Archive for cancer

Folic Acid Fortification: A Pandora’s Box

The news was awash recently with the story concerning the consideration by the Scottish Government to add folic acid to flour, in an attempt to thwart a potential rise in birth defects.

Read more

Folic acid plays a role in preventing brain and spine defects including spina bifida; however 85% of women don’t have an adequate intake, which has been recommended as 400mcg per day.

There seems to be the absence of an important distinction in all the recent media coverage; demonstrating that the health and medical professionals don’t seem to appreciate that folic acid and folate are two quite different substances or molecules.

So what are folic acid and folate?

Folic acid is basically a synthetic (made in a lab) form of vitamin B9, often used in cheap dietary supplements or in food and beverage fortification. In contrast folate is the natural B9 metabolite found in natural food sources, including leafy green plants and liver.

What is the difference?

The importance of favouring folate over folic acid can be recognised by how the body metabolises (or breaks down) both versions.

Natural plant based folate is broken down to tetrahydrofolate in the gut lining of the small intestine, whereas the synthetic folic acid form starts it’s breakdown in the liver. However the problem is that the enzyme (dihydrofolate reductase) required in breaking it down, is in short supply in the liver.

The lack of enzymatic breakdown combined with a high intake of folic acid through supplementation or fortification, may result in unnatural levels of non-metabolised folic acid entering the circulation; this has been demonstrated in several studies.

Our bodies are very smart machines, which have evolved over millions of years; hence the reason they are too smart to be fooled by synthetic substances, posing as legitimate natural plant derivatives. Natural plants and their constituents represent the true essence of the human diet, and simply won’t be replaced by laboratory chemicals masquerading as nutrients.

What are the health implications?

Although the incidence of neural tube defects (NTDs) in the United States has been significantly reduced due to the introduction of folic acid fortification in 1998, there have nevertheless been concerns about the safety of chronic dosing of high levels of folic acid from fortified foods, drinks and dietary supplements. See here.

Believe it or not there is an increased risk of cancer from excessive consumption of folic acid; see here. In some counties, including the USA, Canada and Chile, there was an increased rate of colon cancer associated with the introduction of folic acid supplementation programmes. See here and here.

In another study, which involved a randomised control, researchers found that supplementing with 1mg of folic acid resulted in an associated higher risk of prostate cancer.

One of the mechanisms in which high folic acid levels promoted cancers was proposed in one study, where it was postulated that folic acid destroys natural killer cells (NKCs); NKCs play a key role in our immune arsenal, responsible for the destruction of cancer cells and tumours. See here.

A high intake of folic acid can mask detection of vitamin B12 deficiency, leading to a deterioration of the central nervous system in the elderly. See here.

Benefits of folate

Folate represents the best option for preventing brain and spinal conditions in your child, whether you are thinking about starting a family or are pregnant. It is important to boost your folate intake well in advance of pregnancy.

Not only are folate containing foods protective for your foetus and baby, but they also offer many other health benefits including the correct source of fibre (not from grains), a good variety of vitamins and minerals and chemo (cancer) protective compounds.

What types of foods are rich in folate?

Excellent sources of dietary folate include; Romaine lettuce, spinach, asparagus, turnip greens, mustard greens, parsley, collard greens, broccoli, cauliflower, beets, lentils and liver. Liver has by far the highest amounts; about 250mcg per 100g of liver; liver is often referred to as “nature’s multivitamin”.

It is possible to top up your folate intake if your dietary intake is inadequate. Just make sure you avoid folic acid and choose brands that stipulate “5-methyltetrahydrofolate” or “5-MTHF” on the label.

NB Most multivitamins contain the folic acid version of B9, which is as previously discussed, fraught with dangers.

What are the correct dosages?

Well in terms of folate, our healthy alternative to synthetic folic acid, anywhere between the 800mcg and 1,200mcg range on a daily basis is about right for women planning a pregnancy and they should ideally start a few months before becoming pregnant. During pregnancy the same dosage applies.

Now this is quite a lot to glean from foods alone unless you are regularly consuming the aforementioned foods, especially liver at least a couple of times per week and plenty leafy greens.

Therefore if you’re pregnant or trying to get pregnant, I would suggest supplementing with 600-800mcg of folate per day, depending on your dietary intake.

For everyone else other than pregnant women, they should be able obtain plenty of folate in a diet rich with vegetables including leafy greens, and shouldn’t really need to supplement.

Other problems with fortification

Specifically in the case of folic acid, the Scottish Government’s consideration on adding it to flour is  concerning on many levels. Flours, which are mainly used in breads and baked goods have many detrimental health issues. We cite three below and their impact on mother and foetus (and child).

Bromine – Flours and their products like breads contain bromine, which is added to modern day flours as a flour improver, apparently. Unfortunately bromine is toxic and not only that, it depletes iodine in the body; iodine is a critical nutrient and one that has seen widespread deficiencies in the Western World. Iodine deficiency is linked to thyroid disease, increasing rates of cancer of the thyroid, stomach, breast and prostate. See here.

Iodine is essential to every cell in your body, but it’s especially important to your thyroid gland, which makes the hormones, T3 and T4 that regulate your entire body’s metabolism.

