Healthy Homes Asia

by Dr Mercola

Story at-a-glance

• A recent episode of 60 Minutes revealed how Dr. Anil Potti, a cancer researcher at Duke University, was found to have manipulated research data to support his hypothesis, which led to over 100 terminally ill cancer patients participating in a fraudulent cancer trial
• The real fraud, however, is revealed in Duke University’s statement that none of the trial participants were harmed—even though they died—because all of them still received “the standard of care” in chemotherapy
• The cancer paradigm is based on an archaic cut, poison, and burn approach. This is a cash cow for the drug companies, and they are working hard to protect this paradigm at all cost—even when it means sacrificing millions of lives to prevent non-patentable or otherwise inexpensive treatments from reaching the market
• In the last few years, we’ve seen several cases of shocking medical science fraud

Is This Fraud Too Big Even For 60 Minutes?

Exposure and subsequent concern over medical research fraud is on the rise, and for good reason.

It's now reached the point where blogs exist solely to cover retractions of published researchi.

An episode of 60 Minutes, featured above, also highlights the problem.

In this episode, they reveal the dramatic rise and fall of Dr. Anil Potti, whose cancer research at Duke University was heralded as a groundbreaking game changer.

It's a perfect example of how fraud can occur anywhere. Even at the best institutions.

Dr. Potti's work, which entailed matching a patient's tumor to the best chemotherapy drug based on its DNA makeup, was the most exciting cancer breakthrough in recent history, according to many involved.

More than 100 cancer-stricken and desperate patients signed up for Dr. Potti's trial. Unfortunately, two years ago, it became apparent that the method was a failure. Not only that, but as stated in the 60 Minutes segment, Dr. Potti's discovery "may end up being one of the biggest medical research frauds ever; one that deceived dying patients, the best medical journals, and a great University."

Dr. Potti May have Faked Both Credentials and Research Data

Questions about Dr. Potti's research had been raised, but were cleared by a committee at Duke University. It wasn't until a confidential source tipped off the editor of The Cancer Letter to take another look at Dr. Potti's claim of being a Rhodes Scholar that the lies began unraveling.

Joseph Nevins, Dr. Potti's mentor and coworker at Duke University for over four years confronted him about the accusation he may have lied on his resume. Potti admitted that he wasn't really a Rhodes Scholar, rather it was a fellowship from Rhodes Scholars in Australia... Nevins decided to take another look at Dr. Potti's original data, eventually concluding that it was "abundantly clear" Potti had purposefully manipulated the data.

Whenever the data disproved Potti's theory, the data had simply been altered.

The claim that the novel procedure had an 80 percent chance of success was a complete lie, and patients in Potti's trial died. Some of the surviving family members are now suing. Dr. Potti has stated that he "... was not aware that false or 'improper' information had been included in the research." Duke University has also apologized for the trials, and has opened up about the case to serve as a warning example to other institutions.

But the greatest irony of all is brought up at the very end of the 60 Minutes' segment. While patients did not receive any groundbreaking treatment, Duke University has stated that none of the patients in Dr. Potti's failed trial were really harmed "because all of them received the standard of care in chemotherapy."

And THAT, my friends, is the real "Biggest Medical Fraud" of all time.

It's so big, 60 Minutes will not likely discuss that truth any time soon. In reality, virtually the entire cancer industry is one massive fraud, in the sense that it's not really allowing authentic and inexpensive cancer cures that address the cause of the problem to come to market. They are virtually all violently opposed and condemned. It's a massive for-profit industry, and unless a treatment revolves around a costly drug that can be patented, it will never see the light of day. The whole idea that the cancer industry is "searching for a cure" is a sham... because cures already exist. But they're being massively suppressed.

Why Many Groundbreaking Cancer Therapies are Suppressed

It's kind of sad to hear how Dr. Potti's idea of using DNA-matching to customize treatments created such waves of excitement, knowing that similar gene-target therapies have been vehemently suppressed, simply because they did not involve expensive pharmaceuticals patented by Big Pharma.

