index fingerFor many decades, scientists have noticed an extraordinary link between the length of your ring and index fingers and a plethora of apparently unrelated traits.

Evidence is growing that this ‘digit ratio’ effect is real. Recently, strong evidence has emerged that men whose index fingers are longer than their ring fingers are significantly less likely to develop prostate cancer.

To work out the ratio of your fingers, measure the distance from the midpoint of the lowest crease at the base of the finger to the very tip — the fingernail does not count.

A long index finger correlates strongly with a lower risk of early heart disease and, in women, a higher risk of breast cancer and greater fertility. People with relatively long index fingers are also more likely to suffer from schizophrenia, allergies, eczema and hay fever.

The Daily Mail reports:

“… [A] short index finger relative to the ring finger … correlates with higher male fertility and sperm counts, higher levels of aggression and increased aptitude for both sport and music … [D]igit ratio … [correlates to] more than 100 psychological traits and propensities to

soy beansby The Weston A. Price Foundation – 

The Weston A. Price Foundation provides accurate information about nutrition and is dedicated to putting nutrient-dense foods back on American tables.

Members receive a lively and informative quarterly journal and email updates on current issues and website events. Visit their at www.westonaprice.org

Are you confused about soy?

The Weston A. Price Foundation has compiled a list of soy dangers and myths to get the truth out once and for all.

Soy Dangers Summarized

  • High levels of phytic acid in soy reduce assimilation of calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc. Phytic acid in soy is not neutralized by ordinary preparation methods such as soaking, sprouting and long, slow cooking, but only with long fermentation. High-phytate diets have caused growth problems in children.
  • Trypsin inhibitors in soy interfere with protein digestion and may cause pancreatic disorders. In test animals, soy containing trypsin inhibitors caused stunted growth.
  • Soy phytoestrogens disrupt endocrine function and have the potential to cause infertility and to promote breast cancer in adult women.
  • Soy phytoestrogens are potent antithyroid agents that cause hypothyroidism and may cause thyroid cancer. In infants, consumption of soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid disease.
  • Vitamin B12 analogs in soy are not absorbed and actually increase the body’s requirement for B12.
  • Soy foods increase the body’s requirement for Vitamin D. Toxic synthetic Vitamin D2 is added to soy milk.
  • Fragile proteins are over-denatured during high temperature processing to make soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein.
  • Processing of soy protein results in the formation of toxic lysinoalanine and highly carcinogenic nitrosamines.
  • Free glutamic acid or MSG, a potent neurotoxin, is formed during soy food processing and additional amounts are added to many soy foods to mask soy’s unpleasant taste.
  • Soy foods contain high levels of aluminum, which is toxic to the nervous system and the kidneys.

Myths and Truths About Soy

Here we dispel the myths of the “Diet Dictocrats” and reveal the scientific validity behind our wise ancestors’ nutrient-dense diets.

Myth: Use of soy as a food dates back many thousands of years.

Truth: Soy was first used as a food during the late Chou dynasty (1134-246 BC), only after the Chinese learned to ferment soybeans to make foods like tempeh, natto and tamari.

Myth: Asians consume large amounts of soy foods.

Truth: Average consumption of soy foods in Japan and China is 10 grams (about 2 teaspoons) per day. Asians consume soy foods in small amounts as a condiment, and not as a replacement for animal foods.

Myth: Modern soy foods confer the same health benefits as traditionally fermented soy foods.

Truth: Most modern soy foods are not fermented to neutralize toxins in soybeans, and are processed in a way that denatures proteins and increases levels of carcinogens.

Myth: Soy foods provide complete protein.

Truth: Like all legumes, soybeans are deficient in sulfur-containing amino acids methionine and cystine. In addition, modern processing denatures fragile lysine.

Myth: Fermented soy foods can provide vitamin B12 in vegetarian diets.

Truth: The compound that resembles vitamin B12 in soy cannot be used by the human body: in fact, soy foods cause the body to require more B12

Myth: Soy formula is safe for infants.

Truth: Soy foods contain trypsin inhibitors that inhibit protein digestion and affect pancreatic function. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors led to stunted growth and pancreatic disorders. Soy foods increase the body’s requirement for vitamin D, needed for strong bones and normal growth.

Phytic acid in soy foods results in reduced bioavailabilty of iron and zinc, which are required for the health and development of the brain and nervous system. Soy also lacks cholesterol, likewise essential for the development of the brain and nervous system.

Megadoses of phytoestrogens in soy formula have been implicated in the current trend toward increasingly premature sexual development in girls and delayed or retarded sexual development in boys.