Iodine levels in the UK and the U.S. have dropped 50% in the last 30 years. During the same period, breast cancer rates have tripled, and the percentage of pregnant women with low iodine levels has increased 690%. Many studies have shown that children born to these mothers run a significant risk of being born with lowered intellectual ability. One such study measured a 13.5 point difference in IQ scores. In utero iodine deficiency has been associated with a host of childhood ailments including ADD/ADHD, depression, cretinism, dwarfism and mental retardation. See here and here.

Blood sugar and insulin response – The Scottish Government’s recently launched website dedicated to informing better food choices ran a radio ad campaign which claimed that, “A wholemeal wrap boosts energy levels and keeps you fuller for longer.”

This is basically nonsense; regardless of whether the breads are white or brown, theyproduce similar insulin responses (very high), which leads to a quick surge of energy, followed by a crash; hence the term “afternoon crash” or “3pm slump”.

Opposite shows a graph of blood insulin responses after oral glucose, white bread, wholewheat bread, and bread made from a finely ground flour that the researchers called “ultra-fine ground whole-grain wheat flour.”

The study was carried out by a group at the USDA to study whether the particle size of wheat made any difference on blood sugar, insulin and other measures; however I think it demonstrates something different.

Here’s the effect of these four study foods on insulin, which is often referred to as “the fat storing hormone”.

All four study foods increased insulin approximately four fold or by 400%. That’s a huge insulin spike, and did you notice what food increased insulin the most? Surprisingly to most people, it was the whole wheat bread, even without the fine grind.

The health impact of chronically high insulin and associated glucose levels are huge; in short it leads to a higher risk of cancers, obesity (including dangerous visceral fat accumulation), diabetes, Alzheimer’s (often referred to as type 3 diabetes) and heart disease to name a very few. See here, here, here and here.

A 2012 study found a link between the maternal size of women, before and during pregnancy and obesity and other associated health risks e.g. heart conditions in their young adult offspring.

Also highly processed foods including wheat flour products fuel the growth of the yeast, Candida, which can be passed from mother to foetus; this can lead to autism in utero or after birth. See here.

Gluten – Finally gluten, it could be argued is even worse than sugar and is contained in most flours including wheat, which we have just demonstrated above is a disaster for blood sugar, insulin and general health.

Taking a snapshot of gluten and it’s damaging effects to health.

  • Gluten causes autoimmune diseases including type 1 diabetes and Hashimoto’s thyroiditis.
  • Gluten causes leaky gut syndrome, which in turn is associated with over 200 disease conditions. See here.
  • Gluten sensitivity is enough to produce antibodies (allergic reaction) andstudies have been published, concluding that everyone has gluten sensitivity to some degree. See here.
  • Gluten is a known neurotoxin. See here.
  • Gluten has been confirmed to cause weight gain. See here.
  • Gluten is linked to depression. See here.
  • Gluten is linked to Alzheimer’s. See here.
  • Gluten can make you infertile. See here.
  • Gluten contains addictive opiates (exorphins), stimulating hunger and increased consumption. See here.


I realise that the Government have the best of intentions here. However that doesn’t excuse the lack of understanding of the many issues and health implications of adopting this policy.

The first problem is the decision to consider folic acid (the synthetic, unnatural and low absorption form) and not folate (the natural, high absorption form found in plant and other foods such as liver), which as we have alluded to above is a major issue on its own.

If we then consider that this problematic form of B9 is being considered for fortification with bread flours, we have the potential for opening up a Pandora’s Box of other health problems for mother, foetus and child.

By encouraging women to consume more nutrient deficient wheat flour, which is among the most damaging “foods” on the planet, they are exposing them to a host of health issues including high blood sugar and insulin levels, bromine and gluten.

As if it was not bad enough that women may consciously choose to eat more wheat to meet their daily folic acid needs, they are subconsciously being hooked on it, due to the fact that wheat contains gluten exorphins, which are opiate like peptides, responsible for increased hunger, cravings and consumption.

We are seeing a parallel between the fortification of flour issue and the Scottish Government’s consideration and subsequent decision not to fluoridate the public water supply.

Regarding the fluoridation issue, common sense, proper risk and scientific analysis and putting the onus on the public to take control of their own health, all prevailed.

Fluoride is a toxic carcinogen and brain robbing chemical and has no place in anything, let alone the public water supply. See here and here.

There is an opportunity to apply the same criteria used in declining the option to fluoridate, to declining the option to fortify the flour (a damaging ingredient on its own) supplies with a synthetic and potentially damaging chemical, folic acid.

The question is whether the same result as the fluoridation issue produced will be replicated.

England and Wales made a huge mistake adopting water fluoridation; now they have an opportunity to make some amends by rejecting the Scottish Government’s request for UK wide fortification of flour.

Question Your Oncologist

We are taught to respect authority from an early age i.e. at school as well as the notion that truth comes from authority.

There are many reasons for this and one is to respect and obey everything your doctor or consultant says, and in this case we are talking about oncologists. Why is this? Medicine is big business, which we don’t seem to get in the UK because it’s free at the point of delivery; however £130 Billion a year is far from being free to the taxpayer.

Read more

Also the perception of being “free” can make many of us feel awkward about questioning the people who work in the service or the service in general.

But in reality we have paid for this service through our taxes and the doctors, consultants and managers make very decent salaries and the companies who supply equipment and drugs to the health service make very good profits, especially the pharmaceutical companies aka Big Pharma.