Burzynski: The Movie tells the story of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, who developed a non-toxic gene-target cancer therapy called antineoplastons, and has been harassed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for over 14 years in an effort to shut him down. His treatment could have helped save millions of lives over the last two decades had his discovery not been criminally suppressed by the U.S. government, as it has been shown to effectively help cure some of the most "incurable" forms of terminal cancer. The film is a powerful expose of the unscrupulous forces that work to maintain the status quo of the medical and pharmaceutical industry at any cost.

Why was Dr. Burzynski attacked while Dr. Potti was worshipped as a wunderkind?

Potti was working within "the standard of care," matching chemotherapy drugs to the DNA of patient's tumors, while Burzynski's antineoplastons are non-toxic peptides and derivatives of amino acids that work as genetic switches. In short, Dr. Burzynski developed a cancer treatment that surpassed all other treatments on the market, and the FDA, the pharmaceutical industry, and the National Cancer Institute all knew it. But he was also the sole owner of the patents for this therapy, and these two facts combined threatened the entire paradigm of the cancer industry.

The cancer paradigm is based on very expensive machines and toxic drugs. There's an enormous amount of money to be made in this paradigm, no one in the cancer industry, aside from Burzynski himself, stand to make a dime if his treatment is granted approval and goes mainstream. That's why it has been suppressed, despite the fact that antineoplastons have been shown to be far more effective than the current standard of care. The film features several remarkable case stories of people who were successfully cured of cancer, but it's when the clinical trial data of conventional therapies versus antineoplastons are stacked against each other that the benefits of antineoplastons become really obvious:

Radiation or Chemotherapy - Only 5 of 54 patients (9 percent) were cancer free at the end of treatment - Toxic side

OnlyAntineoplastons - 5 of 20 (25 percent) were cancer free at the end of treatment  effects -  No toxic side effects

Systemic Corruption within the FDA Threatens Your Health

Unfortunately, our government plays a significant and ongoing role in the committing of this kind of scientific fraud. I recently commented on the fact that the FDA secretly monitored the personal e-mail of nine whistleblowers—its own scientists and doctors—over the course of two years. The whistleblowers, who worked in the office responsible for reviewing medical devices, including those for cancer screening, had warned Congress that the agency was approving medical devices that posed unacceptable risks to patients.

Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health kept pushing for the Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) inspector general to investigate the employees, accusing them of improperly disclosing confidential business information about the devices.

Shuren is also the official who oversees mercury dental fillings, which they have been fraudulently referring to as 'silver fillings'. He had promised to make an announcement about dental amalgam by the end of 2011. But with just six minutes left in the work year, at 4:54 pm on Friday, December 30, the FDA conceded that no announcement was forthcoming – not in 2011, and maybe not at all.

I've long questioned the safety of mammography, based on compelling information from scientists and experts in the field. Here, we have a number of FDA employees warning Congress that the agency is placing patient's lives at risk, due to internal corruption... and still nothing is done.

The fact is, a lot of what the general public assumes is "science-based medicine" is anything but. According to one recent poll for the British Medical Journal, one in 10 scientists and doctors claim to have witnessed colleague's deliberately fabricating data in order to get their research publishedii. Back in 2005, Dr. John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Ioannina School of Medicine, Greece, showed that there is less than a 50 percent chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper will be true! He repeated his investigation in 2008 and found that much of scientific research being published is highly questionable. According to his study:

"Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true."

Add to that the fact that the FDA is not doing its stated job either, and it should be quite clear that there's really no one out there protecting your health from dangerous pharmaceuticals and medical treatments...

Notable Cases of Medical Fraud

While many believe Dr. Potti may go down as the largest medical science fraud case in modern history, we've seen several stunning cases in the last few years. Tragically, some if not all of them may have contributed to significant health ramifications and loss of life of many thousands of people:

