Breast Cancer Myths 3

      No Comments on Breast Cancer Myths 3

Myth #9: If my mother had breast cancer, I’ll get it too

The Truth: Breast Cancer is not caused by bad genes; it’s caused by bad diets

This is another common lie told to woman by cancer doctors to scare them into medically unnecessary cancer “treatments” (which can kill you or harm you). Did you know that radiation treatment for one breast actually causes cancer in the OTHER breast?

Your genes don’t control your health, but what you put in your mouth and on your skin has near-total control over your health! If your parents had cancer, they were no doubt eating cancer-causing foods (processed meats) and not using anti-cancer foods, superfoods, herbs and supplements. They were also likely deficient in vitamin D, and they probably didn’t drink fresh anti-cancer vegetables on a daily basis. Lastly, they no doubt had regular exposure to cancer-causing chemicals: Cigarette smoke, chemical solvents, perfume chemicals, household cleaners, pesticides, skin care products, conventional cosmetics, etc.

Myth #10: Sunlight causes cancer

The Truth: Sunlight generates Vitamin D in your skin, which prevents 78% of ALL cancers

The disinformation put out by the cancer industry about sunlight has reached a level of absurdity that’s virtually unmatched in the history of medicine. If you believe what the American Cancer Society tells you (still being suckered?), sunlight causes cancer!

Yes, that’s right: Sunlight causes cancer, they claim. According to the entire cancer industry (and most dermatologists, too), you’d be much better off hiding in a cave, or living your life under fluorescent lights or smothered in a layer of toxic sunscreen chemicals (which actually DO cause cancer, by the way).

Somehow, the human race has miraculously managed to survived 350,000 years of natural sunlight without be obliterated. This is nothing short of astonishing, given that sunlight is so deadly. It sort of makes me wonder how the human race survived at all, with sunlight striking any given area of the Earth, say, 50% of the time. Did our ancestors live underground?

The ploy here is so obvious that it’s child’s play to expose their strategy: Cancer industry authorities know that vitamin D prevents 77% of all cancers. Since sunlight exposure causes the skin to generate vitamin D in the human body (for free, no less), the cancer industry has come to the realization that in order for it to continue surviving (and exploiting cancer patients), it has to scare people away from anything that might actually prevent or cure cancer.

This is the whole reason behind the sunlight scare campaigns, of course. It’s all just a clever profit strategy to keep people sick and diseased by enforcing widespread vitamin D deficiency across the human population. Note, too, that this deficiency is especially prominent in men and women of darker skin color, which means the cancer industry’s whole campaign against sunlight is filled with disturbing racial overtones that smack of genocide. (Ever wonder why breast cancer is FAR more aggressive in black women and white women? It’s the vitamin D deficiency caused by the skin color, of course. But cancer docs never tell their black patients anything about it…)

Remember this: Healthy people with abundant vitamin D levels in their blood don’t get cancer and they almost never catch colds. They also don’t need vaccines, by the way. These are three huge profit centers for conventional medicine: Cancer, vaccines and colds. This is why the industry goes to such great lengths to (hilariously) try to discredit the sun.

It’s hilarious because the sun, of course, is the source of ALL life on our planet. Without the sun, there would be no plants, no bacteria, no animals, no fish and certainly no humans. The sun is the single most important source of life on our planet, and without it, we’d all die in a matter of a few hours (from the cold alone). That the cancer industry would declare war on the sun is just a disturbing example of how far removed modern medicine is from the real world.

 

Why the cancer industry is dangerous to women

The cancer industry people are living in a world of self-reinforced fictions, where sunlight is bad and chemotherapy chemicals are good; where food is useless but pharmaceuticals are essential. Almost everything said to you by a conventional cancer doctor is the opposite of what’s real, and yet they believe their own delusions only because those delusions are so widely shared by their colleagues. It is circular logic at its worst, driven by arrogance and greed, and totally lacking any discernable degree of intellectual honesty or compassion for the value of a human life.

The cancer industry is, in a very real way, a danger to the safety of men and women alike. It is a kind of home-grown medical terrorism, through which the application of fear and disinformation results in massive corporate profits that are only exceeded by the body count of our dead women; our mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts and nieces who fall victim to conventional cancer treatments. They are being lost to a medical regime wielding weapons of mass destruction: Chemical weapons (chemotherapy), radiological weapons (radiation) and weapons of sharp steel (scalpels).

These weapons of medical violence are being directed at our women for one purpose only: To secure profits that go into the hands of a few wealthy men who sit at the top of these organizations, raking in fifty-million-dollar salaries while the cancer treatment centers send women home in body bags.

It is the ultimate act of cruelty to promise a woman “treatment” and then deliver poison.

It is the ultimate act of violence to promise a woman “healing” and then mutilate her body.

