by Stephen R. Blake, DVM, CVA, CVH

I have been a practicing veterinarian for 37 years. The past 30 years have been dedicated to providing quality Integrative veterinary modalities to my patients, clients and readers.  The incidence of cancer has gone from around 5% when I started my career in the early 1970′s to 55% in the 21st century.

My observation as a scientist and clinician is the reason for the increase in cancer and also the rise in auto immune disease in animals and people is due to vaccinations, drugs and chemicals.

I have spent the better part of thirty years discovering the truth about the dangers of vaccines, drugs and chemicals and shared them with all my clients and readers around the world. Thirty years ago people were not aware of what I was discovering and didn’t feel threatened by it as they are today. However with the information network we have today, people are more informed and aware of these dangers. The unfortunate part of this story is the medical community is not owning up to this truth.

… when medical professionals know for 20 years that rabies vaccine can cause terminal cancer and do nothing about it, we have a problem.

Instead of removing the rabies vaccine from the market place, they tell the veterinarian to inject it in the rear leg of the cat so they can cut off the limb more easily. This is a sad story but true. I have yet to meet a new client with a cat who has been warned about this danger with Rabies vaccine and Leukemia vaccine by their veterinarian.

I had one of my readers tell me that after going to the same veterinarian for 10 years, vaccinating annually for rabies, her cat developed a tumor on its neck. When examined by her long term veterinarian, he immediately told her it was an injection site fibrosarcoma just looking at it. She asked him what caused it and he candidly said, “From his rabies shot.” She then asked him why he hadn’t told her about the possible danger of vaccinating her cat for rabies. His reply, ” I didn’t want to worry you.”  This is a highly educated individual and this is his scientific explanation for not providing INFORMED CONSENT. This is very sad to say the least.

Unfortunately it doesn’t stop with vaccines. The topical flea and tick products contain carcinogens and or neuro toxins which are absorbed through the skin of the pets. A worse problem arises when the children and family members handle the pet and absorb the toxins into their bodies. No testing has been done to see what the effect these chemicals have on humans or the long term effect on animals.

My concern is pet caregivers are not being provided informed consent options about the treatment regiments they are being told are necessary for the care of their pets.

The time will come when man looks back on where medicine is today and say, “Can you believe people believed in injecting toxic substances into living beings and called that healing?”

Thank you for providing this site to help inform pet caregivers of their options.  They do have a choice.

Go here to print the Rabies Medical Exemption Form

Prevent Cancer (pdf)
Mercola.com

The American Cancer Society (ACS) is:

“[A] nationwide community-based voluntary health organization dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by preventing cancer, saving lives, and diminishing suffering from cancer through research, education, advocacy, and service.”

That sounds all well and good, and a lot of people put their faith in this organization and dutifully participate in its highly publicized National Breast Cancer Awareness Month campaign each year, which includes the widespread promotion of mammography screening.

Little do they realize that the ACS is doing precious little to combat cancer, at best, and may actually hinder real progress, at worst…

Rampant Conflicts of Interest

In the report titled AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY—More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, plainly lays to bare the many conflicts of interest that hamper the effectiveness of this organization.

For example, the ACS has close financial ties to both makers of mammography equipment and cancer drugs. But that’s just for starters. Other conflicts of interest include ties to, and financial support from, the pesticide-, petrochemical-, biotech-, cosmetics-, and junk food industries—the very industries whose products are the primary contributors to cancer!

Once you realize that these conflicts of interest are there, it becomes quite easy to understand why the ACS never addresses the environmental components of cancer, and why information about avoidable toxic exposures are so conspicuously absent from their National Breast Cancer Awareness campaigns.

“This is no accident,” Dr. Epstein writes. “Zeneca Pharmaceuticals–a spin-off of Imperial Chemical Industries is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of chlorinated and other industrial chemicals, including those incriminated as causes of breast cancer.

Zeneca has also been the sole multimillion-dollar funder of the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month since its inception in 1984, besides the sole manufacturer of Tamoxifen, the world’s top-selling anticancer and breast cancer “prevention” drug, with $400 million in annual sales.

