"But nobody today can say that one does not know what cancer and its prime cause be. On the contrary, there is no disease whose prime cause is better known, so that today ignorance is no longer an excuse that one cannot do more about prevention. That prevention of cancer will come there is no doubt, for man wishes to survive. But how long prevention will be avoided depends on how long the prophets of agnosticism will succeed in inhibiting the application of scientific knowledge in the cancer field. In the meantime, millions of men must die of cancer unnecessarily." ~ Nobel Prize Winner Otto Warburg in a meeting of Nobel Laureates, June 30, 1966

Monday, May 1, 2017

Apple Seeds and Cancer

Apple Seeds and Cancer: What the Government Has Been Hiding From You for Years

The mere mention of consuming apple seeds, cherry pits, apricot seeds, or bitter almonds tends to cause almost panic attacks or angry reactions in some. Why? Cyanide is in them. So they’re justified in freaking out, right?

As a rumor based on too little knowledge, their concern is understandable. All you have to do is Google cyanide alongside any of the foods mentioned above and you’ll get a plethora of articles that all support the cyanide dangers from those seeds and nuts.

Some say that your body quickly detoxes the compounds containing cyanide. Others say that you will get free cyanide when your body metabolizes those compounds. Most concede that it would take a heck of a lot of pits, seeds, or bitter almonds to poison you.

But as the saying goes, “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” In this case the fear of fruit seeds and bitter almonds and other nuts is based on incomplete data. The compound containing cyanide is amygdalin.

The complete amygdalin story for full knowledge

Thousands have used apricot seed kernels to eliminate cancer. They didn’t die from cyanide poisoning. They were cured without negative side effects. This wasn’t accomplished by consuming a couple every week, but dozens daily for months. (Sydney Herald source below)

So why weren’t they weren’t poisoned? The amygdalin compound has four molecules. Two are glucose molecules. The other two are cyanide and benzaldyhide. The last two are scary compounds, except for a couple of unusual metabolic activities: they are released by and into cancer cells only. Otherwise, they remain in the amygdalin compound and are passed through. It’s a very clever arrangement. The cancer cells depend on fermenting sugar (glucose) for their energy instead of oxygen.

So the cancer cells attract the amygdalin compounds for their glucose, but are whacked when they metabolize those compounds that free the benzalldyhide and cyanide. The glucose is the sugar bait. Cancer cells contain an enzyme that is not found in healthy cells, beta-glucosidase.

The beta-glucosidase enzyme “unlocks” the amygdalin compound, releasing the deadly toxins within the cancer cell. Only cancer cells metabolize amygdalin. Healthy normal cells don’t. Most non-cancerous cells contain another enzyme, rhodanese. Free cyanide molecules are bound to sulfur molecules by rhodanese, creating harmless cyanates that are eliminated in the urine.

This is the little bit of knowledge that those “scary” articles reference when they say a little bit of cyanide is easily detoxed by your body. But the complete function of amygdalin is hidden because the fact that laetrile or B17, a concentrated extract from apricot amydgalins, can cure cancer is taboo.

Suppressing a safe cancer cure

Laetrile or B17, was developed by San Francisco researcher Dr. Ernst Krebb in 1952 by liquefying and purifying amygdalin from apricot seeds so it could be injected into cancer patients. Dr. Krebb injected himself to assure laetrile’s safety, and Dr. John Richardson proved its efficacy by curing several cancer patients in San Francisco with laetrile.

In 1971, laetrile was banned. Dr. Richardson called on investigative journalist G. Edward Griffin to publicize the merits of laetrile or B17 derived from apricot seeds. Griffin discovered that the Sloane-Kettering Institute’s laetrile trials leading to the FDA ban were bogus.

Sloane-Kettering spokesperson Dr. Ralph Moss refused to lie about laetrile and left Sloane-Kettering in disgust. He slipped Griffin unpublicized papers scientifically proving laetrile actually worked. This led to Griffin’s book A World Without Cancer, where you can read much more about the amygdalin cancer curing story.

If not promoted as a cancer cure, apricot seeds aren’t banned. Avoid sugar while attempting to cure cancer with any method.