• Scott S. Reuben, a prominent Massachusetts anesthesiologist, allegedly fabricated 21 medical studies published between 1996 and 2008 that claimed to show benefits from painkillers like Vioxx, Celebrex, Bextra and Lyrica. His work was considered important in encouraging doctors to combine the use of painkillers like Celebrex and Lyrica for patients undergoing common procedures such as knee and hip replacements
• Last year, autism researcher Poul Thorsen was charged with 13 counts of wire fraud and nine counts of money laundering. He also allegedly stole over $1 million from autism research funding between February 2004 and June 2008. He is said to have stolen the money while serving as the 'principal investigator' for a program that studied the relationship between autism and exposure to vaccines. He was involved in several key studies the CDC uses to support their claims that MMR and mercury-containing vaccines, among others, are safe. One of his papers on the subject, known as 'The Danish Study', is extensively quoted to refute the autism-vaccine connection
• In October, 2011, the Office of Research Integrity at the U.S. Department of Health discovered that a Boston University cancer scientist, Sheng Wang, had fabricated his research findings. His work was published in two journals in 2009, and he's been ordered to retract them. But important studies by other scientists like those at the Mayo Clinic, who based their work on his findings, could now see 10 years of their studies going down the drain as worthless...
• In November of last year, a noted Dutch psychologist confessed to fabricating research data for years. According to an investigating committee, Dr. Diederik Stapel falsified entire experiments, and several dozen of his fabricated papers were published in respected psychology journals and promoted in the mediaiii.
• In January, resveratrol researcher with the University of Connecticut, Dipak Das, was found guilty of 145 counts of fabrication and falsification of data published in 11 different journals.iv

How to Get Solid Information in an Era of Confusion

Ultimately, my take-home message here is that even if a drug or treatment is scientifically proven, all these examples make it crystal clear that this simply is not a guarantee of safety or effectiveness. Likewise, if an alternative treatment has not been published in a medical journal, it does not mean it is unsafe or ineffective. There's a lot to be said for the tried-and-true remedies of old, even if they've not been rigorously studied by modern researcher.

I recommend using all the resources available to you, including your own sense of common sense and reason, true experts' advice and other's experiences, to determine what medical treatment or advice will be best for you in any given situation. Remain skeptical but open -- even if it is something I am saying, you simply need to realize YOU are responsible for your health, not me and certainly not drug companies trying to sell their wares.

Seeing how it's been well established that most drugs do absolutely nothing to treat the cause of disease, it would be prudent to exercise the precautionary principle when evaluating ANY new drug claim, as it will more than likely be seriously flawed or biased -- and is most likely not in your long-term best interest.

If you're facing a health challenge, I recommend seeking out a qualified natural health consultant. A good place to look for recommendations is at your local health food store. Get to know the people who work there, the owners, and those who frequent the store, and obtain a consensus as to who the best clinician for you is in your area. Word travels fast in the natural medical community, so if there's a knowledgeable practitioner in your area that's getting awesome results, his or her reputation will be known. Of course, when it comes to cancer, you'll want to identify someone that is well known and respected for their work in treating cancer patients. If you don't find one locally then scour the Internet and make calls to plenty of patients that the practitioner has seen.

References:

• i Retraction Watch
• ii Daily Mail, January 12, 2012
• iii Fraud Case Seen as a Red Flag for Psychology Research, The New York Times, November 3, 2011
• iv Hold Off On That Glass Just Yet – Red Wine Researcher Charged With Falsifying Data, Singularityhub.com, January 15, 2012

(Mercola) If you like the idea of having what may be the equivalent of 1,000 chest x-rays in one sitting and actually boosting the mutations that increase your risk of breast cancer, then get a mammogram. Otherwise, rely on this secret weapon - it's cancer's greatest enemy...

Story at a glance

• The Institute of Medicine is finally acknowledging the toxic effects of mammogram radiation as a significant factor in the development of breast cancer; just one mammogram can expose you to the radiation equivalent of 1,000 chest x-rays
• Mammograms also carry an unacceptably high rate of false positives—up to six percent—which can lead to repeat screenings that expose you to even more radiation, as well as unnecessary medical procedures, including biopsies, surgery, and chemotherapy
• A new study in the British Medical Journal highlights losses in quality of life related to the high rates of false positives and unnecessary treatment associated with breast cancer screening
• Mammograms have been scientifically proven not to save women’s lives, and do not improve breast cancer survival rates over annual physical examination alone
• Your immune system is your greatest weapon against breast cancer; research now shows that 30 percent of breast tumors go away on their own, because a healthy immune system is so adept at eradicating cancer.

Your Greatest Weapon Against Breast Cancer (Not Mammograms)
By Dr. Mercola

According to the National Breast Cancer Foundation, 200,000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed each year in the US, making it three times more common than other gynecological cancers.

Breast cancer will claim the lives of 40,000 people this year.