Myth: Soy foods can prevent osteoporosis.

Truth: Soy foods can cause deficiencies in calcium and vitamin D, both needed for healthy bones. Calcium from bone broths and vitamin D from seafood, lard and organ meats prevent osteoporosis in Asian countries-not soy foods.

Myth: Modern soy foods protect against many types of cancer.

Truth: A British government report concluded that there is little evidence that soy foods protect against breast cancer or any other forms of cancer. In fact, soy foods may result in an increased risk of cancer.

Myth: Soy foods protect against heart disease.

Truth: In some people, consumption of soy foods will lower cholesterol, but there is no evidence that lowering cholesterol with soy protein improves one’s risk of having heart disease.

Myth: Soy estrogens (isoflavones) are good for you.

Truth: Soy isoflavones are phyto-endocrine disrupters. At dietary levels, they can prevent ovulation and stimulate the growth of cancer cells. Eating as little as 30 grams (about 4 tablespoons) of soy per day can result in hypothyroidism with symptoms of lethargy, constipation, weight gain and fatigue.

Myth: Soy foods are safe and beneficial for women to use in their postmenopausal years.

Truth: Soy foods can stimulate the growth of estrogen-dependent tumors and cause thyroid problems. Low thyroid function is associated with difficulties in menopause.

Myth: Phytoestrogens in soy foods can enhance mental ability.

Truth: A recent study found that women with the highest levels of estrogen in their blood had the lowest levels of cognitive function; In Japanese Americans tofu consumption in mid-life is associated with the occurrence of Alzheimer’s disease in later life.

Myth: Soy isoflavones and soy protein isolate have GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status.

Truth: Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) recently withdrew its application to the FDA for GRAS status for soy isoflavones following an outpouring of protest from the scientific community. The FDA never approved GRAS status for soy protein isolate because of concern regarding the presence of toxins and carcinogens in processed soy.

Myth: Soy foods are good for your sex life.

Truth: Numerous animal studies show that soy foods cause infertility in animals. Soy consumption enhances hair growth in middle-aged men, indicating lowered testosterone levels. 

Myth: Soybeans are good for the environment.

Truth: Most soybeans grown in the US are genetically engineered to allow farmers to use large amounts of herbicides.

Myth: Soybeans are good for developing nations.

Truth: In third-world countries, soybeans replace traditional crops and transfer the value-added of processing from the local population to multinational corporations.

Soy Infant Formula: Birth Control Pills for Babies

Babies fed soy-based formula have 13,000 to 22,000 times more estrogen compounds in their blood than babies fed milk-based formula. Infants exclusively fed soy formula receive the estrogenic equivalent of at least four birth control pills per day.

Male infants undergo a testosterone surge during the first few months of life, when testosterone levels may be as high as those of an adult male. During this period, baby boys are programmed to express male characteristics after puberty, not only in the development of their sexual organs and other masculinity traits, but also in setting patterns in the brain characteristic of male behavior.

In animals, studies indicate that phytoestrogens in soy are powerful endocrine disrupters. Soy infant feeding — which floods the bloodstream with female hormones that inhibit testosterone — cannot be ignored as a possible cause of disrupted development patterns in boys, including learning disabilities and attention deficit disorder.

Male children exposed to DES, a synthetic estrogen, had testes smaller than normal on maturation and infant marmoset monkeys fed soy isoflavones had a reduction in testosterone levels up to 70 percent compared to milk-fed controls.

Almost 15 percent of white girls and 50 percent of African-Americans girls show signs of puberty, such as breast development and pubic hair, before the age of eight. Some girls are showing sexual development before the age of three. Premature development of girls has been linked to the use of soy formula and exposure to environmental estrogen-mimickers such as PCBs and DDE.

Intake of phytoestrogens even at moderate levels during pregnancy can have adverse affects on the developing fetus and the timing of puberty later in life.

For those seeking scientific references please see my earlier artticle

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

If you were to carefully review the thousands of studies published on soy, I believe you would reach the same conclusion as I have-which is, the health risks associated with unfermented soy products FAR outweigh any possible benefits.

However, there’s an important distinction that must be made any time you talk about soy, and that is the difference between traditionally fermented and unfermented soy products.

For centuries, Asian people have been consuming fermented soy products such as natto, tempeh, and soy sauce, and enjoying the health benefits associated with them.

Fermented soy does not wreak havoc on your body like unfermented soy products do.

