Tag Archives: conventional medicine

Activism Green Living Healthy Living Real Food Toxin Alert!

What GMOs and Fund-Raising for Disease Have in Common

www.mypicshares.com

Before the clock runs out on this month’s breast cancer and GMO awareness, I’d like to point out some facts that may not be obvious to some consumers.

No doubt you’ve seen the pink ribbons all over food labels in the grocery store or on fast food products like KFC.  These labels are easy to spot on packages, cups, cans, boxes, and other containers of many foods and beverages.

But there’s something else to notice too – a majority of these foods bearing the pink ribbon for cancer awareness are full of harmful, toxic ingredients. Don’t believe me? Just pick up one of these food products and have a look.

Not only are many of these ingredients indecipherable and dangerous, many of them are also from genetically-modified substances. This means they originated from a laboratory where abominations of nature take place on a regular basis: the genetic material of one species is extracted in a laboratory setting and inserted into another to achieve desired traits such as resistance to pesticides or to produce some other entirely different outcome than the organisms would normally be able to achieve – such as inserting spider genes into goats to produce silk. These are also known as transgenic organisms.

Doesn’t this seem like a contradiction?

There are many others besides food corporations such as companies and organizations who sponsor the pink ribbon campaign and donate a portion of the money to “curing cancer” – automotive, entertainment, department stores, clothing companies, jewelry companies, personal care product manufacturers, sporting goods, and the list goes on.

There are many organizations, universities, health authorities, and other entities that are undermining citizens’ rights to correct health information. Recently, Stanford University conducted a faulty study showing there is virtually no difference between conventional and organic foods. This study is false and doesn’t take into account the vast amount of toxins and chemicals used in commercial farming, all of which have been proven to affect nutritional quality and integrity of  the foods grown this way, as well as the soil which is the foundation of all life on this planet.

Where does Stanford get their funding for their research? As always, follow the money. Many of their sponsors are big agricultural companies and others which have a  vested interest in nullifying the importance of eating real, organic foods.

This is yet more evidence of big corporations trying to strong arm consumers into buying their toxic products and not supporting the organic and sustainable industries.

Here’s an idea: Instead of recommendations about getting mammograms and exposing women to more 1,000 times more radiation than what you can get in a chest x-ray, what if medical and health authorities provided some guidance about what could really make a difference in cancer and other disease rates – such as removing personal care chemical, and other products from households and places of business?

And, what if doctors and clinicians gave their patients sound advice about diet? To remove all sources of chemically-laden foods and beverages, and replace with real, healthy food from organic or organic-practicing sources? I ask, wouldn’t this be a more intelligent way of combating this terrible disease that is considered number …on the list of causes of death?

Incidentally, these preventative measures we are told to use actually cause cancer. Yes, you read that right. Read about how chemotherapy and radiation contribute to an increase risk in cancer. Mammograms are also linked to an increase in cancer as well since they use radiation, and radiation is cumulative in the body. Studies from Cornell University and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory show how exposure to radiation actually triggers modifications in the micro-environment of the cell, which has a profound impact on future cancer development.

From Dr. Lenoard Coldwell’s site, describing how these procedures contribute to an increased cancer risk:

“The reason is that signals from a cell’s microenvironment, altered by radiation exposure, can cause a cell’s phenotype (made up of all its biochemical and physical characteristics) to change by regulating or de-regulating the way a cell uses its genes. The result can be a cell that not only becomes pre-cancerous but that passes this pre-malignant condition on to future cells.”

Cancer and GMOs

The French rat study

In September of this year, a study conducted in France revealed that rats fed GM corn developed massive tumors.  Both GM corn and Monsanto’s flagship product Roundup were implicated in this study, and scientists discovered that rats exposed to even the smallest amounts of these substances showed serious kidney and liver damage, and also experienced development of mammary tumors, which occurred as early as four months in males, and seven months of age in the females.

Dr. Michael Antoniou, molecular biologist from King’s College London  and member of CRIIGEN, the independent scientific council said, “This research shows an extraordinary number of tumours developing earlier and more aggressively – particularly in female animals. I am shocked by the extreme negative health impacts.”

