AIDS Myth Exposed

The AIDS myth exposed: Why experts are challenging conventional AIDS mythology

October 29, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Conventional medicine’s explanations of HIV and AIDS are a medical myth at best; and outright quackery at worst. There is no such thing as a virus that "causes" AIDS, since the very definition of AIDS is widely disputed by scientists around the world. (And patients are often diagnosed with AIDS who have no HIV whatsoever.)
In conjunction with the release of the myth-busting documentary House of Numbers (, NaturalNews has pulled together a collection of fascinating quotes from top health authors and researchers who challenge conventional thinking about HIV and AIDS. If you’ve been suckered into Big Pharma’s lies about HIV and AIDS, you will find the information here absolutely shocking. What’s said here calls into question the entire basis of the "AIDS industry" with all their (failed) vaccines and patented prescription drugs.
It seems that the AIDS hoax is about to be publicly exposed. As the House of Numbers documentary explains, "a world without AIDS may be closer than you think."
In fact, it may exist already.
This doesn’t mean that people aren’t suffering from very real immune suppression disorders; it just means the conventional mythology that attempts to explain the causes of this immune suppression is factually wrong. Read more below to learn the details…

The AIDS myth exposed

The renaming of old diseases as AIDS further supports the hypothesis that the AIDS syndrome is never found in anyone without presence of HIV. By definition, there is no AIDS without HIV, regardless how many non-HIV people may die from the very same symptoms. Accordingly, anything that even remotely resembles immune deficiency plus HIV now counts as an AIDS disease, despite the fact that AIDS patients with Kaposi’s sarcoma have been reported to have normal immune systems. It has been argued that wherever there is HIV, AIDS will be the consequence. However, this argument is heavily flawed.
Timeless Secrets of Health & Rejuvenation: Unleash The Natural Healing Power That Lies Dormant Within You by Andreas Moritz
Two of the 16 patients in the control group developed AIDS. In another study, 10 HIV positive patients without AIDS took 150-225 mg glycyrrhizin daily. After 1-2 years, none developed symptoms associated with AIDS or AIDS-related complex (ARC), while one of 10 patients of a matched control group developed ARC and two progressed to AIDS and subsequently died. The result of glycyrrhizin in HIV-positive and AIDS patients is almost immediate improvement in immune function. In one study, nine symptom-free HIV-positive patients received 200-800 mg glycyrrhizin in vitro daily. After 8 weeks.
Textbook of Natural Medicine 2nd Edition Volume 1 by Michael T. Murray, ND
It was obvious that the FTC was not interested in whether Immune Plus helped in the treatment of AIDS; they were only interested in curtailing its marketing. The FTC alleged that Immune Plus was being advertised as a "cure" for AIDS. At no time did True Health or International White Cross claim to have a cure. Test results in the Immune Plus ad were taken directly from the nutritional AIDS test, and True Health sold the exact same formula that was used in their AIDS test to International White Cross…

Breakthrough documentary "House of Numbers" challenges conventional thinking on HIV, AIDS

October 29, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Canadian filmmaker Brent Leung isn’t winning any friends in the pharmaceutical industry these days. His breakthrough documentary "House of Numbers" features jaw-dropping interviews with doctors, researchers and even the co-discoverer of HIV himself (Luc Montagnier), all of whom reveal startling information calling into question the "official" explanation of HIV and AIDS.
An exclusive trailer from House of Numbers is now available on YouTube:…
More information about the film is available at
The film isn’t publicly available yet, as it’s been screened in film festivals around the world. Check the available screening events at the film’s website:
Because of the game-changing statements heard from numerous health authorities in this film, it threatens the very foundations of the HIV / AIDS industry. Pharmaceutical companies are fronting a specific mythology about AIDS that maximizes their profits from AIDS drugs and (failed) vaccines, but that mythology is about to be dismantled when House of Numbers is released in theaters nationwide over the next few months.
This could be the documentary that shatters Big Pharma’s false paradigms about HIV and AIDS.

The AIDS testing hoax

In the film, Brent Leung subjects himself to an HIV test and discovers that a "diagnosis" of being HIV positive has more to do with the answers you provide to lifestyle questions than any specific microbe appearing in your blood. The diagnosis of AIDS — as well as the very definition — is also apparently so wishy-washy that increasing numbers of well-trained scientists are now questioning whether AIDS exists at all.
"The presently available data does not prove the existence of HIV," says one health expert interviewed for the film. Another expert says, "The more diseases they could lump into these AIDS categories, the more patients they could catch."
"I think HIV totally has turned out not to be the cause of AIDS. HIV has turned out not to be!" says another interviewee.
"We can be exposed to HIV many times without being … infected," says Dr Luc Montagnier, the Nobel prize-winning virologist credited with the co-discovery of HIV. "Our immune system creates [antibodies] within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system."
The documentary film exposes the sharp contradictions in current scientific opinion about HIV / AIDS. "As I started questioning scientists and delving further into testing protocols and statistical modeling and science, I began to see a lot of the contradictions that they had amongst themselves," said filmmaker Brent Leung. "One of the things that became apparent to me is how important it is to question everything that we’re told and not automatically accept any fact as truth."
One bizarre thing the film exposes is the ever-shifting definition of "AIDS." In the United States, the official definition has been rewritten three times, and definitions vary widely around the world. AIDS isn’t simply the presence of the HIV virus; it’s a fictitious disease label that’s attached to a list of symptoms that continues to expand as the drug companies attempt to ensnare yet more victims into the AIDS label trap…