Furthermore, Zeneca recently assumed direct management of 11 cancer centers in U.S. hospitals. Zeneca owns a 50 percent stake in these centers known collectively as Salick Health Care.”

It’s no small irony that Tamoxifen has been found to cause cancer and increase risk of death, while several top-notch preventive strategies and many safe and effective cancer treatments are ignored.

The ACS, along with the National Cancer Institute, virtually exclusively focus on cancer research and the diagnosis and the chemical treatment of cancer. Preventive strategies, such as avoiding chemical exposures, receive virtually no consideration at all.

“Giant corporations, which profited handsomely while they polluted air, water, the workplace, and food with a wide range of carcinogens, remain greatly comforted by the silence of the ACS. This silence reflected a complex of mindsets fixated on diagnosis, treatment, and basic genetic research, together with ignorance, indifference, and even hostility to prevention.”

“Not surprisingly, the incidence of cancer over past decades has escalated, approximately parallel to its increased funding,” Dr. Epstein writes.

Many also do not realize that when they donate money to the American Cancer Society, the majority of it may never go further than the bank accounts of its numerous well-paid executives.

Cancer Recommendations Based on Profit, Not Superior Science and Results

The two major cancer “prevention” strategies that the ACS continuously pushes, regardless of what the science says, are:

• Mammography
• Sun avoidance

Unfortunately, they’re DEAD wrong on both accounts. Mammography has been shown to be an avoidable potential cause of breast cancer itself, and sun exposure has in recent years been proven to be essential for the prevention of cancer, including skin cancer. Why would they advocate what could be cancer-promoting behavior?

Follow the money!

“Indeed, despite promises to the public to do everything to “wipe out cancer in your lifetime,” the ACS has failed to make its voice heard in Congress and the regulatory arena,” Dr. Epstein writes.

“Instead, the ACS has consistently rejected or ignored opportunities and requests from Congress, regulatory agencies, unions, environmental and consumer organizations to provide scientific evidence critical to efforts to legislate and occupational, environmental, and personal product carcinogens.”

The Two Myths of Cancer

Dr. Epstein also points out two glaring myths perpetuated by the American Cancer Society:

1. Dramatic progress has been made in the war against cancer, and
2. Rising cancer mortality statistics are primarily due to smoking and an aging population

Meanwhile, global cancer rates have doubled in the last three decades, and their “war on cancer” strategy completely ignores, and oftentimes denies the obvious links between cancer and toxic exposures through pesticide-laden foods, toxic personal care products, cancer-causing medical treatments and drugs, and industrial pollution.

This despite the fact that we know far more about these influences today than ever before in history—in fact, there is evidence suggesting that cancer is a recent man-made disease caused primarily by toxic overload.

Cancer is on the Rise, and Toxic Chemicals are MAJOR Factors

According to the latest statistics compiled by the American Heart Association, cancer surpasses heart disease as the top killer among Americans between the ages of 45 to 74. The odds are very high that you or someone you know has cancer or has died from it.

Environmental/lifestyle factors are increasingly being pinpointed as the culprits, such as:

Pesticide- and other chemical exposures	Pharmaceutical drugs	Processed and artificial foods (plus the chemicals in the packaging)	Wireless technologies, dirty electricity, and medical diagnostic radiation exposure
Obesity	Stress	Poor sleeping habits	Lack of sunshine exposure and use of sunscreens

 

Genetics have more or less been ruled out as a primary factor, although diet, lifestyle and toxic exposures have been found to turn genes on or off that contribute to the development and malignancy of cancer.

Still, focusing on research into the genetic underpinnings of cancer along with screening methods that can also cause harm cleverly avoids the obvious, which is finding the underlying contributing factors so that people can avoid them!

The “problem” with that solution is that it would put tremendous financial strain on all the industries that support the ACS…

American Cancer Society has Financial Interests in Mammography

The health risks of mammography have been discussed since the early 1990′s when Dr. Epstein began speaking out about them. As for how these misguided mammography guidelines came about,

Epstein has previously said:

“They were conscious, chosen, politically expedient acts by a small group of people for the sake of their own power, prestige and financial gain, resulting in suffering and death for millions of women. They fit the classification of “crimes against humanity.”"

