advertisements manipulating the unwell to head for the doctor’s office.The modus operandi of the media can be summarized by a person who was an expert in understanding propaganda techniques, namely Stalin.  "BRAINWASHING"
“No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.”
~ Alan Bullock, in Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
When a person is diagnosed with cancer, they cannot run fast enough to their nearest oncologist.  The media has done their job well.
So, even though researchers seeking natural cures for cancer today know much more about the disease than in the 1930’s, very few patients start their treatment with natural medicine.   The scientists at the Independent Cancer Research Foundation (ICRF) – a non-profit foundation investigating natural medicine – are the ones who discovered how the microbes inside cancer cells were partially blocking the ATP energy, as discussed below.With this knowledge, they developed more than 25 natural cancer treatments targeting and killing the microbes inside cancer cells (as Dr. Royal Rife did), thus reverting them into normal cells.
They also use a new technological device, inspired by Dr. Rife’s equipment, which kills the microbes inside the cancer cells, known as the “High RF Frequency Device” according to the Cancer Tutor website (  The Cancer Tutor website is the main ICRF website.
How Microbes Inside Cancer Cells Cause Cancer
So, let’s talk about how microbes inside the cancer cells partially block the production of ATP energy.  This is the key to understanding many new cancer treatments.
First of all, let us look at what causes the ATP energy to be created in a healthy cell.
Step 1: In a normal cell, glucose receptors allow glucose inside the cell.
Step 2: In a 10-step chemical chain reaction this glucose is converted into pyruvate.
Step 3: The pyruvate enters into the cell’s mitochondria (every cell has thousands of mitochondria).
Step 4: The pyruvate is at the beginning of a chain reaction called the “Citric Acid Cycle” or “Krebs Cycle.”
Step 5: About half-way through the Citric Acid Cycle, a second chemical chain reaction begins called the “Electron Transport Chain.”
These two cycles create most of the ATP energy in the cells.
Here is the keyCancer cells have more glucose receptors than normal cells and 15 times more glucose than normal cells, though the microbes intercept most of the glucose.  So, even though a cancer cell has far more glucose than a normal cell, less of this glucose gets inside its mitochondria than in a normal cell.
Thus, a cancer cell has lower ATP energy because it has less pyruvate and it has less pyruvate because it has less available glucose.
Does DNA Damage Cause Cancer?
So let us talk about why cancer cells may have DNA damage.  The Virginia Livingston team of natural medicine cancer researchers discovered that one or more of the microbes inside the cancer cell penetrate  the cell nucleus (where the DNA is located).
The DNA of the cancer microbes may “mix” with the DNA of the cell and modify the DNA of the cancer cell, causing DNA damage.  This is the basis of “gene therapy” in conventional medicine.But DNA damage is not what causes the cell to be cancerous.  It is only a symptom of the presence of the microbes.  Cancer researchers, such as the American Cancer Society, are trying to fix the DNA damage.  This is a total waste of time!  But it convinces the general public that they are “looking for” a cure for cancer, when in fact they have no intention of “curing” cancer.  Had they hired one of the ICRF cancer researchers they could have 25 cures for cancer in one week!   Many of the conventional cancer “research” organizations do a good job of pretending to look for cures for cancer, but in fact they have no interest in curing cancer at all.This is the key: by killing the microbes inside the cancer cells, Dr. Rife was able to prevent the microbes from blocking the ATP energy.  Once the microbes were dead, the cancerous cells were able to access their ATP energy and “reverted” into normal cells again!   The ICRF researcher who discovered how microbes block the ATP energy also developed about 25 different ways to kill these microbes while they are inside the cancer cells (the microbe is actually a bacteria –Helicobacter Pylori) thereby reverting the cancer cells into normal cells.
Here is one example of how the bacteria inside the cancer cell are killed.  Let us consider the “honey and turmeric” protocol, which is part of the Dirt Cheap Protocol (that is its real name because so many cancer patients cannot afford some of the natural cancer treatments) on the Cancer Tutor website.
Cancer cells have more glucose receptors than normal cells and thus are attracted to honey.  To some degree, honey can kill the microbes inside the cancer cells, but it is far more effective to mix the honey with turmeric (or some other herb which kills microbes) to eradicate these microbes.  Therefore honey becomes a “Trojan Horse” to get the turmeric inside.   Three different studies show that turmeric is the most effective herb at eliminating Helicobacter Pylori and the cells are reverted into normal cells.   The Dirt Cheap Protocol includes over a dozen other techniques that are synergistic with honey and turmeri8c because they are also designed to target and kill the microbes inside the cancer cells.The Dirt Cheap Protocol12 can be found on the Cancer Tutor website ( along with several other natural cancer treatments.
In addition, the Royal Rife technology, which also reverts cancer cells into normal cells, has been replicated and improved upon.  On the Cancer Tutor website, the “High RF Frequency Protocol” is automated and performs everything the original Rife frequency generators did and much more. In conclusion, natural medicine researchers use traditional methods (e.g. carrot juice with a little beet juice mixed in) as well as state-of-the-art technologies as a cure for cancer.  There are many natural medicine cancer clinics, some run by MD's who switched to natural medicine.