Technorati Tags: ,,,

Published in: on October 29, 2009 at 12:30 pm  Leave a Comment  

Vilsack Mistakenly Pitched “GMOs-Feed-The-World” to an Audience of Experts—Oops!

Jeffrey Smith  October 13, 2009

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was getting lots of appreciative applause and head nods from the packed hall at the Community Food Security Coalition conference today, held in Des Moines, Iowa. He described the USDA’s plans to improve school nutrition, support local food systems, and work with the Justice Department to review the impact of corporate agribusiness on small farmers. But then, with time for only one more question, I was handed the microphone.

"Mr. Secretary, may I ask a tough question on GMOs?"

He said yes.

"The American Academy of Environmental Medicine this year said that genetically modified foods, according to animal studies, are causally linked to accelerated aging, dysfunctional immune regulation, organ damage, gastrointestinal distress, and immune system damage. A study came out by the Union of Concerned Scientists confirming what we all know, that genetically modified crops, on average, reduce yield. A USDA report from 2006 showed that farmers don’t actually increase income from GMOs, but many actually lose income. And for the last several years, the United States has been forced to spend $3-$5 billion per year to prop up the prices of the GM crops no one wants.

"When you were appointed Secretary of Agriculture, many of our mutual friends–I live in Iowa and was proud to have you as our governor–assured me that you have an open mind and are very reasonable and forward thinking. And so I was very excited that you had taken this position as Secretary of Agriculture. And I’m wondering, have you ever heard this information? Where do you get your information about GMOs? And are you willing to take a delegation in D.C. to give you this hard evidence about how GMOs have actually failed us, that they’ve been put onto the market long before the science is ready, and it’s time to put it back into the laboratory until they’ve done their homework."

The room erupted into the loudest applause of the morning.

Secretary Vilsack knew at once what kind of crowd he was dealing with. Or so I thought.

He said he was willing to visit with folks, to read studies, to learn as much as he possibly can. He pointed out that there are lots of studies, not necessarily consistent, even conflicting. He said he was in the process of working on a set of regulations and had brought proponents and opponents together to search for common ground. And he was looking to create a regulatory system with sufficient assurances and protections.

At this point in his answer, Secretary Vilsack, who has a history of favoring GMOs–and even appears to be more pro-GMO than his Bush administration predecessors–was trying to sound even handed. Then he made a tragic mistake.

After a slight pause, he added in a warm tone, "I will tell you that the world is very concerned about the ever-increasing population of the globe and the capacity to be able to feed all of those people."

Moans, groans, hisses, even boos. Not rowdy, mind you. But clearly agitated.

You see, the people in the room were among the top experts at actually feeding the world. They included numerous PhDs who had spent their careers looking deeply into the issue. Among those present were several of the authors of the authoritative IAASTD report. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, is the most comprehensive evaluation of world agriculture ever. It was a three-year collaborative effort with 900 participants and 110 countries, and was co-sponsored by all the majors, e.g. the World Bank, FAO, UNESCO, WHO. The behemoth effort evaluated the last 50 years of agriculture, and prescribed the methods that were now needed to meet the development and sustainability goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.

And GMOs was not one of those needed methods! It was clear to the experts that the current generation of GMOs did not live up to the hype continuously broadcast by biotech companies and their promotional East Coast wing–the federal government.

In fact, the night before Vilsack addressed the conference, the same audience heard a keynote by Hans Herren, the co-chairman of the IAASTD report, during which he reiterated that biotechnology was not up to the task. And this morning, Hans Herren was in the room when Vilsack tried to play the feed-the-world card. Bad move.

Vilsack responded to the crowd’s rejection by saying, "And well you all can disagree with this, but I am just telling you this. As I travel the world, I am just telling you what people are telling me. They are very concerned about this."

Thus, he distanced himself from the contentious, and fallacious, argument. He was just reporting what others had told him.

And that may in fact be his problem with understanding the serious health and environmental dangers of GMOs in general, if he is simply, as he says, repeating what others–Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont–have told him over and over again.

It’s true that I have mutual friends of Tom Vilsack who like and respect him and believe him to be reasonable and thoughtful. I have seen this myself, but not on the GMO issue.

