Arsenic in your chicken: Guess who is defending its use?

Arsenic in our food supply has a very rich ally and that ally is Pfizer. You see, arsenic is routinely fed to poultry because it increases the growth of the chicken and makes the flesh an appetizing shade of pink (a side effect of burst blood vessels). Of course arsenic…

Buy Ultracet (Tramadol) Without Prescription

Buy Ultracet (Tramadol) Without Prescription, Each year, roughly 200,000 women undergo a surgical procedure that involves the removal of their uteruses due to the growth of non-cancerous tumors known as uterine fibroids, which commonly develop in and around the walls of the uterus. But a new study published online.., Ultracet (Tramadol) mg. Ultracet (Tramadol) treatment,

See the article here:

Vitamin D found to shrink fibroid tumors
. Ultracet (Tramadol) no prescription. Comprar en línea Ultracet (Tramadol), comprar Ultracet (Tramadol) baratos. Japan, craiglist, ebay, overseas, paypal. Ultracet (Tramadol) reviews. Buy Ultracet (Tramadol) from mexico. Ultracet (Tramadol) steet value. Buy Ultracet (Tramadol) from canada. Ultracet (Tramadol) recreational. Canada, mexico, india. Online Ultracet (Tramadol) without a prescription. Ultracet (Tramadol) australia, uk, us, usa. Taking Ultracet (Tramadol). Where can i buy Ultracet (Tramadol) online. Australia, uk, us, usa. After Ultracet (Tramadol). Ordering Ultracet (Tramadol) online. Ultracet (Tramadol) canada, mexico, india. Ultracet (Tramadol) no rx. Generic Ultracet (Tramadol). Is Ultracet (Tramadol) safe. Ultracet (Tramadol) interactions. Ultracet (Tramadol) duration. Buy cheap Ultracet (Tramadol). Where can i find Ultracet (Tramadol) online. Ultracet (Tramadol) gel, ointment, cream, pill, spray, continuous-release, extended-release. Cheap Ultracet (Tramadol). Ultracet (Tramadol) maximum dosage. Herbal Ultracet (Tramadol). Purchase Ultracet (Tramadol) online no prescription. Ultracet (Tramadol) trusted pharmacy reviews. Effects of Ultracet (Tramadol). Order Ultracet (Tramadol) online overnight delivery no prescription. Ultracet (Tramadol) for sale.

Similar posts: Buy Ralivia (Tramadol) Without Prescription. Aztrin (Zithromax) For Sale. Dolol (Tramadol) For Sale. Order Ixprim (Ultram) from United States pharmacy. Discount Contramal (Ultram). Order AziCip (Zithromax) online overnight delivery no prescription.
Trackbacks from: Buy Ultracet (Tramadol) Without Prescription. Buy Ultracet (Tramadol) Without Prescription. Buy Ultracet (Tramadol) Without Prescription. After Ultracet (Tramadol). Buying Ultracet (Tramadol) online over the counter. Ultracet (Tramadol) used for.

Support ‘Local Farms, Food and Jobs Act’ to help decentralize food system

Federal food policies that distribute billions of taxpayer dollars every year to subsidize the growth of commodity crops like genetically-modified (GM) corn and soy are largely responsible for the dismal state of food quality and health in our nation today. But Rep…

Breast cancer drugs may stop cancer, but they also cut life short due to toxicity

