Electromagnetic fields and public health

Exposure to extremely low frequency fields

Backgrounder
June 2007

The use of electricity has become an integral part of everyday life. Whenever electricity flows, both electric and magnetic fields exist close to the lines that carry electricity, and close to appliances. Since the late 1970s, questions have been raised whether exposure to these extremely low frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields (EMF) produces adverse health consequences. Since then, much research has been done, successfully resolving important issues and narrowing the focus of future research.

In 1996, the World Health Organization (WHO) established the International Electromagnetic Fields Project to investigate potential health risks associated with technologies emitting EMF. A WHO Task Group recently concluded a review of the health implications of ELF fields (WHO, 2007).

This Fact Sheet is based on the findings of that Task Group and updates recent reviews on the health effects of ELF EMF published in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), established under the auspices of WHO, and by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) in 2003.

ELF field sources and residential exposures
Electric and magnetic fields exist wherever electric current flows - in power lines and cables, residential wiring and electrical appliances. Electric fields arise from electric charges, are measured in volts per metre (V/m) and are shielded by common materials, such as wood and metal. Magnetic fields arise from the motion of electric charges (i.e. a current), are expressed in tesla (T), or more commonly in millitesla (mT) or microtesla (µT). In some countries another unit called the gauss, (G), is commonly used (10,000 G = 1 T). These fields are not shielded by most common materials, and pass easily through them. Both types of fields are strongest close to the source and diminish with distance.

Most electric power operates at a frequency of 50 or 60 cycles per second, or hertz (Hz). Close to certain appliances, the magnetic field values can be of the order of a few hundred microtesla. Underneath power lines, magnetic fields can be about 20 µT and electric fields can be several thousand volts per metre. However, average residential power-frequency magnetic fields in homes are much lower - about 0.07 µT in Europe and 0.11 µT in North America. Mean values of the electric field in the home are up to several tens of volts per metre.

Task group evaluation

In October 2005, WHO convened a Task Group of scientific experts to assess any risks to health that might exist from exposure to ELF electric and magnetic fields in the frequency range >0 to 100,000 Hz (100 kHz). While IARC examined the evidence regarding cancer in 2002, this Task Group reviewed evidence for a number of health effects, and updated the evidence regarding cancer. The conclusions and recommendations of the Task Group are presented in a WHO Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) monograph (WHO, 2007).

Following a standard health risk assessment process, the Task Group concluded that there are no substantive health issues related to ELF electric fields at levels generally encountered by members of the public. Thus the remainder of this fact sheet addresses predominantly the effects of exposure to ELF magnetic fields.

Short-term effects

There are established biological effects from acute exposure at high levels (well above 100 µT) that are explained by recognized biophysical mechanisms. External ELF magnetic fields induce electric fields and currents in the body which, at very high field strengths, cause nerve and muscle stimulation and changes in nerve cell excitability in the central nervous system.

Potential long-term effects

Much of the scientific research examining long-term risks from ELF magnetic field exposure has focused on childhood leukaemia. In 2002, IARC published a monograph classifying ELF magnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans". This classification is used to denote an agent for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in experimental animals (other examples include coffee and welding fumes). This classification was based on pooled analyses of epidemiological studies demonstrating a consistent pattern of a two-fold increase in childhood leukaemia associated with average exposure to residential power-frequency magnetic field above 0.3 to 0.4 µT. The Task Group concluded that additional studies since then do not alter the status of this classification.

However, the epidemiological evidence is weakened by methodological problems, such as potential selection bias. In addition, there are no accepted biophysical mechanisms that would suggest that low-level exposures are involved in cancer development. Thus, if there were any effects from exposures to these low-level fields, it would have to be through a biological mechanism that is as yet unknown. Additionally, animal studies have been largely negative. Thus, on balance, the evidence related to childhood leukaemia is not strong enough to be considered causal.

Childhood leukaemia is a comparatively rare disease with a total annual number of new cases estimated to be 49,000 worldwide in 2000. Average magnetic field exposures above 0.3 μT in homes are rare: it is estimated that only between 1% and 4% of children live in such conditions. If the association between magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia is causal, the number of cases worldwide that might be attributable to magnetic field exposure is estimated to range from 100 to 2400 cases per year, based on values for the year 2000, representing 0.2 to 4.95% of the total incidence for that year. Thus, if ELF magnetic fields actually do increase the risk of the disease, when considered in a global context, the impact on public health of ELF EMF exposure would be limited.

A number of other adverse health effects have been studied for possible association with ELF magnetic field exposure. These include other childhood cancers, cancers in adults, depression, suicide, cardiovascular disorders, reproductive dysfunction, developmental disorders, immunological modifications, neurobehavioural effects and neurodegenerative disease. The WHO Task Group concluded that scientific evidence supporting an association between ELF magnetic field exposure and all of these health effects is much weaker than for childhood leukaemia. In some instances (i.e. for cardiovascular disease or breast cancer) the evidence suggests that these fields do not cause them.

International exposure guidelines

Health effects related to short-term, high-level exposure have been established and form the basis of two international exposure limit guidelines (ICNIRP, 1998; IEEE, 2002). At present, these bodies consider the scientific evidence related to possible health effects from long-term, low-level exposure to ELF fields insufficient to justify lowering these quantitative exposure limits.

WHO's guidance

For high-level short-term exposures to EMF, adverse health effects have been scientifically established (ICNIRP, 2003). International exposure guidelines designed to protect workers and the public from these effects should be adopted by policy makers. EMF protection programs should include exposure measurements from sources where exposures might be expected to exceed limit values.

Regarding long-term effects, given the weakness of the evidence for a link between exposure to ELF magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia, the benefits of exposure reduction on health are unclear. In view of this situation, the following recommendations are given:

~Government and industry should monitor science and promote research programmes to further reduce the uncertainty of the scientific evidence on the health effects of ELF field exposure. Through the ELF risk assessment process, gaps in knowledge have been identified and these form the basis of a new research agenda.

~Member States are encouraged to establish effective and open communication programmes with all stakeholders to enable informed decision-making. These may include improving coordination and consultation among industry, local government, and citizens in the planning process for ELF EMF-emitting facilities.

~When constructing new facilities and designing new equipment, including appliances, low-cost ways of reducing exposures may be explored. Appropriate exposure reduction measures will vary from one country to another. However, policies based on the adoption of arbitrary low exposure limits are not warranted.

Further reading

WHO - World Health Organization. Extremely low frequency fields. Environmental Health Criteria, Vol. 238. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2007.

IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Non-ionizing radiation, Part 1: Static and extremely low-frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields. Lyon, IARC, 2002 (Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, 80).

ICNIRP - International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Exposure to static and low frequency electromagnetic fields, biological effects and health consequences (0-100 kHz). Bernhardt JH et al., eds. Oberschleissheim, International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection, 2003 (ICNIRP 13/2003).

ICNIRP – International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (1998). Guidelines for limiting exposure to time varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics 74(4), 494-522.

IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 28. IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to electromagnetic fields, 0-3 kHz. New York, NY, IEEE - The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2002 (IEEE Std C95.6-2002).

The Power Of The Earth's Natural Energy

1. A plant begins its life as a seed.

2. The soil gives the seed the warmth to start growing.

3. A sprouting seed needs water to help it grow into a healthy plant. 

4. A plant also needs energy from the sun to grow big and strong. This is heat and light energy.

5. The power of the Earth’s natural energy has helped the plant to grow.

6. Wind energy helps to spread a plant’s seeds. This starts the life cycle of a plant all over again.



Earth's energy budget accounts for the energy Earth receives from the Sun. Much of this energy is lost when the earth re-radiates it back into outer space, and the rest of the energy is distributed throughout the five components of Earth's climate system. This system is made up of earth's water, ice, atmosphere, rocky crust, and all living things.

Quantifying changes in these amounts is required to accurately model the Earth's climate.

