Rather Be Healthy

Publication Bias—the Hidden Systematic Flaw in Medicine that Can Threaten Your Life

Exposure and concerns over medical research fraud is on the rise, and for good reason. Publication bias — the practice of selectively publishing trial results that serve an agenda — represents a “systematic flaw of the scientific basis of medicine,” Ben Goldacre says in his TED Talk above.

Indeed this issue is a very serious one, and I agree with Goldacre’s assertion that it is “a cancer at the core of evidence-based medicine.” It undermines and negates everything modern medicine prides itself in.

In recent years, we’ve discovered that fraud can occur anywhere. Even at the best institutions.

Even if a drug or treatment is “scientifically proven,” the examples highlighted by Goldacre make it crystal clear that this simply is not a guarantee of safety or effectiveness.

Likewise, if an alternative treatment has not been published in a medical journal, it similarly does not mean it is unsafe or ineffective. There’s much to be said for the ancient tried-and-true remedies, even if they’ve not been rigorously studied by a modern researcher.

What Gets Published, and What Doesn’t?

I am a firm believer in the scientific method, provided it’s applied appropriately. And that’s the key issue here. In order to qualify in the first place, the research must be unbiased, unprejudiced and free from any significant conflicts of interest. Sadly, this is simply not the case with most of modern medicine — especially not when it comes to drug research. It is clearly the exception and not the rule.

In the talk above, and in two recent articles published in Salon1 and The New York Times,2 Goldacre offers a number of examples of publication bias, which is pervasive across all fields of medicine. Both articles are excellent, and I recommend reading both of them if you have the time, along with his 13-minute long talk above. Bias can take a few different forms, such as:
•Positive results are published while negative ones are not
•Retractions are frequently not published, which would alert prescribers, researchers and academia that a study has been retracted due to fraud or other wrongdoing and cannot be relied upon
•The source of funding predictably affects the outcome of the trial

For example:
•Astonishingly, half of all clinical trials ever completed on the medical treatments currently in use have never been published in the medical literature. Trials with positive results for the test treatment are about twice as likely to be published, and this applies to both academic research and industry studies
•Former drug company researcher Glenn Begley looked at 53 papers in the world’s top journals, and found that he and a team of scientists could NOT replicate 47 of the 53 published studies — all of which were considered important and valuable for the future of cancer treatments3
•In 2010, three researchers from Harvard and Toronto identified all the published trials for five major classes of drugs, and then measured two key features: Were they positive, and were they funded by industry? Out of a total of 500 trials, 85 percent of the industry-funded studies were positive, compared to 50 percent of the government-funded trials
•In 2007, researchers identified all published trials of cholesterol-lowering drugs known as statins. A total of 192 trials were found in which either two statins were compared to each other, or a statin was compared against a different kind of treatment. Industry-funded studies were 20 times more likely to favor the test drug, compared to those with independent funding
•According to a 2011 study in the Journal of Medical Ethics,4 nearly 32 percent of retracted papers were not noted as having been retracted by the journal in question, leaving the readers completely in the dark about the inaccuracies in those studies

The Industry Doesn’t Pay for Negative Results

Scientific fraud and/or the misuse of science to further a preconceived commercial agenda is so rampant today that it can be quite tricky to determine what’s what. One key factor you’d be wise to consider is who paid for the study?

It’s well-established that the source of funding can significantly skew research results, as those who pay generally want the research to be of benefit to them, one way or another. Truly independent research that is not funded or executed by any person or group with a financial stake or interest in the results is, generally speaking, the most trustworthy. Although sometimes you may have to do some sleuthing to determine whether the research might have hidden ties or agendas.

In the New York Times, Goldacre writes:

“There is one last study I’d like to tell you about. It turns out that this pattern of industry-funded trials being vastly more likely to give positive results persists even when you move away from published academic papers and look instead at trial reports from academic conferences, where data often appears for the first time…

Fries and Krishnan studied all the research abstracts presented at the 2001 American College of Rheumatology meetings that reported any kind of trial and acknowledged industry sponsorship in order to find out what proportion had results that favored the sponsor’s drug. There is a small punchline coming, and to understand it we need to talk a little about what an academic paper looks like. In general, the results section is extensive: The raw numbers are given for each outcome and for each possible causal factor, but not just as raw figures… each detail of the result is described in table form and in shorter narrative form in the text, explaining the most important results. This lengthy process is usually spread over several pages.

In Fries and Krishnan [2004], this level of detail was unnecessary. The results section is a single, simple and — I like to imagine — fairly passive-aggressive sentence:

‘The results from every RCT (45 out of 45) favored the drug of the sponsor.’

This extreme finding has a very interesting side effect for those interested in time-saving shortcuts. Since every industry-sponsored trial had a positive result, that’s all you’d need to know about a piece of work to predict its outcome: If it was funded by industry, you could know with absolute certainty that the trial found the drug was great.”

When Negative Results Go ‘Missing in Action’

Publication bias is profoundly serious, because the end result is that people frequently will die if they are making choices on inaccurate information and recommendations. Research does not exist in a vacuum. Published studies are used by doctors and health agencies as the basis for making recommendations and writing prescriptions. When they’re given a radically skewed picture of the facts, how can they make sound recommendations?

According to Goldacre, negative results missing in action cuts to the core of publication bias. When negative results are suppressed, people die. Sometimes in very large numbers.

In 1980, a study was done on a heart arrhythmia drug called lorcainaide. It included 100 people. Half of them received the drug; the other a placebo. Among those who received the drug, 10 died, compared to just one death in the placebo group. The trial was stopped and the drug was abandoned. The results of the study were never published. Over the next decade, other pharmaceutical companies created and marketed similar drugs to treat arrhythmia in heart attack patients. An estimated 100,000 people died before the deaths were finally traced back to the drugs. This case is now used as a perfect example of the price of publication bias, as the publication of those negative results could have provided an early warning.

Currently, the science behind the flu drug Tamiflu is also M.I.A., which should concern every citizen in every country that recommends it and stockpiles it in anticipation of a flu pandemic. Remarkably, eight of the 10 studies on Tamiflu have never been released for review, despite years of effort.

The Cochrane Collaboration conducts and publishes analyses of the scientific evidence supporting the use of various drugs and vaccines. They are considered the “gold standard” of independent scientific reviews, so when they issue a report, you’re well advised to pay heed because it’s free of conflict of interests and therefore very objective. I’ve previously discussed a number of their reviews on flu vaccines that have shed light on the sheer lack of scientific data supporting the claim that flu vaccines are a safe and effective means of preventing seasonal influenza.

Last year, Cochrane decided to update previous reviews that might have a bearing on influenza management, which includes Tamiflu. The previous assessment of Tamiflu was done in 2009. At the time, the group was unable to get Roche, the manufacturer of Tamiflu, to release eight of the 10 clinical trials involving the drug. The review therefore concluded that:

“Paucity of good data has undermined previous findings for oseltamivir’s prevention of complications from influenza. Independent randomized trials to resolve these uncertainties are needed.”