Bear in mind that we are not talking about a hip replacement or getting your appendix out, which for the most part are relatively straightforward and have decent recovery results. Unfortunately with cancer the procedures are more invasive and highly toxic, be it surgery, radiation or chemotherapy as well as causing many long term, permanent side effects, including secondary cancers as a direct result of these 3 conventional therapies.

Doctors are busy, but that is no excuse to be economical with the truth and facts about these highly dangerous interventions, especially when doctors are supposed to be bound by The Hippocratic Oath, which states that doctors should “Firstly do no harm”.

They’re just not telling patients everything they really need to know, by glossing over a lot of important stuff and consequently you are at a higher risk. Therefore you have to take the initiative by preparing yourself with questions and that is the reason for this blog; so without further ado, here is a list of questions to ask your oncologist.

What’s my diagnosis?

You need to find this out as it is important. What kind of cancer do you have? By the way, it’s a good idea to get a second and a third opinion to make sure that your diagnosis is correct. Don’t just trust one doctor’s opinion on your diagnosis.

Is this a fast-growing cancer or a slow-growing cancer?

How long has this been growing in my body? This is important because if it’s a slow-growing cancer, you may have a lot more time than you realise. This will alleviate the sense of urgency that maybe your doctor or whoever may be trying to impose on you. If you have a slow-growing cancer that’s been growing on your body for 5 or 10 years or maybe longer, guess what? You probably have more time. You need to know how much time you really have in the sense of, “Is this fast-growing or slow-growing?”

Do you think an unhealthy diet, or pollution, or stress have anything to do with this?

You’ll be surprised how many doctors say, “No, it’s not your diet. No, stress doesn’t have anything to do with it. No, you’re just unlucky”. Luck is not a factor in cancer development, nor a factor in health, and has no place in the discussion.

What treatment do you recommend?

Very simple; they’re going to outline it, “Okay, we think you need surgery and chemotherapy and you need radiation.” You want to take really good notes. Take a notepad and write down everything or even better take a Dictaphone and record the conversation for future reference. You can obviously be polite by asking permission, but remember it’s your right.

What are the side effects of these treatments?

This is important for obvious reasons. What you need to know is chemotherapy drugs cause brain damage, heart damage, liver damage, lung damage, immune system damage, hearing loss, kidney and bladder damage, intestinal damage, internal bleeding, peripheral neuropathy (that’s where you lose the feeling in your fingertips and toes, sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently) and chemo drugs can cause new, secondary cancers to form in the body.

If they’re not mentioning all these potential problems, then they are omitting some serious complications. This is what the conversation may go like, “Well, you’re going to throw up, you’re going to lose your appetite, you’re going to lose your hair, you’re just going to feel bad all round, food is not going to taste very good”.

If that’s all they’re telling you, then they’re feeding you all the trivial (by comparison) side effects that everybody knows about, and hiding the major damage that chemo drugs are going to cause in your body short and long term.

In 2015, a report was published that said nearly one in five new cancer cases are secondary cancers; that’s 20% of new cancer cases are secondary cancers. This basically means that cancer patients are developing new types of cancer in different parts of their body caused by treatment of primary cancers.

Since 1970, the amount of secondary cancers has increased by 300%. Secondary cancers can come quickly within the first few months or few years of treatment, or they can come decades later. It’s important that you know that. Your doctor should acknowledge that when you talk about this.

Are these drugs the latest innovation?

You would think that the older the drug, the better, because it’s been extensively tested. That’s the way the oncologists try to talk up these drugs, “We’ve been using these drugs for years.” The truth is, the top 10 most prescribed standard chemo drugs are between 20 and 60 years old.

  • Methotrexate, Fluorouracil (that’s 5-FU) and Cyclophosphamide were developed in the 1950’s
  • Doxorubicin was developed in the 1960s
  • Cisplatin was developed in 1978
  • Gemcitabine was developed in the 1980s
  • Etoposide was developed in 1983.
  • Chlorambucil was developed around 1984
  • Docetaxel and Paclitaxel were developed in 1992

Does that give you a whole lot of confidence in what they’re doing, the fact that they still have to resort to drugs 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years old? The cancer industry is constantly boasting about new innovative life saving treatments. Yet, they’re still using drugs that are decades old; something is amiss.

Is this treatment palliative or curative?

Curative means it will get rid of your cancer and palliative basically means your condition is terminal, but the drugs will give you a wee bit of extra time. They may give you a few months, but you will be miserable in pain and discomfort.

A study concluded that two thirds of patients think they were getting curative treatment, when in actual fact they were being treated palliatively. Their doctors knew there’s no way this treatment was going to cure them. You need to know the difference and make sure you ask that question.

If they say, it’s curative treatment, then ask them,

What’s the recurrence rate after this treatment?

They will probably throw a figure or percentage chance at you. Ask them where they got it from. It needs to be from an unbiased source; hint, not a drug company or Government agency.

How much time do you think I have to live if I do this treatment?

You may or may not want to know, but bear in mind two things; firstly they are only guessing themselves and secondly, oncologists have been known to inflate the survival time to coax you into taking the treatment.

Remember the Big Pharma industry runs Governments and conventional medicine. See here.

How much time do you think I have to live if I do nothing?

Usually, it’s always going to be, “You’re going to live less time if you don’t do treatment.” We know that’s not the case. See here.

What is the five year disease free survival rate for my specific diagnosis with your treatment protocol?