Further information can be found on the Cancer Tutor website.

Wednesday, January 20, 2016


With its two-millennium long tradition as a natural remedy for a number of health issues, turmeric has long been viewed as the queen of spices in India. At first it was only used as a dye, but centuries later it’s mostly appreciated because of its strong medicinal properties.
A number of studies have confirmed that turmeric is abundant in anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, and detoxing properties, all of which contribute to its effectiveness in treatment of a wide array of diseases including Alzheimer’s, cancer, and many more.
These 7 ways have been scientifically proven to improve health on many different levels.
1 Reduces the risk of several types of cancer
Turmeric is one of the most powerful natural anti-cancer agents that efficiently inhibits cancer development. In fact, some regard it as the possible future cure for this deadly disease.
2 Improves digestion
Daily consumption of turmeric improves digestive function, relieves bloating and gas, stimulates the gallbladder, and prevents GI inflammation. But, for people who suffer from a gallbladder disease, turmeric intake on daily basis is not recommended as it can overstimulate the gallbladder.
3 Fights inflammation
Chronic inflammation is the cause behind many diseases of today. The active compound in turmeric – curcumin, is a powerful anti-inflammatory agent that’s proven more effective than most anti-inflammatory drugs on the market.
4 Protects the brain
According to research, curcumin increases the levels of BDNF – Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor, a type of growth hormone whose low levels are often associated with cognitive disorders like dementia and Alzheimer’s. Curcumin can not only delay, but also reverse age-related brain deterioration as well as a number of brain diseases.

5 Protects the heart
The active ingredient in turmeric also lowers LDL or bad cholesterol, prevents blood clotting, and cleans arterial walls of plaque build-up.
6 Alleviates arthritic pain
As mentioned earlier, turmeric is a strong anti-inflammatory agent that many people have found more beneficial for arthritic pain relief than many OTC or prescribed drugs available today. Apart from fighting chronic inflammation, it also relieves the pain, and best of all, it doesn’t have any side-effects.
7 Prevents aging and improves longevity
Premature aging is normally the result of free radicals and inflammation, both of which can be effectively treated with curcumin. Also, if you consider the fact that it improves heart health and fights cancer, 2 of the biggest killers of today, it’s only logical to say that turmeric prolongs life too.
To reap most of its health benefits and enjoy great physical and mental health, add 1 teaspoon of turmeric to your meals including smoothies, juices, soups, curries, stir-fries, dressings, and other every day.
Important: Although the health benefits of curcumin are undeniable, its absorption by the body is quite low. Fortunately, you can increase its absorption by up to 2000% by adding a pinch of black pepper. There are other ways to raise the absorption of curcumin in your body. 

Sugar Identified as a Top Cause of the Surge in Cancer

Sugar Identified as a Top Cause of the Surge in Cancer

January 20, 2016 |

By Dr. Mercola

According to the Credit Suisse Research Institute's 2013 study1 "Sugar: Consumption at a Crossroads," as much as 40% of US healthcare expenditures are for diseases directly related to the overconsumption of sugar.
Incredibly, we spend more than $1 trillion each year fighting the damaging health effects of sugar, which runs the gamut from obesity and diabetes, to heart disease and cancer.  The fact that sugar and obesity are linked to an increased risk of cancer is now becoming well-recognized. According to a report2 on the global cancer burden, published in 2014, obesity is responsible for an estimated 500,000 cancer cases worldwide each year.
Nearly two-thirds of obesity-related cancers — which include colon, rectum, ovary, and womb cancers — occur in North America and Europe.3 A more recent British report estimates obesity may result in an additional 670,000 cancer cases in the UK alone over the next 20 years.
According to BBC News,4 the Cancer Research UK and the UK Health Forum report are calling for a ban on junk food ads aired before 9pm to address out of control rise in obesity and obesity-related diseases.   Meanwhile, a German investigation into diet-induced diseases and related treatment costs reveal that sugar-induced oral disease represents the greatest chunk of that nation's health care costs.
As noted by the Dental Tribune:5
"... [T]he substantial impact of sugar consumption found in the study was mainly due to the costs of treating caries and other diseases of the hard tissue of teeth, hypertensive and cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, rectal and colon cancer, as well as chronic kidney disease."

