Video about non-toxic cancer treatment and root causes

The war on cancer reminds me of the war on terrorism - while they may be necessary to deal with an immediate threat, neither deal with the root causes of cancer or terrorism; but are largely fruitless and extremely costly reactions to the symptoms. Reactive measures often end up causing more complications than can be handled.  Pre-emptive, root cause action is what we most need.

This video below tells us about many the root causes of cancer and non-toxic treatment, of which there are very many.  I am not telling you not to get treatment for cancer, if you have cancer; but why aren't we more aggressively promoting the practical public and personal health measures for preventing it in the first place?  We already know enough to prevent at least 70% of all cancers.  If we were to prevent 70% how would you feel about that?  You might argue that 70% is an exaggeration.  Well, if the real figure was, say, 30% how would you feel about that?  Something that reduces all cancers by 30% would surely be sensational news?  Nobel Prize material.

The question is this: "If we already know how to prevent many, or most cancers, then why are we not putting more effort into implementing these preventive measures?"

I know why: because there is no money in root cause prevention.  The money is in high value treatment after the fact, and the never-ending research to find the one shot cure, such as a miracle drug or gene therapy of which there will be none because cancer is the perfect storm of many factors coming together. The bulk of research funding is the search for the next patent drug.  Non-patent measures receive little more than lip service and often sidelined and even ridiculed.   Depressing but so true.

The only criticism that I have of this video is not enough is said of the dangers of the numerous xrays that we are exposed to over our lifetimes.  These vary from bone density scans, mammograms, dental xrays and the real biggie - CT scans.

About this website 

The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation. Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.

Candida and Fungal Infections? Gary Moller recommends you explore this programme: Click Here!

Is there a common link between acidity, cancer, yeast, fungus and viruses?

"My skin doctor reckons the fungus/skin cancers idea is rubbish?  Those things on your skin maybe a fungus?"

B
_______________________
Gary:
Hmmm..  If that's the case, then I should change my own skin specialist who has been burning precancerous solar kerastoses off my hands, ears and forehead over the last decade!

But, maybe there is a link between cancer and fungus, just as there is known link between cancer and viruses, like the warts virus.  Some doctors are convinced that cancers are caused by viruses and there are some who believe that cancers are a reaction to fungal infections, like candida.  I think there is something in this.  Let me explain...

We know that alkaline metals, like zinc and selenium help prevent cancers of the skin and prostate; but exactly how?

Here's some interesting facts:

• Cancers thrive in acidic environments.
• Fungi and viruses also thrive in acidic environments.
• A healthy person has a body PH of about 7.2 (slightly alkaline).
• As we age, suffer stress, illness and injury, our ability to maintain an alkaline PH declines and we tend towards being acidic.
• Toxins like arsenic, mercury, aluminium and lead interfere with the alkali elements like magnesium, zinc and selenium.  Most people have these in their bodies nowadays from environmental pollution and sometime medicines.
• Skin cancer and prostate cancer are very common in people who have been exposed to arsenic and lead and other toxins - people such as builders, farmers and mechanics - and people who use firearms.



High lead levels in an engineer who happens to have
a problem with solar kerastoses.

• When I do a Hair Tissue Analysis on a person with ailments like warts, acne, psoriasis, candida, athlete's foot, sinusitis and cancers such as prostate, there is often present toxic metals and a profile indicating a problem with zinc in particular and often the presence of toxins like lead.

Similar profiles: Different diseases!

• When we correct the alkali element imbalances/deficiencies and get rid of the toxic elements, the disease gradually clears over several months.  

Fascinating stuff eh?

Now here's the interesting question when it comes to cancer.  If cancer is the body's response to fungus and viral infections that have overwhelmed the body, as some experts claim, then can we prevent and even cure cancer by increasing the body's PH to be in the alkaline range of about PH 7.4?

Below are several videos about the link between cancer and fungal infections.  They are two sets of a series of videos.  While there is some doubling up, please take time to watch them all.  I would welcome your comments which you can post at the bottom of this article.  The oncologist, Dr Simoncini, who appears in the videos is - needless to say - highly controversial within his peer circle.  But that is hardly a surprise.  Many of the inquisitive outliers of history who drove Human progress were persecuted by their peers only to later being proven to be right.  Without such outliers, medicine would still be blood-letting.