The cancer industry, as operated today, is ultimately a criminal organization engaged in acts of medical violence against women.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Breast Cancer Myths 2

      No Comments on Breast Cancer Myths 2

Myth #6: BRCA-positive women should consider mastectomies to prevent cancer

The Truth: Cruciferous vegetables target BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, preventing cancer with nutrition

Women who are BRCA positive are being scared into utterly unnecessary double mastectomies — a procedure that benefits no one except the surgeon. What nobody is telling these women is that cruciferous vegetables contain anti-cancer nutrients that specifically target BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, protecting these women from breast cancer.

All it takes is a single ounce of fresh broccoli juice each day, or fresh sprouts, superfoods or other nutrient-dense foods or juices consumed daily.

Cancer doctors, of course, conveniently forget to tell women about these little facts. It would hurt their business if women knew how to prevent cancer on their own, at home, with everyday groceries and simple herbs.Here’s text from one study that might interest you. It shows that I3C (from broccoli) and genistein (from fermented soy) inhibit estrogen-stimulated receptor activity in a dose-dependent fashion:

“…we showed that I3C induces BRCA1 expression and that both I3C and BRCA1 inhibit oestrogen (E2)-stimulated oestrogen receptor (ER-) activity in human breast cancer cells. We now report that both I3C and genistein induce the expression of both breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2) in breast (MCF-7 and T47D) and prostate (DU-145 and LNCaP) cancer cell types, in a time- and dose-dependent fashion.

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v94/n3/full/6602935a.html

Conventional cancer doctors, of course, refuse to tell women about scientific evidence like this. If women could prevent breast cancer with I3C, why would they need cancer doctors? The answer, of course, is that they wouldn’t.

The FDA, of course, won’t allow companies selling I3C supplements to tell you the scientifically-validated truth about their anti-cancer benefits. It’s all part of the censorship and oppression that characterizes today’s cancer industry. The U.S. government, of course, is the co-conspirator in this sad tragedy of misinformation.

It is the job of the FDA and the cancer industry to keep women stupid, uninformed and scared when it comes to breast cancer. The last thing they want is for women to be nutritionally literate.

Myth #7: The cancer non-profits are searching for a cure for cancer

The Truth: Even if one was found, they would never allow a cure to be publicized: It would destroy the cancer treatment industry

It’s the great scam of the cancer industry: We’re searching for a cure, they claim! Never mind the fact that they’ve been using this same con since the late 60’s, when they claimed to be only a few million dollars away from curing cancer forever.

The search for “the cure” is pure deception. It’s a clever con to take money from people for all those silly pink ribbon activities, but the truth is that the cancer industry doesn’t believe there’s such a thing as cure. Just ask the FDA, the AMA or any state health licensing board: Anyone claiming to have a cancer “cure” is immediately considered a quack. Over the last several decades, countless doctors researching genuine cancer cures have been arrested, imprisoned or run out of the country. Read about Stanislaw Burzynski to learn about just one example: http://www.cancure.org/burzynski_institute.htm

Finally, even if they actually find a “cure” (which they won’t, since that would destroy the profits of the cancer industry), do you think they would give it away for free? Of course not! They’d charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for it, milking the maximum profits out of a terrified population for their newest wonder drug.

Notice, by the way, that not a single conventional breast cancer non-profit group — nor any drug company — has announced that its breakthrough cancer drugs will be given away for free. And that leads me to this question: If they’re not planning on giving away the cure for free, then why are you giving them money for free to pay for their R&D?

Why should people donate money to the wealthiest corporations in the world (the drug companies) who are going to take their money and use it to develop a new wave of drugs that are sold to cancer victims at outrageous price markups sometimes exceeding 550,000% of the cost of the chemical ingredients?

The truth is, anyone who donates money for any such “search for the cure” is being conned outright. There’s a sucker born every minute, P.T. Barnum famously said. What he neglected to add is that most of them are now buying pink products and thinking they’re helping find a “cure” for cancer.

Don’t be suckered. Keep your money, or invest it in vitamin D supplements or anti-cancer herbs. You want to cure cancer? Cure it in your own body first. It’s a lot less expensive, and you get to keep your hair, too.

Myth #8: There is no cure for breast cancer

The Truth: There are MANY natural cures for breast cancer available right now

Just a few hours of research will turn up numerous natural cures for cancer: Vitamin D, cat’s claw herbs, the Essiac formula, medicinal mushrooms, spirulina, cruciferous vegetables, green tea, graviola herbs, Chinese medicinal herbs, oxygen therapy, alkalizing water therapies and much more. All these cures have one thing in common: They are ALL suppressed by the FDA and FTC. Telling the truth about anti-cancer foods, herbs or supplements is now a criminal offense in many parts of the world.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

(To be continued…)

Breast Cancer Myths 1

      No Comments on Breast Cancer Myths 1

Myth #4: Chemotherapy is safe and doesn’t cause permanent damage to your health

The Truth: Chemotherapy causes vomiting, hair loss, muscle loss, brain damage, heart damage, kidney damage and liver damage. Much of this damage is permanent. Symptoms include:

Cancer Drug Causes Permanent Brain Damage

Chemotherapy Causes Brain Shrinkage

Chemotherapy Found to Cause Permanent Brain Damage

Myth #5: Regular mammograms are the best way to detect cancer

The Truth: Mammograms harm 10 women for every one woman they help

Here’s part of a story published in 2006, called Breast Cancer Screening Harms Ten Women for Every One That it Helps

“A new study by researchers from the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Denmark found that mammograms may harm ten times as many women as they help.