It’s all about the words here; we are not talking about “survival rate” because that could mean you are not that well, but since you are alive (just), they record it as a survival success. That’s the Government for you. Make sure you use the words DISEASE FREE.

What is the five year disease free survival rate for my specific cancer if I do nothing?

They won’t know this, but you can ask them anyway. The truth is it is higher by doing nothing. See “How much time do you think I have to live if I do nothing?” above.

How much does chemotherapy contribute to five year survival for my type of cancer?

An extensive study in The Journal of Clinical Oncology (2004) concluded that chemotherapy contributed only 2.1% towards the five year survival rate i.e. not that much. Some drugs were better than others and some have a zero contribution to the five year rates, so you will have to check your own cancer in this study.

I wouldn’t bring this study up with them as it won’t make a blind bit of difference.

NB Although the study is 11 years old, the chemo drugs used then are still being used today.

May I have copies of the safety data sheets on all the drugs I’ll be taking? I like to take them home with me today if possible.

The safety data sheet is the drug insert that pharmaceutical companies have to provide to doctors for each drug; it lists all of the known side effects and damages to your body, including any known counter indications with other drugs. This is your right and comes under the Health & Safety Act. Make sure you don’t leave until you get copies of the data sheets on these drugs.

Would you (the oncologist) or your family do this treatment if you had the same diagnosis as me?

90% of oncologists would refuse chemo for themselves and their family if they had cancer. See here. That’s pretty damning, don’t you think?

Is it true that chemotherapy drugs can make cancer more aggressive?

Absolutely is the accurate answer, but let the oncologist talk just to see how honest he is going to be; he may just brush it off or say it’s not that big of an issue. It certainly is and is called chemo resistance and is driven by cancer stem cells, which become resistant to chemo and radiation. Here is a great article for your information.

Does chemotherapy kill cancer stem cells?

They will say yes they do for sure; however that is only part of the story. They cause heavy collateral damage to healthy cells, as well as failing to kill cancer stem cells, which cause chemo resistance, increased malignancy and secondary tumours. Also there are many natural plant compounds that outperform chemo with no side effects. See here.

I read that chemotherapy drugs are carcinogenic. Can this treatment cause more cancers in my body?

Yes they are, but the oncologist in all probability will down play it or use the drug company’s official (biased and inaccurate) data.

Most if not all chemo drugs are registered carcinogens at the Government level. Even the ones which have slipped through the net are cancer causing. Why? In simple terms they destroy the mitochondria (the energy producing part of your cells) of your healthy cells, which not only cause healthy cell death, but cell proliferation; cell proliferation is the hallmark of cancer, in this case secondary cancers.

How do we know this? Well Professor Thomas Seyfried wrote a ground breaking book in 2012, “Cancer as a Metabolic Disease”, which postulates that mitochondrial damage or dysfunction leads to DNA damage, in turn cell proliferation i.e. cancer.

What other options are available besides standard treatment?

They will probably say “other options don’t work” or “these are the best options that we have”. This is actually nonsense as there are many natural plant extracts that are more effective than chemo and actually kill the cancer stem cells, the main cause of secondary cancers and increased malignancy.

What do you recommend I eat while I’m doing chemotherapy?

They will probably tell you to go ahead and eat anything you want. This is shocking and demonstrates their lack of training and understanding in nutrition. Cancer cells are ravenous for glucose, which they get mainly from carbohydrates of all kinds. Hence limiting carbs (using a ketogenic diet), will help starve cancer cells. See here.

What’s the best anti-cancer diet? What is the best diet for a cancer patient?

They will have no clue; sorry, but this is the sad reality of modern cancer care in the UK and further afield. What they should be saying is a low carb, mainly plant based diet with raw organic fruits and vegetables, green juicing, probiotic and prebiotic foods and sprouted seeds e.g. broccoli seeds, with at least 80% of the diet coming from raw, uncooked foods.

Are there any foods that I should avoid?

They will probably reiterate what they said above and that was to eat anything you like. Instead they should be saying, NO grains e.g. wheat, cereals, corn, rice etc., NO sugar, NO refined vegetable oils, NO alcohol, NO processed or junk foods, NO charred foods.

How many patients do you treat per year? How many do you see per day?

He or she may say, “I treat a thousand patients a year, or something.” By the way, you’re setting them up for the next question. You want to ask this one first.

How many patients have you cured of my disease?

He or she may have just been boasting about how many patients he treats, and now you’re saying, “How many of them have you cured?” You can follow this up with…

I’m just really nervous about this. I’d like to get references. Can I speak to five patients with the same cancer as me that you’ve cured that are cancer free after five years? Is that possible?

They will probably say that we can’t give that information out, since it is confidential. Then you can say well could you call them and ask if they would talk with me directly; I’m sure they would only be too happy to sing your praises if you helped them back to health.

Do you have any former patients that have been in remission for over 10 years? That’s even better. I would really love to speak to them if you have any. 

This may sound a bit much, but think about it logically; if you were having a new roof on your house or a new kitchen fitted, you would want references from the tradesmen surely.

This is your health, which trumps every other part of your life so you will want some kind of references into the oncologist’s success rates. There is nothing unreasonable about it.

What about Insulin Potentiated Therapy

They won’t have a clue in all probability since it is not part of their training and it would never be considered as such, since it only uses 10% (in a highly targeted fashion) of the standard drug doses; one tenth is not a lot of drug, which would equal a fraction of the chemo drug profits compared to the profits that would be reaped when the standard doses of drugs are administered.