As Dr. Epstein points out in his report, ACS’ role in the promotion of mammography is far from altruistic as the Society has numerous ties to the mammography industry, which includes but is not limited to:

• Five radiologists have served as presidents of ACS
• ACS commonly promotes the interests of mammogram machine and film manufacturers, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak and Piker
• The mammography industry not only conducts research for the ACS and its grantees, its representatives also serve on ACS advisory boards, and donates considerable funds.
• DuPont, who makes mammogram film, is also a substantial backer of the ACS Breast Health Awareness Program; produces educational films; and aggressively lobbies Congress for legislation promoting the nationwide availability of mammography services.

Unfortunately, what the American Cancer Society is not making clear in their heavy mammography marketing materials are the risks involved, some of which may actually raise your risk of breast cancer, particularly if you follow the ACS’ recommended regimen of yearly mammograms starting at the age of 40.

In 2009, revised mammogram guidelines were issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF); a group of health experts that makes preventive health care recommendations based on their review of published research.

They found that the benefits of mammogram screening do not outweigh the risks for women under the age of 50. Therefore, they recommend that women wait to get regular screenings until the age of 50, and only get one every other year thereafter. The ACS did not modify their recommendations however, and still recommend yearly mammograms starting at 40.

There ARE Safer Screening Options

Many still believe that mammography is the only breast cancer screening method out there. This is highly unfortunate, and I urge you to educate yourself and your female friends and family members on this matter.

The reason you may not have heard about this option is because it’s not financially tied to the ACS or any other public health agency. It’s called thermographic breast screening, and works by measuring the radiation of infrared heat from your body and translating this information into anatomical images.

Thermography uses no mechanical pressure or ionizing radiation—the two factors that can contribute to the creation of breast cancer.

It detects the potential for cancer by imaging the early stages of angiogenesis — the formation of a direct supply of blood to cancer cells, which is a necessary step before they can grow into tumors of size. This early diagnostic power is yet another major benefit of thermography.

Breast Cancer Prevention Tips

“The verdict is unassailable. The ACS bears a major decades’ long responsibility for losing the winnable war against cancer,” Dr. Epstein writes.

Reforming the ACS is, in principle, relatively easy and directly achievable. Boycott the ACS. Instead, give your charitable contributions to public interest and environmental groups involved in cancer prevention. Such a boycott is well overdue and will send the only message this “charity” can no longer ignore.”

I agree. It’s profoundly sad that one of the so-called leaders against cancer simply will not spread the word about the many ways women can help prevent breast cancer in the first place, and ignores research into safer alternative screening methods and treatment of cancer, choosing instead to protect the financial interests of the biggest contributors to the toxic overload that’s at the root of this growing problem.

Cancer Advancements that Need to Become Mainstream Knowledge

In the last 30 years the global cancer burden has doubled, and is estimated to nearly triple by 2030. We must begin to take cancer prevention seriously. Three cancer advancements in particular merit special mention. These advancements have not yet been accepted by conventional medicine, and they must be.

Number 1: Radically Reduce Your Sugar Intake—Normalizing your insulin levels is one of the most powerful physical actions you can take to lower your risk of cancer. Unfortunately, very few oncologists appreciate or apply this knowledge today. The Cancer Centers of America is one of the few exceptions, where strict dietary measures are included in their cancer treatment program.

Chronic insulin resistance will cause major damage in your body. The most recognized of these is diabetes, but that is far from the only one. As Ron Rosedale, M.D. said in one of my most popular articles, Insulin and Its Metabolic Effects:

“It doesn’t matter what disease you are talking about, whether you are talking about a common cold or cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis or cancer, the root is always going to be at the molecular and cellular level, and I will tell you that insulin is going to have its hand in it, if not totally control it.”

