Warning: Scientists discover mad cow disease-causing prions infect through air

(NaturalNews) Cancer and Alzheimer’s disease are usually described as the two most dreaded health disorders. But there is probably no more ghastly way to suffer and inevitably die than to contract so-called mad cow disease or Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Prions are known to cause mad cow disease, also termed bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and Creutzfeldt-Jakob in humans. These infectious agents produce a progressive and always lethal break-down of brain cells; they literally turn brains into sponge-like mush. It is well established that these nightmarish infections can be spread by surgical instruments contaminated by prions and, more rarely, through blood transfusions. Food made from BSE-infected cows can also induce the disease. But mainstream medicine has long insisted that prions can’t cause disease in the way common flu or cold viruses do — by traveling through the air and being inhaled into the body. In fact, the scientific community has long declared that airborne prions are no threat to health. Turns out, they’ve made a deadly and dangerous mistake. Swiss scientists at the University of Zurich, the University Hospital Zurich and the University of Tubingen have discovered and documented for the first time that inhaling prions can induce mad cow-type disease. What makes this especially alarming is that at the present time scientific laboratories, animal feed factories, slaughterhouses and other environments where prions could well be found do not have stringent measures in place to keep prions from floating around in the air — and that means there’s no protction for humans or animals breathing breathing potentially prion-laden air in these places. The team of Swiss scientists, headed by Professor Adriano Aguzzi, placed both immunodeficient and totally healthy mice in special inhalation chambers and then exposed them to aerosols containing prions. The results? Inhaling prions induced disease with what the researchers called “frightening efficiency”. Just a single minute of exposure to the prion containing aerosols was sufficient to infect 100% of the animals, Professor Aguzzi noted in a statement to the media. He added that the findings were entirely unexpected and appear to contradict the widely held view that airborne prions are innocuous. The study, just published in the journal PLoS Pathogens , also found that the longer the exposure lasted, the shorter the time of incubation in the prion breathing mice and the sooner clinical signs of brain-destroying prion disease occurred. When inhaled, prions apparently transfer directly from the airways and rapidly colonize the brain. The researchers concluded that their new findings suggest “…it may be advisable to consider the possibility of airborne prion transmission, and to create regulations aimed at minimizing the prion infection risks to humans and animals.” Editor’s note: NaturalNews is opposed to the use of animals in medical experiments that expose them to harm. We present these findings in protest of the way in which they were acquired. For more information: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1001257

What’s in your future kitchen? Food fabrication technology prints out your meals in seconds

