Consider This…

Each diagnosis of cancer is (on average) worth somewhere between $300,000 and $500,000 to the medical industry. More than half of this money goes to the drug companies. Due to lobbying and other incentives, it’s no secret that both the FDA and the AMA are heavily influenced by drug companies.

What if we’re not crazy? What if nutrition could not only prevent cancer, but cure it as well? What would the FDA, politicians, drug companies, unhealthy food companies, and the American Cancer Society stand to gain? What do they stand to lose?




Dr. Max Gerson – Persecuted for Curing Cancer Naturally

Treating disease through nutritional therapy and detoxification is not a new treatment modality. Dr. Max Gerson discovered the power of healing through nutrition and detoxification more than eighty years ago.

Gerson suffered from migraines since childhood. His early experiments with diet were conducted as a means to find a cure. After becoming an M.D., he recommended his successful migraine diet to his patients, one of whom also suffered from lupus vulgaris (skin tuberculosis). The diet rid the man of migraines, and his skin lesions disappeared as well.

Albert Schweitzer and Max Gerson become lifelong friends after Dr. Gerson’s therapy cured Schweitzer of his Type II diabetes, cured Albert’s daughter of a chronic skin condition, and saved the life of Albert’s wife, suffering from tuberculosis of the lung, which had not responded to conventional treatment.

As Dr. Gerson continued to treat and cure tuberculosis patients, word spread. A well known and well respected physician set up a carefully monitored, in-house, hospital trial to replicate the results of the Gerson Therapy, but the diet wasn’t working. The patients made no progress towards recovery; several actually worsened. The hospital was on the brink of ending the trial when a nurse was caught sneaking prohibited food into the ward. Once the Gerson Therapy diet was strictly enforced, the patients rapidly responded to treatment. Of 450 lupus vulgaris patients – patients suffering from a hideous incurable disease – 446 were cured.

As is often the case when alternative treatments prevail, Dr. Gerson became the object of derision and suspicion by critics in the medical community. It didn’t matter that his results had been independently verified in the hospital study, or that sanatoriums were reporting great success treating their patients with his diet therapy. His critics accused him of falsifying data, saying Gerson’s patients had never suffered from lupus vulgaris.

During this time a woman with an advanced case of inoperable cancer of the bile duct heard of Gerson’s success in treating both tuberculosis and arthritis. She asked Dr. Gerson for help, but he didn’t want to treat her, fearing an attempt at cancer treatment would increase the professional backlash. But the woman insisted, telling him she would sign a statement holding him harmless if the treatment did not work. She finally convinced him. After she was cured, she brought two relatives with cancer to him for treatment, whom he also cured.

Dr. Gerson decided to appease his critics by conducting a new study. No patient would be included in the study unless two doctors independently confirmed the diagnosis prior to treatment. Unfortunately, Gerson’s research was left behind when he fled Nazi Germany.

Though Dr. Gerson was the first to say he didn’t know why the treatment worked on those first three cancer patients, he was intrigued by the possibility of successfully treating cancer. In Vienna he attempted to treat six more cancer patients, without success. In Paris he treated seven, with three successes.

When he immigrated to the United States and became licensed to practice, he again began treating cancer patients. Gerson said, “On the one side, the knife of the AMA was at my throat and on my back. I had only terminal cases. If I had not saved them, my clinic would have been a death house. Some of the cases were brought on stretchers. They couldn’t walk. They could no longer eat. It was very, very difficult. So, I really had to work out a treatment that could help these far advanced cases.”

As he continued to refine his treatment, he came to the conclusion that the disease process is essentially the same in all degenerative diseases.

He believed the digestive tract to be the most important part of our bodies. If digestion does not work properly, the body and its other organs are not properly nourished. And if digestion does not work properly, all waste products—toxins and poisons—are not eliminated. Instead they accumulate in our bodies. If the liver is overwhelmed, good health is impossible. During the Gerson treatment, the body is flooded with nutrients, oxidizing enzymes, and potassium. No added salt or fats other than flaxseed oil are allowed. Freshly pressed organic fruit and vegetable juices are given hourly. Coffee enemas are administered several times daily. As tumors die, the mass of dead cells are absorbed. They flood the bloodstream. Without proper detoxification, poisons accumulate, and patients, even those whose cancer has been eradicated, will die. Coffee enemas aid in detoxification and decrease pain.

