The five foods that may starve cancer cells and keep them from growing new blood vessels that feed the cancer are five foods that may actually starve the cancer cells:

1. Bok choy. This is a Chinese-type celery sold in most supermarkets. If you find organic bok choy all the better. If you can’t get organic boy choy, most supermarkets carry it in the section next to the celery or cabbage in the produce sections. You can eat boy choy raw in a salad, cut up like celery, or stir-fry it with Chinese vegetables and brown rice or whole oat groats, or any other grain or vegetable that is favorable to your body’s needs.

2. Cooked Tomatoes. Tomatoes contain more cancer-fighting properties than raw tomatoes. Both contain the molecule lycopene, but heating the tomato changes its chemical structure and makes the benefits more readily available to your body. According to one study you should eat 2-3 (1/2 cup) servings of cooked tomatoes a week.

3. Flounder. This fish is rich in omega-3 fatty acids and low in mercury. Three 6-ounce servings a week is ideal. Also Alaskan wild-caught salmon is rich in omega-3 fatty acids as are some other fish. Make sure the wild-caught fish you buy is both high in omega-3 fatty acids and low in mercury.

4. Strawberries. The antioxidants in strawberries help fight cancers. You should eat 1 cup a day, including the juice. But remember, since strawberries may be contaminated with pesticides, choose organic strawberries. And don’t eat excess strawberries as they could start affecting your thyroid.

5. Artichokes. Did you know that the hearts of artichokes contain 3 different cancer-fighting molecules? Enjoy ¼ cup of hearts per day.

Related posts:

1. Do soft drinks cause pancreatic cancer?
2. Antiperspirants / Deodorants Can Cause Breast Cancer and Alzheimer’s
3. Cancer Hoax?

“I have $60,000 in this attache case and I want to give it to you if you will leave the word cancer out of any mention in the Red Cross course.” These were the alleged words of a food industry lobbyist to Louise Light back in 1981.

In the tradition of documentary film maker Morgan Spurlock (Super Size Me, What Would Jesus Buy) and Robert Kenner (Food Inc.), Chow Down, directed by Julia Grayer and Gage Johnston, explores food industry lobbying and corruption through the story of Charles—a hard working family man who is struggling to reverse the history of chronic heart disease in his family.

Working with Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn of the Cleveland Clinic, director of one of the longest-running studies in the peer-reviewed scientific literature showing that a plant-based diet can reverse even late stage heart disease, Charles sets out to not just treat his disease, but actually reverse it.

Related posts:

1. Tyrannosaurus Rex Was One Sick Puppy
2. Holy Man Claims To Have Had No Food Or Drink For Years
3. Frozen Food Is Bad For Your Health

Most soft drinks are made with highly concentrated sweeteners, like high-fructose corn sweetener. Even the “healthier” versions made with good old-fashioned sugar deliver it in a highly concentrated dose. The job of the pancreas is to secrete insulin when needed to process sugar, so when you hit your body with a wallop of sugar, the pancreas goes into overdrive. Experts at the University of Minnesota followed 60,000 people in China and found a link between those who drank large quantities of soda and the incidence of pancreatic cancer. The researchers theorize that stressing the pancreas repeatedly with high doses of sugar leads to inflammation, which in turn sets up a vulnerability to pancreatic cancer.

Their study found that people who drank two or more sodas a week had an 87 percent increase in their risk of developing pancreatic cancer. Since pancreatic cancer is rare, and the overall risk of developing it is low, even an 87 percent increase is not as big as it sounds. But pancreatic cancer is a particularly deadly type of cancer, killing most of those who get it within a few years. So protecting our pancreas is something we all need to take seriously. Also remember that because of that sugar soft drinks are hard on your teeth, according to the Columbia University study.

Conclusion

Limit yourself to the occasional soda — one a week or less to save teeth. Drink water or fruit juice the rest of the time.  And eat a lot of fruit. Some studies demonstrate that blueberries prevent colon cancer, mangoes and pomegranates prevent breast cancer, and the combination of yogurt and blueberries together cures intestinal disorders.

Related posts:

1. Does chocolate prevent stroke?
2. Starve Cancer Cells And Keep Them From Growing
3. Potential Cancer Risk?

The toxins are purged from the body in the form of perspiration and antiperspirant as the name clearly suggests prevents you from perspiring, thereby inhibiting the body from purging Toxins from the armpit area.

Aluminum chlorohydrate is an astringent that is used as a topical antiperspirant or body deodorant.