(NaturalNews) In the not-so-distant future, instead of buying manufactured food items at the store, you may instead just “print” them right in your own kitchen. The technology is called “food fabrication,” and it allows you to fabricate foods right in your own kitchen, layer by layer, in much the same way an inkjet printer prints a color bar chart on a piece of paper. This is an emerging technology that I predict will have a huge impact on the future of food. Several food fabrication devices already exist, in fact. Perhaps the most notable example is from Cornell University’s Computational Synthesis Lab (CCSL) (http://ccsl.mae.cornell.edu/3d_printing), where a project led by Dr Jeffrey Ian Lipton hopes to ultimately create a consumer-level food fabrication device that would one day be an integral part of every modern kitchen. With such a device, instead of running to the store to buy blueberry muffins, for example, you would simply download the 3D blueprint, then “print” the muffins on the food fab machine (and then bake them in your oven). Cool tech, but with pitfalls As cool as the technology sounds, however, keep in mind that it can really only fabricate foods out of homogenized, semi-liquid ingredients such as chocolate syrup, cookie dough, or tomato paste (for example). And it doesn’t create food out of nothing: You still need to load up the syringes with the various ingredients to be used in the fabrication. The food fab machine merely “prints out” those ingredients in the right proportions, shapes and layers. It does not, however, cook your food, chop vegetables or otherwise turn raw ingredients into cuisine. It could, however, create a nice “raw lasagna” if you load up the syringes with sufficiently thickened raw ingredients such as tomato paste, spinach paste and a flax / nut butter paste of some sort. But this technology also threatens to dehumanize our food right in our own kitchens. One of the greatest things about home food preparation right now is that every batch is unique and artistic . With home food fab machines, this art of food creation might literally be lost after just one generation as people forget how to create foods from scratch. Another concern is that the primary food ingredient “pastes” will likely be sold in bulk at the store in much the same way that you currently buy ink jet printer ink. In order to adhere to so-called “food safety” rules, those food ingredients will all have to be pasteurized, fumigated, irradiated or otherwise killed, meaning they will all be processed junk food pastes rather than anything containing real living food. Of course, there’s always the possibility that you could hack your food fab machine and load up one of the ingredient cylinders with a paste blended up from fresh ingredients you grew yourself, but the inconvenience of that means most people will avoid doing so. The vast majority of consumers will simply buy the food fab ingredients off the shelf and use those to churn out factory foods at home. $7,500 a gallon for ink? This brings me to the business model discussion of such a food fabrication device. What HP has proven in the world of computers is that consumers vastly underestimate the long-term costs of using printers and are primarily attracted by the seemingly low up-front cost of buying the hardware. A typical consumer, for example, thinks they’re getting a bargain paying $49 for an inkjet printer, not realizing they’re actually paying as much as $7,500 for each gallon of ink consumed by that printer in the future. Because consumers are so gullible in falling for this cost-shifting gimmick (hey, it works for Gillette’s shaving consumables, too!), the future of food fabrication machines will likely follow the same structure. Any corporation that hopes to maximize profits over the long run will all but give away the machines up front while charging exorbitant fees for the consumable food ingredients that must be used with the device. In order to guarantee their long-term profits, they’ll use all the same tricks that HP uses today to force consumers to buy name-brand toners and inkjet refills: Engineering physical limitations that make competing consumables incompatible with the fabrication device and even microchipping the consumable canisters to make sure that generic canisters don’t function in their machines. There will be a huge industry, however, that grows up around these devices: Expect somebody to make a fortune selling third-party “compatible” food ingredient canisters at a much lower price. A hacker community will also get involved and release open-source code for hacking the food fab devices in order to use them for purposes not intended by their original manufacturers, such as printing out “natural cure cookies” made with medicinal herbs that will have long since been banned by the FDA. You can also expect the government to eventually get involved in regulating food fab devices in order to “protect the public” from “unsafe muffins” fabricated on non-licensed devices. Creating your own ingredients to be used in such machines may one day be criminalized in much the same way that selling raw cow’s milk is today. The FDA, after all, doesn’t want people to have real control over their own food. Food fabrication machines represent far too much freedom and must therefore be aggressively regulated. Fabrication machines galore It’s not just food that’s going to be fabricated in your future home, by the way. A new wave of desktop fabrication machines that use resins and other materials are also in development. Makerbot Industries recently introduced the Thing-O-Matic object printer that can print small items out of a quick-hardening resin material (http://wiki.makerbot.com/thingomatic). You can use it to print all sorts of objects such as space invader earrings, tiny plastic tweezers, whistles and even gears. You accomplish this by downloading 3D designs from an open-source site called Thingiverse.com (http://www.thingiverse.com). So far, the library of objects from Thingiverse isn’t exactly impressive, as this technology is just getting off the ground (what? You don’t want your own plastic rhombohedron?). It won’t be long, however, before you can download and print out entire circuit boards, cell phones, and, in the case of astronauts on long space journeys, spare parts for your busted NASA spacecraft constructed by awarding government contracts to the lowest bidder. The ultimately geek goal for these fabrication devices, by the way, is to build a device that can replicate itself . If a Thing-O-Matic could print out another Thing-O-Matic and assemble it, then runaway replication could give rise to a race of self-replicating machines that would one day declare war on the human race and develop a popular series of sci-fi movies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. Buying virtual blueprints for stuff instead of buying stuff All this promises huge changes for our consumer-based society. Today, the stuff we buy is manufactured in China, then shipped to our stores by burning fossil fuels. We then buy the stuff, take the stuff home, and toss it in a corner of the house somewhere, just in case we might actually need it one day. (Where’s that fly swatter when you need one?) In the future of fabrication devices, instead of storing the stuff itself, you simply buy the blueprint for the stuff . But you don’t actually need to create the physical object until you really need it. Is that fly buzzing around your head today? Load up the old fly swatter object model in your Thing-O-Matic and hit print. Grab the fly swatter as the machine spits it out and your problem is solved. The key thing in all this, of course, is that with at-home fabrication technology, instead of storing lots of physical objects such as fly swatters, soap holders, kitchen funnels and even cell phone covers, you simply store the raw resin which can be made into just about any object you want, in mere minutes. Sure, the electronic blueprint will cost you some bucks up front, but once you download the blueprint, you can print out an unlimited number of similar objects in the future. Why we will still need stores Desktop fabrication machines won’t be able to print out metal objects (at least not in the foreseeable future) for obvious reasons. They will be strictly limited to substances that can be squeezed out of small tubes, such as plastic resins or food ingredients. If you need to a heavy-duty wrench to fix that annoying leak under your kitchen sink, you’ll still need to buy that through retail distribution. Complex circuits and CPUs also won’t be printable through desktop fabrication machines anytime in the near future, although there is the possibility that you may be able to print out small solar panels within a decade or so (they’re doing it now on a larger scale). You also won’t be able to print out counterfeit $100 bills and hand them out to all your friends. That’s the job of the Federal Reserve. Nevertheless, food fabrication machines and desktop fabrication technology promise to truly revolutionize the way we buy and consume things in our modern society. They will also greatly reduce packaging waste since you no longer have to buy an object at retail, packaged in a plastic bubble shell that gets tossed into landfill. This might even qualify at-home fabrication devices as “green” technology. Watch for this technology to quickly advance, and expect large corporations to get involved in creating consumer-ready devices over the next few years. Sources for this story include: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12069495 http://ccsl.mae.cornell.edu/3d_printing