Sources for this article include:
VIDEO interview of G. Edward Griffin on amygdalin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFnP9sU1KW4
VIDEO explains how cancer industry is using seed cyanide phobia to keep away
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZDh3L4zjgs&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Sydney Morning Herald interview of man who used apricot seeds to cure his cancer http://www.smh.com.au


About the author:
Paul Fassa is dedicated to warning others about the current corruption of food and medicine and guiding them towards direction for better health with no restrictions on health freedom.
You can check out his many non-compromising cutting edge, non-fluff articles here
And you can visit his blog at http://healthmaven.blogspot.com

Thursday, May 29, 2014

What About the CANCER ACT 1939?

It appears a primary excuse used for the introduction of the The Cancer Act of 1939 in the United Kingdom was to ‘Protect the public from Quackery and Charlatans,’ but hindsight tells a different story.  Taking into consideration what truths have come to light we see not one reason for this action but two. 

One; was to ensure that all types of cancers were to be treated by the "Radium-Based" methods (Cancer Inducing Radiation) and,

Second;   it was necessary to introduce such an act to protect the profits of Pharmaceutical companies.

The following 2 links will provide you with the Cancer Act of 1939 for your own review.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1939/13/pdfs/ukpga_19390013_en.pdf

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/2-3/13/contents

What has now been proven is:

RADIATION CAUSES CANCER MALIGNANCIES

 

 

Sunday, August 11, 2013

RADIATION CAUSES CANCER MALIGNANCIES

A study published in the journal Cancer by researchers from the department of Radiation Oncology at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center reports that radiation drives breast cancer cells into greater malignancy(0)(1). Malignancy is a term used to describe the tendency of tumors and their potential to become progressively worse, ultimately resulting in death. They discovered that induced breast cancer cells (iBCSCs) were more likely to form tumors than the cells that haven’t been exposed to radiation. What’s even more astonishing is that that the radiated breast cancer cells increased their likelihood of malignancy by 30 times. Radiation treatment actually 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. This can eventually result in the treatment-induced death of the patient.
In some cases, cancer stem cells are generated by the therapy, but scientists do not yet understand all the mechanisms that cause this to occur. If they can determine the pathway and remove the reprogramming of cancer cells, they ultimately may be able to reduce the amount of radiation given to patients along with its accompanying side effects(2) – Dr. Pajonk
Another study that was published in the  Journal Stem Cells found that ionizing radiation reprogrammed less malignant breast cancer cells into iBCSCs(3). This explains why radiation treatment enhances the tumor populations with higher levels of treatment resistant cells.
Breast cancers are thought to be organized hierarchically with a small number of breast cancer stem cells (BCSCs) able to regrow a tumor while their progeny (offspring) lack this ability. Recently, several groups reported enrichment for BCSCs when breast cancers were subjected to classic anticancer treatment. However, the underlying mechanisms leading to this enrichment are incompletely understood. Using non-BCSCs sorted from patient samples, we found that ionizing radiation reprogrammed differentiated breast cancer cells into induced BCSCs (iBCSCs). iBCSCs showed increased mammosphere formation, increased tumorigenicity, and expressed the same stemness-related genes as BCSCs from nonirradiated samples(3).
There is a lot of research to suggest that conventional cancer treatment with chemotherapy and radiation is a large contributing factor of cancer patient mortality. The main reason for this is because cancer stem cells are resistant to conventional treatment, which play a critical role in the development of tumors(4). Studies show that cancer stem cells are resistant to conventional treatment(5).

Cancer stem cells 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   The most deadly cells within a tumor or blood cancer are cancer stem cells. They have the ability to give rise to all the cell types found within that cancer. Research shows that radiotherapy increases cancer stem cells(6), which eventually results in cancer reoccurrence!

We must pay attention to more publicly funded research. All research used in the medical industry is funded by corporations that benefit financially from treatment. This creates the possibility of bias, which clearly shows with so many studies coming out that suggest radiation and chemotherapy treatment are not the best options.

We recently posted a story of a man who cured his stage three colon cancer by transitioning to a complete vegan diet. You can read more about that here. More people diagnosed with cancer are opting out of traditional treatments like chemotherapy and radiation. As I’ve said before, cancer is a multi-trillion dollar industry which would make it hard for one to market studies that go against traditional treatments like chemotherapy. There was a study published in August 2003 that revealed of adult cancer in the USA and Australia, the use of chemotherapy only provided a cure 2.1 % of the time. You can read more about that and view the study here.

Hopefully this opens up some minds, and encourages more to look into the subject before dismissing alternative methods and supporting conventional ones. It’s best to consider all things, and at least have a look to see what type of discoveries and information might be beneficial to us.

Sources