by

Portugal Decriminalized All Drugs Eleven Years Ago And The Results Are Staggering | Business Insider

By Samuel Blackstone

PortugalDrugsOn July 1st, 2001, Portugal decriminalized every imaginable drug, from marijuana, to cocaine, to heroin. Some thought Lisbon would become a drug tourist haven, others predicted usage rates among youths to surge.Eleven years later, it turns out they were both wrong.

Over a decade has passed since Portugal changed its philosophy from labelling drug users as criminals to labelling them as people affected by a disease. This time lapse has allowed statistics to develop and in time, has made Portugal an example to follow.

First, some clarification.

Portugal’s move to decriminalize does not mean people can carry around, use, and sell drugs free from police interference. That would be legalization. Rather, all drugs are “decriminalized,” meaning drug possession, distribution, and use is still illegal. While distribution and trafficking is still a criminal offence, possession and use is moved out of criminal courts and into a special court where each offender’s unique  situation is judged by legal experts, psychologists, and social workers. Treatment and further action is decided in these courts, where addicts and drug use is treated as a public health service rather than referring it to the justice system (like the U.S.), reports Fox News.

The resulting effect: a drastic reduction in addicts, with Portuguese officials and reports highlighting that this number, at 100,000 before the new policy was enacted, has been halved in the following 10 years. Portugal’s drug usage rates are now among the lowest of EU member states, according to the same report.

One more outcome: a lot less sick people. Drug related diseases including STDs and overdoses have been reduced even more than usage rates, which experts believe is the result of the government offering treatment with no threat of legal ramifications to addicts.

While this policy is by no means news, the statistics and figures, which take years to develop and subsequently depict the effects of the change, seem to be worth noting. In a country like America, which may take the philosophy of criminalization a bit far (more than half of America’s federal inmates are in prison on drug convictions), other alternatives must, and to a small degree, are being discussed.

For policymakers or people simply interested in this topic, cases like Portugal are a great place to start.

Source: Business Insider

by

Smart Meters Research & Health Warnings

Research:

Report warning about Smart Meters by Santa Cruz Public Health Advisor, Poki Namkung, MD: http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Health-Risks-Associated-With-SmartMeters.pdf

American Academy of Environmental Medicine calls for moratorium on Smart Meters: http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/AAEM-Resolution.pdf

Journal of Neuroscience double-blind study showing evidence of electro-hypersensitivity (EHS): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21793784

Letter from the prestigious Swedish Karolinska Institute (awards the Nobel Prize in Medicine) warning of the dangers of wireless Smart Meter technology: http://www.scribd.com/doc/59738917/Dr-Johansson-s-letter-re-SmartGrid-Smart-Meter-dangers-to-CPUC-7-9-2011

Smart Meters – Separating Fact from Fiction: http://www.es-uk.info/news/2012-02-10-fact-from-fiction.pdf

BioInitiative Report – Calls for Biological Limits to EMR/EMF (references over 2,000 studies showing biological impacts): http://www.bioinitiative.org/

Collection of scientific studies related to the health impacts of non-ionizing radiation: http://www.emfwise.com/science.php

Comprehensive explanation of why FCC limits of EMR are outdated and unsafe: http://stopsmartmeters.org/2012/03/09/a-primer-on-the-fcc-guidelines-for-the-smart-meter-age/

Videos:

Smart Phone Awareness – “Disconnect” Movie Trailers: http://vimeo.com/31336824 & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXGZ7Waa44s

“Full Signal” Movie Trailer: http://vimeo.com/7625314

Headaches from Wi-Fi in Schools: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN7VetsCR2I

Dirty Electricity Explained: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci5GGqEPecE

“Stop Smart Meters – The Film” Trailer: http://www.indiegogo.com/smartmeterfilm

Public Health Physician Warns of Smart Meter Dangers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7L21XOC2wA

Former cell phone industry engineer/officer destroys the technology he helped build: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TiOx7_DVj0

Smart Meter EMR can be higher than Cell Phone EMR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOabFJlenz4

The Dark Side of Smart Meters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLeCTaSG2-U

Tim Ferriss speaks on fertility impact of smart phones: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xgjks7_tim-ferriss-links-cell-phones-to-male-infertility_news

by

Supreme Court Health Care Decision: Individual Mandate Survives | Huffington Post

Editor’s Note: This U.S. Supreme Court decision comes as yet another shocking departure from previous constitutional cases limiting federal authority in the states and over it’s respective Citizens. This wrong-headed, political decision expands even further the idea that the U.S. Congress and Executive Branch can decide for all Americans what they can and cannot do with their lives. I have lived healthy and free for over sixty years without health insurance, medicare, medicaid or any other insurance program. I for one will not be purchasing any health insurance under this government mandate. If this means I will no longer pay any federal taxes or file any returns to avoid the “penalties” the IRS will administer then so be it.