(NaturalNews) Here’s another case of a so-called “wonder drug” heavily promoted by Big Pharma having a darker side than anyone knew. It turns out aromatase inhibitors (sold under the names Femara, Aromasin, and Arimidex), widely prescribed to huge numbers of women who’ve been diagnosed with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, could be so toxic in the body they do nothing to prolong life — and might even shorten it. Based on the findings of several studies, most doctors now recommend one of the aromatase inhibitor (AIs) after women with estrogen-positive breast cancer have initial treatment with surgery and often chemotherapy and radiation therapy. An AI medication has been considered a better choice than the other anti-estrogen treatment, tamoxifen, because AIs have been thought to have more benefits and fewer serious side effects. However, research just published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute concludes that the toxic impact of aromatase inhibitors apparently explains why breast cancer patients taking AIs don’t live any longer than women taking tamoxifen. Bottom line: the study suggests that even if AIs slow down or halt the growth of estrogen driven breast cancer, women may lose their lives not to a malignancy — but to the negative impact the drugs have on their bodies. AIs block the enzyme aromatase, which turns the hormone androgen into small amounts of estrogen in the body. So they reduce the amount of estrogen available that can stimulate the growth of estrogen-driven breast cancer cells. This class of drugs doesn’t halt ovaries from making estrogen, so AIs are only used in post-menopausal women. The medications are normally prescribed as an alternative to tamoxifen or after earlier treatment with tamoxifen (which often has intolerable side effects). Overall, AI therapy alone is associated with a reduction in breast cancer recurrence — but doesn’t result in women living any longer. What’s more, the drugs have been found to produce a host of concerning adverse toxic effects on the body. And it’s this toxicity that may explain the lack of overall survival benefit in postmenopausal breast cancer patients, according to researchers Eitan Amir, of the Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, and colleagues. The research team conducted a systematic review of all randomized trials which compared AIs and tamoxifen in postmenopausal women. Using results from seven trials involving 30,023 breast cancer patients, the scientists performed a meta-analysis of the data. The results showed that, compared to tamoxifen, longer use of AIs was associated with more heart disease and bone fractures. However, tamoxifen users had higher rates of blood clots and cancer of the womb. There were no differences in the risk of stroke or other types of cancer. Overall there was no survival benefit to AIs, even though the drugs seem to have a positive effect on breast cancer recurrence. The researchers concluded that the toxicity of AIs was most likely behind the drugs failure to prolong life. Using tamoxifen first and then switching to AIs for 2 to 3 years was associated with a lower risk of death unrelated to breast cancer compared to the use of either AIs or tamoxifen alone. The scientists speculate that this is because switching between the two drugs lowers the toxicity of AIs in the body. In an accompanying editorial, Nancy E. Davidson, M.D., Shannon Puhalla, M.D., and Rachel C. Jankowitz, M.D., of the UPMC Cancer Center at Magee-Womens Hospital, concluded that doctors should “..choose initial endocrine therapy for the individual patient with careful attention to the risk of breast cancer recurrence, the risk of toxicity, and comorbidities.” As NaturalNews has reported extensively, a host of research is pointing to far safer and even non-toxic natural therapies than mainstream medicine’s current standard breast cancer treatment strategies. For example, there is evidence parsley and other plants may contain phytochemicals that help stop breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/032410_parsley_tumors.html). Vitamin D (http://www.naturalnews.com/032222_breast_cancer_vitamin_D.html) appears to hold great promise in the fight against breast malignancies, too. For more information: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/ http://www.naturalnews.com/breast_cancer.html

Breast Health on the next NaturalNews Talk Hour

(NaturalNews) The pharmaceutical industry and conventional medicine have deceived the public long enough. The NaturalNews Talk Hour presents Breast Health – The Missing Link with our special guest Patricia Kennedy. Discover the benefits of early prevention NOT detection and the future of modern medicine. “Thanks, Jonathan! You do great work!!!” – Jackie Vitamin D and Breast Cancer According to Centers for Disease Control, “aside from non-melanoma skin cancer, breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the United States. It is also one of the leading causes of cancer death among women of all races and Hispanic origin populations.” What the CDC hasn’t told you is that scientific evidence suggests that sufficient vitamin d levels can dramatically reduce the risk of breast cancer – worldwide. In 1989, the prestigious medical journal, The Lancet, reported that the most active form of vitamin D (calcitriol) significantly reduced the growth of breast cancer in an animal model. In the 1990s, a group of scientists from the University of California at San Diego provided the first look at how many women may be dying needlessly from breast cancer due to low vitamin D blood levels. In 1997, researchers at the Manchester Royal Infirmary discovered that women with the highest levels of calcitriol in their blood had the best prognosis. Those women with the lowest levels had a more rapidly fatal course. The NaturalNews Talk Hour begins this Thursday evening at 6pm Pacific / 9pm Eastern, and registration is FREE. Simply enter your email address in the registration form on the right column of this page and you’ll receive call-in details for the show. The Value of Breast Thermography Our next guest, Patricia Kennedy says, “thermography is non-invasive, has zero radiation and is pain-free!” Patricia uses thermography to image breast tissue with a digital infrared camera. This technology provides valuable information on the physiological condition and changes within the breast tissue that may indicate pathology. According to the International Academy of Clinical Thermology, this procedure “is based on the principle that chemical and blood vessel activity in both pre-cancerous tissue and the area surrounding a developing breast cancer is almost always higher than in the normal breast. Since pre-cancerous and cancerous masses are highly metabolic tissues, they need an abundant supply of nutrients to maintain their growth. In order to do this they increase circulation to their cells by sending out chemicals to keep existing blood vessels open, recruit dormant vessels, and create new ones (neoangiogenesis). This process results in an increase in regional surface temperatures of the breast. This week’s guest: Patricia Kennedy – Breast Health – The Missing Link Patricia Kennedy – “Breast Health – The Missing Link” – Thu. Mar. 17 As the Director of Clinical Services at Thermography Clinic London she offers women pain-free technology that detects abnormalities in breast tissue in its earliest stages a” with zero radiation. Patricia put her philosophies into practice providing options for optimal health including cleansing, detoxifying, reflexology and advanced colon hydrotherapy. Don’t become a statistic. Take charge of your own healthcare and destiny. Discover how to prevent, even reverse cancer – naturally. If you or someone you love is concerned about breast cancer – don’t miss this show. Spread the word and invite your friends. Register now using the email form in the right column, and you will be emailed show details. Register Today!