The good news is that controlling your insulin levels is relatively straightforward. First, limit your intake of processed foods, grains and sugars/fructose as much as possible to prevent your insulin levels from becoming elevated in the first place.

Number 2: Vitamin D—There’s overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that vitamin D deficiency plays a crucial role in cancer development. Researchers within this field have estimated that about 30 percent of cancer deaths could be prevented each year simply by optimizing the vitamin D levels in the general population. Countless people around the world have an increased risk of cancer because their vitamin D levels are too low due to utter lack of sun exposure…

On a personal level, you can decrease your risk of cancer by MORE THAN HALF simply by optimizing your vitamin D levels with sun exposure. And if you are being treated for cancer it is likely that higher blood levels—probably around 80-90 ng/ml—would be beneficial.

The health benefits of optimizing your levels, either by safe sun exposure (ideally), a safe tanning bed, or oral supplementation as a last resort, simply cannot be overstated. In terms of protecting against cancer, vitamin D has been found to offer protection in a number of ways, including:

• Regulating genetic expression
• Increasing the self-destruction of mutated cells (which, if allowed to replicate, could lead to cancer)
• Reducing the spread and reproduction of cancer cells
• Causing cells to become differentiated (cancer cells often lack differentiation)
• Reducing the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones, which is a step in the transition of dormant tumors turning cancerous

To learn the details on how to use vitamin D therapeutically, please review my previous article, Test Values and Treatment for Vitamin D Deficiency.

Number 3: Exercise—If you are like most people, when you think of reducing your risk of cancer, exercise doesn’t immediately come to mind. However, there is some fairly compelling evidence that exercise can slash your risk of cancer.

One of the primary ways exercise lowers your risk for cancer is by reducing elevated insulin levels, which creates a low sugar environment that discourages the growth and spread of cancer cells.

Controlling your insulin levels and optimizing your vitamin D level are two of the most powerful steps you can take to reduce your cancer risk. For example, physically active adults experience about half the incidence of colon cancer as their sedentary counterparts, and women who exercise regularly can reduce their breast cancer risk by 20 to 30 percent compared to those who are inactive.

Additionally, exercise improves the circulation of immune cells in your blood. Your immune system is your first line of defense against everything from minor illnesses like a cold right up to devastating, life-threatening diseases like cancer.

The trick about exercise, though, is understanding how to use it as a precise tool. This ensures you are getting enough to achieve the benefit, not too much to cause injury, and the right variety to balance your entire physical structure and maintain strength and flexibility, and aerobic and anaerobic fitness levels. This is why it is helpful to view exercise like a drug that needs to be carefully prescribed to achieve its maximum benefit.

It’s important to include a large variety of techniques in your exercise routine, such as strength training, aerobics, core-building activities, and stretching. Most important of all, however, is to make sure you include high-intensity, burst-type exercise, such as Peak 8. Peak 8 are exercises performed once or twice a week, in which you raise your heart rate up to your anaerobic threshold for 20 to 30 seconds, and then you recover for 90 seconds.

These exercises activate your super-fast twitch muscle fibers, which can increase your body’s natural production of human growth hormone. For detailed instructions, please see this previous article.

Additionally it is likely that integrating exercise with intermittent fasting will greatly catalyze the potential of exercise to reduce your risk of cancer and stimulate widespread healing and rejuvenation.

Additional Anti-Cancer Strategies

Additional lifestyle guidelines that will help protect you against cancer include:

1. Get appropriate amounts of animal-based omega-3 fats.
2. Eat according to your nutritional type. The potent anti-cancer effects of this principle are very much underappreciated. When we treat cancer patients in our clinic this is one of the most powerful anti-cancer strategies we have.
3. Eat as many vegetables as you are comfortable with. Ideally, they should be fresh and organic. Cruciferous vegetables in particular have been identified as having potent anti-cancer properties. Remember that carb nutritional types may need up to 300 percent more vegetables than protein nutritional types.
4. Have a tool to permanently erase the neurological short-circuiting that can activate cancer genes. Even the CDC states that 85 percent of disease is caused by emotions. It is likely that this factor may be more important than all the other physical ones listed here, so make sure this is addressed. My particular favorite tool for this purpose, as you may know, is the Emotional Freedom Technique.
5. Maintain an ideal body weight.
6. Get enough high-quality sleep.
7. Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, household chemical cleaners, synthetic air fresheners and air pollution.
8. Reduce your use of cell phones and other wireless technologies, and implement as many safety strategies as possible if/when you cannot avoid their use.
9. Boil, poach or steam your foods, rather than frying or charbroiling them.

