According To A Recent Study, Sunscreen Is The Actual Cause Of Cancer, Not The Sun

Mutant Cells

Most people believe the sun is what causes cancer. The truth is the problem is the sunscreen and not the sun. There are facts to back up this statement and using sunscreen is just not giving you the protection you believe. There are significantly better ways to protect yourself from the sun.

Numerous studies are revealing the truth: skin cancer is not caused by the sun. The sun is not evil and is not trying to harm you. In fact, it gives you the vitamin D your body needs to be healthy. A lot of the sunscreens available will block your production of vitamin D. They also contain toxic chemicals that have been linked to cancer. According to the Centers for Disease Control, putting on sunscreen has not prevented the rates for skin cancer from doubling during the last thirty years.

Scientists are blaming the rise in cancer on the sun and overlooking the most obvious reasons. The average sunscreen is made with chemicals that disrupt the hormones. This impacts hormones including estrogen and how they are able to perform within the body.

When you are exposed to these chemicals, you can be impacted by several different health issues. One of the main ingredients is OMC. The lowest dosage has been proven to kill mouse cells. This chemical can also be toxic when exposed to the sun.

The National Institute for Safety and Health has listed titanium dioxide as a carcinogen. Sunscreen still contains Oxybenzone despite the fact it is a proven hormone disruptor. That piece of information should make you want to throw your sunscreen into the trash right now.

Just think about how many years people spent time in the sun with nothing bad happening other than an occasional mild burn. The rates for cancer did not start increasing until the same time the market was flooded with sunscreen and everyone was told it was critical to use for their health.

The University of Manitoba, Canada revealed the chemicals in sunscreen showed a high rate of penetration. This means all of those dangerous chemicals are being absorbed right into the tissues in your body.

The Environmental Working Group conducted yet another study regarding sunscreen. This showed approximately fifty percent of the 500 brands of sunscreen most commonly used increased the speed malignant cells were able to grow. These are the cells responsible for skin cancer.

There are much better ways to protect yourself from the sun than using toxic sunscreens. You can cover your whole face with a hat with a wide brim. Wearing sunglasses and a swim shirt also helps and an umbrella is always a good idea. You can find all different kinds of safe and natural alternatives to sunscreen. It is important for you to remember from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. the sun is the most potent during the summer. You can still enjoy the sunshine, just do not overlook the importance of moderation.

Learn Your Constitution!


The purpose of our Constitution (as with all Constitutions) is to set forth law permanently governing and guiding government (the executive, legislature and judiciary) in order to remove all possibility of injustice and crime against (the) People at the hands of government (Common Law Crime of Tyranny).

Parliament and congress do not make ‘constitutions’ through any of their statutes because that would enable government to authorise it to do as it pleases whenever it wants and create a state of total parliamentary despotism over the population; quite the opposite of what a constitution is supposed to do!

So, first of all, you are wrong to imagine that any government-made statutes are “constitutional.”

In the case of the 1689 Bill of Rights—this firstly, illegally reaffirmed statutes premeditatedly introduced to deny the greater part of the people from selection to serve on a jury and thus their ability, right and duty to judge and annul enforcement of unjust laws; secondly, illegitimately denies monarchs their duty and regal authority to withhold enactment of statutes which they deem unjust or unconstitutional, de facto, seizing spurious sovereignty for parliament over the People and monarch; and thirdly, treasonously forces the monarchs to breach their Coronation Oath to uphold the Law of the Land, codes, charters and customs of the People—this rebellious, contumacious (stubbornly resistant to authority; wilfully obstinate) Bill of ‘Rights’ statute exemplifies how parliament makes repugnant and void statutes which intentionally oppress by breaching our Constitution.

Explanation is detailed within the essay,

Incidentally, Section III of the 1689 Bill of Rights upholds and acknowledges the validity and supremacy of the Great Charter and the previous “law of the land” Charters and Coronation Oaths sworn to by monarchs, as follows:

Bill of Rights: “III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.”

The Bill of Rights explicitly guarantees the supremacy, force and effect of the 1215 Great Charter Constitution. This assurance in fact annuls the Bill and all the renegade terms of the Bill’s insurgent instigators.

But we digresss… Regarding your e-mail, understanding how commoner citizens’ control of Common Law Trial by Jury is the only (peaceful) method known to mankind by which to hold government to the Principle of Equal Justice for All, quells misgovernment and protects the population is essential primary learning.


Article Thirty-Nine is paraphrased as follows: “No one may be punished or disadvantaged in any way except (i) according to the judgement of his peers or (ii) according to legem terræ (the law of the land of which Trial by Jury is the single legal method of trial).”