Aluminum also happens to be a neurotoxin that alters the function of the blood-brain barrier, linking it to Alzheimer’s disease and cancer.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and the signs are usually a change in consistency of the breast tissue or lumps found in the breast. This cancer can also occur in males although this is not as common as it is in females.

There is a lot of controversy about this topic, some doctors think that the antiperspirant-cancer link is a lot of bull.

Here is a part of Q&A from the National Cancer Institute:

Findings from a different study examining the frequency of underarm shaving and antiperspirant/deodorant use among 437 breast cancer survivors were released in 2003. This study found that the age of breast cancer diagnosis was significantly earlier in women who used these products and shaved their underarms more frequently. Furthermore, women who began both of these underarm hygiene  habits before 16 years of age were diagnosed with breast cancer at an earlier age than those who began these habits later. While these results suggest that underarm shaving with the use of antiperspirants/deodorants may be related to breast cancer, it does not demonstrate a conclusive link between these underarm hygiene habits and breast cancer.

Related posts:

1. Do soft drinks cause pancreatic cancer?
2. Starve Cancer Cells And Keep Them From Growing
3. Cancer Hoax?

According to a study led by Mark Davis at the California Institute of Technology, nanotech robots can use a method called RNA interference to find proteins associated with cancer growth and turn them off. In a study of three patients with melanoma, small polymer robots covered with transferrin (a protein) were able to get inside tumor cells. No word on if the nanobot injections were able to shrink the tumors, but it is encouraging to see that the ‘bots can at least find their way to the cancer.

And then there are, of course, the potential safety issues. What do you think–would you allow researchers to inject tiny robots into your blood? It’s an imperfect science, to say the least, and one that has been speculated about by fearful science fiction buffs for years.

Related posts:

1. Deceiving Robots Used In Military
2. Starve Cancer Cells And Keep Them From Growing
3. Do soft drinks cause pancreatic cancer?

The scale of the problems we face can make many of us feel helpless, and yet each of us has the power to make changes in our lives that can have a meaningful impact on the future.

Less pollution

Depending on where and how it is produced the FAO estimates that the livestock industry is responsible for between 13.5 and 18 per cent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In the UK livestock are responsible for around 8.5 per cent of GHG emissions. Some of these are from the methane emitted from livestock. Methane is 23 times more powerful as a global warming gas than carbon dioxide (CO2). Other emissions such as nitrous oxide come from the manure produced by ruminants and other animals such as poultry and pigs. Nitrous oxide – has 298 times the global warming potential of CO2. Still more GHGs come from the fertilisers used to grow animal feed, and from processing storage and transport of meat products as well as from the clearing of rainforest to make room for livestock. Beef is the most energy intensive of all the meats we eat. According to environmental group Greenpeace eating 1kg of beef (the average weekly intake of meats of all types in the UK is between 1kg and 1.6 kg) represents roughly the same greenhouse emissions as flying 100km of a flight, per passenger; this is twice the carbon footprint of eating pigs or poultry.

Researchers at the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Tsukuba, Japan, agree. In 2007 they found that producing 1kg of beef results in greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the amount of CO2 emitted by the average car over a distance of 250 kilometres.

Making a political statement

Politicians follow. They don’t lead. And because of meat’s association with affluence and the fear that asking people to eat less meat might make them unpopular, most politicians shy away form this issue. Unlike oil, the price of meat has remained relatively stable for many years. It is unlikely, due to the heavy subsidies given to livestock farmers, that big price rises will force consumers into eating less – in the way that they have been used to prod us into driving less. So the best hope for change lies in average people becoming more aware of the true costs of industrial meat production and taking action themselves.

Alleviating world hunger

Meat producers are hoping to double the global production of meat by 2050. But this is not inevitable – or desirable. Animals convert plant protein and energy into meat protein and energy inefficiently; it takes 8 kg of grain, for instance, to produce 1kg of beef. This means that anyone who consumes large amounts of meat – pretty much the whole of the industrialised world – may be consuming a disproportionate amounts of the world’s available nutrients.

Currently some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, while the majority of corn and soya grown in the world – which could be feeding them, goes to feed cattle, pigs and chickens. By some estimates 20 vegetarians can be fed on the amount of land needed to feed one person consuming a meat-based diet.

Growing crops to feed animals means there is less land on which to grow crops for humans. The knock-on effect of any increase in meat production is likely to reduce the land and resources available for producing other foodstuffs and push future food prices further beyond the limits of affordability for the world’s poorest people.

Better health

Most of us eat more meat and other protein rich foods than we need to stay healthy. In 2007 the World Cancer Research Fund report recommended limiting the consumption of red meats such as beef, pork ad lamb because of a ‘convincing’ link with colorectal cancer. Links have also been found between high meat diets and obesity and heart disease.