USDA failure may have helped cause salmonella egg outbreak

(NaturalNews) In yet another shocking display of incompetence and regulatory failure, the Wall Street Journal has reported that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) knew all along that one of the egg mega-farms involved in the recent recall had sanitation issues, but did not report them to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as it should have. The USDA is responsible for “grading” eggs–which means it simply checks to make sure eggs are the right size and color before being packaged–while the FDA is in charge of actually verifying the safety of eggs. If the USDA observes any problems or violations during grading, it is supposed to immediately notify the FDA. But according to reports, the USDA simply looked the other way because “conditions at the egg plant packing facilities were routine.” This statement alone suggests that, in general, large egg packing plants are filthy, and that such conditions are nothing out of the ordinary. But the fact that the USDA did nothing about the atrocious conditions at Wright County Egg illustrate that the agency has become entirely unfit to hold authority in its current state. USDA daily inspection reports have since revealed that conditions at the farm were largely “unsatisfactory”, and even “critical” in some cases. Rodent infestations and overflowing trash are among the many problem points notated by the USDA. But despite all this, the agency continued to allow the plant to operate. Most reports say it is unclear whether or not the USDA’s breach of duty is directly responsible for the salmonella outbreak, but it clearly did not help the situation. It remains to be seen whether or not the agency is held responsible for its actions. There is also the possibility that injured victims of the outbreak will file a lawsuit against the USDA for its negligence in properly handling the situation. Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6890J020100910 http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/23891