Better marketing helps urban agriculture programs keep kids off the streets

(NaturalNews) Urban market gardens are a great way for inner-city neighborhoods to unite around a common cause and improve the social fabric of their local community — all while reaping a delicious harvest in the process. And a new study published in the Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education has found that Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs that build upon this concept can become highly effective and successful, especially when they are driven with proper marketing. Recently, NaturalNews featured a piece about the growth of local food and how community organizers in Detroit are reviving the city’s dying landscape with urban agriculture programs (http://www.naturalnews.com/030071_good_food_agriculture.html). And as part of the new study, researchers highlighted Seattle Youth Garden Works (SYGW), a program of Seattle Tilth that has been working for years to help and provide job training for local homeless and troubled youth through urban agriculture. In its early days, the organization had trouble maintaining the program because it lacked proper marketing outlets, but faculty from Washington State University (WSU) helped the group develop a CSA system that would end up helping it to thrive. Poor, inner-city neighborhoods are typically the most undernourished in terms of access to fresh produce. Many grocery stores that once carried such products have since moved out of these areas, leaving locals with little access to any fresh food. But successful CSA programs have been able to fill that gap, as well as provide hope and new opportunities for the people who live in these communities. But making it all happen requires effective marketing to clients. And part of SYGW’s goal is to utilize its passion for helping homeless and misguided youth to attract more customers to CSAs, which in turn brings in more vendors. According to reports, the popularity of CSAs and local agriculture in general has risen dramatically over the past several decades. Direct-to-consumer agriculture sales more than doubled between 1997 and 2007. So integrating them with inner-city social programs like SYGW is a great way to expand the growth of local food, as well as help provide the least among us with new life opportunities. Sources for this story include: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-10/asoa-gci102510.php