Remember also that climate change is a threat to our future health. As the world warms up it is likely that levels of air pollution, and thus allergies and respiratory diseases, will rise, as will the rate of infectious diseases.

Protecting animal rights

According to the Worldwatch Institute, globally some 56 billion animals are raised and slaughtered for food each year. Of these 67 per cent are grown on industrial ‘factory’ farms. Factory farms are sources of cruelty and waste on scales unimaginable to most of us. These facilities rely on commercial breeds of animals that gain weight quickly on unnatural diets of high-protein feeds. Here animals live in  crowded, stressful and often unhygienic conditions. Many of the world’s 17 billion chickens, for instance, each live in an area that is less than the size of a sheet of paper. Cattle in such farms often stand knee-high in their own waste.

Under such conditions, animals are kept ‘healthy’ with regular doses of antibiotics – traces of which can remain in the meat we eat, and which have been associated with the rise in antibiotic resistant bacteria in animals and humans.

Related posts:

1. Meat Free Monday
2. Meatout Day
3. The Top Ten of The Toxic Twenty

The man, Innocenzo Marcolini, 57, had a benign tumor on the trigeminal nerve. Surgery saved him but the consequences on his quality of life are terrible. He is partially compensated by this victory against INAIL (the Italian Labour Insurance) that recognizes the 80% of disability caused by his occupation. This is the first time a judge has recognized the causal link and the subsequent declaration of disability due to occupational exposure to EMFs.

The information on this court case comes from the biologist Angelo Levis, Professor of Mutagenesis at the University of Padua, an authority on the effects of EMFs on human health. He and Joseph Grasso, a neurosurgeon from Brescia, were called as expert witnesses for the plaintiff. He recounts that he was contacted three years ago by two people, one from Brescia and one from Cremona, who had very similar jobs to that of Mr Innocenzo Marcolini. They worked in customer services, and made extensive use of cordless and mobile phones. While writing with the right hand, they kept the telephone to the left ear. The man from Cremona developed a malignant parotid tumour, while the man from Brescia had a benign tumour involving the trigeminal ganglion.

In both cases the tumour developed on the left side of the head. Levis says that he prepared his evidence using data from the scientific literature (“very alarming data, despite the optimistic surveys often financed by telephone companies“) and his report was presented along with that of the neurosurgeon who described the various surgical procedures. The expert witness nominated by the Court (as third party) recognized the validity of their report, and a few days ago the Court of Appeal finally recognized the causal connection.

The exact grounds of this decision are not yet known but they will be published in three weeke. Moreover the Supreme Court will have to rule on the case (not on the facts, but on the legitimacy of the process). In any case what has happened in the Brescia Labour Tribunal is sensational. “Given the fact that there was no literature on the subject, the expert appointed by the Court has accepted the claims of the two expert witnesses asserting that it is plausible that there is a relationship between the illness suffered and EMF irradiation”. Professor Levis – who has founded a campaign group called Applelettrosmog  – adds, “Such cases are becoming more and more frequent, but few doctors are informed about these issues.”

The epidemiologist Valerio Gennaro from Genoa, who has enthusiastically welcomed the Brescia sentence, comments: “Nowadays there are fewer and fewer of us epidemiologists. At the Institute of Genoa we are five, all on short-term contracts, as if this vital work of prevention was not important. It is clear that our job is not just to collect data but to interpret it and to understand why people get sick.” Professor Levis adds that there are one million cases of brain tumours in the world every year. “We calculate that it is a disease with ten years of latency, so only now we are beginning to get the first data on the consequences of certain habits. Very soon we will be faced with the effects of over-using a mobile phone on young people, such as those who had a mobile in their school satchel when they were eight years old. I fear these will be very serious.”

Related posts:

1. Limit Your Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation
2. Mobile Phones Were Invented in 1909!
3. It’s Official: Pollution Turns Animals Into Mutants

Lead by the high interest by this article, we studied and read hundreds more, and found one e-mail sent to the mainstream media. In this email is said that the plastic (called polyethylene terephthalate or PET), used in the production of bottles, contains a potentially carcinogenic element (something called diethylhydroxylamine or DEHA). According to this email, bottles are safe for one-time use only; if you must keep them longer, it should be or no more than a few days, a week max, and keep them away from heat as well. Repeated washing and rinsing can cause the plastic to break down and the carcinogens (cancer- causing chemical agents)can leach into the water that YOU are drinking.

In spite of the claims made in that email, there is no credible scientific evidence that reusing plastic bottles can lead to cancer.