You can make the point that there is much less collateral damage to healthy cells due to the highly targeted (directly to the tumours) delivery system and then ask them, would that not be in line with the Hippocratic Oath, which states that doctors should firstly do no harm?

You can say to your oncologist, if you would like some time to research it, I can point you in the right direction and you can give them this article to read.


Breast Cancer: They Knew!


Covering Up The Causes of Breast Cancer Since 1985: AstraZeneca's BCAM

Did you know that AstraZeneca, manufacturer of two blockbuster breast cancer drugs (one of which is classified as a known human carcinogen), is behind Breast Cancer Awareness Month?

Read more

Why is it, do you think, that during Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) you never hear the word “carcinogen” mentioned, but are barraged a million times over by the word “cure”?

Truth be told, BCAM should be renamed Breast Cancer Un-Awareness Month, as it has nothing to do with generating awareness about the true causes and solutions for the breast cancer epidemic and everything to do with making the public focus on a presumably not-yet-existent “cure” to be produced through the pharmaceutical pipeline somewhere off in the future only after enough money is raised.

Instead of identifying and addressing the known causes of cancer, like the many mammary carcinogens now identified in body care products, GMO and processed foods, and our polluted environment, the mission of BCAM is to make people think that the best way to prevent breast cancer is to “detect it early.”

And how?

By subjecting their breasts to radiation-based diagnostic screening that we now know actually causes breast cancer, and which has lead to over one million cases of falsely diagnosed and unnecessarily treated breast cancers in the past 30 years in U.S. women alone. One recent review on the topic of mammography concluded that they are harmful and should be avoided, and yet you will hear countless messages this month that breast screenings are safe and effective for reducing breast cancer mortality — technically, a lie.

This viral meme describes the underlying agenda succinctly:

Back in 2012, when we first wrote “The Dark Side of Breast Cancer [Un]Awareness Month,” in order to shed light on this travesty, the real history of Breast Cancer Awareness Month’s origins was still relatively unknown despite the fact that it was a matter of public record. According to the Wikipedia page on the topic:

“NBCAM was founded in 1985 as a partnership between the American Cancer Society and the pharmaceutical division of Imperial Chemical Industries (now part of AstraZeneca, maker of several anti-breast cancer drugs). The aim of the NBCAM from the start has been to promote mammography as the most effective weapon in the fight against breast cancer.”

The reference link listed on Wikipedia for the paragraph above comes from the BCAM website, but is now dead. For reasons that remain a mystery, the BCAM website was taken offline by AstraZeneca in the intervening years. Despite this, the BCAM domain name — — still links directly to AtraZeneca’s HealthCare Foundation page; astounding evidence that AstraZeneca owned and controlled BCAM and still does. You can still view the WayBackMachine’s archived NBCAM website here if you are curious.

And so why is this connection so important? 

What is so disturbing about AstraZeneca’s founding role in BCAM is that it “just happens” to make two blockbuster breast cancer drugs, Tamoxifen and Arimidex — a conflict of interest so flagrant, its hard to ignore. Even more disturbing is that Tamoxifen is actually classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a known human carcinogen! A carcinogenic “treatment” for breast cancer?  No wonder BCAM won’t allow the word “carcinogen” mentioned in any of its campaigns. 

Back when AstraZeneca kept the BCAM website functioning, it was easy to prove how BCAM and AstraZeneca had pinkwashed the concept of the true causes of cancer (carcinogens) from the public mind. You used to be able to plop the word “carcinogen” into the site’s search engine feature and you would retrieve the following highly suspect results:
Your search – carcinogen – did not match any documents. No pages were found containing “carcinogen”.

Likewise, back in 2012, on Susan G. Komen’s website, the term “carcinogen” only emerged twice, and both in the context of denying the likelihood of there being a connection between smoking and breast cancer. If you search the site today, the term has been further scrubbed, with no informative results retrieved with the term.


Clearly this is strategic. There are literally thousands of possible and known carcinogens identified in various public databases, such as Roundup herbicide, for instance, was recently reclassified as a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization. If the goal is really to protect women and reduce breast cancer morbidity and mortality, shouldn’t Breast Cancer Awareness Month focus on identifying and reducing exposure to probable and/or known carcinogens?  Failing to do so is equivalent to deceit, if not malfeasance, is it not?

This all makes greater sense when you understand the history behind BCAM’s founder AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca was formed through the merger of Astra AB and Zeneca Group (a pharmaceutical subsidiary of Imperial Chemical Industries) in 1999. Imperial Chemical Industries, a multinational corporation responsible for producing breast cancer causing petrochemical derivatives such as vinyl chloride and pesticides, founded National Breast Cancer Awareness Month in 1985, in partnership with the American Cancer Society, in order to promote the widespread adoption of x-ray mammography, whose failings if not horrors we have documented extensively elsewhere.

This means the very corporation that contributed significantly to accelerating the breast cancer epidemic also profited and still profits from new diagnoses of breast cancer and their treatment.

fracking for the cure

Sadly, Breast Cancer Awareness Month is a time of increasing awareness not of the preventable causes of breast cancer, but of the breast cancer industry’s insatiable need to both raise money for research into a would-be “pharmaceutical cure,” and to promote its primary means of “prevention”: early detection via x-ray mammography.’It’s also a cause-marketing feeding frenzy with a disturbingly vast array of carcinogen-containing products sporting Susan G. Komen’s pink ribbon, presumably “in support” of raising awareness, including the hot pink fracking drill bit pictured above.