Perhaps the reaction of the experts this morning will help to jar him out of his GMOs-feed-the-world mindset. Unfortunately, he is now deeply immersed in the second of this week’s food conferences here in Des Moines, the World Food Prize. It features the major GMO promoters from around the world, including Bill Gates (who gives tens of millions to GMO development in Africa), and top executives of DuPont and Syngenta. Expect to hear constant chatter about how GMOs are the solution to world hunger which, unfortunately, may undue any of the restructuring that this morning’s run-in with reality may have awakened.

Read more at:

Published in: on October 19, 2009 at 11:41 am  Leave a Comment  

10 questions about flu vaccines that doctors and health authorities refuse to answer

October 16, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Vaccine mythology remains rampant in both western medicine and the mainstream media. To hear the vaccination zealots say it, vaccines are backed by "good science," they’ve been "proven effective" and they’re "perfectly safe."
Oh really? Where’s all that good science? As it turns out, there’s isn’t any. Flu vaccines (including swine flu vaccines) are based entirely on a vaccine mythology that assumes all vaccines work and no vaccines can be scientifically questioned. Anyone who dares question the safety or effectiveness of vaccines is immediately branded a danger to public health and marginalized in the scientific community.

Here are ten questions vaccine-pushing doctors and health authorities absolutely refuse to answer:

#1) Where are the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies proving flu vaccines are both safe and effective?
Answer: There aren’t any. (…)
#2) Where, then, is the so-called "science" backing the idea that flu vaccines work at all?
Answer: Other than "cohort studies," there isn’t any. And the cohort studies have been thoroughly debunked. Scientifically speaking, there isn’t a scrap of honest evidence showing flu vaccines work at all.
#3) How can methyl mercury (Thimerosal, a preservative used in flu vaccines) be safe for injecting into the human body when mercury is an extremely toxic heavy metal?
Answer: It isn’t safe at all. Methyl mercury is a poison. Along with vaccine adjuvants, it explains why so many people suffer autism or other debilitating neurological side effects after being vaccinated.
#4) Why do reports keep surfacing of children and teens suffering debilitating neurological disorders, brain swelling, seizures and even death following flu vaccines or HPV vaccines?
Answer: Because vaccines are dangerous. The vaccine industry routinely dismisses all such accounts — no matter how many are reported — as "coincidence."
#5) Why don’t doctors recommend vitamin D for flu protection, especially when vitamin D activates the immune response far better than a vaccine? (…)
Answer: Because vitamin D can’t be patented and sold as "medicine." You can make it yourself. If you want more vitamin D, you don’t even need a doctor, and doctors tend not to recommend things that put them out of business.
#6) If human beings need flu vaccines to survive, then how did humans survive through all of Earth’s history?
Answer: Human genetic code is already wired to automatically defend you against invading microorganisms (as long as you have vitamin D). (…)
#7) If the flu vaccine offers protection against the flu, then why are the people who often catch the flu the very same people who were vaccinated against it?
Answer: Because those most vulnerable to influenza infections are the very same people who have a poor adaptive response to the vaccines and don’t build antibodies. In other words flu vaccines only "work" on people who don’t need them. (And even building antibodies doesn’t equate to real-world protection from the flu, by the way.)
#8) If the flu vaccine really works, then why was there no huge increase in flu death rates in 2004, the year when flu vaccines were in short supply and vaccination rates dropped by 40%? (…)
Answer: There was no change in the death rate. You could drop vaccination rates to zero percent and you’d still see no change in the number of people dying from the flu. That’s because flu vaccines simply don’t work.
#9) How can flu vaccines reduce mortality by 50% (as is claimed) when only about 10% of winter deaths are related to the flu in the first place?
They can’t. The 50% statistic is an example of quack medical marketing. If I have a room full of 100 people, then I take the 50 healthiest people and hand them a candy bar, I can’t then scientifically claim that "candy bars make people healthy." That’s essentially the same logic behind the "50% reduction in mortality" claim of flu vaccines. (…).
#10) If flu vaccines work so well, then why are drug makers and health authorities so reluctant to subject them to scientific scrutiny with randomized, placebo-controlled studies?
Answer: Although they claim such studies would be "unethical," what’s far more unethical is to keep injecting hundreds of millions of people every year with useless, harmful vaccines that aren’t backed by a shred of honest evidence…

Technorati Tags: ,,,

Published in: on October 18, 2009 at 9:50 am  Leave a Comment  

Cayenne Pepper is the King of Herbs

August 18, 2009 by: Tony Isaacs, citizen journalist

(NaturalNews) Cayenne pepper has been called "the king of herbs" with good reason, as it has been prized for thousands of years for its healing powers. Folklore from around the world has recounted amazing results in its simple healing of baffling health problems.

The famed herbal healer Dr. Shulze said, "If you master only one herb in your life, master cayenne pepper. It is more powerful than any other."
In particular cayenne pepper is good for the heart and circulatory system and can be a lifesaver in the event of a heart attack – if you have concerns over heart attacks, never leave home without it!