Additionally, there’s the issue of eating genetically modified (GM) soy. In the US, over 90 percent of all soy grown is genetically modified Roundup Ready soy, which has an array of additional health hazards all of its own.

Unfortunately, many Americans who are committed to healthy lifestyles have been mislead and grossly manipulated into believing that unfermented and processed soy products like soymilk, soy cheese, soy burgers and soy ice cream are health foods.

As the Weston A. Price Foundation so clearly shows (above), this is far from true.

Health Dangers of Soy

Dr. Kaayla Daniel, author of The Whole Soy Story, points out thousands of studies linking soy to malnutrition, digestive distress, immune-system breakdown, thyroid dysfunction, cognitive decline, reproductive disorders and infertility-even cancer and heart disease.

If you have symptoms of any of the following diseases, I would strongly urge you to take a closer look at your diet and eliminate unfermented soy:

  • Breast cancer
  • Brain damage
  • Infant abnormalities
  • Thyroid disorders
  • Kidney stones
  • Immune system impairment
  • Severe, potentially fatal food allergies
  • Impaired fertility
  • Danger during pregnancy and nursing

What Soy Products are Good For You?

The only soy with health benefits is organic soy that has been properly fermented, and these are the only soy products I ever recommend consuming.

After a long fermentation process, the phytate and “anti-nutrient” levels of soybeans are reduced, and their beneficial properties become available to your digestive system.

The primary fermented soy products I recommend are:

  • Tempeh a fermented soybean cake with a firm texture and nutty, mushroom-like flavor.
  • Miso, a fermented soybean paste with a salty, buttery texture (commonly used in miso soup).
  • Natto, fermented soybeans with a sticky texture and strong, cheese-like flavor.
  • Soy sauce, which is traditionally made by fermenting soybeans, salt and enzymes; be wary because many varieties on the market today are made artificially using a chemical process.

Please note that tofu is NOT on this list. Tofu is not fermented, and is therefore not among the soy foods I recommend.

Westonaprice Priceless Nutrition Information

About the Weston A. Price Foundation

The Weston A. Price Foundation is a terrific resource and I thank them for allowing me to repost this valuable information.

I’ve been a member of their organization for a number of years now, and I encourage anyone interested in healthful eating to consider joining. I find their quarterly journal enormously helpful, and I always read it from cover to cover. To sign up, see this link.

 Comments (298)

breast cancer awareness ribbonBreast cancer rates dropped by half in tandem with the discontinuation of hormone replacement therapy, according to a study published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The study was reported in the Telegraph in the United Kingdom.

The Telegraph said:

“Dr Prithwish De, of the Canadian Cancer Society, and colleagues, found that use of HRT dropped from 12.7 per cent in 2002 to 4.9 per cent in 2004.

During the same period breast cancer rates dropped by 9.6 per cent even though the same number of women were having mammography tests.

Between 2004 and 2006 use of HRT remained stable at around five per cent of women aged 50 to 59 but breast cancer rates began to increase again.

Dr De wrote: ‘The results support the hypothesised link between the use of hormone replacement therapy and invasive breast cancer incidence and indicate that the sharp decline in breast cancer incidence in 2002 is likely explained by the concurrent decline in the use of hormone replacement therapy among Canadian women.'”

The study’s authors said these numbers support existing evidence of the link between HRT and breast cancer.

Sources:

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is frequently used to relieve symptoms menopause, and to slow down some of the signs of aging for menopausal women.

However, over the years studies have linked HRT to increased rates of estrogen-related cancers, such as breast cancer, raising the question of whether or not the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.

First, it’s important to realize that natural menopause, bothersome as it may be, is not a disease that requires treatment. It’s a natural and normal event in every woman’s life that occurs when you stop menstruating.

Surgically induced menopause, on the other hand, occurs if you have your ovaries removed and typically does require bioidentical hormone replacement to counteract the acute loss of hormone support.

Does HRT Cause Breast Cancer?

There’s suggestive evidence that this is indeed the case, which is why I do not recommend using HRT for natural menopause. This latest study, reported in the British Telegraph, found that as HRT use in Canada declined, so did rates of breast cancer.

Between 2002 and 2004, HRT use dropped by 7.8 percent. During that same time, breast cancer rates also fell by 9.6 percent.

However, there’s a twist.

After remaining stable at around five percent between 2004 and 2006, breast cancer rates then began to rise again, even though HRT use remained low.

The researchers claim this is an indication that HRT simply speeds up tumor growth, as opposed to directly causing it.