Incoming, top-of-atmosphere (TOA) shortwave flux radiation, shows energy received from the sun (Jan 26–27, 2012).

Outgoing, longwave flux radiation at the top-of-atmosphere (Jan 26–27, 2012). Heat energy radiated from Earth (in watts per square metre) is shown in shades of yellow, red, blue and white. The brightest-yellow areas are the hottest and are emitting the most energy out to space, while the dark blue areas and the bright white clouds are much colder, emitting the least energy.

Received radiation is unevenly distributed over the planet, because the Sun heats equatorial regions more than polar regions. Energy is absorbed by the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere, and, in a process informally described as Earth's heat engine, the solar heating is redistributed through evaporation of surface water, convection, rainfall, winds, and ocean circulation. When the incoming solar energy is balanced by an equal flow of heat to space, the Earth is said to be in radiative equilibrium and under that condition, global temperatures will be stable.


Disturbances of Earth's radiative equilibrium, such as an increase of greenhouse gases, will change global temperatures in response. However, Earth's energy balance and heat fluxes depend on many factors, such as atmospheric composition (mainly aerosols and greenhouse gases), the albedo (reflectivity) of surface properties, cloud cover and vegetation and land use patterns. Changes in surface temperature due to Earth's energy budget do not occur instantaneously, due to the inertia of the oceans and the cryosphere. The net heat flux is buffered primarily by becoming part of the ocean's heat content, until a new equilibrium state is established between radiative forcings and the climate response.

Energy budget


A Sankey diagram illustrating the Earth's energy budget described in this section — line thickness is linearly proportional to relative amount of energy.

In spite of the enormous transfers of energy into and from the Earth, it maintains a constant temperature because, as a whole, there is no net gain or loss: Earth receives the same amount of energy via insolation (all forms of electromagnetic radiation) as it emits via atmospheric and terrestrial radiation (shifted to longer electromagnetic wavelengths) to space.

To quantify Earth's heat budget or heat balance, let the insolation received at the top of the atmosphere be 100 units, as shown in the accompanying illustration. Called the albedo of Earth, around 35 units are reflected back to space: 27 from the top of clouds, 2 from snow and ice-covered areas, and 6 by other parts of the atmosphere. The 65 remaining units are absorbed: 14 within the atmosphere and 51 by the Earth’s surface. These 51 units are radiated to space in the form of terrestrial radiation: 17 directly radiated to space and 34 absorbed by the atmosphere (19 through latent heat of condensation, 9 via convection and turbulence, and 6 directly absorbed). The 48 units absorbed by the atmosphere (34 units from terrestrial radiation and 14 from insolation) are finally radiated back to space. These 65 units (17 from the ground and 48 from the atmosphere) balance the 65 units absorbed from the sun; thereby demonstrating no net gain of energy by the Earth.

Incoming radiant energy (shortwave)

The total amount of energy received per second at the top of Earth's atmosphere (TOA) is measured in watts and is given by the solar constant times the cross-sectional area of the Earth. Because the surface area of a sphere is four times the cross-sectional surface area of a sphere (i.e. the area of a circle), the average TOA flux is one quarter of the solar constant and so is approximately 340 W/m². Since the absorption varies with location as well as with diurnal, seasonal and annual variations, the numbers quoted are long-term averages, typically averaged from multiple satellite measurements.

Of the ~340 W/m² of solar radiation received by the Earth, an average of ~77 W/m² is reflected back to space by clouds and the atmosphere and ~23 W/m² is reflected by the surface albedo, leaving ~240 W/m² of solar energy input to the Earth's energy budget. This gives the earth a mean net albedo of 0.29.

Earth's internal heat and other small effects

The geothermal heat flux from the Earth's interior is estimated to be 47 terawatts.[9] This comes to 0.087 watt/square metre, which represents only 0.027% of Earth's total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 terawatts of incoming solar radiation.

Other minor sources of energy are usually ignored in these calculations, including accretion of interplanetary dust and solar wind, light from stars other than the Sun and the thermal radiation from space. Earlier, Joseph Fourier had claimed that deep space radiation was significant in a paper often cited as the first on the greenhouse effect.

Longwave radiation

Longwave radiation is usually defined as outgoing infrared energy leaving the planet. However, the atmosphere absorbs parts initially, or cloud cover can reflect radiation. Generally, heat energy is transported between the planet's surface layers (land and ocean) to the atmosphere, transported via evapotranspiration and latent heat fluxes or conduction/convection processes. Ultimately, energy is radiated in the form of longwave infrared radiation back into space. Evapotranspiration is the process by which water is transferred from the land to the atmosphere by evaporation from the soil and other surfaces and by transpiration from plants.

Recent satellite observations indicate additional precipitation, which is sustained by increased energy leaving the surface through evaporation (the latent heat flux), offsetting increases in longwave flux to the surface.

Earth's energy imbalance

If the incoming energy flux is not equal to the outgoing energy flux, the result is an energy imbalance, that amounts to net heat added to or lost by the planet (if the incoming flux is larger or smaller than the outgoing respectively). Earth's energy imbalance measurements provided by Argo floats have detected an accumulation of ocean heat content (OHC). The estimated imbalance was measured during a deep solar minimum of 2005-2010 to be 0.58 ± 0.15 W/m². Later research estimated the surface energy imbalance to be 0.60 ± 0.17 W/m².

Measurement
Several satellites indirectly measure the energy absorbed and radiated by Earth and by inference the energy imbalance. The NASA Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) project involves three such satellites: the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS), launched October 1984; NOAA-9, launched December 1984; and NOAA-10, launched September 1986.

Today NASA's satellite instruments, provided by CERES, part of the NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS), are designed to measure both solar-reflected and Earth-emitted radiation.


Natural greenhouse effect

The major atmospheric gases (oxygen and nitrogen) are transparent to incoming sunlight but are also transparent to outgoing thermal (infrared) radiation. However, water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and other trace gases are opaque to many wavelengths of thermal radiation. The Earth's surface radiates the net equivalent of 17 percent of the incoming solar energy in the form of thermal infrared. However, the amount that directly escapes to space is only about 12 percent of incoming solar energy. The remaining fraction, 5 to 6 percent, is absorbed by the atmosphere by greenhouse gas molecules.







Atmospheric gases only absorb some wavelengths of energy but are transparent to others. The absorption patterns of water vapor (blue peaks) and carbon dioxide (pink peaks) overlap in some wavelengths. Carbon dioxide is not as strong a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it absorbs energy in wavelengths (12–15 micrometres) that water vapor does not, partially closing the "window" through which heat radiated by the surface would normally escape to space. (Illustration NASA, Robert Rohde)

When greenhouse gas molecules absorb thermal infrared energy, their temperature rises. Those gases then radiate an increased amount of thermal infrared energy in all directions. Heat radiated upward continues to encounter greenhouse gas molecules; those molecules also absorb the heat, and their temperature rises and the amount of heat they radiate increases. The atmosphere thins with altitude, and at roughly 5–6 kilometres, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the overlying atmosphere is so thin that heat can escape to space.

Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate infrared energy in all directions, some of it spreads downward and ultimately returns to the Earth's surface, where it is absorbed. The Earth's surface temperature is thus higher than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating. This supplemental heating is the natural greenhouse effect. It is as if the Earth is covered by a blanket that allows high frequency radiation (sunlight) to enter, but slows the rate at which the low frequency infrared radiant energy emitted by the Earth leaves.

Climate sensitivity

A change in the incident radiated portion of the energy budget is referred to as a radiative forcing.

Climate sensitivity is the steady state change in the equilibrium temperature as a result of changes in the energy budget.


