Another health expert attempts to dissuade people from taking this supplement, claiming its role in cancer prevention remains to be proven. “As with other interventions, supplements are a deep interference with people’s lives and they have to prove that the benefits as measured by patient-important outcome parameters outweigh the harms. Not many interventions in medicine are as much evaluated as vitamin supplementation – and have provided so little good evidence at the same time,” said Bernd Richter, Coordinating Editor of the Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Review Group.

What this new breakthrough study proves

Data show that women who take vitamin D and calcium supplements have a 30% reduced risk of cancer compared with the control group. Further analysis of blood samples also reveals that the women who developed cancer over the course of the study had significantly lower vitamin D levels than their healthier counterparts. Take note that the participants who were in the vitamin D and calcium supplements group took significantly more vitamin D than usual target levels. This does suggest that increasing vitamin D levels can substantially reduce the odds of cancer.

Researchers at Creighton University and the University of California San Diego examined 2,303 healthy post-menopausal women aged 55 years and older who were given either 2,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D3 and 1,500 mg of calcium or a placebo pill over a four-year study period. The vitamin D dose used in the study is about three times higher than the current recommended daily allowance of 600 to 800 IU.

“The study provides evidence that higher concentrations of 25(OH)D in the blood, in the context of vitamin D3 and calcium supplementation, decrease risk of cancer. These results contribute to a growing body of scientific findings…that indicate that vitamin D is a critical tool in fighting cancer,” said lead researcher Joan Lappe.

The findings are published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

More studies provide evidence on vitamin D’s anticancer properties

The recent study’s results correspond to previous research on vitamin D’s efficacy in decreasing the risk of cancer.

Scientists at the Spanish National Cancer Research Centre examined more than 2,000 respondents and observed higher bladder cancer risk in patients with significantly low vitamin D levels. Vitamin D deficiency appeared to worsen the risk for patients with muscle-invasive tumors. However, increased vitamin D levels mitigated the risk of bladder cancer progression in patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, researchers said.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Another study published in the journal PLOS One revealed that higher vitamin D levels mitigate the risk of cancer. Researchers at the University of California-San Diego found that women with vitamin D levels at 40 ng/ml or higher had a 67% lower risk of developing cancer than those whose vitamin D levels were at 20 ng/ml or lower.

“Primary prevention of cancer, rather than expanding early detection or improving treatment, will be essential to reversing the current upward trend of cancer incidence worldwide. This analysis suggests that improving vitamin D status is a key prevention tool,” said researcher Prof. Cedric Garland.

Sources:

ScienceDaily.com

WCRF.org

NBCI.gov

MedicalNewsToday.com

Cancer.org

HealthImpactNews.com

CancerWorld.org

Impressive results from a diagnostic trial found that a pair of specially trained German Shepherds could detect breast cancer with 100 percent accuracy. The technique is described as “simple, non-invasive and cheap” and could replace mammograms, particularly in areas where the diagnostic method is hard to come by. Project Kdog, the name the initiative goes by, has shown marked success and could stand to shake up current diagnostic practices.

Thirty-one people with cancer donated samples of bandages that were held against their affected breast tissue. These samples were used to help train the dogs to sniff out cancer. The two pups, Thor and Nykios, engaged in their cancer-smelling training for six months. Canine training specialist Jacky Experton helped the team to train Thor and Nykios to differentiate between the bandages from cancer patients and those from people who did not have cancer.

Experton explained that the training was based on game-playing and giving rewards. Studies show that dogs enjoy performing activities to earn rewards, so it stands to reason that this would be the best way to teach them how to complete a task.

After the training period, the canine duo was put to the test. For several days in January and February, the dogs’ ability to weed out bandages worn by women with cancer was assessed. But this time, the team used bandages from a separate set of 31 women. One bandage from the cancer patients was used per experiment, along with three bandages from healthy women.

Each bandage was placed into a box with a cone that the dogs could smell the bandages through — with a total of four boxes per round of testing. The exercise was repeated once per bandage, for a total of 62 responses from the dogs.

In the first round, the dogs correctly identified 28 of the 31 bandages from the cancer patients — a 90 percent success rate. During the second round, however, the dogs identified all 31 bandages with relative ease, an impressive 100 percent rate of success.

