Silver Nanoparticles Beat Chemo and Make Anti-Cancer Drugs More Effective
by natural health author Tony M. Isaacs (The Silver Edge) Now, exciting new clinical research published in the journal Nanomedicine has demonstrated that adding silver nanoparticles to cancer drugs that aren’t working well against certain cancers often boosts the effectiveness of the cancer drugs, helping them stop the spread of cancer. See also:
What’s even more surprising is that the researchers discovered silver alone worked to kill the drug-resistant cancer cells better thanor equal to the chemo drugs in most instances . In other words, the silver didn’t need to be combined anti-cancer drugs in order to work against drug-resistant cancer cells! Read More.
by natural health author Tony M. Isaacs
(The Silver Edge) Now, exciting new clinical research published in the journal Nanomedicine has demonstrated that adding silver nanoparticles to cancer drugs that aren’t working well against certain cancers often boosts the effectiveness of the cancer drugs, helping them stop the spread of cancer.
Is NanoSilver the Answer to Ovarian Cancer?
by Tony M. Isaacs
Could nanoparticle silver be an important answer in combatting deadly ovarian cancer? See also:
According to a peer-reviewed clinical study published in the prestigious International Journal of Molecular Science, that answer appears to be a resounding yes!
This laboratory test-tube clinical study found that not only is nanoparticle silver very effective against ovarian cancer cells in general, it’s even more effective against ovarian cancer stem cells — the very cells that make ovarian cancer and other cancers so resistant to mainstream treatments.
Here’s what I’ve learned from the study… Read More.
Could nanoparticle silver be an important answer in combatting deadly ovarian cancer?
The Health Benefits and Potential Dangers of Vegetarianism
by Tony Isaacs
author of Cancer's Natural Enemy
Author’s note: In this opening installment of a four-part series on the benefits and potential dangers of vegetarianism, we will examine “An Introduction to Vegetarianism” and “The Benefits of a Vegetarian Diet”. Subsequent installments will cover “Potential Dangers of Vegetarian Diets”, “The Role of Meat in the Early Development of Humans”, “The Benefits of Consuming Meat and Dairy Products”, “The Wishful Science and Myths about Vegetarianism/Veganism”, and “Common Traits of the World's Longest-Lived and Healthiest Peoples”
(The Best Years in Life) There is ample evidence that people who eat plenty of vegetables and fruits and little or no meat have several health advantages. However, the unpleasant truth for some vegetarians and vegans is that excluding meat and dairy can have dangerous health consequences unless people plan their diets carefully and supplement carefully. Such consequences include the possibility of long-term health issues as well as unhealthy changes in DNA which can be passed down to future generations. Read More.
The “Deadly Breast Cancer Gene” Is A Myth, Lancet Study Confirms
(GreenMedInfo) A powerful new Lancet study reveals that the so-called breast cancer susceptibility genes -- BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 -- do not, in fact, cause breast cancer. Jolie's prophylactic mastectomy, for instance, was for naught.
"The study, published in The Lancet Oncology, found 12% of 2,733 women aged 18 to 40 treated for breast cancer at 127 hospitals across the UK between 2000 and 2008 had a BRCA mutation.
The women's medical records were tracked for up to 10 years.
"During this time, 651 of the women died from breast cancer, and those with the BRCA mutation were equally likely to have survived at the two-, five- and 10-year mark as those without the genetic mutation.
This was not affected by the women's body mass index or ethnicity.
About a third of those with the BRCA mutation had a double mastectomy to remove both breasts after being diagnosed with cancer. This surgery did not appear to improve their chances of survival at the 10-year mark.”
“Dishonest” and “disgraceful” – Monsanto attempts to gain backdoor entry for GE foods
By Colin Todhunter, National Health Federation
January 9, 2018
Monsanto Takes on Organic In Ultimate Label Deception
At the recent Codex meeting in Berlin, there was an attempt to define genetically engineered (GE) food ingredients as ‘biofortified’ and therefore mislead consumers. This contravened the original Codex mandate for defining biofortification. That definition is based on improving the nutritional quality of food crops through conventional plant breeding (not genetic engineering) with the aim of making the nutrients bioavailable after digestion. The attempt was thwarted thanks to various interventions, not least by the National Health Federation (NHF), a prominent health-freedom international non-governmental organization and the only health-freedom INGO represented at Codex. But the battle is far from over.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission’s Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) convened in Berlin during early December and drafts provisions on nutritional aspects for all foods. It also develops international guidelines and standards for foods for special dietary uses that will be used to facilitate standardized world trade.