As a matter of interest; I started applying Simoncini's ideas to my own skin which has been increasingly plagued by solar keratoses, mostly on my hands, arms, forehead and ears.  These were requiring visits to the skin specialist every two years to have the worst of them removed.  Well, four years have now passed, I have not been back to the specialist and most of the skin lesions are gone.

And here is an interesting website on the subject: http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/  I am of an open mind on this matter for now.  Let's see what eventuates and I would appreciate your opinions and feedback.

_______________________________________

About this website

The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation.  Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.

Preventing the growth of blood vessels which feed tumor cells

Here is an interesting lecture from William Li, co-founder of the Angiogenesis Foundation, discussing his foundation's research which looks at preventing the growth of blood vessels which feed tumor cells.

_______________________________________

About this website

The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation.  Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.

ALERT FDA Studying Link Between Bisphosphonates, Esophageal Cancer

From Medscape Medical News > Alerts, Approvals and Safety Changes > Medscape Alerts

Authors and Disclosures

Robert Lowes

Posted: 07/21/2011

July 21, 2011 — The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to review conflicting studies on whether oral bisphosphonates prescribed for osteoporosis are linked to an increased risk for esophageal cancer, the agency announced today.

The FDA stressed that it has not concluded that this class of medications increases the risk for esophageal cancer, and that it believes their ability to lower the risk for serious fractures in patients with osteoporosis outweighs their known potential risks. Esophogeal cancer, the agency noted, is rare, particularly among women.

Caveats aside, the FDA faces the challenge of making sense of studies that come to different conclusions about a possible association between oral bisphosphonates such as alendronate (Fosamax, Merck) and ibandronate (Boniva, Genentech) and esophogeal cancer. The 2 largest studies under review relied on the UK General Practice Research Database.

One study published last August reported no increase in the cancer risk. The other study, which appeared a month later, found that the risk for esophogeal cancer doubled among patients who had 10 or more prescriptions for bisphosphonates or who had taken them for more than 3 years, according to the FDA.

Other researchers who delved into different patient databases have reported either no increased risk or a lower risk for esophogeal cancer.

While the FDA continues its investigation, the agency is advising physicians to instruct patients to carefully follow the directions for taking oral bisphosphonates, as esophagitis and other esophageal events have been reported for patients using the drugs incorrectly. Esophagitis and esophageal irritation are potential precursors of cancer.

Patients should be told to take their bisphosphonate with a full glass of water first thing in the morning after they wake up. They should not eat or drink anything or lie down for at least 30 to 60 minutes afterward, according to the FDA. Reclining after taking the drug can cause it to wash back up the esophagus.

The FDA also is telling physicians that there are not enough scientific data at this time to justify endoscopic screenings of patients who are taking oral bisphosphonates without any symptoms of esophageal problems.

More information about today's FDA announcement is available on the agency's Web site.

To report adverse events related to oral bisphosphonates, contact MedWatch, the FDA's safety information and adverse event reporting program, by telephone at 1-800-FDA-1088, by fax at 1-800-FDA-0178, online athttp://www.fda.gov/medwatch, or by mail to MedWatch, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20852-9787.

_______________________________________
Gary:
I have been running a personal campaign about these dangerous and ineffective drugs for several years now.

Here is the link to most of the articles I have written recently on the topic of bisphosphonates.

Despite the growing body of evidence that they do not prevent osteoporosis (they actually increase risk of fracture - would you believe it!) and have horrendous side effects, they still get prescribed with gay abandon.  These drugs are not lollies - they are harmful drugs which are so corrosive that the person taking them must not lie down for half an hour or so, lest they burn out their oesophagus.

My advice is this when taking any medicines:

If in Doubt - Leave it Out!

_______________________________________

About this website

The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation.  Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.  Please give me your support by subscribing to my free email updates. Please shop at my Online Store. Please encourage your family and friends to do the same. While we may not always be able to compete with the big operators on price, we aim to more than compensate through personal service!
Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Do you have a question?  Email Gary: gary@myotec.co.nz. Include any relevant background information to your question.  Please be patient and be aware that I may not be able to answer every inquiry in detail, depending on workloads (My paying clients take precedence!). I will either reply by email or, most likely, by way of an article (Personal identifying details will be removed before publication).

