Cancer breakthrough: scientists discover harmless bacteria in soil kills cancer tumors

(NaturalNews) Cancer remains one of the most feared diseases on the planet — and cancer patients being treated by mainstream medicine are usually bombarded with radiation and subjected to toxic chemotherapy that destroys healthy cells and weakens the body while trying to kill tumors. Thankfully, as NaturalNews readers are aware, a growing body of research is revealing that many natural substances have cancer prevention and treatment potential, including Mediterranean type foods that fight prostate cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/025659.html) and walnuts which contain breast cancer preventive phytochemicals. Now there’s evidence a cure for cancer may be all around us and is as common as dirt. In fact, it’s something in dirt. Researcher Aleksandra Kubiak just presented the startling discovery at the Society for General Microbiology’s Autumn Conference currently underway at the University of York in the UK. She and other members of a research team from the University of Nottingham and the University of Maastricht have found that a strain of harmless bacteria that is widespread in soil is actually deadly — not to people but to cancerous tumors. The researchers have developed a therapy using Clostridium sporogenes, a bacterium common in dirt. They found that when spores of the bacteria are injected into cancer patients, they only grow in solid tumors. Inside the cancerous growth, the bacteria produce a specific enzyme that activates a cancer drug. The results? Unlike current chemotherapy, the natural bacteria treatment causes only the cancer cells to be destroyed while healthy cells are left unharmed. “Clostridia are an ancient group of bacteria that evolved on the planet before it had an oxygen-rich atmosphere and so they thrive in low oxygen conditions. When Clostridia spores are injected into a cancer patient, they will only grow in oxygen-depleted environments, i.e. the center of solid tumors. This is a totally natural phenomenon, which requires no fundamental alterations and is exquisitely specific,” head researcher Professor Nigel Minton said in a statement to the media. “We can exploit this specificity to kill tumor cells but leave healthy tissue unscathed.” He added that the new discovery could lead to a simple and safe procedure for curing a wide range of solid tumors. “This therapy will kill all types of tumor cell. The treatment is superior to a surgical procedure, especially for patients at high risk or with difficult tumor locations,” Professor Minton said. “We anticipate that the strain we have developed will be used in a clinical trial in 2013 led by Jan Theys and Philippe Lambin at the University of Maastricht in The Netherlands. A successful outcome could lead to its adoption as a frontline therapy for treating solid tumors.” For more information: http://www.sgm.ac.uk/ http://www.naturalnews.com/033219_cancer_cures_treatments.html

New NASA images show what appears to be liquid water on Mars

(NaturalNews) Images recently captured by NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter undoubtedly illustrate the strongest evidence yet that the “Red Planet” likely contains liquid water, and potentially even life forms of some sort. Topping previous speculation linked to suggestive observation that frozen water may exist under Mars’ rock and sand formations, the new discovery suggests that during the planet’s warmer months, liquid water actually comes up from the ground and flows on its surface. “If the features identified, recurring slope lineae (RSL), can be confirmed to represent briny flows, this would be a very significant finding,” stated Christopher Carr, a scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) who is building a device to detect DNA and RNA on Mars. “It wouldn’t dramatically change our understanding of present-day Mars as generally cold and dry, but it would be important to the search for life on Mars.” NASA’s website contains a time-lapse image of the apparent RSL, which researchers believe are gradual trickles of salty water each spanning about half a yard wide and hundreds of yards long. You can view that image here: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/pia14472.html Most exploration and research of Mars has been undertaken with the assumption that life may have existed there in the past. But the new observation of liquid water flow during the spring and summer months may indicate that life exists on Mars right now, say scientists. And if this is the case, the next step may be to send manned missions, rather than just unmanned robot missions, to Mars. “That there is water on the surface means that explorers could go to Mars and potentially find extant life on the surface of Mars,” said Robert Zubrin, president and founder of the Mars Society, to SPACE.com. “It underscores the reason why Mars should be the target for human exploration. You’re not going to find life on the moon, you’re not going to find life on an asteroid. We need to send human explorers to the complex environments where the complex skills of human beings are actually useful.” Sources for this story include: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/04/nasa-finds-evidence-of-liquid-water-on-mars/ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/10/scitech/main20090617.shtml

