Title : 5 Facts On Cancer That Conventional Medicine Is Now Aggressively Claiming Are Myths
link : 5 Facts On Cancer That Conventional Medicine Is Now Aggressively Claiming Are Myths
5 Facts On Cancer That Conventional Medicine Is Now Aggressively Claiming Are Myths
by Dave Mihalovicpreventing disease
According to the conventional wisdom of conventional medicine, the main health professionals in the world of medicine alternative, complementary and integrative are all wrong and misinformed million people in practice and on the Internet with a barrage of myths and misconceptions claim are causing more damage to cancer patients. Could this initiative to influence opinion by leading authorities in cancer, possibly, just possibly be related to the revolution that is happening around the world - highlighting the dangers and ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and toxic radiation, thereby cure cancer, such as cannabis at the forefront, or emerging market masses now creating awareness about the reality of our food and the consequences of one's own cancer industry?
fACT # 1
the increase in all types of cancers are due to our modern society diets, lifestyles and the environment
why the industry Claims Cancer This is a myth
the claim is that our genes are responsible, together with the fact that people are now living long enough to develop cancer. It is because of our success in the fight against infectious diseases and malnutrition that now gives them cancer. It is perfectly normal that damage to the DNA in our cells to build with age, and that such damage can lead to cancer. Cancer has existed since humans have.
Reality
The only reason that people around the world today believe that our ancestors did not live more than 100 years is because official data has been scarce. There are very few records showing (officially) the age of our ancestors before 18 then century, but there is a reasonable amount of evidence suggesting that many people who live hundreds of years in prehistory and beyond.
in all the skeletons collected in the history of paleoanthropology, scientists have only been able to identify about 200 possible sightings of cancer dating back to prehistoric times, and these identifications are far from certain. Despite the numbers, when you look at the remains, suggesting that malignant tumors were a 'surprising rarity "in ancient times, but the evidence is inconclusive. I just do not know for sure, so use any kind of argument that there was cancer or not there is any magnitude in prehistory involves making a lot of assumptions.
so let's focus on what happened in the past century solo.Según the National Center for Health Statistics US Vital Statistics of the United States , since 1900 only up to and including 2011, there was an increase of more than 3 times in death rates from cancer.
according to a 2013 highlights report [19459013I] compiled by the American cancer Society and other groups in the government and advocacy, progress has been made in the "war on cancer." But what kind of progress? Declining mortality rates are not due to the decreased incidence. More people are getting cancer, but if it could be maintained with longer life. What the cancer industry does not point out is that trends clearly show that we have not eliminated the cancer to some extent, but we've got to be able to diagnose and treat and therefore the benefit of the actual disease itself.
People around the world are live longer, but chronic debilitating conditions are becoming more frequent .
the diagnosis and treatment are money makers in this industry. real prevention is not. So when it comes to prevention, conventional medicine has stuck its head in the sand.
Overall, cancer deaths began to fall in the 1990s, with declining rates mortality of 1.8 percent for men and 1.4 percent for women between the years 2000-2009, according to the report. mortality rates of children with cancer are also declining at a rate of 1.8 percent per year, although the incidence continues to increase by about 0.5 percent annually.
Other cancers are also continues to increase, however, including pancreatic cancer and liver and melanoma (men).
One study 2008 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences demonstrated how nutrition alone can have a tremendous impact not only on prevention, but even in the treatment of cancer once it has been diagnosed.
This type of information by the medical community is never stressed, as do not believe cancer can be treated without any cutting, poisoning or burning cancerous tumors.
FACT # 2
Great foods and herbs can prevent cancer
why the industry Claims Cancer This is a myth
the claim is that fruits and vegetables that are specific choose not really matter. There is no such thing as a "super food" or powerful medicinal herb and any statement has no scientific basis.
Reality
This is just embarrassing for them. While it is not a super food or herb that can cure all cancers, to suggest that super-foods do not exist or that herbal medicines are not powerful is reaching deep wells of ignorance. In fact, there is so much evidence that there is a super-food and have anti-cancer properties that any claims that suggest otherwise are a good measure of credibility, which is among many of these charlatans of the industry that make such outlandish statements.
at the time of this article, the American Cancer Society (ACS) appears to have eliminated references to " super foods " or " super-foods " out your website. However, several authors have written about the previous recommendations of the ACS, in particular on the potential of super-foods to prevent cancer. Northridge Hospital Medical Center lists several super foods as a source using the ACS. Calorielab.com has published an infographic super food also use ACS as the source. But information about super-foods on the website of the ACS does not seem to exist.