In fact, the only type of cancer that claims the lives of more women is lung cancer.

Even more disturbing is the speed at which breast cancer rates have risen over the past 5 decades.

In 1960, one in 20 women was diagnosed—but today, it is one in seven.

The following are some important facts about this type of cancer:1

• Breast cancer is the leading cause of death for women age 40 to 55.
• 15 percent of all breast cancers occur in women under age 45; in this age group, breast cancers are more aggressive and have lower recovery rates.
• 80 percent of breast lumps are NON-cancerous.
• 70 percent of breast cancers are found through breast self-exams.
• About 80 percent of women diagnosed with breast cancer have no family history of breast cancer.

The toxic effects of mammogram radiation are finally being acknowledged as a significant factor in the development of breast cancer. Several recent studies have clearly shown that breast cancer screenings may be causing women more harm than good.

A new study published in the British Medical Journal (December 2011) confirmed that breast cancer screening may cause women harm, especially during the early years after they start screening.2 This harm is largely due to surgeries, such as lumpectomies and mastectomies, and other (often unnecessary) interventions. The study highlights losses in quality of life from false positive results and unnecessary treatment.

Fortunately, we're beginning to see the initial stirrings of change, as this latest report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) shows, which calls into question the role environmental exposure may be playing in the development of breast cancer.3 The IOM committee is absolutely correct in calling for more research into the risks of various environmental exposures over the course of a woman's lifetime. Isn't it ironic that the mammogram—the principle diagnostic test given to women to help detect and prevent breast cancer—is responsible for increasing women's risk for developing it?

Mammogram Radiation is Much More Damaging than a Chest X-Ray

Mammograms use ionizing radiation at a relatively high dose, which can contribute to the mutations that can lead to breast cancer. You can get as much radiation from one mammogram as you would from 1,000 chest X-rays. Mammography also compresses your breasts tightly, which can lead to a dangerous spread of cancerous cells, should they exist. Dr. Samuel Epstein, one of the world's top cancer experts, has stated:

"The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade's screening."

Breast Cancer Screening May Lead to Unnecessary Treatments and Surgeries that Can Actually SHORTEN Your Lifespan

Another concern is that mammograms carry an unacceptably high rate of false positives—up to six percent. False positives can lead to expensive repeat screenings, exposing you to even more radiation, and can sometimes result in unnecessary invasive procedures such as biopsies, surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. In fact, if you undergo breast screenings, you have a 35 percent increased risk of having surgery.4 If a mammogram detects an abnormal spot in your breast, the next step is typically a biopsy.

This involves taking a small amount of tissue from your breast, which is then looked at by a pathologist under a microscope to determine if cancer is present. These biopsies are notoriously inaccurate, often leading to misdiagnosis and unnecessary treatments, not to mention undue emotional stress.

Just thinking you may have breast cancer, when you really do not, focuses your mind on fear and disease, and the stress is actually enough to trigger an illness. It is well established that stress has damaging effects on your health. So, a false positive diagnosis can be damaging to your health from multiple angles. In a 2009 Cochrane Database Systematic Review of breast cancer screening and mammography, the authors wrote:5

"Screening led to 30 percent overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent. This means that for every 2000 women screened for 10 years, one will have her life prolonged, and 10 healthy women who would not have been diagnosed if they had not been screened, will be treated unnecessarily."

Unfortunately, the disturbing scientific findings do not end there. This means that by having these breast cancer screenings, you may be shortening your life, rather than extending it. In reference to the 2011 BMJ findings about the damage being done by breast cancer screening, Sayer Ji of Green Med Info wrote:6

"What is perhaps most disturbing about these findings is that, while they clearly call into question the safety and effectiveness of breast screenings, the studies upon which they are based use an outdated radiation risk model, which minimizes by a factor of 4 to 5 the carcinogenicity ... What this indicates, therefore, is that breast screenings are not just 'causing more harm than good,' but are planting seeds of radiation-induced cancer within the breasts of millions of women."

Mammograms are NOT Really Saving Lives, Research Says

In September 2010, the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most prestigious medical journals, published the first study in years7 to examine the effectiveness of mammograms. Their findings are a far cry from what most public health officials would have you believe.The bottom line is that mammograms seem to have reduced cancer death rates by only 0.4 deaths per 1,000 women—an amount so small it might as well be zero. Put another way, 2,500 women would have to be screened over 10 years for a single breast cancer death to be avoided.

