There is more and more research available that states we are deficient in certain vitamins and minerals.  The data over time will help all of us know for sure what areas we need to seriously look at and change our habits.

One such area is our omega 3’s.  It has been shown that since the changes in our fats in our diets after 1945, we have seen increases in cancer.  They now know that the balance between omega 6 and omega 3 is out of whack.  Wth Animals fed on grasses, we were getting omega 3’s.  Then the change to soy and corn fed animals with see an increase in omega 6 and a deficiency in omega 3.

Now some doctors will recommend increasing with foods or supplements omega 3.

This is a simple step we all can take to prevent cancer and be a cancer survivor.

Does vitamin D deficiency contribute to cancer?

Now most medical doctors feel safe recommending vitamin D as a supplement because of the research data showing we are deficient in it.  They believe this is one of the vitamin and minerals that we are fairly certain are safe for anyone.

They are seeing a link in this deficiency to some cancers.  Here is an excerpt from a news report this week. 

“This study found that vitamin D deficiency is very common among women with breast cancer, and it suggests that vitamin D deficiency is linked to poorer outcomes in these women,” said Nancy Davidson, director of the breast cancer program at the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center and president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Goodwin recommended that women who are diagnosed with breast cancer should take a simple blood test to determine their body’s vitamin D levels.

“If you’re a woman with breast cancer, it’s probably worthwhile having vitamin D levels checked. If they’re deficient, they should take more to get it in the range that we think is beneficial,” she said. “This study is significant because it tells us this may be one thing women can do to improve their prognosis,” said Anne McTiernan of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

Even with strong evidence that vitamin D can help prevent – and, in the current study, fight off – various cancers, researchers are still unclear on the mechanism by which the chemical works.

“We know from basic science studies that breast cancer cells have vitamin D receptors and can interact with vitamin D,” Goodwin said.
Some scientists have suggested that the nutrient might play a role in regulating programmed cell death, without which cells can turn cancerous.

“Vitamin D is pretty unique in its action in that it does enter the cancer cells and induces them to undergo a cell death process,” Walsh said. “The effects of vitamin D on breast cancer cells are very similar to the established drug Tamoxifen that many women take for breast cancer.”
In a demonstration for ABC News, Walsh added vitamin D to a breast cancer culture, causing the cells to shrivel up and die.

Breast cancer cells are not the only cells with vitamin D receptors. In fact, nearly every cell in the body interacts with the vitamin in some way.

Daily vitamin D recommendations vary widely by country, with the United States and Canada recommending 200 IU per day for children and 400 IU for adults. But many researchers, and even the Canadian Cancer Society, have recommended that this value be raised to 1,000 IU per day. While 400 IU may be sufficient to maintain bone health, scientists say, higher levels are needed to provide cancer-fighting benefits.
Sources for this story include: www.washingtonpost.com ; www.abcnews.go.com ; www.baltimoresun.com.

Check out the latest on uncovering the plastic toxins……………………..Is it another piece of the cancer puzzle?

Research Links Plastics Containing Bisphenol A to Heart Disease and Diabetes
by Sherry Baker (see all articles by this author)

If you live in the U.S. and eat any packaged foods at all, you are probably also consuming the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA. Now, for the first time, scientists have made a startling discovery about the chemical that could help explain the epidemic of heart disease and diabetes in this country.

Previous studies have found BPA causes precancerous conditions, kidney and developmental problems in animals. But new research, published in the September 17th edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), shows that humans could be walking time bombs of health problems due to “normal” exposures to BPA.

British researcher David Melzer, M.B., Ph.D., of Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, and colleagues measured the BPA found in the urine of 1,455 adults between the ages of 18 and 74 years, using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) which was gathered in 2003 and 2004. Then they looked at the health status of these people whom the scientists note in the JAMA report are “representative of the adult U.S. population”.

The results? Dr. Melzer and his team found that average BPA concentrations, adjusted for age and sex, were higher in those diagnosed with cardiovascular diseases and diabetes. In fact, even a slightly raised BPA concentration was associated with a 39 percent increased risk of having cardiovascular disease (angina, coronary heart disease, or heart attack combined) and diabetes.

Those with the highest BPA concentration had nearly three times the odds of heart disease and 2.4 times the risk of diabetes when compared with those with the lowest levels. What’s more, higher levels of BPA concentrations were also associated with abnormally elevated levels of three liver enzymes.

“These findings add to the evidence suggesting adverse effects of low-dose BPA in animals. Independent replication and follow-up studies are needed to confirm these findings and to provide evidence on whether the associations are causal,” the authors said in a statement to the media. “Given the substantial negative effects on adult health that may be associated with increased BPA concentrations and also given the potential for reducing human exposure, our findings deserve scientific follow-up.”

But is it too little too late? And is anyone in Washington going to listen? They certainly haven’t in the past.