WASHINGTON – The individual health insurance mandate is constitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday, upholding the central provision of President Barack Obama’s signature Affordable Care Act.

The controlling opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld the mandate as a tax, although concluded it was not valid as an exercise of Congress’ commerce clause power. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined in the outcome.

The decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius comes as something of a surprise after the generally hostile reception the law received during the six hours of oral arguments held over three days in March. But by siding with the court’s four Democratic appointees, Chief Justice Roberts avoided the delegitimizing taint of politics that surrounds a party-line vote while passing Obamacare’s fate back to the elected branches. GOP candidates and incumbents will surely spend the rest of the 2012 campaign season running against the Supreme Court and for repeal of the law.

Five justices concluded that the mandate, which requires virtually all Americans to obtain minimum health insurance coverage or pay a penalty, falls within Congress’ power under the Constitution to “lay and collect taxes.”

“The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause,” Roberts wrote. “That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”

Ginsburg, writing separately for the four liberals, said they would have upheld the mandate under the commerce clause too. “Unlike the market for almost any other product or service, the market for medical care is one in which all individuals inevitably participate,” she wrote. “Virtually every person residing in the United States, sooner or later, will visit a doctor or other health care professional.”

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined in a dissent. Together, Roberts’ controlling opinion, Ginsburg’s concurrence, the four-justice dissent and Thomas’ own dissent add up to 187 pages.

In a nod to the importance of the health care cases, Roberts, Ginsburg and Kennedy all chose to read summaries of their opinions from the bench.

In a section of his opinion joined by the liberal justices, Roberts noted that the conservative dissenters contend that the mandate cannot be upheld as a tax “because Congress did not ‘frame’ it as such. In effect, they contend that even if the Constitution permits Congress to do exactly what we interpret this statute to do, the law must be struck down because Congress used the wrong labels.”

But the majority was not persuaded by that argument. Roberts wrote that the mandate provision “need not be read to do more than impose a tax. That is sufficient to sustain it.”

On Medicaid expansion, the court upheld the expansion but with a critical caveat: The federal government may not threaten the states that don’t comply with the loss of their existing funding. Essentially, the Medicaid expansion is now optional for the states.

“As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding,” Roberts wrote. “Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer. The States are given no such choice in this case: They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid, or risk losing all Medicaid funding. The remedy for that constitutional violation is to preclude the Federal Government from imposing such a sanction.”

For their part, the dissenters were not impressed with Roberts’ parsing of the law. “The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching,” wrote the four other conservatives.

They then looked to the political future: The majority’s decision, they argued, “creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court’s new design will struggle to retain. And it leaves the public and the States to expend vast sums of money on requirements that may or may not survive the necessary congressional revision.”

Summarizing his delicate decision from the bench, Roberts reminded his listeners that it is “not our job to save the people from the consequences of their political choices.” Still, the decision appeared to do just that.

By narrowing Congress’ commerce and spending powers, Roberts moved the law in a decidedly conservative direction. Yet by invoking the taxing power, he saved not only the people but also Congress, the president and the Supreme Court itself from the consequences of their political choices that had seemed so evident at oral argument three months ago.

Careful legal parsing aside, the bottom line is: The Affordable Care Act has survived.

Source: Huffington Post

by

Hope for a New Era: Solving Our Problems From the Ground Up | Permaculture.org

before_after_loess_plateau_02_1995Rio+20 has been and gone, and, in the big scheme of things, has achieved little, or worse. With this post I’d like to take the opportunity to jot down some thoughts, and images, that might help us shake off disappointment, disillusionment and despair, and give us something we can all consider, adjust and rally around. Our ‘leaders’ are taking us ‘down the garden path’, but, unfortunately, in the proverbial, rather than literal, sense. It’s truly time to forge new beginnings, create new economies, and to prioritize natural and social capital with the goal of restoring ecological and social health.

