Bullshit Media: A Prime Example Of Why Not To Listen To Media On Health

This is a letter that I’m about to send to the Guardian after I was horrified by an article I read last week that opposed natural cancer remedies. This is how the media is playing a disastrous role in your health.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

I am writing with regard to an article that was published by The Guardian on Tuesday entitled: Tackling cancer treatment myths, from clean eating to cannabis, written by David Robert Grimes.

I was horrified to read this article. I immediately thought to myself: people are going to listen to this. The Guardian is a reputable newspaper. This is going to dissuade people from exploring non-toxic treatments to fight cancer. This is going to cost lives.

Interestingly a day after I read the Guardian article, I came across this article about how a holistic nutritionist mother helped her son fight cancer using a number of dietary methods including the ketogenic diet (opposed by Mr Grimes) and detoxification of the body: http://deliciouslyorganic.net/detox-therapies-for-cancer-patients/.

Before I begin, I’ll introduce myself quickly: I’m an author of a couple of books in nutrition, the latest being The Vitality Secret: Defy Disease, Combat Common Illnesses And Stay Young. I’m a health coach and Certified Fitness Nutrition Specialist. I’ve helped people reverse inflammatory illnesses including pre-diabetes, type-2 diabetes, psoriasis, arthritis, reduce high blood pressure, balance unhealthy cholesterol levels and more recently, reduce symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease – all through a shift in diet and lifestyle changes.

I’ve devoted the last 4 years to thoroughly researching various health conditions from eczema (from which I suffered my whole life until recently) to low testosterone to cardiovascular diseases. I was inspired to thoroughly investigate inflammation after my father suffered a stroke. I soon confirmed my belief that he did not need to the stroke had his doctor offered him the correct nutritional advice – or any nutritional advice. His asthma (an inflammatory disease), led to chronic inflammation, which led to high blood pressure and then a stroke. This is a textbook sequence of events. Conventional wisdom and his doctor’s lack of knowledge of nutrition cost him his mental health and his health is deteriorating too fast.

I’m on a personal mission to empower people to take their health into their own hands. The mechanics of good health are actually straight forward, and unfortunately people’s minds are being tainted by false information they see in the media. I was saddened to find such information in what I considered a highly reputable source, The Guardian.

In the last year I was heavily focused on cancer as I lost a friend to it and another friend was diagnosed with it in one week. Last week, I lost another friend to cancer at the tender age of 36. I’ve immersed myself among true experts in cancer and attended events learning about how it is created in the body and how to reverse it naturally.

In The Guardian article, the author opposed 5 key facts about cancer that are simply incorrect. I’m going to address the following points that the author presents as ‘myths.’

Cancer can be beaten or avoided with certain special diets
Homeopathy, cannabis oil and natural remedies can treat cancer
Deodorants, artificial sweeteners and cell phones cause cancer
There is a cure for cancer and it’s being suppressed for profit

Before I begin, I’d like to present to you the key viewpoints that cancer is nothing but a symptom of toxicity in the body – an imbalance of the body – and a suppressed immune system. Cancer cannot grow in a healthy immune system – it cannot grow in a clean body.

The imbalance can come from poor diet and toxins in the food supply, environmental toxins including electromagnetic fields (EMFs), a sedentary lifestyle leading to under oxygenation of cells (the leading cause of chronic disease according to a pioneer in natural cancer healing, Dr Cowden) and build up of toxins as the lymphatic system will not work effectively if an individual is largely sedentary. Mental trauma, stress and mental blockages – other forms of toxicity – are leading causes of cancer.

So let’s look into Point 1 suggesting that there is no diet to cure cancer. The author rejects an alkaline diet and the ketogenic diet to fight cancer and that sugar is cancer’s No.1 fuel.

Alkalinity

It appears to be a positive move to make the majority of your diet alkaline as an over consumption of acidic foods including trans fats, processed foods, sodas and sugars, can eat into your body’s reserves to alkalise the blood which must stay between 7.35 and 7.45 or it becomes toxic. Here is an excerpt from a medical journal that suggests the alkaline diet may help mitigate chronic diseases:

“However, alkaline diets may result in a number of health benefits as outlined below…

Increased fruits and vegetables in an alkaline diet would improve the K/Na ratio and may benefit bone health, reduce muscle wasting, as well as mitigate other chronic diseases such as hypertension and strokes.” (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195546/)

In The Guardian article, David Grimes states: “This means that an alkaline diet can’t affect cancerous cells.” This is a dangerous claim to make. Whilst there may be not a considerable amount of scientific evidence yet, the suggestion that it’s effectively nonsense is doing your readers a disservice. There are plenty of case studies featured across many documentaries and books in which people have declared that switching to a plant-based diet (for example) has healed their cancer. That’s not to be ignored. Making categorical statements such as the alkaline diet having no effect on cancer or that there is no dietary cure for cancer is misinformation for your readers.