Gerson believed our health begins with the quality of the soil in which our food is grown. “Our soil must be normal, no artificial fertilizers should be used, no poisons, no sprays which go into the soil and poison it. Whatever grows on a poisoned soil carries poison, too. And that is our food, our fruit and vegetables. I am convinced that the soil is our external metabolism. It is not really far removed from our bodies. We depend on it. But our modern food, the “normal” food people eat is bottled, poisoned, canned, color added, powdered, frozen, dipped in acids, sprayed-no longer normal. We no longer have living, normal food, our food and drink is a mass of dead, poisoned material, and one cannot cure very sick people by adding poisons to their systems.”

And he believed our diet was also the cause of disease. “We cannot detoxify our bodies when we add poisons through our food which is one of the reasons why cancer is so much on the increase. Saving time in the kitchen is fine but the consequences are terrible. Thirty or fifty years ago cancer was a disease of old age. Only elderly people whose liver was no longer working well – was worn out-became sick. They contracted cancer when they were 60 to 70 years old and cancer was a rare disease. Everybody knows that. And now four, even going on one out of three dies of cancer. Now in the second generation it is even worse. The poor children get leukemias more and more. There is no country which has so much leukemia as this country (USA), no country in the world. That is our fault. Ice cream is made with invert sugar. Coca-Cola contains phosphoric acid. Is it surprising that children get degenerative disease?”

These words were spoken by Gerson in a speech delivered in 1956. By the ‘50s our food was toxic and processed. By the ‘50s cancer and other diseases were on the rise due to diet, after petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides became the norm, a mere 10-15 years after processed foods overran our grocery shelves.

As was the case in Germany so many years ago, Max Gerson’s alternative therapy has long been dismissed by mainstream medicine, despite its success. A Stephen Kroschel documentary, Dying to Have Known interviews Max Gerson’s family members who carry on his work, Gerson patients, and conventional doctors who denounce the Gerson Therapy.

Dr. Dean Edell, a well known conventional doctor, states, “I don’t think the Gerson therapy has ever cured a terminally ill patient. People get very confused by this.

“This is a world of science, a world of data. I always like to think of it as a courtroom, the courtroom of science and medicine. You don’t send somebody to jail or convict somebody without hard, hard evidence.

“And Gerson has been looked at many, many times. If you think of basically what’s in Gerson therapy, you really wouldn’t expect it to cure cancer. But people… Sometimes cancer cures itself. There is a rate of cancer <that> goes away by itself.

“Some people didn’t really have cancer. It’s a misdiagnosis. Sometimes people had chemotherapy many months before. And then try, for instance, Gerson therapy. They get better and attribute it to the Gerson therapy. Or whatever they’ve done.
“So no I don’t think there’s any evidence that anybody has ever been cured by Gerson therapy.”

Kroschel asked Dr. Wallace Sampson, Clinical Professor Emeritus at Stanford University and Editor of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine what it would take for him to be convinced or even persuaded a slight bit that the Gerson therapy has credibility.

Sampson said, “Well, first of all they’d have to show some reason why it should work. We know how cancers behave and we know the kinds of things that cause cancer. So they’d have to come up with some kind of a believable theory of why their diet should work. But second of all, they’d have to convince us that everything we know about it in the last 50 years is wrong and they’re right. Now how are they going to come up with material like that? That’s impossible. They don’t have it.”

After both of these doctors claimed no one had ever been cured by the Gerson therapy, Kroschel selected two patient files at random and asked if they would agree to an interview.

The first was a woman who had been cancer free for 6 years following treatment from melanoma which had spread to her liver, causing two large tumors. Her oncologist had told her she had 3-4 months to live.