Experts say reading food labels leads to healthier eating

(NaturalNews) Two new reports in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association have revealed that people who read ingredient and nutrient labels on food packaging generally eat healthier than those who rarely or never read these labels. While seemingly obvious, the studies’ findings illustrate how powerful nutrition awareness is in making healthy food choices. Based on a sampling of American adults in the 2005-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), researchers observed a significant difference in mean intake of calories, fat, cholesterol, sodium, fiber and sugars, between those who pay attention to nutrition labels and those who do not. “If the food label is to have a greater public health impact, rates of use will likely need to be increased among U.S. adults,” explained Professor Ollberding, one of the study authors. “Low rates of label use also suggest that national campaigns or modification of the food label may be needed to reduce the proportion of the population not using this information.” Researchers suggest making nutritional text bolder, changing its colors, and even developing a new labeling scheme that would make finding and understanding nutritional information easier. “The food label alone is not expected to be sufficient in modifying behavior ultimately leading to improved health outcomes, but may be used by individuals and nutrition professionals as a valuable and motivating tool in our efforts to combat obesity and diet-related chronic disease,” said Ollberding. The team also investigated the possibility of integrating “point-of-purchase” nutritional programs designed to raise nutritional awareness at the checkout counter. Sources for this story include: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-08/ehs-nla080110.php

A diet loaded with antioxidant rich foods improves insulin resistance

(NaturalNews) According to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDKD), insulin resistance is a condition in which the pancreas eventually can’t keep up with the body’s demand for insulin (a hormone that helps the body use glucose for energy). Eventually, an excess of glucose builds up in the bloodstream — and that sets the stage for type 2 diabetes. New research just presented at the Endocrine Society’s 92nd Annual Meeting, held in San Diego, shows that natural antioxidants in the diet can be a powerful way to improve insulin resistance — even in people who are obese and suffering from metabolic syndrome. A precursor of diabetes associated with insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome is a cluster of conditions (including high blood pressure, elevated insulin levels, excess body fat around the waist and abnormal cholesterol levels) that raise the risk of heart disease and stroke, as well as diabetes. “The beneficial effects of antioxidants are known, but we have revealed for the first time one of their biological bases of action — improving hormonal action in obese subjects with the metabolic syndrome,” lead researcher Antonio Mancini, MD, an endocrinology researcher at Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome, Italy, said in a statement to the media. Dr. Mancini and his fellow researchers investigated the effects of dietary antioxidants on insulin resistance in 16 men and 13 women between 18 and 66 years of age. All the research subjects were obese and insulin-resistant but had not yet developed full-blown diabetes. The study participants were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups. Then all groups were place on low-calorie, Mediterranean-type diets averaging 1,500 calories daily and containing only 25 percent of these calories from protein foods with the rest made up of low-glycemic-index carbohydrates (carbs such as whole grains that don’t cause a quick rise in blood sugar). However, while one group ate only this diet, the second group consumed the same foods but also took the an oral medication that lowers blood glucose called metformin (sold under the brand names Glucophage, Glucophage XR, Glumetza, Fortamet, and Riomet). Groups three and four ate a Mediterranean style diet, too, but theirs was enriched with extra helpings of fruits and vegetables that are known to be loaded with antioxidants; group four was also given metformin. Even though all the research subjects in each group lost about the same amount of weight, only the two groups consuming the high antioxidant diet (groups 3 and 4) had a significant decrease in insulin resistance. The latter group had the best improvement based on an oral glucose tolerance test, according to the scientists’ report. Although the researchers did not discuss the possibility, the ability of the high antioxidant diet to greatly improve insulin resistance without any medication is a hopeful indication that diets rich in natural antioxidants alone may help many people faced with this pre-diabetic problem who can not take — or don’t want to take — the drug metformin. The medication’s most common side effects (which occur in one out of every three patients) are nausea, vomiting, gas, bloating, diarrhea and loss of appetite. Dr. Mancini pointed out that there’s evidence oxidative stress, which can result in damage to blood particles and cells, plays a role in the metabolic syndrome. And previous research has shown that antioxidants can prevent oxidative damage to cells and sometimes even repair damage. Antioxidants, which are found naturally in many foods including fruits, vegetables, legumes and nuts, include vitamins E and C, selenium and carotenoids, such as beta-carotene. For more information: http://www.endo-society.org/endo2010/abstracts/ http://www.naturalnews.com/antioxidant.html http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/insulinresistance/