Here’s just one example: https://www.forksoverknives.com/cancer-free-without-chemo-thanks-to-dr-mcdougall-and-forks-over-knives/.

The Ketogenic Diet

There has been considerable research on this topic in recent years among leading experts in healing cancer naturally including Dr Cowden, Dr Mercola, Dr Angela Poff and Dr Dominic D’Agostino and countless successful case studies of people reversing cancer by switching to a ketogenic diet. Cancer’s no.1 fuel is glucose (undisputed) so removing glucose from the diet to allow normal cells to thrive and cancerous cells to die has proven successful in a number of cases of reversing cancer. This was actually mentioned by most experts at The Truth About Cancer Live Symposium I attended in October.

Cancer cells have fifteen times the number of insulin receptors as normal cells. Cancer cells thrive off glucose and cannot fuel on ketones. The ketogenic diet puts the body into fat burning mode, burning ketones instead of glucose for energy – both for your brain cells and cells throughout your body. Since cancer cells cannot fuel off ketones, this diet can starve cancer cells to death. While it doesn’t work in every case of cancer, it can work in many. Here is a Pub Med medical journal reference:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4215472/

This is a case study of a man reversing a brain tumour by switching to a ketogenic diet. He had support from doctors from Imperial College and Charing Cross Hospital, London, presented by Dr Jeff Gerber of Denver.

http://denversdietdoctor.com/ancestral-ketogenic-diets-and-brain-cancer-the-scarborough-protocol/

This is Dominic D’Agostino, PhD, talking about the ketogenic diet and his success in helping people reverse cancers:

https://www.dietdoctor.com/dominic-dagostino-benefits-ketogenic-diets

And here’s a well-referenced book on the Ketogenic Diet and fighting cancer:

https://www.amazon.com/Fight-Cancer-Ketogenic-Diet-Third/dp/1943721033

I could list a lot more articles and case studies, but it does not really add to the point I’m making. Even if one successful case study demonstrated that the ketogenic diet helped one person reverse one form of cancer and there weren’t any scientific studies backing it up (which there are), for The Guardian to communicate with its readers it doesn’t work is misleading and possibly costing the readers and/or readers’ friends and family members their lives. There is a ripple effect.

Homeopathy, Cannabis Oil and Natural Remedies Can Treat Cancer

David Grimes argues that this is all nonsense. I’m not going to focus on homeopathy as there is not sufficient scientific data to back up my argument. All I’ll say is that there are plenty of case studies of people experiencing positive results by adopting this approach.

In terms of cannabis, there is a considerable amount of research that proves how cannabinoids are highly anti-inflammatory and chronic inflammation is unequivocally linked with cancer. Here is a medical journal to support this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20925645

This is a PubMed journal that demonstrates the effectiveness of cannabis as an anti-cancer agent:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4791148/.

A quote from the medical journal:

The august New England Journal of Medicine published a perspective piece describing Marilyn, a 68-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer seeking medical cannabis from her physician⁵⁷. Interestingly, the pro and con sides of the argument were both presented by mental health practitioners and not by medical oncologists. In a follow-up blog poll, the authors reported finding it surprising that 76% of the 1446 physicians responding from around the world were in favour of medicinal cannabis, even though many came from jurisdictions in which it is totally illegal⁵⁸. The authors of a later WebMD survey of 1566 physicians in the United States reported that 82% of oncologists and hematologists were in favour of patients having access to medical cannabis—representing the strongest approval among all medical subspecialties².

To summarize, cannabis and cannabinoids are useful in managing symptoms related to cancer and its treatment. Exciting preclinical evidence suggests that cannabinoids are not only effective in the treatment but also in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Cannabinoids could be synergistic with opioids in the relief of pain. The safety profile of cannabis is acceptable, with side effects that are generally tolerable and short-lived. Preclinical data suggest that cannabinoids could have direct anti-tumour activity, possibly most impressive in central nervous system malignancies.

A study published in the British Journal of Cancer, conducted by the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Complutense University in Madrid, determined that THC and other cannabinoids inhibit tumour growth. They were responsible for the first clinical study aimed at assessing cannabinoid anti-tumour action. Cannabinoid delivery was safe and was achieved with zero psychoactive effects. THC was found to decrease tumour cells in two out of the nine patients.

Nineteen other scientific references are here:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/23/20-medical-studies-that-prove-cannabis-can-cure-cancer

For Guardian readers to be informed that cannabis has no effect in treating cancer, this is incorrect information and misleading. This might be incredibly damaging to Guardian readers’ health and dissuade them from looking into this critical information themselves.

Deodorants, artificial sweeteners and cell phones cause cancer.

While there is not a lot of scientific research to support deodorants leading to cancer directly, what can be determined is that any kind of toxicity that enters the skin is toxicity in the body. The skin is the largest organ in the body. It is very porous and whatever is put on the skin is absorbed into the blood stream. Some toxins such as the aluminium and parabens found in deodorants and other cosmetics can act like oestrogen in the body too, which has been linked with a number of cancers.

