The holidays are fast approaching, you may already be feeling the effects of all the planning and partying. If you want to stay balanced, relaxed and calm, it's necessary every so often to step back and decompress.
Treat yourself to a massage, meditate,
watch a movie, one that relaxes you and inspires you. Remember “things” will get
done – if they don’t it doesn’t matter!
Do you find that the demands on your time are overwhelming, don't be afraid to politely say "no" when someone asks you to do something. Learn your limits. You can't do it all and you shouldn't feel guilty about it. Be a little selfish once in a while by scheduling "me time" - it will help keep you in touch with yourself during the season ahead.
Watch your diet. Cut back as much as you can on “sweets”-- they stress the body. Over indulgence, whether it’s food or drink (the alcoholic kind) will make you tired. Drink lots of water --good water as alkaline as possible.
Get a little exercise –a nice walk will do. Embracing the Holiday Spirit is being who
you are with joy and grace.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
TAKE CHARGE OF YOUR HEALTH
This article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is the best article I have ever seen written in the published literature documenting the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm.
The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she describes how the US health care system may contribute to poor health.
ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:
* 12,000 -- unnecessary surgery
* 7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals
* 20,000 -- other errors in hospitals
* 80,000 -- infections in hospitals
* 106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of drugs
These total to 225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!
What does the word iatrogenic mean?
This term is defined as induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy.
Used especially of a complication of treatment.
Even with our Health Care System here in Canada, the
Percentages can’t be much better.
Take charge of your own health – be pro-active –
Investigate the alternatives.
The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she describes how the US health care system may contribute to poor health.
ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:
* 12,000 -- unnecessary surgery
* 7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals
* 20,000 -- other errors in hospitals
* 80,000 -- infections in hospitals
* 106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of drugs
These total to 225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!
What does the word iatrogenic mean?
This term is defined as induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy.
Used especially of a complication of treatment.
Even with our Health Care System here in Canada, the
Percentages can’t be much better.
Take charge of your own health – be pro-active –
Investigate the alternatives.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
TOOTHPASTE -By Mike Adams
Warning: Toxic chemical triclosan can turn your toothpaste into chloroform.
For years, I have warned people of the danger of personal care products. If you look at the ingredients manufacturers put in their products -- soaps, deodorants, toothpastes and so on -- you will be horrified. These ingredients are highly toxic and cause cancer. They promote leukemia, nervous system disorders and liver problems. Now, some new information has come from Virginia Tech. Researchers that have found that the chemical triclosan, which is found in a lot of antimicrobial soaps and toothpaste products, can react with chlorine in the tap water. Guess what you get? (This is the horrifying part.) Chloroform. This is a toxic chemical that can give you cancer. In the old movies, you might have seen someone give a person chloroform to knock them unconscious. If you breathe enough chloroform, you will die.
If you are brushing your teeth with toothpaste that has triclosan in it, and you are rinsing with tap water that has chlorine in it, you are getting a little chemical reaction right in your mouth. What a wonderful gift from the toothpaste manufacturers. That's not to mention that some of the toothpastes contain fluoride that isn't really fluoride but fluorosilicic acid, which is a toxic waste product that is molecularly similar to fluoride but has a much different effect on the human body -- a toxic effect. When you wash your hands with antibacterial soap that contains triclosan, you are getting the fumes emitted from this chemical reaction.
We need to return to simple non-toxic products for brushing our teeth. What about
sea salt and soda?
For years, I have warned people of the danger of personal care products. If you look at the ingredients manufacturers put in their products -- soaps, deodorants, toothpastes and so on -- you will be horrified. These ingredients are highly toxic and cause cancer. They promote leukemia, nervous system disorders and liver problems. Now, some new information has come from Virginia Tech. Researchers that have found that the chemical triclosan, which is found in a lot of antimicrobial soaps and toothpaste products, can react with chlorine in the tap water. Guess what you get? (This is the horrifying part.) Chloroform. This is a toxic chemical that can give you cancer. In the old movies, you might have seen someone give a person chloroform to knock them unconscious. If you breathe enough chloroform, you will die.
If you are brushing your teeth with toothpaste that has triclosan in it, and you are rinsing with tap water that has chlorine in it, you are getting a little chemical reaction right in your mouth. What a wonderful gift from the toothpaste manufacturers. That's not to mention that some of the toothpastes contain fluoride that isn't really fluoride but fluorosilicic acid, which is a toxic waste product that is molecularly similar to fluoride but has a much different effect on the human body -- a toxic effect. When you wash your hands with antibacterial soap that contains triclosan, you are getting the fumes emitted from this chemical reaction.
