Rakovina
http://www.i2b.us/the-promise-of-phytochemicals/
http://www.alternative-cancer-care.com/Liquid_Cesium_Chloride.html
Ked clovek neide rovno do Ciny, kde sa to da zrejme kupit najlacnejsie, tento zdroj je dostupny
http://www.pgcscientifics.com/Cesium-Chloride-99-999-1kg-p/l-623627.htm
http://www.trc-canada.com/detail.php?CatNum=C280000&CAS=7647-17-8&Chemical_Name=Cesium%20Chloride,%2099.99%&Mol_Formula=CsCl&Synonym=
Upozornenie, cezium chlorid zvysuje vylucovanie draslika, pre to je dobre brat s nim spolu zdroj draslika, aby sa predislo moznej hypokalemii.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulforaphane
Na obsah sulforaphanu v roznych jedlach pozri na
http://www.livestrong.com/article/307835-foods-that-are-high-in-sulforaphane/
kde najbohatsi zdroj dava na 100 gramov az 250 mg sulforaphanu a su to klicky brokolice.
Vyskumy okolo zdravotnych ucinkov tychto latok(antiviralne, antimikrobialne, adaptogenicke a silne protirakovinne) su uz od rokov 1980tych a extramne uspesne. Takze by konkurovali antiviralnym(najma na HIV,, ale aj chripky a vakciny proti nim) a samozrejme by mohli nahradit jedovate chemoterapeutika.
Napriek mnozstvo vyskumov a hromade patentov (patent v tomto pripade je nastroj na potlacenie konkurencie, lebo ktokolvek pokusajuci sa toto vyrabat alebo predavat je okamzite sudeny za porusenie patentovych prav)
okrem Ciny, ktora je to ochotna vo velkom komukolvek predat, a Ruska, kde sa to dokonca aj predava, ale dovoz odtial nedovolia, nikde inde na svete ziadny vyrobok z tohoto nie je, okrem brezovych stiav s nizkymi koncentraciami betulinickej kyseliny a roznymi kozmetickymi kremami s malymi obsahmi betulinickej kyseliny.
Je to obrovske sprisahanie farmacie a medickych organizacii proti tomuto vlastne superlacnemu a velmi ucinnemu prostriedku antiviralnemu, znacne cytotoxickemu na rozne rakoviny a dokonca adaptogenu
http://www.chagatrade.ru/betulin.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betulin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betulinic_acid
Jedine, co je mozne dostat bezne je huba Chaga(inonotus obliquus, hrdzavec /rezatec sikmy), rastuca ako parazitna hrca na breze, ktora ma urcity obsah betulinu a betulinickej kyseliny. To sa im nepodarilo zastavit, lebo splna vsetky kriteria potravinovych doplnkov tak ako je, sucha a pomleta na prasok a neda sa zastavit ziadnym ochrannym patentom.
Da sa vyrobit po domacky vyluh z vrchnej bielej brezovej kory, napr 1 diel vrchnej kory a 3 diely cisteho etylalkoholu da vyluh okolo 2.5 az 7.5% betulinu(priemer 4-5%),
podla druhu brezy a obsahu betulinu v jej kore.
Pre istotu som si zohnal praskovu brezovu koru a skusil ten vyluh vyrobit a pouzit.
Vyluhuje sa nielen betulin(biely prasok) ale aj taniny, takze vysledny vyluh je tmavohnedy a trpky.
Pouzil som ho polievkovu lyzicu do pohara mlieka, okorenil skoricou a muskatovym orechom, chutilo to ako Brandy Alexander a davka betulinu v tom bola odhadom okolo 300-400 mg.
Pre nemliecnych je tu na vyber mnozstvo inych "mliek" ako kokosove mlieko, mandlove a rozne ine orechove.
3 x denne by dalo najmenej gram betulinu, kolko davaju zhruba do roznych lieciv na Ruskom trhu, popularne je to tam najma na ochranu pecene proti alkoholu a viralnym chorobam pecene.