The researchers examined the benefits and negative effects of seven breast cancer screening programs on 500,000 women in the United States, Canada, Scotland and Sweden. The study’s authors found that for every 2,000 women who received mammograms over a 10-year period, only one would have her life prolonged, but 10 would endure unnecessary and potentially harmful treatments.”

Got that? For every 2,000 women receiving mammograms, only ONE would have her life extended at all. TEN women, though, would be harmed with chemotherapy, radiation or mastectomies.

What the study didn’t point out, by the way, is that all these treatments are highly profitable for the cancer industry. That’s the real reason why mammograms are pushed so aggressively onto women. It’s not because mammograms detect cancer; it’s because mammograms make them money.

To the breast cancer industry, a woman is nothing more than a piece of meat with a cash reward attached to it. The push for mammography is a marketing ploy designed to keep women scared, misinformed and lined up to be poisoned with chemotherapy while they shell out their life savings for treatments that, for most of them, aren’t even medically justified!

That’s why I say the breast cancer industry is, by any honest assessment, a crime against women. In Singapore, husbands who beat their wives are considered criminals. They’re arrested and locked away. But those very same men, when wearing a doctor’s coat, can assault women with chemicals, slice off their breasts with scalpels and even kill those women… all with impunity. There’s not a single breast cancer doctor who has ever been arrested for the death of a patient.

The true history of western medicine’s violence against women

In time, of course, this will change. Medical violence against women is a crime, regardless of whether the weapon is a fist, a baseball bat or a syringe full of chemicals that will cause permanent damage to her vital organs. In time, chemotherapy will be outlawed and breast cancer doctors will be put out of work or prosecuted for their crimes against women. Perhaps they’ll even be castrated as part of a “fitting” punishment.

To all the women reading this, note carefully the history of western medicine and its numerous assaults on women over the years. Do you know where the term “hysterectomy” comes from? It comes from the belief by male doctors that women’s emotions were “hysterical,” and they believed the best way to “cure” women of their hysteria was to violently cut her reproductive organs out of her body.

The procedure was widely adopted by male surgeons and used for well over a hundred years to treat women who were diagnosed as suffering from virtually every kind of emotional variance you can imagine. Doctors who didn’t use scalpels to remove these organs from a woman’s body often resorted to so-called “pelvic massages” — a medicalized raping of the female patient by the male doctor, of course.

Even today, tens of thousands of hysterectomies are performed each year with no medical justification whatsoever. Doctors continue to view women’s bodies as diseased and abnormal, surgically removing their breasts and reproductive organs for no justifiable reason whatsoever. It’s even being done today as a cancer prevention procedure, against women who have no cancer at all!

Western medicine’s treatment of breast cancer patients today is little more than an extension of hundreds of years of medical violence against women by the male-dominated medical establishment.

Want proof? Notice that cancer doctors never advise men to surgically remove their testicles as a way to “prevent” testicular cancer? That’s because the male surgeons performing these operations prefer to maim women, not men.

Be well

Dr  Sundardas

 (To be continued….)

Breast Cancer Myths

      No Comments on Breast Cancer Myths

Consumers of course, have virtually no idea where the funds they donate actually go, nor do they know the truths about breast cancer they’ll never be told by conventional cancer non-profit organizations. In this series, I’ll reveal ten important myths about breast cancer, and the truths that can save your life.

Myth #1: Breast Cancer is not preventable

The Truth: Up to 98% of breast cancer cases can be prevented through diet, nutritional supplements, sunshine and exercise

It’s true: Breast cancer can be almost entirely prevented through commonsense changes in diet, the addition of anti-cancer nutritional supplements, boosting vitamin D creation from sunlight, avoiding exposure to toxic chemicals in consumer products, pursuing regular exercise and eating a live foods diet.

The breast cancer industry — which depends on the continuation of cancer for its profits and employment — has so far refused to teach women even basic cancer prevention strategies (such as increasing the intake of vitamin D, which prevents 77% of all cancers).

Myth #2: Breast cancer foundation products are sold to raise money to support breast cancer victims.

The Truth: Nearly 100% of the funds are used to recruit more breast cancer patients into highly-lucrative treatments that do more harm than good.

You know where all that money goes that you donate to the “search for the cure” and other cancer scams? Virtually none of it goes to actually teach women how to prevent cancer. The World Health Organization says 70% of all cancers are preventable, but the breast cancer industry helps zero percent of women actually prevent it.

