Tom's Blog on Life and Livingness
It’s also an enormous black eye for Merck, whose activities the judge said consisted of “systematic and outrageous deception in conjunction with unethical business practices and litigation misconduct.”
I honestly find it incredible that ANYONE trusts them AT ALL let alone with injecting foreign matter into their children.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-merck-gilead-20160608-snap-story.html
One doctor’s thoughts on “the system”.
If you’re considering following the Medical Mafia’s protocol using chemotherapy, read this….
A German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic, Dr. Ulrich Abel has done a comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done. His conclusions should be read by anyone who is about to subject themselves to chemotherapy.
To make sure he had reviewed everything ever published on chemotherapy, Abel sent letters to over 350 medical centers around the world asking them to send him anything they had published on the subject. Abel researched thousands of articles: it is unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about chemotherapy than he.
The analysis took him several years, but the results are astounding: “Abel found that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy was “appalling” because there was simply no scientific evidence available anywhere that chemotherapy can “extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers.” Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely can improve the quality of life.
He describes chemotherapy as “a scientific wasteland” and states that at least 80 percent of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless, and is akin to the “emperor’s new clothes” – neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on chemotherapy even though there is no scientific evidence that it works!” – The Lancet (the most respected medical journal in the world)
CHEMOTHERAPY Thirteen drugs are used in chemotherapy and their consequent side effects (as listed in the drugs package inserts for physicians), which include: destruction of the immune system, leukopenia, hemorrhage, gonadal suppression, bone marrow depression, phlebosclerosis (hardening of the veins), severe cellulites, vesication(blistering), tissue necrosis(death), fever, chills, nausea, prolonged vomiting, partial or total hair loss, lethargy, disorientation, ataxis(inability to coordinate muscle movements), dysarthria( impaired speech), anorexia, entertitis, stomatitis, erythema, (morbid redness of the skin), anemia, liver failure, kidney failure, cancer, and death
For decades there has been a great deal of controversy within the medical community over what kind of medical treatment is most efficacious in treating cancer.
Latest findings reveal all conventional medical treatment for cancer is not helpful. The late Dr. Hardin B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics and Physiology at Berkeley, California, made a study lasting 25 years of the lifespan of cancer patients, and concluded that untreated patients do not die sooner than patients receiving orthodox treatment, (surgery, radiation and chemotherapy), and in many cases they lived longer. After almost 40 years as a cancer researcher, Dr. Jones found for example that survival in breast cancer is four times longer without conventional treatment. He stated, “People who refused treatment lived for an average of 12 and a half years.
Those who accepted other kinds of treatment lived on an average of only 3 years.” It is important to note that no refutations of Dr. Jones work have appeared, while on the other hand, his studies have been supported by other researchers, as a search of the Science Citation Index reveals.
Even the Journal of the American Medical Association took note of the phenomenon when, in its diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer by Dr. Maurice Fox, a biologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. On the basis of studies carried out at the Harvard School of Public health, Dr. Fox found, among other things, that: Those who refused medical procedures had a lower mortality rate than those who submitted.
Just a small reminder of who definitely does NOT have your best interests at heart.
In 2014, Sin Hang Lee, MD, former Associate Professor at Yale University and current Director of the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory and other researchers appeared before eight medical academic members of the Japanese government’s Advisory Council on the Alleged Adverse Reactions to HPV Vaccines, several top-ranking Health Ministry officials, medical doctors and journalists from the nation’s major newspapers and television networks. Dr. Lee and the other researchers presented evidence regarding the risks involved with HPV vaccines during a symposium, two press conferences and a government-sponsored public hearing. Dr. Lee reported to Japanese officials in attendance his findings of HPV DNA fragments in 16 unopened vials of Gardasil sent to Milford Medical Laboratory Inc. from nine countries and in the postmortem blood and spleen samples obtained at the autopsy of the 18-year-old New Zealand girl who died after Gardasil vaccination.
http://www.jeffereyjaxen.com/news/new-medical-journal-study-blows-lid-of-hpv-vaccine-fraud
I was cleaning up my email sent box and came across a post about the dangers of wired bras. I checked my book and found it was not in there. So here is a new chapter from my book:
Clothes
Wearing a Bra
Dr Anita Pepi writes:
In 1991, Harvard researchers showed that women who did not wear bras had a 60% lower rate of breast cancer than the women who wore bras. In 1995, Singer and Grismaijer studied 4600 women and found that the more hours per day that a bra is worn, the higher the rate of breast cancer. In 2000, two British breast surgeons released video thermography that demonstrated bras cause heating of the breasts. (A thermograph is an instrument that uses an infrared camera to reveal temperature variations on the surface of the body.)