For Kdog, this proof-of-concept phase of testing seems to have gone quite well. Now, they hope to perform a clinical trial with a larger number of participants.

Cancer-sniffing dogs may sound out of this world, but Thor and Nykios are not the only dogs to sniff out cancer. In 2016, Lucy the Labrador retriever-Irish water spaniel mix made headlines after being trained to detect multiple forms of cancer. Over the course of seven years, Lucy learned to sniff bladder, kidney and prostate cancer correctly over 95 percent of the time. Lucy’s nose fairs better at cancer detection than some lab testing methods used for cancer identification.

Lucy joined one of the largest clinical experiments of cancer detection dogs. The British organization Medical Detection Dogs had eight dogs sniff 3,000 urine samples from NHS patients to see how well they could identify cancer.

Given that dogs have an estimated 300 million scent sensors in their noses, and an additional organ for scent that humans do not have — known as Jacobson’s organ — it comes as no surprise that they are capable of such astounding feats of scent detection. For comparison, humans have an average of just 5 million sensors in their noses. Because cancer comes with its own unique scent, from volatile organic compounds, dogs are able to be trained to sniff out cancer with ease.

Sources:

Yahoo.com

CNN.com

The lawsuits were filed in mid-March at the 22nd Circuit Court in St. Louis against Creve Coeur-based Monsanto, and Osborn & Barr was named as a co-defendant thanks to their role in the promotion of the glyphosate-based herbicide. As St. Louis Today explains, existing laws primarily focus on holding Monsanto, the toxic chemical’s manufacturer, responsible for cancer and other adverse effects caused by their product. Including the advertising agency that helped make Roundup the prolific herbicide that it has become is a new approach in legal battles — one that could leave a lasting impact.

Environmental attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is working on the case along with Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, a Los Angeles-based law office. RFK Jr has made headlines recently for his role in promoting awareness of vaccine safety concerns. He told St. Louis Today that Osborn & Barr’s marketing was essential to the marketing of glyphosate, and that, “There was no way for our clients to understand the risk they were taking because of the deception of Monsanto and Osborn & Barr.”

Unsurprisingly, Monsanto has refuted the claim that glyphosate is carcinogenic. The lawsuit also alleges that the herbicidal chemical is linked to non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a disease that many of the 136 plaintiffs have been diagnosed with. In 2014, the Environmental Working Group reported on a study that showed exposure to glyphosate doubled the risk of lymphoma. This finding no doubt supports the experiences of those pressing charges against Monsanto. (RELATED: Learn more about Roundup’s harmful effects at Glyphosate.news)

Monsanto has spent a lot of time (and probably money) to do their best to obfuscate the facts on glyphosate — and it recently came to light that the biotech firm had been colluding with the EPA to protect their precious product from the burden of being a recognized carcinogen.

The filing by the plaintiffs also alleges that Osborn & Barr promoted Roundup as being “safer than table salt” and “practically nontoxic” in ads that were actually banned in the state of New York during the 1990s for their misleading claims. Monsanto has refuted these claims as well. Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president of global strategy told St. Louis Today that the plaintiffs were only targeting Osborn & Barr because their lawyers were having trouble “confronting the 800 studies and the monumental evidence that demonstrates that glyphosate does not cause cancer.” But how many of those studies were conducted or otherwise manipulated by Monsanto or other members of the industry?

As a letter from the now-deceased EPA scientist Marion Copley has revealed, Monsanto seems to have a pretty good grip on regulatory officials, and may have even “helped” write the science on glyphosate. Can these so-called studies that Partridge referenced even be trusted? It seems doubtful.

Over 700 claims of cancer in relation to Monsanto’s herbicide have been filed in both state and federal courts. RFK Jr reportedly estimates that the number of claims could reach 3,000 over the next few months. The state of California also recently ruled against Monsanto and declared that the company would be required to label Roundup as a possible carcinogen, in accordance with the state’s Proposition 65 legislation.

As the claims of cancer and other ill effects continue to pile up,  along with the evidence of their collusion with a federal agency, it looks like Monsanto will soon have nowhere to hide.