Daily Mail October 15, 2010

Nature Reviews Cancer October 2010; 10: 728-733
Cancer September 1977; 40(3): 1358-1362

Dr. Mercola’s Comments

According to the latest statistics compiled by the American Heart Association, cancer surpasses heart disease as the top killer among Americans between the ages of 45 to 74. The odds are very high that you or someone you know has cancer or has died from it.Cancer rates for various types of cancer are on the rise, and environmental/lifestyle factors are increasingly being pinpointed as the culprits, such as:

• Pesticide- and other chemical exposures
• Pharmaceutical drugs
• Processed and artificial foods (plus the chemicals in the packaging)
• Wireless technologies, dirty electricity, and medical diagnostic radiation exposure
• Obesity, stress, and poor sleeping habits
• Lack of sunshine exposure and use of sunscreens

This not an all-inclusive list, of course, but as the research into the health of our ancient ancestors shows, cancer is not a “natural” disease, and genetics are not a primary factor.

What Ancient Mummies and Prehistoric Fossils Tell Us about Cancer

Cancer is, by and large, the tragic result of humans veering too far off course – avoiding health-sustaining diets and activities, while embracing a highly unnatural lifestyle and continually dousing your insides and outsides with excess chemicals.

The Daily Mail reports:

“Tumors were rare until recent times when pollution and poor diet became issues, the review of mummies, fossils and classical literature found… Despite slivers of tissue from hundreds of Egyptian mummies being rehydrated and placed under the microscope, only one case of cancer has been confirmed.

Dismissing the argument that the ancient Egyptians didn’t live long enough to develop cancer, the researchers pointed out that other age-related disease such as hardening of the arteries and brittle bones did occur.

Fossil evidence of cancer is also sparse, with scientific literature providing a few dozen, mostly disputed, examples in animal fossil… Even the study of thousands of Neanderthal bones has provided only one example of a possible cancer.”

According to Professor Rosalie David, co-author of the recently published study stated:

‘There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle.”

The good news is, medical science is finally starting to catch up with common sense, and studies are emerging showing the powerful potential of food and lifestyle to both prevent and treat cancer.

I cannot stress enough how important it is to take this information to heart, and apply it in your own life. Don’t wait for the “definitive scientific” proof You don’t have to wait to incorporate these changes into your life and benefit immediately, and save you and your family so much unnecessary grief…

The medical industry as a whole is resistant to change, and you likely will not see any major revisions to conventional cancer treatments anytime soon. Widespread adoption of many of these recommendations will take many decades at best.

Remember the words of German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer who, 200 years ago, said all truth goes through three stages:

• First it is ridiculed
• Then it is violently opposed
• Finally it is widely accepted as self evident

Are Drugs Really the Answer?

A case in point: ten of the 12 “major cancer advances” named by the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in 2008 involved drugs.

Not food, not lifestyle changes, just drugs.

They claim these drug-based “advances” have made cancer treatments and prevention “a lot better,” but what are they basing that opinion on? Certainly not statistics!

That same year, about 12.4 million people from all over the world were diagnosed with some form of cancer and 7.6 million people died from the disease.

In the last 30 years of the 20th century the global cancer burden has doubled, and it will likely double again between 2000 and 2020 and nearly triple by 2030. Projected mortality estimates for 2030 range from just over 13 million, to 17 million people dying from the disease.

With statistics like these, how can anyone talk about cancer treatment “advances,” particularly when they have completely overlooked the methods that can actually turn the cancer trend around!