Cancer Breakthrough with Spontaneous Remission

Cancer Breakthrough with Spontaneous Remission
by Jeffrey Dach MD

Injecting cancer into mice is a major activity at Wake Forest Medical School in North Carolina, keeping students busy with many publications over the years. Injecting the cancer cells prompty kills the mouse, but first, the mouse makes fluid in the abdomen, also called ascites.

Image: Lab Mice courtesy of wikimedia commons.

Chance Favors the Prepared Mind - Luis Pasteur

Then one day, a medical student injected a mouse and noticed something strange happened. What happened? Nothing. The mouse didn't get cancer, and no fluid in the abdomen. The first mouse that could kill cancer was discovered.

Spontaneous Regression of Cancer in the Mouse

Once identified as a "cancer killing" mouse, the little furry fellow was earmarked for study. These were exciting times in the lab. Researchers in the lab asked some urgent questions. Why didn't this mouse get cancer and ascites like all the others? How was this mouse able to resist injected cancer cells? What was the mechanism for the rejection of the cancer cells?

Over the next 3 years, research studies showed these mice are immune to cancer, a trait innate to this SR/CR strain.

______________________________________
Gary Moller comments:
Dr Dach has to be one of the most interesting and insightful medical commentators around.
He refers to Interleukin 2 (IL-2). While I can not offer exactly what he is referring to, I have Brauer IL-2 here in homeopathic doses. It is completely safe to administer to even very sick people - because it is merely a signaling device. Please refer here for more information about IL-2. The person takes several drops per day. It does not replace medical treatment; at the same time it will not interfere with any treatment - it is complementary.
If anybody is interested in a course of IL-2, please write to me here. Depending on need, it may be best combined with Reparen.



Powered by FeedBlitz

Do you have a question?
Email Gary: gary at myotec.co.nz (Replace the "at" with @ and remove spaces). Please include any relevant background information to your question.

Study links cell phone use with malignant brain cancer

It's NOW or NEVER - time to make a clearcut choice for your brain and your children's brains

A major study presented by Dr. Lennart Hardell of Örebro University in Sweden, stated that people using cell phones doubled their risk of developing brain cancer and acoustic neuromas, a tumor that damages the hearing nerve.

The study also showed that people who started using cell phones before the age of 20 years old were more than five times as likely to develop brain cancer.

Advice from Gary for your children:

• Do not carry your phone in your hip pocket - testicals and ovaries are directly subjected to constant EMF. The dangers longterm for fertility and offspring are hardly in the realm of rocket science!
• Do not sleep with your phone under your pillow - turn it off or place it well away from the bed.
• When talking on the phone use a hands free device, or speaker phone and keep the phone well away from you.
• Turn it off !

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Do you have a question?
Email Gary: gary at myotec.co.nz (Replace the "at" with @ and remove spaces). Please include any relevant background information to your question.

Vitamin D May Cut Breast Cancer Risk by up to 50%!!!

Vitamin D May Cut Breast Cancer Risk by up to 50%!!!
April 5, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP)

Women who get lots of vitamin D are less likely to develop breast cancer, suggests a pair of studies that add to the already strong evidence that the "sunshine vitamin" helps prevent many types of cancer.
High levels of vitamin D translated to a 50 percent lower risk of breast cancer, one study found. Even modestly higher levels resulted in 10 percent less risk, which would translate to 20,000 fewer cases a year if it were true of all American women. A second study, by Canadian researchers, found that women who spent time outdoors or got a lot of vitamin D from their diets or supplements -- especially as teens -- were 25 percent to 45 percent less likely to develop breast cancer than women with less of the nutrient.

"Exposure to vitamin D at the time breasts are developing, particularly around adolescence, might be important," said lead researcher Julia Knight of Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto city
_____________________________________________________

Gary Moller comments:
Why, oh why is it that research like this gets hardly any publicity, to the point of being ignored? Get this right: Here is the way we can REDUCE THE RISK OF BREAST CANCER BY HALF! Furthermore, it’s FREE!