Sources:

OrganicAuthority.com

STLToday.com

NationOfChange.org 

EWG.org

The researchers then used capsaicin to activate the TRPV1 receptor in cell cultures. The pungent compound was added to the cell cultures with varying time frames of several hours of days. Data showed that the treatment caused cancer cells to divide at a slower pace. The therapy was also associated with a higher number of deaths among tumor cells. The remaining cancer cells became more sluggish, which implied that the treatment was able to inhibit their ability to form metastases in the body. (RELATED: Follow more news on natural remedies for cancer at Remedies.news.)

“In this study, we aimed to identify the TRP channels in different breast cancer subtypes and to investigate the effect of TRPV1 ligand [capsaicin] on breast cancer progression. To our knowledge, no studies have yet conducted a large-scale comparative study of the TRP channels expression profiles in breast cancer cell lines. In our experiments, a significant reduction in cell proliferation after capsaicin stimulation was observed. This finding was in accordance with the results of other scientists, who demonstrated a significant decrease in the cell growth rate of MCF-7 breast cancer cells upon capsaicin stimulation,” said researcher Dr. Lea Weber.

“If we could switch on the TRPV1 receptor with specific drugs, this might constitute a new treatment approach for this type of cancer,” said researcher Dr. Habil Hanns Hatt.

The findings were published in the journal Breast Cancer – Targets and Therapy.

Previous studies tout capsaicin’s cancer-fighting properties

The results of the current study reflect those of a meta-analysis published in the International Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment. According to the review, capsaicin showed strong anticancer properties by targeting multiple signaling pathways and disease-related genes in various stages of tumors such as initiation, promotion, progression and metastasis. The compound was also shown to promote apoptosis – otherwise known as cell death – in cancer cells, inhibit cancer cell growth and prevent metastasis, the analysis stated. Furthermore, the compound interacts well with other anticancer treatments. This mechanism demonstrated capsaicin’s potential in cancer treatment as an add-on to other chemotherapeutic compounds, researchers wrote.

Various animal studies have also demonstrated the compound’s efficacy in fighting cancer cells. A 2006 study in the journal Cancer Research found that the compound specifically targeted prostate cancer cells and tumors without harming healthy cells in albino rats. Researchers said capsaicin triggered cell death among cancer cell lines and related hormones. The compound was also shown to help reduce the expression of prostate-specific antigens, and prohibit dihydrotestosterone from activating the PSA, data showed. The animals also showed significant declines in prostate cancer growth and size following a four-week treatment with capsaicin. The findings were published in the journal Cancer Research. 

A study by the American Chemical Society also found that combining capsaicin with the compound 6-gingerol in ginger may help keep lung cancer at bay. Researchers examined lab mice predisposed to lung cancer and found that only 20% of the animals that received the combination treatment developed the disease at the end of the study. The results were published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.

Sources: 

Sci-News.com

ScienceDaily.com

Mirror.co.uk

IIARJournals.com

NaturalHealth365.com

CellSignal.com

Express.co.uk

For the fast-food nation, the news propagated by the corporate media seems great: Eat whatever you want, it doesn’t matter anyways. But it would be foolish to believe that what you put into your body has such a minuscule effect on health. You wouldn’t put gasoline into a diesel engine and expect to go very far, now would you? Despite how enticing it is to believe that nutrition isn’t important, the truth is that plant foods afford us a number of benefits that simply cannot be obtained from other sources. Phytonutrients, or plant nutrients, such as antioxidants, are unique in that capacity. Consuming these nutrients via an array of plant foods has many documented health benefits, despite what corporate sell-outs would like for you to believe.

Science Daily, a mainstream science website, recently published research that sought to better understand how these valuable plant nutrients exact their effects. A team of scientists from Oregon State University analyzed a compound known as sulforaphane that is found in broccoli. Their findings were published in the Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry. 

Sulforaphane is known to help prevent prostate cancer and this recent study has found that it may exact its anti-cancer effects via its influence on long, non-coding RNA (lncRNA). LncRNA was once considered to be inconsequential “junk DNA” that had little to no value and no particular function. However, research has revealed that lncRNA may actually play a substantial role in triggering cells into becoming malignant and proliferating.