Those funds actually go to recruiting breast cancer patients by offering “free” mammograms. This is the clever recruitment strategy of the cancer industry. It’s sort of like a greasy garage mechanic offering a “free” checkup on your car’s transmission. It’s in his financial interest to find something wrong (or to break something), just like it’s in the financial interests of the cancer industry to diagnose a women with cancer and scare her into expensive, high-profit treatments like chemotherapy, radiation therapy or cancer surgery. (Mammogram false positives are commonplace…)

Want proof of where these funds go? Check out this grant list at the leading breast cancer organization, and you’ll see it’s almost entirely spent on recruiting more women with mammograms:

When you read that list, note that there is not a single grant provided for nutritional education to teach women how to prevent cancer with vitamin D, cruciferous vegetables, anti-cancer herbs, supplements or to avoid dangerous cancer-causing food ingredients like sodium nitrite, MSG and chemical sweeteners.

Myth #3: The only proven treatments for breast cancer are chemotherapy and radiation

The Truth: Chemotherapy doesn’t work and radiation causes cancer

Chemotherapy is a fraud, plain and simple. It’s as ludicrous as poisoning patients with mercury and calling it medicine (which is something doctors did a hundred years ago, by the way). There is absolutely no reliable scientific evidence showing that chemotherapy has any positive effect whatsoever on breast cancer. Try to find the science yourself: It doesn’t exist!

Sure, there’s evidence that chemotherapy shrinks tumors. Too bad, however, that tumor size is irrelevant. Artificially reducing the size of a tumor does nothing to reverse the physiology of cancer in a patient’s body. It doesn’t initiate the healing that needs to take place to reverse cancer and stay cancer free. And this doesn’t even take into account the quality of life issues here: Chemotherapy doesn’t help people LIVE any longer, but it sure does make them DIE longer!

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Fake Science and vaccines

      No Comments on Fake Science and vaccines

 

Many “scientific” studies are literally nonsense. This is not a conspiracy theory. For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association [2005;294(2):218–28] published a paper showing that one-third of “highly cited original clinical research studies” were eventually contradicted by subsequent studies. The supposed effects of specific interventions either did not exist as the original studies concluded, or were exaggerated. It is not unusual for the “science” of today to degenerate into tomorrow’s fiction.

Vaccine studies are often funded by vaccine manufacturers. The lead authors of important studies that will be used to validate the safety or efficacy of a vaccine are often beholden to the manufacturer in some way. They may own stock in the company or are paid by the manufacturer to travel around the country promoting their vaccines. Lead authors may receive consultation fees, grants or other benefits from the drug maker. Although many people consider this unethical or corrupt, in the world of immunizations this is an acceptable practice, condoned by the CDC and FDA.

Sometimes study conclusions contradict core data in the study. It is not uncommon to read the abstract or summary of a major paper touting a vaccine’s apparent safety or benefits, only to find that upon examining the actual paper, including important details, the vaccine is shown to be dangerous and may have poor efficacy as well. For example, a landmark study published in Pediatrics [2003;112:1039-48] found that cumulative exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines “resulted in a significant positive association with tics” and “increased risks of language delay.”

In other words, babies that received two or more vaccines containing mercury showed signs of neurological damage. This crucial information can be found in the body of the study. However, the authors concluded that “No consistent significant associations were found between thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes.” Sadly, the media is reluctant to publish anything that challenges the sacrosanct vaccine program. Newspaper articles about vaccines, and reviews of vaccine studies that are published, merely mimic the original spurious conclusions.

Often, important information is missing from a study. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine [2007;356:1915-27] published a paper on the HPV vaccine. It concluded that the vaccine “was highly effective” even though data in the study showed that vaccine efficacy was just 17% against high-grade cervical lesions. However, truly vital information that would help families to make informed vaccine decisions was never mentioned in the paper.

A secret FDA study [VRBPAC Meeting: May 18, 2006] had already found that the HPV vaccine may “enhance cervical disease“ in girls who are sexually active prior to vaccination. In other words, the vaccine seems to work best in virgins and may actually increase a young woman’s chance of developing cervical cancer if she was previously exposed through sexual intercourse to HPV strains included in the vaccine.

In some instances, study results may be preordained. For example, when the vaccine-autism link became a public concern, vaccine proponents hastened to produce authentic-appearing studies that contradicted genuine data. Years ago, tobacco companies used this very same ploy. They financed numerous bogus studies ostensibly “proving” that cigarettes didn’t cause cancer. The real studies got lost in the muddle. Sadly, it’s all too easy to obfuscate truth and deceive the public.

At the infamous Simpsonwood conference held in Norcross, Georgia [June 2000], CDC and FDA authorities knew that mercury in vaccines was damaging children. They had irrefutable proof: a comprehensive study conducted by the CDC itself. However, instead of making this important information public, they hatched a plan to produce additional “studies” that denied such a link. In fact, vaccine proponents had the audacity to claim in some of these papers that mercury in vaccines not only doesn’t hurt children but that it actually benefits them! In the topsy-turvy world of overreaching vaccine authorities, the well-documented neurotoxic chemical mercury somehow makes children smarter and more functional, improving cognitive development and motor skills. Of course, this is nonsense. Numerous real studies document mercury’s destructive effect on brain development and behavior.