Years later and faced with continued stonewalling, Cochrane in collaboration with the British Medical Journal decided to take the issue to the public. The BMJ Open Data Campaign5 was recently created in an effort to force transparency as Roche continues to refuse to release the data from eight out of 10 clinical trials on Tamiflu. The campaign site contains links to Cochrane’s correspondence with not just Roche, but also with the CDC and WHO — all of whom appear to be complicit in this scheme to massively promote a drug without scientific support for doing so.

The Depressing Research on Antidepressants

The antidepressant Reboxetine is another example of how negative results jeopardize the health of patients. Goldacre had a patient who found no relief from other antidepressants, so after doing his research, he put the patient on Reboxetine. However, they’d both been sorely misled.

As it turns out, while seven studies had been completed on the drug, only ONE was published — the one showing a favorable result. Six studies showing negative results were never published, and were therefore not taken into consideration when Goldacre suggested the drug to his patient. Three trials comparing Reboxetine against other antidepressants had also been published, in which the drug was found to be as just as good as the others. However, three times as many patients’-worth of data was collected, but never published, showing that Reboxetine was worse than other antidepressants, and that patients suffered more debilitating side effects on it.

Goldacre writes:6

“I did everything a doctor is supposed to do. I read all the papers, I critically appraised them, I understood them and I discussed them with the patient. We made a decision together, based on the evidence. In the published data, reboxetine was a safe and effective drug. In reality, it was no better than a sugar pill, and worse, it does more harm than good. As a doctor, I did something which, on the balance of all the evidence, harmed my patient, simply because unflattering data was left unpublished…

The repercussions of this go way beyond simply misleading doctors about the benefits and harms of interventions for patients, and way beyond trials. Medical research isn’t an abstract academic pursuit: It’s about people, so every time we fail to publish a piece of research we expose real, living people to unnecessary, avoidable suffering.”

Publication bias has been well studied — over 100 of them have been done. And they all testify to the fact that publication bias is very real, and very serious. For example, researchers looked at all trials submitted to the FDA during the approval process of 12 different antidepressants. They found 38 positive results, and 36 negative ones. That’s just about 50/50 going either way. But guess how many of these studies could be found in the published medical literature after the drugs were approved? Thirty-seven of the positive studies were published, and only THREE of those with negative findings. This is a staggering difference, and this publication bias is no doubt having a profoundly negative impact on patients.

Fake Fixes Frequently Fatal

So, is anything being done to remedy this pervasive, ongoing problem? In the New York Times, Goldacre writes:

“The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 is the most widely cited fix. It required that new clinical trials conducted in the United States post summaries of their results at clinicaltrials.gov within a year of completion, or face a fine of $10,000 a day. But in 2012, the British Medical Journal published the first open audit of the process, which found that four out of five trials covered by the legislation had ignored the reporting requirements. Amazingly, no fine has yet been levied.

An earlier fake fix dates from 2005, when the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors made an announcement: their members would never again publish any clinical trial unless its existence had been declared on a publicly accessible registry before the trial began. The reasoning was simple: if everyone registered their trials at the beginning, we could easily spot which results were withheld; and since everyone wants to publish in prominent academic journals, these editors had the perfect carrot. Once again, everyone assumed the problem had been fixed.

But four years later we discovered, in a paper from The Journal of the American Medical Association, that the editors had broken their promise: more than half of all trials published in leading journals still weren’t properly registered, and a quarter weren’t registered at all.

Even if these fixes had been successful, we would still be decades away from knowing the full truth about our medical treatments, because today’s decisions are informed by the trials of the past, on drugs that were first researched and approved in 2007, 2002, 1998 and earlier. None of the reforms has even tried to ensure public access for these results, and so they remain buried in dry storage archives, deep underground.”

Real Fixes are What is Needed

The last point is an important one. In order for modern medicine to be “science-based” we have to go far enough back to include ALL the research for ALL the treatments that are currently IN USE. Otherwise, we’re operating on quicksand. As Goldacre states in his TED talk:

“I don’t know what world it is in which we’re only practicing medicine based on trials completed in the past two years.”

Fixing the problem and returning science-based medicine is easy though. According to Goldacre, we must:
1.Publish all human trials, including older trials, for all drugs in current use
2.Tell everyone you know about this problem. For more information, contact [email protected]

Take Control of Your Health

It’s important to understand that our current medical system has been masterfully orchestrated by the drug companies to create a system that gives the perception of science when really it is a heavily manipulated process designed to convince and deceive you to use expensive and potentially toxic drugs that benefit the drug companies more than they benefit your health. Across the board, drugmakers do an excellent job of publicizing the findings they want you to know, while keeping studies that don’t support their product hidden from you and the medical community.

It’s important to realize that all research is NOT published. And it should come as no surprise that drug studies funded by a pharmaceutical company that reaches a negative conclusion will rarely ever see the light of day…

What this means is that even if you scour the medical literature to determine what the consensus is on any given medical topic, what you’ll find is an overwhelming preponderance of data in favor of the drug approach that in no way, shape or form reflects the reality of the scientific investigation that went into that specific drug. With so much data missing in action, what does the claim “scientifically proven” really amount to? It certainly cannot be construed as a guarantee of safety or effectiveness…

I recommend using all the resources available to you, including your own common sense and reason, true experts’ advice and experiences of others, to determine what medical treatment or advice will be best for you in any given situation.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Imported seafood is full of chemicals, drugs and feces – yet the FDA inspects hardly any of it

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039077_seafood_chemicals_FDA_inspections.html#ixzz2KmHVsYhV

Most imported seafood, including shrimp, is from large fish farms in Asia, including China, Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam. There are also seafood or fish farms in Canada, Mexico, and South America that export to the U.S. and others countries.

Fish farming is just that. Breeding, cultivating, and harvesting fish from ponds, drainage ditches, or cages in lakes and even the open sea. There are also green houses with large containers of water. Unusual tropical fish, catfish, and salmon are farmed and sometimes deceptively sold as wild caught.

Farmed fish and shrimp pro and con
Proponents of fish farming point out that it’s more ecological since wild fish areas are invaded less as fish farms proliferate. Of course, there is the added incentive of not having to resort to seafaring vessels or fleets to come in with catches. Fish farming is more reliable and less expensive.

Since recent innovations of stacking indoor pools for breading shrimp was innovated, there is an incredible amount of farmed jumbo shrimp that is retailed and used in restaurants. These stacked pools permit up to 25 kilograms of shrimp to be bred in one cubic meter of water.

The stacked pool idea was spawned in Texas. So less farmed shrimp is imported now than a few years ago. But that doesn’t preclude antibiotics, bacterial, and chemical contamination from getting into those stacked pools.

Just like massive factory farms for sending hoofed meat to slaughter houses, there are problems with overcrowding and feeding in fish farms. Antibiotics are used in crowed aquatic conditions. And what they are fed can include even salmonella laced pig feces, as discovered in several Chinese fish farms.

FDA oversight grossly lacking
While the FDA orchestrates raids on raw milk providers, alternative cancer clinics, supplement companies, and issues threatening letters to nut and fruit growers for promoting actual scientific health findings on their products, they barely sniff imported seafood or locally farmed fish and shrimp from a distance.

According to the CDC, 44 percent of the 39 food borne illness outbreaks caused by imports from 2005 to 2010 involved seafood. In 2011, 91 percent of the 4.7 billion pounds of seafood consumed in the U.S. was imported. The FDA tested samples from only two percent of this at best. It seems 2012 was a better year.