The problem we as a race (particularly Anglo Saxons like myself) have, I think, is that when we think of nature, we tend to compartmentalize it. It’s that ‘reserve’ or ‘park’ that needs to be ‘protected’ from us. We tend to admit that we ourselves are destructive, but the central problem is that since we can’t see ourselves being anything more than destructive, we conclude that if we can just leave enough space ‘out there’ that we don’t touch, then it’ll all somehow balance out. This is a totally ingrained, but little recognised, failure of our modern culture.

before_after_loess_plateau_02_2011Permaculturists look at the world differently – in that humankind are also part of nature. Not only that, and not only that we (as part of nature) deserve to survive, but we can actually be a beneficial organism in the picture also. If this capacity (which is proven) could be true of all humans, then it doesn’t matter where man lives, even if he virtually covers the globe, as he is an asset to the planet, and not a parasite. This of course can only happen if he learns to work with nature, and not battle it at every step, as he mostly does today. Where, for example, an agronomist can take a perfectly good piece of land and turn it into a desert over the course of a few decades, or even just a few years, a permaculturist can take a desert, and transform it back into a perfectly good piece of land, and can design it to be (like a natural forest) almost self-perpetuating whilst producing food.

But, putting that aside, I want to share something else with you. It’s essentially some logic that I find difficult to put aside, and which keeps me on track in my work and purposes:

  1. If you study soil science (as I have, and I could wish it was compulsory in schools) — and not just from a reductionist chemical standpoint as do the agronomists, but from a biological standpoint, where you’re observing the ‘magic’ of biological/chemical interactions and interdependencies — then you quickly become aware that the larger in scale you go with agriculture, the more compromises you begin to make in regards to working with nature. The more land you endeavor to take care of per person, the more you begin ‘forcing functions’ (trying to get nature to do something it doesn’t want to do — a bit like pushing water uphill). With larger scale, two things happen: 1) the larger in scale, the greater the detachment between the land-steward and his land — observing macro-level synergies and tweaking them becomes increasingly difficult to impossible, and 2) monocultures become a necessity to the automation required, and you end up putting more energy in, and getting less out, and you begin the input treadmill of labour, fertilisers, chemicals, etc., that are the inevitable result of trying to maintain what nature doesn’t normally allow. (This post gives a good easy-to-understand rundown on one example of this).
  2. You know very well that, with present systems, we’re using enormous amounts of fossil fuels to produce ‘food’ (‘food’ being in inverted commas, because it’s increasingly empty of nutrition). And, you know very well that we just don’t have that energy to burn any more. Additionally, because of our globalized system, we’re not eating plants we could, simply because they don’t travel well, so are sidelined by BigAgri (think berries, and all kinds of other plant varieties). The system that promised more diversity in our diet has actually reduced it dramatically. Even of that limited range of produce that is ‘approved’ by the BigAgri globalized model, around 25-50% of the food is wasted (according to the FAO) before it even reaches supermarkets (and lots more is wasted post-purchase as well!).
  3. The use of fossil fuels (pesticides, fertilizers) has not only increased our population manifold, but it’s simultaneously consumed our soil life at an escalating rate.
  4. The last three points all mean humanity is in a highly precarious position (dead soils, peaked oil, burgeoning populations). We’re heading into definite famine territory….
  5. Then add in climate change, which is seriously exacerbating our ability to correct the above problems. Much of this climate change is due to the above — the carbon that should be in our soils is now in our atmosphere, due to ignorance and greed.
  6. Add to the above that most people now live in densely packed cities, so are unable to work the land even if they wanted to, and even if they knew how.
  7. The above all inevitably mean two major things need to happen — a massive re-skilling/re-education movement, combined with a transition of people back to the land, for those who don’t have access to it.
  8. Given that in much of the ‘developed’ world, most of the land is held by large farms and even by a handful of very large multinationals (with farmers often little more than serfs on them — ‘managing’ their farms with a colour-by-numbers approach dictated to them by their corporate feudal lords), the above reskilling and transitioning back to the land is complicated with the very difficult necessity of land redistribution — something that historically almost never occurred without revolution and bloodshed.
  9. Where today we have economic incentives that favor large scale and Big Agri, if we are to work in the political realm then I think we need to target the need to see policies enacted which instead incentivise ‘get smaller or get out’, the very opposite of the policies of the last 50 years. Again, this will only work if people managing these smaller plots are educated in the how of it, otherwise instead of increasing resiliency and decreasing food insecurity, we can just exacerbate the situation.
  10. For urbanites, this is a good transitional option in the interim, where we relegate the lawn to its place as a short-lived entry in our history books: www.permaculturenews.org/2011/05/13/the-grass-isnt-greener.
  11. It’s key to understand the biology behind global warming — how the deforestation and mismanagement of our land started atmospheric CO2 increases long before we even began to mine coal and oil. If people would understand this better, rather than only approaching it from a fossil fuel emissions, reductionist standpoint, then we’d be one step closer to understanding the holistic solutions to climate change (reinstating carbon sinks, by way of food forests, and permaculture agricultural methodology — all of which also, themselves, free us from our addiction to fossil fuels). Read more…
by