Cancer Research UK also discredits and discourages the use of super-foods Here says "you should not be relied on so-called super foods to reduce the risk of cancer," and that the super-food "is unlikely to give you added health benefits beyond what you get from a varied and healthy diet."
a vexing problem that confuses public opinion is that most dietitians have no foundation of practical knowledge on nutrition. To spread the prevailing opinion on the validity of the pyramid of food - bread, cereals and grains should be the basis of our diet and that fruits and vegetables are all equal. Most dietitians I know do not use the term super food because they are not taught the super-foods are in school. The only thing they are taught is "super foods" are not medical terms popularized in the media to promote health beneficial not allowed in food properties.
A superfood can be summarized as any multitasking food with higher than average levels of disease-fighting nutrients, which are usually in abundance between antioxidants and phytonutrients rich profiles. Some suggest they are also low in calories, but that does not always apply to all super-foods
Some super-foods such as blueberries Just stand out above the rest. Of the more than 400 compounds analyzed, red grapes and blueberries are tops in enhancing immunity .
Even WebMD.com, a major pro lists medical sites 10 Everday Super Foods . Below foods like broccoli, berries, quinoa, beans, nuts, eggs and other few can give lists are nutrient dense foods very with anti-cancer properties.
However, it is not necessary to spend any large sums of money for the super-food highly touted as noni, acai, mangosteen and other juices in an attempt to prevent cancer. The six best foods with the highest values of antioxidants in the ORAC (Absorbance Capacity Oxygen Radical) scale are cheaper and easier to obtain than more expensive alternatives and they have all shown to prevent cancer. Include cloves, sumac, cinnamon, sorghum, oregano and turmeric.
For example, extracts of black sorghum, red, white and had strong antiproliferative activity against human cancer cells .
animal studies with lung cancer and skin show that eugenol in cloves can stop cancer cells from multiplying. The extract of clove oil in a study for maximum cytotoxic activity on cancer cells.
In fact there are 17 herbs and spices in their own right are considered super foods, and have been scientifically proven to prevent and treat cancer .
cannabis is one of the most powerful healing plants in the world and is causes cancer essentially disappear . cancer societies certainly like cannabis to disappear because there is much evidence that it prevents cancer. There dozens of studies who try cannabis cures cancer. A quick search in PubMed for "cannabinoids" will produce about 18,000 results.
The reason for cancer societies are turning to head the power of super-foods and herbs is because they work. So you should try to influence opinion in an attempt to convince millions of people now are turning back to nature to prevent and cure diseases.
FACT # 3
acidic diets cause cancer
why the industry Claims cancer This is a myth
This does not make biological sense as the cancer industry. The pH of blood is tightly regulated by the kidneys within a very narrow range perfectly healthy. You can not change by any significant amount of time so you eat. There is no evidence to show that diet can manipulate all the body's pH, or has an impact on cancer.
Reality
Part of the problem with this idea is that there has been a lot of misinformation spread around by so-called gurus health in trade shows attempt to convince people that can make drastic changes in the pH of your body through food and alkaline water. The truth is that you can not make major changes in the alkalinity or acidity of the blood, but can small changes that are significant enough to reverse cancer.
The pH of blood is tightly regulated by a complex system of dampers that are continually at work to maintain a range of 7.3 to 7.41, which is slightly more alkaline than pure water.
If the blood pH falls below 7 3, the result is a condition called acidosis, a condition which leads to depression of the central nervous system. Severe acidosis - where blood pH drops below 7.00 - can lead to coma and even death. If the blood pH rises above 7.45, the result is alkalosis.
The conclusion is that if you are breathing and going about your daily activities, your body is doing an adequate job of maintaining the pH blood somewhere between 7.3 to 7.41, and foods you are eating are not causing any wild deviations from the pH of the blood. However maintain the closest body to an alkaline state of even a few points to 0.05 can make a significant difference in how well the cancer grows or deleted. Cancer cells can not live in an alkaline environment.
The reason acidosis is more common in our society is mainly due to the typical American diet, which is too high in animal products that produce acids meat and dairy products, and too low in alkaline producing foods such as fresh vegetables. In addition, we eat processed foods that produce acids such as white flour and sugar and drink acid producing beverages such as coffee and soft drinks. We use too many drugs, which are acid; and we use artificial chemical sweeteners like NutraSweet, Equal, or aspartame, which are extremely acid-forming. One of the best things we can do to correct an overly acid body is to clean diet and lifestyle.
Dr. A. Keith Brewer explained in alkaline environments and high condition pH, acid toxins cancer cell become neutralized and non-toxic. acidic toxins, not the bulk of the tumor itself, is what causes the death of the host. In the condition of high pH, the life of the cancer cell is short. Dead cancer cells are easily absorbed by the system and removed. "I am convinced that is the food that causes cancer, but do not eat the food and not the food that we eat."