They inspected 330 samples of Vietnamese farmed shrimp exported to Little Rock, Arkansas, and found 67 samples containing the bacteria Klebsiella, which is resistant to most antibiotics and causes urinary infections and pneumonia.

In addition to bacterial contamination, certain antibiotics used in fish farming are problematic. Residues of nitrofuran antibiotics have been discovered in imported farm fish. Nitrofurans are carcinogenic.

A U.S. wild shrimp trade association, the Southern Shrimp Alliance, complained to the FDA recently that three Vietnamese shrimp farms were ordered to test all their exports with Canadian authorities after extremely dangerous fluoroquinolone antibiotics were detected. But the FDA did nothing for U.S. imports from those companies.

The Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) claims to pick up the slack from FDA’s inadequate screening. Their Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) label supposedly assures your seafood is totally safe. But the GAA is a fox guarding hen house industry group of seafood provider executives. (http://www.gaalliance.org/bap/wheretobuy.php)

The University of Victoria’s Seafood Ecology Research Group placed the BAP seal at 16th out of 20 total certifications for seafood safety standards.

Inadequate food safety screening for imported seafood leaves us with equally ignored, locally farmed fish and shrimp as well as wild fish and shrimp from our BP Corexit contaminated gulf. It’s time to be very picky about seafood.

Sources for this article include:

http://en.wikipedia.org

http://www.popsci.com

http://www.motherjones.com

Homepage 2017

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Owners of now-defunct Morningland Dairy speak out against rogue police state that illegally destroyed their family farm

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039075_Morningland_Dairy_police_state_family_farms.html#ixzz2KmF0ULxi

In the greatly unsettling aftermath of the complete and total destruction of Missouri-based Morningland Dairy by the corrupt Missouri Milk Board, farm owners Joe and Denise Dixon have been able to share the sordid details of their harrowing experience mostly with the alternative media and select others who have not been hopelessly brainwashed by the system. And in the process, they have also had the unique opportunity to share with the world, first hand, what ruthless and unrelenting tyranny truly looks like.

As we reported recently, Morningland became an instant enemy of the state after federal and foreign officials illegally raided a private, California-based food cooperative back in 2010 that carried some of the farm’s products. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and later the Missouri Milk Board, falsely accused Morningland of selling tainted raw milk cheese, and several years later, forcibly stole and discarded nearly 20 tons of this perfectly good cheese without legitimate cause. (http://www.naturalnews.com)

And there are many more details to this shocking display of brutal, police state force against innocent, American farm owners that simply cannot be covered in full in the space of a short article. Details such as the fact that the Missouri Milk Board never collected and tested real cheese samples in accordance with the law, for instance, and never afforded the Dixons a proper trial by jury in accordance with the U.S. Constitution prior to removing more than 36,000 pounds of cheese from their farm and dumping it in a landfill.

“Dressed in casual clothes, with no special gear, they loaded up all 36,000-plus pounds of hard-earned cheese, and sent it off to a local dump in two large dumpsters,” explain owners Joe and Denise Dixon, on their farm’s website about what happened that fateful Friday morning. “Months and months’ worth of fresh, whole, raw milk, made into healthful, tasty cheese through a lot of hard work, just destroyed, without ever being properly tested.”

Inspector Don Falls, executive secretary Gene Wiseman, and Howell County Sheriff’s Lieutenant Al Jones all directly responsible for illegally destroying family farm
The Dixons name names, too, identifying Don Falls, an inspector for the Missouri Milk Board who altered batch numbers of Morningland cheese samples and lied about the safety of Morningland’s cheese, and Gene Wiseman, executive secretary of the Missouri Milk Board, who duly refused to acknowledge the farm’s clean test results for the cheese and instead chose to brutally persecute the Dixons. These two men, as well as the handful of mindless minions who helped them fully execute their criminal oppression against the Dixons on January 25, 2013, are all responsible for the unjustified and illegal destruction of Morningland’s entire inventory of cheese.

You can find contact information for both Don Falls and Gene Wiseman here:
http://mda.mo.gov/animals/milk/staff.php

You can contact the Howell County Sheriff’s Office here:
http://www.howellcountysheriff.org//Contact%20us.htm

You can also read further details of the Morningland saga here:
http://morninglanddairy.webs.com/recallinfocourtaction.htm

“We have to wonder how the Missouri Attorney General’s Office representatives, now-retired Howell County Judge David Dunlap, and other Missouri officials feel about playing the fool in accepting the obviously false testimony from Missouri Milk Board inspector Don Falls and executive secretary Gene Wiseman, as they professed our cheese to be a danger to the public,” add the Dixons.

Be sure to listen to this powerful interview with the Dixons conducted by America’s Voice Now host Mike Evans, in which you will hear first hand what this victimized couple has endured at the hands of a police state gone mad: http://youtu.be/KUoyB3b5phQ

Sources for this article include:

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Hannes/doreen111.htm

http://americanvisionnews.com

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

The state of Washington appears to be leading the charge these days in the fight for honest food labeling, as two new pieces of legislation are now being considered that would require the labeling of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in food. I-522, also known as The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act, and House Bill 1407 both tackle the GMO labeling issue head on, the former at the state level and the latter at the local level, and Washington voters will soon have the opportunity to let their voices be heard on these two proposed laws.

As we reported just after the turn of the new year, proponents of GMO labeling in Washington have already successfully gathered more than 350,000 petition signatures, exceeding the minimum number required by more than 100,000, to get I-522 on the 2013 ballot. This means Washington voters will have the opportunity this coming fall to vote in favor of the initiative which, if passed, will require that all foods produced using GMOs and sold within the state be properly labeled. (http://www.naturalnews.com)

And in the event that this initiative ends up getting railroaded like Proposition 37 did in California last fall, HB 1407 will allow local communities to decide for themselves how to handle both the labeling and cultivation of GMOs in their areas. Introduced by Representative Cary Condotta, a Republican from Washington’s 12th District, HB 1407 specifically provisions that local governments will be free to regulate GMOs however they see fit, independently from whatever the state decides to do.

“When we saw San Juan do this, we thought it was great, so we see this on a different path than I-522 but we made sure to put a provision in HB 1407 that none of it would override I-522,” explained Rep. Condotta about the proposed legislation, comparing it to the recent passage of Measure No. 2012-4, which banned the cultivation of GMOs in Washington’s San Juan County. “So if the labeling bill passes, all food will still be labeled statewide. This just give the local level even more control.”

HB 1407 would recognize right of local communities to label, ban GMOs
This two-pronged approach to GMO labeling is groundbreaking, as it addresses some of the failures of other GMO labeling proposals in other states. And particularly with HB 1407, the decentralization of power in matters relating to GMOs will help prevent corporate interests from hijacking efforts to increase food labeling transparency at the local level.

“It is within the jurisdiction of the local legislative authority to determine the parameters of regulation, which may include the production, use, advertising, sale, distribution, storage, transportation, formulation, packaging, labeling, certification, registration, propagation, cultivation, raising, or growing of genetically modified organisms,” explains HB 1407.

Both bills are uniquely important because, together, they will procure the legal framework needed to ensure that the people of Washington, and not the biotechnology industry, are the ones calling the shots when it comes to GMO policy.