Below I will review three major cancer strategies that, according to researchers’ estimates, could have a FAR greater impact on cancer statistics than any cancer drug or treatment currently available.

I strongly recommend implementing these strategies rather than relying on the drug cartel to concoct “better drugs.”

There is a Better Way

I am firmly convinced that you don’t have to die from cancer if you follow a healthy lifestyle. I’m fairly convinced that cancer or heart disease will not be the cause of my death. If you follow these strategies and start at an early enough age your body will be able to limit the progression of any malignant cells.

We see dramatic reversals in so many people with advanced cancers that apply these strategies, but what we fail to see are the millions of miracles that occur every day that eliminate cancers that have yet to surface because the body’s healthy immune response suppresses them.

Remember it is exponentially easier to prevent cancers than it is to treat them. So just what are some of these strategies that can insulate you from ever developing cancer?

Anti-Cancer Strategy #1: Optimize Your Vitamin D Levels Year-Round

It is estimated that if people around the world optimized their vitamin D levels, cancer deaths could be slashed by 30 percent — which amounts to 2 million worldwide and 200,000 in the United States — each year.

On a personal level, you can decrease your risk of cancer by MORE THAN HALF simply by optimizing your vitamin D levels with sun exposure! I can’t think of any other strategy that can offer this level of protection. You may even be able to significantly boost your chances of survival if you already have cancer, by maintaining vitamin D levels of around 80-90 ng/ml.

Vitamin D has a protective effect against cancer in several ways, including:

• Increasing the self-destruction of mutated cells (which, if allowed to replicate, could lead to cancer)
• Reducing the spread and reproduction of cancer cells
• Causing cells to become differentiated (cancer cells often lack differentiation)
• Reducing the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones, which is a step in the transition of dormant tumors turning cancerous

Vitamin D, which is created in your skin after exposure to sunshine, is even of extreme importance for preventing skin cancer. It’s important to realize that the risk of skin cancer from the sun comes only from excessive exposure, which can damage your skin.

The fact is that countless people around the world have an increased risk of cancer – including skin cancer — because their vitamin D levels are low or deficient due to lack of appropriate sun exposure…

For example, in the US, the late winter average vitamin D level is only about 15-18 ng/ml, which is considered a very serious deficiency state that can cause a wide variety of health problems, from an acute bout of cold or flu, to an increased risk for cancer, long-term.

In fact, low levels of vitamin D may increase your risk of dying from ANY illness by 150 percent!

If you still find this hard to believe, I highly recommend watching my one-hour vitamin D lecture to clear up any confusion you may have about this essential nutrient.

Anti-Cancer Strategy #2: Optimize Your Insulin Levels

Normalizing your insulin levels is yet another powerful action you can take to lower your risk of cancer.

Otto Warburg actually received a Nobel Prize in 1934 for his observation of cancer cell physiology, which clearly demonstrated that cancer cells require more sugar to thrive. Unfortunately, virtually no oncologists appreciate or apply this knowledge today.

Your pancreas releases insulin — produced by beta cells — after you eat carbohydrates, and this is why numerous studies have linked refined carbohydrates with cancer. Over time, if you eat too many grains and sugars, and your body is constantly releasing an abundance of insulin, your body will become resistant to it. This means you will require even more insulin to produce the same effects, and it starts you on a vicious cycle.

Many people now have insulin levels that are too high, courtesy of our modern day’s sugar-laden diet and lack of exercise, and this can cause major damage to your body.

The most recognized of these is diabetes, but that is far from the only one. As Ron Rosedale, M.D. said in one of my most popular articles, Insulin and Its Metabolic Effects:

“It doesn’t matter what disease you are talking about, whether you are talking about a common cold or cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis or cancer, the root is always going to be at the molecular and cellular level, and I will tell you that insulin is going to have its hand in it, if not totally control it.”

The good news is that controlling your insulin levels is relatively straightforward.

First, limit your intake of processed foods, grains and sugars (particularly fructose!) as much as possible to prevent your insulin levels from becoming elevated in the first place.

Next, exercise regularly, as this will drive your insulin levels down.