We need to return to simple non-toxic products for brushing our teeth. What about
sea salt and soda?
Thursday, November 1, 2007
COUGHING - IS IT DUE TO IRON SHORTAGE? by Dr. Weil
If you’re female and have an unexplained persistent cough, you may be running short on iron. Researchers from Italy’s University of Turin came up with this finding on the basis of a small study of 16 women with chronic coughs that weren’t due to any identifiable health problems. Tests showed that all the women were iron deficient.
Supplements fixed that and also reduced or eliminated the coughing and related symptoms: swelling in the back of the mouth and red, inflamed mucous membranes. The researchers noted that women are more likely than men to have unexplained chronic coughs and, because of pregnancy and menstruation, are also more likely than men to be iron deficient. Iron helps regulate production of immune system proteins that control inflammation, so a deficiency can lead to inflammation in the upper airway and cause chronic coughing.
The study was presented at the scientific meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians in October 2007. Don’t take iron supplements without being tested for a deficiency, particularly if you’re post-menopausal (or male). Iron accumulates in the body and can harm the heart.
Liquid iron supplements tend to be assimilated more readily.
Supplements fixed that and also reduced or eliminated the coughing and related symptoms: swelling in the back of the mouth and red, inflamed mucous membranes. The researchers noted that women are more likely than men to have unexplained chronic coughs and, because of pregnancy and menstruation, are also more likely than men to be iron deficient. Iron helps regulate production of immune system proteins that control inflammation, so a deficiency can lead to inflammation in the upper airway and cause chronic coughing.
The study was presented at the scientific meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians in October 2007. Don’t take iron supplements without being tested for a deficiency, particularly if you’re post-menopausal (or male). Iron accumulates in the body and can harm the heart.
Liquid iron supplements tend to be assimilated more readily.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
SHOCKING NEWS -Cancer Drug CAUSES Cancer
Can you imagine how many women have been set up to have a cancer re-occurance?
Tamoxifen is a drug that binds to your estrogen receptors. Therefore it was thought that it could prevent excess estrogen binding, hence halting cancer from forming. It is generally prescribed to high-risk women to prevent breast cancer, and is usually taken for five years.
However, Tamoxifen has been found to cause cancer instead.
According to a study published in the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, the treatment of breast cancer with tamoxifen results in an increased risk of uterine cancer incidence and mortality.
This is just one in a growing line of studies published, raising serious concerns about the increased risk of uterine cancer for women who take tamoxifen as a cancer preventive drug.
Despite these concerns, tamoxifen is still on the market.
Sources:
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 2007
Tamoxifen is a drug that binds to your estrogen receptors. Therefore it was thought that it could prevent excess estrogen binding, hence halting cancer from forming. It is generally prescribed to high-risk women to prevent breast cancer, and is usually taken for five years.
However, Tamoxifen has been found to cause cancer instead.
According to a study published in the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, the treatment of breast cancer with tamoxifen results in an increased risk of uterine cancer incidence and mortality.
This is just one in a growing line of studies published, raising serious concerns about the increased risk of uterine cancer for women who take tamoxifen as a cancer preventive drug.
Despite these concerns, tamoxifen is still on the market.
Sources:
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
What is the success rate of Chemotherapy?
The other day when I was in the grocery store I was asked to contribute to the Cancer Society. In all good conscience I could not contribute to such a useless cause when there are so many effective alternatives available.
It's probably time to examine the success rate of chemotherapy that has been used for so many decades. What is the success rate of chemotherapy as used by oncologists?
An important paper has been published in the journal Clinical Oncology addresses exactly this question. This meta-analysis, entitled "The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies" set out to accurately quantify and assess the actual benefit conferred by chemotherapy in the treatment of adults with the commonest types of cancer.
All three of the paper's authors are oncologists. Lead author Associate Professor Graeme Morgan is a radiation oncologist at Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney; Professor Robyn Ward is a medical oncologist at University of New South Wales/St. Vincent's Hospital. The third author, Dr. Michael Barton, is a radiation oncologist and a member of the Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Liverpool Health Service, Sydney. Prof. Ward is also a member of the Therapeutic Goods Authority of the Australian Federal Department of Health and Aging, the official body that advises the Australian government on the suitability and efficacy of drugs to be listed on the national Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule (PBS) – roughly the equivalent of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Their meticulous study was based on an analysis of the results of all the randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) performed in Australia and the US that reported a statistically significant increase in 5-year survival due to the use of chemotherapy in adult malignancies. Survival data were drawn from the Australian cancer registries and the US National Cancer Institute's Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry spanning the period January 1990 until January 2004. Wherever data were uncertain, the authors deliberately erred on the side of over-estimating the benefit of chemotherapy.