Obama’s USDA to deceive Americans over GM crops

(NaturalNews) The Obama administration’s Department of Agriculture (USDA) is attempting to downplay the risks of genetically modified alfalfa, a crop previously banned by numerous federal courts. In 2007, a federal court rejected the Bush USDA’s approval of alfalfa plants genetically engineered for resistance to the Monsanto herbicide Roundup. The court ruled that the USDA had not properly considered the risks posed by the crop. These risks included the possibility that the genetically modified (GM) crops could swap genetic material with related species, thus contaminating neighboring fields or producing non-agricultural “super weeds.” Monsanto continues to appeal the decision, even though the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against it twice. The case is now pending consideration by the Supreme Court. Alfalfa is the first perennial crop to be genetically modified. Because it does not die after a year but can regenerate itself from even its roots, the risk of genetic contamination is higher than even that from GM annual crops, which have already been documented to spread beyond the fields they are planted in. “Widespread [GM] contamination of organic alfalfa is inevitable if the Obama Administration successfully distorts science and ignores public opinion and allows Monsanto’s GM Roundup Ready alfalfa to be planted across the U.S.,” said Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association. After Obama appointed former Monsanto executive Tom Vilsack to head the USDA, the agency released a new draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that continues to play down these risks. Yet even the Monsanto-friendly EIS acknowledges that “acute toxicity … was observed” in mice that consumed GM alfalfa. It also admits that residues of Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide are toxic. “Based on upper estimates of exposure … infants consuming fruit and all age groups consuming vegetables may be at risk of adverse effects associated with acute exposure to glyphosate residues,” the statement reads. Since the introduction of Roundup Ready GM crops 13 years ago, herbicide use has increased by 383 million pounds. Sources for this story include: www.huffingtonpost.com/ronnie-cummins/obama-usda-poised-to-take_b_432185.html.

Big Brother doctors say patients don’t need to see their imaging test results

(NaturalNews) If you are an American, you probably assume that this is a free country. So if you agree to undergo imaging tests — which cost you or your insurance company hundreds and even thousands of dollars and may subject you to radiation — you have every right to see the results. After all, it’s your body, your test, your money and your health involved right? According to a new report just published in the April issue of the Journal of the American College of Radiology , most doctors surveyed don’t think the answer is “yes”. In fact, they don’t want patients to have direct access to their imaging test results because “it could lead to increased patient anxiety and unrealistic demands on physician time”. You read that right: physicians with a “Big Brother” mindset apparently think people having imaging tests are incapable of dealing with the outcomes without suffering from so much anxiety they must be protected from seeing the results. And, bottom line, these docs just don’t want to spend the time answering questions about the imaging test results, anyway. Those are the conclusions of research performed at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, which looked at the possibility of radiologists using the Internet to communicate imaging results quickly and directly to patients. Eight radiologists and seven referring physicians participated in the study which used two focus groups to gather information. “While physicians participating in this study generally agreed that patients should take more responsibility for their own health care and be better informed, and that the system for reporting needs to be improved, only a small minority of radiologists and referring physicians supported patients being offered unlimited direct access to radiology test results,” said Annette J. Johnson, MD, lead author of the study, in a statement to media. The radiologists and referring physicians admitted there are potential benefits of an online system for patient access. For example, patients clearly want to see their test results and so online access would increase patient satisfaction. In addition, the Internet access could also offer patients hyperlinks to educational material so they could find out more about their tests and conditions. However, the doctors in the study were loaded with arguments against this direct patient access. For starters, they apparently assume patients are too uninformed, stupid, or incompetent to understand the reports . And they don’t want to have to spend time answering a lot of questions from people about their tests, either. “The greatest concern revolved around patients’ ability to understand written reports. Participants predicted that patients, who may not fully comprehend the report’s content or place its meaning into proper context, would experience increased anxiety if they did not have prompt access to a physician to assist them in understanding the results and implications. They also thought that referring physicians and radiologists might experience a dramatically increased number of telephone calls from patients for clarification of report contents — an increase that they could not realistically accommodate,” Dr. Johnson said. For more information: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20362944