Radiation Therapy Can Make Cancers 30x More Malignant | GreenMedInfo.com

Following on the heels of recent revelations that x-ray mammography may be contributing to an epidemic of future radiation-induced breast cancers, in a new article titled, “Radiation Treatment Generates Therapy Resistant Cancer Stem Cells From Aggressive Breast Cancer Cells,” published in the journal Cancer July 1st, 2012, researchers from the Department of Radiation Oncology at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center report that radiation treatment actually drives breast cancer cells into greater malignancy.

The researchers found that even when radiation kills half of the tumor cells treated, the surviving cells which are resistant to treatment, known as induced breast cancer stem cells (iBCSCs), were up to 30 times more likely to form tumors than the nonirradiated breast cancer cells. In other words, the radiation treatment regresses the total population of cancer cells, generating the false appearance that the treatment is working, but actually increases the ratio of highly malignant to benign cells within that tumor, eventually leading to the iatrogenic (treatment-induced) death of the patient.

Last month, a related study published in the journal Stem Cells titled, “Radiation-induced reprogramming of breast cells,” found that ionizing radiation reprogrammed less malignant (more differentiated) breast cancer cells into iBCSCs, helping to explain why conventional treatment actually enriches the tumor population with higher levels of treatment-resistant cells. [i]

A growing body of research now indicts conventional cancer treatment with chemotherapy and radiation as a major contributing cause of cancer patient mortality.  The primary reason for this is the fact that cancer stem cells, which are almost exclusively resistant to conventional treatment, are not being targeted, but to the contrary, are encouraged to thrive when exposed to chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

In order to understand how conventional treatment drives the cancer into greater malignancy, we must first understand what cancer is….

cancer lymphocyte

What Are Cancer Stem Cells, And Why Are They Resistant To Treatment?

Tumors are actually highly organized assemblages of cells, which are surprisingly well-coordinated for cells that are supposed to be the result of strictly random mutation. They are capable of building their own blood supply (angiogenesis), are able to defend themselves by silencing cancer-suppression genes, secreting corrosive enzymes to move freely throughout the body, alter their metabolism to live in low oxygen and acidic environments, and know how to remove their own surface-receptor proteins to escape detection by white blood cells. In a previous article titled “Is Cancer An Ancient Survival Program Unmasked?” we delved deeper into this emerging view of cancer as an evolutionary throw-back and not a byproduct of strictly random mutation.

Because tumors are not simply the result of one or more mutated cells “going rogue” and producing exact clones of itself (multi-mutational and clonal hypotheses), but are a diverse group of cells having radically different phenotypal characteristics, chemotherapy and radiation will affect each cell type differently.

Tumors are composed of a wide range of cells, many of which are entirely benign.

The most deadly cell type within a tumor or blood cancer, known as cancer stem cells (CSCs), has the ability to give rise to all the cell types found within that cancer.

They are capable of dividing by mitosis to form either two stem cells (increasing the size of the stem population), or one daughter cell that goes on to differentiate into a variety of cell types, and one daughter cell that retains stem-cell properties.

This means CSCs are tumorigenic (tumor-forming) and should be the primary target of cancer treatment because they are capable of both initiating and sustaining cancer.  They are also increasingly recognized to be the cause of relapse and metastasis following conventional treatment.