There are thousands of lncRNAs, and current evidence suggests that they may control what genes get turned on or are “expressed” to carry out a genetic function. Scientists have posited that the dysregulation of lncRNAs may contribute to the onset of a number of diseases, including cancer.

Emily Ho, the endowed director of the Moore Family Center for Whole Grain Foods, Nutrition and Preventive Health at OSU, a professor in the College of Public Health and Human Sciences and principal investigator with the Linus Pauling Institute, says that the study’s findings indicate that the broccoli compound, sulforaphane, may have a positive impact on lncRNA.

“It’s obviously of interest that this dietary compound, found at some of its highest levels in broccoli, can affect lncRNAs,” Ho commented.

A particular type of lncRNA, called LINC01116 is known for being up-regulated in human cell lines of prostate cancer. The research led by OSU scientists shows that this lncRNA can also actually be down-regulated via treatment with sulforaphane.

Their findings “reinforce the idea that lncRNAs are an exciting new avenue for chemoprevention research, and chemicals derived from diet can alter their expression,” as stated by the scientists in their study. In other words, the chemicals and nutrients from the foods we consume do offer protection against disease development — even diseases like cancer.

According to the team, the effects of diet on lncRNA were relatively unknown prior to their examination. Their data showed a 4-fold reduction in the ability of prostate cancer cells to build colonies when LINC01116 was deregulated.

The over-expression of  LINC01116 lncRNA has also been documented in other types of cancer, including cancers of the brain, lung and colon. High levels of LINC01116 have also been seen in breast, stomach, and lung cancers, as well as chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The study’s lead author, Laura Beaver, a research associate in the Linus Pauling Institute and College of Public Health and Human Sciences, stated,”We showed that treatment with sulforaphane could normalize the levels of this lncRNA.” Beaver believes the finding could be more significant than just contributing to cancer prevention, and may help scientists develop new treatment methods to significantly slow down the progression of cancer and prevent it from becoming more invasive.

Find more examples of nutritional science that’s censored by the mainstream media at CensoredScience.com.

Sources:

ScienceDaily.com

NYTimes.com

According to the British Department of Health, about 5,000 people die each year from drug-resistant infections. But the UK Sepsis Trust and others have criticized these figures for being based on studies conducted in other countries, many of them with flawed methodology.

For the new analysis, the UK Sepsis Trust looked at the Department of Health’s own data to come up with an estimate of 12,000 killed per year by superbugs — more than twice as high as the current estimate.

This surpasses the number killed by breast cancer, officially considered one of the United Kingdom’s top killers. (RELATED: Read more news about the challenges of modern medicine at Medicine.news)

Global health crisis

As the scourge of antibiotic-resistance grows, superbugs will likely continue to overtake other top killers. In 2008, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that a single superbug, methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), had begun killing more people than AIDS.

Antibiotic resistance is spreading so fast that in 2015, World Health Organization (WHO) head Margaret Chan warned that superbugs might “mean the end of modern medicine as we know it.”

“The rise of antibiotic resistance is a global health crisis,” Chan said. “More and more governments recognize (it is) one of the greatest threats to health today.” (RELATED: Learn how to prevent infections and chronic disease at Prevention.news)

The United Kingdom’s official superbug death counts are based on studies conducted elsewhere in Europe and in the United States, particularly a 2011 CDC study that applied data from 10 states to the entire country. This study has been widely criticized as untrustworthy.

“These were not scientific estimates,” said Dr. Ramanan Laxminarayan of the United Kingdom’s Centre for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy.

For the new analysis, the UK Sepsis Trust used three separate statistics from the Department of Health: first, that half of sepsis (“blood poisoning”) cases are caused by E. coli; second, that a third of E. coli infections are drug resistant; and third, that 44,000 people die from sepsis every year.

Combining these statistics, the trust calculated that 7,479 people per year are killed just by sepsis from antibiotic-resistant E. coli. Using statistics on the other bacteria most likely to cause sepsis, the trust arrived at a total figure of 11,884 people killed by drug-resistant bacteria per year. This surpasses the 11,433 killed by breast cancer in 2014.