Even so, the study concluded that overall, chemotherapy contributes just over 2 percent to improved survival in cancer patients!Yet, despite the mounting evidence of chemotherapy's lack of effectiveness in prolonging survival, oncologists continue to present chemotherapy as a rational and promising approach to cancer treatment. Give me a break!!
It's probably time to examine the success rate of chemotherapy that has been used for so many decades. What is the success rate of chemotherapy as used by oncologists?
An important paper has been published in the journal Clinical Oncology addresses exactly this question. This meta-analysis, entitled "The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies" set out to accurately quantify and assess the actual benefit conferred by chemotherapy in the treatment of adults with the commonest types of cancer.
All three of the paper's authors are oncologists. Lead author Associate Professor Graeme Morgan is a radiation oncologist at Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney; Professor Robyn Ward is a medical oncologist at University of New South Wales/St. Vincent's Hospital. The third author, Dr. Michael Barton, is a radiation oncologist and a member of the Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Liverpool Health Service, Sydney. Prof. Ward is also a member of the Therapeutic Goods Authority of the Australian Federal Department of Health and Aging, the official body that advises the Australian government on the suitability and efficacy of drugs to be listed on the national Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule (PBS) – roughly the equivalent of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Their meticulous study was based on an analysis of the results of all the randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) performed in Australia and the US that reported a statistically significant increase in 5-year survival due to the use of chemotherapy in adult malignancies. Survival data were drawn from the Australian cancer registries and the US National Cancer Institute's Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry spanning the period January 1990 until January 2004. Wherever data were uncertain, the authors deliberately erred on the side of over-estimating the benefit of chemotherapy.
Even so, the study concluded that overall, chemotherapy contributes just over 2 percent to improved survival in cancer patients!Yet, despite the mounting evidence of chemotherapy's lack of effectiveness in prolonging survival, oncologists continue to present chemotherapy as a rational and promising approach to cancer treatment. Give me a break!!
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Vitamin D
Canadian Cancer Society announces national program to prevent cancer using vitamin D
Canada has done what the U.S. refuses to do: Protect the health of its people through a national program of encouraging vitamin D supplementation. While U.S. cancer groups like the American Cancer Society stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the benefits of vitamin D supplements in cancer prevention, the Canadian Cancer Society is launching a program to make sure every Canadian citizen receives a level of vitamin D sufficient to prevent most cancers, including breast cancer.
Do you want to know why?
I'll tell you why, and you won't like the answer. It's because the cancer industry depends on all 100 of those women being diagnosed with cancer and treated with profitable cancer "management" protocols like chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. Preventing cancer in 75 percent of women (or more) would deny the cancer industry three-fourths of its revenue. It would shrink the industry, reduce funding, and result in a mass exodus of cancer jobs. Donations would dry up and cancer non-profits (which thrive on the continuation of cancer) would lose big. This is why they won't support cancer prevention that really works. Preventing cancer is simply not in the self interest of the cancer industry. Prevention is bad for business.
Not only will Vitamin D help prevent cancer, living an alkaline lifestyle is a certain way to
prevent cancer. Cancer cells cannot live in an alkaline terrain. The Cancer Society doesn’t
want to hear this information either.
Canada has done what the U.S. refuses to do: Protect the health of its people through a national program of encouraging vitamin D supplementation. While U.S. cancer groups like the American Cancer Society stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the benefits of vitamin D supplements in cancer prevention, the Canadian Cancer Society is launching a program to make sure every Canadian citizen receives a level of vitamin D sufficient to prevent most cancers, including breast cancer.
Do you want to know why?
I'll tell you why, and you won't like the answer. It's because the cancer industry depends on all 100 of those women being diagnosed with cancer and treated with profitable cancer "management" protocols like chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. Preventing cancer in 75 percent of women (or more) would deny the cancer industry three-fourths of its revenue. It would shrink the industry, reduce funding, and result in a mass exodus of cancer jobs. Donations would dry up and cancer non-profits (which thrive on the continuation of cancer) would lose big. This is why they won't support cancer prevention that really works. Preventing cancer is simply not in the self interest of the cancer industry. Prevention is bad for business.
Not only will Vitamin D help prevent cancer, living an alkaline lifestyle is a certain way to
prevent cancer. Cancer cells cannot live in an alkaline terrain. The Cancer Society doesn’t
want to hear this information either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