The Telegraph reports:

“Further evidence of a link between hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer is the rebound in cancer incidence rates observed in Canada since 2005. The largest hormone replacement therapy declines occurred among those older than 50 years, and the rebound in cancer incidence was also mainly restricted to women aged 50 years or older.

“Such a rebound might be expected if occult hormone-sensitive tumors were merely slowed by the withdrawal of hormone replacement therapy rather than prevented by it.

If so, hormone replacement therapy may be thought to act as a promoter rather than as a putative cause of breast cancer.”

Still, whether it’s a promoter or a causative factor, there’s good reason to be wary of using HRT to address natural menopause…

According to last year’s cancer statistics, the decrease in breast cancer deaths accounted for a whopping 37 percent reduction in the death rate among women during the period from 1990 to 2005. The analysts attributed this decline to decreased use of HRT.

That’s an impressive decrease in mortality from a devastating disease, and a testament to just how lethal an incorrect pharmaceutical intervention can be. (Just imagine what might happen to mortality rates if we stopped swallowing a number of dangerous drugs that are currently taken by millions of people, day in and day out!)

What Else Could have a Dramatic Impact on Cancer Rates?

In a nutshell: using a safer more appropriate screening method than mammography…

The practice of screening for breast cancer with yearly mammograms is yet another factor that is keeping breast cancer rates high. For more information about the dangers of conventional mammography, please see this previous article.

The safest option for breast screening is called thermographic breast screening.

Instead of exposing your breast to radiation that can be 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray, thermography simply measures the radiation of infrared heat from your body and translates this information into anatomical images.

Another benefit is that it can detect signs of breast cancer as much as 10 years earlier than either mammography or a physical exam, because whereas mammography can only detect tumors that have reached a certain size, thermography is able to detect the potential for cancerous tumors before they’ve actually formed.

It does this by imaging the early stages of angiogenesis — the formation of a direct supply of blood to cancer cells, which is a necessary step before they can grow into tumors of size.

What You Need to Know About Estrogen Replacement Therapy

Back in the mid-80’s, after I finished my medical residency training, I was actually paid to lecture physicians about estrogen replacement therapy. At the time I was convinced it was a great strategy for menopausal women.

Since then I’ve come to realize that using synthetic hormones, and even natural hormones from animals, is not a wise choice.

Fortunately, so have most of the conventional medical establishment, and it is now common knowledge that HRT comes with potentially serious health risks, such as increased risk of:

  • Heart disease
  • Breast cancer
  • Increased insulin levels
  • Blood clotting
  • High blood pressure
  • Vaginal bleeding

That said, there is a viable alternative – bioidentical hormones.

Natural, Bioidentical Hormones

Bioidentical hormones just that — natural hormones that are identical to those created by the human body.

The most commonly prescribed bioidentical is estriol. It’s natural, not a drug, and you get it at compounding pharmacies. It’s been safely used for decades, and I believe it’s particularly useful when your ovaries have been removed or you’ve had a hysterectomy.

Dr. Jonathan Wright, who I’ve interviewed many times, is a pioneer in bioidenticals, and you can see what he has to say about their value in this short video.

If this is an area of interest for you, I would strongly recommend purchasing Dr. Wright’s new book Stay Young and Sexy. It is under $10 and simply the best book I have reviewed on the topic. If the book were $100 it would be worth the price.

One thing to keep in mind when using bioidentical hormones is that there are a few different methods of delivery, and some are clearly superior to others:

  • Oral supplementation is perhaps your worst option, as your liver processes everything in your digestive tract first, before it enters your bloodstream.
  • Creams are one common alternative that achieves this. However, since hormones are fat-soluble, they can build up in your fatty tissues and lead to having too much in your body. This in turn can disrupt other hormones. It’s also near impossible to accurately determine the dose when using a cream.
  • Sublingual drops is better than oral but most still swallow the liquid and then it has the same problems as oral supplements.
  • Transmucosal cream. This is the best because tolerance does not develop as there is no fat to cover the mucosa to store the cream. For a woman there are two areas to access the mucosa, either the vagina or the rectum. A male obviously would only have the rectal area.

Treating Menopause Without Hormones

Although bioidentical hormones can offer relief from menopausal symptoms, I do not recommend them as a primary solution unless you are biologically or surgically menopausal. Anytime you’re dealing with hormone imbalances, it is best to let your body recover your hormones naturally if they have the capacity to do so.

The best approaches are often preventive and involve diet, exercise and other lifestyle-based strategies such as herbs and supplements. Many women may also not be fully aware of the detrimental impact of chronic stress on progesterone and estrogen.