Climate forcings and global warming

Climate forcings are changes that cause temperatures to rise or fall, disrupting the energy balance. Natural climate forcings include changes in the Sun's brightness, Milankovitch cycles (small variations in the shape of Earth's orbit and its axis of rotation that occur over thousands of years) and volcanic eruptions that inject light-reflecting particles as high as the stratosphere. Man-made forcings include particle pollution (aerosols) that absorb and reflect incoming sunlight; deforestation, which changes how the surface reflects and absorbs sunlight; and the rising concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which decreases the rate at which heat is radiated to space.

A forcing can trigger feedbacks that intensify (positive feedback) or weaken (negative feedback) the original forcing. For example, loss of ice at the poles, which makes them less reflective, causes greater absorption of energy and so increases the rate at which the ice melts, is an example of a positive feedback.

The observed planetary energy imbalance during the recent solar minimum shows that solar forcing of climate, although natural and significant, is overwhelmed by anthropogenic climate forcing.


In 2012, NASA scientists reported that to stop global warming atmospheric CO2 content would have to be reduced to 350 ppm or less, assuming all other climate forcings were fixed. The impact of anthropogenic aerosols has not been quantified, but individual aerosol types are thought to have substantial heating and cooling effects.

Healing Cancer Coaching Program

2nd MODULE;

The purpose of this post is to convey information. You are strongly encouraged to share with your physician or other healthcare professional. The methods discussed here are intended to support health and healing, NOT to replace medical treatment.

Hello, it's me, welcome to Healthy Wealth  - The Anticancer Diet part 2. Here's what we're going to cover in this interesting module.

1. The most potent anticancer fruits.

2. My daily anticancer routine.

3. Whether or not you should eat cooked food, or animal proteins, it depends.

4. The best practices for healthy meat eating, and

5. My good thoughts on the ketogenic diet for cancer patients.

So, let's get started.

In part 1, I mentioned a study where they dripped vegetable juices on cancer cells to see which had the most powerful anti-cancer effects.  If you remember, the winner was garlic. There was a similar study done on fruits. researchers at Cornell dripped the extracts of 11 common fruits on human liver cancer cells. And here is what happened:

1. Bananas and grapefruit cut the cancer cell growth by about 40%.

2. Red grapes, strawberries and apples were even more effective, cutting liver cancer cell growth in half with a dose that was half as much as the bananas and grapefruit.

3. The winners of the cancer killing fruit study were the tart fruits ; lemons and cranberries. Both  fruits significantly cut cancer cell growth at a much lower dose than any other fruit. Cranberries had the highest anticancer  phenolic and anti-oxidant activity and they cut liver cancer cell growth by 85% with only a third (1/3) of the dose of the apples and strawberries.

4. Lemons came in second place and the higher the dose, the more effective they are.

Now of course, dripping fruit and vegetable juice on cancer cells in a lab is different than what happens in your body. but hey, if these foods are killing cancer cells in the lab, it makes sense to get them into your body. So, cranberries and lemons were the top fruits in the study.

Now, you can find lemons easily.  The trick with cranberries is finding them because they're seasonal and finding them organic.  And they're also very, very tart, and they're hard to eat fresh.  Dried cranberries usually have added sugar and oil.  And that's not a great option either.  Your best bet with cranberries is to buy organic freeze-dried cranberry powder on Amazon. That way you can just add it to juices or smoothies.

Another delicious powerful recipe that I didn't mention in part 1 is Green Lemonade. It really only needs two ingredients: One whole organic lemon and 4 organic Granny Smith apples. Cut up the fruits and run them through the juicer and you'll have some delicious powerful anticancer green lemonade.  And you don't need to peel them, or take the seeds out. The fruit peels and seeds both contain anticancer compounds.

*Nutr. Cancer 2010:62(4):517-24 Anti proliferative effects of apple peel extract against cancer cells (by Reagan- Shaw S, Eggert D, Mukhtar H, Ahmad N.

Author Information.
Abstract.
[Studies have shown an inverse relationship between the consumption of apples and the risk of several cancers.  The peels of apple, which have been shown to possess exceptional high concentration of antioxidants are often discarded.  In this study, we evaluate the anti proliferation effects of apple peel extract (APE) in variety of cancer cell types.  Our data demonstrated that APE , contained from organic Gala apples, imparted significant reduction in the viability of a variety of cancer cell lines. Further, our data showed a significant decrease in growth and clonogenic survival of human prostate carcinoma CWR22Rnu1 and DU145 cells and breast carcinoma Mcf-7 and Mcf-7 : Her18 cells. Also, the anti proliferative effects of APE were found to be accompanied by a G0-G1 phase arrest of prostate and breast cancer cells. Furthermore, APE treatment resulted in a marked concentration - dependent decrease in the protein levels of proliferative cell nuclear antigen, a marker for proliferation.  In addition, APE treatment resulted in a marked increase in maspin, a tumor suppressor protein that negatively regulates cell invasion, metastasis, and angiogenesis.  Our data suggested that APE possesses strong anti proliferative effects against cancer cells.]

There is a really interesting 2010 University of Wisconsin study where they took organic apple peels, blended them up, and dripped them on breast and prostate cancer cells. The apple peel extract was shown to reduce the growth of prostate and breast cancer cells by turning on a tumor suppressor gene called maspin. Apple seeds also contained amygdalin AKA B-17 which is an anticancer nutrient also found in the seeds of apricot kernels, grape seeds, et cetera.

Berries are the most potent anticancer fruits. They can protect and repair damage from oxidative stress and inflammation.  And they have unique anticancer and immune boosting compounds ; including ellagic acid, anthocyanins, OPC and caffeic acid.

So you want to eat berries every day. You can et them fresh or frozen, just get them in your body. I eat berries every day in a smoothie.  Most grocery stores now sell mixed bags of frozen organic berries; blueberries, blackberries, raspberries, strawberries, and sometimes even cranberries.  Big supermarkets have giant bags of mixed organic berries.

My go -to smoothie in 2004 was two cups of berries, a banana, and the juice and meat of a young coconut all blended together.

MY 2004 SMOOTHIE RECIPE:
--2 cups of frozen organic berries;
--1 banana;
--Juice and meat of a young coconut.

The best tool to use to open coconuts is called Coco Jack. (click here to see the tool) Just Google search for it, how to open a coconut in 3 seconds, safely.  Now , if you can't get coconut, it is no big deal. Just blend a handful of almonds or walnuts in filtered water and that'll give you a nut milk base for your smoothie. Two cups of berries, a banana, and a coconut, or nut milk will make a snack size smoothie.

If you want to make a giant smoothie for a meal or to share, then do 3 to 4 cups of berries, a handful of almonds and walnuts, one to two bananas, or 5 to 10 dates, a couple handful of spinach or kale. There's a ton of stuff you can add to your smoothies to amp up the nutritional value.

MY GIANT SMOOTHIE RECIPE:-
--3 to 4 cups of frozen berries;
--A handful of almonds and walnuts;
--1 to 2 bananas, or 5 to 10 dates;
-- A couple handfuls of spinach or kale.

SMOOTHIE EXTRAS RECIPE
-- 2 TO 8 oz of Stockton Aloe Vera Gel;
--1 to 2 tablespoon flax; hemp and chia seed;
-- Goji, acai, mangosteen;
--Moringa;
--Matcha green tea powder
--Brocolli, cauliflower.

You can add * ounces of pure aloe vera gel from Stockton Aloe. You can add flaxseed, hempseed, chia seed. You can add superfoods and like goji, acai, mangosteen, moringa and matcha green tea powder. You can even put broccoli and cauliflower in there. just have fun with it and experiment. As long as you're putting in whole foods from the earth, you're doing it right.

When I was healing cancer, I had a small smoothie as an afternoon snack. now I have a giant one for lunch every day. You can also have it for breakfast.

Another great breakfast option is oatmeal. Gerson therapy patients eat oatmeal every morning. Start with organic oats, you can do whole oats, steel cut, rolled oats, quick oats, doesn't matter.  Just make sure they're organic. then add fruit like blueberries, blackberries, raspberries, and strawberries, or blackcurrants, raisins, figs, apricots, bananas, they're all great.  Add cinnamon to amp up the antioxidant content. And you can also add flax, hemp seed, chi seed, pumpkin seeds, almond and walnuts to your oatmeals if you nee more calories.