From the healing text of Dr. Christopher:
"In 35 years of practice, and working with the people and teaching, I have never on house calls lost one heart attack patient and the reason is, whenever I go in–if they are still breathing–I pour down them a cup of cayenne tea (a teaspoon of cayenne in a cup of hot water, and within minutes they are up and around)."

Some of the other medicinal or health benefits of the Cayenne pepper include:
Cayenne pepper added diet helps avoid stomach aches, gas and cramps. Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine recommends cayenne for proper digestion as it stimulates the flow of stomach secretions and saliva.
Cayenne pepper improves the effectiveness of other herbs.
Topical application of cayenne pepper causes irritation in the applied area; thus, it helps distract the nerves from joint pains due to arthritis.
Cayenne added water can be used to gargle with, to cure sore throats.
The capsaicin in cayenne pepper stimulates secretions, which helps to clear the mucus from nose and lungs by clearing the sinuses and causing sweating. Cayenne pepper added tea is good for colds and flu.
When any body part is sick, the blood flow to that area is usually affected. Cayenne helps to remove that blockage and stimulates the blood flow so that the vitamins are properly delivered to all areas of the body and waste is removed.
In addition to it`s ability to stop heart attacks, cayenne helps to reduce cholesterol levels in the blood. Cayenne also helps to dissolve fibrin which causes formation of blood clots and it reduces triglyceride levels.
Smelling cayenne helps cure headaches. Topical application of capsaicin also helps to relieve them.
Cayenne pepper is a source of beta-carotene which is helpful in reducing symptoms of asthma.
Vitamin A, or beta-carotene, in cayenne pepper, gives protection against invading pathogens by helping the development of healthy mucus membranes in the nasal passage, lungs and urinary tracts, thereby giving immunity to infections.
When added to food, cayenne helps weight loss due to aiding proper digestion. It also reduces excess appetite due to mal-absorption.
Cayenne pepper contains capsaicin that has the ability to prevent ulcers.
Beta-carotene contained in cayenne pepper works as a good antioxidant that prevents or repairs the damages caused by free radicals, helping prevent atherosclerosis and colon cancer.
Cayenne is also very effective in relieving diabetic complications like nerve damage and heart disease. It gives temporary relief of pain from psoriasis, herpes zoster, neuralgia, and toothache.

Sources included:

Technorati Tags: ,,,

Published in: on October 14, 2009 at 11:40 am  Leave a Comment  

How can I connect with my Angels?

From Christopher Dilts, for

Question: How can I connect with my Angels?

Answer: Asking an Angel for help is one of our most power spiritual practices. We can ask the Angels for immediate help at any time and in any place. A Jewish proverb says that “Every blade of grass has an Angel bending over it saying. ‘Grow, Grow!” Just as every person has one or more Guiding Angels that help and assist them, every human activity – partnerships, businesses, organizations and relationships – also have one or more Angels that preside over offerings of grace, assistance and blessings for them. Call upon your Angels whenever you are need.

Here are some tips that will help you:

Seven Tips For Connecting With Your Angels

  1. Ask for help – Angels offer us help 24/7; the more receptive we are, the more help they can give us. If you diminish your receptivity you limit the Angels ability to help you. Create your own invocations, or prayers, that specifically call for the help you need. Realize that when you call upon an Angel, that what really happens is that you open yourself into greater receptivity to their assistance. (see for examples of invocations that begin the Angel Messages there.)
    Realize yourself as fully worthy of Angelic assistance. Angels work with everyone regardless of personal histories and beliefs. Angels are infinite and omnipresent – your request does not diminish them in anyway nor does it affect there ability to be with and help everyone else at the same time. They exist beyond our experience of time and space. The respond to everyone with complete unconditional love
  2. Connect with your inner divine child as you call upon the Angels and ask for help. Your inner divine child is whole, innocent and true – and recognizes Angels as true and trustworthy gifts of Creator. This will help create openness, receptivity, excitement, eagerness and wonder as you prepare to receive the gift your Angels have prepared for you.
  3. Hand everything over to the Angels during your time of invocation and prayer. Every issue, problem, worry and fear as well as every good intention and positive outcome you imagine as the result of your request. Release all expectations of how your request will be answered.
  4. Express Appreciation and Gratitude – Find and express genuine appreciation and gratitude for things exactly as they are. If you are struggling with this, ask the Angels to help you to find the love that is present in whatever difficulty you are facing. Have patience with this and let go of any expectation of how the love may be revealed to you.
  5. Know that it is done – Every prayer is answered and grace is always given. If you fear that your prayer will not be answered, then ask for help in understanding and seeing more clearly. Trust that you will see the love in every answered prayer. You are known completely and loved unconditionally by the Angels and nothing that will serve you is ever withheld from you.
  6. Act quickly on the guidance you receive – accept the opportunity and act upon it immediately. Angelic help is infinite and unlimited – you can not use it up or run out of it. You cannot ask for ‘too much’ and the Angels are joyously happy to give to you without limit. The faster you act, the faster you receive more assistance!
  7. Celebrate yourself exactly as you are in the moment. Leave any critical judgments or negative feelings about yourself, your life, or others in the hands of the Angels for healing. Even if it is just for a few moments, let go of everything that is not of love for yourself and everything around you. In this moment of surrender much more can done for you by the Angels than you can accomplish on your own. Thank yourself and the Angles for deepening and the relationship between you.