If this was a pharmaceutical drug development, the publicity would be front page headlines, demand would be sensational and each dose would be worth a thousand dollars.

By keeping our girls out of the sun, we are increasing their breast cancer risk later in life by as much as 50%! Surely this is a scandal?

For the last few years, I have been presenting the arguments why we should be encouraging our children to be outdoors doing healthy activity, including getting exposure to Vitamin D producing sunlight. The evidence grows by the day that sunlight is essential for human health. Depression, osteoporosis, cancer, heart failure, multiple sclerosis and more and more and more are associated with Vitamin D deficiency. To understand why influenza and other viruses run rampant during winter and not summer, we need look no further than the Vitamin D connection.

Perhaps the following are reasons why this powerful and free natural therapy is being mostly ignored:

• There’s no money in it for big business: Vitamin D is free via sunlight and in dietary form (e.g. cod liver oil) it is cheap and readily available.
• Health experts and administrators have overdone the hysteria and the consequent rules about skin cancer risk. It is going to take a big effort and the need to swallow much pride to backtrack and accept that people, especially children, need daily sunshine.
• A further issue is the bureaucratic need for “one-size-fits-all rules and the need not to be seen to be discriminating by race. So, because I am fair skinned, I need just 10 minutes sunlight per day; whereas my dark-skinned partner, Alofa, needs about 30 minutes per day to get her Vitamin D.

The photo above, of my son, Alama, and his cousin, Jasmine, demonstrate two very different skin types. They are dressed appropriately for the conditions.

Problem: how do you set non-racist rules in places like childcare centres and schools? Personally, I see no problem at all – just do it!

In the meantime; what do you do?

• Get out in the sunlight for several minutes per day, depending on your skin type and expose at least 1/3 of the body.
• On days you do not get sunlight, such as during winter months, eat eggs and oily fish regularly and consider a few capsules of cod liver oil and natural vitamin D. You can get fresh high quality cod liver oil and a natural vitamin D supplement from my Store www.myotec.co.nz
• If you have children that go to school or are in day care, why not raise this sunlight and health issue at the next suitable meeting with a view to ensuring that the rules and practices are sensible and healthy?

Am I exposing myself to cancer risk?

"Dear Gary
I live in Mississippi, age is 56 and I am very active. If I am forced to be out doors between 1000-1400 for any length of time, I use sunscreen.
Outside these hours, I will not use sunscreen. However, before and after these hours, I like to go out twice a week for 30 minutes, to expose as much skin to the sunlight as I can. I usually only do this when the weather is warmer.
During the cooler months, just my face and hands get the sunlight, whenever I just happen to be outside.
Considering the above, any problems with overexposure, cancer risks?"
__________________________________________
Gary Moller comments:The purpose of getting daily sunlight is twofold:

1. To ensure vitamin D levels are at optimum for health and fitness
2. To set the body clock which is again essential for health

You first need to establish your current status:

1. Determine vitamin D by a simple blood test through your Dr and then compare your results with recommendations for optimum health by going here.
2. Complete this simple assessment to determine how well your circadian cyle is synchronised and abide by the guidelines for exposure to full spectrum light.

How much sun you require for optimum vitamin D is determined by:

1. How deficient you are, if at all
2. Your skin type
3. Where you live

I have seen no evidence that incidental exposure of the face and hands or even the arms is sufficent to maintain healthy D levels. Read this. To boost vitamin D levels you need to expose large expanses of skin to the sun. If skin has been damaged by repeated sunburn over the years then it is less efficient at producing vitamin D.
If you are deficient, as determined by a blood test, then you need to expose your skin to sunlight 2-4 times a week and only for suffient to get the slightest pinking of the skin. No burning! Sunscreen prevents production of vitamin D and should only be applied to damaged or sensitive parts of the skin, or better still, covered over.
If you are highly prone to freckling or very fair then you must take great care and may only require 5 minutes of full body exposure to the midday sun. If you are olive skinned then you may require 10-15 minutes. If you have very dark skin, your needs may be 40 or 50 minutes - get the idea?
If you over-expose and get a dark tan then the time you need to spend in the sun becomes longer, so excessive tanning is counter-productive and potentially damaging to the skin, so stick to the minimalist approach according to your skin type.
A big factor is where you live, time of day and the season of course! If you live in New Zealand, then your exposure needs are less due to the Ozone Hole over our country allowing in more UV radiation which is the light that produces vitamin D but also causes skin cancer. If you live in a place with high air pollution levels, your exposure time will have to be longer since the pollution filters out the UV. The best time for exposure is midday because that is the time of highest UV. Set an egg timer for 5 minutes and then roll over for the other side and then cover up. Take note of how your skin is several hours later and increase or decrease the exposure accordingly.
I have discussed the matter of skin cancer with a skin specialist and can pass on the following. First of all, if you are olive or dark-skinned like a Polynesian or African, then your statistical odds of developing sun-caused skin cancer are very low, to the point of being negligible. If you are fair, red-headed, and/or freckly then you are at high risk and must take great care not to suffer sunburn.
The best time to measure D levels by a blood test is during Spring and then with the onset of Autumn. These will give your seasonal highs and lows and will show how effective you have been over summer at building your stores of D. I measured my levels in Spring and had a dissapointing 68nmol. I am due to have the test repeated now it is almost Autumn and I expect it be be much higher. Got the idea? Over winter, you work on a D rich diet to maintain the body's vitamin D stores as best you can then repeat the test next Spring.
If you develop a cancer like melanoma then you must take measures to reduce the possibility of developing secondary cancers within the body. One of your best protections against secondary cancer is high vitamin D. So you know what I will be doing if I develop a melanoma - Yes! I will be getting a blood test to assess my current D status.

How to reduce your risk of cancer by 50%

Please also read these articles that are here.

Exercise and cancer - is too much exercise bad for you?

"She won the New York City Marathon from 1978-80, 1982-86 and 1988, the London Marathon twice (1983, 1986), was world marathon champion in 1983, a five-time world cross-country champion and won silver in the marathon at the 1984 Olympics.
So now Waitz has been diagnosed with cancer. Not too different than Lance Armstrong, one of the most talented endurance athletes of all time who came down with testicular cancer.
Exercise is absolutely necessary for high-level wellness, but if you exercise too much it is clearly harmful and cancer seems to be a possible adverse outcome. My guess is that one's antioxidant threshold is exceeded or micronutrients are consumed at a level that cannot be easily replaced. Either way, they both add up to a major problem."

Quoted from an article by Dr J Mercola in response to the news that runner, Grete Waitz, is undergoing treatment for an unspecified form of cancer.
_____________________________
Gary Moller comments:
While much disease is still "luck of the draw", there is still a lot that we can do to reduce controllable risk factors so that the odds of the draw are more in our favour. Too much exercise is not good for us. Having spent most of my life in sporting circles I have been well aware that exercise does not necessarily make one healthier.

Longterm studies such as the Framingham Study, show that moderate exercise improves life expectancy; whereas excessive exercise reduces it. Excessive, exhaustive exercise can deplete immune function and increase the risk of colds (This can be countered to some extent by taking additional antioxidants, principally vitamin C) Please refer to my earlier article about this.

The first defense against disease, including cancer, is a strong immune system that is bolstered by dietary antioxidants derived from foods such as berries and brightly coloured fruit and vegetables. Adequate vitamin D derived mostly from sunlight is essential for a robust immune system.

We need to reduce exposure to toxins such as environmental pollutants and numerous chemicals in products like cleaners; burned, stale and rancid foods, food additives and even excess alcohol and various medications. As sports people we should not ignore the cancer risks of anabolic steroid abuse which is popularised by high profile athletes and celebrities (Refer my article about Arnold Schwarzeneggar).

One of the best predictors of future ill-health is stress and that includes events like getting married, divorced, changing jobs, a promotion/demotion, travel and running a marathon. We sure can do a lot about exercise; but what about the people who overdo it and do so year after year?

As many doctors know, an obsessive-compulsive addiction to exercise is one of the most difficult sports medicine problems to deal with. There are numerous examples of compulsive exercisers who continue to exercise to excess, despite badly worn joints. A doctor's advice to "rest up" is seldom heeded. Refer to my earlier article about excessive exercise here. In such cases, a combination of referral to counselling services and being placed under the caring wing of a knowledgeable sports coach may be the best course of action.