V kremoch je na exemy a kozne rakoviny.Su aj zname brezove sampony, ktore su dnes ale povacsine chemicky odsvindlovane.
sirokej verejnosti, ako je citral, ktory som uz bol spomenul, najma ako
antiviralny prostriedok(mnohe rakoviny idu s virusami, to sa dnes uz
neda popriet), kora ovocneho stromu Paw Paw a casto spominana ayurvedna
bylina/pakoren curcuma longa, tj jej vytazok curcumininoidy, najma ked
su brane spolu s bioperinom,vytazkom z cierneho korenia, co znacne zvysi
ich absorbciu do tela(zhruba 6 x)
Davky su na citral 3 x 6 kvapiek, zamiesane do ovocnych drinkov dava
limetkovu prichut. Viacere rastliny ho obsahuju, pomerne lacny zdroj je
esencialny olej z Lemon Grass, kde je az 80% citralu. Najlepsie je to
zriedit 3:1 glycerinom, aby ten olej nezostal plavat na povrchu ale sa
emulzifikoval. V ovocnych/zeleninovych zmesiach sa to da dosiahnut aj
mixovanim v mixeri. Pozor, kupovat len lemon grass oil produkovany
destilaciou/steam distilled, tj jedla kvalita, nie vytazovany chemiou,
lebo taky pouziva aromoterapia a kozmeticky priemysel.
Curcuminoidy sa spominaju najma so zapalmi ako protizapalove, ale su
zaroven aj antimikrobialne ciastocne, silne oxidanty a uzitocne preoti
Alzheimerovej chorobe, teda okrem protirakovinnych ucinkov.
Uvadzam davky na silne zapaly, zialbohu davky na rakovinu nemam, ale asi
budu dost podobne
3 x 1500 mg curcuminoidov s 10 mg bioperinu, ako to najdete napr u
Swansona alebo vyrobok Dr Best Curcumin with. bioperine ktori predavaju
rozni predajcovia.
Paw paw je dost tazko zhanat, lebo sa ho snazia v USA(tu je to domaci
divoky strom) potlacat a to natolko intenzivne, ze len mali vyrobcovia,
co si to risknu za vysoke ceny sa odvazia tento produkt predavat. Ja som
nasiel cez Google.com tychto momentalne, ale to sa ale zrejme bude casto
menit, takze sa to snazte najst sami cez Google.com
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=paw+paw&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=1674795606466908490&sa=X&ei=uCqpT9D_MYGUgwexwLmpAQ&ved=0CJsBEPMCMAc
Obsah kory su acetogeniny, podobne ako aj u gravioly, kde je to najma v
listoch. A na davku mam data len z gravioly, kde sa odporuca polievkova
lyzica=6 gramov gravioly ako ucinna davka.
Ucinok je popisovany len ako selektivne potlacanie cinnosti
mitochpondrii(ATP regulacia) nikto sa tam neodvazi rozno napisat, ze je
to protirakovinna bylina, lebo ase;lektivne potlaca horuckovitu cinnost
mitochondrii v bujnejucich/rakovinnych bunkach.. Pomerne dobry clanok na
to je tento
http://alternativecancer.us/pawpaw.htm
kde odporucaju 3 x 2 kapsule, co si osobne myslim sa da este zvysit.
Nepouzivat spolu s CO Q 10/ubiquinolom a PQQ, ktore podporuju cinnost
mitochondrii.Tiez s vitaminom C, E a selenom a ALA vo vacsich davkach.
Dany clanok uvadza hromadu dalsich nevhodnych kombinovat s paw paw,
ale to nie je nijak podlozene vyskumom, to su len domnienky autora z
roznych dovodov. Takze to beriem len s rezervou. Co asi ale je
definitivne nevhodne su silne oxidatory , tie mozu znicit ucinok roznych
latok, tj bral by som ich s poriadnou pauzou, aby sa nahodou nezmiesali
v tele
Vsetky tri tieto spomenute sa samozrejme daju kombinovat s rozymi inymi
vhodnymi protirakovinnymi na zvysenie celkoveho uspechu.Ked aj nie
priamo, tak par dni jedni a par dni druhe, na striedacku.
Na alternativu vam zialbohu nemozem poskytnut ziadne oficialne data, len uryvky od roznych vyliecenych pacientov.
Data sa totiz ziadny lekar z obav pred prenasledovanim neodvazi uviezt.
Co ale napr sa im nepodarilo potlacit ani za 30 rokov su napr vyskumy dr Burzynskeho, ktory to predlozil uz skoro pred 30 rokmi, samozrejme bol dokonale vysmiaty onkologmi na kongrese, ale dnes uz konecne dosiahol natolko uznanie, ze mu "dovolili" expreimentalne pouzivat jeho antineoplastony na ludoch.
Inac jeho prvy uspech bol 60% (3 z 5 pacientov) s neoperovatelnymi a inac na 99.99% smrtelnymi nadormi na mozgu.
Uspech dr Johanny Budwig s jej zmesou lanoveho oleja a tvarohu, este pred zavedenim prisnych pravidiel okolo zakazanych tvrdeni v 50 desiatych rokoch minuleho storocia bol 30az 40 %, tj ak sa vam podari najst jej povodne studie niekde, lebo z internetu ich dokladne vymazali.