95 percent of "preventive" mastectomies offer no benefit, study finds

(NaturalNews) A new study shows that the increasingly popular practice of “preventive mastectomy” in non-cancerous breasts provides no benefit to the vast majority of women. “It’s important for women to understand that, except for one subset of breast cancer patients, they don’t need to do this,” said lead author Isabelle Bedrosian of University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. “Hopefully, it’ll reassure patients wondering if they should.” Approximately 40,000 women die from breast cancer in the United States each year, and another 200,000 cases are diagnosed. Because cancer in one breast is known to increase the risk of cancer recurrence in the other breast, doctors are increasingly recommending that cancer survivors opt to have both breasts removed as a “preventive” measure. And women are opting for it in huge numbers, seeking the peace of mind that it is said to offer. The number of preventive mastectomies in the United States increased two-and-a-half-fold between 1998 and 2003. Today, 11 percent of all women undergoing a mastectomy on a cancerous breast choose to have the non-cancerous breast removed as well. Analysts have attributed this increase to more advanced screening techniques that detect cancers smaller and earlier; popularization of genetic screening and the idea that some genes may predispose families to breast cancer; and wider public acceptance of plastic surgery combined with advances in reconstructive technology. Yet while it has been strongly established that elective mastectomy does reduce the risk of breast-cancer recurrence, there has been no research to suggest that it actually lengthens a woman’s life span. “We have not had real data to guide us,” Bedrosian said. “We can’t sit down with a woman and say, ‘If you do this, this is your expected benefit.’ And when we don’t have those data, then biases become the big drivers of decision making.” In the new study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute , Bedrosian and colleagues analyzed the records of 107,106 women in the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry. All the women had undergone a mastectomy to treat breast cancer of Stage III or lower; 8,902 had chosen to have a healthy breast removed, as well. After controlling for other risk factors, the researchers found only a small difference in survival rates between women who had chosen to have two breasts removed and women who had chosen to have only one removed. Upon further analysis, they discovered that this benefit was only present in women under the age of 50 with estrogen receptor-negative, early-stage tumors. In this group, elective mastectomy increased the survival rate by 4.8 percent, amounting to just under five lives saved for every 100 surgeries. Elective mastectomy provided no survival benefit to women outside this demographic. The researchers believe that even when cancers recur, most women will not be killed by them but will instead die of other causes first. Only in women whose cancers lack estrogen receptors and who would otherwise have long lives ahead of them does recurrence appear to pose a serious threat to survival. The most effective breast cancer drugs on the market are those that lower the body’s production of estrogen, which fuels the growth of many cancers. Tumors that lack estrogen receptors do not depend on the hormone for their growth, however, meaning that women with these cancers cannot use the most effective drugs and tend to have higher mortality rates. Breast-cancer specialist Larry Norton of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City expressed skepticism about the study’s methodology and cautioned against doctors and patients giving it too much weight. “This is an observational study, and hence it is impossible to control for confounding variables,” Norton said, “and should not be used for individual clinical decisionmaking.” Norton admitted, however, that ethics make it impossible to perform a true controlled study on the question, since such an experiment might end up increasing cancer mortality in one group of participants. Bedrosian disputed Norton’s criticism, noting that the researchers used rigorous statistical analysis and controlled well for interference from other variables. She believes that the conclusions are, in fact, strong enough to help women make better-informed decisions about elective mastectomy. “We looked at this in multiple different ways, and we got the same answer every time. And the results make good clinical sense. That adds another level of reassurance,” she said. “Our hope is that when women hear the numbers, they will take a second look and decide not to go forward with a preventive mastectomy [in their healthy breast] if it won’t give them a survival benefit.” Victor Vogel, national vice president for research at the American Cancer Society, said the results suggest that women should wait a full year before going through with the removal of a healthy breast. “In a younger woman with [estrogen receptor]-negative disease, an [elective} mastectomy may be considered," he said. "In the vast majority of women older than 50 with ER-positive disease, prudent waiting is probably the most appropriate." Bedrosian said that the point of the study was not to impose "a uniform mandate" that women should never get the procedure, but that their decisions must be well informed. "This is still a decision to be made by the patient after talking with her doctor," Bedrosian said. "We hope this study helps women make better decisions [and] provides some reassurance that perhaps a [preventive] mastectomy is not necessary, perhaps overly aggressive and perhaps a bit too much.” Sources for this story include: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6885581.html http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/180769.php; http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968122,00.html.

Study shows how radiation causes breast cancer

(NaturalNews) It’s well-established that exposure to ionizing radiation can trigger mutations and other genetic damage and cause normal cells to become malignant. So it seems amazing how mainstream medicine frequently dismisses the idea that medical imaging tests from mammograms to CT scans could play much of a role in causing breast cancer. Take this example from the web site for Cornell University’s Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors: In answer to the question “Is ionizing radiation a cause of breast cancer?”, the Cornell experts say “Yes” and note “.. female breast tissue is highly susceptible to radiation effects.” But then they pooh-pooh the possible hazard from mammography x-rays saying the risk …”should not be a factor in individual decisions to undergo this procedure. The same is true for most diagnostic x-ray procedures.” If that’s not confusing enough, they turn around and state: “Nonetheless, unnecessary radiation exposures should be avoided and continued vigilance is required to ensure that the benefits associated with specific procedures outweigh the future risks.” Why radiation causes breast cancer Common sense suggests there is plenty of reason to be worried about radiation causing breast cancer. And now there’s a new reason to be concerned. Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have discovered that radiation exposure can alter cells’ microenvironment (the environment surrounding cells). And that greatly raises the odds future cells will become cancerous. The reason is that signals from a cell’s microenvironment, altered by radiation exposure, can cause a cell’s phenotype (made up of all its biochemical and physical characteristics) to change by regulating or de-regulating the way a cell uses its genes. The result can be a cell that not only becomes pre-cancerous but that passes this pre-malignant condition on to future cells. “Our work shows that radiation can change the microenvironment of breast cells, and this in turn can allow the growth of abnormal cells with a long-lived phenotype that have a much greater potential to be cancerous,” Paul Yaswen, a cell biologist and breast cancer research specialist with Berkeley Lab’s Life Sciences Division, said in a statement to the press. “Many in the cancer research community, especially radiobiologists, have been slow to acknowledge and incorporate in their work the idea that cells in human tissues are not independent entities, but are highly communicative with each other and with their microenvironment,” he added. For their study, Yaswen and his research teams used human mammary epithelial cells (HMECs), the cells that line breast ducts, where most breast cancers start. When placed in a culture dish, the vast majority of HMECs display a phenotype that allows them to divide between five and 20 times until they become what is known as senescent, or unable to divide. However, there are also some variants of these cells which have a phenotype that allows them to continue dividing for many weeks in culture. Known as a vHMEC phenotype, this type of breast cell arises spontaneously and is more susceptible to malignancy because it lacks a tumor-suppressing protein dubbed p16. To find out what radiation exposure does to the cellular environment and how it could impact the future of cell behavior, the Berkeley Lab scientists grew sets of HMECs from normal breast tissue in culture dishes for about a week. Then they zapped each set with a single treatment of a low-to-moderate dose of radiation and compared the irradiated cells to sets of breast cells that had not been irradiated. The results, just published in the on-line journal Breast Cancer Research , showed that four to six weeks after the radiation exposure, the normal breast cancer cells had stopped dividing far earlier than they would have normally — and this premature cell senescence had accelerated the outgrowth of vHMECS. “However, by getting normal cells to prematurely age and stop dividing, the radiation exposure created space for epigenetically altered cells that would otherwise have been filled by normal cells. In other words, the radiation promoted the growth of pre-cancerous cells by making the environment that surrounded the cells more hospitable to their continued growth,” Yaswen explained in the press statement. The researchers pointed out that the levels of radiation used in their experiments were not as much as a woman would be exposed to during a single routine mammogram but were comparable to those a woman could receive during a CT scans or radiotherapy “and could represent sources of concern.” Of course, women are often pushed to get annual mammograms, raising their overall radiation exposure through the years. And, as NaturalNews has reported, previous research has already provided compelling evidence linking mammography to breast cancer. For example, a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association’s Archives of Internal Medicine found that the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been associated with increased incidence of breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/024901.html). And a Johns Hopkins study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute concluded radiation exposure from mammograms could trigger malignancies in women at risk for genetic breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/025560_cancer_brst_cancer_mammograms.html). For more information: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20146798 http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/physical/fs52.radiation.cfm#mammog