Many medical journals have no policies regarding conflicts of interest in published research studies

(NaturalNews) The clinical trial analysis and research studies published in some medical journals — and that are used directly by doctors to diagnose and treat patients — could be posited in biased language due to secret financial ties to drug or medical device companies, and nobody would ever know it. Of 131 cancer journals sampled, a research team found that only 112 of them had any kind of policy requiring published research to state potential conflicts of interest — the other 19 had absolutely no policies whatsoever. Research that appears favorable to a new chemotherapy drug, for instance, might have been secretly prompted and funded by a drug company. But this disclosure would not be required in the 19 cancer journals sampled — and among the other 112, it may or may not be disclosed in a meaningful or consistent manner, the team found. Researchers presenting the findings on the drug in the journal could additionally have been paid to speak highly of it and minimize its side effects — and doctors and other readers would never know the difference. “Journals can’t even agree on what a conflict of interest means,” said Dr. Aaron S. Kesselheim from Harvard Medical School in Boston, Mass., to Reuters Health concerning the findings. “It is certainly confusing to authors and to readers.” Back in 2009, an analysis by researchers from the University of Michigan (U-M) Comprehensive Cancer Center found that many clinical cancer studies published in reputable medical journals are directly connected to pharmaceutical companies. The analysis, which itself was published in the American Cancer Society journal CANCER , stated that conflicts of interest cause some researchers to report results that are favorable to drug companies, rather than those that are favorable to the actual truth (http://www.naturalnews.com/026314_cancer_research_studies.html). Kesselheim and his colleagues pored through 1,700 reports derived from various “high-impact” journals, and among the 27 that included editorials, only about half had any sort of conflict of interest disclosures. The others were falsely presented as having come from objective sources. “Physicians — like other professionals — are influenced by incentives, especially financial incentives,” added Kesselheim concerning the findings. “Conflicts of interest and financial relationships can have an impact on the research process and on the reporting of research, and they can also have an impact on physician behavior.” By itself, disclosure of financial and economic ties is not enough to fix the problem of research fraud Lack of consistency among disclosure policies in some journals, and the obvious lack of disclosure policies in others, are both highly problematic issues in medical research. But even if medical journals were to collectively agree on a consistent, standardized method of reporting conflicts of interest, this would not ultimately fix the problem of the inherent research fraud that persists behind the scenes. Speaking about their research concerning conflicts of interest in medical studies, U-M researchers suggested that cancer research in general is so deeply connected to the conventional cancer industry that comprehensive reform would be necessary in order to effectively clean up and restore integrity to the entire body of medical research that gets published today. “Given the frequency we observed for conflicts of interest and the fact that conflicts were associated with study outcomes, I would suggest that merely disclosing conflicts is probably not enough,” said Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, and assistant professor of radiation oncology at U-M, in a media statement in 2009. “It’s becoming increasingly clear that we need to look more at how we can disentangle cancer research from industry ties.” Ghostwriting is another major problem in medical journals, as drug companies routinely pay private consultants to pose as doctors and researchers, and write journal articles promoting various drugs and medical devices. In 2010, an investigation revealed that numerous drug companies including Wyeth (which has since become part of Pfizer), paid writers thousands of dollars to promote synthetic hormone replacement drugs like Prempro (http://www.naturalnews.com/029696_drug_companies_ghostwriting.html). The cancer industry is a racket, and almost all studies promoting expensive drugs are fraudulent Anyone who has been following NaturalNews for a while probably already knows that the cancer industry is a multi-billion-dollar profit machine that thrives on generating fear, and promoting grossly expensive, highly ineffective, treatments. Chemotherapy and radiation, which are the trademarks of conventional cancer treatment, are both completely ineffective at treating most major cancers — and yet these are primarily what cancer journals promote (http://www.naturalnews.com/027705_chemotherapy_fraud.html). These treatments costs tens of thousands of dollars a month, in many cases, and are touted as the only known methods of treating cancer — but in reality, they really do not treat anything, and typically kill patients faster than if they took nothing at all. But savvy natural health enthusiasts know that there are legitimate, alternative methods of both preventing and treating cancer without the use of deadly drugs, radiation blasts, and surgery. These include formal methods like the Gerson therapy (http://www.naturalnews.com/033045_Gerson_tapes_cancer.html), and everyday nutritional and lifestyle changes (http://www.naturalnews.tv/Browse.asp?categoryid=14). In conclusion, a good rule of thumb to use when trying to decide whether or not a medical journal research paper is legitimate or not, is this: if it promotes expensive synthetic drugs or deadly treatments that have nothing to do with lifestyle and nutrition changes, it is likely an industry-funded treatment that should be avoided. Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/22/us-transparency-cancer-idUSTRE76L60S20110722