Hyperthermia, ktora sa potichu vykonava napr v Nemecku na tiez velmi vysoky podiel znicenych nadorov, bez akychkolvek skodlivych ucinkov, napr aj prezident Reagan to absolvoval, potichu, az teraz sme sa to vlastne dozvedeli.
Mexicke nemocnice su asi jediny zdroj informacii, kde sa neboja napisat, ze maju vysledky ovela lepsie, nez onkologicke kliniky v USA.
Pozri napr na tuto znamu nemocnicu, cez ktory prechadza desiatky tisicov pacientov, povacsine z USA,kde sa dokonca vyvinuli spolocnosti na "zdravotnu turistiku" Takych nemocnic je v Mexiku plno, nie kazda ma rovnako dobre vysledky.
Tu sa uvadza, ze vysledky 5 rocneho prezitia su od 2-3 aj viackrat lepsie, nez konvencna onkologia.
Takze napriek vasim roznym protestom a zastavanim sa skorumpovanej mediciny, fakt je , ze alternativne metody maju dnes lepsie vysledky, nez schvalene oficialne, a to uz nikto nemoze umlcat, nech sa snazi akokolvek.
Vysledok je, ze umele hormony zvysuju pravdepodobnost rakoviny prs od 60 do 400% podla typu rakoviny, a prirodne bioidenticke hormony nezvysuju rakoviny prs sancu voci kontrolnej skupine, co nebrala ziadne hormony. A naviac zeny, co braly bioidenticke hormony sa citili mladsie, vigoroznejsie a pravdepodobnost osteoporozy u nich bola podstatne nizsia, ako v kontrolnej skupine a dokonca aj v skupine , ktora brala synteticke hormony.
Pripajam original dr Shallenbergera Real Cures, Health Allert
|
Volume 4, Issue 12
|
March 24, 2011
|
|---|
Do bio-identical hormones
cause breast cancer?
Marie is a 49 year old woman, who has always taken great care of herself. She eats healthy foods, avoids over-indulgence, gets to bed early, and exercises regularly. She feels and looks great. There's only one problem.
Marie is starting to go through menopause. She came into the office last week doing something I've never heard her do — complaining. She was complaining of being tired, feeling depressed, and not being able to sleep well. So I told her all she had to do to feel her usual self was to replenish her depleting hormones with bio-identical ones. That's when a worried look came over her face.
|
The Tropical Super Food Scientific studies show it lowers cholesterol, improves memory, and boosts your immune system. And that's just the beginning... |
|---|
She then told me about the same concern that I have heard from so many other women in her position:
"But I've heard that the bio-identical hormones are no safer than the synthetic ones. I just don't feel comfortable taking them until studies prove their safety.
A couple of years ago, I would have admitted: "There are no published studies on the safety of bio-identical hormones. Both the FDA and The Endocrine Society have said that they are just as dangerous as synthetic hormones."
But bio-identical hormones are very different from the synthetic hormones that cause disease. They are molecularly identical to the hormones that are already in your body, and have been there all your life. If they have not harmed you for this long, why would they suddenly have a different effect?
And, just as importantly, researchers recently conducted a study on the safety of bio-identical hormones. They even published it in the prestigious cancer journal, The Journal of Clinical Oncology. The results of this study should alleviate the concerns that Marie and so many other women have about the safety of bio-identical hormones.
This study isn't some small, statistically unsound study. It's a study of over 80,000 postmenopausal nurses. And it covers over eight years of follow up. The authors of the study divided the nurses into three groups: those taking synthetic hormones, those taking bio-identical hormones, and those taking no hormones. Then they compared the three groups in terms of who developed breast cancer the most, and what types of breast cancer they developed. Here's what they found:
The women taking the synthetic hormones had a 60% greater chance of developing ductal breast cancer than women who took no hormones. They had twice the risk of developing lobular breast cancer. And they had almost four times the risk of developing a mixed ductal/lobular form of cancer!
Compare this to the women who took bio-identical hormones. They had the same cancer risk in all categories as the women who took no hormones. In other words, the women in this large study who took bio-identical hormones had no more risk of developing breast cancer than the women who took no hormones at all!
Plus, they had all of the advantages of taking bio-identical hormones. They felt better. They functioned like they were years younger. And they decreased their risk of Alzheimer's, osteoporosis, diabetes, heart disease, and strokes. They had all of the benefits of having youthful levels of hormones, but without any increased risk of breast cancer.
So what did Marie have to say to all of this?