Not only does the Great Charter inscribe the common law of the land legem terræ—of which Trial by Jury is the only justice system—but it also specifies in particular, judicium parium, the judgement of peers; i.e., the Common Law Trial by Jury, as the means of settling causes.

In this one Article Thirty-Nine, Magna Carta effectively emplaces Trial by Jury twice, emphasising instalment of the people’s judgement of peers, the Common Law Trial by Jury, as the mode of trial: once naming “the judgement of the peers,” judicium parium, the Trial by Jury itself (which was central to the traditions of legem terræ) and a second time as “the common law of the land legem terræ,” of which Trial by Jury is the only method of trial.

NOTA BENE: The words, “…according to the judgement* of his peers” mean the jury sets the sentence.
*To this day, law books use the words judgement and sentence synonymously. See translation from Latin; also see Articles 20 & 21, page 153.

6. In addition to Article 39 asserting that punishments are set by the jurors, i.e., “according to the judgement/sentence of his peers,” further proof in Articles Twenty and Twenty-One of Magna Carta (below) makes it conclusive that juries, not the government (judge), set the sentence:

Article Twenty: “A freeman shall not be amerced (fined) for a small crime (delicto) but according to the degree of the crime; and for a great crime in proportion to the magnitude of it, but saving to him his contenement (the means of making a living); and after the same manner a merchant, saving to him his merchandise; and a villein shall be amerced after the same manner, saving to him his waynage (plough-tackle and cart), if he fall under our mercy; and none of the aforesaid amercements* shall be imposed (ponatur) but according to the assessment of a jury of reputable* men of the neighbourhood.”

*In the Great Charter, “amercement” is a fine; and “reputable” meant men who were not convicts, ill or lunatics. We know this from various sources of that era, including the following from the Mirror of Justices:

“Persons attainted of false judgements cannot be judges [note that the jurors were the judges of all aspects of the cause], nor infants, nor any under the age of twenty-one years, nor infected persons, nor idiots, nor madmen, nor deaf nor dumb, nor parties in the pleas, nor men excommunicated by the bishop, nor criminal persons.”
Mirror of Justices, pp. 59-60.

“Old men above three score and ten years, being continually sick, or being diseased at the time of the summons, or not dwelling in that country [locality], shall not be put in juries of petit assizes.”
See Ruffhead’s Statutes, St. 13, Edward I, ch. 38, 1285.

With the important characteristic inherent to profoundly cerebral constitutions, observe that Article Twenty of the Great Charter makes a point of stressing that punishments should be in proportion to the gravity of the crime.
See DD Essay EIS#14: “The Crime-Generating (Inherently Illegal) and Other Degenerate Properties of Bad Laws and Disproportionate Punishments.”

Article Twenty-One: “Earls and Barons shall not be amerced but by their peers (equals), and according to the degree of their crime.” In setting the sentence and formulating just punishments, the jurors are advised to bear in mind the degree of malice, and the gravity or effects of the crime, and any mitigating circumstances.

Fines were the most frequent punishments. Whereas fines under the common law observed by the Anglo-Saxon kings went to the victim or his or her surviving relatives, the government of Norman kings illegally seized upon fines as a source of income. If the amounts of fines had been left to be set by the king it would have represented an irresistible pecuniary temptation for him to impose oppressive amercements on people.

Similarly, if the king or his servants the justices were allowed to set sentences other than fines, they could be seduced by corrupt motives into threatening or imposing harsh sentences to achieve criminal aims.

In short, for the best of reasons, the Constitution forbids government functionaries from interfering in any aspect of the judgement of a citizen’s behaviour. Magna Carta inscribed that all aspects of the case were to be judged by the jurors. It was and remains the purpose of Trial by Jury to protect the people from all possible oppression by government. The jury and only the jury set the sentence.

The fact that the jury sets the sentence requires that the jury always try every aspect of the case (the law, admissibility of evidence, facts, the nature and gravity of the offence, motive, mitigating circumstances, etc.), in order that the jurors know whether a sentence of punishment is to be imposed, and if so, what the suitable sentence should be.

The Great Charter Constitution affirmed that punishments were henceforth to be set by the jury, as they had always been according to the law of the land. This is, after all, a definitive attribute intrinsic to the judgement (or sentence) of the peers; that is, a Trial which is by Jurors. If someone other than the jury makes such decisions then the process cannot be defined as a Trial by Jury. If the law or evidence or the sentence or anything at all could be dictated to the jury then the trial would not be by jury. It would be by someone other than the jury.

7. Magna Carta does not prescribe that the government must punish according to the sentence of the peers, but that government shall not punish “nisi per,” “unless according to” that sentence. It does not oblige government to execute the sentence; but it forbids government from going beyond the sentence. The Constitution forbids government from punishing, except according to the judgement of peers.