Creatine: Does it Really Contribute to Male Pattern Baldness?

Your body manufactures a substance called Creatine, and you probably aren’t even aware it’s there. This natural organic acid helps increase muscle mass and provide extra energy. The only people who realize the role creatine can play in the body are those who are interested in developing all of their possible muscle mass. Since beef [...]

Vegetarian vs Non-Vegetarian Spouses: Tips for Surviving

Vegetarians enjoy plenty of health benefits. However, that’s still not enough to convince most people to make the switch. It can be very difficult for vegetarians to live with a partner who doesn’t share that lifestyle.You’re doing whatever you feel is necessary for your health. Your spouse may not understand this. However, it’s important that [...]

TSA introduces breast cancer screening procedure as new benefit of airport security pat-downs (satire)

(NaturalNews) What’s better than receiving a free groping by the TSA? How about getting your breasts checked for cancer at the same time? That’s the new offering from the TSA, which says that squeezing and twisting your breasts during security pat-downs is now a “medical procedure” and that it’s all being done “to protect the health of Americans.” Men, meanwhile, will now receive a free prostate exam as part of their screening procedure. Before administering the new procedure, TSA agents will be required to attend a weekend seminar on manual breast cancer detection techniques. While some observers complained that a single weekend was not enough training to qualify TSA agents to conduct sensitive medical procedures on passengers, TSA head John Pistole responded by explaining, “That’s true, but TSA agents aren’t really trained on security, either, and we have them playing that role just fine, too.” Passengers going through TSA checkpoints won’t notice much of a difference in the pat-downs, given that agents are already squeezing and twisting women’s breasts. Men, however, will now be asked to cough. In response to the new cancer screening at airport security checkpoints, the American Cancer Society praised the move, explaining this was the “free health care” promised by President Obama. “There’s no charge for this valuable cancer examination,” an ACS spokesperson said. “People wishing to receive their free screening merely need to buy an airplane ticket and line up at a security checkpoint.” DHS head Janet Napolitano even explained that introducing the medical procedure “resolves all Fourth Amendment concerns about our security pat-downs” because by adding the breast cancer checks, pat-downs are now “medical procedures,” which are not protected under the Bill of Rights. There’s even talk of using the TSA’s so-called “naked body scanners” as mammography imaging devices. Since TSA agents who monitor the scans are already zooming in on the naked images of women’s breasts, it only makes sense to train them to look for early signs of breast cancer at the same time. Those who are found to be carrying breast cancer could even be injected with chemotherapy “treatment” chemicals before boarding their flight. Not everyone is happy with the new arrangement, of course. There’s always some radical, freedom-loving security hater who doesn’t go along with the benefits of Big Government. In this case, health freedom extremist Mike Adams — long suspected of being an “information terrorist” for publishing free cancer cures on NaturalNews.com — pointed out that since the TSA often misses guns, knives and other weapons in carry-on luggage, how can they be trusted to spot tiny lump tissues in breasts, especially through clothing? In response, the TSA says it is considering requiring passengers to remove their clothing in order to “enhance the accuracy of the medical screening.” An MSNBC news poll reveals that 95 percent of Americans would gladly take off all their clothes and agree to be molested by government agents if they were told it would “make them safer.” (This article is obviously satire. See more satire from Mike Adams at the www.CounterThink.com website.)