This condition forces the body to borrow minerals - including calcium, sodium, potassium and magnesium - from vital organs and bones to buffer (neutralize) the acid and safely remove it from the body. Once a person is diagnosed with cancer, the most effective way to reverse the disease is moving towards an alkaline diet and change the pH of the blood to the 7.41 range. This is accomplished more effectively with raw vegetables and fruits and vegetables daily to maximize the potential phytonutrients and improve the immune system to reverse cancer. No, the body will not change dramatically pH of the blood, but it is not necessary for cancer cells. Even a small change will reverse cancer and prevent the body borrow minerals from organs and bones to compensate a nutritionally deficient diet. That's where the alkalizing agents come in.
I've seen patients with stage IV tumors the size of footballs collect using alkalizing agents. It is beyond the scope of this article to explain how the alkalizing agents and therapy pH can eliminate cancer, however, if you seek the help of any Naturopathic Physician well versed in the treatment of cancer protocols are quite common, although inconsistent.
the conclusion is that the body can achieve the metabolic performance of maintaining the pH of the blood to the alkaline range where cancer will not proliferate. The immune system can thrive and recovery of the signal is provided through nutritional mechanisms and alkalizing to maximize recovery and make treatments such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy or completely unnecessary surgery agents.
DONE # 4
sugar feeds cancer
why the industry Claims cancer This is a myth
claim that there is no evidence that cancer cells use glucose and energy production differently from healthy cells. The "sugar feeds cancer" myth distorts sensible dietary advice should be based on facts about nutrition and science.
Reality
Understanding cancer can not be the result of the view a single event cancer but should take into account the combined action of all cellular activators in a given cell background. There is little doubt in the scientific community that the high rate of carbohydrate intake contributes to several metabolic diseases, including the development of aggressive cancer.
The medical establishment may be missing the connection between sugar and its role in Consider tumorigenesis device positron emission tomography million, or PET scan, regarded as one of the latest tools for cancer detection. PET radiolabeled glucose is used to detect tumor cells by sugar starvation. PET is used to plot the progress of cancer patients and to evaluate whether the current protocols are effective.
Domestic animals (cats example and dogs), which usually consuming Western diets with a relatively high glycemic index, frequently suffer from aggressive cancer, while carnivores and herbivores have a low rate of cancer metastasis, and rarely die from this disease. Both carnivores and herbivores live mostly protein and fat / oil. Although herbivores ingest large amounts of complex carbohydrates (cellulose and other fibers), they are fermented to fatty acids by bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract and therefore exhibit extremely low glycemic index. limited version or even the absence of glucose during digestion may explain the low rates of cancer mortality caused by herbivorous and carnivorous animals.
A four years of study at the National Institute of Public health and Environmental Protection of the Netherlands compared 111 patients with biliary tract cancer with 480 controls. The risk of cancer associated with the intake of sugars, independent of other energy sources, more than double cancer patients. On the other hand, a epidemiological study in 21 modern countries that track morbidity and mortality (Europe, North America, Japan and others) revealed that sugar consumption is a strong risk factor contributing to rates higher, especially in older women breast cancer.
in Europe, the "sugar feeds cancer" concept is so well accepted that medical oncologists, or cancer, use the protocol systemic cancer therapy multiple (SCMT). Manfred von Ardenne conceived in Germany in 1965, SCMT involves injecting patients with glucose to increasing concentrations of blood glucose. This decreases the pH values in cancer tissues through the formation of lactic acid. In turn, this thermal sensitivity of malignant tumors intensifies and also induces rapid growth of cancer. Patients then are given the whole body hyperthermia (42 C core temperature) stress more cancer cells, followed by chemotherapy or radiation. SCMT was tested in 103 patients with metastatic cancer or recurrent primary tumors in a Phase I clinical study in the Von Ardenne Institute of Applied Medical Research in Dresden, Germany. survival rates five years in patients treated with SCMT increased by 25 to 50 percent, and the rate of complete tumor regression increased by 30 to 50 percent.20 The protocol induces rapid growth of cancer, then treats the tumor with toxic therapies for a dramatic improvement in the result.
for metastatic cancer cells, a change towards growth is facilitated by a microenvironment evolutionary novel within the body, characterized by permanent availability of large amounts of glucose due to nutrition with a high glycemic index, the absence of periods of starvation, as well as reduced physical activity. The more the body absorbs simple carbohydrates in the form of artificial sugars
FACT # 5
Conventional cancer treatment kills more than Cura
why the industry Claims Cancer This is a myth
the medical community insists that surgery remains the treatment more effective we have for cancer. Radiation therapy helps to cure more people than cancer drugs. However, chemotherapy and other cancer drugs have a very important part of cancer treatment - in some cases, helping to heal disease, and others who help prolong survival. Chemotherapy does not promote cancer.