90 Percent of Parents Want to Know More About Alternative Medicine, Survey Reveals

(NaturalNews) Ninety percent of parents would like to know more about alternative medical approaches for their children, according to a survey conducted by Children’s Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota (Children’s), a nationwide leader in integrative medical approaches. Integrative medicine combines traditional Western medicine with medical therapies from other traditions, including acupuncture, massage and nutrition. The survey also found that 90 percent of parents have a strong desire to eliminate their children’s pain and improve their quality of life, while 85 percent would like to minimize their dependence on drugs. Parents felt especially strongly about reducing drug treatment for mood or behavioral problems such as anxiety or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Sixty-eight percent of parents believed that integrative treatment could be effective, and more than 75 percent said that hospitals should offer experts on both conventional and alternative treatments. Yet only 12 percent of parents surveyed had ever spoken to their child’s doctor about the possibility of alternative or integrative medical treatments. “Many children with chronic or acute health conditions seek a complementary or integrative approach only after they have exhausted all other conventional treatment options,” said Timothy Culbert of Children’s. “Parents should be aware that integrative medicine can be helpful from the onset of disease and can save time, money and most importantly, improve a child’s quality of life. This is true for all kinds of conditions including acute illnesses like cancer or chronic problems like migraines or behavioral issues.” Among parents of children with serious health issues, 42 percent had more knowledge of integrative medicine than others in the survey. Yet nearly two-thirds had still never considered integrative medicine due to insufficient familiarity with the subject. “Parents need to consult and work with their child’s physician to determine what integrative medicine options are available that may be helpful,” Culbert said. “There are so many different kinds of complementary therapies, it’s important to learn about options to find an approach that will work best for each patient. I see first-hand every day the difference it can make in a child’s life.” Ninety-five percent of parents whose children had undergone integrative treatment reported a positive experience. Sources for this story include: www.reuters.com.

Cancers can re-seed themselves after chemo, surgery or radiation

(NaturalNews) Researchers from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York have published findings in the journal Cell that explain how tumor cells can re-seed and spread throughout the body after they have been removed through conventional chemotherapy, surgery, or radiation treatments. Tiny tumor cells that circulate throughout the body often begin to send out seeds to the places where the tumor originated, essentially planting the cancer back into the body. Joan Massague and her colleagues at the Center are finding that conventional treatments leave behind malignant cells that relocate to other areas of the body to avoid being destroyed. Eventually they return as stronger and more aggressive tumors, having gathered back the worst leftover cells from the previous cancer. The result is a second cancer that is worse than the first. Chemicals present in the immune system also appear to signal tumor cells in circulation to return to their source. Following conventional treatment, the immune system actually works against the body by drawing the vagrant cancer cells back to where they originally seeded, kick starting a relapse. Medical professionals typically attribute recurrences of cancer following conventional treatment to a few remaining cells that survived treatment and remained at the source. However this study illustrates definitively that lingering cells hide throughout the body and later return to self seed back where they originally started. What these findings illustrate is that conventional cancer treatments are not effective at eradicating cancer from the body. The targeting of a specific area with surgery, radiation treatment, and chemotherapy cannot successfully remove the cancer from the body because its cells will find another place to live temporarily, only to return even stronger the next time. Biopsies cause cancer to spread A conventional biopsy is usually recommended as the best way to identify the presence of cancer, both before and after treatments. Needle biopsies involve taking tissue samples at various places in order to identify the presence of cancer cells. Official diagnosis of cancer cannot take place without a biopsy, resulting in the pressuring of patients to get one if they suspect a tumor. Many doctors will insist that a person needs a biopsy, but the threat of spreading cancer far outweighs any perceived benefits. Those who receive biopsies will most likely experience unnecessary cancer spread and, following conventional treatment, will probably experience cancer reseeding. Cancer is known to develop at the puncture sites of biopsies. Chemotherapy leads to reseeding Chemotherapy treatments involve targeting cancer cells that are rapidly dividing and spreading with harsh chemicals designed to kill them. While treatment may kill the primary tumor, it fails to eradicate the cells that divide more slowly, resulting in a continued replication of cancer cells following treatment. Many who believe they are in remission following their chemotherapy treatments later discover that their cancer has returned. Not only do they undergo the horrors of the treatment which leaves their body and health in shambles, but they often end up with a more severe version of their original cancer. Conventional therapies are a failure Conventional medicine is at a loss for how to deal with the problem of reseeding. Within their paradigm, chemotherapy, radiation, drugs, and surgery are the only options for treating someone with cancer. Now that these are proving to be largely ineffective, scientists are searching for yet another new drug to combat the tendency of cancers to re-seed in order to continue promoting these accepted forms of cancer treatment. They are even investigating the possibility of developing vaccines that will allegedly use the body’s immune system to stop vagrant cancer cells. The problem with drugs, surgery, and radiation is that they will never be able to systematically rid the body of the problem because they are only capable of targeting a confined area. These methods are also wrought with negative side effects so severe that many people end up dying simply from the treatment. Conventional treatment is also extremely expensive, heavily burdening an already overwhelmed health care system. It is simply assumed that there are no alternative methods by which cancer can be treated, let alone prevented. Many recently published studies have found that pomegranates, mangoes, and other natural foods contain valuable phytonutrients that effectively prevent and stop malignant cancer cells while preserving good cells. These nutrients holistically rid the body of harmful cells, targeting them wherever they hide in the body and eliminating them. Conventional medicine would do best to begin focusing heavily on the compounds found in nature that are designed to deter cancer without inflicting negative side effects as an alternative to the mainstream methods that are only making the problem worse. Whether in aloe vera, peach pits, raw almonds, or the many fruits and vegetables found around the world, anti-cancer nutrients are everywhere and modern medicine is only beginning to recognize them. They may not result in the next big blockbuster drug but they work and they are inexpensive. Perhaps this is the reason they are generally marginalized and looked down upon by the cancer industry. Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BN2N320091224, http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news/7209, http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/biopsies-surgery-spread-cancer.html