Baby products contain toxic flame retardant chemicals

(NaturalNews) Potentially toxic flame retardants, many of them containing compounds known as penta brominated diphenyl ethers, are a common component of many household products containing polyurethane foam. Originally intended to increase product safety by decreasing fire risk, these compounds have come under increasing scrutiny since the early 1990s due to growing evidence of their damaging health effects. But even though these chemicals have been banned in 172 countries and 12 U.S. states, they continue to make their way into a wide variety of products found in U.S. households, including toys and upholstered furniture. In an especially disconcerting study conducted by researchers at Duke University earlier this year, potentially toxic flame retardants were found in 80 percent of samples of polyurethane foam collected from baby products commonly and legally sold in the U.S.. Samples were taken from car seats, high chairs, strollers, nursing pillows and bassinet mattresses. The results of the study were published in 2011 by the American Chemical Society journal Environmental Science and Technology, and suggest that additional research is warranted “to specifically measure infants exposure to these flame retardants from intimate contact with these products, and to determine if there are any associated health concerns.” Penta brominated diphenyl ethers, also known PBDEs, are known to bio-accumulate in fatty tissue, breast milk and blood after being inhaled or ingested with food. The highest and most dangerous concentrations of ingestible and inhalable PBDEs occur in plants that repair and recycle products containing these chemicals, and also in domestic environments, since they persistently show up in household products containing polyurethane foam. Recent studies show that in the U.S., blood concentrations of PBDEs are much higher in children than in adults. These chemicals are known to have damaging effects on nervous system development and can also disrupt the function of estrogen and thyroid hormones. When children are exposed to these chemicals early in life, either through inhalation or ingestion with breast milk, their damaging effects have been known to persist into adulthood and may include reduced performance on intelligence tests and behavioral changes like hyperactivity. The Duke University study suggests that even though the manufacture and distribution of PBDEs is subject to increasing restrictions in the U.S. and Europe, these dangerous flame retardants are still finding their way into our homes and the body tissues of developing infants. It may be wise to check labels carefully and investigate PBDE levels before exposing infants to polyurethane foam products.