CSCs are exceptionally resistant to conventional treatment for the following reasons

  1. CSCs account for less than 1 in 10,000 cells within a particular cancer, making them difficult to destroy without destroying the vast majority of other cells comprising the tumor.[ii]
  1. CSCs are slow to replicate, making them less likely to be destroyed by chemotherapy and radiation treatments that target cells which are more rapidly dividing.
  1. Conventional chemotherapies target differentiated and differentiating cells, which form the bulk of the tumor, but these are unable to generate new cells like the CSCs which are undifferentiated.

The existence of CSCs explains why conventional cancer treatment has completely missed the boat when it comes to targeting the root cause of tumors. One reason for this is because existing cancer treatments have mostly been developed in animal models where the goal is to shrink a tumor. Because mice are most often used and their life spans do not exceed two years, tumor relapse is very difficult, if not impossible to study.

The first round of chemotherapy never kills the entire tumor, but only a percentage. This phenomenon is called the fractional kill. The goal is to use repeated treatment cycles (usually six) to regress the tumor population down to zero, without killing the patient.

What normally occurs is that the treatment selectively kills the less harmful populations of cells (daughter cells), increasing the ratio of CSCs to benign and/or less malignant cells.  This is not unlike what happens when antibiotics are used to treat certain infections. The drug may wipe out 99.9% of the target bacteria, but .1% have or develop resistance to the agent, enabling the .1% to come back even stronger with time.

The antibiotic, also, kills the other beneficial bacteria that help the body fight infection naturally, in the same way that chemotherapy kills the patient’s immune system (white blood cells and bone marrow), ultimately supporting the underlying conditions making disease recurrence more likely.

The reality is that the chemotherapy, even though it has reduced the tumor volume, by increasing the ratio of CSCs to benign daughter cells, has actually made the cancer more malignant.

Radiotherapy has also been shown to increase cancer stem cells in the prostate, ultimately resulting in cancer recurrence and worsened prognosis.[iii] Cancer stem cells may also explain why castration therapy often fails in prostate cancer treatment.[iv]

Non-Toxic Natural Substances Which Target and Kill CSCs

Natural compounds have been shown to exhibit three properties which make them suitable alternatives to conventional chemotherapy and radiotherapy:

  1. High margin of safety: Relative to chemotherapy agents such as 5-fluorouracil natural compounds are two orders of magnitude safer
  2. Selective Cytotoxicity: The ability to target only those cells that are cancerous and not healthy cells
  3. CSCs Targeting: The ability to target the cancer stem cells within a tumor population.

The primary reason why these substances are not used in conventional treatment is because they are not patentable, nor profitable. Sadly, the criteria for drug selection are not safety, effectiveness, accessibility and affordability. If this were so, natural compounds would form an integral part of the standard of care in modern cancer treatment.

Research indicates that the following compounds (along with common dietary sources) have the ability to target CSCs:

  1. Curcumin (Turmeric)
  1. Resveratrol (Red Wine; Japanese Knotweed)
  1. Quercetin (Onion)
  1. Sulforaphane (Brocolli sprouts)
  1. Parthenolide (Butterbur)
  1. Andrographalide (Andrographis)
  1. Genistein (Cultured Soy; Coffee)
  1. Piperine (Black Pepper)

Additional research found on the GreenMedInfo.com Multidrug Resistance page indicate over 50 compounds inhibit multidrug resistance cancers in experimental models.

Source: GreenMedInfo.com

by

Restore the Republic by Jonathan Emord

Editor’s Note: We attended this year’s “Health Freedom Expo” near Chicago, Illinois this month and met the author during a presentation based on the title of his book. His insights illuminated how America has strayed from the constitutional republic the founders left us two hundred and forty years ago through extreme departures from the rule of law.

As the nation drowns in a sea of debt and over-regulation and as government offers no clear solutions, constitutional lawyer Jonathan Emord presents a bold plan to restore the republic. Drawing from law, history, and economics, Emord explains that each obstacle to power and arbitrary will that the Founding Fathers placed in the Constitution has been abandoned, transforming the limited federal republic defined by the Constitution (protective of individual liberty and sovereignty) into an unlimited bureaucratic oligarchy antithetical to the Constitution.

It is that transformation which created the seeds that have grown into limitless government, corruption, regulation of all aspects of life, destruction of free enterprise, planned economies, and a deprivation of economic and civil liberty. Having identified precisely why and how the United States has lost its foundational principles and its rights basis, Emord then charts a bold course to resurrect power limiting doctrines, eliminate excess government, and restore individual sovereignty and liberty.