Bovine growth hormone rGBH

The connection between cancer and GMOs is not new. From the Institute for Responsible Technology:

“Milk from rBGH-treated cows has much higher levels of IGF-1, a hormone considered to be a high risk factor for breast, prostate, colon, lung, and other cancers. IGF-1 levels in milk from treated cows with rBGH can be up to 10 times higher. Studies suggest that pre-menopausal women below 50 years old with high levels of IGF-1 are seven times more likely to develop breast cancer. Men are four times more likely to develop prostate cancer. IGF-1 is implicated in lung and colon cancer.”

 Countless other studies exist showing the link between GMOs and cancer, and other disorders:

In the last 5 or so years, I have come to realize that these companies whose products bearing the pink ribbon and organizations promoting breast cancer awareness and other causes do so because it is a genius marketing tool which sells more products.

These companies play into the emotions of people and rely on the fact that breast cancer awareness and “prevention” such as getting a mammogram are high profile ideas and activities. And this awareness causes women everywhere to live in fear that they too will develop cancer in the future, and should take an “active” role in doing what they can to prevent something happening to them or someone they know and love.

This phenomenon is known as “pink-washing“. Like many marketing schemes, it is designed for one purpose and one alone: to make money.

Corrupt fundraising organizations

Susan G. Komen, perhaps the most well-known organization conducting fund-raising for breast cancer research has shown its colors time and time again. SGK has relentlessly been caught in case after case of fraud and misrepresenting themselves to promote awareness and a cure for cancer.

This organization that is widely heralded as a pillar in the health community does not spend one dime or campaign effort, by the way, on addressing changes in diet to eliminate toxins from our diets and lifestyles to help reduce our cancer risk.

They have denied ties to pharmaceutical companies and industry leaders such as AstraZeneca – who makes regular donations of  educational grants to Komen, and to companies like G.E. - of which they own stock – who are leaders in manufacturing cancer drugs and mammography devices for “early cancer detection.”

Read The British Medical Journal’s article How a charity oversells mammography, and for a very thorough examination of how SGK spends their money, Butter Believer’s post, I will not be pink-washed: Why I won’t support Susan G. Komen for the cure.

This report from Bloomberg discusses how people who were asked to spend time doing various activities to promote various disease “cures” learned that the money they helped to raise didn’t actually go where it was intended, and felt betrayed.

In another example, from 1999 to 2011, InfoCision was hired by The American Cancer Society to gather funds to cure cancer. By 2010, $5.3 million was raised How much of that went to cancer research? None! Tax filings show that it all went to InfoCision, and the society experienced a loss for that year. Not only did they keep the entire sum, but also raked in $113,006 in fees from the society.

So the truth is, a very small portion of what is spent on these products actually goes to Susan G. Komen or other organizations claiming to raise money for breast cancer. ABC News revealed that Campbell’s Soup gave just 3.5 cents from the sale of each can of soup.  In Yoplait’s pink ribbon campaign, you would have to eat 3 cups of yogurt daily for 4 months in order to raise just $36 to fight breast cancer. Money raised to go to money-hungry, powerful corporations who are day in and day out collecting money to line their own bank accounts….meanwhile, the cure for cancer remains mysteriously absent.

What can you do to counteract big agriculture, biotech, and support sustainability?

  • Please support Proposition 37, California Right to Know campaign that will be voted on next week in the election and which would require mandatory labeling on GM foods in the marketplace. At least 23 other states are planning to introduce initiatives for this measure in the near future. Please keep a watch out for this coming to your own state.
  • Don’t buy processed, packaged foods and other products, and support your local sustainable farmers who do things right!
  • Ask your farmers questions when you buy food about safe farming practices.

www.mypicshares.com

Want to read more about how fundraising for disease doesn’t actually find a cure?

Does fundraising for disease pay off?

Is cheap food really cheap? The hidden costs of industrial food

Is reactive medicine cheaper than prevention?