If you don't have any fruit on hand, you can sweeten it with date sugar, which is just ground up dates, and blackstrap molasses which is the highest antioxidant sweetener and it's rich in minerals like iron, potassium, calcium and magnesium. And that's how you make a super healthy delicious meal of oatmeal.

The most potent anticancer berry that I know is called amla. Amla has several different names. it's also known as amalaki, and the Indian gooseberry. Amla has been used for centuries in Indian Ayurvedic medicine. Everyone from India knows about amla.  The amla berry looks like a cross between a green grape and a Ping-Pong/table tennis) ball size.
 

And it has the highest antioxidant content of any food on earth, roughly 200 times the antioxidant content of blueberries. And it also has the second highest concentration of vitamin C, second only to camu camu.


Just to put this in perspective, the average American meal has 25 to 100 units of antioxidants. One teaspoon of amla powder has nearly 800 units of antioxidants,

Why are antioxidants important? because they neutralize reactive oxygen species, also know as free-radicals.  Free radicals are created in our human body every day as a result of normal cell metabolism and when we're exposed to toxic chemicals, radiation, and environmental pollution. Free radical can damage other cells and can lead to cancerous mutation. And cancerous tumors also create free radicals in the human body, so your body needs a steady supply of antioxidants to neutralize them. 
 
Chemo and radiation therapy produce mega loads of oxidative stress and free-radicals in the body of patient. So you really, really need antioxidants if you are doing chemo and radiation, because they will deplete your body's level of antioxidants very quickly. This is rarely talked about, but many cancer patients suffer from symptoms identical to scurvy, which is a disease caused by vitamin C deficiency because chemo and radiation treatments have severely depleted the vitamin C in their bodies. Cancer patients need vitamin C.

Okay, now back to amla. This is an amazing fruit. In one study they tested amla against six different human cancer cell lines, lung cancer, liver cancer, cervical cancer, breast cancer , ovarian cancer, and colon cancer. Amla killed the existing cancer cells, reduced their population by over 50% and blocked their ability to spread.

Another study showed that three quarters (3/4) of a teaspoon of amla per day worked better at lowering high blood sugar than diabetic medication, glyburide. Amla also cut 'bad' cholesterol and triglycerides in half and boosted good cholesterol after 3 weeks. This is an amazing anti-cancer, anti-diabetes, anti-cholesterol medication that net even a medication. Amla is just food. I added amla to my anticancer diet in 2004 and it's still part of my diet today.  But there's one problem with amla, it tastes terrible. It's bitter, sour, and pithy all at the same time.

The way I used to take it was in a product called Dabur Chyawanprash which is a sweet and spicy paste, it's imported from India. I love the way it tastes, but years later, I found organic amla powder on Amazon. It's about $20 bucks for a pound and it lasts a long time. So that's how I take it now.  Just start with 1/4 teaspoon 3 times per day, added to juice, water, or a smoothie.

My Daily Anticancer Routine: Now I'm going to walk you through my daily anticancer routine ...(click here to continue)

WaveRider / Science’s answer to radiation

What are the harmful effects of EMR?

EMR is regarded by many scientists as very harmful to our health. In fact, in 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO) and International Agency for research on Cancer classified EMR as a possible cancer-causing source, based on increased brain cancer associated with wireless phone use.* The WHO placed EMR in the same class as lead, chloroform and car exhaust fumes. Scientists are urging for a higher classification.
* IARC Press Release No. 208, 2011

In 2012, the Italian Supreme court ruled that a man’s brain tumor was caused by mobile phone usage. In 2008, top neurosurgeon Dr. Vini Khurana found that cell phone use increased the risk of brain tumors. The list goes on.

Chronic exposure to EMR triggers a bodily response at a cellular level: the cell membrane hardens. This prevents nutrients from getting into the cells, and causes toxin build-up in the cells. Over time, the body’s immune and other systems begin to deteriorate.

This leads to a series of health problems:


Are children at risk?

Very much so. Children are especially vulnerable because their nervous system and brain are still developing. Radiation is cumulative, and children will also have a longer lifetime of radiation exposure than adults. In particular, the risk of childhood leukemia is associated with high levels of EMR. To this end, Belgium has even issued a Royal Decree Banning sales of children-specific mobile phones. Schools in many countries have stopped or limited WiFi, while France has banned it from public schools.
As you can see, the world is only beginning to wake up to the harmful effects of chronic exposure to EMR. Fortunately, the solution is already here.

What is WaveRider?

The WaveRider is a ground-breaking resonance technology that provides a sanctuary from the harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR).

What is EMR?

All electrical equipment produce harmful electromagnetic radiation known as EMR.
Unfortunately, EMR is not something you can just avoid in the Wireless Age. The mobile phone that we carry with us almost everywhere produces EMR. Add to that WiFi routers, base stations, TVs, video displays, microwaves, etc. All these sources bombard our bodies with EMR 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

How does the WaveRider work?

The WaveRider alters the effects of EMR to make it acceptable to our bodies at the cellular level. Our bodies are able to accept “natural” frequencies (found in nature) which are random and “noisy”. However, our cells react and harden against the man-made EMR produced by our cell phones and other gadgets.
With its breakthrough, patented Noise Field technology, the WaveRider counteracts man-made EMR by producing “natural” frequencies that “ride” on the waves of the EMR. The result: Our cells accept the combined “EMR plus WaveRider” frequencies.



The science behind Noise Field technology.

For many years, the US army was concerned that many of their personnel operating radio, communications and other equipment showed symptoms of radiation poisoning, and realized they needed to protect themselves from harmful electromagnetic radiation.
Eventually, they succeeded in creating a solution. They called it the Noise Field technology.

Over the years, researches in various universities have found it to be effective against an entire range of EMR-related symptoms at both the cellular and genetic level.

What makes the WaveRider unique?

The WaveRider is a proprietary Noise Field technology device that alters the harmful effects of man-made EMR without changing the EMR itself. It brings the same Noise Field technology that the US military rely on, right into the comfort of your home or office-creating a 9 metre sanctuary that protects you and your loved ones. It even enables this without affecting the transmission quality of your WiFi or mobile signals.

Some of the other “anti-EMR” products you can find on the market today simply don’t work. A few of them are just pieces of inert metal or mineral touted to “absorb radiation”. Yet others produce a powerful counter-frequency to suppress the EMR, but end up damaging the body in the long run.

Proven through science.

The WaveRider technology’s efficacy has been tested and certified by independent laboratories in the US, including Nemko Global Services, Molecular Diagnostic Services, RF Exposure Lab LLC, and MET Laboratories.

In one of the lab tests, the WaveRider was found to have reduced mobile phone SAR (radiation absorption) values by up to 40%. The many tests all conclude that it offers protection against a wide range of electromagnetic radiation. It is quite simply the best that Science can provide.





Love life and health.

As you can tell by now, what we can’t see hurt us. WaveRider is Science’s safe haven we all need to combat the unseen dangers of our modern world.
If you love life and health, you need the protection of WaveRider today.

The man behind the WaveRider


The WaveRider technology is the brainchild of Dr. Igor Smirnov. A brilliant scientist-inventor, Dr. Smirnov specializes in advanced research on the influence of low frequency electromagnetic oscillations on human cellular physiology.
Dr. Smirnov is most well-known for his pioneering invention of the Molecular Resonance Effect Technology (MRET). His MRET technology has helped heal people suffering from a wide range of diseases, from cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer disease, to psoriasis and chronic fatigue syndrome.
Dr. Smirnov is a nuclear engineering graduate from St. Petersburg Naval Academy, where he also obtained an MSc mechanical and Bioengineering. He received a PhD in Clinical Psychology from ST Petersburg State University. Dr. Smirnov has written for many international scientific publications including European Journal of Scientific Research, International Journal of Biophysics, Journal of Research in Biology, among others.