Please, before you consider going on a march, donating to the “cause,” or buying a pink-ribbon-bedecked product this month, consider the true origins of the year’s most widespread brainwashing event. For real information on the real causes and solutions for cancer watch the upcoming Truth about Cancer documentary series, of which I will be a part. It promises to be the much needed antidote to the propaganda that has spread as viciously as cancer itself. You can also use our Cancer Research database with thousands of articles and study abstracts on treating cancer naturally.

Finally, please share the meme below (save to desktop and re-upload to Facebook and other social media platforms), with the link to this article:

I will be putting up another blog on this in the next week or so, with strategies to reduce your risk as well as treatment options for breast cancer.

Published with permission from


Breast Cancer: Are women being short changed?

The thought of breast cancer strikes fear into the hearts of even the hardiest of souls and it is this fear that helps drive the multibillion dollar cancer industry; misguided and self serving fundraising charities, dangerous mammograms, expensive and toxic chemotherapy drugs and highly invasive mastectomies etc.

Read more

Cancer drug therapies don’t work: Big Pharma have fudged the results
It’s no secret that mainstream Western medicine relies heavily on evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific studies. But that world is being turned on its head. According to researchers C. Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis, writing in the prestigious journal Nature, 89% of the published cancer studies they reviewed cannot be reproduced.

According the well respected UCL pharmacologist, Professor David Colqhoun, The Cancer Dug fund is just a “political stunt”.

Therefore the fact that cancer charities and the NHS continually plead for cost reductions on drugs is missing the point; the tens of thousands of pounds spent to keep terminally ill patients alive for a few months could arguably be replaced by adopting a holistic approach as outlined below. However the drug only approach is so engrained in the medical psyche, mostly through Big Pharma’s power and influence, that “they can’t see the wood for the trees”

I guess they forgot one of the famous quotes from the father of medicine; “let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food” – Hippocrates.

How Angelina Jolie was duped
We have also recently witnessed the barbaric act of Angelina Jolie, based on the false premise that women who carry the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes have about an 87% chance of the disease, which is plain nonsense and here is a great article that effectively dispels this lunacy.

Genes are mostly controlled through the epigenome, the level above the gene, which dictates through the environment a person is exposed to, which genes will be turned off (suppressed) or turned on (expressed). The environment includes diet, exposure to toxins and pollution, Big Pharma medicines, exercise and stress levels; hence the key to avoiding and treating most disease lies in the understanding of the epigenome.

What dietary advice do cancer charities and Government offer the public

Cancer charities (and other health charities) give out poor dietary advice often veiled in the vague words of “eat a balanced diet”, based on outdated and poor scientific research, pre-loaded with vested interests e.g. the food industry and the low fat, high carbohydrate dogma.

Consider this; why does the NHS Eatright Plate specify that a significant part of your diet should consist of starchy carbohydrates, when in 1931 Otto Warburg won the Nobel prize for making the discovery that glucose is a crucial fuel for the survival of cancer cells.

The simple answer is to appease Big Business like the food companies. Look at Cancer UK’s dietary guidelines; a woeful attempt to provide not only some inaccurate information, but very vague information. Why? Perhaps it’s due to the fact that Tesco is their major sponsor.

As the third president of the USA once said; “If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny.” – Thomas Jefferson

Strategies for the prevention and treatment of breast cancer

Below is what you should expect from a cancer charity website that raises millions from dedicated fundraisers.

 These strategies pretty much apply to both prevention and treatment. 

  • Broccoli SproutsBroccoli sprouts are young broccoli plants that are rich in glucoraphanin, a precursor of sulforaphane. Sulforaphane has been shown in vitro studies to have anti-cancer effects against prostate, breast and urinary cancers. It may also protect the skin from ultraviolet radiation.
  • Watercress – A compound contained in watercress has been shown to inhibit a protein that is an integral part of breast cancer development.Tumours are cell masses that begin to grow uncontrollably and as a result of their rapid development, they actually outgrow their blood supply.

In order to obtain oxygen and nutrients, the tumours must coerce the surrounding cells to  begin providing a fresh blood supply. A chemical in watercress known as Phenylethyl Isothiocyanate (PEITC) can actually block this process, thereby impeding tumour growth by interfering with the cancer protein Hypoxia Inducible Factor (HIF).

Watercress has also been found to outperform pharmaceuticals such as Tamoxifen and Herceptin. Watercress, however, is a natural herb that will not cause any of the harmful side effects brought upon by traditional drug use and save the NHS a packet.

Not only has watercress been shown to effectively battle cancer in the short term, but it also has been proven to ward off cancer in the long term. When consumed regularly, watercress prevents the onset of cancer in the future. In addition, daily intake of watercress also reduces DNA damage and increases cells’ ability to further resist DNA damage caused by free radicals.

  • Curcumin (Turmeric) – Turmeric root is one of the most important spices and traditional medicines across vast sections of Asia, and has been for hundreds of years. Scientists attribute many of turmeric’s health benefits to the trio of naturally occurring chemicals known as curcuminoids, which give the root its characteristic yellow-orange colour. The name curcumin, which technically refers to only one of the curcuminoids, is sometimes also used to refer to the entire group.