So, not only are mammograms unsafe, but they are NOT saving women's lives, as was commonly thought. Past research has also shown that adding an annual mammogram to a careful physical examination of the breasts does not improve breast cancer survival rates over physical examination alone. If mammograms won't save you, then what will?

Cancer's Greatest Enemy: Your Immune System

Recent discoveries suggest that your immune system is designed to eliminate cancer. However, when you implement caustic medical interventions (such as radiation and chemotherapy) that damage your immune system so that it cannot respond appropriately, you are destroying your body's best chances for healing. Unfortunately, mammograms tend to increase the likelihood that women will undertake medical procedures that interfere with this natural healing ability. There is now a great deal of scientific evidence supporting the theory that your own immune system is your best cancer weapon:

• Individuals with liver or ovarian cancer survive longer if their killer T cells have invaded their tumors.
• A 2005 study showed that colon cancers that most strongly attract T cells are the least likely to recur after treatment.8
• Another study found that 60 percent of precancerous cervical cells (found on PAP tests) revert to normal within a year,and 90 percent revert within three years.9
• Some kidney cancers are known to regress, even when highly advanced.

The presence of white blood cells in and around a tumor is often an indication that the cancer will go into remission—or even vanish altogether—as this New York Times article explains.10 And breast cancer is no exception.

Thirty Percent of Breast Tumors Go Away on their Own According to breast surgeon Susan Love of UCLA, at least 30 percent of tumors found on mammograms would go away if you did absolutely nothing.11 These tumors appear to be destined to stop growing on their own, shrink, and even go away completely. This begs the question—how many cancer cures that are attributed to modern interventions like chemotherapy and radiation, are actually just a function of the individual's immune system ridding itself of the tumor on its own? How many people get over cancer in spite of the treatments that wreak havoc on the body, rather than because of them? It is impossible to definitively answer this question.

But it is safe to say that the strength of your immune system is a major factor in determining whether or not you will beat cancer, once you have it. Nearly everyone has cancerous and pre-cancerous cells in their body by middle age, but not everyone develops cancer. The difference lies in the robustness of each person's immune system.

Dr. Barnett Kramer of NIH12 says it's becoming increasingly clear that cancers require more than just mutations to progress. They need the cooperation of surrounding cells, certain immune responses, and hormones to fuel them. Kramer describes cancer as a dynamic process, whereas it used to be regarded as "an arrow that moved in one direction" (e.g., from bad to worse). What does this mean for you?

The better you take care of your immune system, the better it will take care of you.

One way to strengthen your immune system is to minimize your exposure to mammograms and other sources of ionizing radiation. But you can also build up your immune system DAILY by making good diet and lifestyle choices. One of the best ways to do this is by optimizing your vitamin D level.

Vitamin D: Cancer Fighter Extraordinaire

Vitamin D, a steroid hormone that influences virtually every cell in your body, is one of nature's most potent cancer fighters. Receptors that respond to vitamin D have been found in almost every type of human cell, from your bones to your brain. Your liver, kidney and other tissues can convert the vitamin D in your bloodstream into calcitriol, which is the hormonal or activated version of vitamin D. Your organs then use it to repair damage and eradicate cancer cells.

Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis, or cancer cell death.

When JoEllen Welsh, a researcher with the State University of New York at Albany, injected a potent form of vitamin D into human breast cancer cells, half of them shriveled up and died within days. The vitamin D worked as well at killing cancer cells as the toxic breast cancer drug Tamoxifen, without any of the detrimental side effects and at a tiny fraction of the cost.