Hospitals consider banning bedside flower bouquets

(NaturalNews) In an effort to prevent what they believe may cause patient health complications, some British hospitals have begun banning flower bouquets from hospital rooms. Citing the possibility of infection from bacteria in the water and the ill-conceived notion that flowers may use up all the oxygen in the room – even though plants actually release oxygen – some hospital officials are up in arms over the alleged dangers posed by plants. Researchers from the Imperial College of London decided to survey hospital patients and staff to get their take on the situation. They found that most patients appreciate having flowers around while many staffers dislike them because they can be messy. Few made any correlation between plants and an increased risk for disease or infection. Virtually all scientific research has shown that flowers pose no health risks to patients, yet many hospitals continue to cling to antiquated superstition that they are somehow dangerous to patients. The vast majority of studies have revealed that flowers have both immediate and long-term benefits for patients. Aside from improving general morale and mood, flowers have been shown to increase patient memory, lead to fewer cases of postoperative analgesic application, reduce blood pressure and heart rate, and decrease pain. Though obvious, controlled studies found that patients who have flowers beside their beds are much happier than those who do not. Simon Cohn, a medical anthropologist, sees the hysteria over bedside flowers as indicative of a trend in health care towards regimented, outcome-based delivery rather than relationship-based care of patients. Comments by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger It’s hilarious, really, to think that hospitals would ban flowers out of a fear that they might make people sick. Should they also ban sunlight, too? How about banning laughter while you’re at it? With few exceptions, hospitals are death traps . They are not places of healing; they’re places of health deterioration . And (nearly) everything you experience at a hospital is bad for you: The laughable “food” you’re served, the re-circulated air, the artificial lights, the onslaught of medications and even the tap water (which is contaminated with fluoride). Flowers might be the one thing that’s actually good for you in a hospital, and now they want to ban those, too. Why am I not surprised? Allowing patients to experience joy would be counterproductive to the whole agenda of suppressing their healing response… Sources for this story include: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-12/bmj-sfb121509.php http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/339/dec16_1/b5257

« Previous Page — Next Page »