Indeed, Emord offers a detailed plan for deregulating markets and weaning Americans from entitlements (including Social Security and Medicare), without leaving dependents destitute. In his foreword, Ron Paul describes Restore the Republic as “. . . an invaluable explanation of how constitutional bulwarks against big government were eroded-and how we can rebuild them,” concluding that the book is “highly recommended” for all “interested in regaining our lost liberties and restoring our republic.”

by

Cancer treatment is about making money…provoking thoughts…

By Rick Cantrell, PhD, MD, PsyD

The below is absolutely 100% true and as a doctor I have been telling people this for 15 years now. No one wants to listen. Folks need to wake up. Cancer treatment is about making money. It is a 120 billion dollar a year industry in the United States alone and estimated to be a 600 billion dollar a year industry worldwide.

A successful cancer case according to the American Cancer Society and the American College of Oncology and Hematology means that the person survives for 5 years. Both the American Cancer Society and the American College of Oncology and Hematology admit that a person is likely to survive cancer for 7 to 10 years even if they do absolutely NOTHING. Of course, only the doctors get those magazines – not you, the cancer patient.

Alternative medicine’s track record of curing cancer is 10 times higher than that of conventional medicine. Note that I say CURE.

Remember another thing. A TUMOR is just a symptom. It is not the cause of cancer.

Science is cause and effect. Remove the cause and the effect disappears.

I am in my third battle with cancer right now. I have not done any chemotherapy or radiation or surgery for any of my bouts with cancer. I survived leukemia, I survived Non Hodgkins Lymphoma and now I have Glioblastoma which is supposedly an incurable form of brain cancer. I was given two months to live 5 months ago.

I have been using Chinese herbs, high doses of vitamin C, acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy and nutritional changes. Yes, at first it got worse. It had metastasized to my lymph nodes, my lungs and my bones. As of this week, I am happy to say that there is no evidence now of any cancer in my lymph system or my bones. I had 6 tumors in my lungs, now there are only two. The tumors in my brain have shrunken tremendously. I never did any of their chemo, radiation or surgery.

Here is a very interesting statistic that you can only have access to by being a doctor. Every year more than 1,000 doctors oncologists (cancer doctors) are diagnosed with cancer. Less than 10% of them choose to do the treatment that they have been giving to their patients. Sort of like the fact that less than 25% of all pediatricians vaccinate their own children because of the fact that the risk of sudden death or serious side effects from the vaccination is higher than the risk of catching the disease one is being vaccinated for. This is not bullshit people – it is truth.

Medicine is about money, not about your health and the system traps people, especially the elderly, disabled and poor into a deadly treatment regime that puts them in an early grave. Meanwhile, all the jet set billionaires are flying off to Europe and paying big bucks for alternative treatments and getting cured.

Does alternative medicine work all the time? No. Of course not. Nothing works all the time. But there is a reason for that. You don’t die until it’s your time to die. Nothing can make you live longer than that time.

However quality of life comes into play. Those cancer patients who use alternative therapies for their cancer, yet still die from the illness, suffer a much higher quality of life. They die able to spend time with their families and even recognize their family members. They don’t become emaciated like those who do chemotherapy or radiation do and rarely is a person who goes under the treatment of chemotherapy able to recognize anyone for the last few days of their lives. Their bodies become ravaged to the point that you can’t even recognize them either. They suffer at a much much higher rate and they have one let down after another as doctors tell them, ahhh – it’s looking good, only to tell them on the next visit it’s looking worse, you need more chemo and radiation.

What is criminal about this is that YOUR DOCTORS KNOW THIS SHIT.

I took an oath as a physician. I have always followed it. That has certainly not made me successful financially as a doctor because I have consistently refused to go along with conventional medicine’s bullshit.

– Rick Cantrell, PhD, MD, PsyD

Cancer Update from Rick Cantrell:

  1. \Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.
  2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person’s lifetime.
  3. When the person’s immune system is strong the cancer cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.
  4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, but also to environmental, food and lifestyle factors.
  5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet to eat more adequately and healthy, 4-5 times/day and by including supplements will strengthen the immune system.
  6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastrointestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.
  7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.
  8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.
  9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.
  10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites.
  11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply. CANCER CELLS FEED ON:
    > Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses , but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in color Better alternative is Bragg’s aminos or sea salt.
    > Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk cancer cells are being starved.
    > Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little other meat, like chicken. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.
    > A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C)..
    > Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer fighting properties. Water-best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.
  12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines becomes putrefied and leads to more toxic buildup.
  13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the body’s killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.
  14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the bodies own killer cells to destroy cancer cells.. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body’s normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.
  15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger, un-forgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.
  16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily, and deep breathing help  to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.