To learn more about I-522, visit: http://www.labelitwa.org/

To learn more about HB 1407, visit: http://apps.leg.wa.gov

Sources for this article include:

Label It Wa

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039078_Washington_state_GMO_labeling_campaign.html#ixzz2KmAN0Jqk

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Coffee is currently in the crosshairs of a lot of scientists as they have come to realize that coffee, particularly coffee grounds, contains a lot of antioxidants that could be harnessed and placed into supplements. It is estimated that about 20 million tons of coffee grounds are used in a year as millions of people consume many cups of coffee daily. This beverage is said to be very rich in nutrients and even after coffee grounds have been used, they retain a big amount of the nutrients found in coffee. This is why scientists, as reported in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, are trying to come up with a machine that could help them use coffee grounds in supplements.

Benefits of coffee consumption
There have been studies that showed that moderate coffee drinking actually has a lot of benefits. In the past, a lot of medical experts say that coffee drinking actually increases a person’s chances of suffering from diabetes, ulcers, or any other ailment. One study that was published back in April 2012 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition confirmed that moderate coffee drinking may actually help reduce a person’s risk of developing Diabetes Mellitus TypeII. The more cups a person drinks over time, the more the body is able to fight the onset of this illness.

Other benefits of coffee consumption include decreasing the risk of suffering from Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, liver and kidney cancer, heart rhythm problems, and a lot more.

Coffee grounds should not be wasted
Coffee grounds contain a lot of antioxidants even when they have been used already. This is why a lot of gardeners have stocks on hand because they have seen how their gardens flourish when they have coffee grounds in their soil. It is not surprising that scientists are finding ways for these grounds not to be sent to the garbage bin, but instead, turned into something more beneficial for the body.

Coffee grounds are currently used as mulch, fertilizer, and a lot of other things. If the soil could make use of its goodness, scientists are saying that people could also make use of them. It is not surprising if in the coming years, there are already supplements that make use of the nutrients that are derived from the grounds. There are even chances that people could already get the health benefits from coffee even without having to drink coffee.

Coffee grounds other benefits
Coffee grounds have other uses too. They make great body scrubs, especially when mixed with olive oil and brown sugar. People see that their skin becomes a lot healthier and gives off a natural glow. The hair, if it needs a little boost, could also benefit from a coffee ground scrub.

Related Reading – Health Benefits of Coffee

Sources for this article include:

Home

Home

http://newhope360.com

About the author:
My name is Sandeep, and I’m a freelance writer and editor. I have previously worked in a content-based company at a managerial level, and now I am currently writing articles for www.quickeasyfit.com.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039052_coffee_grounds_supplements_antioxidants.html#ixzz2KgdcHUMp

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Ginger is one of Ayurveda’s favorite medicinal and tonic herbs, and it has emerged also as a culinary favorite lately. There has been considerable clinical testing by modern Western medicine that shows ginger’s anti-inflammatory effects.

Now, there’s been a small trial that points to ginger’s capacity for inhibiting and preventing cancer. The trial was performed on 20 subjects who were considered high risk for colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer is cancer of the colon or rectum. It is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer, and it is the second most lethal. The cancer industry asserts that early detection leads to possibly thwarting the death sentence.

They insist on screening often from age 50. Screening may include removed polyp biopsies or colonoscopies and CT Scans. Then comes the cut (surgery) and poison (chemotherapy). Chris Wark of Memphis, Tennessee was diagnosed with stage three colon cancer at the young age of 26.

He underwent surgery, but refused chemotherapy. A book literally laid on his doorstep led him into a strict raw vegan and juicing diet with supplements and herbs, which was modified a few months later by a local naturopath.

He’s in his mid-30s now, married with two kids, and still cancer free. He loves to post alternative cancer cure stories on his website – Chris beat cancer. (http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/)

That ginger cancer prevention trial
The pilot trial was conducted at Atlanta, Georgia’s Emory University. It was published in the National Institute of Health’s (NIH)PubMed as “Effects of Ginger Supplementation on Cell Cycle Biomarkers in the Normal-Appearing Colonic Mucosa: Results from a Pilot, Randomized, Controlled Trial.”

The usual division of placebo and test subjects divided the group of 20 individuals considered high risk for colorectal cancer into two groups of 10 each. This double blind study approach is a rather cruel hoax for the placebo subjects while using non-toxic medicines.

But they insist on this protocol and others that torture animals so they can accept it as evidence based research.

The 10 lucky subjects were given two grams of ginger a day for 28 days. State of the art diagnostic testing was utilized to observe various markers on all 20 subjects detrimental to cancer forming. They examined biopsies of rectal mucosa and epithelium (thin tissue layer) crypts (tiny pockets) from both groups.

After the 28 days, biopsy markers for those who were taking two grams of ginger daily were markedly better than the placebo group.

The researchers concluded: “… ginger may reduce proliferation in the normal-appearing colorectal epithelium and increase apoptosis [cancer cell death] and differentiation relative to proliferation … [to] support a larger study to further investigate these results.”

In other words, you can use ginger to help keep cancer away, especially colorectal cancer.

Suggestions for consuming ginger
You can purchase ginger capsules, or use ginger powder to make your own and/or sprinkle onto foods. Two grams doesn’t amount to much, especially if you use it for teas, beverages, or with food.

You can purchase ginger root from most health food stores. Ginger root is not among the top “dirty dozen” of most pesticide sprayed foods. So don’t worry if organic ginger root is not within your budget.

Peel the skin off ginger roots just before using them. If you juice with a masticating juicer, you can drop a couple inches of the root into your juicer along with other veggies and apples. It spices things up and supplies a large dose of cancer preventing ginger.

For ginger tea, it’s best to use the traditional method of covering the bottom of a pan with thin slices of peeled ginger root, bringing it to a boil then letting it simmer for a half-hour. Whatever you don’t drink can be stored in the fridge for a few days.

Here are some ginger food recipe suggestions: (http://www.vegangela.com/tag/ginger/), (http://allrecipes.com/recipe/ginger-veggie-stir-fry/)

Sources for this article include:

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/basic_info/facts.htm

http://www.vitasearch.com/get-clp-summary/40534

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23303903

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039058_colorectal_cancer_prevention_ginger.html#ixzz2KfvDCIdk

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

LAPD literally trying to KILL Dorner, not arrest him

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039061_Christopher_Dorner_LAPD_execution.html#ixzz2KfsucuuT

I’ve never seen a police force look as pathetic and weak as the LAPD does right now. The entire police force has been thrust into a state of complete terror by the actions of one police officer named Christopher Dorner who allegedly has gone on a cop-killing rampage. According to The Telegraph, “Around 50 LAPD officers and their families remain under protection at their homes amid fears Dorner would come out of hiding to target them…”

Question: do these other cops not know how to fire a gun themselves? Do they not have a shotgun at home for self defense? Can you imagine how pathetic and weak these people are to have fifty police families huddled in their homes, barricading their doors and windows, fearing for their lives because of one mortal man running around?

This is total proof that the LAPD has become a culture of pathetic weaklings who apparently have to cry for their mommas instead of manning up and packing heat. It’s not like there’s an entire terror cell of people armed with AK-47s coming after them. This is one friggin’ lone guy with a gun. This problem is not that difficult to deal with if you actually know how to handle a firearm.

