Compass Minerals International Inc. Reports Operating Results (10-Q)

Compass Minerals International Inc. Reports Operating Results (10-Q) By 10qk. Compass Minerals International Inc. ( CMP ) filed Quarterly Report for the period ended 2010-09-30. Read more » » Read more on Guru Focus Compass Minerals Announces Price Increase on Sulfate of Potash Specialty Fertilizer Great Salt Lake Minerals Corp., a subsidiary of Compass Minerals [...]

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.

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia breakthrough: green tea extract halts cancer progression in majority of patients

(NaturalNews) According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a form of cancer that causes the number of white blood cells called B lymphocytes, or B cells, to increase abnormally. Eventually, the cancerous cells can move through the blood to the liver, spleen, and other organs. When CLL spreads, it is usually treated with an arsenal of side effect-laden chemotherapies. But new research has revealed a natural substance — an extract of green tea — may have the ability to put the brakes on CLL. Mayo Clinic researchers recently announced these findings in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). In a phase II clinical trial, epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), the major component of green tea, halted the progression in the majority of CLL patients. The research is the latest in a series of Mayo studies that shows EGCG appears to have a powerful yet non-toxic impact on CLL. About eight years ago, Mayo scientists first tested EGCG in the lab and documented it reduced the survival of CLL cells. This was followed by a successful phase I clinical trial, published last May in the Journal of Clinical Oncology , that showed the leukemia cell count was not only reduced in one-third of the study participants, but a majority of patients in the trial with enlarged lymph nodes due to CLL saw a 50 percent or greater reduction in their lymph node size. The latest phase II clinical trial involved 41 CLL patients who received EGCG and the results were even more dramatic. The majority, 69 percent, of the research subjects had a positive biological response to EGCG — including a 20 percent or greater sustained reduction in blood lymphocyte count and/or a 50 percent or greater reduction in lymph node size. Overall, the treatment was well tolerated with only very mild side effects in most patients. According to Tait Shanafelt, M.D., a Mayo Clinic hematologist who headed study, the results show EGCC “may be useful for stabilizing this form of leukemia, potentially slowing it down.” “These studies advance the notion that a nutraceutical like EGCG can and should be studied as cancer preventives,” Neil Kay, M.D. a hematology researcher whose laboratory first tested the green tea extract in leukemic blood cells from CLL patients, said in the statement to the press. “Using nontoxic chemicals to push back cancer growth to delay the need for toxic therapies is a worthy goal in oncology research — particularly for forms of cancer initially managed by observation such as CLL.” For more information: http://abstract.asco.org/AbstView_74_47574.html http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000532.htm