Notably, these figures account only for sepsis-related superbug deaths. People killed from other causes — organ failure caused by MRSA, for example — are not included in this estimate.

It will probably get much worse

According to the most recent CDC estimates, 23,000 people are killed by superbugs each year in the United States, compared with 41,000 killed by breast cancer. If the U.S. superbug figures are as far off as the British figures turned out to be — a factor of two — then superbug deaths likely surpass breast cancer deaths in the United States, as well.

In fact, a 2014 report by the British government’s Review on Antimicrobial Resistance concluded that by 2050, outbreaks of just six superbugs — E. coli, MRSA, Klebsiella pneumoniae, tuberculosis, HIV and malaria — will kill 10 million people a year worldwide. That’s more than the deaths expected to be caused by cancer and diabetes, combined.

The review concluded that the current number killed each year globally is “only” 700,000. The dramatic increase over the next 35 years is expected to come from the ongoing spread of drug resistance due to overuse of antibiotics in medicine and agriculture.

The death estimates account only for people killed directly by the six diseases studied. They do not include people who will die if widespread drug resistance renders antibiotics so ineffective that currently common medical techniques such as surgery, organ transplants and cancer treatment become too dangerous to use.

(Coming soon: Superbugs.news)

Sources:

Telegraph.co.uk

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

CDC.gov

Inontus obliquuus, commonly known as chaga, has been used as a food and traditional medicine for hundreds of years. It grows only in cold regions where the temperature drops below -30° F for more than two months every year, such as Northern Canada, Alaska, Siberia, Scandinavia and the northern Baltic region. It takes seven to 20 years for the chaga cap to mature to the point where it can be harvested.

A traditional superfood

Chaga has traditionally been used as food by indigenous Siberians, as an ingredient in soups, stews and daily beverages. In Russia, Eastern Europe and Northern Canada, it has a long use as a traditional cancer cure. Eastern Europeans also prize it for its ability to cure respiratory diseases.

Chaga also has a long history of use in China and Korea, where it is typically consumed as a tea. In Korea, this tea is thought to regulate energy and fight stress. Chaga is also often used topically as a treatment for psoriasis and eczema.

Scientific research is just starting to bear out the truth of this folk wisdom.

Analyses of chaga have shown that it has the highest antioxidant potency of any superfood, and is particularly rich in the antioxidant super-oxide dismutase (SOD), a chemical that occurs in the body but naturally declines after age 30. Antioxidants fight chronic disease and help stave off the effects of aging by freeing the body of the free radicals that can damage cells and DNA.

People who consume it daily don’t get cancer

Chaga is also rich in Beta-D-Glucans, which are known to help regulate the body’s immune response – turning it up or down as necessary to fight infection or prevent allergy and autoimmune diseases. This immune-regulating function may account for chaga’s effectiveness at treating ulcers, which are caused by bacteria, and tumors, which can also sometimes be cleared by the immune system.

In investigating the potential anticancer benefits of chaga, modern researchers have found that the regions of Russia that have the highest use of chaga have almost no incidence of cancer.

Studies have shown that SOD can dramatically boost survival among patients undergoing radiation therapy for cancer, as well as reducing scarring and toxicity and boosting wound healing. Research also suggests that chaga activates immune cells that help fight cancer initiation.

Chaga is also rich in lanosterol and inotodiols, which have been shown to directly hamper cancer cells in laboratory studies. Lanosterol may also help kill viruses.

Chaga contains betulin and betulinic acid, which are currently being studied for their effects on cancer and viruses, and have been shown to support healthy cholesterol levels. Betulinic acid in particular has been shown to break down LDL (“bad”) cholesterol in the blood.

Because chaga grows only in the wild in a few specific regions, most people who want to reap its benefits will need to purchase the mushrooms (or tinctures or capsules made from them) at a local health food store or online.

If you get hold of the fresh mushroom, one of the most popular ways to consume it is in the form of tea. Simply grind one 10g chunk into powder, place it in a tea infuser, and steep in 400ml of hot water for at least 5 minutes (the longer the better, from a health perspective). Chaga can be bitter, so most people sweeten the tea before drinking.