She stayed at the Gerson clinic for two weeks and then followed the diet at home for 10 months before having a new CT scan. The scan was clear. She had attended a cancer support group in which she was the only patient pursuing alternative treatment. Every other member of her support group died.

The second case was a man suffering from testicular cancer who has been cancer free for 10 years. When he returned to his oncologist after just “a couple months” on the Gerson diet, his CT scan showed he was cancer free. His doctor said it was a miracle. The film includes many more amazing interviews, stories of men and women who completely regained their health and vitality.

Kroschel also interviews doctors in other countries who are successfully treating cancer patients with the Gerson Therapy. The Loma Linda Clinic in Japan is run by two doctors, one of whom, Prof. Yoshihiko Hoshino, M.D., developed colon cancer sixteen years ago that metastasized to his liver. He cured his own cancer through the Gerson Therapy and has remained cancer free for fifteen years. Through the clinic, they have treated more than 500 cancer patients using the Gerson Therapy.

The Gerson Therapy has been used to successfully fight cancer and other degenerative diseases for more than 80 years, and yet, a quick search on the Internet reveals many sites that claim the Gerson Therapy to be nothing short of quackery.

Conventional medicine continues to dismiss the success of plant based nutritional therapy. As long as pharmaceutical companies remain the driving force behind conventional medicine and remain in control of the medical journals, pharmaceutical treatment will prevail.

As plant based nutritional therapy gains in popularity, as cancer survivors tell their stories, the tide will turn. Hopefully, we will reach that tipping point soon.

Recommended Supplements:
Further Reading:



The Big C

The big C – Cancer. The word strikes fear in the bravest of us all, and rightly so. The American Cancer Society reveals the current, chilling statistics: one out of every two men and one out of every three women will battle cancer at some point in their lives. And too often, they will lose. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States.

The National Cancer Institute’s statistics report a 66%, five-year survival rate. Longitudinal studies reveal a 58-59% twenty-year survival rate. Conventional medicine claims today’s statistics prove current treatments are effective at curing cancer or at the very least extending life. Not everyone agrees with these claims.

Cancer is a slow moving disease; early detection is increasing. The earlier cancer is detected, the greater the odds of living for five years, with or without effective treatment. Critics, such as Mike Anderson, (from the documentary, Healing Cancer from the Inside Out) contend the increase in numbers of cancer patients living for five years is caused by the increase in early detection rather than the efficacy of current conventional treatment. In addition, he contends the methodology of reporting numbers is highly suspect—that the cancer industry massages numbers to support claims of effective treatment.

The National Cancer Institute’s data graphs show significant improvement in the survival rate for lymphoma and melanoma. When these numbers are combined with the statistics for all types of cancers, the overall cancer survival rates dramatically improve. But when the other cancers are looked at individually, their survival rate from 1975 through today shows negligible improvement on a graph.

Cancer begins with a single damaged cell—a cell that refuses to follow a normal life cycle of growth, division, and death. The cancer cell mutates and refuses to die; instead dividing to form a mass we call a tumor, or, in the case of leukemias, disrupting normal processes in the bone marrow and blood.

As cancer grows, tumors impede normal function of organs and body systems. The bloodstream and the lymphatic system become the means for cancer cells to invade other parts of the body.

Conventional treatment zeros in on the tumor or tumors, primarily using surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation to kill the cancer cells. Treatment is aggressive and invasive. Chemotherapy and radiation destroy healthy tissue as well as cancerous tissue. Chemotherapy also suppresses the patient’s immune system, raising the risk of death by other causes such as pneumonia.

Nutritionally based alternative treatments such as the Gerson and Budwig diets view the tumor as a symptom of disease, not the cause. Treatment is focused on building health, strengthening the immune system and the liver, raising oxygen in the cells, detoxifying the body, and eliminating the wastes created as the body wages war against the cancer.