Source: ICR’s Global Resource Center

by

Vision for a New America & The Taboo of Sovereignty with Johnny Liberty | Austin, Texas

Author, musician, producer, entrepreneur, community organizer, renaissance man & visionary Johnny Light is making a rare public appearance during his two-week “Spring 2012 Lecture Tour” from Austin, Texas, to Detroit, Michigan and as a participant at the Health Freedom Expo near Chicago, Illinois.

Mr. Liberty has lectured in many topic areas including individual sovereignty, freedom and liberty, history, law, economics, money and the nature of global power structures. He authored the best–selling “Global Sovereign’s Handbook” and nine other books, produced two audio courses and a film entitled “The Taboo of Sovereignty, Money, Love & Power.”

As a consequence of the apparently controversial notion that all people are born sovereign and free in America and the world, Mr. Liberty spent two years in federal prison, falsely convicted, and understands the legal system from the inside out.

Come out to Brave New Books and listen to Mr. Liberty’s prophetic wisdom re: collapse of the debt-based economic system, the rise of fascism in America, his unique perspective on modern culture, history, political foolishness, humorous anecdotes and the immortal wisdom of the ages!

by

Right-Wing Billionaires Behind Mitt Romney | Rolling Stone

Presidential politics has always been a rich man’s game. But now, thanks to the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United that upended decades of limits on campaign donations, financing a presidential race is the exclusive domain of the kind of megadonor whose portfolios make Mitt Romney look middle-class. “I have lots of money, and can give it legally now,” Texas billionaire and top GOP moneyman Harold Simmons recently bragged to The Wall Street Journal. “Just never to Democrats.”

In past elections, big donors like Simmons gave millions for advocacy groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. By law, such groups were only allowed to run issue ads – but instead they directly targeted John Kerry, drawing big fines from the Federal Elections Commission. Now, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, the wealthy can legally hand out unlimited sums to groups that openly campaign for a candidate, knowing that their “dark money” donations will be kept entirely secret. The billionaire Koch brothers, for instance, have reportedly pledged $60 million to defeat President Obama this year – but their off-the-book contributions don’t appear in any FEC filings.

Even more money from megadonors is flowing into newly created Super PACs, which, unlike advocacy groups, can spend every cent they raise on direct attacks on an opponent. Under the new rules, the richest men in America are plying candidates with donations far beyond what Congress intended. “They can still give the maximum $2,500 directly to the campaign – and then turn around and give $25 million to the Super PAC,” says Trevor Potter, general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center. A single patron can now prop up an entire candidacy, as casino magnate Sheldon Adelson did with a $20 million donation to the Super PAC backing Newt Gingrich.

The undisputed master of Super PAC money is Mitt Romney. In the primary season alone, Romney’s rich friends invested $52 million in his Super PAC, Restore Our Future – a number that’s expected to more than double in the coming months. This unprecedented infusion of money from America’s monied elites underscores the radical transformation of the Republican Party, which has made defending the interests of 0.0001 percent the basis of its entire platform. “Money buys power,” the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman observed recently, “and the increasing wealth of a tiny minority has effectively bought the allegiance of one of our two major political parties.” In short, the political polarization and gridlock in Washington are a direct result of the GOP’s capitulation to Big Money.

That capitulation is evident in Romney’s campaign. Most of the megadonors backing his candidacy are elderly billionaires: Their median age is 66, and their median wealth is $1 billion. Each is looking for a payoff that will benefit his business interests, and they will all profit from Romney’s pledge to eliminate inheritance taxes, extend the Bush tax cuts for the superwealthy – and then slash the top tax rate by another 20 percent. Romney has firmly joined the ranks of the economic nutcases who spout the lie of trickle-down economics. “Support from billionaires has always been the main thing keeping those charlatans and cranks in business,” Krugman noted. “And now the same people effectively own a whole political party.”

Here are the 16 donors who have given at least $1 million each to elect Romney – and what they expect in return for their investment: Read more…