How Excess Sugar and Obesity Promotes Cancer

One of the key mechanisms by which sugar promotes cancer and other chronic disease is by causing mitochondrial dysfunction.
Since sugar is not our ideal fuel, it burns dirty with far more reactive oxygen species than fat, which generates far more free radicals which in turn causes mitochondrial and nuclear DNA damage along with cell membrane and protein impairment. esearch6 has also shown that chronic overeating in general has a similar effect. Most people who overeat also tend to eat a lot of sugar-laden foods — a double-whammy in terms of cancer risk.  Chronic overeating places stress on the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), the membranous network found inside the mitochondria of your cells. When the ER receives more nutrients than it can process, it signals the cell to dampen the sensitivity of the insulin receptors on the surface of the cell.
Thus continuously eating more than your body really needs promotes insulin resistance by the mere fact that your cells are stressed by the work placed on them by the excess nutrients. Insulin resistance in turn is at the heart of most chronic disease, including cancer.

High-Fructose Corn Syrup Primary Culprit in Cancer

This also helps explain why intermittent fasting (as well as other forms of calorie restriction) is so effective for reversing insulin resistance, reducing your risk of cancer, and increasing longevity.
Obesity, caused by a combination of eating too much refined fructose/sugarand rarely if ever fasting, may also promote cancer via other mechanisms, including chronic inflammation and elevated production of certain hormones, such as estrogen, which is associated with an increased risk for breast cancer.  According to recent research,7,8 from the Univ of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, refined sugar not only significantly increases your risk of breast cancer, it also raises your risk of tumors spreading to other organs.
Moreover, this study found that it was primarily the refined fructose in high-fructose corn syrup, found in most processed foods and beverages that was responsible for the breast tumors and the metastasis.

Without Sugar, Cancer Cannot Thrive

One of the most powerful strategies I know of to avoid and/or treat cancer is to starve the cancer cells by depriving them of their food source, which is primarilysugar and excessive protein.
Unlike all the other cells in your body, which can burn carbs or fat for fuel, cancer cells have lost that metabolic flexibility and can only thrive if there enough sugar present.
Dr. Otto Warburg was actually given a Nobel Prize in 1931 for discovering this. Sadly very few experts have embraced his metabolic theory of cancer, but have embraced the nuclear genetic theory that is a downstream side effect of mitochondrial dysfunction.
Make no mistake about it, the FIRST thing you want to do if you want to avoid or treat cancer if you have insulin or leptin resistance (which 85 percent of people do) is to cut out all forms of sugar/fructose and grain carbs from your diet, in order to optimize the signaling pathways that contribute to malignant transformation.

Reduce Your Fructose and Non-Fiber Carb Intake

I recommend reducing your total fructose intake to a maximum of 25 grams/day, from all sources, including fruit. If you are insulin resistant, you'd do well to make your upper limit 15 grams/day.
Cancer patients would likely be best served by even stricter limits. For a more detailed discussion please review my interview with Dr. Seyfried. I personally believe that most would benefit from reducing all non-fiber carbs (total carbs minus fiber), not just fructose, to less than 100 grams per day.
I typically keep mine around 50 to 60 grams every day.
The easiest way to dramatically cut down on your sugar and fructose consumption is to switch to REAL foods, as most of the added sugar you end up with comes from processed fare, not from adding a teaspoon of sugar to your tea or coffee. But there are other ways to cut down well. This includes:
  • Cutting back on the amount of sugar you personally add to your food and drink
  • Using Stevia or Luo Han instead of sugar and/or artificial sweeteners. You can learn more about the best and worst of sugar substitutes in my previous article, "Sugar Substitutes — What's Safe and What's Not"
  • Using fresh fruit in lieu of canned fruit or sugar for meals or recipes calling for a bit of sweetness
  • Using spices instead of sugar to add flavor to your meal