One study conducted by researchers from Siebold University of Nagasaki, Japan and published in the Journal of Clinical Biochemistry and Nutrition in 2010, found that healthy people who took turmeric tablets had higher blood concentrations of the cancer fighting chemical geranylgeranoic acid (GGA) four hours later.

In another study, published the same year in the journal Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, researchers from the University of Michigan found that a solution of curcumin and piperine (the chemical that makes black pepper spicy) stopped the propagation of breast cancer stem cells while leaving healthy breast cells unaffected. The piperine appeared to boost the natural tumour suppressing powers of the curcumin. Notably, even the typically hard to treat hormone receptor negative tumours were suppressed by curcumin.

A 2011 study conducted by researchers from Zheijian Provincial People’s Hospital in China backed this up, finding that curcumin actually induced apoptosis (programmed cell death) in triple negative breast cancer cells, the most lethal form of breast cancer. Another 2011 study by researchers from the University of Texas, noted that curcumin is remarkable for its effectiveness at inducing apoptosis while not just leaving non-cancerous cells alone, but actually improving their health.

A pre-clinical study, targeting breast stem cells with the cancer preventive compounds curcumin and piperine, published in the Journal of Breast Cancer Research and Treatment in 2010, gives insight into another advantage of using piperine to enhance the effects of curcumin.

Researchers from the University of Michigan’s Comprehensive Cancer Centre discovered when curcumin with piperine was applied to breast cells in vitro, cancerous stem cells were decreased without any noticeable changes in distinctively healthy cells.

These stem cells, though minute in number are what keep cancerous tumours alive. Dr. Madhuri Kakarala, M.D., Ph.D., R.D., lead author, clinical lecturer and research investigator concludes, “If we can limit the number of stem cells, we can limit the number of cells with the potential to form tumours.”

Not only turmeric, but all spices and herbs have the ability to affect multiple disease pathways, unlike drugs, which only influence single pathways and are toxic and on the whole, expensive and ineffective.

  • Lignans Plant lignans are one of the four classes of phyto-oestrogens, containing a chemical called 7-hydroxymatairesinol (HMR), a phenolic compound that is structurally similar to the main mammalian oestrogen, oestradiol.

Lignans inhibit aromatase and oestradiol production in general, lowering serum oestrogen levels as well as increase the concentration of sex hormone binding globulin, which blunts the effects of oestrogens. These benefits were documented when 48 postmenopausal women consumed 7.5g/day of ground flax seeds for 6 weeks, then 15g for 6 weeks and significant decreases in oestradiol, oestrone and testosterone were noted with a bigger decrease in overweight and obese women.

In another study, there was significant apoptosis (tumour cell death) and reduced cell proliferation in the flax seed group in just the one month.

  • Tocotrienols – The other spectrum of vitamin E is far more potent from a therapeutic point of view than tocopherols and include four fractions; alpha, beta, gamma and delta.

In terms of breast cancer, the delta (the best) and gamma fractions have the most potent effect from a preventative and treatment standpoint. Also delta tocotrienols work synergistically with Tamoxifen to enhance the treatment effectiveness. Researchers suggest that this synergy may allow for reduced doses of Tamoxifen, in turn reducing the side effect profile.

Tocotrienols are extracted in high quantities mainly from palm oil, annatto or rice bran. However annatto (derived from the seeds of the Achiote trees in tropical regions) has the highest quantity of the potent delta fraction.

Tocotrienols control the production of the potent oestrogen, oestradiol and inhibit growth of the oestrogen receptor (OR) positive MCF-7 and ER-neg MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer cells. 

Fasting may also reduce the side effects of chemotherapy.

Fasting stabilises insulin levels; high insulin being linked to increased breast cancer risk.

Researchers explain how the ketogenic (high fat, moderate protein, very low carb, no grain) diet can have such a dramatic and rapid effect on cancer. All of your body’s cells are fuelled by glucose, including cancer cells. However, cancer cells have one built-in fatal flaw; they do not have the metabolic flexibility of your regular cells and cannot adapt to use ketone bodies (fats) for fuel as all your other cells can.

So, when you alter your diet and become what’s known as “fat-adapted,” your body starts using fat for fuel rather than carbs. When you switch out the carbs for healthy fats, you starve       the cancer out, as you’re no longer supplying the necessary fuel, glucose for their growth.

Researchers explain that:

“Your normal cells have the metabolic flexibility to adapt from using glucose to using ketone       bodies (fats), but cancer cells lack this metabolic flexibility and therefore we can exploit this  advantage”.

Severely limiting sugar/fructose, processed foods of all kinds, sweetened beverages (as well as diet versions) and replacing carbs with healthy fats and high quality protein can do what no medicine can; it can prevent disease from setting in, and may even be the U-turn you’re looking for if you’ve been diagnosed with cancer or other chronic disease. Add to that all the other strategies mentioned here and you will be well prepared.

Green juicing forms a key part of this diet; kale, watercress, romaine, rocket, spinach along with beets, carrots, ginger, lemons, limes, celery, parsley and cucumber offer chemoprotection. Here is a great recipe from my blog.

  • Exercise – Recent research from the Mayo Clinic suggests oncologists are failing to properly advise their patients on the need for exercise, which some cancer organisations now believe should be part of standard cancer care.

Exercise during and after cancer treatment can reduce your risk of dying from cancer, reduce your risk of cancer recurrence, boost energy and minimise the side effects of conventional cancer treatment.