I strongly recommend making sure your vitamin D level is 70 to 100ng/ml if you've received a breast cancer diagnosis. You can achieve this through direct, safe exposure to ultraviolet light, or if this is not possible, by taking an oral vitamin D3 supplement. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I am aware of, without adverse effects. Please watch my free one-hour lecture on vitamin D for more information. For a comprehensive guide to breast cancer prevention and treatment, refer to this previous article. Some of the other research-based breast cancer fighters include the following:

• Eating plenty of fresh, whole, organic vegetables, especially fermented vegetables
• Avoiding all processed foods, and minimizing sugar, grains and starchy foods
• Vitamin A plays a role in preventing breast cancer; your best sources are organic egg yolks, raw milk and butter, and beef and chicken liver (from organically raised, grass pastured animals)
• Curcumin (the active agent in turmeric) is one of the most potent tumor-inhibiting foods; black cohosh, artemisinin, green tea, kelp, cruciferous vegetables and evening primrose oil also show promise in helping to prevent breast cancer
• Getting plenty of exercise daily

If You Are Diagnosed With Early Stage Breast Cancer

In the event that you are diagnosed with early stage breast cancer, always get a second opinion—and possibly a third and fourth. I cannot stress this enough, as false positive rates are just too high and the diagnostic criteria is too subjective. Before you make any decision about treatment, and definitely before you decide to have surgery or chemotherapy, make sure your biopsy results have been reviewed by a breast specialist who is knowledgeable and experienced in that field.

The majority of breast cancer is preventable. But if you are hit with that diagnosis, don't lose hope! There is a great deal you can do to harness your body's own powerful healing abilities.

References:

• 1 1 About Breast Cancer, The Breast Cancer Site.
• 2 Possible Net Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: Updated Modelling of Forrest Report, British Medical Journal, December 8, 2011: 343; d7627, James Raftery and Maria Chorozoglou.
• 3 Breast Cancer and the Environment: A Life Course Approach, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, December 7, 2011.
• 4 Confirmed: Breast Screenings Cause More Harm Than Good, GreenMedInfo.com, January 5, 2012: Sayer Ji.
• 5 X-ray Mammography: For Every Woman Whose Life is Prolonged 10 Women's Lives will be Shortened, i.e. "Treated Unnecessarily", Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, October 7, 2009: 2009(4); CD001877, Peter C. Gotzsche and Margrethe Nielsen.
• 6 Confirmed: Breast Screenings Cause More Harm Than Good, GreenMedInfo.com, January 5, 2012: Sayer Ji.
• 7 Effect of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Mortality in Norway, New England Journal of Medicine, September 23, 2010: 363(13); 1203-10, Mette Kalager, MD, et al.
• 8 Effect of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Mortality in Norway, New England Journal of Medicine, September 23, 2010: 363(13); 1203-10, Mette Kalager, MD, et al.
• 9 Regression of Low-grade Squamous Intra-epithelial Lesions in Young Women, The Lancet, November 6, 2004: 364(9446); 1678-1683, Anna-Barbara Moscicki, M.D., et al.
• 10 Cancers Can Vanish Without Treatment, but How?, The New York Times, October 26, 2009: Gina Kolata.
• 11 Could This Be The End of Cancer?, Newsweek, December 12, 2011: Sharon Begley.
• 12 Cancers Can Vanish Without Treatment, but How?, The New York Times, October 27, 2009: Gina Kolata.

Source:  CNN Health December 7, 2011 Source:  Chicago Tribune Health November 21, 2011 Source:  Institute of Medicine of the National Academies December 7, 2011 Source:  National Cancer Institute Recommendations Source:  The Daily beast December 12, 2011 Source:  New York Times October 26, 2009 Source:  Lancet November 6, 2004 Source:  The Breast Cancer Site Source:  New England Journal of Medicine December 22, 2005 Source:  New England Journal of Medicine September 23, 2010 Source:  Green Med Info January 5, 2012 Source:  Green Med Info December 8, 2011 Source:  British Medical Journal December 8, 2011 Source:  Green Med Info October 7, 2009

The first Holistic Cancer Congress will be held in Auckland, New Zealand at the end of this month (March). This exciting event will feature world-class authorities like Dr Bruce Lipton PhD, Dr Tim Ewer, Dr Robin Kelly, Richard Moat, Jason Shon Bennett, Jasmina Kovacev and David Holden. Click here for more information.

(NaturalNews) Many people believe that maintaining healthy eating habits is enough, but only few foods naturally contain significant levels of vitamin D. Read the full story here.
Also read Phillip Day's article Nothing New Under the Sun here.

Am I vitamin D deficient?