Signs of Progress, But Dietary Guidelines Are Still Flawed

The excess consumption of sugar in the US can be directly traced to flawed dietary guidelines and misplaced agricultural subsidies. Progress is being made however, with the 2015 to 2020 U.S. dietary guidelines9 now recommending limiting your sugar intake to a maximum of 10 percent of your daily calories.10 Google Trends11 also reveal that more people are now concerned with low-sugar diets than low-fat diets.
Internet Trend Sugar level
Unfortunately, the dietary guidelines still suggest limiting saturated fat to 10 percent of calories, which is likely far too low for most people. Tragically, it also makes no distinction between healthy saturated fats and decidedly unhealthy trans fats.Saturated fats are actually very important for optimal health, and those with insulin/leptin resistance may need upwards of 50 to 80 percent of their daily calories from healthy fat.
Trans fats, on the other hand, have no redeeming health value, and the evidence suggests there's no safe limit for trans fats. Besides that glaring flaw, the conundrum with the new guidelines is that both sugar and fat should be limited to 10 percent each of daily calories.
This completely ignores the fact that as you cut out sugar (carbs), you need to replace that lost energy with something else, and that something else is healthy fat, such as that found in avocado, organic seeds and nuts, raw organic buttercheese, and coconut oil, just to name a few.
They do get a number of things right though. In addition to the recommendation to limit sugar, the limits for dietary cholesterol have been removed, giving the thumbs up for eggs and other cholesterol-rich foods. They also note that most Americans need to reduce the amount of red meat consumed.
As I've discussed before, the risks of eating too much protein include an increased risk for cancer, as it can have a stimulating effect on the mTOR pathway, which plays an important role in many diseases, including cancer.
When you reduce protein to just what your body needs, mTOR remains inhibited, which helps minimize your chances of cancer growth. As a general rule, I recommend limiting your protein to one-half gram of protein per pound of lean body mass, which for most people amounts to 40 to 70 grams of protein a day.

US Government Has Long Encouraged Sugar Consumption

With one food — sugar — causing such pervasive health problems and so much national expense (again, about $1 trillion per year!), U.S. regulators would do well by encouraging lower sugar consumption. Yet they don't. The new dietary guidelines are one step in the right direction, but to really get to the root of the obesity problem, they also need to rethink sugar and corn subsidies.12
Current farm subsidies bring you high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), fast food, junk food, corn-fed beef from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), monoculture, and a host of other contributors to our unhealthy contemporary diet. Both the sugar and corn industry (from which you get high fructose corn syrup) are heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Moreover, as noted by The Washington Post last year:13
"The [sugar] industry used to boast that its government protection does not cost taxpayers anything directly, but that claim has been exploded due to recent market developments that forced the federal government to, in effect, buy up tons and tons of sugar and sell it to ethanol refiners at a loss — so as to prop up prices. Taxpayers took a hit of some $258 million in fiscal 2014."
Billions of dollars go to corn farmers who have driven down the price of corn so deeply that HFCS is now the number one source of calories in the standard American diet, simply because it's so cheap. Meanwhile, very few farm subsidies are being doled out to the farmers who grow your produce.
Between 1995 and 2012, the amount gifted to corn growers was $84,427,099,356. Compare this with the amount that went to apple growers: $242,064,005.14 In a 2012 report entitled "Apples to Twinkies," it was determined that each year your tax dollars (in the form of subsidies) would allow you to buy 19 Twinkies but less than a quarter of one red delicious apple.
There can be little doubt that the U.S. government's decision to subsidize junk food ingredients rather than real food, such as fresh produce, plays a major role in American's eating habits, since people will typically eat that which is available and that which they can afford.
At present, most Americans spend upwards of 90 percent of their food budgets on processed foods, which are typically loaded with added sugars/fructose, and offer little in terms of nutritional value. Obesity is a result of such eating habits, and making real food more readily available at lower prices could go a long way toward reversing this trend.