Anti-Cancer Strategy # 3: Opt for a Safer, More Effective Cancer Screen

As I mentioned in the beginning, the danger inherent in radiation exposure from medical screens such as mammograms is increasingly being revealed. Yet most physicians continue to recommend yearly mammograms for women as a breast cancer screening tool.

This is to be expected, I guess, considering the fact that the American Cancer Society – one of the main proponents for mammograms — has close financial ties to the makers of mammography equipment.

This financial bias hypes mammography, even though it is clearly a cause of breast cancer itself…

According to a recent World Wire press release:

“Routine mammography delivers an unrecognized high dose of radiation, warn Drs. Epstein and Bertell. If a woman follows the current guidelines for premenopausal screening, over a 10 year period she would receive a total dosage of about 5 rads.

This approximates the level of exposure to radiation of a Japanese woman one mile from the epicenter of atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki.”

The risks of mammograms far outweigh their benefit, which is why I encourage you to think for yourself and consider safer, more effective alternatives.

The option for breast screening that I most highly recommend is called thermographic breast screening, which measures the radiation of infrared heat from your body and translates this information into anatomical images.

Thermography uses no mechanical pressure or ionizing radiation, and can detect signs of breast cancer as much as 10 years earlier than either mammography or a physical exam – before a tumor has even formed!

This is made possible because it can image the early stages of angiogenesis — the formation of a direct supply of blood to cancer cells, which is a necessary step before they can grow into tumors of size.

More men’s lives could also be spared from the disease as mammography is not frequently used on men, which leads to most men with breast cancer being diagnosed at a very late stage.

To find out more about this safe and highly effective method of cancer detection, you can read my free report on the topic or visit my Thermography Diagnostics Center now.

Winning the War Against Cancer is Simpler than Anyone Might Think

There is a lot that you can do right now to significantly impact your cancer risk. Even the conservative American Cancer Society states that one-third of cancer deaths are linked to poor diet, physical inactivity, and carrying excess weight. So making healthy lifestyle changes is one of the most important ways to protect yourself from cancer.

A “cure for cancer” is not impossible — it’s mostly just common sense!

I’ve detailed my comprehensive list of what you can do, right now, to virtually eliminate your cancer risk many times before, but for those of you who haven’t seen it, the entire list is printed at the end of this past article.

Twelve Changes That Will Cut Your Cancer Risk

The Man Who Questions Chemotherapy : Dr. Ralph Moss
The Kanzius Machine: A Cancer Cure?

Articles Related to This Article: • Bone density sharply enhanced by weight training, even in the elderly • DHEA for weight loss: miracle drug or unproven experiment? • Why weight loss requires strength training, even in women and seniors • Focus on weight undermines motivation for healthy lifestyle changes among people of all sizes (press release) • Overweight in early childhood increases chances for obesity at age 12 (press release) • Conjugated Linoleic Acid for weight loss: it’s no magic diet pill

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030616_junk_food_diet.html#ixzz17A5mPFLy

Did You Know All the Drugs in Your Milk?

Monsanto Attacks “Hormone-Free” Milk Labels

Washington Examiner March 30, 2010

It is indeed suspicious that the FDA put Gardasil on a fast-tracked approval process. What many people fail to appreciate is that the human papilloma virus is a sexually transmitted disease, not a virus you can get by shaking someone’s hand.

Further, they were surely well aware that at least 50 percent of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives — and 90 percent of the time the virus clears up on its own within two years, and does not lead to cancer.

Why Are We Wasting Our Resources on this Vaccine?

Cervical cancer is just not that common to begin with. There were just over 11,000 new cases diagnosed in 2009, and about 4,000 women died of the disease that year, according to the American Cancer Society.

Cervical cancer killed 12 times fewer people in 2009 than did hospital-acquired infections … yet the FDA chose to fast-track the Gardasil vaccine? It just doesn’t add up.

That is a TOTAL of 4,000 deaths in the US for the year. While even one death is tragic, it is important to keep these numbers in perspective. All this time, effort and energy is being invested to save 4,000 lives.