Women can dramatically slash their risk of strokes through regular walking

(NaturalNews) A large, long-term study just reported in the American Heart Association journal Stroke has great news for women. Once again, a non-drug approach to avoiding one of the country’s top killers has been shown to be a powerful “prescription”. Harvard researchers found that women can dramatically slash their risk for both clot-caused (ischemic) strokes as well as bleeding (hemorrhagic) strokes by simply walking regularly. “Though the exact relationship among different types of physical activity and different stroke subtypes remains unclear, the results of this specific study indicate that walking, in particular, is associated with lower risk of stroke,” Jacob R. Sattelmair, M.Sc., lead author and doctoral candidate in epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, said in a statement to the media. The research team followed 39,315 U.S. female health professionals with an average age of 54 who were taking part in the Women’s Health Study. Every two to three years, the study participants reported the physical activities they’d engaged in during the past years — including walking or hiking, jogging, running, biking, doing aerobic exercise/aerobic dance, using exercise machines, playing tennis, swimming, or doing yoga. The women also reported how fast they tended to walk — whether their walking pace was casual (about 2 mph), normal (2.9 mph), brisk (3.9 mph) or very brisk (4 mph). At the end of the study, the researchers found that women who were the most active in their leisure time activities were 17 percent less likely to have any type of stroke compared to the least-active women. However, walking appeared to be an especially effective form of exercise when it came to preventing strokes. Overall, compared to women who didn’t walk for exercise, the Harvard study found that women who usually walked at a brisk pace had a 37 percent lower risk of any type of stroke and those who walked two or more hours a week had a 30 percent lower risk of any type of stroke. When the researchers looked at how many of the study participants had specific kinds of strokes, they found that those who usually walked at a brisk pace had a 25 percent lower risk of blood clot-caused strokes. Those who usually walked more than two hours weekly had a 21 percent lower risk of this type of ischemic stroke. While those figures are significant, the results of walking on preventing hemorrhagic strokes turned out to be downright amazing. Women who typically walked briskly had a 68 percent lower risk of hemorrhagic stroke and those who walked two or more hours a week had a 57 percent lower risk of this type of bleeding stroke. “Physical activity, including regular walking, is an important modifiable behavior for stroke prevention,” Sattelmair stated. “Physical activity is essential to promoting cardiovascular health and reducing risk of cardiovascular disease, and walking is one way of achieving physical activity.” If you want to make sure you are walking at a brisk pace, Sattelmair said you can use a heart rate monitor or simply estimate with the so-called “talk test”. At a brisk pace, you should be able to talk but not able to sing. “If you cannot talk, slow down a bit. If you can sing, walk a bit faster,” he explained in the press statement. For more information: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20371746 http://www.naturalnews.com/stroke.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

AIDS vaccines stop working after a few months, shocked researchers discover

(NaturalNews) An experimental new AIDS vaccine is proving to be effective for only a very short time, according to researchers who have been finding it difficult to explain whether or not the drug is actually useful. Dr. Nelson Michael, a colonel at the Walter Reed Army Research Institute of Research in Maryland, and his team observed only a minor, temporal benefit in patients who took the vaccine, followed by a decline in efficacy. The experimental vaccine is a combination of Sanofi-Pasteur’s ALVAC canarypox/HIV vaccine and VaxGen’s AIDSVAX. After AIDSVAX was found to be ineffective in 2003, researchers decided to combine it with ALVAC to see if that combination would work. Early results appeared to show that the vaccine reduced the risk of becoming infected with AIDS by 31 percent. However within a year, the risk level seemed to return back to normal. At the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in San Francisco, the team explained that they may be able to come up with a new trial to verify the legitimacy of the vaccine. Dr. Michael said he plans to work with Dr. Anthony Fauci from the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to develop new trials to be conducted in Asia or Africa. It is important to note that studies conducted on vitamins and nutrients showing positive results are usually accompanied with disclaimers by researchers that further study is needed to verify the results. In this case, researchers have been working overtime to defend the legitimacy of the experimental AIDS vaccine trial, despite the fact that they admit the results are questionable and they cannot determine whether it was actually a success. The team plans to follow up the study by evaluating blood samples from vaccinated participants to measure their antibody levels. They hope to find evidence that the vaccine is exerting some kind of influence on participants’ immune systems. Previous AIDS vaccines have all proven to be a failure. In 2008, two of the most viable options gathered from a 20-year search not only failed to provide protection from the disease but actually increased one’s risk of becoming infected with AIDS. Since its first discovery in the 1980s, it is estimated that roughly 25 million people have died from AIDS. Various combinations of pharmaceutical drugs are offered to AIDS patients to help control the disease, but according to mainstream experts, there is no cure for it. Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61I09L20100219 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/21/ST2008032101286.html

Big Pharma researcher admits to faking dozens of research studies for Pfizer, Merck (opinion)