Whichever protocol you choose to follow, select a proven path and fully consider your ability to comply. If you’re a person who “can’t follow a diet to save my life,” conventional treatment may be a better fit for you. If you choose the alternative route, be sure to surround yourself with a safe and protective support system. Naysayers, both professionals and laymen, are vicious. They will leave no stone unturned in their efforts to undermine your decision, your confidence, and your resolve. They will truly believe you to be a fool in need of their advice and they will make every effort to bring you over to their way of thinking. Strangely enough, their concern for you, heartfelt as it may be, may vanish when alternative treatment is successful. Don’t be too surprised when they don’t show the least interest in your success.
You choose the way you live. You choose your quality of life. Choose well.

Related Reading:

Dr. Max Gerson – Persecuted for Curing Cancer Naturally

Johanna Budwig Cured Cancer Naturally and Here’s How

Detox Cheap and Easy Without Fasting – Recipes Included

Gluten, Candida, Leaky Gut Syndrome, and Autoimmune Diseases

Hypothyroidism – Natural Remedies, Causes, and How To Heal the Thyroid

How to Detoxify From Chemotherapy and Repair the Body

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




Is Stevia Safe?

Is stevia a good sugar replacement? Yes, up to a point. Sugar addicted people must stop and heal before switching to stevia.
Stevia, a plant-extract originally from Central and South America, has been used as a sweetener for several centuries. It has been described alternately as either 30 or 300 times as sweet as sugar. Stevia has slowly gained popularity as an alternative to sugar; it was initially marketed in the US as a dietary supplement, and only recently as a sweetener. Stevia has slowly gained popularity as an alternative to sugar, even though it wasn’t marketed until recently.

One would think a food or drug is either safe or not, right? As of September 2009, the Food and Drug Administration has given support to two stevia products, Truvia and Purevia, for use as a sweetener in sodas and other drinks. What changed the stance of a government organization that used a 1985 study that described stevia as a mutagenic agent in the liver (possibly carcinogenic)?

Apparently, Coca-Cola and other large manufacturers of drinks and sodas have twisted the arms of some regulators, because as more people grasp Sugar Bad, Stevia Good, Big Soda needs to give the people soda that appears healthy in order to keep up sales. Trust a corporation to turn something potentially helpful in moderation into something you still shouldn’t consume.

No soda is safe to drink. The primary culprit after sugar is phosphoric acid. Phosphoric acid is an industrial solvent used to clean toilets and kill insects. Putting the amount of phosphorus from one soda into your body damages the calcium-phosphorus ratio.

Truvia will eventually be stuffed into the rainbow of packets on the table at our favorite eateries. Presently that rainbow includes white (sugar or sucrose), blue (aspartame), pink (saccharin) and yellow (sucralose). For purely aesthetic reasons how about green for Truvia?

However, don’t eat stevia from these Truvia packs because it will be mixed with dextrose or maltodextrin as the first ingredient (largest amount) in each pack, as is the case with the other colors in the bin. These are sugar derivatives that willadulterate whatever is good and useful about stevia. Mixing good things with bad things only ruins the food value of the beneficial.

So, what is so good about stevia that we actually are cautiously optimistic about the eventual release of small bags of pure stevia powder in the supermarket for use in baking, coffee, grapefruit and lemonade? Well, despite the ignominious beginning to stevia as a sweetener, a study that had been described as being “able to classify distilled water as a mutagen”, enough people have used the product now that there are health studies that show benefits for many diseases.

A study published in 2000 gave stevioside (stevia’s active ingredient) to 60 hypertension patients with a placebo group of 49. Results described as significant for reducing blood pressure supplemented similar animal studies.1

Stevia’s reputed limited effect on blood glucose naturally led to diabetes studies. A Denmark study took blood glucose readings from 12 type-2 diabetes patients before eating stevia or cornstarch with their meals and a couple of hours later. The stevia group showed blood glucose levels at least 18-percent less than the starch group, leading to the possibility that diabetes patients have finally found the sweetener that will allow them to have their sweet cake and eat it, too.2

But after the FDA has spent many years trying to keep stevia out of the U.S. marketplace, we should ask if there are any side effects. A study conducted by the Burdock Group generally supports the safety of stevia, finding no adverse effects in rats at the massive doses such studies use to determine carcinogenic or mutagen properties of foods.3

And so we give stevia qualified support because while almost no information has surfaced to say that this sweetener hurts people, we realize that the weak link in any health plan is the patient. Many of us are unlikely to moderate our consumption of stevia because we just have to have ice cream, chocolate cake, or soda. Too much of a good thing isn’t good. But, on the range of things that are sweet but not named sugar, stevia is a great start.