Another ploy used by vaccine proponents is to design studies comparing vaccinated people to other vaccinated people. Honest studies would compare them to an unvaccinated population. In addition, vaccine control groups rarely receive a true placebo, which should be a harmless substance. The scientific method has always been predicated upon removing all potentially confounding influences. However, many vaccine studies do not conform to this integral component of valid research. This is an important concept to grasp. For example, when a new vaccine is being tested for safety, one group may receive the new vaccine which contains an attenuated virus and an aluminum adjuvant while the “control” group receives an injection of aluminum as well (rather than water or another harmless substance). When vaccines are compared in this way, that is, to other substances that are capable of causing adverse reactions, the vaccine appears safer than it really is. Whenever this deceptive tactic is utilized, officially acknowledged adverse reactions to a vaccine may represent only a fraction of the true potential risks to the recipient.

It should also be noted that some clinical studies that are used to license vaccines exclude people in certain groups. For example, they may be too young, too old, pregnant, ill, or have other preexisting health ailments. However, once the vaccine is licensed, it may be recommended for people in these groups. Much like using false placebos, this unethical practice artificially inflates the vaccine’s safety profile and places more people at risk for adverse reactions.

Although some studies are mere propaganda, part of a larger disinformation campaign designed to promote a vaccine agenda, other studies link vaccines to debilitating and fatal diseases. For example, the British Medical Journal [1999;319:1133.] and Autoimmunity [2002;35(4):247-53] published data correlating the haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine to rising rates of type 1 diabetes. The hepatitis B vaccine has been linked to autoimmune and neurological disorders. Guillain-Barre syndrome — a serious paralytic disease — is a well-known adverse reaction to the flu vaccine.

Be well

Dr Sundardas 

Diabetes and Depression Can Make you Blind

      No Comments on Diabetes and Depression Can Make you Blind

It’s an all-too-familiar story. In fact, maybe it’s even your own. 

Let’s say you’re diagnosed with diabetes. Suddenly, it seems as if you have to make a load of adjustments to your life. Navigating the holidays or a social gathering can start to feel like a nightmare, and before long you begin to feel down.

Now, of course, everyone feels a bit down in the dumps sometimes, so it may not be such a big deal. But for many diabetics, the blues can morph all too easily into a serious depression. And, according to a new study published in the journal General Hospital Psychiatry, if left untreated this depression can lead to serious eye damage.

Diabetic retinopathy, a condition that can lead to bleeding in the eye and severe vision damage, is already a well-known complication of long-term diabetes. But research now shows that diabetics suffering from severe depression are significantly more likely to develop the disease.

Researchers from the University of Washington Medical School in Seattle studied the cases of 2,359 people with diabetes. Using a special survey tool, the PHQ-9, they then determined the volunteers’ various levels of depression. That’s when the association between depression and diabetes was revealed.

In a five-year follow-up period 22.9% of the volunteers with a PHQ-9 ranking that indicated major depression developed retinopathy as compared with 19.7% of the patients without depression. But even more telling, was that for every five-point increase on the PHQ-9 scale there was a staggering 15% increase in risk for developing the disease.

Even after adjusting for other outside factors, including obesity, smoking, a sedentary lifestyle, and blood-sugar levels, the researchers found that depression was still associated with the increased risk of developing retinopathy.

The UW researchers theorize that the physical changes that accompany depression…things like, raised cortisol levels and blood-clotting factors… that are at least partially responsible for the increased risk.

While more research needs to be done to nail down all the factors and to figure out exactly how depression is connected, one thing’s for sure and that is that depression hurts. And, frankly, regardless of what future research turns up about the retinopathy-and-depression connection, it’s really a no-brainer that reversing depression is going to do only good things for your health.

A good place to start is to increase the amount of fish in your diet. The omega-3 fatty acid DHA, which is found in fish oil, has been shown to be an all-natural mood-lifter. Also, try increasing your depression-busting vitamin-D levels by spending some more time in the sun and eating more vitamin-D-rich foods like eggs, shiitake mushrooms, fish, and shrimp. And finally, be sure to take a good B-complex vitamin daily to help ward off depression at the pass.

Reminding you that dealing with diabetes is difficult enough without the double whammy of dodging depression and dimming eyesight

 

Be well

Dr Sundardas

What happens when you are wrongly diagnosed ?

      No Comments on What happens when you are wrongly diagnosed ?

Psychologists in the Netherlands have documented the case of a 58-year-old woman who was misdiagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease. Her condition deteriorated to the point where she became permanently confused, and at one point suicidal — before another doctor realized the diagnosis was incorrect.

What happens to people who are wrongly diagnosed with having cognitive difficulties? It turns out that even if your brain is perfectly healthy, you’ll start having more problems with concentration.