(NaturalNews) It’s being called the largest research fraud in medical history. Dr. Scott Reuben, a former member of Pfizer’s speakers’ bureau, has agreed to plead guilty to faking dozens of research studies that were published in medical journals. Now being reported across the mainstream media is the fact that Dr. Reuben accepted a $75,000 grant from Pfizer to study Celebrex in 2005. His research, which was published in a medical journal, has since been quoted by hundreds of other doctors and researchers as “proof” that Celebrex helped reduce pain during post-surgical recovery. There’s only one problem with all this: No patients were ever enrolled in the study! Dr. Scott Reuben, it turns out, faked the entire study and got it published anyway. It wasn’t the first study faked by Dr. Reuben: He also faked study data on Bextra and Vioxx drugs, reports the Wall Street Journal. As a result of Dr. Reuben’s faked studies, the peer-reviewed medical journal Anesthesia and Analgesia was forced to retract 10 “scientific” papers authored by Reuben. The Day of London reports that 21 articles written by Dr. Reuben that appear in medical journals have apparently been fabricated, too, and must be retracted. After being caught fabricating research for Big Pharma, Dr. Reuben has reportedly signed a plea agreement that will require him to return $420,000 that he received from drug companies. He also faces up to a 10-year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine. He was also fired from his job at the Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. after an internal audit there found that Dr. Reuben had been faking research data for 13 years . (http://www.theday.com/article/20100115/NWS01/100119833/1047) Business as usual in Big Pharma What’s notable about this story is not the fact that a medical researcher faked clinical trials for the pharmaceutical industry. It’s not the fact that so-called “scientific” medical journals published his fabricated studies. It’s not even the fact that the drug companies paid this quack close to half a million dollars while he kept on pumping out fabricated research. The real story here is that this is business as usual in the pharmaceutical industry . Dr. Reuben’s actions really aren’t that extraordinary. Drug companies bribe researchers and doctors as a routine matter. Medical journals routinely publish false, fraudulent studies. FDA panel members regularly rely on falsified research in making their drug approval decisions, and the mainstream media regularly quotes falsified research in reporting the news. Fraudulent research, in other words, is widespread in modern medicine . The pharmaceutical industry couldn’t operate without it, actually. It is falsified research that gives the industry its best marketing claims and strongest FDA approvals. Quacks like Dr Scott Reuben are an important part of the pharmaceutical profit machine because without falsified research, bribery and corruption, the industry would have very little research at all. Pay special attention to the fact that the Anesthesia and Analgesia medical journal gladly published Dr. Reuben’s faked studies even though this journal claims to be a “scientific” medical journal based on peer review. Funny, isn’t it, how such a scientific medical journal gladly publishes fraudulent research with data that was simply invented by the study author. Perhaps these medical journals should be moved out of the non-fiction section of university libraries and placed under science fiction. Remember, too, that all the proponents of pharmaceuticals, vaccines and mammograms ignorantly claim that their conventional medicine is all based on “good science.” It’s all scientific and trustworthy, they claim, while accusing alternative medicine of being “woo woo” wishful thinking and non-scientific hype. Perhaps they should have a quick look in the mirror and realize it is their own system of quack medicine that’s based largely on fraudulent research, bribery and corruption. You just have to laugh, actually, when you hear pushers of vaccines and pharmaceuticals claim their medicine is “scientific” while natural medicine is “unproven.” Sure it’s scientific — about as scientific as the storyline in a Scooby Doo cartoon, or as credible as the medical license of a six-year-old kid who just received a “let’s play doctor” gift set for Christmas. Many pharmaceutical researchers would have better careers as writers of fiction novels rather than scientific papers. For all those people who ignorantly claim that modern pharmaceutical science is based on “scientific evidence,” just give them these three words: Doctor Scott Reuben . Drug companies support fraudulent research Don’t forget that the drug companies openly supported Dr. Scott Reuben’s research. They paid him, in fact, to keep on fabricating studies. The drug companies claim to be innocent in all this, but behind the scenes they had to have known what was going on. Dr. Reuben’s research was just too consistently favorable to drug company interests to be scientifically legitimate. If a drug company wanted to “prove” that their drug was good for some new application, all they had to do was ask Dr. Reuben to come up with the