But I suppose it’s some sort of new California political correctness now that even LAPD officers have no idea how to use a firearm to defend themselves. Wow, have the police officers in LA become sissified to the point of being paralyzed with fear? (And if so, why on earth are these people being paid to protect us, ironically, from bad guys with guns?)

LAPD randomly firing at anybody in a blind frenzy of wild incompetence
By the way, as part of the sissified, trigger-happy frenzy we’re all witnessing here, LAPD officers are just shooting up innocent people for no apparent reason. You don’t even have to resemble the suspect to be shot at, amazingly. As IBtimes.com is reporting:

LAPD officers mistakenly opened fire on Emma Hernandez, 71, and her daughter, Margie Carranza, 47, as they were sitting inside their blue Toyota Tacoma. The truck was riddled with bullets, Hernandez was shot twice in the back, and Carranza was injured by broken glass.

The LA Times reports:

Law enforcement sources told The Times that at least seven officers opened fire. On Friday, the street was pockmarked with bullet holes in cars, trees, garage doors and roofs. Residents said they wanted to know what happened. “How do you mistake two Hispanic women, one who is 71, for a large black male?” said Richard Goo, 62, who counted five bullet holes in the entryway to his house.

As the LAPD explains, the truck these women were driving “resembled” the truck of Christopher Dorner and therefore LAPD cops just flat-out OPENED FIRE on the vehicle without even identifying who was driving it! How did it “resemble” Dorner’s truck? Well, it was a truck! That sucker had four wheels and a bed for hauling stuff! Sheee-at!

As the attorney of one of the women driving the truck retorted, “The vehicle is a different color. The license plate doesn’t match. There’s nothing there for you to start shooting people. And even if they had the person in question… Mr. Dorner… you still have to give them an opportunity to get out. You can’t just start administering street justice.”

Oh, but you can if you’re LAPD! Every truck is a legitimate target, regardless of the color or the license plate number. After all, you can’t expect LA cops to pay attention to all those little details like vehicle color or the license plate number or the sex of the driver. I mean, who has time for all that? Heck, just aim and fire! It’s POLICE WORK for God’s sake! Whatever bad happens, they can just explain it all later and settle the lawsuits with taxpayer money, right?

The woman driving the truck, by the way, was shot in the back and nearly killed. She was given “an apology” by the LAPD. Something like this: “We’re really sorry, ma’am, that our officers are total morons who are just as likely to shoot and kill innocent citizens as they are to hit anyone actually resembling a suspect. But then again, you were driving a vehicle, and we were told the suspect was driving a vehicle, so you can see why we had to immediately open fire and SHOOT TO KILL YOU even before identifying who was behind the wheel. So you can’t really blame us. After all, we’re the police, and our bullets leave our guns with good intentions, regardless of what they actually hit.”

LAPD literally trying to KILL Dorner, not arrest him
See the photo of the actual pickup truck on the right. Notice how the bullets were aimed in the “shoot to kill” zone rather than the “shoot to stop the vehicle” zones? They weren’t shooting out the tires here, folks: they were aiming for skulls.

Forget about an arrest: This is an execution effort under way. I can’t help but think there’s got to be a lot of truth to the rumor that Dorner knows too much and could really embarrass LAPD if he is allowed to talk to the press. This manhunt has the urgency of a political execution squad, not an arrest of a murderer. I’m not defending the guy’s actions here, but let’s be honest about this: since when did the LAPD care so much about a murderer on the loose?

Unfortunately for us all, LAPD officers have proven themselves to be trigger-happy morons, and innocent LA citizens are already being caught in the crossfire. It’s getting so bad that black men in LA are wearing “Don’t Shoot Me” T-shirts in the hopes that LAPD cops will hold their fire. This clever ploy will fail, of course, since half the LAPD officers can’t read to begin with. Or they might see the T-shirt at an angle where the word “Don’t” is obscured and only see the words “Shoot Me” in which case they will eagerly comply.

This is getting so bad I’m actually starting to become an advocate of gun control… for the POLICE! Thank goodness these cops don’t carry full-auto weapons like the 7,000 assault rifles DHS has recently ordered, or those women in the pickup truck would be little more than blood stains on the pavement by now. I think we should all lobby Sen. Feinstein to redirect her gun control bill at the LAPD and make them “turn ’em all in” until they can prove they will only shoot at the bad guys instead of random innocent civilians.

Imagine one million armed citizens taking a stand in California
By the way, the bigger story here is that the LAPD has apparently become such a pathetic group of trigger-happy cowards that if an actual shooting war ever broke out between the LAPD and trained, responsible citizens defending justice and liberty, the entire war would be over in five minutes. The citizens could just stand back and watch the LAPD shoot each other to pieces in a mad, chaotic frenzy of flying lead aimed in no particular direction.

I’m almost expecting the LAPD to run around randomly firing their pistols in the air at this point, hoping that one of the bullets might magically strike Dorner in the head on the way back down. It’s no more insane than the department’s currently policy of shooting pickup trucks to pieces in the hopes that maybe, possibly, by some miracle Christopher Dorner might be discovered at the wheel.

I’ve got it! That’s the solution! Simply order the LAPD to shoot at all pickup trucks and kill their drivers until Dorner is found dead. If that doesn’t work, they can expand the mandate to shoot at all sedans, and then motorcycles, and then pedestrians, too… why not? It’s all about “keeping the streets safe at any cost,” right? There’s a cop killer on the loose! To Hell with public safety!

Ever better idea: Why not have the LAPD just drop a nuclear bomb on the city from one of their helicopters just to be sure. After the mushroom cloud clears, they can explain to the remaining news crews that “even if ONE life can be saved by nuking Los Angeles, we have an obligation to try!” (This, by the way, is the same logic Obama offered for nationwide gun confiscation in the aftermath of Sandy Hook.)

After all, there’s a cop killer on the loose, so all logic be damned! Forget about public safety; toss that baby overboard and reload, dammit! Fire! Fire! Fire! And then see if you might have possibly hit Dorner. If not, reload and repeat as often as necessary until the desired corpse appears.

Go LAPD!

(For the record, this article is obviously satire. Many LAPD officers are wonderful men and women who operate with a high degree of professionalism. If you are one of those people reading this, please maim the other idiots on the force and get them off the streets before they end up killing innocent citizens and making you all look like a very real danger to public safety.)

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Planned economic destruction continues in California as water purification company denied permit to sell lifesaving product

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039045_water_purification_iodine_California.html#ixzz2KbLc8tuO

Have you ever heard of a product called Polar Pure Water Disinfectant? If the state of California and the Drug Enforcement Administration have their way, you may never hear of it again.

First, a little history.

According to the company’s website, the product was developed in the late 1970s by Bob Wallace, the founder, as he sought “an effective form of water treatment to use during a climb of Popocatapetl Volcano in Mexico.” After doing a bit of research, Wallace came upon an article by a pair of physicians – Frederick Kahn and Barbara Visscher – both of whom became infected with giardia on a climb near Los Angeles, Calif. Writing in Backpacker Magazine. the M.D.s recommended treating water with iodine to prevent similar infections.