She let out a sigh of relief. Even though the idea still seemed a little strange to her, she decided to give it a try. I'll see her again in about six weeks. I have a pretty good idea what I'll hear. She will be back to feeling the way she has all her life. And the great thing is that thanks to bio-identical hormones, she will most likely be feeling that good for many years to come.
If you have been denying yourself all of the many advantages of replenishing your deficient hormones levels with bio-identical ones out of concern for breast cancer, it's time to reconsider. I hope, like Marie, you will now feel convinced about their safety.
Finding your Real Cures,
Frank Shallenberger, MD
REF: Fournier A, Fabre A, Mesrine S, et al. Use of different postmenopausal hormone therapies and risk of histology- and hormone receptor-defined invasive breast cancer J Clin Oncol. 2008 March ; 26(8): 1260-1268.
If someone forwarded you this email, and you'd like to receive your own Real Cures Alert, please sign up on our website:www.RealCuresLetter.com
|
|
Please do not forward this e-mail. This e-mail is never sent unsolicited. You have received this Newsmax e-mail because you subscribed to it or someone forwarded it to you. To opt out, see the links below.
Remove your e-mail address from our list or modify your profile. We respect your right to privacy. View our policy. |
Mary was a 56-year-old psychologist who
had noticed a dimpling of her left breast. Upon
examination, she found that there was an unnatural
fullness in the area. Mary’s doctor ordered a
mammogram, which showed a one-centimeter
mass, but it was ill-defined due to Mary’s dense
breast tissue. (Mammograms can be unreliable in
women with dense breast tissue, which is actually
very common.)
The doctor conducted a needle biopsy of the
mass, which was diagnosed as infiltrative ductal
carcinoma — breast cancer. Mary’s oncologist
ordered a full workup, including an MRI and a
bone scan. The MRI reported multiple (20-30)
nodular lesions in each breast, but at that point the
radiologist wasn’t sure if the lesions were a result
of breast cancer. The rest of Mary’s workup was
negative; there were no signs of cancer in any other
part of her body.
Mary’s case was presented at the hospital tumor
board, a weekly meeting of oncologists, radiologists,
and surgeons to discuss difficult cases and try to
come to a consensus on the appropriate treatment.
The board decided (unanimously) that Mary
should undergo a bilateral mastectomy, followed by
chemotherapy and radiation.
When Mary’s doctor told her about the tumor
board’s recommendation, she was stunned. “My
first thought was, ‘You can’t be serious.’ I felt fine. I
knew I had a problem, but I couldn’t believe it was
that severe,” she said. Mary needed a second opinion.
That was when she called me.
I immediately told Mary to take more iodine.
At the time, she was taking 12.5 mg/day of a
combination of iodine and iodide (one pill of a
brand called Iodoral). I told her to increase the dose
to 50 mg/day (four pills).
Six weeks later, Mary had another MRI done on
her breasts. All of the lesions were gone, and Mary
hadn’t done anything different except for taking
larger amounts of iodine. When the oncologist
reported this good news, he also told her that she
did not need a bilateral mastectomy.
Mary was, of course, thrilled. She called to tell me
that my recommendation had saved her breasts. Yet
when I asked Mary if the oncologist was interested
in hearing more about treating breast cancer with
iodine, she answered, “No, he wasn’t.”
In fact, there is a long history in the medical literature
of treating and preventing breast diseases with
iodine. The relationship between iodine and fibrocystic
breast disease, which is a precursor to breast
cancer, has been written about for over 60 years.
Iodine deficiency has been shown to alter the
normal architecture of the breast tissue in the
same way that it alters the normal architecture of
all glandular tissue. Indeed, not only can iodine
deficiency cause problems with the breasts, but it can
also disrupt the normal functioning of the thyroid,
ovaries, uterus, and prostate.
I was thrilled to hear Mary’s good news and her
improved prognosis. But I was disappointed to find
out that her doctors had practically ignored the
treatment that saved her from an emotionally and
physically painful surgery. I can only wonder why
they didn’t want to learn.
Iodine Deficiency and Breast Cancer
Iodine is essential for the body. We cannot live
without it. Unfortunately, we are experiencing a massive
epidemic of iodine deficiency in this country.
Over the last 30 years, iodine levels have fallen 50
percent in the United States,7 leading to epidemics
of thyroid problems (hypothyroid, autoimmune
thyroid diseases such as Graves’ and Hashimoto’s
disease) and breast illnesses (fibrocystic breasts and
breast cancer). All of these conditions can be related
to iodine deficiency.
In my own experience, over 95 percent of my
new patients are iodine deficient. Is it any wonder
that these patients suffer from thyroid and breast
illnesses?