So how did this 58-year-old woman come to be misdiagnosed with Alzheimer’s? She consulted a neurologist at a stressful time in her life, in the knowledge that her mother had had the illness. A brain scan indicated reduced activity at the front of her brain (“hypofrontality”), and the neurologist also estimated her performance on a test of cognitive impairment as poor (though no formal test was conducted). On this basis he diagnosed Alzheimer’s.

(Many years later, the neurologist was found guilty of having misdiagnosed several patients with Alzheimer’s and 26 malpractice suits were filed against him, but the woman featured in this case study was not part of that litigation.)

The woman was devastated, and thereafter her condition deteriorated significantly, to the point that she was permanently confused and, at one point, suicidal. Some months later, after receiving advice from an Alzheimer’s helpline, the woman consulted a different neurologist for a second opinion. She completed comprehensive memory tests and undertook a further brain scan. All results were normal. This neurologist surmised that her earlier hypofrontality was associated with depression. He also went to great lengths to explain the good news about her results and the misinterpretation of her earlier scan, but it proved extremely difficult to assuage her concerns.

Years later, Harald Merckelbach and his team have interviewed the woman and they report that she continues to experience intrusive thoughts about the misdiagnosis and to catastrophise her memory lapses. Merckelbach’s group believe the effect of a misdiagnosis has parallels with the implantation of false memories. Just as false memories are difficult to reverse, so too are mistaken diagnoses. “Conferring a diagnostic label is far from a neutral act,” they said. “Many diagnostic labels have strong stereotypical connotations and sometimes, these will automatically shape the experiences and behaviour of patients, a phenomenon called ‘diagnoses threat‘.”

To test these ideas further, Merckelbach, with colleagues Marko Jelicic and Maarten Pieters, gave 78 undergrads a psychological symptoms questionnaire to complete. Afterwards the students performed Suduko puzzles as a distraction. Next, the researchers went through some of the students’ answers with them. During this review, the researchers inflated two of the answers they’d given to anxiety items. For example, imagine a student had originally indicated that she never had trouble concentrating. The researcher would inflate that answer by two points on the scale, as if she’d said that she sometimes had trouble concentrating, and they then asked the student to explain why she’d given that answer.

Remarkably, 63 per cent of the participants failed to notice that their answers had been altered, and they proceeded to describe their experience of the symptoms (readers may notice parallels here with a phenomenon known as “choice blindness“, in which people seem to have little insight into a recent choice they made).

Ten minutes later, and again after one week, all the students re-took the psychological symptoms questionnaire. At both time points, students who’d earlier failed to notice that two of their answers had been altered, now gave higher ratings to those two items, as if they considered themselves to have those symptoms. Such an effect was not observed among the minority of students who’d earlier noticed that their answers had been altered. An analysis of all the students’ original baseline answers uncovered higher average baseline symptoms among those who would fail to notice the inflation of their answers.

“Apparently a non-zero symptom intensity level introduces ambiguity; thereby raising the probability that misinformation is accepted,” the researchers said. However, it’s not the case that the influenced participants were simply more keen to give answers that the researchers wanted – they scored just the same on a test of social desirability.

The results from this study are consistent with past research showing how misinformation about physical symptoms can shape how people feel: for example, false feedback about asthmatic wheezing can trigger breathlessness in children with asthma.

Harald Merckelbach and his colleagues said their findings had particular significance for the way medical professionals interact with patients with unexplained symptoms, including those labelled with chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, and chronic pain. “… Expressing concern about the possibility of an underlying illness and, related to this, excessive investigation and attending patient support groups may all contribute to symptom escalation. What these interventions have in common is that they convey the message to the patient that his or her symptoms might be more intense and severe than he/she thinks they are. Our study suggests that blindness to unintended misinformation about the severity of the symptoms may underlie escalation of symptoms.”

The researchers recommend that medics avoid mentioning the whole spectrum of possible symptoms when interviewing patients with medically unexplained symptoms. They also pointed to interesting avenues for future research. For example, notwithstanding the ethical issues involved, could patients benefit from receiving misinformation that lowered their symptom ratings? Also, is the inflated self-reporting of symptoms observed here based purely on exaggerated report, or is it grounded in an altered experience of symptoms?

 I have actually noticed that when I work with clients who have been given a particularly challenging medical diagnosis, they often experience distress when they start getting better faster than expected. They have almost set up an expectation that given their condition they should suffer more or take longer to recover. Are you really running our lives or are we victims of medical “programming”?

 

Be well

Dr Sundardas  

Acupuncture Helps Breech Babies Turn

      2 Comments on Acupuncture Helps Breech Babies Turn

When women give birth naturally, their babies come out headfirst. This is because when they are in the womb, the baby is upside-down. For some women, this is not the case, and the baby is in the head-up position, known as non-vertex presentation, or more simply, breech. For these women, unless the baby can be turned, they will likely need to undergo a cesarean procedure to surgically birth the baby. A cesarean section is major abdominal surgery, and requires the new mother to stay in the hospital for several days. As it also takes weeks to recover, it should be avoided if at all possible. So, what to do if your baby has not turned upside down? 