The WaveRider is a ground-breaking resonance technology that provides a sanctuary from the harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR).

Price : $1,938 USD (shipping costs included)

Product Specification
Net Weight / 650g
Weight (with packaging) / 1000g
Packaging Dimensions / 25.5cm (L) X 16.5cm (B) X 13.5cm (H)
Input Voltage / 110-240V, 50-60Hz
Output Voltage / 12V DC, 350mA
Range of Coverage / 9m Radius
Warranty / 1 year
Life Span of a WaveRider / 17,520 hours

The fee includes shipping cost.




Wave Rider has type G plug which has 3 pins, mainly used in England, Malaysia and Singapore so you may need an adapter to plug in Wave Rider in your country.

Chapter 18 Let's Talk About Cancer

Chapter 18

Let's Talk About Cancer

  I'm not going to prescribe or play doctor in this chapter, merely explore the nature of the disease on a theoretical basis. Nevertheless, I think you will find that the mere act of exploration
opens up a whole range of possible treatment options—once you understand the true nature of the disease.

First, let's talk about the state of cancer in the United States today.

>If you believe what you read in the press, cancer treatment is making great strides.

>Diagnosis and treatment are better than ever.

>More people are being saved than ever before.

>People are living longer after diagnosis than ever before.

>Discovery of the cancer gene and the elusive "cure for cancer" are right around the corner.

>Things have never looked better for winning the war on cancer.

On the other hand, if you look just below the surface, you find an entirely different story.

>We spend $100,000,000,000.00 a year on cancer in the United States.

>In the Feb 9, 1994 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, the "War on Cancer" was declared a failure. "In all age groups, cancer incidence is increasing. . . Few new effective treatments have been devised for the most common cancers."

>The incidence of cancer is soaring—up between 800% to 1,700% in the last 100 years (depending on whose numbers you look at). According to the American Cancer Society, 1 in every 2.5 Americans (and moving rapidly to 1 in 2) will get some form
of invasive cancer in their lives—and half of those who get it will die from it. (Now, it is true that the rates for some forms of cancer such as prostate cancer and colon cancer have dropped slightly in the last couple of years, but keep in mind that drop is only relative to the extremely high levels that were reached in the last 100 years and that the rates for other forms of cancer (such as lymph cancer) have soared—more than offsetting the small drops just mentioned.

>More people are dying than ever before from cancer. In the early 1900s cancer was a rare occurrence in the American population. Today, it is the number 2 killer in the United States—trailing only heart disease.

  So which story is true? They can't both be true. Can they?

  Actually, they can—sort of. It all comes down to a statement attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, one of England's great Prime Ministers. According to Disraeli, "There are three kinds of lies in the world: lies, damn lies, and statistics." And that's exactly what we have here: statistical lies.

 Just do a little logical thinking, and the truth begins to shine forth. So let's take these claims one at a time and see what the truth is behind them.

   "More People Are Surviving Cancer Than Ever Before"

  If mortality rates are virtually unchanged (as stated in the Journal of the American Medical Association), but 800 to 1,700 percent more people are getting cancer than ever before, then 8-17
times as many people will be saved—would they not? Thus the remarkable claims you see in the press.

  On the other hand, what you don't hear as often is that 8-17 times as many people are also dying—whoops!
Thus the rise of cancer to its position as the number two killer in the United States.[1]
So which is the most important statistic? Quite simply, none of them. It's the fact that survival rates are virtually unchanged. What that means is that modern medicine isn't really making much
of a difference.[2]

[1 It's also worth keeping in mind that the population of the United States has increased 360% in the last hundred years (75,000,000 to 270,000,000). That means you can multiply both the survival and mortality rates by 3.6. In other words, the 8-17 times becomes 29-61 times. And that's how cancer has risen from virtual obscurity to
become the number two killer in the USA, claiming several hundred thousand people a year.]

[2 Mortality rates are actually worse than they first appear. Consider the fact that when a cancer patient undergoes chemo, and then succumbs to pneumonia because their immune system has collapsed from the chemo, that is recorded as death by pneumonia—not cancer. Now add in all of the people who have died from the side effects of chemo and radiation, and you find that mortality rates are not just unchanged, but have probably gone backwards.]

  "People Are Living Longer with Cancer Than Ever Before"

  If better testing is diagnosing cancer earlier than ever before, then, by definition, people would be living longer than ever before after diagnosis, even with no real change in the effectiveness in
treatment or the actual survival rate—would they not? Bottom line is that people are not really living longer. They're just being given a longer death sentence. Now it is true that the statistics
claim to have accounted for this quirk. They haven't really. For one thing, they don't account for the number of people who die from the side effects of treatment.

  How Can This Be?
 Are we being scammed and lied to? Are cures being deliberately suppressed, as some people believe?

  Although many in the alternative health community believe otherwise, I think the answer to both questions is no. There is no scam, no deliberate suppression.

  On the other hand, with $100,000,000,000.00 dollars being spent every year on cancer in the United States, cancer has become, quite simply, a major industry. And therein lies the problem.You now have vested interests competing for a piece of this monstrous pie. This leads to a series of major problems.

>No one has an interest in preventing cancer, since that doesn't produce any money. All interest is in finding "a cure for cancer." This is where the fame is. This is where career advancement is. And yes, this is where the money is.

>Any cure found must be proprietary—otherwise no money can be made.[1]

>Any cure must come from within the medical community—to justify all of the money being raised and spent—and, in fact, to justify the doctor's very existence as a doctor.[2]

That means that

>Even though it's relatively easy to reduce the incidence of cancer by close to 90% (back to the levels experienced 100 years ago), no one in the medical community will tell you about it. (Just remove the toxins from your body—toxins that didn't even exist 100 years ago but are now present in our bodies in substantial amounts, and start regenerating your body with the essential nutrients that have been removed from the mass produced, processed foods that make up the bulk of today's diet). 

[1 And this is another area in which the deck is rigged against alternative treatments. Since it now takes several hundred million dollars to approve a new drug or treatment in the United States, any program that is not proprietary can never be approved, because no one can afford to take it through the testing process if they don't own the rights to it. When you hear drug companies complain about the high cost of drug approval, don't believe it. They love it. That's what keeps small players from disrupting their multi-billion dollar profit factory.]


[2 Actually, this is probably the biggest single factor. In the end, ego is more important than money.]

>Even though there are natural treatments that are at least as effective as chemo and radiation and surgery (not hard to do, since the medical modalities are so ineffective and have such deleterious side effects), no one in the medical community will tell you
about them.

>Even though the concept of a "cure for cancer" is basically bogus (more on that later), you will still be asked to raise and contribute billions of dollars to search for it.[1]

     So Let's Talk About the Nature of the Disease.
  
  Does anyone really believe that cancer somehow magically appears in isolated spots in your body for no particular reason? And that removing or destroying that cancer in that one isolated spot means that you're cured?

   Does the above statement sound silly, or even absurd, to you? If it does, you've got a problem. You see, virtually all modern cancer research and treatments are based on that premise.

>Surgically remove the cancer.

>Burn it out with focused beams of radiation.

>Poison it with chemo.

>Or all of the above.

  If we want to end the cancer scourge, we need to look elsewhere for answers. And probably the best place to start is with a discussion of what cancer actually is.


       What Is Cancer
   Cancer is fundamentally a disease of the immune system. What do I mean by that? Quite simply, in your body, as part of the normal metabolic process, you produce anywhere from a few hundred to as many as 10,000 cancerous cells each and every day of your life.

  So why doesn't everybody get cancer? Because your immune system has the ability to recognize each and every one of those aberrant cells and remove them from your body. That's what a
healthy immune system does.