Based upon previous meetings, the initial intention of the Committee was to craft a definition for biofortification that could then be used uniformly around the World. Biofortification originally referred to increasing certain vitamin and mineral content of basic food crops by way of cross-breeding, not genetic engineering, for example by increasing the vitamin or iron content of sweet potatoes so that malnourished populations would receive better nutrition.
However, according to president of the NHF, Scott Tips, Monsanto wants to redefine the definition to include GE ‘biofortified’ foods and it has seemingly influenced Codex delegates in that direction. Tips says, “I am sure that Monsanto would be thrilled to be able to market its synthetic products under a name that began with the word ‘bio’.”
This year’s CCNFSDU meeting witnessed a lively debate about biofortification. At the 2016 CCNFSDU meeting, chairwoman Pia Noble (married to a former Bayer executive) had opined that the definition should be as broad as possible and that recombinant technology should be included. By the 2017 meeting, the proposed definition had morphed to include GE foods.
Deceptive marketing par excellence
The EU has raised a valid objection that “biofortification” would cause confusion in many European countries due to the widespread use of the word “bio” being synonymous with “organic.” Countries within the EU have been very vocal and support this position, arguing that the definition needs to be restrictive, not broad.
Including GE foods within any definition of biofortification risks consumer confusion as to whether they are purchasing organic products or something else entirely. “Monsanto seeks to cash in on the organic market with the loaded word ‘bio’,” argues Scott Tips.
At the Codex meeting in Berlin, Tips addressed the 300 delegates in the room. “Although NHF was an early supporter of biofortification, we have since come to see that the concept is in the process of being hijacked and converted from something good into something bad,” explained Tips.
He added that if Codex is to allow any method of production and any source to be part of the biofortification definition, it would be engaging in marketing deception of the worst sort.
As Steven Druker has shown in his book Altered Genes, Twisted Truths, GE foods should not even be on the commercial market, given the deceptions and bypassing of procedures that put them there in the first place. But now that they are on the market, most consumers want GE foods labelled. In the United States alone, some 90% of consumers want such labelling. The definition being proposed seeks to disguise GE foods under the term “biofortification.”
“That is dishonest. It is disgraceful, and for all of those sincerely concerned with the credibility and transparency of Codex, you should absolutely and positively oppose this definition,” says Tips.
The NHF feels that this is simply a strategy to gain a backdoor entry into countries for GE foods that are unneeded and unwanted. In his address to the assembled delegates, Tips added, “It is a very sad state of affairs where we have come to the point where we must manipulate our natural foods to provide better nutrition all because we have engaged in very poor agricultural practices that have seen a 50% decline in the vitamins and minerals in our foods over the last 50 years. We will not remedy poor nutrition by engaging in deceptive marketing practices and sleight of hand with this definition.”
The delegates to various Codex committees tend to be national regulatory bureaucrats and representatives from large corporations, including agritech giants like Monsanto. These interests have undue influence within Codex. Over the years, although heavily outnumbered at meetings, Scott Tips and his colleagues at the NHF have been tireless in their efforts to roll back undue corporate influence at Codex. Thanks to NHF and others urging the committee to adopt a clear, non-misleading definition that excluded GE foods, no final decision was taken on the definition of biofortification.
It is now left to the committee to resolve the matter at next year’s meeting or even the one thereafter.
The National Health Federation
The National Health Federation is the only health-freedom organization accredited by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to participate at all Codex meetings. It actively shapes global policies for food, beverages, and nutritional supplements.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission is run by the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization. Its some 27 committees establish uniform food-safety standards and guidelines for its member countries and promote the unhindered international flow of food goods and nutritional supplements.
forum viewed 17,663,691 times
topics per page limited to: 20
average number of messages per page: 58
Copyright 1999 - 2018 www.curezone.org