Ideally, the issue can be identified early – in weeks 29 – 32. At this stage, about 15% of babies are breech. This is the time to act. Though about half of these babies will naturally turn upside down by week 38, it is best not to leave it to chance. If your baby has not turned by week 32, acupuncture, herbs and moxa can help.

With acupuncture, the mother-to-be is allowed to rest on her side. The acupuncturist then employs points that encourage the baby to turn. This is also a great time to address any other issues the woman is dealing with. Lower back pain is a common problem, as are digestive issues.

Many times, when a baby has not turned, it is a sign that the mother’s energy needs strengthening. In Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), the kidney chi is responsible for reproduction. If the mother’s kidney chi is weak, she is more likely to have a breech presentation. If she is under the care of an acupuncturist when she gets pregnant, and her kidney chi is known to be weak, it is very important that she continue treatments and herbs throughout her pregnancy to help avoid a breech presentation.

Moxa is also used to help encourage a baby to turn. This involves using a moxa stick made primarily of dried Chinese mugwort leaf. The stick is lit at one end and burns slowly like incense. It is then used to warm a point on the foot that helps the baby to turn. It may sound far-fetched, but numerous studies show its effectiveness.

One such study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in November, 1998. The study divided 260 women with breech presentations in their 33rd week of pregnancy into two equal groups. 130 received moxa treatments and 130 did not. Two weeks later, 75% of the fetuses in the moxa group had turned compared with 48% in the other group.  Women whose babies had not turned were then offered external cephalic version treatments. This procedure is done in a hospital and involves a doctor massaging the uterus to move the fetus into a head-down position. It can be quite uncomfortable, though it is a good last resort to avoid a cesarean procedure.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Birth of Spiderman

      No Comments on Birth of Spiderman

 

If you believe the “scientific” community, the government figures are always accurate. There’s no cover-up. The situation is completely under control. The radiation levels are miniscule. There was no meltdown. Go on about your business and stop worrying.

Just eat your imported fish, go get your CT scans at the hospital and take your antidepressants. Buy your slave-labor brand-name sports gear at the local mall, and be sure to slather yourself in perfumes, petroleum-based skin lotions and sunscreen (to protect yourself from cancer, of course).

And then, a few years down the road, if you find your DNA has mutated beyond your ability to reproduce in the future, don’t worry: You can always trade a year’s salary for some hormone injections at the local infertility clinic, right? Infertility clinics, by the way, are really great at increasing the survival rate of fetuses with birth defects which would otherwise normally be aborted by the mother’s own body

So even if the next generation of children in Asia are born mostly to irradiated, genetically-mutated parents, thanks to the “miracle” of modern infertility science we can probably manage to keep a fair number of them alive long enough for them to become the new generation of post-Fukushima X-Men with special mutant powers that can save our world from evil villains. Fukushima might also irradiate some spiders that could bite a few geeky teenage boys and magically transform them into acrobatic “spider men” who magically attain advanced hand-to-hand combat skills without ever having practiced them. What could be bad about that?

In fact, the entire Marvel universe of comic book characters might yet materialize out of the smoke and (radioactive) dust of Fukushima. So, you see, Fukushima is actually the solution to all our problems, not the source of any problems.

And if you think none of this could really happen because I’m quoting characters from comic books, just remember this: The Japanese government is reading you lines from a fairy tale and hoping you buy into it just the same.

 

For the very first time, a scientific study published in a peer-reviewed journal has come up with a solid estimate of the total number of US deaths caused by the Fukushima nuclear disaster in the weeks following it. Epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, MPH, MBA, and his colleagues say that, based on compiled data, at least 14,000 people in the US were killed during the 14 weeks following the Fukushima catastrophe — and the majority of these deaths were in children under age one.

Published in the International Journal of Health Services, Mangano’s study looked at both infant and adult death rates during the time when Fukushima occurred, as well as in previous months and years. During the 14 weeks prior to Fukushima, for instance, infant deaths had been declining by 8.37 percent, while in the weeks following the disaster they increased by 1.8 percent. Among adults, a 4.46 percent death rate was observed in the weeks after Fukushima, compared to 2.34 percent, which is about half that rate, a year prior.

“This study of Fukushima health hazards is the first to be published in a scientific journal,” said Mangano. “It raises concerns, and strongly suggests that health studies continue, to understand the true impact of Fukushima in Japan and around the world. Findings are important to the current debate of whether to build new reactors, and how long to keep aging ones in operation.”

During the first few months when the Fukushima disaster was unfolding, there were reports on radiation spikes in milk, rainwater), and the general food supply, both in the US and abroad. Though tangible harm in humans was not necessarily evident at that time, it now appears that this systemic poisoning translated into thousands of known deaths, and likely tens of thousands more cases of cancer and other illnesses.