Corporations are psychopaths – with zero degrees of empathy

(NaturalNews) Corporations play a big role in our day-to-day activities and they are constantly making decisions that have a profound effect on our daily lives. For example: a corporation makes the decision to empty its chemical vats into a nearby river – the water supply is poisoned and residents of the adjacent town fall sick; or a corporation makes the decision to cut costs to increase profits and initiates a round of layoffs – the community that was formed around the corporation is decimated. We have often been appalled, angry, and go on rants about the evil of corporations but according to Simon Baron Cohen- evil is not the issue. Mr. Baron-Cohen, an expert in autism and developmental psychology, is also a psychology and psychiatry professor at Cambridge University. For years he has spent considerable time researching why people commit vile and heinous acts. His theory? That a lack of empathy is the root cause of all evil deeds and that this lack of empathy can be measured and treated. (http://af.reuters.com/article/southAfricaNews/idAFLDE7430U720110505?sp=true) He defines empathy as the drive to identify another person’s thoughts and feelings combined with the drive to respond appropriately to those thoughts or feelings. Baron-Cohen goes onto note that the lack of empathy or failure to utilize it to its full potential is the driving force behind most of what ails our society on a global, domestic, community, and family unit scale. The abstract arenas of diplomatic, legal, and military channels are insufficient to appropriately deal with conflict because their involvement forgoes empathy from entering the picture on a true person-to-person level. In his books Baron-Cohen sets forth an empathy bell curve spectrum and quotient test that indicates where an individual will place along the curve. (Good news is that most of us fall right in the middle). There is a zero degree empathy range and within lay the psychopaths, narcissists, and individuals suffering with borderline personality disorders. Corporations are legislatively derived artificial individuals that can sue and be sued, raise funds, make political decisions, etc. They are headed by a Board of Directors that is by law duty bound to make decisions in the best interests of the corporation. Since corporations are businesses whose sole purpose is to make money, best interests are almost always those that increase profit, empathy be damned. http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/newsletter/0003/materials/tip3.pdf True, there are those corporate bodies, who while making a profit, strive to do no harm to society. However embedded deep within the zero degrees of that bell curve are corporations that seem to have made human suffering their side business. For instance, we have Monsanto, creators of Agent Orange, DDT, GMO, and a host of other toxic substances that have caused horrific damage and injury to the world on a global scale (http://www.lycos.com/info/monsanto–agent-orange.html). Firestone and their rubber plantations in Liberia which poison the environment, pay slave wages, and leave workers housed in unsanitary conditions (http://www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafrica/articles/art_10283.html). Nestle and their cocoa plantations in the Cote d’Ivoire which employs children, pays them slave wages, and keeps them living in substandard conditions (http://www.nestlecritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=1). Big Pharma and their concerted efforts to keep us purchasing medicines that either don’t work or cause more harm than good (http://www.naturalnews.com/031627_sickness_health_care.html). How about a corporation that has been accused of murdering individuals seeking to form unions to gain fair wages and treatment (http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/fellows/colombia0106/ ). And we have the lovely Chiquita that was actually fined by the U.S. Justice Department for funding a known para military group in Columbia that was infamous for the murder of innocent civilians. (http://www.thenation.com/article/para-politics-goes-bananas) Is there a criminal housed within any prison in the world or any mental institution that has committed the crimes noted above, whether the answer to that question yes or no, the fact of the matter is not one person involved in making any of the above decisions has served any jail time. By their very definition corporations forgo empathetic decision making because they are abstract beings. When making decisions that directly affect humanity empathy is a necessary ingredient. Take away the capacity for empathy and you are left with what we have today- psychopathy corporations spreading what we would deem to be evil all over the world. The corporate machine is a cold calculating one that makes decisions that solely pay homage to the bottom dollar with the well being and needs of the human race coming up a distant second – if at all. Imagine a world where corporations were held to the same moral standards as individuals. A world where profits could not be made to the detriment of the environment, where fair wages were paid on a global scale, where government leaders weren’t paid off by corporations to make decisions directly against the best wishes of the people they were elected to represent: Imagine a world where the corporate psychopaths were put to rest. 1. http://www.almostallthetruth.com/2010/10/nestle-sources-cocoa-from-the-labor-of-enslaved-children/ 2. http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/agentorange032102.cfm 3. http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/fellows/colombia0106/ 4. http://www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/wtc/davids-letter.pdf 5. http://www.naturalnews.com/028194_Scott_Reuben_research_fraud.html

Your dishwasher could be harboring dangerous ‘super’ fungi, says report

(NaturalNews) In many ways, modern home appliances have made life simpler by reducing the amount of time it takes to clean, cook, and perform other routine household activities. But some of these technological advances may be responsible for increasing the prevalence of harmful “super” pathogens that have grown resistant to stimuli that used to eliminate them, suggests a new report in the British Mycological Society journal Fungal Biology . According to the report, household appliances that use water, which include dishwashers and washing machines, have become a new point of infestation for potentially deadly fungi like Exophiala dermatitidis and E. phaeomuriformis . These strains and others, which would normally be killed off by heat and detergents, have become tolerant to them, and are now being found in a majority of the household appliances tested. Researchers from the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia gathered samples from the dishwashers, washing machines, and coffee makers of private homes located in 101 cities from six different continents. Upon analysis, they determined that 62 percent of dishwashers contained pathogenic fungal flora in their rubber band door lining. Fifty-six percent contained polyextremotolerant black yeasts that had developed resistance to the high heat, high salt concentrations, aggressive detergents, and both acid and alkaline water, all of which would kill normal varieties of such strains. According to the report, Exophiala dermatitidis almost never occurs isolated from nature, and yet it is now showing up in household appliances everywhere. It is linked to pulmonary colonization of patients with cystic fibrosis, and it can sometimes cause fatal infections, even in healthy humans. It can also cause lesions, heart inflammation and brain abscesses. “Both Exophiala species are known to be able to cause systemic disease in humans and frequently colonize the lungs of patients with cystic fibrosis,” write the authors in their report. “We conclude that high temperature, high moisture and alkaline pH values typically occurring in dishwashers can provide an alternative habitat for species also known to be pathogenic to humans.” Sources for this story include: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-06/e-mdi062011.php http://www.mycology.adelaide.edu.au/Fungal_Descriptions/Hyphomycetes_%28dematiaceous%29/Exophiala/dermatitidis.html