research (wink wink). “Here’s another fifty thousand dollars to study whether our drug is good for post-surgical pain (wink).” And before long, Dr. Reuben would magically materialize a brand new study that just happened to “prove” exactly what the sponsoring drug company wanted to prove. Advocates of western medicine claim they don’t believe in magic , but when it comes to clinical trials, they actually do: All the results they wish to see just magically appear as long as the right researcher gets paid to materialize the results out of thin air, much like waving a magician’s wand and chanting, “Abra cadabra… let there be RESEARCH DATA!” Shazam! The research data materializes just like that. It all gets written up into a “scientific” paper that also magically gets published in medical journals that fail to ask a single question that might exposed the research fraud. I guess these people believe in magic after all, huh? Where science is lacking, a little “research magic” conveniently fills the void. The whole system makes a mockery of real science. It is a system operated by criminals who fabricate whatever “scientific evidence” they need in order to get published in medical journals and win FDA approval for drugs that they fully realize are killing people. What is “Evidence-Based Medicine?” The fact that a researcher like Dr. Reuben could so successfully fabricate fraudulent study data, then get it published in peer-reviewed science journals, and get away with it for 13 years sheds all kinds of new light on what’s really behind “evidence-based medicine.” The recipe for evidence-based medicine is quite simple: Fabricate the evidence! Get it published in any mainstream medical journal. Then you can quote the fabricated evidence as “fact!” When pushers of pharmaceuticals and vaccines resort to quoting “evidence-based medicine” as their defense, keep in mind that much of their so-called evidence has been entirely fabricated . When they claim their branch of toxic chemical medicine is based on “real science,” what they really mean is that it’s based on fraudulent science but they’ve all secretly agreed to call it “real science.” When they claim to have “scientific facts” supporting their position, what they really mean is that those “facts” were fabricated by criminal researchers being paid bribes by the drug companies. “Evidence-based medicine,” it turns out, hardly exists anymore. And even if it does, how do you know which studies are real vs. which ones were fabricated? If a trusted, well-paid researcher can get his falsified papers published for 13 years in top-notch science journals — without getting caught by his peers — then what does that say about the credibility of the entire peer-review science paper publishing process? Here’s what is says: “Scientific medicine” is a total fraud. And this fraud isn’t limited to Dr Scott Reuben, either. Remember: he engaged in routine research fraud for 13 years before being caught. There are probably thousands of other scientists engaged in similar research fraud right now who haven’t yet been caught in the act. Their fraudulent research papers have no doubt already been published in “scientific” medical journals. They’ve been quoted in the popular press. They’ve been relied on by FDA decision makers to approve drugs as “safe and effective” for widespread use. And yet underneath all this, there’s nothing more than fraud and quackery. Sure, there may be some legitimate studies mixed in with all the fraud, but how can we tell the difference? How are we to trust this system that claims to have a monopoly on scientific truth but in reality is a front for outright scientific fraud? Keep up the great work, Dr Reuben Thank you, Dr Scott Reuben, for showing us the truth about the pharmaceutical industry, the research quackery, the laughable “scientific” journals and the bribery and corruption that characterizes the pharmaceutical industry today. You have done more to shed light on the true nature of the drug industry than a thousand articles on NaturalNews.com ever could. Keep up the good work. After paying your fine and serving a little jail time, I’m sure your services will be in high demand at all the top drug companies that need yet more “scientific” studies to be fabricated and submitted to the medical journals. You may be a dishonest, disgusting human being to most of the world, but you’re a huge asset to the pharmaceutical industry and they need you back! There are more studies that need to be fabricated soon; more false papers that need to be published and more dangerous drugs that need to receive FDA approval. Hurry! Because if there’s one place that extreme dishonesty is richly rewarded, it’s in the pharmaceutical industry, where poisons are approved as medicines and fiction is published as the truth. Sources for this story include: http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local-beat/Fake-Study-Lands-Doctor-in-Hot-Water-81727667.html http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/01/15/feds-accuse-doc-of-faking-research-on-pfizer-merck-drugs/ http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Ethics/17985 http://www.theday.com/article/20100115/NWS01/100119833/1047