Christopher Dilts, Angel Intuitive

Technorati Tags: ,,

Published in: on October 8, 2009 at 11:33 am  Leave a Comment  

Top researcher who worked on cervical cancer vaccine warns about its dangers

October 08, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) One of the key researchers involved in the clinical trials for both Gardasil and Cevarix cervical cancer vaccines has gone public with warnings about their safety and effectiveness. This highly unusual warning against these vaccines by one of Big Pharma’s own researchers surfaced in an exclusive interview with the Sunday Express in the UK over the last few days. There, Dr. Diane Harper openly admitted the vaccine doesn’t even prevent cervical cancer, stating, "[The vaccine] will not decrease cervical cancer rates at all."
This is astonishing news. The whole push behind the cervical cancer vaccines is based on the belief that they prevent cervical cancer. That belief, it turns out, is a myth.
Dr. Harper also warned that the cervical cancer vaccine was being "over-marketed" and that parents should be warned about the possible risk of severe side effects from the vaccine. She even concluded that the vaccine itself is more dangerous than the cervical cancer it claims to prevent!

Hysteria over genital warts?

In a New York Times article published last year, Dr. Harper spoke about the fear-based marketing of Gardasil by Merck:
"’Merck lobbied every opinion leader, women’s group, medical society, politicians, and went directly to the people — it created a sense of panic that says you have to have this vaccine now…"
This behavior by drug companies — using fear tactics to promote a particular disease in order to sell the "treatment" — is called disease mongering. Most of the pharmaceutical profits generated today are based on precisely this tactic: Spread the fear, then sell the treatment. Read more about disease mongering here:…
You can also toy around with the NaturalNews disease mongering engine, where you can invent your own diseases at the click of a button:…
Why is disease mongering so important to the profits of the drug companies? They figured out many years ago that selling drugs only to those people who are sick was a very limited income opportunity. To rake in the real profits, they needed to devise a way to sell drugs to healthy people (i.e. people who don’t need them). That’s what cervical cancer vaccines really are: A scheme to sell vaccines to people who aren’t suffering from any disease at all.
That one of the industry’s own researchers is willing to speak out against this is not just highly unusual; it’s also highly courageous. It makes you wonder: Who, exactly, is this Dr. Harper?

Dr. Diane Harper

Dr. Harper is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She studied additional courses at Stanford and received her medical degree from the University of Kansas. She was a key researcher in both Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines, and she’s one of the most experienced researchers in the world on HPV-related diseases. She’s done work for both Merck and GlaxoSmithKline.
Dr. Harper’s warnings about cervical cancer vaccines are especially relevant considering her expertise in the cost/benefit analysis of vaccines. Her conclusion is that cervical cancer vaccines aren’t worth the risks, nor are they worth all the effort being put into hyping them to the public. "This may not be the best use of our resources at this time," she said in a Washington Post article.
So why do cervical cancer vaccines continue to be pushed by doctors and health authorities across the US, UK and other first-world nations? Because Big Pharma is the great corporate puppeteer that’s pulling the strings of legislators. With enough money and lobbyists, you can always overcome scientific thinking with fear-based marketing and under-the-table deal-making. Science-based medicine has no place in a world where disease is big business.
There’s a ridiculous amount of money to be made by pushing vaccines onto people who don’t need them. If I had ten bucks for every teenage girl that’s been injected with a cervical cancer vaccine, I’d be… well… GlaxoSmithKline…

Published in: on October 8, 2009 at 11:27 am  Leave a Comment  

Do Doctors Really Cause Cancer?

By Dr. Keith Scott Mumby on 10/06/2009

The fact is clear that in primitive societies, people don’t die of cancer. This is supposed to be because they are healthier and eat properly. But who dares think the unthinkable: that the cause of the problem is doctors and when you don’t have them, cancer is insignificant?

It’s only when doctors using Western methods get involved that cancer actually becomes a problem at all. Then it’s suddenly a serious and probably fatal condition.

But it may be time for a re-think. On Dec 16th 2008 a major study was published in The Archives of Internal Medicine which should change EVERYTHING doctors know and think about cancer.

Cancers heal themselves! The breakthrough study, from Norway, suggests that even invasive breast cancers may sometimes go away without treatment and in larger numbers than anyone ever believed.

If the spontaneous remission hypothesis is credible, it should cause a major re-evaluation in the approach to breast cancer research and treatment; in fact all cancers.

This was no lightweight study. Two large groups of women were studied. One group of 109,784 women was followed from 1992 to 1997. Mammography screening in Norway was initiated in 1996. In 1996 and 1997, all were offered mammograms, and nearly every woman accepted.