So your answer might not necessarily lie in using hormones, but rather addressing your stress levels so that your body can normalize your hormone levels naturally.

Here are several other lifestyle considerations to take into account to maintain proper hormone balance as you age:

  • Eat right for your nutritional type
  • Exercising regularly
  • Avoid refined carbohydrates, processed and heated fats as all of these can raise your estrogen to abnormal levels, as much as twice the normal. This is a MAJOR contributing cause of menopausal symptoms in the first place
  • Consume phytoestrogens (plant-estrogens) such as licorice and alfalfa before menopause. This can help moderate your day-to-day estrogen levels so that when menopause comes, the drop won’t be so dramatic.

    Beware, however, that soy is NOT a good option here.

  • Optimize your vitamin D levels, as this is a must for gene regulation and optimal health. For more information, I recommend you watch my one-hour video lecture on this essential nutrient.
  • Certain polyphenols have also been shown to have some HRT-like benefits without the drawbacks, and are associated with a lowered risk of heart disease. Royal Macha seems to be an amazing adaptogenic herbal solution for menopause that has helped many women. Be sure to avoid the inexpensive varieties, as they typically don’t work. If you chose this option make sure to obtain the authentic version from Peru.
  • Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil.
  • Black Cohosh may help regulate body temperature and hot flashes.

In many cases, these lifestyle strategies will be very effective in relieving menopausal symptoms, but in cases where it is not enough, bioidentical hormones may be able to help.

Related Articles:

 Comments (67)

mammogram filmA new study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that increased awareness and improved treatments rather than mammograms are the main force in reducing the breast cancer death rate.

The study, medical experts say, is the first to assess the benefit of mammography in the context of the modern era of breast cancer treatment.

While it is unlikely to settle the debate over mammograms – and experts continue to disagree about the value of the test – it indicates that improved treatments with hormonal therapy and other targeted drugs may have, in a way, washed out most of mammography’s benefits by making it less important to find cancers when they are too small to feel.

As stated by the New York Times:

“In the new study, mammograms, combined with modern treatment, reduced the death rate by 10 percent, but the study data indicated that the effect of mammograms alone could be as low as 2 percent or even zero.

A 10 percent reduction would mean that if 1,000 50-year-old women were screened over a decade, 996 women rather than 995.6 would not die from the cancer – an effect so tiny it may have occurred by chance.”

Sources:

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Mammograms are often touted as a “life-saving” form of cancer screening, responsible for reducing breast cancer death rates by 15-25 percent. But this reported benefit is based on outdated studies done decades ago .

The New England Journal of Medicine is one of the most prestigious medical journals and it has now published the first recent study to look at the effectiveness of mammograms in years, and their findings are a far cry from what most public health officials and physicians would have you believe.

A Close to ZERO Percent Benefit .

In the latest study, researchers analyzed data from over 40,000 Norwegian women with breast cancer and found that those who had mammograms and were treated by special breast cancer medical teams had a 10 percent lower breast cancer death rate than women who had neither.

However, they also found that women over the age of 70 who were treated by the special teams had an 8 percent lower death risk from breast cancer, even though they had not received mammograms.

What this suggests, and what Dr. H. Gilbert Welch wrote in an accompanying editorial, is that mammograms may have only reduced the cancer death rate by 2 percent — an amount so small it may as well be zero.

So the fact remains that there is no solid evidence that mammograms save lives. Past research has also demonstrated that adding an annual mammogram to a careful physical examination of the breasts does not improve breast cancer survival rates over getting the examination alone.

Now, if mammograms were completely safe and capable of reducing your cancer death risk even a small amount, you might be able to make an argument for their use. But mammograms are not only ineffective . they’re unsafe as well.

The Dangers of Mammography: Ionizing Radiation

The first problem with mammograms is that they use ionizing radiation at a relatively high dose, which in and of itself can contribute to the development of breast cancer. Mammograms expose your body to radiation that can be 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray, which we know poses a cancer risk.

Mammography also compresses your breasts tightly, which could lead to a dangerous spread of cancerous cells, should they exist. Dr. Charles B. Simone, a former clinical associate in immunology and pharmacology at the National Cancer Institute, said:

“Mammograms increase the risk for developing breast cancer and raise the risk of spreading or metastasizing an existing growth.”

Dr. Samuel Epstein, one of the top cancer experts, similarly stated:

“The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade’s screening.”

False Positives are Alarmingly Common

The second glaring problem with mammography is its unacceptably high rate of false positives.