Realizing that the risks of water-borne pathogens was very high in Mexico, Wallace decided to give the iodine a try; he made his climb and returned home without becoming sick.

The results inspired him to “create a product that would allow others to easily disinfect their water no matter where they were,” said the company website. So Wallace began working on a formula after thoroughly researching the information Kahn and Visscher had published, as well as other sources. The result was Polar Pure Water Disinfectant.

What started out as a good idea…

Originally, the company said it intended its product to be used primarily by backpackers but as time passed, others began using it to treat their water when they traveled to foreign countries, during survival training in the military and, most recently, “as an important and essential addition to emergency preparedness kits.”

Per the company’s website:

Each bottle of Polar Pure contains a small amount of crystalline iodine. When water is added to the bottle, a saturated solution of iodine is created and used to disinfect a quart/liter bottle of water. When used as directed, the Polar Pure solution kills not only giardia but viruses and bacteria as well. An economical, effective and unique product, one small bottle of Polar Pure is capable of treating up to 2000 quarts of water.

Enter the nanny state, an inflexible leviathan whose one-size-fits-all regulatory approach is, by design, simply incapable of distinguishing good and bad behavior.

Iodine, you see, is used by producers of methamphetamine, so the DEA reclassified it as a “controlled substance,” heavily regulating its use. And that decision effectively put Polar Pure out of business.

“The DEA and the State of CA implemented stricter regulations for iodine as well as many other products in an attempt to control possible diversion for illicit use,” the company said in a lengthy post last year explaining why they are no longer able to manufacture and sell their product. “While individuals still find an illicit way around the regulations to continue to manufacture meth, we are unable to purchase iodine for the legitimate purpose of manufacturing Polar Pure.”

On its website, the company chronicled its painful odyssey through the regulatory appeal process until the end of August, when owners of the small, family-run business hit their final roadblock.

‘Most out of control federal agency’

“We met yesterday in Sacramento, CA with Richard Lopes, Assistant Director, Department of Justice, CA, to discuss our product, Polar Pure, and the current issues that we have been trying to solve in order to get back in business,” said an Aug. 31, 2012 post. “We met with Mr. Lopes for about an hour in an effort to help him to understand the effectiveness and importance of Polar Pure as a choice for water disinfection. We discussed the history of our small family company, Polar Equipment, Inc., and how Polar Pure works to disinfect water. In addition, we explained how the current state and federal regulations have, negatively impacted the availability of Polar Pure and, subsequently, your inability to purchase an important and effective water treatment product.”

Nothing happened. To date, the company remains unable to sell its product.

That’s because, according to Stephen Downing, a former Los Angeles Police Department deputy chief and a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, the DEA is one of the most out-of-control federal agencies because it receives so little oversight.

“Within the controlled substances act, the DEA is given authority over chemicals as they come up,” he told Reason magazine in May. “To make it easy for federal enforcement people to so called, do their job and make their quotas and have their show-and-tells, they pass these regulations that impact innocent people.”

That includes 88-year-old Bob Wallace’s business.

Sources:

http://www.polarequipment.com/purchase.htm

http://www.mercurynews.com/saratoga/ci_19385037

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039045_water_purification_iodine_California.html#ixzz2KbLJB2Y5

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Argentina’s regime leader Kirchner freezes food prices, pushes country toward food shortages and riots

A few days ago, Argentina’s populist female president Cristina Kirchner ordered a price freeze on food products. This price freeze was levied against the largest food retailers in the country, and it is just the latest example of utterly insane economic policies made by populist national leaders who inevitably end up causing massive suffering and economic damage to the nations they claim to lead.

In case you’re not familiar with Kirchner, this woman is a mafia-style criminal, a populist political hustler who has, for years, fabricated economic data to claim Argentina has low inflation. (In truth, the inflation rate there is over 25%.) She has been caught using government-created money to pay off political bribes. She has been slapped on the wrist by the IMF for falsifying economic data, and now she is about to thrust her country into nationwide food shortages that may very well be followed by riots.

The people of Argentina deserve better than Kirchner. Argentinians are, by and large, extremely friendly and capable people, yet they have suffered under the most absurd dictatorial rulers for at least a generation, possibly longer. Kirchner is just the latest in a long line of thuggish betrayers of the people who elected her.

“Cristina Kirchner’s Argentina illustrates an alarming trend. Her government has expropriated major foreign investors, falsified statistics, destroyed central bank independence , used the nation’s currency reserves for political payoffs, and faces default,” writes Paul Roderick Gregory at Forbes.com

Welcome to the land of populist governments led by charismatic people who have no clue whatever how economies work. These national leaders are a disgrace to humanity, and nations like Argentina would be far better served if they through Kirchner in prison rather than listening to any more of her delusional economic demands.

For starters, the price freeze means that food importers will halt most imports because they would lose money by selling their food at the prices ordered by the government. So the price freeze results in immediate food shortages.

But people still need food, obviously, so they begin to seek out black market sources of food sold at actual market prices. This causes a mass diversion of purchasing behavior away from the grocery stores to “food smugglers” who inevitably create complex systems of corruption and criminality in order to deliver the products that people want.

Think of this as “food prohibition.” Any time a government enacts prohibition of something the people really want, it inevitably creates a criminal black market, complete with payoffs and violence. The Kirchner regime can then point to these black market operations and blame them for all the results of Kirchner’s own failed economic policies. Whatever goes wrong in Argentina, she will blame it on “the black market gangs” that have defied her insane government dictates. (If this sounds familiar, it’s because in the USA, Obama blames all his failures on “terrorists.”)

Insane tyrants seek power at any cost
With tyrants like Kirchner, it’s always about staying in power at any cost to society. No matter how many people must suffer, starve or be imprisoned, Kirchner is going to shore up her own power, even if it means destroying the very country she claims to be serving.

Right now, she’s also attacking Argentina’s largest newspaper conglomerate, Grupo Clarin SA, by outlawing grocery store advertising in the newspapers! This move is wholly designed to bankrupt the newspaper as punishment for the publishing of accurate inflation numbers that Kirchner has now cursed upon Argentina.

And this is how it goes, you see: Much like as we see with Obama in the USA, Kirchner is willing to destroy her own nation’s economy as long as she terminates a few political opponents along the way. With tyrants like Kirchner — and everyone else who seeks total domination over the population — it’s an endless game of destruction, and much like in the USA, everybody pays the price for the arrogance and shamelessness of the top political leader.

Argentina today, America tomorrow
If you’re wondering what all this has to do with you, listen up: Argentina is smaller reflection of what’s happening on a much larger scale globally. Everywhere around the world, governments are lying to the People about unemployment numbers, inflation numbers and national debts. Just like in Argentina, top political leaders routinely use their power to crush their political opponents, no matter what the cost to society. And just like with Kirchner, political tyrants everywhere will do absolutely anything to stay in power, even if it means announcing government mandates to be enforced at gunpoint.

Kirchner, like many other dictatorial tyrants throughout history, is an egomaniacal murdering criminal who is best dealt with through the use of a short rope and a tall tree. The best message Kirchner could possibly announce to her countrymen at this point would be the message that is broadcast by having a corrupt, criminal regime ex-tyrant swinging in the breeze without a pulse. Only then will the hard-working people of Argentina get what they truly deserve: SOMEONE ELSE other than Kirchner at the helm.