The second group of 119,472 women was followed from 1996 to 2001. All were offered regular mammograms, and nearly all accepted.

If the traditional view of cancer as a runaway monster were correct, it might be expected that the two groups would have roughly the same number of breast cancers, either detected at the end or found along the way. Instead, the researchers report, the women who had regular routine screenings had 22 percent more cancers. For every 100,000 women who were screened regularly, 1,909 were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer over six years, compared with 1,564 women who did not have regular screening.

Of course the old guard is quick to point out that the findings do not mean that the mammograms caused breast cancer! That’s false: evidence shows that there is a significant increase in the risk of breast cancer, caused by mammograms. The “guidelines” are no more than a smokescreen for profiteering, not science.

John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D. – a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor, and one of the leading experts in the world on the dangers of radiation – presents compelling evidence in his book, Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, that over 50 percent of the death-rate from cancer is in fact induced by x-rays.

The routine practice of taking four films of each breast annually results in approximately 1 rad (radiation absorbed dose) exposure, which is about 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray (remember, mass screening with chest x-rays was stopped, because it caused more cancer than it detected!)

Dr. Epstein, M.D., professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, and author of an amazing book “The Politics of Cancer Revisited” has described the guidelines as a sham. According to him “They were conscious, chosen, politically expedient acts by a small group of people for the sake of their own power, prestige and financial gain, resulting in suffering and death for millions of women. They fit the classification of ‘crimes against humanity.”

It remains that, one way or the other, the die-hards have got to face the fact they are killing women. Either the mammograms cause cancer, in which case they should stop, or there is spontaneous disappearance of many cancers, which is being thwarted by medical intervention.

They can’t dissemble their way out of it in both directions at once!

The problem, as always, is money and greed. Doctors want to make money out of patients who don’t need any medical care, as well as the ones who are sick. Dropping the present approach would mean their revenues would suffer.

The fact remains that many actions are carried out in the US that other countries don’t do. Here there is the insistence in biopsying every lump. That means women with no real cancer are being subjected to unnecessary procedures and run the risk of being inadvertently diagnosed as having cancer, being subjected to chemo and dying as a result.

These are hot claims, so let me steer back towards the main point I’m making, which is that doctors may “cause” a lot of cancer and unnecessary deaths, by refusing to allow that this disease will resolve naturally.

Let me repeat that, in simple societies—like traditional Eskimos, the Hunzas in the Himalayas and Amazon Indians—the disease is virtually unknown. Even in Western society, cancer was very rare, until the advent of modern technological medicine. A nineteenth century physician at one of London’s main hospitals (Charing Cross) told his medical students that lung cancer was “One of the rare forms of a rare disease. You may probably pass the rest of your student’s life without seeing another example of it”.

Don’t get caught by the phoney propaganda argument we are living longer than ever, so more cancer is showing up. We are living longer on average but septuagenarians and octogenarians have always existed. Until the twentieth century, they just didn’t die of cancer.

In any case, there is more to this; not only were cancers rarer but Victorians seemed to withstand the disease better than our modern citizen. It was not feared nearly so much, for this reason. Take breast cancer: the average survival time was 4 years, with a maximum time of 18 years. But this was almost all due to stage 3 and 4 (late) cancers.

If Victorian physicians had had our modern sophistication in diagnostic equipment, they would have picked up stage 1 and 2, so dramatically extending average post-diagnosis survival times. The average may well then have shot up to 10 years and maximum to 40- 50 years!

Let’s go back to the Norwegian study that is so exciting and controversial:

The study’s design was not perfect but, as the researchers say, the ideal study is not feasible. It would entail screening women, randomly assigning them to have their screen-detected cancers treated or not, and following them to see how many untreated cancers went away on their own.

Although the researchers cannot completely rule out other explanations, they went to a lot of trouble to show these other interpretations are not valid.

A leading alternative explanation for the results is that the women having regular scans used hormone therapy for menopause and the other women did not. But the researchers calculated that hormone use could account for no more than 3 percent of the effect (that is, 3% of the 20% increase, not 3% of total).

Maybe mammography was more sensitive in the second six-year period, able to pick up more tumors. But, the authors report, mammography’s sensitivity did not appear to have changed.

Or perhaps the screened women had a higher cancer risk to begin with. But, the investigators say, the groups were remarkably similar in their risk factors.

Dr. Smith of the American Cancer Society, predictably, said the study was flawed and the interpretation incorrect. The reason, he said, is that mammography is not perfect, and cancers that are missed on one round of screening will be detected on another.

But the study authors debunked this too. Chief author Dr. Welch stated that he and his colleagues considered that possibility, too. And, he said, their analysis found subsequent mammograms could not make up the difference.

The fact remains that now doctors must seriously worry themselves that they are blunderingly wrong by rushing to treatment. Imagine how much better it would be to say to a woman “This is not a real cancer, it will probably go away, don’t worry about it.”