Study: Reducing Sugar Content and Taxing Soda May Greatly Reduce Obesity

The suggestion of a soda tax has been flouted for a number of years now, both in the U.S. and Great Britain,15 and elsewhere. The vast majority have failed due to intensive lobbying and local anti-tax campaigns by the sugar industry. It did succeed in one place however. In Mexico, where a 10 percent tax on sugary beverages was enacted as of January 1, 2014, sales of such beverages shrunk by 12 percent in one year.16 As reported by Newsweek,17
"The decline in consumption was greatest amongst those who earned the least, and appears to be going up over time as people's habits change ... Frank Chaloupka, an economist at the University of Illinois at Chicago who wasn't involved in the study, says that the tax ought to be applied elsewhere, and would improve health by encouraging a lower consumption of sugar.
'I think sugary beverage taxes should be an important part of a comprehensive approach to promoting healthier diets and reducing obesity,' he says. 'The experiences in Mexico are demonstrating their effectiveness in altering consumer behavior, which will almost certainly eventually show up" as a decline in obesity, he adds.'"
Other investigations suggest simply lowering the sugar content of sodas may do the trick. A British study,18 which assessed the potential health benefits of gradually lowering sugar content in beverages over a 5-year period, suggests such a strategy might prevent 1 million cases of obesity over 20 years.
While the impact on any given individual would be quite small, reducing the average person's calorie consumption by a mere 38 calories a day by the end of the 5th year (equating to a weight loss of just 1.2 pounds), the grand societal effect could still be pronounced.
By reducing people's weight even slightly, an estimated 274,000 to 309,000 cases of type 2 diabetes could be prevented over the following two decades. Still, when you consider that the sugar and corn industries are fighting to receive the largest subsidies and market share to give you cancer, it would make sense to stop subsidizing sugar and corn before you start taxing sugary products.

Cancer Screening Does Not Save Lives

Cancer screening is conventionally touted as being an important part of "cancer prevention," even though it does no such thing. Now, researchers question the validity of public service announcements claiming that "cancer screening saves lives." According to a recent analysis,19 it's "unclear" whether screening actually saves lives, and the researchers warn that claiming it does is "misleading."
As reported by Newsweek:20
"The problem, they say, is that the ubiquitous adage is based on the fact that deaths from the target disease may decline but fails to take into account deaths linked to factors related to the screening itself. Sure, screening for prostate cancer might reduce the incidence of death from that specific disease, but does it reduce overall mortality for the person who got the screening? Maybe not.
For example, prostate cancer screening is known to return 'numerous' false positives ... and contributes to over 1 million prostate biopsies a year. The procedure is 'associated with serious harms, including admission to hospital and death.' What's more, men diagnosed with prostate cancer are 'more likely to have a heart attack or commit suicide in the year after diagnosis' ... In both cases, the deaths aren't due to the cancer itself but rather are linked to the screening."
The same goes for breast cancer screening and colorectal cancer screening:
  • 60 percent of women who undergo regular mammography screening for 10 years receive a false positive at some point, leading to unnecessary distress and treatment, which can have serious side effects. Studies have also shown that routine mammograms have no effect on death rates. 

    As noted by Reuters:21
"[T]hese tests avert just 1 breast cancer death for every 1,000 women screened. 'There used to be ads saying if a woman hadn't had a mammogram, she needed more than her breasts examined,' Prasad said. 'The fact that the medical profession promoted screening so strongly, when it was always a balancing act, when it was always a personal choice, is really shameful.'"
  • A study22 looking at colorectal cancer screening found 128 cancer deaths among every 10,000 people who received screening, compared to 192 cancer deaths among every 10,000 individuals who didn't get screened.
  • While there were fewer cancer deaths among those screened, this link completely disappeared when they looked at all-cause mortality. When death from all causes was included, there was no meaningful difference between the two groups.

It's Time to Change the Discussion About Cancer Screening

According to the authors, in order to determine whether cancer screening truly saves lives, "statistically robust studies based on millions of people are needed." This would be a costly venture, they admit, "but no more so than supporting mass population screening programs with unproven benefits."
In an accompanying editorial,23 Gerd Gigerenzer, director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development notes that:
"Rather than pouring resources into 'megatrials' with a small chance of detecting a minimal overall mortality reduction, at the additional cost of harming large numbers of patients, we should invest in transparent information in the first place. It is time to change communication about cancer screening from dodgy persuasion into something straightforward."
To do so, she suggests patients should be given pamphlets with fact boxes that clearly present the available data, such as the Risk Literacy fact sheet for mammography below,24 which shows that while mammograms reduce cancer specific mortality in 1 out of 1,000 women, this difference is not reflected in overall mortality.
And, that as many as 10 women out of 1,000 women screened will undergo unnecessary breast removal as a result of a false positive.
Presented with such data, patients would be better able to make a personal decision about whether or not screening in their particular instance might be worth the risk. She also notes that while some may benefit from screening, doctors should not overstate the value of the tests. In an email to Reuters, Dr. Gigerenzer says:
"The take-home message is after decades of research we have not found clear evidence that screening saves lives, but clear evidence that screening harms many."
breast cancer early detection

Cancer Prevention Begins with Your Lifestyle Choices

Cancer screening is portrayed as the best form of "prevention" you can get against various forms of cancer. But early diagnosis is not the same as prevention. And cancer screening that does more harm than good can hardly qualify as the best you can hope for ... I believe the vast majority of all cancers could be prevented by strictly applying basic, common-sense healthy lifestyle strategies, which includes the following:
Eat REAL food; avoid processed foods and sugars, especially processed fructoseAll forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer. Fructose, however, is clearly one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as possible.