If a mammogram detects an abnormal spot in a woman’s breast, the next step is typically a biopsy. This involves taking a small amount of tissue from the breast, which is then looked at by a pathologist under a microscope to determine if cancer is present.

The problem is that early stage cancer like ductal carcinoma in situ, or D.C.I.S., can be very hard to diagnose, and pathologists have a wide range of experience and expertise. There are no diagnostic standards for D.C.I.S., and there are no requirements that the pathologists doing the readings have specialized expertise.

Dr. Shahla Masood, the head of pathology at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Jacksonville, told the New York Times:

“There are studies that show that diagnosing these borderline breast lesions occasionally comes down to the flip of a coin.”

Of course, upon receiving a breast cancer diagnosis, most women are afraid and even frantic to do whatever it takes to fight and remove the cancer. In the conventional medical arena, typically this means full or partial mastectomy, drugs and radiation.

Imagine going through surgery, having one or both of your breasts removed along with receiving debilitating radiation treatments and toxic drugs, only to later be told that you never had cancer.

This scenario happens more often than you might think, and you can read about several women’s terrifying ordeals with false breast cancer diagnoses here.

How Often do Mammograms Lead to False Positive Diagnoses?

Estimates suggest that 17 percent of D.C.I.S. cases found through needle biopsy (often the next step after a mammogram detects a mass) are misdiagnosed. The New York Times also reported on several other concerning findings about the frequency of misdiagnosis:

  • A 2006 study by Susan G. Komen for the Cure estimated that in 90,000 cases when women were diagnosed with D.C.I.S. or invasive breast cancer, they either did not have the disease or they got incorrect treatment due to a pathologist error.
  • A 2002 study at Northwestern University Medical Center found that nearly 8 percent of 340 breast cancer cases ” had errors serious enough to change plans for surgery.”
  • Dr. Lagios, a pathologist at St. Mary’s Medical Center in San Francisco, reviewed nearly 600 breast cases in 2007 and 2008 and found discrepancies in 141 of them.

Mammograms also carry a first-time false positive rate of up to 6 percent. False positives can lead to unnecessary emotional stress and expensive repeat screenings, exposing you to even more radiation. Plus, as discussed earlier, they can sometimes result in unnecessary invasive procedures including biopsies, unnecessary surgery, radiation, chemotherapy and more.

The BEST Way to Lower Your Risk of Breast Cancer

Mammograms will not prevent you from getting breast cancer, and the latest study shows they offer very little benefit in improving your chances of survival if you do have it. So the best strategy, which I encourage all women to embark upon today, is not to simply get your yearly mammogram and hope for the best — it’s to make lifestyle changes that will significantly cut your cancer risks in the first place.

Researchers estimate that about 40 percent of U.S. breast cancer cases, or about 70,000 cases every year, could be prevented by making lifestyle changes.

A healthy diet, regular physical exercise, and an effective way to manage your emotional health are the cornerstones of just about any cancer prevention program, including breast cancer, but you will also want to make sure your vitamin D levels are optimized.

Vitamin D, a steroid hormone that influences virtually every cell in your body, is easily one of nature’s most potent cancer fighters.

According to one landmark study, some 600,000 cases of breast and colorectal cancers could be prevented each year if vitamin D levels among populations worldwide were increased. And that’s just counting the death toll for two types of cancer (it actually works against at least 16 different types)!

So please do watch my one-hour free lecture on vitamin D to find out what your optimal vitamin D levels should be . and how to get them there. This is one of the most important steps you can take to protect yourself from cancer.

There’s also research showing that by simply supplementing your diet with animal-based omega-3 fats like krill oil you may reduce your breast cancer risk by 32 percent, so this is another strategy I suggest you embrace.

What about Screening?

Effective cancer screening methods are important, but mammography is simply NOT a safe or effective cancer screen. Instead, I strongly advise you to consider the safer and more effective alternative of thermographic breast screening, especially if you are younger and have not already been diagnosed with, or undergone treatment for, breast cancer.

By measuring the radiation of infrared heat from your body, thermographic screening can detect signs of breast cancer as much as 10 years earlier than either mammography or a physical exam — all without any ionizing radiation or mechanical pressure.

Its ability to detect the possibility of breast cancer, before any tumors have formed, is because it can provide a picture of the early stages of angiogenesis — the formation of a direct supply of blood to cancer cells, which is a necessary step before they can grow into tumors of size.

I recently discussed this mechanism in another article. In it, Dr. Li presents compelling evidence that by including more anti-angiogenetic foods in your diet, you may be able to effectively starve cancer and prevent tumors from ever forming since they must have sufficient blood supply to thrive, just like all other cells.