The best way to discover vitamin D deficiency is to take a blood test that will measure the level of the vitamin in your blood. You can either ask your doctor to administer the test or buy a home test kit do the test yourself. However, you are certainly vitamin D deficient if you have any of the following ailments, and you need to consult with your doctor regarding your preventive, as well as curative, options as soon as possible. Learn more here.

1) The flu - In a study published in the Cambridge Journals, it was discovered that vitamin D deficiency predisposes children to respiratory diseases. An intervention study conducted showed that vitamin D reduces the incidence of respiratory infections in children.

2) Muscle weakness - According to Michael F. Holick, a leading vitamin D expert, muscle weakness is usually caused by vitamin D deficiency because for skeletal muscles to function properly, their vitamin D receptors must be sustained by vitamin D.

3) Psoriasis - In a study published by the UK PubMed central, it was discovered that synthetic vitamin D analogues were found useful in the treatment of psoriasis.

4) Chronic kidney disease - According to Holick, patients with advanced chronic kidney diseases (especially those requiring dialysis) are unable to make the active form of vitamin D. These individuals need to take 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 or one of its calcemic analogues to support calcium metabolism, decrease the risk of renal bone disease and regulate parathyroid hormone levels.

5) Diabetes - A study conducted in Finland was featured in Lancet.com in which 10,366 children were given 2000 international units (IU)/day of vitamin D3 per day during their first day of life. The children were monitored for 31 years and in all of them, the risk of type 1 diabetes was reduced by 80 percent.

6) Asthma - Vitamin D may reduce the severity of asthma attacks. Research conducted in Japan revealed that asthma attacks in school children were significantly lowered in those subjects taking a daily vitamin D supplement of 1200 IU a day.

7) Periodontal disease - Those suffering from this chronic gum disease that causes swelling and bleeding gums should consider raising their vitamin D levels to produce defensins and cathelicidin, compounds that contain microbial properties and lower the number of bacteria in the mouth.

8) Cardiovascular disease - Congestive heart failure is associated with vitamin D deficiency. Research conducted at Harvard University among nurses found that women with low vitamin D levels (17 ng/m [42 nmol/L]) had a 67 percent increased risk of developing hypertension.

9) Schizophrenia and Depression - These disorders have been linked to vitamin D deficiency. In a study, it was discovered that maintaining sufficient vitamin D among pregnant women and during childhood was necessary to satisfy the vitamin D receptor in the brain integral for brain development and mental function maintenance in later life.

10) Cancer - Researchers at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington DC discovered a connection between high vitamin D intake and reduced risk of breast cancer. These findings, presented at the American Association for Cancer Research, revealed that increased doses of the sunshine vitamin were linked to a 75 percent reduction in overall cancer growth and 50 percent reduction in tumor cases among those already having the disease. Of interest was the capacity of vitamin supplementation to help control the development and growth of breast cancer specially estrogen-sensitive breast cancer.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035089_vitamin_D_deficiency_signs_symptoms.html#ixzz1ogUvZWbZ

(NaturalNews) The truth has once again shaken the foundation of the 'American Tower of Babel' that is mainstream science, with a new study out of Harvard University showing that pasteurized milk product from factory farms is linked to causing hormone-dependent cancers.

Read the full story here.

Read Phillip Day's article 'Milk, why do we guzzle the goo?' here.

Experts warn sugary foods and drinks are responsible for illnesses including obesity, heart disease, cancer and liver problems. And they claim it contributes to 35 million deaths a year worldwide and is so dangerous it should be controlled through taxation and legislation. They warn obesity is now a bigger problem than malnourishment across the world. Read the full story here.

Mike Anderson has done a great job with Healing Cancer From Inside Out and Eating. These films, which Phillip Day was promoting on his last tour, are ideal to pass around family and friends.

Healing Cancer from the Inside Out, 2nd edition
This award-winning film is two hours long, in two parts, and covers a comprehensive range of topics. From the failings of conventional treatment to how cancer can be successfully healed with dietary treatments and natural supplementation.

Eating, third edition
Join over 40 million people throughout the world who have watched this award-winning film. It covers a lot of ground very comprehensively - and all within 88 short minutes. Among the many highlights are interviews with Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, Dr. Neil Pinckney, Dr. Ruth Heidrich and Dr. Joseph Crowe.