Previous research has shown that breast and colon cancer patients who exercise regularly reduced the recurrence rate by 50% compared to non-exercisers. That’s staggering don’t you think?

Exercise helps lower your cancer risk and improve outcomes by normalising your insulin levels, lowering oestrogen and improving testosterone levels and the circulation of immune cells in your blood.

Surely there has to be a radical re-think on how this disease and other diseases are prevented and treated; expensive, toxic and ineffective drugs and other invasive treatments are not the way.


Breast Cancer: Part 1

“Everyone should know that the ‘war on cancer’ is largely a fraud” – Linus Pauling, PhD, Two Time Nobel Prize Winner.

These are evocative words, but after spending two years researching and writing my eBook, you come to the realisation that cancer is big business for Big Pharma and the medical establishment.

Read more

The ‘protective’ removal of women’s breasts due to BRCA1/BRCA2 genes has become a disturbingly popular trend, and increasingly it is being celebrated in the mainstream media and medical establishments as a reasonable choice.

After the recent hullabaloo with Angelina Jolie who probably had good intentions, but nevertheless has been misinformed and misguided, resulting in the wrong message being projected.

Breast cancer is the most common cause of cancer death for women aged 15 to 49 in the UK and is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of 40 to 55.

The high prevalence has created a very lucrative industry; from mammography and other dangerous or invasive testing methods, to “preventive” double mastectomies and cancer drugs.

Much effort is placed on trying to detect cancer at an earlier stage, with conventional recommendations to get regular mammograms unfortunately showing to be more harmful than helpful, as research shows 10 times as many women are harmed in some way compared to those whose lives are spared by annual mammograms.

Cancer drug therapies don’t work because drug companies have cooked the results
It’s no secret that mainstream Western medicine relies heavily on evidence-based, peer reviewed scientific studies. But that world is being turned on its head. According to researchers C. Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis [1], writing in the prestigious journal Nature, 89% of the published cancer studies they reviewed cannot be reproduced.

How statistics and fear force women into money spinning procedures
The real risks of breast cancer are much less than the claimed risks. In reality, everyone has cancer micro tumours in their bodies. Cancer is not a disease that just appears; it’s a disease that is influenced by lifestyle choices, which influence your immune system, toxic and oestrogen load.

The medical establishment are controlled by Big Pharma and will use the term “risk” to scare you into believing that you have no control over cancer, where in fact the opposite is true.

Angelina Jolie with her BRCA1 gene that’s linked to breast cancer could have quite easily followed a lifestyle blueprint that would have suppressed the BRCA1 gene expression. Why? Faulty genes cause less than 1% of disease [2] and so the whole “chance” argument is nonsense. Also genetic expression is mainly controlled by the epigenome, which composes chemical compounds that can affect the gene; think of it as the gateway between the gene and your environment, your environment being the foods you eat, air you breathe, chemicals you ingest, exercise you take, sleep you get, stress you are subjected to. So you see cancer is cause and effect; there is no “luck” involved.

Why don’t many people challenge the medical establishment and Big Pharma?
George Orwell put is so eloquently when he said, “Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness”.

The Establishment and their PR gurus are very effective at creating fear, doubt and insecurity among the masses by creating false needs (e.g. drugs) to satisfy their money making agendas.

Another key strategy they rely on is social proof, defined as “a psychological phenomenon where people assume the actions of others reflect the correct behaviour for a given situation, driven by the assumption that the surrounding people (e.g. medical establishment, Angelina Jolie) possess more information about the situation.” In other words, people are wired to learn from the actions or advice from others, and this can be a huge driver of consumer behaviour.

What should the cancer industry really be doing to make a difference?
Empowering women with a sense of control over their own health is the last thing the cancer industry wants to do, because that would result in the loss of huge profits, but it would be the moral and caring thing to do.

Unfortunately it’s far more profitable to scare all women into a state of such irrational panic that they agree to the most insane things; chopping off both of their healthy breasts, leaving women convinced they’ve literally saved their own lives by agreeing to be mutilated.

How dare they make women believe there is only ONE way to reduce their “risk”
Apart from making women think they have an 87% risk of breast cancer, they scam women into thinking there is only one solution for lowering that false risk.

“For any woman reading this, I hope it helps you to know you have options,” writes Jolie in the NYT; yet she utterly fails to offer women any options other than the one she took. Check in to a cancer centre and let them play “cut, poison and burn” on your body. Jolie’s NYT piece, which reads as if it were written by a PR company, offers nothing in the way of lifestyle choices and other powerful, non invasive therapies. Surely this is a disservice to all women?

But Jolie and the cancer industry seem to imply no preventative options exist other than conventional treatments because the cancer industry wants to funnel women like cattle into their slash, poison and burn system of quack treatments with Angelina Jolie as their new champion, who now seeks to “inspire” other women to exercise their own sick “choice” and have their breasts removed! Angelina has clearly lost her Hollywood marbles.

This is not empowering women, it’s conning them into self-mutilation by offering a false “risk” statistic to scare them into a ‘one and only’ destructive treatment regime.

Don’t be tricked into self-mutilation by cancer industry quacks; there are a plethora of preventative measures to avoid the expression of the BRCA genes and non invasive, safer treatment measures available if you do contract the disease.

In Part 2, we will be exploring these preventative and treatment measures.