Let it be known that the day the Kirchner regime is removed from power — and this evil woman is marched through the streets to face the people whose lives she has ruined — will be a day of great celebration for liberty and justice around the world. To all those in Argentina who are right now fighting against the criminal regime of Kirchner, let it be known that there are many of us here in the USA who are praying and cheering for your victory against tyranny.

May you achieve victory and rid yourself of the putrid parasite known as Kirchner.

Sources for this story include:
Argentinians protest against their government, corruption and crime
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/09/argentinians-protest-corr…

The Kirchner couple government “is corroded by corruption”
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/10/12/the-kirchner-couple-government-is…

Corruption All-Stars

Corruption All-Stars

The IMF Has Put Argentina On The Road To The Worst Punishment It Can Possibly Give
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-imf-has-censures-argentina-2013-2

Days After Freezing Prices, Argentina Bans All Advertising
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02-09/after-freezing-prices-argent…

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039030_Argentina_Cristina_Kirchner_price_freeze.html#ixzz2KbGmOjca

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Fruits are loaded with healthy antioxidants, vitamins and minerals, which is why eating them in moderation is fine for healthy people. However, many benefit by restricting their fruit intake.

Fructose, a simple sugar found in fruit, is preferentially metabolized to fat in your liver, and eating large amounts has been linked to negative metabolic and endocrine effects. So eating very large amounts – or worse, nothing but fruit– can logically increase your risk of a number of health conditions, from insulin and leptin resistance to cancer.

For example, research has shown that pancreatic tumor cells use fructose, specifically, to divide and proliferate, thus speeding up the growth and spread of the cancer.

As a general health rule, I recommend limiting your total fructose consumption to about 25 grams per day on average, and that includes fructose from fruit. However, if you have insulin resistance, heart disease, cancer or high blood pressure, you may want to cut it down to 15 grams or less.

Kutcher Lands in Hospital After Adopting All-Fruit Diet

Actor Ashton Kutcher recently disclosed health issues brought on by following an all-fruit diet,1 adopted in preparation to play the character of Steve Jobs in the upcoming film “Jobs,” due out April 19.

Jobs had adopted an all-fruit diet in his younger days, and even the brand he co-founded – Apple – was a nod to his dietary obsession. Kutcher recently told USA Today:2

“First of all, the fruitarian diet can lead to like severe issues. I went to the hospital like two days before we started shooting the movie. I was like doubled over in pain. My pancreas levels were completely out of whack. It was really terrifying … considering everything.”

The “everything” is likely a reference to pancreatic cancer – the disease that killed Steve Jobs on October 5, 2011, at the age of 56. Even though Jobs consumed a fruitarian diet years before he contracted his pancreatic cancer, there could be some relationship.

Why Large Amounts of Fruit May Not Be Healthy

While people are becoming increasingly aware of the connection between excessive fructose consumption and obesity and chronic disease, many forget that fruit is a source of fructose as well. Many tend to believe that as long as fruit is natural and raw they can have unlimited quantities without experiencing any adverse metabolic effects.

Eliminating processed foods and soda – which are loaded with high fructose corn syrup – and replacing it with an all-fruit diet is likely not going to improve your health. As Marisa Moore, registered dietician and spokeswoman for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics told CNN Health:3

“When you only eat fruit, you’re excluding a lot of valuable nutrients from your diet. Protein is one of the main ones that comes to mind… Protein acts like a building block for your muscles and skin and organs. The same goes for fats. Although they often get demonized, fats play an important role in our hormone levels and brain function.”

It’s important to consider ALL sources of fructose, and to try to limit your total consumption if you want to optimize your health. Granted, fruits contain beneficial dietary fibers, antioxidants, vitamins and minerals, which is why they’re an important part of a healthy diet – as long as they’re eaten in moderation. I believe most people would benefit by replacing the fruit with 50-70 percent of their calories from healthy fat. You also need moderate amounts of high quality protein.

An all-fruit diet is essentially an all-fructose diet, and this is bound to spell disaster for your health, at least long-term. Studies have shown that fructose can induce:

Impaired glucose tolerance, insulin resistance, and diabetes

Elevated triglycerides

Abdominal obesity

Leptin resistance

Inflammation and oxidative stress

Endothelial dysfunction

Microvascular disease

Hyperuricemia

Renal (kidney) damage

Fatty liver disease

High blood pressure

Metabolic syndrome

The Fructose Pancreatic Cancer Connection

Pancreatic cancer is one of the faster spreading cancers; only about four percent of patients can expect to survive five years after their diagnosis. Each year, about 44,000 new cases are diagnosed in the U.S., and 37,000 people die of the disease. Cancer of the pancreas has a terrible prognosis–half of all patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer die within 10 months of the diagnosis; half of those in whom it has metastasized die within six months.

Your pancreas contains two types of glands: exocrine glands that produce enzymes that break down fats and proteins, and endocrine glands that make hormones like insulin that regulate sugar in your blood.

Steve Jobs died of tumors originating in the endocrine glands, which are among the rarer forms of pancreatic cancer. His cancer was detected during an abdominal scan in October 2003, as Fortune magazine reported in a 2008 cover story.4 He reportedly spent nine months on “alternative therapies,” including what Fortune called “a special diet,” although there was no mention of what type of diet this might have been. In 2004, after the cancer had spread, Jobs opted for surgery. Unfortunately, it did not cure him.

Five years later, he underwent an experimental procedure called peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT), which involves delivering radiation to tumor cells by attaching one of two radioactive isotopes to a drug that mimics somatostatin, the hormone that regulates the entire endocrine system and the secretion of other hormones. This treatment also failed. After having a liver transplant, Jobs succumbed to the cancer in 2011.

Interestingly enough, research published in 20105 suggests fructose may have a particularly significant impact on pancreatic cancer.

Insulin production is one of your pancreas’ main functions, used by your body to process blood sugar, and, in the laboratory, insulin promotes the growth of pancreatic cancer cells. However, there’s more to it than that. The research in question showed that the way the different sugars are metabolized (using different metabolic pathways) is of MAJOR consequence when it comes to feeding pancreatic cancer cells and making them proliferate. According to the authors:

“Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different… These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation.”

The study confirms the old adage that sugar feeds cancer – a finding that Dr. Warburg received a Nobel Prize for over 90 years ago. Tumor cells do thrive on glucose and do not possess the metabolic machinery to burn fat. However, the cells used fructose for cell division, speeding up the growth and spread of the cancer. If this difference isn’t of major consequence, then I don’t know what is. Whether you’re simply interested in preventing cancer, or have cancer and want to live longer, you ignore these facts at your own risk.

There’s reasonable cause to suspect that if your body maintains high levels of insulin, you increase the pancreatic cancer’s ability to survive and grow. In fact, researchers now believe that up to a third of all types of cancers may be caused by diet and lifestyle. So if you want to prevent cancer, or want to treat cancer, it is imperative that you keep your insulin levels as low as possible.

Should You Eliminate Fruit from Your Diet?

Short answer, no, it wouldn’t be wise to eliminate fruit entirely. Fruit is definitely a source of fructose, and one that can harm your health if you eat it in vast quantities, but eating small amounts of whole fruits is fine if you are healthy.