Government justices might lessen (moderate) the sentence or acquit on grounds of law, or even pardon. Note well, however, these latter functions are always applied judiciously, with care, fairness and caution, because bias in the actions and decisions of judges and government personnel are not immune from citizens’ cost-free private prosecution by single or multiple plaintiffs before a Trial by Jury; viz. Articles 36 and 40; see Chapters Three and Four.

Item: As only a jury may set a sentence (Article 39) following a legal Trial by Jury, convenors (‘judges’) cannot ‘pronounce’ sentences unless they have been set first by the jury following a lawful common law Trial by Jury.

Item: Legally, judges and magistrates cannot proceed summarily (without a Trial by Jury) or inflict a sentence of punishment in any case whatever, even when a plea of guilty is entered and even if a defendant “agrees” to be “tried without a jury.” For judges, convenors, arbitrators, ombudsmen or others to proceed summarily breaches common law Article 39.

All enforcement of law and regulations remains subject to the decisions of juries. In this way, unjust and arbitrary legislation, vexatious regulations, government-prescribed sentences and fines (amercements), and judges’ decisions may be seen by jurors as due for Annulment by Jury at trial, with the result that such legislation may subsequently be permanently expunged from the statute book at the behest of (the decisions of) juries.

Thus, the common law Jury forms the People’s Supreme Legislature and Judicature. Apocryphal legislation, courtroom litigation and related expense are reduced exponentially.

Item: By ascribing judgement to the peers in Trial by Jury, The Constitution allowed punishments neither to be prescribed by statute, that is, by the legislative power, nor in any other manner by government or judges. Consequently, all statutes or regulations prescribing particular punishments for particular ‘offences’, or giving the government’s judges any authority to set punishments, were, and are, void. Such sentences pertaining thereto are Miscarriages of Justice. All people suffering such persecution are owed a real Trial by Jury (re-trial); and if found to have acted without malice aforethought, are due (overdue) Amnesty and Restitution.


Article Thirty-Nine dictates: No one may be fined, punished, or penalised but by the Verdict and Sentence of a jury following a Common Law Trial by Jury. All questions of liability, responsibility and damages must be and can only be decided by the Jurors. This explains why all civil and fiscal causes, as well as criminal cases, have to be tried by jury 1. Issues may not be decided by means other than Trial by Jury; parties may not ‘waive’ their right to be tried by jury, the modern corrupt statutory and judicial ‘decisions’ to the contrary notwithstanding.
1 Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

Article 39 stipulates that summary judgements and punishments (as wielded today by government magistrates and judges); and judges’ punishments for ‘contempt of court’ are gross infractions of the letter and spirit of the Constitution and the rule of law. All right and power to try, judge and punish are unequivocally and uniquely invested in the jury. Judicial power is completely denied to government and judges (convenors) expressly to disarm government from arbitrary power over the populace.

Moreover, regarding ‘contempt’: Common Law Article 39 stipulates that no one may be punished except according to the legal sentence (judicium; judgement) of the jurors. As a peace officer with responsibility for arranging security, the convenor (‘judge’) has power on behalf of the jury or him or herself, to order the arrest of an offender for a contempt (remove him from the court if necessary; and hold him to bail or imprisonment for default of bail)—but no punishment may be inflicted against a person’s life, liberties (rights) or property unless and until the ‘offence’ has been tried and decided upon as for any other offence: that is, at Trial by Jury. Then, the judgement (sentence), if any, must be the jury’s, and not that of a judge.

Today, in crude criminal breach of common law, magistrates and judges have again appropriated to themselves the completely illegitimate arbitrary power to sentence, fine, incarcerate and summarily punish, including for contempt of court. If the judge has the power to punish for contempt, and to determine what comprises a contempt, all the procedures, rights and duties of jurors, witnesses, counsel and parties are subject to the whim of a government judge. With such unjustifiable and illegal power, the entire administration of justice is seized into the judge’s hands and the process is no longer a Trial by Jury. Everyone who presumes to offer anything contrary to the judge’s caprice or corruption is at risk of incurring his displeasure. In this way, the outcome of every cause can be guided to the government’s or the judge’s favoured ‘verdict’ by the judge’s intimidating, restraining and punishing anyone he or she pleases, whether it be the parties to the case, counsel, witnesses, or jurors/ the jury. Every process wherein the justice or judge has summary power to punish is a flagrantly felonious pretence of a trial or ‘process’: a mistrial.