Reality
Doctors and drug companies make money with it. That's the only reason chemotherapy is still used. Not because it is effective, reduces morbidity, mortality or decreased rates of specific cancers. In fact, the opposite is done. Chemotherapy increases the growth of cancer mortality rates in the long term and. Most chemotherapy patients die or are affected with the disease within 10 to 15 years after treatment. It destroys the immune system, increases the neurocognitive decline, disrupts the endocrine function and cause organ and metabolic toxicities. Patients who basically live in a permanent state of illness until his death.
The reason a relative survival rate at 5 years is the standard used to evaluate the mortality rates due to most cancer patients go downhill after this period. It is exceptionally bad for business and industry knows cancer. They never could show the public the failure rate of 97% statistical way in the treatment of metastatic cancers long term. If they did publish long-term statistics for all cancers administered cytotoxic chemotherapy, which has more than 10 years and produced the objective data of rigorous evaluations including cost-effectiveness, the impact on the immune system, quality of life, morbidity and mortality, it would be very clear to the world that chemotherapy makes little or no contribution to cancer survival at all. No such study has ever been conducted by independent researchers in the history of cancer chemotherapy. The only available studies come from institutions and scientists funded by industry and none of them have never even quantified the above variables.
Why? Money, greed and profits run of the cancer industry - nothing more. The establishment of cancer must be removed from the truth to treat cancer, because there will never be any benefit to them in the eradication of the disease. There is no governing body in the world that protects consumers from being subjected to these toxic treatments or known carcinogens in our food our environment, because the benefits will also prevent rolling. It is a business of gigantic proportions and should be treated as such.
According to official statistics, one out of every two people demand to recover from cancer through conventional methods. Although dramatic, the information contains, however, a certain amount of hope, as implicitly providing something positive for scientists and patients. For scientists says continuing research, as it is producing results; try not theoretical or therapeutic, preventive alternative ways, nor be discouraged by the fact that patients continue to die every day. For patients, on the other hand, it provides a warning: you have a probability of 50 percent of what it is, provided you follow the standard therapeutic protocols, untreated what they say are useless alternatives
. thus, in the early stages of tumors (doubtful) recovery rates are extremely high, while in the following stages - ie, which certainly are tumors - the rates are barely above zero. The reason for this difference is the classification of the data and how a patient is evaluated in terms of recovery. immune reconstitution and tolerance, organ and toxic effects of metabolism, endocrine problems, functional outcomes, quality of life, and neurocognitive outcomes are never evaluated even in any clinical study discuss the long-term survival rates and recovery cancer patients. Damage to these systems develops slowly after chemotherapy, however, although often begins to manifest itself throughout the body until several months or even years have passed. It takes time, but within a period of 3 to 5 years, most chemotherapy patients starts having many more symptoms of the disease of which each had prior to diagnosis, because, as a direct result of the cytotoxic drug intervention.
adjuvant chemotherapy is often given to patients who could not really need it at all. Oncologists do not take into account the full spectrum of risks versus benefits of chemotherapy and thus compromising the quality of life of all patients treated. A study in the journal Annals of Oncology is one of the few that evaluated different potential adverse long-term events associated with adjuvant chemotherapy in cancer, with a particular focus on cardiac long-term toxicity, secondary leukemia, cognitive function, and neurotoxicity. The authors note that the most common adverse events are overshadowed by the well-established and / clinical efficacy or safety profiles reassuring in the short term different chemotherapy regimens commonly used today.
Another study in the American Society of Clinical Oncology determined if long-term survivors of metastatic testicular cancer have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease more than 10 years after chemotherapy. a significantly increased risk of cardiac events accompanied by a profile of adverse cardiovascular risk that persists probably due to chemotherapeutic agents was observed.
A 12-year meta-analysis published in Journal of Clinical Oncology observed adults who had developed cancer and treated with chemotherapy. The 12-year study looked at adults who had developed cancer in adulthood. 97% of the time, chemotherapy was not working in the regression of metastatic cancers
sources article.
mercola.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
preventdisease.com
cancerresearchuk.org
mwt.net
nlm.nih.gov
Thanks for Reading 5 Facts On Cancer That Conventional Medicine Is Now Aggressively Claiming Are Myths
Thank you for reading this 5 Facts On Cancer That Conventional Medicine Is Now Aggressively Claiming Are Myths, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article 5 Facts On Cancer That Conventional Medicine Is Now Aggressively Claiming Are Myths Url Address https://healthnbeautyarticles.blogspot.com/2015/05/5-facts-on-cancer-that-conventional.html
0 Response to "5 Facts On Cancer That Conventional Medicine Is Now Aggressively Claiming Are Myths"
Post a Comment