Technorati Tags: ,,

Published in: on October 7, 2009 at 10:53 am  Leave a Comment  

Is Colloidal Silver Causing Global Warming?

October 6, 2009

Lately, there’s been more misinformation on colloidal silver going around than I’ve seen since the FDA first instituted their failed campaign to ban it back in the late 1990’s.

Myth #1: Children are being harmed by colloidal silver

First, we saw the Friends of the Earth environmentalist group come out with their new position paper calling for a total ban on the over-the-counter sales of colloidal silver products as well as EPA regulation of all products using silver as an antimicrobial agent. And why? Because, they claimed, the proliferation of silver-based antimicrobial products is depriving children of coming into contact with the requisite number of pathogens needed to stimulate their tiny immune systems. Clearly, these guys at the Friends of the Earth have never had children.

Myth #2: Colloidal silver has been “banned by the FDA”

Then we had the recent MSNBC news article written by reporter Mike Celizic which declared that the FDA had “banned colloidal silver” back in 1999. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. What the FDA did was prohibit colloidal silver vendors from labeling their product as a “natural antibiotic” and restrict colloidal silver advertisers from talking about its powerful antimicrobial qualities in advertisements. This action, of course, led to more public interest in colloidal silver than it had ever enjoyed in its entire 100 year history, and propelled colloidal silver into one of the most popular nutritional supplements of all times. Celizic’s erroneous contention, however, has now been picked up by other writers and spread across a variety of internet forums where it is being used by opponents of natural health to convince people not to use colloidal silver because it’s been “banned by the FDA.”

Myth #3: Colloidal silver causes a “cytokine storm”

Next, we had a famous internet doctor claim that colloidal silver could cause a potentially deadly “cytokine storm” (massive inflammation) in the lungs of even healthy individuals. The doctor presented no evidence whatsoever for his claim. And a quick search of the available medical data demonstrated that the only significant research done on colloidal silver and cytokines showed that silver actually modified cytokine expression and reduced inflammation. The authors of the medical study even stated that colloidal silver should be further investigated as a potential treatment for the massive inflammation caused by the “cytokine storm” phenomena. The famous internet doctor later removed the erroneous statement from his web site, but not before other writers spread it all over the internet as "evidence" that colloidal silver usage can have potentially "deadly" consequences.

Myth #4: Colloidal silver harms human cells

We also recently saw the old “colloidal silver harms human cells” myth being dredged up again. Once more, the culprit was the environmental group Friends of the Earth, which erroneously attributes medical research demonstrating that silver damages bacterial cells (i.e., e. coli cells) as evidence that silver damages human cells. Of course, they can’t explain how Dr. Robert O. Becker of Syracuse Medical University was able to conduct all of those now famous in vivo (i.e., in the body) medical studies on human subjects, in which he used an electronic device to drive billions of tiny silver particles deep into the infected tissue and bone of “incurable” victims of osteomyelitis, and managed to cure every one of them without causing any harm whatsoever to their cells. Certain other internet writers have also misinterpreted a recent test tube study demonstrating that high levels of silver in the blood stream could harm certain human cells. The levels used in these lab tests would have been the equivalent of 15 ppm in the human blood stream – a level you couldn’t reach without drinking gallons of a standard colloidal silver solution.

Myth #5: Colloidal silver causes hardening of the arteries

Honestly, I don’t know where in the world this one came from. But suddenly it’s cropping up on web sites all over the place, with no documentation whatsoever to back it up. As usual, it appears that one writer is simply quoting another, who is then quoted by another and another, until a complete fallacy becomes “reality.” Several weeks ago I googled "colloidal silver and hardening of the arteries" and "colloidal silver and arteriosclerosis" and searched for several hours. I couldn’t find a solid piece of medical documentation for the claim that colloidal silver causes hardening of the arteries, except for the regurgitated and unattributed claims in those articles. I also searched the various medical science news sites (even the ones that are critical of silver) and couldn’t find any references to it causing artery problems. What’s more, I hired a pharmaceutical consultant to track down the origin of this growing myth. He searched the PubMed database and other key medical study databases, and could find absolutely nothing indicating any negative connection between colloidal silver and arteosclerosis, or hardening of the arteries. We did find a recent study published in the prestigious medical science journal ACS Nano, demonstrating that silver stops red blood cells from clumping, which would help prevent heart attacks and strokes rather than cause them. You can read about that study here. So at this point my conclusion is that someone just made up the claim out of whole cloth, and it is getting passed around the internet by people too lazy to do any fact-checking or to demand documentation.

Colloidal Silver and Global Warming?

Next, they’ll probably claim that colloidal silver causes global warming.

After all, it takes electricity to make colloidal silver. And electricity is generated through coal fire plants. And coal fire plants put “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere. And “greenhouse gases” ostensibly rip holes into the ozone layer allowing excessive ionizing radiation from the sun to come streaming into our atmosphere resulting in warmer temperatures.

So there you have it. We must ban colloidal silver because it causes global warming. Seals are dying in Antarctica because thoughtless, greedy, uncaring natural health lovers are using colloidal silver.