Spooner; a lawyer’s observation:

“This arbitrary power, which has been usurped and exercised by judges to punish for contempt, has undoubtedly much to do in subduing counsel [lawyers] into those servile, obsequious, and cowardly habits which so universally prevail among them, and which have not only cost so many clients their rights, but have also cost the people so many of their liberties.”

Definition. usurp, take a position of power or importance illegally, often by use or threat of force.

For good reason, Article 39 permanently removes all power to punish from judges and government. If the people wish to have their rights respected in courts of justice, it is manifestly of the utmost importance that they jealously guard the liberties and rights of plaintiffs, defendants, counsel, witnesses and jurors against all arbitrary power on the part of the government or court. Let us march forward to RESTORATION!

Ref. DEMOCRACY DEFINED: The Manifesto ISBN 978-1-902848-26-6.

Kenn d’Oudney.

Food Hypothesis

The Best Time To Start Eating Well

Hypothesis: If toxins, empty calories and a variety restricted intake of foods leads to ill health, lack of energy and mental fogginess, then a pill is not going to fix it. Eating a wider variety of pure, nutrient dense foods should improve health, physical energy and mental clarity!

EPA Negligent

EPA Negligent

If you think government agencies (EPA, FDA in the US, TGA here in Oz) are there to help and protect you, then you have not done enough reading!

Top Ten Antiviral Herbs

Top Ten Antiviral Herbs

A mix of these is a good thing to prepare in advance as when you are sick the last thing you feel like doing is nursing yourself! Or ask me for a tub of my NutriBlast Antibiotic Blend.

No safe level of alcohol consumption, major study concludes


Giving up drinking completely is the only way to avoid the health risks associated with alcohol, according to a major new study.

Alcohol-related problems kill around 7 per cent of men and 2 per cent of women every year, and drinking is the leading cause of death and disability for people aged 15-49.

Though previous research has shown moderate levels of drinking may protect against heart disease, the new study concluded any supposed boosts to health are massively offset by the costs.

Alcohol sales would ‘fall 38% if drinkers kept within guidelines’
The researchers covered 195 countries between 1990 and 2016, and amassed data from hundreds of other studies.

“With the largest collected evidence base to date, our study makes the relationship between health and alcohol clear – drinking causes substantial health loss, in myriad ways, all over the world,” said Dr Max Griswold from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, one of the study’s lead authors.

They estimated that one drink a day increases the risk of developing an alcohol-related diseases including cancer, diabetes and tuberculosis by 0.5 per cent. This shot up to 7 per cent for those having two drinks a day, and 37 per cent for five drinks.

The study defined one drink as 10g of pure alcohol, equivalent to a can of beer or a shot of spirits.

The findings emerge after another report found the drinks sector in the UK relies on people drinking above government limits for nearly 40 per cent of its revenues.

Official guidelines currently state that to keep alcohol health risks low, it is safest to avoid consuming more than 14 units a week – about seven pints of lager – on a regular basis.

However, the UK’s chief medical officers have previously stated that despite this allowance, there is “no safe level of alcohol consumption” – a point that has been reinforced by this study.

“There is a compelling and urgent need to overhaul policies to encourage either lowering people’s levels of alcohol consumption or abstaining entirely,” said Dr Emmanuela Gakidou, who also worked on the new research.

“The myth that one or two drinks a day are good for you is just that – a myth. This study shatters that myth.”

The findings were broadly welcomed by scientists and NGOs as a decisive statement on the impact drinking has on society.

Dr Tony Rao, a psychiatrist at King’s College London who was not involved in the study, commended the effort to unravel the complicated relationship between alcohol and health.

“We can now be more confident that there is no safe limit for alcohol when considering overall health risks,” he said.

The authors of the research, published in the journal The Lancet, noted their efforts did not take in all aspects of alcohol consumption. Ample data were not available for alcohol-related violence and traffic accidents, or for the illicit production and consumption of alcoholic drinks.

The findings have ramifications for public health policy, and have prompted calls for government action to make a serious dent in the population-level consumption of alcohol.

“These diseases of unhealthy behaviours, facilitated by unhealthy environments and fuelled by commercial interests putting shareholder value ahead of the tragic human consequences, are the dominant health issue of the 21st century,” said Dr Robyn Burton from King’s College London.

“The solutions are straightforward: increasing taxation creates income for hard-pressed health ministries, and reducing the exposure of children to alcohol marketing has no downsides.”

However, others were more measured in their response to the new findings, and emphasised the need to weigh them up against the benefits of alcohol.

“Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no ‘safe’ level does not seem an argument for abstention,” said Professor David Spiegelhalter, a statistician who specialises in understanding of risk at the University of Cambridge.

“There is no safe level of driving, but government do not recommend that people avoid driving.

“Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention.”