In vegetables and fruits, the fructose is mixed in with fiber, vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and beneficial phytonutrients, all of which help moderate the negative metabolic effects. However, if you suffer with any fructose-related health issues, such as insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, heart disease, obesity or cancer, you would be wise to limit your total fructose consumption to 15 grams of fructose per day. This includes fructose from ALL sources, including whole fruit.

If you are not insulin resistant, you may increase this to 25 grams of total fructose per day on average.

If you received your fructose only from vegetables and fruits (where it originates) as most people did a century ago, you’d consume about 15 grams per day. Today the average is 73 grams per day which is nearly 500 percent higher a dose and our bodies simply can’t tolerate that type of biochemical abuse. So please, carefully add your fruits based on the following table to keep your total fructose below 15-25 grams per day, depending on your current health status.

Fruit

Serving Size

Grams of Fructose

Limes

1 medium

0

Lemons

1 medium

0.6

Cranberries

1 cup

0.7

Passion fruit

1 medium

0.9

Prune

1 medium

1.2

Guava

2 medium

2.2

Date (Deglet Noor style)

1 medium

2.6

Cantaloupe

1/8 of med. melon

2.8

Raspberries

1 cup

3.0

Clementine

1 medium

3.4

Kiwifruit

1 medium

3.4

Blackberries

1 cup

3.5

Star fruit

1 medium

3.6

Cherries, sweet

10

3.8

Strawberries

1 cup

3.8

Cherries, sour

1 cup

4.0

Pineapple

1 slice (3.5″ x .75″)

4.0

Grapefruit, pink or red

1/2 medium

4.3

Fruit

Serving Size

Grams of Fructose

Boysenberries

1 cup

4.6

Tangerine/mandarin orange

1 medium

4.8

Nectarine

1 medium

5.4

Peach

1 medium

5.9

Orange (navel)

1 medium

6.1

Papaya

1/2 medium

6.3

Honeydew

1/8 of med. melon

6.7

Banana

1 medium

7.1

Blueberries

1 cup

7.4

Date (Medjool)

1 medium

7.7

Apple (composite)

1 medium

9.5

Persimmon

1 medium

10.6

Watermelon

1/16 med. melon

11.3

Pear

1 medium

11.8

Raisins

1/4 cup

12.3

Grapes, seedless (green or red)

1 cup

12.4

Mango

1/2 medium

16.2

Apricots, dried

1 cup

16.4

Figs, dried

1 cup

23.0

How to Determine Your Individual Susceptibility to Fructose Damage

As already stated, those who need to be careful about their fruit intake are people with high insulin levels. You can measure your fasting insulin level to find out for sure, but if you have any of the following problems it is highly likely you have insulin resistance syndrome:
•Overweight
•High Cholesterol
•High Blood Pressure
•Diabetes
•Yeast Infections

Besides that, you can also use your uric acid levels as a marker for your susceptibility to fructose damage, as some people may be able to process fructose more efficiently than others. The higher your uric acid, the more sensitive you are to the effects of fructose. The safest range of uric acid appears to be between 3 and 5.5 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl), and there appears to be a steady relationship between uric acid levels and blood pressure and cardiovascular risk, even down to the range of 3 to 4 mg/dl.

According to Dr. Richard Johnson, the ideal uric acid level is probably around 4 mg/dl for men and 3.5 mg/dl for women.

If you are one of those who believes that fruit is healthy no matter how much you eat, I would strongly encourage you to have your uric acid level checked to find out how sensitive you are to fructose. Eat the amount of fruit you feel is right for you for a few weeks and then check your uric acid level and see if your levels are healthy. If they are elevated you might try reducing the fruit to recommended levels and rechecking your uric acid level. Many who are overweight likely have uric acid levels well above 5.5. Some may even be closer to 10 or above. Measuring your uric acid levels is a very practical way to determine just how strict you need to be when it comes to your fructose – and fruit — consumption.

Is there Such a Thing as an Ideal Diet for Everyone?

Nutritional requirements can vary wildly from one person to the next, which is why I’ve been a longtime proponent of eating in accordance with your nutritional type. For example, if you’re a protein type, fruits are generally not beneficial for you with the exception of coconut, which has a higher fat content that is beneficial for protein types. On the other hand, carbohydrate types tend to fare well with fruit and can safely consume moderate amounts. This is an important distinction, and everyone should try to eat primarily the specific fruits that are best for their unique biochemistry.

However, many find nutritional typing to be too complex. So to simplify matters, while still allowing for a fully personalized program, I recently updated and revised my Nutritional Plan. It consists of three levels, from beginners to advanced, and covers the basic requirements of a healthy diet.

Keep in mind that emerging evidence suggests your diet should be at least half healthy fat, and possibly as high as 70 percent. My personal diet is about 60-70 percent healthy fat, and both Paul Jaminet, PhD., author of Perfect Health Diet, and Dr. Ron Rosedale, M.D., an expert on treating diabetes through diet, agree that the ideal diet includes somewhere between 50-70 percent fat. It’s important to understand that your body requires saturated fats from animal and vegetable sources (such as meat, dairy, certain oils, and tropical plants like coconut) for optimal functioning.

When you take this into account, it’s easy to see that an all-fruit diet could wreak absolute havoc with your health.

Keep in mind that frequent hunger may be a major clue that you’re not eating correctly. Not only is it an indication that you’re consuming the wrong types of food, but it’s also a sign that you’re likely consuming them in lopsided ratios for your individual biochemistry. Fat is far more satiating than carbs, so if you have cut down on carbs and feel ravenous, remember this is a sign that you haven’t replaced them with sufficient amounts of fat. You do want to make sure you’re adding the correct types of fat though, such as:

Olives and Olive oil

Coconuts and coconut oil

Butter made from raw grass-fed organic milk

Raw nuts, such as, almonds or pecans

Organic pastured egg yolks

Avocados

Grass-fed meats

Palm oil

Unheated organic nut oils

If You Seek Optimal Health, Pay Careful Attention to Your Insulin Levels

Three lifestyle issues keep popping up on the radar when you look at what’s contributing to pancreatic cancer: sugar intake, lack of exercise, and vitamin D deficiency. Obesity and physical inactivity makes your body less sensitive to the glucose-lowering effects of insulin. Diminished sensitivity to insulin leads to higher blood levels of insulin, which in turn can increase your risk of pancreatic cancer.

It’s a no-brainer that an all-fruit diet can seriously jeopardize your insulin sensitivity, thereby raising your risk of any number of health problems, including pancreatic problems. It’s simply FAR too much fructose for most people. I personally developed diabetes when I tried the “Eat Right for Your Blood Type” diet, which included eating large amounts of fruit for breakfast. So please, be careful of any diet that seems to extreme, and remember the human body NEEDS healthful fats and high quality protein for proper functioning.

Remember to listen to your body over the long term to guide you as to the best food selections. If your energy level deceases, you have a difficult time maintaining your ideal weight or are hungry all the time, there is a good chance that you have yet to find the optimal fuel for your body. As for fruits, use caution if you have any kind of insulin related health issues, as discussed above, and limit your total fructose consumption to 15-25 grams of fructose per day, depending on your health status.
If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.