This entire program is being initiated with virtually no long-term safety studies or effectiveness rates.

Just this month in India, the country’s government suspended the Gardasil vaccination study that was supposed to test the vaccine in about 32,000 girls. The program was halted because four girls died after receiving the vaccine, and more than 120 others reportedly suffered stomach disorders, epilepsy, headaches, early menarche and other adverse events.

In the United States, meanwhile, where we’ve had over 17,000 adverse reactions and 59 deaths, the vaccine is still being recommended.

Yet if we were to implement a program to optimize everyone’s vitamin D levels we could save 200,000 deaths from cancer a year

That is FIFTY times the number of lives that are reportedly being saved by Gardasil for what most likely would be a less expensive program. And you can rest assured many of those saved would be some of the 4,000 that would have died from cervical cancer.

Serious Side Effects, Including Unexplained Death, Common

Merck only studied the Gardasil vaccine in fewer than 1,200 girls under 16 prior to it being released to the market under the fast-tracked road to licensure. To date, most of the serious side effects, including deaths, that occurred during the pre-licensure clinical trials and post marketing surveillance have been written off as a “coincidence” by Merck researchers and government health officials.

But it is becoming clear that these reactions are more than just coincidence; this vaccine appears to be one of the most dangerous on the market.

In an analysis comparing the vaccine to another for meningitis (Menactra), the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) found that Gardasil was associated with:

• At least twice as many emergency room visit reports (5,021)
• Four times as many death reports (29)
• Seven times as many disabled reports (261)
• Three to six times more fainting reports

As of March 2010, there were more than 17,600 reports of adverse reactions regarding the Gardasil vaccine in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

Among them are 59 deaths, 18 of which were among girls under the age of 17.

When previously healthy teenagers die within days of receiving a vaccination, there needs to be a serious investigation performed, at the very least.

Unfortunately, a staggering majority (about 89 percent) of all adverse reaction reports filed for Gardasil are so incomplete they cannot be used to perform the follow-up required to find out what happened, what caused the problem, and most importantly, how to avoid it from happening to others.

This is why NVIC is currently petitioning President Barack Obama and Congress on behalf of families to investigate Gardasil vaccine deaths and serious injuries. If you agree that these, and countless other cases like them, sound like more than a “coincidence,” please sign the Petition to Investigate Gardasil Vaccine Risks Now!

Help Spread the Truth about Gardasil

Despite its serious side effects and growing list of adverse reactions, in October, 2009 the FDA also approved Gardasil for use in boys to prevent genital warts … so now this dangerous vaccine is putting all young people at risk.

Most Americans have blindly placed their trust in the vaccine makers and in federal health agencies, whose responsibility is to ensure that drugs and vaccines licensed for public use are safe, effective and necessary.

Yet this is often not the case.

As Barbara Loe Fisher, President and co-founder of NVIC, said:

“I have a sense of déjà vu as the story of Gardasil vaccine plays out real time. There are striking parallels between how those operating the mass vaccination system reacted in the 1980′s to persistent reports that the DPT vaccine was harming more children than originally assumed, and the way they are reacting now to persistent reports that Gardasil is more reactive than it was originally assumed.

Assumption of safety is no substitute for proof of safety.

And turning away from human suffering in order to protect the status quo is not the way to run a government that needs the trust and support of the people.

In the 18th century, Queen Marie Antoinette looked down at a starving people pleading for bread to stay alive and said “Let them eat cake.” It is time for everyone in government, industry and medicine to take a different approach to persistent reports of vaccine injuries and deaths or risk metaphorically suffering the same fate that ended the monarchy in France.

In the 21st century, today’s peasants don’t have pitchforks – they have laptops, desktops, smartphones and the internet.”

Again, I urge you to sign the Investigate Gardasil Vaccine Risks Now! petition and also share the truth about Gardasil with your friends and family.

Over the years it has become very clear that those responsible for protecting your health are not looking out for your best interest and that of your children.

And if they won’t do it, then it is up to you and me to do it.