The truth about tanning beds: They boost vitamin D production

(NaturalNews) The FDA has the media and subsequently many Americans in a (perhaps unjustified) uproar about teens using tanning beds, and they are now pushing to ban tanning for people under 18. It is time to set some of this witch-hunting straight. The ruckus comes in the wake of a report that was released last year by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization. The report resulted in the IARC’s changing the status of tanning beds from ‘possibly carcinogenic’ to ‘carcinogenic.’ With the same argumentation and evidence, the sun itself would fall into that category. The media definitely talks about it as a danger, and it provides real-world stories about people who contracted melanoma after too much exposure to the sun. The problem is that often, the most extreme, rare and dramatic cases are cited, which serves to convince the American public that fear of the sun is justified. Just take a look at how many Americans behave – putting sunscreen on every morning, only walking to their car, then to their office building, etc., avoiding “overexposure” at every turn. What used to be a glorious, golden orb in the sky is now a menace to society. With all the jargon and evidence the FDA cites as dangers for humans, people are becoming increasingly afraid to venture out into the light of day. In fact, tanning beds are designed to synthesize the perfect conditions of a summer’s day, when the UV-rays are balanced to perfectly stimulate the maximum growth of melanin pigment, as well as vitamin D. It is because of these ideal conditions that people can absorb all the UVs and produce all the vitamin D they need in such a short period of time. And if you look at the evidence from an unbiased viewpoint, you will find that while some Americans are receiving too much UV rays, many more are receiving too few. Vitamin D is a crucial for the human body; even the FDA knows that. But with the media’s constant scapegoating of the sun and tanning beds as the cause of melanoma and cancer, many people are getting the wrong idea. Demonizing the sun is having a profoundly negative impact on our society. According to Dr. Michael Holick, author of The UV Advantage , 40% of Americans are suffering from a vitamin D deficiency, which causes depression, SAD, and has been linked to late development of Schizophrenia. See Natural News’ interview with Dr. Holick at (http://www.naturalnews.com/005546_Dr_Michael_Holick_vitamin_D_deficiency.html) for more details. While I am not advocating a consistent solar diet of 3-4 hours of exposure per day, the benefits of some exposure are substantiated. Clearly, there are some people who are tanning too much and contracting melanoma as a consequence. The evidence cited in the IARC study is not completely fallacious, but is likely provided in a biased context, which magnifies the negative implications of sun exposure. For instance, the study found that teens and 20-somethings who used tanning beds were 75% more at risk for melanoma. That is a significant number, but may be more indicative of how much pressure American teens are under to look tan and beautiful, than it is of the danger of tanning beds. If teens think that they will attract more attention if they are tan, then many will not stop at the tanning bed. Slapping a law into effect that bans the teens from tanning beds, would only send the vast majority of those kids out into the sun for their daily bronzing, which would not stop the problem. We should look a little harder at what the data actually means and how it should be interpreted. When the FDA wages war on tanning beds, they are waging a de facto war on the sun itself, which our bodies are genetically predisposed to need in order to remain healthy and happy. The FDA should be a little more careful about the effects their messages have on the people they are intended to advise. If the message is causing widespread depression, then it needs to change. Of course, depression feeds the pharmaceutical industry, so they may be achieving the impact they want, after all. Sources: (http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm186687.htm) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43302984/ns/health-skin_and_beauty/) (http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/how-to-get-your-vitamin-d/uvb-exposure-sunlight-and-indoor-tanning/)

« Previous Page — Next Page »