There is a sufficient amount of research to support how artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and MSG are linked with cancer. Aspartame is an excitotoxin, meaning that it excites brain cells to death. This was featured in Dr Russell Blaylock’s book: Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, (1994). Dr Blaylock is a professor of neurosurgery at the University of Mississippi. He published a book thoroughly detailing the damage caused by the 3 ingredients of aspartame: Phenylalanine, Aspartic Acid and Methanol. He featured 500 scientific references to show that excess free excitatory amino acids such as aspartic acid and glutamic acid (99% of MSG is glutamic acid) in our food supply are causing serious neurological disorders and a plethora of other acute problems.

Aspartic acid can cause amino acid imbalances in the body and result in the interruption of normal neurotransmitter metabolism in the brain. Diketopipeerazine (DKP) is a byproduct of aspartame metabolism and has been linked to brain tumours.

I think this is sufficient to suggest you should not be informing your readers that artificial sweeteners are safe and do not cause cancer.

With regard to cell phone use, it is first necessary to take a wide look at the effects of EMFs – electromagnetic fields. Human beings and all living creatures are electric/electromagnetic beings. We not only have electricity flowing through the body; we generate and radiate our own electro-magnetic field. We resonate. When one energy field encounters another, the stronger field dominates, and the weaker field diminishes. When that exposure is more than episodic, the weaker field can receive physical cell damage.

Each and every one of our trillions of cells has its own optimal frequency for health. EMF has the capacity to disrupt this critical balance. Dr David Carpenter, Dean at the School Of Public Health, State University of New York believes that it is likely that 30% of all childhood cancers come from exposure to EMF.

Dr George Garlo headed the wireless industry research team in the early 1990s and discovered definitively that EMF from cell phone use does cause submolecular, electronic disturbance. That in turn creates an environment for diseases including cancer. His findings are presented in his book called Cell Phones-Invisible Hazards of the Wireless Age.

EMF has been scientifically linked to suppression of melatonin, breast cancer, prostate cancer, brain cancer, damage to the blood brain barrier, Alzheimer’s disease, miscarriages, ALS, Multiple Sclerosis, hypertension, diabetes, thyroid problems and asthma. (Cancer: Step Outside The Box, Ty Bollinger, 2006)

In June, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the World Health Organization, released a report warning that radiation from mobiles, wireless devices, and Wi-Fi networks are possible carcinogens.

In 1968, there existed, directly under the President of the United States, the Office of Telecommunications Policy. This Office set up the Electromagnetic Radiation Management Advisory Council, and commissioned the Council to write this report:

“Program for control of electromagnetic pollution of the environment: The assessment of biological hazards of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation.”

They distinguished ionizing radiation (x-rays, medical scanning devices, the Sun) from non-ionizing radiation (devices like the cellular/mobile phone). It has long been recognized that Ionizing radiation is dangerous to health, but this is the first time a report was commissioned to determine the effects of non-ionizing radiation.

The first report was completed and published in 1971. There was a an astonishing conclusion. To quote:

“The Electromagnetic radiation emanating from radar, television, communication systems, microwave ovens, industrial heat treatment systems, medical equipment, and many other sources, permeate the modern environment, both civilian and military. Unless adequate monitoring controls, based on a fundamental understanding of biological effects, are instituted in the near future, then in the decades ahead, man may enter an era of energy pollution of the environment, comparable to the chemical pollution of today. The consequences of under-valuing, or misjudging the biological effects of long-term, low-level exposure could become a critical problem for the public health. Especially if genetic effects are involved.”

Without getting too scientific, we are nothing but electromagnetic beings. When our frequencies are disrupted by anything electrical, be it a cell phone or microwave or central fuse board, it affects the electron flow across every cell in our body. For the Guardian to state that there is no risk of cell phones causing cancer, you are doing your readers a disservice and putting their lives at risk with incorrect and potentially life-threatening information. Cell phone use has led to increased numbers of brain tumours and cell phones carried in the trouser pockets by men has led to a decrease in testosterone production and sperm count.

I believe the Guardian has a moral responsibility to provide its readers with correct information about health or The Guardian is playing a major role in people’s health deteriorating unnecessarily. There is an indirect message – an undertone – to that article that will dissuade its readers from exploring non-toxic and immune system sabotaging methods to fight their cancer – of which there is a plethora. There is no need to fear cancer when we understand what it is, how it is created, and how to reverse it naturally by balancing the body. In most cases, there is no need for the toxic three methods; chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery.

I ask that you either publish this letter and/or that you offer an apology to your readers for article I quoted at the beginning.

I reference this book: Cancer: Step Outside The Box by Ty Bollinger and I highly recommend The Truth About Cancer series, which I truly believe every person on this planet should watch.