  Then why do some people get cancer? Because one of three things happens (and more often than not all three together):

 1. You expose yourself to toxins and outside influences (such as heavy metals, radiation, rancid fats, viruses, bacteria, parasites, etc.) that dramatically increase the number of cancerous cells your body produces so that not even a healthy immune system can handle the load.

[1 I know a woman who had breast cancer and had run through all the usual medical treatments to no avail. She was dying, and in fact, had been sent home to die by her doctors. As a last resort she went on the Baseline of Health program and experienced a total recovery. To celebrate her recovery, she now runs regularly in "Breast Cancer" races to raise money for research—and she's absolutely oblivious to the contradiction. God bless her!]

2. You compromise your immune system to the point that it can no longer handle all of the cancerous cells your body produces—thus allowing some of them to take root and establish themselves.

3. Circulation (in the broad sense) is impeded—thus leading to both 1 and 2 above.

   Let's explore these three points in a little more detail.

   1. Exposure to Toxins and Other Outside Influences

  Some factors are known beyond a shadow of doubt; others are more hypothetical (but with strong circumstantial support).

>Exposure to radiation is an absolute known cause of cancer.

>Exposure to radon gas seeping up from the ground and into our houses is also a known cause.[1]

>Living in cities with polluted air like Los Angeles and Houston dramatically increase your chances of getting cancer. In fact, if you live in the Los Angeles basin, your chances of getting lung cancer are 426 times greater than if you live in an area with clean air.[2]

>There is now strong circumstantial evidence that transient viruses and bacteria are a major factor in producing cancer.

>Then again, we know that prolonged exposure to cigarette smoke is a known carcinogen

>Chlorine in our water is a known carcinogen.

>Excessive estrogen is the only known cause of uterine cancer and plays a major role in several other kinds of cancer including breast cancer and prostate cancer.

>Improper elimination and the improper balance of beneficial bacteria in the colon are known cancer causers. And colon cancer is now the leading cancer among men and women combined.

>Excessive build-up of free radicals is a factor. Related to this, of course, is the consumption of rancid fats and transfatty acids.

>There are over 2,000 known carcinogens in our water supply.

>Even something as simple as repeated acid reflux will eventually stress the lining of the esophagus enough that esophageal cancer results.

>etc.

  Does it sound overwhelming? In a sense it is. However, it's only overwhelming if you're looking for a magic bullet cure. In fact, simple protocols such as the Baseline of Health will eliminate
virtually all of these factors from your body. Then the whole concept of preventing and reversing cancer becomes much more understandable.

[1 Radon gas is the number 2 cause of lung cancer in the US. Second only to smoking cigarettes according to the EPA, Surgeon General, and The American Lung Association. Millions of homes and buildings contain high levels of radon gas. http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/ ]

[2 Although California has made strides in reducing hazardous air pollution, a Congressional Report released on 3/1/99 found toxins at high enough levels that the risk of cancer was 426 times higher than health standards established by the 1990 federal Clean Air Act.]

2. Compromised Immune System

And how do we compromise our immune systems? As it turns out, almost every which way you can imagine.

>How good can your immune system be taking all the supplements in the world that you want) if your colon is packed with 20 lbs of old fecal matter? A substantial portion of your immune system then has to combat the effects of self-toxicity. Clean up your intestinal tract, and you free up your immune system.

>Beneficial bacteria manufacture potent immune boosters such as Transfer Factor and Lactoferrin right in your intestinal tract—if they're there. In other words, the proper balance of beneficial probiotics in your intestinal tract can substantially boost your immune system by increasing internal production of a number of powerful immune factors. Without those factors, your immune system is marginalized.

>Taking digestive enzymes between meals relieves stress on the immune system by helping to eliminate Circulating Immune Complexes from the body. Given today's enzymatically dead diet, this is essential to prevent a total breakdown of your immune system.

>Proper diet and nourishment boost your immune system. Each and every immune cell in your body is manufactured from the food you eat. A nutritionally deficient diet means functionally deficient immune cells. The bottom line is that you can't build the same immune cell out of pepperoni pizza, beer, and twinkies that you can out of whole living foods. Supplementation with the proper vitamin and mineral complexes will significantly enhance the production of your body's immune cells.

>Deficiencies of the key fatty acids is a sure invitation to cancer. In fact, some of the fatty acids actually work as immune system modulators that help to keep the immune system properly programmed so it doesn't attack itself.

>A full spectrum antioxidant boosts the immune system in multiple ways. Just one example is Curcumin. In Immunological Investigations, 1999, Vol 28, Issue 5-6, pp 291-303, there are published studies that prove that Curcumin can increase white
blood cell count by some 50% in just 12 days—not to mention circulating antibodies by some 512 in the same time frame.

 >Cleaning out the liver improves its ability to produce immune factors and remove bacteria from the blood. An impaired live is like a death sentence to your immune system.

>Cleaning out the blood and balancing your blood's pH also helps to improve immune function. In fact, low pH in body tissue is almost a guarantee for the onset of cancer.

>Invading pathogens can eventually overwhelm the immune system, rendering it incapable of performing its normal protective functions.

>Your mental attitude matters. There is a strong statistical correlation between depression and cancer.

>Lack of exercise reduces immune function and causes the lymph to stagnate—further compromising the immune system.

>And keep in mind that the ingredients in a single can of soda can depress parts of your immune system by as much as 50% for as long as 6 hours or more. So what does thatmean if you drink 4-5 cans of soda a day—or more?

 Again, what at first appears to be overwhelming becomes quite manageable when we view itas part of the whole.

3. Circulation

By circulation here, I'm using it in the broadest sense, as it applies to all of the body's circulatory systems: Blood, Lymph, and Energy.

Blood

  If there is any restriction of blood circulation (caused by anything from narrowing of the arteries to tension in the surrounding muscle tissue) several problems arise.

>Sufficient oxygen can no longer reach key areas of the body. 
Oxygen is a cancer destroyer.

>Sufficient nutrients can no longer reach that area of the body, thus starving it, weakening it, and making it vulnerable to mutation.

>The waste material produced by the cells can no longer be efficiently removed. The build-up of toxic waste in the cells eventually leads to cancer.

Lymph

>Your lymph is your body's sewer system, removing dead cells, waste, toxic matter, heavy metals, bacteria, etc. from body tissue. Unfortunately, the lymph system has no pump of its own. If for any reason your lymph is stagnant, you end up poisoning yourself. Cancer is a likely outcome.

Energy

>Fundamentally, our bodies are pure energy systems. As you look more and more closely at the subatomic structure of all matter, the physical world begins to disappear. All that's left is a series of force fields and probabilities that create the illusion of matter as we know it. Certainly, we have to deal with this illusion (the physical world)
as we see it, but we also have to deal with the consequences of the world of energy that remains unseen—but is nevertheless the true reality behind all physical matter. The bottom line is that a major factor in the onset of cancer is when these energies in our body become unbalanced or diminished in any way.

>And, as we learned in the last chapter, cancer cells are almost exclusively low-energy cells.

   So Where Does That Leave Us?

  Once we understand what cancer actually is, it's easy to understand:

>Why medical treatments for cancer have had such dismal results

>Why most of the current research is a waste of time and money

>And most important of all, what you can do to prevent and in many cases even reverse cancer.

So let's take on these points one at a time

1. Why medical treatments for cancer have had such dismal results

  This is real obvious. Medical treatments are based entirely on eliminating the symptoms (or manifestation) of the cancer in your body. They do nothing to eliminate the causes of cancer—to
remove those things that stimulate it's growth in the body.

  Think about this for a moment. Does surgery or radiation treatment or chemotherapy do one single thing for any of the causes that we have discussed in the previous sections? And the answer,
of course, is zero, zilch, nada, nothing. All they do is attempt to remove the symptom (the physical manifestation of the cancer) that results from these causes. Is it any wonder they have had such a poor track record? And on top of everything else, now that we know the causes of cancer, we can see that radiation and chemo actually significantly compound the problem.