 

1 Chan, P, et al “A Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study of the Effectiveness and Tolerability of Oral Stevioside in Human Hypertension” Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2000 September; 50(3): 215–220. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2125.2000.00260.x

2 Gregersen S, et al. “Antihyperglycemic Effects of  Stevioside in Type-2 Diabetic Subjects.” Metabolism 2004 Jan;53(1):73-76

3 Williams LD, Burdock GA “Genotoxicity Studies on a High-Purity Rebauside A Preparation.” Food Chem Toxicol. 2009 Aug;47(8):1831-1836




Is Agave Nectar Healthy?

Is Agave Nectar Better Than Sugar?

Is Agave Nectar Good For You?

Is Agave Nectar Safe For Diabetics?

No! Agave Is Not Healthy!

Agave Nectar is highly concentrated fructose.

Now, many readers may believe that since fructose is fruit sugar, it is “healthy sugar”. It isn’t. Refined fructose is no better than refined glucose.

Consuming fructose naturally from whole foods is different from consuming concentrated agave. In its natural state, fructose is part of a whole food which includes enzymes, fiber, vitamins, and minerals. But refined sugars, sugars that have been stripped of their nutrition through processing, are never healthy.

Refined fructose lowers circulating insulin and leptin levels and raises ghrelin levels after the meal. Since leptin and insulin decrease appetite and ghrelin increases appetite, some researchers suspect that eating large amounts of fructose increases the likelihood of weight gain.

Refined fructose puts an enormous strain on the liver. Dr. Meira Field says, “;…the liver goes bananas and stops everything else to metabolize the fructose.”

Large amounts of fructose in the diet rapidly turn into fatty acids, which are stored as fat or released into the bloodstream as triglycerides. These fatty triglycerides are insulin resistant and cause a host of problems. Overwhelming the liver and producing insulin resistant fatty triglycerides is the road to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and other diseases.

This is another example of marketing magic. Agave is sold as the healthy alternative to refined sugar. But it is refined sugar. Avoid it like you avoid white table sugar and high fructose corn syrup.

Good alternatives for sugar are stevia, raw honey, date sugar, or sugar cane juice. To understand more about sugar, please read Healthy Sugar Alternatives.




Sunlight – Letter from the Editor

I don’t tend to wear sunglasses, and I never wear sunscreen. I do burn easily if I have not taken the time to acclimate myself to the sun, so I will either wear long sleeve shirts and a hat, limit my exposure until my skin builds tolerance, or, more often than not, I’ll just burn.

I’m not recommending you go out and get sunburned, but I don’t think people should be so afraid of it. Sunlight is so important. It’s better to get burned a few times a year than to not get enough sunlight.

I work at my computer a lot. Sometimes I realize that I have gone more than a week without any significant sun exposure. Other times, I notice I am feeling depressed or I’m having trouble sleeping, or I’m irritable. My prescription: light sunbathing. I feel so much better after I spend some time soaking in the rays.

Dr. Holick wants us to get some sunlight and then put on sunscreen. I respectfully disagree. I don’t want to put toxic creams on my skin only to cook the ingredients in the sun. This seems like a recipe for skin cancer to me.

Sunlight is natural. When in doubt, go with what’s natural. It’s what we humans are programmed for. Almost every time, the natural choice is the healthy choice.

 

Michael Edwards

Signature

Editor in Chief




Sunlight and Vitamin D

For years we’ve been told to stop sunbathing, to stay out of the sun. We slather sunscreen on our children. We buy make-up, lip balm, and hair care products that contain SPF 15 protection. And what is the result of this anti UV ray vigilance? Skin cancer is on the rise.