While exercise is good for you, too much of a good thing is not. Maintaining good health is all about balance in life and moderation of all things good while minimising all things bad.

Is avoidance of the sun causing serious ill-health?

"Gary
I assume that my vitamin D levels are low, they can't not be. I spent 8 years inside in the shop eating my lunch on the run at the back of the shop. I didn't get outside much at all and by the time we got home at 5-30, 6.00 I certainly didn't stop and take in the sun.
I would never have gone out in the mid-day sun for a sunbathe if you had not told me about the vitamin D. I am finding it therapeutic just to lie in the heat, I come back inside rejuvenated." (excerpt from correspondence with a woman who has been experiencing chronic health problems and has been experimenting with several minutes sunbathing per day when she can)
_______________________________________
Gary Moller comments
The Sunsmart and Cancer Society dictums that that we avoid the sun for fear of developing cancer is at the root cause of a national epidemic of vitamin D deficiency in children and adults.

Low vitamin D is implicated in a whole raft of serious chronic illnesses ranging from tuberculosis to depression to mulitple sclerosis and cancer. From trends that I am seeing in my own practice as a natural health consultant we are facing a national disaster.

An added benefit of full spectrum sunlight on the face is the stimulation of the pineal galnd deep in the brain to break down the hormone melatonin. Melatonin makes us tired, lethargic and very grumpy. This explains why bright sunlight is an effective antidepressant.

We are creatures of the light - not of the night.

Sunlight does not cause skin cancer - sunburn does. Let's get that right!

Some Australian childcare centres now requiring wearing of sunglasses

"Australian eye experts say childcare centres and schools should be keeping children in the shade in the middle of the day and teaching them to wear sunglasses as well as hats and sunscreen. "

"My children go to childcare. They have to wear hats outside and sunscreen and I think sunglasses should be part of that," said the father of Georgia, almost three, and Thomas, one."There's no reason they shouldn't be wearing them. There's no harm that will come to them from wearing them. It's all good for their long-term sight."

For more, click the hyperlinked title and the following: http://www.babybanz.co.nz/news.php

_________________________________

Gary Moller comments:

We are seeing an explosion of ailments that are associated with lack of sunshine. These include spontaneous childhood fractures (Gilchrist fractures), depresssion, a resurgence of tuberculosis, ulcerative digestive tract diseases, neurological diseases like multiple sclerosis and all manner of terrifying cancers, including breast, prostate and cervical cancer.

A single-minded attempt to terrorise entire populations, regardless of skin type, about the dangers of sunlight in order to prevent a single disease (melanoma) is contributing to this explosion of diseases - if not being the principal cause.

We know, for instance, that exposure of skin to sunlight during the adolescent years can reduce a girl's lifetime risk of developing breast cancer by up to 50%. Do you hear about that from the cancer prevention agencies? No!

Bright sunlight on the face during the morning hours suppresses the hormone melatonin which causes sleepiness and depression. Wearing dark glasses during the day upsets the body's natural day-night biorythms, including suppression of melatonin during waking hours. Should we be doing this to our children from their earliest years?

As an aside, large floppy hats and sunglasses on children prevent the proper development of peripheral vision which is essential for safety and sporting activities. If not developed during early childhood this ability is lost forever.

The Australian, New Zealand or US Cancer Society and the rest that are spear-heading this erroneous and scandalous campaign of terror and consequent illness have no credibility as neutral advisors on the matter. This is because of the fact that much of their revenue is reliant on the sale of commercial products including protective clothing, sunscreen, hats and sunglasses. They have no credibility, so my advice is to take their advice with a grain of salt.

What is Resveratrol?

hi,Gary,

first time i have responded to a blogg site- Have you heard or do you know about this new vitamin- "resveratrol"sounds good but what do you know about it?

regards Mike

_________________________

Gary Moller comments:

Mike, you are not the first to have asked: This compound is found in the skin of red grapes and as a constituent of red wine and various other nuts fruits and veges, including blue berries; but apparently not in sufficient amounts to explain the “French paradox” that the incidence of coronary heart disease is relatively low in southern France despite high dietary intake of saturated fats.