Pomegranates may prevent estrogen-driven breast cancer

(NaturalNews) Many breast cancers are estrogen-dependent. So a class of drugs called aromatase inhibitors (AI) that block the synthesis of estrogen are used by mainstream medical doctors to attempt to slow the growth of estrogen sensitive breast tumors. Unfortunately, as the Mayo Clinic web site points out, AI drugs — which include anastrozole (Arimidex), letrozole (Femara) and exemestane (Aromasin) — come loaded with side effects including hot flashes, severe joint pain, muscle aches, headache, fatigue, bone fractures and a potential risk of heart disease. But now comes good news: there appears to be a natural alternative to AIs. Researchers say they’ve found a substance that could prevent the development of hormone-dependent breast cancer and halt the growth of estrogen-driven tumors — pomegranate fruit. Pomegranates contain phytochemicals known as ellagitannins that work much like aromatase inhibitors, according to results of a study just published in the January issue of Cancer Prevention Research , a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. And there’s little reason to think any cancer treatment derived from pomegranates would have harmful side effects because the fruit has long been safely consumed as a food. Shiuan Chen, Ph.D., director of the Division of Tumor Cell Biology and co-leader of the Breast Cancer Research Program at City of Hope in Duarte, California, worked with Lynn Adams, Ph.D., a research fellow at Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope, and other scientists to investigate whether phytochemicals in pomegranates can suppress aromatase and thereby inhibit cancer growth. They screened and analyzed 10 ellagitannin-derived compounds in pomegranates. The results? The research team discovered these natural phytochemicals have the potential to prevent estrogen-dependent breast cancers. One particular substance found in pomegranates dubbed Urolithin B significantly inhibited the growth of cultured breast cancer cells in the lab. “Phytochemicals suppress estrogen production and that prevents the proliferation of breast cancer cells and the growth of estrogen-responsive tumors,” said Dr. Chen, the principal investigator, in a statement to the media. Gary Stoner, Ph.D., professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at Ohio State University, commented in a statement to the media that additional studies are needed in animals and humans to confirm the ability of Urolithin B to stop hormone-dependent breast cancer. Dr. Stoner, who was not part of the study research team, also recommended additional studies to test pomegranate juice for its effect on estrogen levels, menopausal symptoms and breast density (dense breast tissue is a risk for breast cancer) and to see if it is a cancer preventive agent. Until then, Stoner said people “might consider consuming more pomegranates to protect against cancer development in the breast and perhaps in other tissues and organs.” For more information: http://www.aacr.org/home/public–media/aacr-in-the-news.aspx?f= http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-cancer-treatment/AT99999/PAGE=AT00030