Heal yourself in 15 days: Stop making disease by embracing the recipe for health

(NaturalNews) It also seems too simple: In order to achieve lasting health, simply stop making disease . But the concept is foreign to most people: Making disease? Why would I be making disease? Mainstream consumers, you see, have been trained by the medical industry to believe that disease strikes spontaneously, without any real cause. One day you have nothing wrong with you, and then suddenly the next day you’re diagnosed with a breast cancer tumor. Shazam! It happens just like being struck by lightning… (and it’s not your fault, you’re told — there’s nothing you could have done about it…) That’s what they want you to believe, anyway. But the truth is very different: All the most common degenerative diseases — cancer, diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer’s, etc. — take many years to grow and expand . A cancer tumor can take 10 years (or even more) before it grows to the size that will show up on a mammogram. That means the tumor has been “under construction” for a decade! During that time, the patient has been “making cancer” on a daily basis. By the way, I’ve borrowed this concept from Dr. Thomas Lodi, a brilliant cancer doctor who has a presentation called “Stop Making Cancer.” You can check out his clinic in Arizona at http://www.anoasisofhealing.com or watch his speech for yourself on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKH_bCa_hok Dr. Lodi’s concept of “stop making cancer” is so powerful and simple that I borrowed it for this article (with credit, of course) and expanded it to all degenerative diseases. If you want to be healthy, stop making disease! How disease is manufactured In reading this, the first question you might ask is, “How do I stop making disease?” To answer that question, though, you need to understand how disease is created in the first place. All disease begins with an imbalance in the mind or the body (it can originate in either place and then spread to the other). Disease can be set off by a nutritional deficiency (not enough vitamin D, for example), or a dietary excess (too much homogenized milk). It can be caused by an emotional state such as anger or stress that then spreads to the tissues and begins to create dis-ease in the physical body. Most disease that’s being “manufactured” in the bodies of people today is created through controllable factors: What people eat, what chemicals they expose themselves too, how much exercise they get (or not), their state of mind, what supplements they take (or don’t) and so on. There’s a recipe for creating each disease. If you want to manufacture type-2 diabetes, for example, the recipe is very simple: How to manufacture diabetes: • Drink lots of liquid sugars and high-fructose corn syrup. • Consume a huge number of empty calories (junk food). • Avoid all exercise. Live a sedentary lifestyle. • Live indoors. Avoid sunshine and the natural world. • Maintain nutritional deficiencies in vitamin D, selenium, zinc and plant-based nutrients. If you do this for long enough, you will begin manufacturing diabetes . And before long, you’ll be officially diagnosed with it by a doctor who will say something like, “You’re diabetic.” (Which isn’t really true. You are not defined by a disease. You’re just expressing a certain physiology that’s been named a disease.) If you want to make cancer, there’s a different recipe: How to make cancer: • Expose yourself to radiation (mammograms, CT scans, X-rays, etc.). • Eat cancer-causing foods like bacon, processed meats and foods with chemical preservatives. • Avoid all anti-cancer nutrients like superfoods, medicinal mushrooms, spirulina, etc. • Avoid sunlight. Remains deficient in vitamin D. • Use lots of toxic personal care products made with cancer-causing chemicals. • Live a high-stress lifestyle. Do these things for long enough and you’ll get cancer. Similarly, there’s a recipe for every major degenerative disease, including kidney stones (drink lots of soda), brain cancer (drink diet soda), obesity (eat more MSG), liver disease (take more pharmaceuticals) and so on. So if you want to make disease, it’s a very simple matter to do so. Shockingly, most people are following these disease-making recipes right now! They’re living the “Make More Disease” lifestyle! Every time they wolf down some bacon, or eat processed junk foods, or use conventional personal care products, they are creating disease in their bodies! Disease doesn’t appear immediately, of course. It takes many years for the daily poisoning of the body to be diagnosed as disease. But make no mistake about the origins of that disease: The body manufactured the disease over many years! So when doctors tell patients “There’s nothing you could have done to prevent this” they are actually lying to their patients. Of course there’s something you can do! You can stop making disease before it gets out of control. Conventional doctors usually don’t