The more likely explanation of the French paradox is a combination of factors including red wine intake. The most powerful factor may be vitamin D levels: the further South one lives in France, the higher the vitamin D levels. Strangely, research findings of this association between regional variations of heart desease, cancer and vitamin D levels in France is largely ignored. Perhaps it is because sunlight cannot be patented and packaged and it certainly is not PC to recommend sunbathing as a healthy activity!

I think resveratrol is expensive in pill form. here's my general advice: Eat lots of coloured fruit and veges and take a multi vitamin, a mineral supplement and some omega 3 oil and you will be quite well covered. Have a smoothie now and then with blueberries in it. Get your vitamin D levels tested and, if you have some spare dosh after all that, buy some resveratrol.

Sunlight reduces the risk of 16 types of cancer

Tuesday, August 1, 2006: "A study published this week in Anticancer Research confirms that solar UVB irradiance is associated with reduced risk of 16 sites of cancer, apparently through production of vitamin D. These cancers include 6 sites of gastrointestinal cancers, 3 cancers of female sites, 3 urogenital cancers, 2 types of lymphomas, and 2 upper aerodigestive tract cancers.

....According to co-author Cedric Garland, Dr.P.H., “Enhancing vitamin D status appears to be the single most important single simple thing that people can do to reduce their risk of cancer, apart from avoiding tobacco and moderation in intake of alcohol.

According to William Grant, Ph.D. “Other recent studies recently found that it takes 1000 to 1500 International Units (I.U.) of vitamin D per day to reduce the risk of cancer incidence and death by 30-50%. In the U.S., dietary sources provide only 250 to 300 I.U. per day. People with fair skin living in the sunnier regions of the country can make 1500 I.U. of vitamin D in about 20 minutes near solar noon with 10-20% of their body exposed, i.e., arms and back in women and back or chest in men. Those with darker skin require 2-4 times as much time or body exposed for the same vitamin D production. This may help explain why black Americans have higher cancer incidence and mortality rates than white Americans, which was described recently in the Journal of the National Medical Association.”

Cedric Garland added, “Briefly exposing a large enough area of skin for adequate vitamin D synthesis is more effective than increasing the amount of time spent in the sun. Protracted exposures to the sun are counterproductive after the 20-30 minutes at most when vitamin D synthesis for the day is complete. People of all ages should wear a hat whenever spending more than a few minutes in the sun, and should spend the time walking or otherwise in motion.”
William Grant added “The public receives a steady barrage of public service messages to avoid the sun and wear sunscreens in order to reduce the risk of skin cancer and melanoma.

Unfortunately, such messages do not mention that these risks are counterbalanced to a substantial degree by the advantages of producing vitamin D from solar UVB irradiance. Insufficient UVB irradiance and vitamin D costs society about 10 times what excess solar UVB does, and excess UVB irradiance is not required for optimal vitamin D production.” Cedric Garland said “vitamin D in the appropriate dose is giving society new hope in the fight to prevent cancer.”
________________________________
Gary Moller Comments:
This article is a wonderful summary of the situation, as I see it, and shows how far out of step public health messages are getting with where research is heading. It is time for change.

30-50% reduction in cancer incidence just by getting a little sunshine!!!

If a large pharmaceutical company were to develop a drug with the power of Vitamin D (at the cost a billion $$$), the news would surely be sensational. Is there hardly any publicity and reluctance to change because there is no money to be made? If the news got out might it hurt some pockets by undermining the sales of outrageously expensive drugs like Herceptin - a drug that only improves survival rates by 2-4% while causing heart damage in 28% of users?

Something is very wrong and needs to be put right urgently.

Essential reading: Imaging X-rays Cause Cancer

Imaging X-rays Cause Cancer

"Let's play a new game: Its called Fry Teddy"

Go here for a PDF summary of the BEIR VII report on this most important subject.

http://fermat.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11340.pdf
The report was issued by the National Academy of Sciences in the fall of 2005. The National Academy of Sciences is the largest scientific body in the world. The focus of their report was the part that ionizing radiation plays in the development of cancer. The benchmark that they came up with is that an x-ray exposure of 10 mSieverts (mSv; units that radiation dose is measured in), which is roughly equivalent to the radiation a patient is exposed to with a CT study of the chest or a CT study of the abdomen, produces cancer in 1 per 1000 patients.