The PET plastics used in such bottles have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and similar organizations in other nations. Furthermore, DEHA is not classified as a human carcinogen and is not considered to pose any significant health risk to humans.

The hoax email originated from a University of Idaho student’s masters thesis. However, although the student’s findings were taken up by the mainstream media, the FDA did not review the thesis nor was it published in any scientific or technical journal. Furthermore, the thesis incorrectly identifies DEHA as a carcinogenic element when this is not the case. According to the American Plastics Council website the thesis “did not reflect a level of scientific rigor that would provide accurate and reliable information”.

Moreover, DEHA is not present in PET either as a raw material or as a decomposition product. Although the Idaho student detected DEHA, this was most likely due to laboratory contamination.

Reusing plastic bottles can be a health risk in that improper cleaning could lead to the ingestion of harmful bacteria. Unless careful cleaning of the container is carried out, potentially dangerous bacteria could be left behind. However, the potential for bacterial contamination applies to other types of container such as glass, not just plastic. While the bacterial health risk of reusing plastic bottles does need to be considered, the cancer related claims in this email are unfounded.

Related posts:

1. Potential Cancer Risk?
2. Do soft drinks cause pancreatic cancer?
3. Starve Cancer Cells And Keep Them From Growing

There is no question that Americans are exposed to the chemical. A study by the CDC estimated that 92.6 percent of Americans age 6 and above had measurable BPA in their bodies.

The chemical industry has maintained for years that the high dose do not show any human effects and the FDA, which would regulate the chemicals, has said there is no danger. Many scientists have continued to look for possible danger in both animal and human studies.

The National Toxicology Program, a division of the National Institutes of Health issued an alarm. The agency said there was a possibility BPA could be causing brain problems in fetuses and children and prostate and breast problems in adults.

The actual quote from the draft report concluded “there is some concern for neural and behavioral effects in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures. The NTP also has some concern for bisphenol A exposure in these populations based on effects in the prostate gland, mammary gland, and an earlier age for puberty in females.”

The designation of “some” concern is equivalent to 3 on a danger scale of 1 to 5. You can see the report itself here. A few members of Congress have issued calls for the FDA to ban the plastics. So far the FDA has not responded.

If you want to avoid bottles with BPA look on the bottom for very tiny numbers enclosed in arrows that look like this. The number 7 indicates BPA. The numbers 3 and 6 indicates the presence of similar chemicals that some scientists and environmentalists believe could be cause for concern.

Here are a very ways to limit the risk of BPA in plastic bottles:

• Look for “BPA-free” claims on toys, baby bottles and containers. A lot of companies are starting to roll out BPA free baby bottles, bottle liners, and re-usable containers.
• Avoid polycarbonate and PVC (polyvinyl chloride) plastics, both of which contain BPA. At the bottom of the plastic, there should be a recylcing code. Anything with code 7 is at risk. Alternatives include polyethylene plastic (also labeled PETE) and containers marked with recycling code 1, 2 (HDPE) and 4 (LDPE). Polypropylene (recycling code 5, or PP) are also safe.
• If you use hard polycarbonate plastics (Nalgene bottles, baby bottles, sippy cups), do not heat or use them for warm or hot liquids. This includes running in the dishwasher. Nalgene just recently did a recall around a lot of their bottles.
• Do not wash polycarbonate plastic containers in the dishwasher with harsh detergents.

watch the video:

Related posts:

1. Cancer Hoax?
2. Plastic Fantastic, House Made Entirely Of Plastic Bottles
3. Starve Cancer Cells And Keep Them From Growing

Alan Hamilton, the author of the report, said protecting medicinal plants is not only important for human health but for the surrounding ecosystem.

“Focusing on medicinal plants has the potential to be a major motivating force behind nature conservation. Improving health, earning an income and maintaining cultural traditions are important to us all – wherever we live – and all three are involved in motivating people to conserve medicinal plants, and thus the habitats where they grow.”

Plantlife, the conservation charity, point out that traditional medicine is the primary source of health care for more people worldwide than western medicine – often because it is the only affordable treatment available. For example plants in east Africa are used to treat malaria and opportunistic infections caused by HIV Aids.

However around 15,000 species are under threat from pollution, over-harvesting and habitat loss, including Himalayan Yew, known as a source of anti-cancer drugs. The decimation of the plants is not only leading to a loss of traditional knowledge but could prevent a breakthrough in treating conditions like migraines, fever and even cancer.

Related posts:

1. Plants Will Be The First Extraterrestrials To Inhabit The Moon
2. International transportation: Some lie dying
3. Do soft drinks cause pancreatic cancer?