like to acknowledge this because it would give patients the idea that they have control over their own health. Most conventional doctors would rather believe the Big Lie that says doctors control your health, or that disease strikes randomly, without cause. And therefore you have no control over your own health and are dependent on western medicine to take responsibility for your health. It’s a belief system specifically designed to entrap you in a system of medical dependency (enslavement). Fortunately, you can free yourself from medical enslavement … How to stop making disease Each day, depending on what you eat, drink, do or put on your body, you are either moving towards disease or away from disease. The way to stop making disease, then, is to halt any actions that move you toward disease and, instead, pursue actions they move you away from disease (and toward improved health). Once you fill your body with living, healing juices, sunlight and regular exercise, you will shut off all kinds of chemical “disease-making” processes in your physiology. And you’ll activate healing processes that move you towards lifelong health. This is how you start making health instead of disease. The longer you pursue a healthful lifestyle based on superfoods, nutritional supplements, healthy eating and the avoidance of pharmaceuticals, vaccines, mainstream personal care products and other poisons, the faster your healing will accelerate! Beyond the mere halting of manufacturing disease, once your body achieves a certain level of vitality, it will begin to automatically reverse disease . Cancer tumors in your body, in other words, will literally vanish over time. Heart disease can be cured. Diabetes may disappear. Cognitive function will be restored. These are just a few of the many benefits you may experience when self-healing is in full swing. Which recipe will you choose? You see, there is a recipe for disease, but there’s also a recipe for outstanding health. Which recipe will you choose? Most people inadvertently choose a recipe for disease (it’s the recipe everyone else is pursuing, so it’s easy to go along with). And because they follow that recipe, they get the results of that recipe. That’s why disease should not be surprising to anyone who knows these recipes. If you follow the recipe, you will get the results (good or bad). So it’s up to you to decide which recipe you wish to follow . You can choose from all the various recipes for disease — which include enormous quantities of junk foods, pharmaceuticals, personal care products and a barrage of vaccines — or you can choose to pursue the recipe for good health. That recipe is based on sound nutrition, fresh fruits and vegetables, time spent outdoors in nature, real sunlight on your skin, targeted nutritional supplements, regular exercise and the elimination of synthetic chemicals from your body. It’s a simple, commonsense recipe that anyone can choose to follow at any time. The minute you start pursuing the recipe for health , you will begin to see results. And the longer you pursue this recipe, the more your positive results will accelerate. Ask your doctor Remember this the next time your doctor or some other health professional gives you advice. After receiving their advice, ask yourself, “Is this a recipe for HEALTH, or for DISEASE?” If the advice includes a lot of radiation, chemotherapy, pharmaceuticals, surgery or injections of some kind, it’s probably not describing a recipe for health. Be wary of any advice that does not resonate with the simple principles of commonsense health… as in, don’t irradiate yourself. Don’t poison yourself (chemo). Don’t cut your body (surgery). Don’t use chemicals to control your physiology (pharmaceuticals). Use these only as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted. Certainly, if you suffer some sort of accident like a broken leg, then it’s perfectly okay to submit to the necessary surgery, anesthesia or other elements of acute medical care. I’m not against western medicine’s usefulness in emergency care situations. But when it comes to long term habits of health, be aware that pharmaceuticals, mammograms, chemotherapy, vaccines and most surgeries are really just components of the recipe for disease . So if you choose to follow that route, don’t be surprised at the outcome. By the way, following the recipe for health may take more self discipline and maturity than following the recipe for disease, but it’s far more rewarding . For one thing, you get to live longer. Better yet, you get to live happier and healthier during all those years. And isn’t that essentially why we’re all interested in the health in the first place? There is a recipe for perfect health . It’s a recipe that’s available to you right now, and it’s the same recipe that will stop your body from manufacturing disease. Follow that recipe for good health and you will experience far more enjoyment in your life, no matter how long you live.

« Previous Page