No. Wait. For the sake of the children, we must ban colloidal silver because the FDA has already banned it. No. Wait. We must ban it because it can cause a “cytokine storm” and harm human cells. And that causes global warming. No. Wait…

…Oh, whatever. Just ban it because Big Pharma hates it. At least that would be honest…

Technorati Tags: ,,,,

Published in: on October 7, 2009 at 8:57 am  Leave a Comment  

Take Note, Ladies!

Heartfact: A study of 2,500 men aged 49 to 54 found that having an orgasm at least three times a week cut in half the likelihood of death from coronary heart disease. And barring underlying health issues and the possibility of contracting a sexually transmitted disease a vigorous sex session can double a person’s heart rate and burn up about 200 calories, or the equivalent of a brisk 15-minute run.

Technorati Tags: ,

Published in: on October 6, 2009 at 7:46 pm  Leave a Comment  

Help Silver by Letting Silver Help You

By: Warren Bevan   6 October, 2009

It’s a well known but often misunderstood fact that silver is being, once again, increasingly used in medicinal or purification applications. The recent reports of the H1N1 virus, more commonly , but falsely, known as swine flu (stock up on cheap pork while you can!) spreading at rates far faster than anticipated got me to thinking about how to help fight the flu if contracted, without relying on medical professionals.

Normally I would dismiss these types of flu’s as, as harsh as it sounds, mother natures way of killing off the weak, that is if it is indeed an incarnation of mother nature and not a man made flu, but that’s a whole other ball park that I won’t touch on. But the reports of the majority of it’s victims being strong middle aged individuals increased my alert level.

Silver is once again taking up it’s former role as an antimicrobial agent. For the majority of the first half of the 1900’s silver was used in place of antibiotics. In the 1940’s that use diminished as drug companies developed and sold their new money making creations. According to Jeffrey Ellis at the Silver Institute;

“Use of silver for medical applications prior to 2005 was largely limited to topical anti-infective preparations using silver sulfadiazene and silver nitrate. Globally this accounted for less than 50,000 troy ounces of silver.

Since then, beginning first with wound dressings containing silver, the use of coatings containing silver on medical devices such as on stethoscope diaphragms and on catheters, and lately the use of silver coatings on sinks and other plumbing fixtures for hospitals and other patient treatment centers, and on use of silver particles on medical textiles such as surgical gowns, it is now estimated that medical use of silver is 200,000 troy ounces globally. Use of silver is likely to grow in response to efforts to minimize the incidence of hospital acquired infections.”

This quadrupling will continue into the future, albeit likely at a slower rate of growth, but silver is already in short supply and this growing and important application will be a major key to silver’s future price as it grows more and more precious.

As with most things, overuse is not recommended and eventually an immune system will develop tolerance for it requiring more and more of the substance until it has next to no effect at all. I’ve personally long avoided taking medicine except the odd pain killer for headaches when there’s work to be done, with the view that I would save medicine for when I really needed it and was much older.

Colloidal Silver could be the answer. I am not a medical practitioner or recommending anything at all, just trying to inform that there may be other viable options. While the promotion of colloidal silver as a medicinal application is illegal in the US, that does not mean it does not have merits. I won’t go into the mishaps government agencies have committed in the drug regulation field, but I have, and always will, prefer to find a natural remedy regardless of if my government calls it “medicine” or not.

While colloidal silver has mixed reviews with in vitro (test tube) tests and no clinical trials performed using in vivo (in living organisms) tests I still have faith that colloidal silver could help fight off a major infection or flu. From what I know colloidal silver is not to be taken as a drug or vitamin, but as signs of a serious contraction arise as a more serious preventative measure. If taken as a daily supplement tests show that it can cause argyria, an irreversible blue or grey discoloration of skin. Wouldn’t want to end up like the Tin Man.

The fact is that silver is being used in WHO approved water purification applications, medical clothing is being made with silver nano-particles for disinfectant purposes as well as medical equipment being imbedded with silver. Even washing machines are now using silver nano-particles. Fridges, sinks and soon whole kitchens will use silver as a disinfecting agent. When that day comes the old greasy spoon will once again be a safe sport to venture. Bacteria, nor viruses can live when it comes into direct contact with silver. Silver alters the attacker’s DNA, effectively suffocating it.

The goal of this article is to get you to educate yourself and make an informed decision based on your findings, not what someone tells you you should do. Why not pick up a bottle of colloidal silver, it may just save your life. At the least it will slightly increase silver usage and make your silver more valuable.

In my free, nearly weekly newsletter I include many links and charts which cannot always be viewed through sites which publish my work. If you are having difficulties viewing them please sign up in the left margin for free at or send an email to with “subscribe” as the subject and receive the newsletter directly in your inbox, links and all. If you would like to subscribe and see what my portfolio consists of please see here.

Published in: on October 6, 2009 at 4:20 pm  Leave a Comment