If you can only find dried chaga, traditional ways to prepare it include soaking it in vodka or simmering it for several hours and mixing it with ginger ale for taste.

To heal the skin and protect it from aging, you can make a cream from chaga, raw beeswax and spice oils.

Sources for this article include:

RealFarmacy.com

NaturalNews.com

While countless people are now turning to natural medicine for services in cancer treatment, dentistry, nutrition, weight loss and even psychiatry, the medical establishment continues to invest its time and money in developing new drugs and vaccines – and it will continue to do so until it is no longer lucrative.

A substantial number of physicians, whether they be conventional or naturopathic practitioners, no longer believe that most cancer diagnoses are hereditary, but are instead the result of unhealthy lifestyles. These lifestyles can be chosen, our environments controlled.

Ignoring the facts

For example, those who grow up around agriculture may not necessarily be living unhealthily, but are exposed to a toxic environment via pesticide applications. But these connections are largely ignored by the medical establishment, a fact that was highlighted yet again in an article by the Independent touting what’s purported to be an anti-cancer vaccine.

The newly developed vaccine is designed to do what many alternative cancer treatments often achieve: target and destroy cancer cells while protecting healthy cells and tissues.

“The vaccine contains a small fragment of protein from an enzyme called human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT), which allows cancer cells to divide continuously,” reports the Independent.

“It is hoped that by injecting this antigen into the bloodstream, it will stimulate the immune system to make antibodies that attack cancer cells but leave normal, healthy cell untouched, scientists said.”

Though the vaccine is still in the testing phase, its makers don’t believe it alone can cure cancer. Conveniently, it needs to be administered alongside low doses of chemotherapy.

“[T]he patients on the trial will be prescribed a chemotherapy drug that should, at low doses, ‘lift the brakes’ on the immune system so that it is no longer prevented from attacking the body’s own cancer cells, scientists said.”

Tunnel vision

This brings me to another point: If mainstream medicine openly acknowledges that chemotherapy shuts down the immune system, preventing it from fulfilling what is arguably one of our best bets against cancer, why are conventional doctors so reluctant to incorporate supplemental therapies?

Integrative doctors often use chemo in conjunction with immune-boosting remedies such as vitamin C treatments, oxidative therapy, a plant-based diet or fasting.

Instead, the cancer industry is focused on a new vaccine or a new drug that’s almost always accompanied by more health problems.

“In this trial we are investigating a form of immunotherapy designed to activate the body’s immune system by administration of a vaccine based on fragments to a key cancer protein,” said Hardev Pandah, a professor at the University of Surrey in Guildford who is leading the experimental trial.

But the truth is, cancer patients don’t need a vaccine to “activate” their immune systems. This can be done through proper nutrition, and yes, even in patients with advanced forms of cancer.

Kelly Potter, 35, is one of the first cancer patients to receive the experimental vaccine. She was diagnosed with “advanced cervical cancer” less than a year ago, and is one of 30 individuals selected to participate in the two-year vaccine trial.

Potter, who lives in Beckenham, Kent, received her first anti-cancer vaccine in early February, and is scheduled to receive seven more injections. Doctors warned her she may experience flu-like symptoms as a side effect, reports the Independent.

She had not experienced any at the time of the article’s publishing, but then again, she has only received one injection thus far. Whenever referencing vaccines, there are always side-effects involved, and oftentimes they are a lot more serious than flu-like symptoms.

Only time will tell whether or not this may be a beacon of hope for cancer patients, but the sad truth is that it will most likely be another money maker for the cancer industry, and an immense disappointment for those dependent on it.

Sources:

Independent.co.uk

ChrisBeatCancer.com

Science.NaturalNews.com

Researcher Spagnuolo takes the phrase, “Let food be your medicine,” very seriously.

As Natural News reports, Spagnuolo caused quite a stir when  he discovered a link between a particular “lipid found naturally in avocados” and the ability of this specific lipid to target and combat potent leukemia stem cells. It is these stem calls that “drive” a blood disease called acute myeloid leukemia (AML.)  Working with this avocado lipid on a molecular level, Spagnuolo created a compound he called Avocatin B.  As reported by the University of Waterloo, his research confirmed that this powerful avocado derivative doesn’t damage any healthy cells, but instead goes after the “root of the disease – leukemia stem cells.” His extensive work to discover and isolate Avocatin B was also recognized by the American Society of Nutrition who honored Dr. Spagnuolo’s achievement by giving him their Mead Johnson award.