SPF 15 works very well. It blocks 99% of the UV rays. The problem is that we need UV rays in order to make vitamin D. Vitamin D, the sunshine vitamin, strengthens and builds bones, wards off multiple sclerosis, diabetes, high blood pressure, osteoarthritis, and periodontal disease. It regulates cell growth, and protects against lymphomas and cancers of the colon, prostate, lung, and skin.

Yes, Vitamin D, gained through exposure to the sun, helps prevent skin cancer!

“There are two types of skin cancer,” says Dr. Michael Holick, one of the world’s leading authorities on vitamin D and vitamin D deficiency. “There’s what’s called non-melanoma skin cancer and there is no question that excessive exposure to sunlight and sunburns will damage the DNA and induce skin cells to become cancerous. That is non-melanoma squamous and basal cell cancers. They are typically easy to detect, easy to treat. They’re not lethal, for the most part.

Melanoma is a different story. Most melanomas occur on the least sun exposed areas. Occupational sun exposure decreases your risk of malignant melanoma. We believe that if you have a large number of moles, a number of sun burning experiences, bad genetics, and red hair color—that is very light skin—they will markedly increase your risk of malignant melanoma, and that’s deadly. About 8,000 people die a year of malignant melanoma. But there is no evidence in my opinion that sensible sun exposure increases your risk of that deadly disease. In fact there is good evidence that it decreases your risk.”

Where you live and the color of your skin are significant factors in determining your risk for Vitamin D deficiency and correlating diseases. So is your weight. Though vitamin D is stored in fat cells, obesity inhibits its release. If you live at a latitude above 33 degrees (north of Atlanta, Georgia), you cannot get enough UV rays in the winter months to make vitamin D. And the darker your skin, the more sun exposure you require, no matter the season. Geographical and racial statistics do correlate to higher incidences of all diseases linked to Vitamin D deficiencies.

Unfortunately, not all medical doctors are aware of these links. Dr. Holick is finding many of his patients who come to him with a prior diagnosis of fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome with symptoms of muscle weakness and throbbing, aching bone pain are actually suffering from osteomalacia, a bone disease directly caused by vitamin D deficiency. The good news is treatment with vitamin D supplements and/or sunlight exposure quickly reverses this disease.

Vitamin D is not, in fact, a vitamin. It’s a hormone. “By definition a vitamin means that it has to come from an external source,” Dr. Holick explains, “but when you’re exposed to sunlight, you make it. So by definition, it’s not a vitamin. And more importantly, once vitamin D is made in your skin it goes to your liver and kidneys to get activated. And so again by definition, it’s being generated in one organ system and going to a different place to have a biologic effect and by definition, that’s a hormone.” Dr. Holick suggests using sunscreen in moderation. “People need to be aware that a sunscreen SPF of 15 reduces your ability to make vitamin D in your skin by 99%. So if you’re putting a sunscreen on all the time before going outside, you are definitely going to put yourself at risk forVitamin D deficiency.”

He suggests you start with 5 or 10 or 15 minutes of sun exposure depending upon time of day, season of the year and the latitude, 3 to 4 times a week. Remember, the darker your skin, the more exposure you need. The opposite is also true. The lighter your skin, and redheads know this from experience, the more likely you are to burn.

Sunburn can damage your skin, and does put you at higher risk of skin cancer. So Dr. Holick suggests that if you go to the beach for an hour or two, put on sunscreen after 15 or 20 minutes. “Take advantage of the beneficial effect,” he says. “Then prevent the damaging effects due to excessive exposure.”

Start off slow and don’t expose your skin for too long. Our bodies do have built in protection; we tan. Most of us do, anyway. When it’s time to get out of the sun, put on a hat, get under an umbrella, find some shade, or cover up if you want to avoid sunscreen all together. But don’t avoid the sun. It’s summertime. Go out and make some Vitamin D.