Were you to undergo a thermographic screening and discover that angiogenesis is taking place, meaning that tiny blood vessels have begun sprouting to an area to feed cancer cells, you now have YEARS at your disposal to effectively “cure yourself” (although by conventional standards you’re not yet ill) by implementing lifesaving lifestyle changes.

This would logically include increased amounts of anti-angiogenetic foods such as red grapes, berries, turmeric and broccoli, just to name a few. For more information, I recommend watching Dr. Li’s video.

If you’d like more information about thermography, simply click the button below.

natural health center- thermography

Related Articles:

 Comments (20)

estrogen pillsThe drug company Wyeth used ghostwriters to emphasize the benefits and downplay the harm of hormone replacement therapy in medical journal articles.

Wyeth, now owned by Pfizer, paid a company called DesignWrite $25,000 to ghostwrite articles on clinical studies, including four regarding Prempro, the company’s combination estrogen-progestin therapy.

Reuters reports:

“… [T]he articles were intended to mitigate concerns that hormone replacement therapy raises the risk of breast cancer, and to support the unfounded idea that the drugs offer some protection against heart disease.”

Meanwhile, prescription drug use in the United States has been rising steadily over the past 10 years. The trend shows no signs of slowing.

A study published by the CDC states that the percentage of Americans who took at least one prescription drug has risen from 43.5 percent to 48.3 percent.

According to WebMD:

“The use of two or more drugs increased from 25.4 percent to 31.2 percent over the same decade, and the use of five or more prescription medications jumped from 6.3 percent to 10.7 percent.”

There is also a new drug problem emerging in the United States — a national epidemic of prescription drug abuse that has become so widespread it’s being called “Pharmageddon.” Some have defined Pharmageddon as “the prospect of a world in which medicines and medicine produce more ill-health than health, and when medical progress does more harm than good.”

In just 20 years, deaths from accidental drug overdoses have increased five-fold. Unintentional overdoses have now replaced car accidents as the leading cause of accidental death in 15 states and the District of Columbia.

According to CBS News, there are definite signs someone could be addicted to prescription drugs:

“Activities abandoned or reduced … Dependence on the drug … Duration or amount greater than intended, intra-personal consequences — that they can’t cut down or control it. And when it becomes time-consuming.”

Sources:

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Americans are a pill-popping population, as nearly half are taking at least one prescription drug. Even children are taking their fair share, with one of every five U.S. kids using at least one prescribed medication.

Among seniors, as you might suspect, drug use is beyond epidemic. Nine out of 10 older Americans are taking at least one drug, with more than 76 percent over 60 using two or more and 37 percent using five or more!

The biggest issue here is what all of the drugs are doing to your health, but the cost cannot be ignored either. U.S. spending for prescription drugs more than doubled from 1999 to 2008 to just over $234 billion.

Unfortunately, the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on prescription drugs is not giving Americans the good health they desire. Instead we’re seeing massive increases in chronic illnesses like cancer, heart disease and diabetes, and obesity rates are at an all-time high.

As drug spending continues to increase, Americans’ health continues to decline, and that is not a coincidence.

Drug Companies are Not Looking Out for Your Health

Pharmaceutical companies have kept the wool pulled over Americans’ eyes for many years, and had many convinced that they were working fervently to develop safe medications that would cure and prevent virtually every disease plaguing the world.

But these modern-day messiahs are not the saints they would have you believe . not even close.

The drug companies that manufacture some of the best-selling drugs in the world have committed some of the greatest crimes against human health. For instance:

  • Pfizer, maker of one of the biggest selling cholesterol drugs Lipitor, paid out the largest health care fraud settlement in history — $2.3 billion — for illegally promoting uses of four of its drugs. Pfizer engaged in illegally promoting one of these drugs, Bextra, for off-label use despite their knowledge that it was associated with an increased risk of stroke and heart attack.
  • Another top seller, Plavix, which is manufactured by Bristol-Myers Squibb and used to help prevent strokes and heart attacks, also has serious side effects you many not be aware of. When combined with aspirin, the drug nearly doubled the death rate from heart disease among patients who had not had heart attacks but were at risk for them.
  • Diabetes drug Avandia, made by GlaxoSmithKline, is still on the market despite research showing a 43 percent increased risk of heart attack and a 64 percent higher risk of cardiovascular death compared to patients treated with other methods.
  • Merck, the maker of the painkiller Vioxx that killed 60,000 people, ignored research that reflected unfavorably on their drug, and they concealed heart attacks suffered by three patients during a clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2000. They also deleted other relevant data before submitting their article for publication.
  • Drug company Wyeth, who is now owned by Pfizer, paid ghostwriters to write articles promoting hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and downplaying its risks, for medical journals. Now it’s widely known that synthetic HRT increases risks of heart disease, breast cancer and other serious health problems.