Activism Alternative Medicine Healthy Living Saving money

Informed Consent for Medical Treatment – What Are Your Rights?

www.mypicshares.com

Over the last week I’ve been having some involved discussions with people about the topic of conventional medicine steamrolling the alternative sector of health. If you have a health issue and you seek help from a conventional doctor, what are the chances that you’ll be offered a full range of choices about your health condition?

By full range of choices, I’m referring to accurate facts and information about conventional treatment you’ll receive, as well as information about alternative treatments. I’m here to tell you that chance is almost zero. Doctors are liable for everything they say, and for the most part, you won’t receive encouragement or information about alternative treatments from conventional medical doctors.

Steve Jobs passed away last week, and the world has been talking about it ever since. Dr. Mercola, M.D. shared a very informative interview on his site with Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D. who has treated cancer patients successfully for the last 25 years with alternative therapies. Dr. Mercola and Dr. Gonzalez discuss the fact that Steve Jobs delved into alternative treatment, and was even recommended by his own acupuncturist to seek out Dr. Gonzalez’s help. Natural News talks about the life of secrecy maintained by Jobs and the fact that he received a liver transplant.

What rights do we have as consumers and patients? 

The American Medical Association claims to provide informed consent to patients.  But is this really happening to the full extent that it should in clinical settings?  By law, this ethical principle must be carried out in modern medical practice with medical interventions involving risk of injury or death. “Implicit in the concept of informed consent is the right to refuse consent or, in the case of vaccination laws, the right to exercise conscientious, personal belief or philosophical exemption to mandatory use of one or more vaccines.” (Source, National Vaccine Information Center).

By law, informed consent must be applied to every person who receives medical treatment and be informed of all possible risks and side-effects of any drug, surgery, or procedure. Just as Barbara Loe Fisher advocates for the recognition of patient and consumer rights  to be informed and educated about the ingredients and side-effects of vaccines through the National Vaccine Information Center, patients should be informed about all risks and side-effects (not just whatever the drug company is putting on the label) of treatments such as chemotherapy drugs and radiation. Even though informed consent is the law, these facts are often glossed over or omitted altogether. Patients should also be granted the choice to seek alternative therapies and treatments – without reproach, criticism, or dissuasion.

Current law states the following:

“To satisfy informed consent in biomedicine, physicians must disclose the nature of the problem, the purpose of the proposed treatment and the probability of its benefits and risks, as well as the probability of benefits and risks of alternative treatments or doing nothing. Whether such disclosure must, or should, encompass complementary and alternative modalities has not yet been addressed in the literature.”

- Source, Complimentary & Alternative Medicine Law Blog, Michael H. Cohen, Esq.  

It’s perfectly legal, however, for medical professionals to exert authority to use coercion, threats, and intimidation to influence patients into choosing treatments that are have a proven track record of being unsafe and risky, and even without fully explaining the consequences of such activities. This act has the effect of violating deep-seated beliefs patients may have. This is especially true where vaccines are concerned, and if patients or parents of children decide that vaccination in general – or more commonly, a particular vaccine –  is not necessary or appropriate for their children.

The role conventional medicine plays in health decisions

Although a lot of Steve Jobs’ personal activities were concealed, he was reported to have used alternative therapies during the early stages of his disease.  His acupuncturist urged him to see Dr. Gonzalez, and he chose not to. Somewhere along the way, his attitude was shifted and then his willingness to pursue alternative therapies diminished. I believe it was pressure from  powerful entities within the conventional medical community, which is the predominant force in the world in terms of getting medical treatment.

Billions of people will read Steve’s story and be influenced by him.  Many will still believe chemotherapy, radiation, and liver transplants are effective, even though he died. Some people might say to themselves, “Steve couldn’t beat cancer, so maybe I can’t either”.  But that’s not the attitude people should have.

You will also hear people who say that they or someone else they know survived chemotherapy and radiation treatment.  But even the statistics on chemotherapy show that the expected life span after receiving this treatment is about 5 years.  Those treatments aren’t solving the problem though. You can remove “the cancer” but you haven’t actually solved the reason for it being there.