Read the following quotation by imaging expert Dr Richard C. Semelka, MD:

“The indisputable fact, and in my opinion rendered truly indisputable by the BEIR VII report, is that medical x-rays cause cancer. BEIR VII also emphasizes that there may be no safe lower limit.^[1] This statement taken as said has the potential to cause considerable alarm, so my intuitive modification is that perhaps below the dose of a standard body CT, which is approximately 10 mSieverts (mSv; units that radiation dose is measured in), there is likely negligible if any risk for an individual test.
However, even 1 body CT scan (1 CT scan of only 1 of the following regions: the chest region, the abdominal region, or the pelvic region) carries with it some element of risk. The risk that BEIR VII reports is 1 in 1000 chance of developing cancer from a 10 mSv radiation dose. In my prior report, I described what is written on the US Food and Drug Administration Web site, which is a 1 chance in 2000 of developing cancer from a dose of 10 mSv. The BEIR VII report doubles that risk. The risk in children is even higher, with a reported chance of 1 in 550 of developing cancer.”

Read this extract carefully about what the Dr Semelka says about medical x-rays:

“In general, BEIR VII supports previously reported risk estimates for cancer and leukaemia, but the availability of new and more extensive data have strengthened confidence in these estimates. A comprehensive review of available biological and biophysical data supports a "linear-no-threshold" (LNT) risk model that the risk of cancer proceeds in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and that the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans.”

Note that there is no safe lower threshold – cancer risk is linear.

The following is a table of the standard reported dose of radiation for various common imaging procedures:

Table: Average Radiation Doses Associated With Common Imaging Studies

Diagnostic Examination	Effective Dose (mSv)
X-rays
Chest (PA film)	0.02
Head	0.07
Cervical spine	0.3
Thoracic spine	1.4
Lumbar spine	1.8
Abdomen	0.53
Pelvis/hip	0.83
Limbs/joints	0.06
Upper GI	3.6
Lower GI	6.4
Screening mammogram	0.13
CT
Head	2.0
Abdomen	10.0
Chest	20-40
Pulmonary angiography	20-40
PET - CT	25

You can see from this table that many people are easily getting far too much radiation; especially from CT scans and when one takes account the number of x-ray studies that one may receive throughout a lifetime, including dental x-rays.

There is too much damaging radiation in my opinion and the experts now agree.

Patients who are receiving multiple CT scans and more x-rays from other sources are getting dosages that far exceed what would appear reasonable risk.

It is the patients and their families who end up carrying the can for the consequences. By the time any cancers rear their ugly heads, the institutions and the individuals who first ordered the radiation will probably be long gone. Who pays? Ultimately, it is the patient and their families.

Here is what Dr Semelka recommends to patients”

“I believe it is your right to know that radiation exposure from medical x-rays, in particular procedures utilizing high x-ray doses (eg, CT, PET, PET-CT), may result in cancer, and it is your right to request an alternative procedure when that alternative procedure generates comparable diagnostic information. Providers should know which alternative imaging modalities provide comparable information for the medical indication that you have. It is your right, based on the Hippocratic oath that all physicians have taken, that you undergo the safest test that has sufficient diagnostic accuracy to evaluate your condition. I recommend that you refer your provider to the BEIR VII report regarding radiation hazards, and Abdominal Pelvic MRI regarding how to perform and interpret MRI studies -- if the capabilities of MRI are questioned. Liver exams are one study in particular that should almost always be done with MRI.”

Concluding advice:
Always question the need for imaging x-rays, no matter the reason and to avoid CT scans altogether – be the imaging for a dental exam, a suspected fractured foot or to find the source of abdominal pain. In most cases, there is a good alternative. Where there is not, insist on the lowest possible exposure in order to get the job done and always insist on a protective lead shield to protect the rest of your body from radiation scatter.

Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII-Phase 2. 2005. Available at: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11340.html