The truth is, drug companies continuously display blatant disregard not only for federal laws but also for public health by aggressively developing and marketing drugs even when they know they will cause harm. They continue to do this because they are unlikely to suffer much of a consequence for their crimes.

Most people have no idea just how shielded these huge drug companies really are.

Even under the BEST circumstances — such as with a drug that has gone through unbiased, stringent, long-term testing — when it is released into the uncontrolled environment of your body, literally anything can happen — and only a tiny fraction of the possibilities have been “tested for” in a lab.

Unfortunately, those circumstances are a rarity. Studies are frequently biased, results are skewed, and drugs are put on a fast-track to be approved long before anyone knows whether they’re safe — and sometimes even when it’s known that they’re not.

“Pharmageddon” Overtaking U.S. Baby Boomers

The drug industry has successfully turned our society into a “pharmacracy” where every twitch and hiccup is deemed treatable with another prescription.

Unfortunately, treating disease symptoms with drugs will invariably create other health problems, which lead to yet another prescription to counteract the side effects from the first one, followed by another one, and another. It’s an evil circle that is now leading to a rash of prescription drug addictions and overdose deaths dubbed “pharmageddon.”

Pharmageddon is “the prospect of a world in which medicines and medicine produce more ill-health than health, and when medical progress does more harm than good” — and it is no longer a prospect but fully upon us.

Those most at risk from dying from this new drug crisis are people you would least expect: baby boomers whose doctors are only too happy to prescribe multiple medications.

As a result, in the last 20 years deaths from accidental drug overdoses have increased five-fold and, as CBS News reported, unintentional overdoses are now the leading cause of accidental death in 15 states and the District of Columbia.

So we’re seeing a mounting death toll directly attributable to prescription drugs.

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), adverse drug reactions from drugs that are properly prescribed and properly administered cause about 106,000 deaths per year, making prescription drugs the fourth-leading cause of death in the U.S. Compare this to the death toll from illegal drugs — which is about 10,000 per year — and you begin to see the magnitude of the problem, and the magnitude of the coverup.

We are indeed a nation of drug addicts, and just like old-fashioned street junkies, we’re spending every penny we have to feed the beast. Unfortunately, now people are dying in droves because of our dependency on a quick, but dangerous, fix.

Should You Put Your Health in the Hands of the Drug Companies?

Drugs should typically not be your first choice when dealing with a health problem. I realize that it takes a massive shift in thinking to realize that your body can heal itself, and that often drugs only hinder the process.

But I can’t stress enough the importance of the most basic principle of HOW to resolve an illness: finding the underlying cause of the problem. Masking it with a drug that lessens your symptoms does not fix anything.

For example, all of the following conditions can be treated or prevented with LIFESTYLE CHANGES, yet if you go to a typical doctor, you will likely be prescribed a potentially dangerous drug instead:

Disease can only be resolved by addressing its root cause, so that is what you should strive for. Remember, leading a common sense, healthy lifestyle is your best bet to produce a healthy body and mind, and increase your longevity.

So first and foremost I encourage you to follow these basic health tenets if you want to avoid these and other terrible diseases.

Next, seek out a physician or health coach that understands your body’s innate ability to heal, who will provide guidance into natural and truly safe treatment methods that go above and beyond a bottle of pills.

In the event your doctor or coach suggests you take a drug, research it before you take it. Do not believe for one minute that your physician will have all the answers and all the latest research findings at his or her fingertips. They won’t. Most physicians will have little to offer you aside from the lines they learned from their drug reps.

Also, it’s a good idea to keep in mind the very real fact that drug companies are ALLOWED to continue making drugs despite being caught lying, defrauding, and even knowingly killing its customers time and time again.

Then take a look at the frequently devastating side effects that are listed on the drug’s label. Remember that even if it lists a side effect as rare, it can still happen to you.

Also remember that a large number of drugs are vastly over-prescribed and unnecessary. They’re frequently referred to as “blockbuster drugs.” If several people you know are on it, ask yourself, “why?” and “what alternatives do I have?”

More often than not, you will discover there are numerous non-drug alternatives to help you not only resolve your health complaint, but go on to reach true optimal health.

Related Articles:

 Comments (61)

Next Page →