“Based on our continuing research, the actual death count here may be as high as 18,000, with influenza and pneumonia, which were up five-fold in the period in question as a cause of death,” added Mangano. “Deaths are seen across all ages, but we continue to find that infants are hardest hit because their tissues are rapidly multiplying, they have undeveloped immune systems, and the doses of radioisotopes are proportionally greater than for adults.”

 

I am really curious if all this radiation toxicity and side-effects are confined only to Japan and the US. Don’t you wonder too?

 

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Fukushima radiation hazards

      No Comments on Fukushima radiation hazards

Based on the accumulation of information from multiple sources, it is now clear that the true scope of the Fukushima disaster has been greatly downplayed by both the Japanese and U.S. governments. I would suggest that those who are concerned begin taking regular, safe doses of three things: Natural iodine sources (seaweed or otherwise), bentonite clay (for internal use) and zeolites (any brand).

Naturally, be sure to check with a qualified nutritionist or natural medicine practitioner when taking supplements. Those on thyroid medications, in particular, should seek professional advice before consuming supplementary iodine from any source.

Bentonite clay is, of course, completely safe for internal use (yes, you can eat it) when used as directed. It is a cleansing substance that can bind with various radioactive isotopes and carry them out of your body. Zeolites are also extremely good at attracting both heavy metals and some radioactive isotopes which are also carried out of your body.

The reason for this action notice is due to the increasing realization that radiation emissions from Fukushima are far higher than what we are being told. Although I have analyzed reports from multiple sources on this, perhaps the best citizen blogger explaining this right now is found at http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/04/fukushima-i-nuke-plant-154.html

This blogger is Japanese, and he reads the local Japanese news sources to get a lot of information about Fukushima before the translators screw it up (or distort it).

His latest post reveals that Fukushima is releasing 154 terabequerels of radiation per day. This is an order of magnitude higher than what the official Japanese sources were saying just a few weeks ago.

Another great blogger on Fukushima is Lucas Whitefield Hixson, who published an analysis of the photos that seems to indicate Reactor No. 3 already suffered a massive core containment breach from the very first explosion: http://lucaswhitefieldhixson.com/hi-res-photographic-proof-reactor-co…

If true, this would mean that TEPCO has been lying to us from day one about the true extend of the reactor core containment vessel breach.

I have good reason to believe we may very well be witnessing an event that has already vastly exceeded the Chernobyl disaster in its total release of radiation into the environment. Yet the admission of that fact is so politically unviable that no government dare admit utter the words. Instead, it is much more politically expedient to simply imagine there is no radiation (it’s invisible, after all), and hope no one notices the huge increases in cancer rates in the coming years.

Such is the cowardice is modern-day political leaders. To avoid causing a panic, they would rather people keep eating radioactive fish and drinking radioactive milk. Somewhere in Washington, a group of nuclear experts must be sitting around a table with the President, asking, “So when are we going to tell them about all this?” The answer is, of course, “Never.”

After all, any increase in cancer can always be blamed on sunbathing, or tanning salons, or whatever convenient target the medical community is currently trying to discredit. (Heck, they could probably find a way to say that vitamin D causes cancer!)

This Fukushima fallout could even be a whole new profit center for the cancer industry which has long been in the business of irradiation women’s breasts with mammography machines anyway. Cancer industry corporations must be drooling over the profit prospects that will emerge from the global radiation exposure under way right now.

The upshot of all this is that the masses may be suffering from very risky doses of radioactive fallout right now, with no precautions whatsoever being taken to protect themselves. After all, President Obama stood in front of his podium and told the American people there was nothing to worry about. He said no one needed to prepare, and this was followed up with yet more official urgings to avoiding taking potassium iodide.

The game is apparently on. What game is that? The game of culling the human population by eliminating from the human gene pool those individuals who are too brain dead to think for themselves. Cancer + infertility, after all, is a fairly effective way to remove someone’s genetic code from the future of the population, and what better than a massive, global radiation dump to sort out the brainwashed masses from those who actually take their genetic future seriously?

That’s one theory behind all this, at least. Some say it’s only a theory and nothing more. But when you look at what’s really happening today with the mass intentional contamination and destruction of our planet — the spread of GMOs, the fluoride poisoning of the water supply, the pesticide-induced honey bee population collapse, and so on — you can’t help but wonder if someone really is trying to kill off a very large segment of the human population. Fukushima either deliberately or coincidentally seems to play right into that agenda.

Or maybe that’s all just paranoid conspiracy thinking, and the real explanation behind all this is just global government incompetence combined with pathological national leaders who have no compassion whatsoever for the lives and health of their own citizens. Either explanation is sufficiently bizarre enough to make intelligent people at least start asking questions… and hopefully to start taking some precautions against radiation fallout (hence the iodine, clay and zeolites). Bentonite clay, after all, doesn’t cost much. Losing the genetic integrity of your sperm production, on the other hand, is a real show-stopper.

be well

Dr Sundardas