In my clinical testing, the worst bras for one’s health contain metal underwires in them. As metal accumulates static electricity, it is like having a line of electrical charge running across the chest. This is a stressor to human bodies that are run by way of their own electrical flows. In addition, underwire bras reduce the lymphatic flow in the body more than regular bras do.
In case you are wearing a bra to prevent your breasts from drooping more as you age, there is research that shows that bras may actually increase sagging! More on that later…
Suggestions:
See if camisoles work for you.
Always be bra-free at home!
When you do wear bras, make sure they are wire-free. All major lines have them — Playtex, Haynes, Bali, Gap, etc. They usually have extra layers for support and work perfectly well. One comfortable and attractive wire-free bra is called the Genie Bra. Check it out!
In your breast interest…
And here’s the data Dr Pepi referred to:
Wearing a bra does more harm than good – it does nothing to reduce back pain and weakens the muscles that hold up the breasts, resulting in greater breast sagging, Jean-Denis Rouillon, a sports science expert from the University of Besançon, France, reported after a 15-year study.
Rouillon says that the main conclusion from the preliminary results of his “marathon experiment” is that the bra is a false necessity.
In an interview with France Info (radio), Professor Rouillon said:
“Medically, physiologically, anatomically – breasts gain no benefit from being denied gravity. On the contrary, they get saggier with a bra.”
Prof. Rouillon used a slide rule and a caliper (a device used to measure the distance between two opposite sides of an object) to carefully measure changes in breast features of hundreds of women over a 15-year period at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Besançon.
All his volunteers were between 18 and 35 years old. Rouillon emphasized that although his study spanned many years and included hundreds of women, he in no way claims his sample population is representative of the global population of women.
Rouillon found that women who never wore bras had nipples on average seven millimeters higher in relation to their shoulders each year than regular bra users.
From: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/259073.php
The Health Risks of Toxic Fibers and Fabrics
When we go clothes shopping, one issue we rarely consider is how toxic and harmful for our health might be the fabric. We often look for wrinkle-free, stain resistant and insect repellent fabrics that make our lives easier. What we don’t consider is that those fabrics are a source of toxins that adversely affect our health and the environment. The sad truth is that the origin and manufacturing of most clothing contribute to the toxic load on our body and the environment.
There are four sources of toxins in our clothes.
The material from which synthetic fabric is manufactured
The chemicals applied to natural fabric crops as they are grown
The chemicals used during the manufacturing process to treat the material (cleaning, softening, dying and bleaching)
The chemicals used to deliver the wrinkle-free, stain resistant and insect repellent finished product
Most, if not all, these chemicals remain after the manufacturing process, becoming a toxin absorbed by the skin into the body.
Through research, health hazards such as cancer, hormonal dysfunction, immunity harm and behavioral problems have been linked with the wearing of toxic laden fabrics and fibers.
Take a look at your clothing labels and you will observe most of them contain materials such as polyester, acrylic, nylon and acetate. These synthetic fabrics manufactured with chemicals.
Unfortunately only a small part of our clothing is produced with natural and eco-friendly fibers so is not harmful to wear. Even non-organic cotton is grown with highly toxic pesticides, increasing the negative effects on the environment and our body.
If you have have skin sensitivity or just want to reduce your toxic load and minimise your risk of health problem, you should avoid sports gear and yoga pants like the plague and constantly look for natural fibers such as organic cotton, wool, cashmere, hemp, linen or silk.
http://www.howtolivethehealthiestlife.com/
This is a good site showing several charts and a list of the top 100 foods for ORAC values. 10 of the top 20 are in my top bars and powders!
http://modernsurvivalblog.com/health/high-orac-value-antioxidant-foods-top-100/
The second sentence in the article is not correct. Cinnamon is outranked for ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity – how well a food source scavenges free radicals) by cloves and sumac bran but the rest of the article looks good.
This is why cinnamon features so strongly in my products.
As modern medicine rediscovers ancient superfoods, there is growing evidence that medicinal mushrooms are among the most powerful functional foods for both preventing and treating cancer. In fact, some anti-cancer mushrooms exhibit direct antiviral and tumor shrinking abilities. ALL of the above are in my top bars and powders, as well as 4 others!
https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/medicinal-mushrooms-cancer/