Chemotherapy, radiation, bone marrow transplant or avocados?

In the United States, according to Cancer.net, just under 20,000 people , at any age, will be diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML)  this year. As one might expect, Cancer.org reports that typical treatment for AML is two different phases of chemotherapy.  It may take a number of years for Spagnuolo’s new discovery to be made available as an actual treatment option for AML, but work and experimentation is continuing so that clinical trials can be instituted. When these clinical trials do get started, patients diagnosed with AML will have the opportunity to experiment with this non- toxic alternative.

Avocados also have many other important nutrition benefits.

Healthynews24.com reports that the benefits from eating avocados are vast. A medium size fruit can provide at least half the fiber you need daily.  Avocados will provide potassium, help regulate your blood sugar and provide Vitamin B. There are two specific nutrients found in avocados – lutein and zeaxanthin that may help protect your eyesight. Avocados are known to be anti-inflammatory, provide Vitamin E and K and even have an antioxidant called glutathione which has been associated with keeping one younger looking. The fats found in avocado can also be beneficial for skin and the complexion. That full feeling you get from eating avocados might assist in weight loss efforts. Add the newly discovered anti-cancer properties of this delicious green fleshy fruit, and you have a bevy of healthy reasons to add avocados as a staple on your family’s grocery list.

Sources:

UWaterloo.ca

NaturalNews.com

UWaterloo.ca

Science.naturalnews.com

NHPRS.ca

Cancer.net

Cancer.org

HealthyNews24.com

Despite this classification, however, vast quantities of non-organic crops are still deliberately doused with the carcinogenic Roundup in order to provide farmers with a more profitable harvest.

Monsanto’s Roundup is one of the world’s most well-known herbicides, and the most widely used agricultural and residential weedkiller in the United States. The adoption of crops genetically engineered to resist Roundup has led to an explosion in its use in the past two decades.

A 2010 paper by Monsanto describes the practice of killing good crops with Roundup right before harvest.

“Uneven maturity and green tissue delays harvest,” the paper reads, showing the reader photographs of the “uniform” and “complete” desiccation of fields of corn and sunflowers killed by Roundup.

According to the company, killing crops this way leads to lower drying times and costs. It also spares farmers the trouble of having to wait for crops to fully mature before harvesting them.

“By bringing harvest date forward 2-3 weeks, growers can more often meet the optimum planting date for winter wheat establishment, so maximizing yield,” the paper reads.

Strictly speaking, this practice consists of using Roundup as a desiccant, rather than an herbicide.

“Desiccants (or harvest management tools) are used worldwide by growers who are producing crops that require ‘drying down’ to create uniformity of plant material at harvest,” says the Manitoba Pulse Growers Association. “These products may also assist in pre-harvest weed control. In Canada, products such as diquat (Reglone) and glyphosate (Roundup) have been used as desiccants in pulse crops.”

Consumer advocates have grown alarmed at this practice of spraying right before harvest, fearing that such use leaves less time for residues to dissipate before the crop reaches consumers. At the very least, the use of Roundup as a desiccant means that even non-“Roundup Ready” crops may contain exceptionally high Roundup residues, resulting from being sprayed directly with the chemical.

Over the years, numerous studies have shown the damaging effects of Roundup exposure. Research has linked glyphosate and Roundup  to cancer, organ failure and birth defects. Scientists from Flinders University in Australia have even discovered that Roundup disrupts the endocrine (hormonal) system at levels allowed in drinking water. That study also found that Roundup was more toxic to the endocrine system than pure glyphosate, suggesting that some of the “inactive” ingredients in the herbicide are also toxic either alone or in combination with glyphosate and other Roundup ingredients.

Sources used:

NaturalNews.com

WashingtonsBlog.com

NaturalNews.com

GrowSwitch.com

LSUAgCenter.com

Agriculture.gov.sk.ca

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

IARC.fr^[PDF]

ManitobaPulse.ca^[PDF]