I’m not implying we are capable of escaping death; sooner or later, we’ll all meet that fate. What it does mean is that while we are here, we have choices and options about our health. That’s what conventional medicine doesn’t give us.  It is built on fear, coercion, and threats, if those methodologies are not used. It gives credence only to anything involving surgery, drugs, or other conventional treatments.  The system thinks nothing of stealing people’s confidence in themselves…their own intuition of their own bodies and conscience…of respect, and of their own dignity of researching, deciding, and choosing for themselves.  And why? Because of the enormous profit to be made from selling drugs, expensive surgeries and other procedures.

Money and privilege are no guarantee you’ll have access to sound, reliable information from medical professionals who have your best interest at heart. Wealth doesn’t preclude anyone from making a bad decision…including anything influenced by conventional medicine. I believe this is what happened to Mr. Jobs. Even with all his money, he wasn’t impervious to this force, nor did he have the proper support he needed to continue with alternatives.

Alternatives in managing disease

Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, a revolutionary in treatment of chronic and fatal diseases believes that the body is resilient and can heal from anything. In her book, Dr. Lawrence Wilson, M.D.  Like Dr. Gonzalez, Dr. Wilson has worked with the late Dr. William Kelley, a pioneer in alternative cancer treatment.  Anyone can and should do these therapies singly or as a complete health care protocol.  However, if you have chronic or terminal health issues, I recommend obtaining guidance from a trained practitioner who has experience in detox, nutrition, and healing from disease.

I personally know and have worked for a nutritional consultant who uses this same protocol and is successful at healing late-stage cancer treatments. I’ve heard people say that chemo and radiation “works”, but from what I know about health, I know it doesn’t actually solve the cause of the cancer. That’s why cancer can return.  In order to destroy tumors, cancer drugs suppress and weaken the immune system. Dr. Gonzalez says that the drugs which kill tumors don’t help the body to successfully remove the toxins left over in the body, which cause a lot of damage and often that’s what ends up killing patients who don’t survive from chemotherapy and radiation treatments.

Like many others, the cancer industry keeps going because it’s a money-making machine. It uses propaganda and marketing to its advantage to get people to hold fund-raising events and donate billions upon billions each year.  The alternative cancer treatment industry is simply not making the kind of money generated in the conventional cancer industry.  This branch of health appeared as a result of frustration with the conventional system, and because people who needed help weren’t getting results they needed.  Alternative medicine’s methods of treatment and education are vastly different. Unlike conventional medicine, it is based on hope, faith, support, trust, due diligence, healing,  respect for the client, and prevention.

In the Dr. Gonzalez interview, he revealed after his death from pancreatic cancer some years ago, the wife of actor Michael Landon donated $38 million dollars to the oncologist that was treating her husband. Dr. Gonazlez also talks about other physicians who are decorated as heroes and given accolades by the press, even though their patients have died.  How crazy is this?  Properly used alternative treatments are safe and effective for cancer and other diseases, and save lives…and yet, they are shunned and criticized. Why? Because there is no profit in healing, only treating sickness. Even Steve Jobs couldn’t escape that reality – and maybe even more so because he had unlimited resources.

The blame for all of this certainly doesn’t rest on Steve Jobs; it’s obvious that even with all his influence and money, the mainstream medical camp won him over. Most ordinary people don’t have the resources he did, so it’s infinitely harder for us to counteract the effects of conventional medicine’s influence.  It is with a very heavy heart that I bid farewell to Mr. Jobs. What a truly terrible waste.  And, what a waste for so many others, who were and are deprived of confidence in their own ability to choose for themselves – a freedom of choice that is an inalienable right for human beings.

Remember – if you don’t have the right to stand up for yourself, someone else will. Do you want another person making that decision for you?

More information: 

Who’s right? Finding the truth about medical knowledge, science, health, and nutrition

Prevention – could this be an answer to our healthcare woes?

Want healthcare reform? Start with the food system!

 

This post is part of Real Food Forager’s Fat Tuesday Carnival.