>Exposure to radiation is a known carcinogen. Every treatment increases the likelihood of future cancer.

>Chemo drugs are some of the most power carcinogens known. Think about this for a moment. The prime cancer treatment we use today actually fills your body with some of the most powerful cancer-causing drugs known. Whoa! Who came up with this

treatment? The absurdity of it is mind boggling. Even if you temporarily destroy the current cancer in your body by poisoning it with these drugs, haven't you significantly increased your chances of getting cancer down the road?

>But it gets even worse. Medical treatments do nothing to improve immune function in the body. In fact, chemo and radiation quite literally destroy immune function in your body.[1] This is the single most absurd aspect of the modern medical approach to dealing with cancer—destroy the very system in your body that can actually eliminate and prevent the recurrence of that cancer, and then do nothing to repair that damage. At the very least, this is highly irresponsible.[2]

>And maybe, most damning of all, these treatments are deadly in and of themselves. Chemotherapy drugs are incredibly toxic. The fundamental premise behind their use is actually frightening. "We're going to give you some of the most powerful poisons we
know in all creation. Why? Well, we hope your cancer will pull the poison in faster than the rest of your body—and therefore die before you do. Of course, if we're wrong, you'll die from the treatment and not your cancer. And at the very least, since it is so poisonous, you're going to feel really really ill—much worse than you've ever felt in your life. Your hair will fall out. You'll vomit repeatedly. You'll feel as though your very life is being drained from your body (which is actually what's happening).
But, of course, it's worth it if it works. And it is your only option." I don't know how many times I've seen people die from the chemotherapy and not the cancer. But two things, in particular, really gall me.

  -First, I know of numerous cases where people have gone through chemo, and despite all the suffering it didn't work.[3]  Unfortunately, the patients were so debilitated by the treatment, that another round of chemo was not an option. They were then "sent home" by their doctor to die. At that point, with no other options left to them, they tracked down one of the "miracle doctors." Amazingly, they began to feel better almost from day one. After a few weeks, they felt so much better that they went back to their original oncologist for a check-up. An exam showed no sign of cancer (or the cancer was dramatically reduced). The oncologist then proceeded to tell the patient that their alternative program had nothing to do with their recovery (bad enough in and of itself), but then went on to convince the patient to come back for another round of chemo to "make sure the cancer doesn't come back." And then the patient died of a heart attack as a side effect of that "insurance" chemo.

[1 I have seen numerous examples of people who have chosen to use immune boosting formulas, such as Immunity
Plus, while undergoing chemo and have actually seen their immune function not only not drop, but in fact, increase—even
double—during the course of that chemo treatment.]

[2 After we saw what Immunity Plus could do in concert with chemotherapy, I wrote to 6 major hospitals in the
United States with complementary health programs and offered to fund a study that proved the benefits of immune
system enhancement during chemo. Not one hospital responded. I wrote to each a second time. Again nothing.
With the third letter, I finally got a response. Finally, one of the hospitals wrote back and told me to never write
them again!]

[3 In fact, the benefits of chemo vary widely from cancer to cancer—sometimes improving "short-term" survivability
by as much as 50%; but also, in many cases, by 1% or less.]

- Another variation of this which I have seen repeatedly is the patient who uses immune boosting formulas (such as Immunity Plus and liquid minerals) while undergoing chemotherapy. The results are far beyond what the doctor expects. The patient, in fact, tests cancer-free half way through the chemotherapy program.
Nevertheless, the doctor insists on the last two or three rounds of chemo. And the patient dies as a result of the chemo in those final rounds.

2. Why most of the current research is a waste of time and money

This is magic bullet nonsense. Take the search for the cancer gene. Are there genes that give one a predisposition to getting cancer? Absolutely. This is exactly what the Baseline of Health talks about when it refers to your Personal Health Line at the time of birth. But looking for a cancer cure by finding the cancer gene will do nothing to eliminate all of the other factors that we know are responsible for cancer. And, in fact, we already know how small a role the "cancer gene" plays in the onset of cancer. There has been an 8-17 fold increase in the incidence of cancer in the last hundred years. Not even one-millionth of 1% of that increase can be related to genes. Genes evolve over hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of years. That means that the so-called cancer gene has had no impact on the huge increase we've seen since 1900. And that means that virtually 90% of all the cancer that we see today cannot possibly have anything to do with genes. And of that 10% that's left, only a certain percentage of that relates to the unknown cancer gene. That means, quite simply, that at best, genes were responsible for only a small percentage of the minimal cancer rates we had in the early 1900s, and that finding the "cancer gene" will affect only
that tiny percentage of cancer. Bottom line: look not for a cure in the cancer gene.

3. What you can do: the alternatives?

  According to the medical establishment, there are no effective alternative treatments for cancer. Your only options are chemo, radiation, and surgery. In fact, in half the states in this country,
it is illegal for even a medical doctor to prescribe anything other than chemo, radiation, or surgery as a treatment for cancer. The sad thing is that it absolutely is not true.There are effective alternatives.
But wait a second. Don't they test promising alternative therapies, and in each and every case find them invalid? And the answer is: yes, they test them, but skew the tests so that alternative therapies cannot pass. This is done in two ways.

The Whole Is Greater than the Sum of Its Parts

First, in almost all cases, alternative therapies are administered as part of a comprehensive program. Now that we've discussed the nature of the disease, it's easy to see why a comprehensive
program is the only thing that makes sense. Nevertheless, when the medical community decides to test the validity of a particular treatment, they insist on separating out the pieces from the

whole and testing them in isolation. 

  This would be akin to deciding to test a prospective football quarterback. The "alternative approach" would be to put him on the field with an entire team and see how he plays. The "medical
approach" would be different. How can we really tell if he's any good if there are other players on the field? Great receivers could catch lousy passes and we'd never know. A great offensive line
could make him look good by blocking so well that he had all the time in the world to find his receivers. No! The only way to truly tell if he's any good is to put him on the field alone against the
entire all-pro defensive team. And, of course, the moment the ball is hiked, he's swarmed under and killed.

   But then how do drugs pass this kind of testing? Quite simply, drugs are "magic bullets." In effect, they put him out on the field alone, but armed with an AK-47 assault rife. Of course, as soon as the ball is hiked, he shoots the entire defensive team and walks across the goal. Unfortunately, although he scores, there are side effects. The other team is dead, and the game is over-—but he did score.

   Look, just like football is a team game—with the team only as strong as it's weakest component—so too is alternative therapy for cancer a "team" program. On occasion, you may get good results using just one component or another, but overall you will get the best results when you run the program as a whole. To isolate components of a program from the whole is to treat them as drugs. That's not what they are, and they will fail that test by definition.

  Additive Vs Subtractive

  In addition, medical treatments and alternative therapies are different in an even more fundamental way. Drugs are subtractive, whereas alternative therapies are additive.

>Medical treatments such as chemo and radiation.

-As we've already discussed, medical treatments are subtractive in the very way they're evaluated. You subtract out every possible variable until you're left with the one active component.

-Traditional medical treatments are an all or nothing proposition. If you use chemo, you wipe out your immune system, which pretty much ends the possibility of using your immune system to overcome the cancer. That means medical treatments have to work consistently in a high enough percentage of cases, or they are dismissed as invalid.[1]

 That makes sense when testing subtractive therapies like drugs,
but makes no sense for testing alternative therapies. Nevertheless, that is the criterion used to evaluate alternative therapies.

Alternative therapies.

-Alternative therapies are not subtractive. They are "additive." Again, an alternative treatment that would be dismissed as ineffective because testing showed it to be only 10% effective in isolation, might nevertheless be an invaluable part of a
comprehensive program that contained seven 10% components—giving you a 70% chance of overcoming your cancer. But the medical establishment deliberately chooses not to test alternative therapies in this way—thus condemning all seven components with the "quackery" label. So the only way you hear about effective
alternatives is by word of mouth or anecdotal evidence. Fortunately, the effectiveness
of some of these programs is so strong, that it is impossible to suppress their
success. And that is why more and more people are turning away from the failing
programs of the medical community and turning to effective alternatives.