Reduce non-fiber carbs but have large volumes of fresh organic veggies along with loads of fat from high quality sources such as avocados, raw butter, seeds, nuts, and raw cacao nibs.
Stop eating AT LEAST three hours before going to bedThere is quite compelling evidence showing that when you supply fuel to the mitochondria in your cells at a time when they don't need it, they will leak a large number of electrons that will liberate reactive oxygen species (free radicals), which damage mitochondrial and eventually nuclear DNA. 

There is also evidence to indicate that cancer cells uniformly have damaged mitochondria, so the last thing you want to do is eat before you go to bed. Personally I strive for 6 hours of fasting before bedtime.
Optimize your vitamin DVitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of nature's most potent cancer fighters. Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis (cell death).

If you have cancer, your vitamin D level should be between 40 to 60 ng/ml. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I'm aware of, with no adverse effects.
Limit your proteinNewer research has emphasized the importance of the mTOR pathways. When these are active, cancer growth is accelerated.

To quiet this pathway, I believe it may be wise to limit your protein to one gram of protein per kilogram of lean body mass, or roughly a bit less than half a gram of protein per every pound of lean body weight.

That is roughly 40 to 70 grams per day for most. It would be unusual for most to need more than this.
Avoid unfermented soy productsUnfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation, which increases the chances for mutations and cancerous cells.
Improve your insulin and leptin receptor sensitivityThe best way to do this is by avoiding sugar and grains and restricting non-fiber carbs to to under 100 grams per day. Also making sure you are exercising, especially withhigh-intensity interval training.
Exercise regularlyOne of the primary reasons exercise works to lower your cancer risk is because it drives your insulin levels down, and controlling your insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risks. 

It's also been suggested that apoptosis (programmed cell death) is triggered by exercise, causing cancer cells to die.

Studies have also found that the number of tumors decrease along with body fat, which may be an additional factor. 

This is because exercise helps lower your estrogen levels, which explains why exercise appears to be particularly potent against breast cancer. 

Finally, exercise increases mitochondrial biogenesis, which is essential to fight cancer.
Maintain a healthy body weightThis will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising. It's important to lose excess body fat because fat produces estrogen.
Drink a pint to a quart of organic green vegetable juice dailyPlease review my juicing instructions for more detailed information.
Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oilOmega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
Use curcuminThis is the active ingredient in turmeric and in high concentrations can be very useful adjunct in the treatment of cancer

For example, it has demonstrated major therapeutic potential in preventing breast cancer metastasis.25

It's important to know that curcumin is generally not absorbed that well, so I've provided several absorption tips here.
Avoid drinking alcoholAt minimum, limit your alcoholic drinks to one per day.
Avoid electromagnetic fields as much as possibleEven electric blankets can increase your cancer risk.
Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy, especially if you have risk factors for breast cancerBreast cancer is an estrogen-related cancer, and according to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates for women dropped in tandem with decreased use of hormone replacement therapy

(There are similar risks for younger women who use oral contraceptives. Birth control pills, which are also comprised of synthetic hormones, have been linked to cervical and breast cancers.)

If you are experiencing excessive menopausal symptoms, you may want to consider bioidentical hormone replacement therapy instead, which uses hormones that are molecularly identical to the ones your body produces and do not wreak havoc on your system. This is a much safer alternative.
Avoid BPA, phthalates and other xenoestrogensThese are estrogen-like compounds that have been linked to increased breast cancer risk.
Make sure you're not iodine deficientThere's compelling evidence linking iodine deficiency with certain forms of cancer. Dr. David Brownstein,26 author of the book "Iodine: Why You Need it, Why You Can't Live Without it," is a proponent of iodine for breast cancer.

It actually has potent anticancer properties and has been shown to cause cell death in breast and thyroid cancer cells.

For more information, I recommend reading Dr. Brownstein's book. I have been researching iodine for some time ever since I interviewed Dr. Brownstein as I do believe that the bulk of what he states is spot on.

However, I am not convinced that his dosage recommendations are ideal. I believe they are 5 to 6 times higher than optimal.
Avoid charring your meatsCharcoal or flame broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide — a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted or fried — has been found to increase cancer risk as well.