[1 And even here, the medical establishment does not play with a full deck. Doctors routinely prescribe chemotherapy for advanced lung cancer cases where the success rate is less than 1%. Any alternative therapy with a 1% success rate would be laughed into oblivion by the establishment.]

                                    Cost

And lest I forget, one of the biggest arguments against alternative therapies is that they are a waste of money. Please! We spend $100,000,000,000.00 a year on a medical war on cancer that
has been declared a failure by its very generals. Spending $100 a month on supplements or even $2,000 for a Rife machine or an Ozone generator is a drop in the bucket compared to that obscenity.
How unbelievably hypocritical to claim that they are trashing alternative therapies to protect your pocketbook!

               General Recommendations

 Preventing Vs Reversing

 It is much easier to prevent cancer than to reverse it. The reason is very simple. Isolated cancer cells are not very strong and have no built-in support mechanisms; however, once they take root and begin to multiply, they build awesome support systems, and acquire a life of their own. In the case of tumors, for example, this includes the development of fully functional, complex vascular systems capable of providing tremendous amounts of nutrition and sustenance—unfortunately at the expense of your body's vital organs. Also, once they take root, cancer cells are able
to manifest their most important attribute—immortality. Unlike normal cells in your body, which have a limited life span (one of the main reasons we age and die), cancer cells, in general, do not
age and die. Functionally, they can live forever. This gives them a major competitive advantage over healthy cells in your body.

  The bottom line is that, yes, your body is capable of reversing an established cancer. Doctors see it all the time. They call it "spontaneous remission." But it is far easier to prevent cancer than
it is to reverse it.

     So what do you do to prevent or reverse cancer?
    
   This is the big question, isn't it? Unfortunately, I cannot prescribe or recommend any particular treatments in this book. That would be against the law. However, it is not inappropriate to give you some guidelines.

Chemo, Radiation, and Surgery

   First, surgery might play a role if a tumor were so large, for example, that it was impinging on another organ, thereby threatening near term death. In that case, surgery might make sense to give you the time to pursue alternatives.

   On the other hand, I would be very leery of any chemo or radiation treatments. I would need to see very convincing (and I mean convincing) statistical evidence that those particular treatments were indeed effective for my particular type of cancer before I would even give them a passing look. Remember, chemo and radiation are "subtractive" treatments.[1]

The Alternatives

   It's now time to take a look at the "additive" therapies—the therapies that remove the toxins from your body and build your body's natural defenses against cancer. They are additive in the
sense that they can all build off each other. This is a very important concept so let me cover it once again. With chemo for example, if it gives you a 1% chance of success (as with most cases of advanced lung cancer), that's it. Since you've subtracted out all other options, those are your odds: 1 in 100. On the other hand, make use of an additive alternative treatment that has a 10% chance of helping you, and there's nothing stopping you from adding another treatment that also has a 10% success rate. Now you've got a 20% chance of success. And therein lies the secret to success.

   Do everything. Do it all at once. Do it intensively. And repeat it. And once you have the cancer on the run, keep doing it until there is no sign of cancer for at least 6 months. By everything,
what do I mean?

   >  The Baseline of Health[2]  program is specifically designed to clean out and nourish virtually every major system in your body. It is by no means a cancer treatment. It is merely a system for optimizing the health of all the major systems in your body. And it is for that reason that it serves as the core of any program you use to deal with catastrophic illness. It can play a significant role both in removing the toxins from your body that promote the growth of aberrant cells and in rebuilding and optimizing your immune system. Make sure you do every piece of the program—not just
the convenient parts.[3] The liver cleanse and detox is crucial (particularly since it destroys parasites in the liver).[4] And don't forget things like taking the flaxseed, juice fasting, the mental exercises, and physical exercise. These are all key elements of the
program. 

[1 If you opt for chemo or radiation, it is absolutely imperative that you do something to repair your immune system concurrent with your treatment. Check with your doctor about using immune enhancers concurrently with your "therapy." They have consistently produced spectacular results in similar circumstances.]

[2 Following the Baseline of Health program is the best single method available for preventing cancer from taking root in your body. It also offers the best base from which to launch any program intended to reverse cancer once it has, in fact, taken root.]

[3 When using the Baseline of Health as part of a program for reversing cancer, you need to do it completely (no exceptions), intensively and repeatedly.]

[4 You should also eliminate all forms of propyl alcohol (internal and external) from your life since there are indications
these may play a role in promoting the growth of parasites in the body.]


  > Specific anticancer protocols to check out in the library or on the web 

-Check out the Budwig diet.

-Specialized antioxidants like curcumin, green tea, selenium, and L-carnosine should be explored.

-Acemannan concentrates from aloe help build the immune system.

-Ellagitannin extracts from red raspberries are proven powerful anticarcinogens.

-Check out using high doses (12 tablespoons a day) of stabalized rice bran.

-Check out Ukrain. This is expensive, but the results have been dramatic.

-Check out Carnivora. This is much less expensive, but the first dose requires the administration of an injection. After that, all doses are oral.

-Ozone Therapy. This therapy has been shown to be effective in burning cancers out of the body. It's administered using rectal insufflation. Unfortunately, the machines are not inexpensive—costing about $2,200.

-Rife Technology. There are several machines that have expanded upon the work that Royal Rife initiated. The basic premise of his work is that cancers can be eliminated by frequencies tuned to the individual electromagnetic signature of that particular disease. The medical establishment and self-appointed quack busters really dislike these machines which cost close to $2,000. Nevertheless, they work. Not as consistently as some proponents would have you believe (because it only addresses microbe induced cancers), but it does work, and can be a powerful addition to any cancer therapy.

-Track down a scalar energy charging chamber, or consume large amounts of scalar enhanced products to help raise cellular energy levels.

Is This a Cure for Cancer?

Let's be clear right off: anyone who says they have a cure for cancer is misinformed. I make this statement, not just to make the FDA happy, but because it is a simple impossibility—even
within the medical community. When I see ads for hospital-based cancer programs where patients talk about being "cancer free" for 5 years or 7 years or whatever, I gag. The simple truth is that no one is cancer free—ever!

First of all, not everyone gets well—no matter what program they use. That's the nature of life. Sometimes it's simply because there are so many variables. For example, if your house is concentrating
radon gas seeping up from the ground below, and you never checked for it and didn't know; why then, you could be doing any program in the world (from chemo to carnivora) and your odds of overcoming lung cancer would be significantly lessened. Then again, if you live in the middle of farm country and are continually exposed to pesticides, that too lessens your odds, no matter what you do. Or what if you had lived near Love Canal and were exposed to dioxin, or were one or Erin Brockovich's client's unknowingly exposed to Chromium 6 in your water, you
were in trouble no matter what health program you went on. Sometimes you just don't know. But even in those cases, your odds are still SIGNIFICANTLY better on a program designed to detoxify (remove those very toxins) from your body than on a program that adds more toxins to it.

    Also, it's important to remember that every single day of your life your body produces anywhere from a few hundred to as many as 10,000 cancerous cells as part of its normal metabolic processes. That means no one, by definition, can be cancer free, ever. The only question is: can your body deal with those cells and prevent them from taking root and multiplying? That's it, pure and simple.

    Any program that reinforces your body in that agenda is good and will improve your odds dramatically. Any program that undermines it is "questionable." Be assured that chemotherapy and radiation (at least in their current forms) will someday be considered a barbaric remnant of our medical past, like doctors not washing their hands before surgery and using mercury to treat syphilis.

Next Chapter 19
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHAT
TO DO TO BUILD YOUR BASELINE OF

HEALTH, DAY BY DAY