There was concern earlier this year that huge numbers of children were being exposed to BPA because it is known to leach out of hard polycarbonate plastics that are used widely in baby bottles, sippy cups and water bottles. The Department of Health and Human Services’ National Toxicology Program released a report on the safety of the chemical and warned BPA could cause health and developmental problems.
“Because these effects in animals occur at bisphenol A exposure levels similar to those experienced by humans, the possibility that bisphenol A may alter human development cannot be dismissed,” the report concluded.

Predictably, this and other warnings about BPA, have been hotly contested by plastic industry leaders. “Much like the pharmaceutical industry, the plastics industry wants consumers to believe their chemicals are so safe that babies can drink them with impunity,” says Mike Adams, a consumer health advocate and editor of NaturalNews.com. “This flies in the face of common sense, and this new research is demonstrating why we need to be so vigilant about protecting ourselves and our children from plastic packaging.”

Last spring, consumers bombarded the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with demands to know if BPA-containing baby and food products are safe. The government agency claimed to have investigated the matter. But, despite dozens of animal studies showing the chemical is a danger to health, the FDA ruled in August there was insufficient evidence to support banning BPA from baby and food products.

However, a new FDA hearing is set to start today, September 16, in Rockville, Maryland, to discuss the BPA issue once again. In fact, JAMA issued a press release saying the prestigious medical journal is releasing the findings of the new human study a day early to coincide with the FDA hearing.

Clearly, mainstream medicine is now recognizing that the chemical contaminant is a real health concern.

In the JAMA editorial that accompanies the new BPA study, Frederick S. von Saal, Ph.D., of the University of Missouri, Columbia, and John Peterson Myers, Ph.D., of Environmental Health Sciences, Charlottesville, Va., point out that BPA production has reached about 7 billion pounds per year and the chemical has caused massive planetary contamination. Why? Consider the fact that products containing BPA, like microwavable food containers, often end up in landfills and dumped into water ecosystem. Already, Canada has declared the chemical to be a major worldwide pollutant.

“The good news is that government action to reduce exposures may offer an effective intervention for improving health and reducing the burden of some of the most consequential human health problems. Thus, even while awaiting confirmation of the findings of Lang et al, decreasing exposure to BPA and developing alternatives to its use are the logical next steps to minimize risk to public health,” Dr. von Saal and Dr. Myers state in the editorial.

Considering U.S. citizens have been waiting for years for the government to even acknowledge that BPA is a health hazard, it makes little sense to rely on the FDA to to protect us from the chemical. Instead, there are ways to take control of your and your family’s exposure to BPA.

Avoid baby formula as much as possible.

According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG) (http://www.ewg.org/chemindex/chemicals/23297) , a non-profit organization comprised of scientists, engineers, policy experts, lawyers and computer programmers who have been in the forefront of pointing out the potential health and environmental hazards of BPA, all U.S. manufacturers of formula use a BPA containing lining on the metal part of their containers. Opt for breastfeeding exclusively if possible, or use a dry formula that is mixed with filtered water.

Eat fresh, not canned, food.

The EWG has found that food and drink cans are lined with BPA-laden plastic. Canned soups and spaghettis have the highest levels.

Pay attention to the kind of plastics you use for food and drink.

The plastics that have the most BPA are those made of polycarbonate plastic — they are usually rigid and transparent and used for toddler cups, baby bottles, food storage containers and water bottles. They are frequently marked on the bottom with the letters “PC” and the recycling number 7. Plastics with the recycling numbers 1, 2 and 4 on the bottom are better choices.

Choose safe bottles.

Using glass baby bottles is best. Metal water bottles may not be free from BPA because many are lined with a plastic coating that contains the chemical. The EWG advises using stainless steel bottles that don’t have a plastic liner.

Don’t use plastic containers to heat food in microwaves.

Ceramic and glass are safe alternatives.

However, avoiding BPA doesn’t automatically protect your health. In fact, consumer health advocate Mike Adams says the attention to the plastics issue could be seen as a distraction from the larger problem — the danger that is often inside the BPA-laden containers. “For example, right now some of the top infant formula products sold in the United States are contaminated with hexane residues, and many infant products are made with as much as 50 percent refined sugars and corn syrup solids. Parents need to pay as much attention to what’s inside the bottle as they do the bottle itself.”

Their spouse, children, parents, and friendships are all affected and it can be frustrating and frightening trying to figure out how to deal with it. Even after healing or remission takes place, cancer leaves a lasting impact on patients and their friends and loved ones. Everyone touched by the disease needs cancer support in their time of sickness or adversity to cope with physical and/or emotional changes.

 ”Melanoma is a form of skin cancer in which cancer cells form in melanocytes (the skin cells that make the pigment melanin, which gives skin its natural color). Melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer.  When melanoma starts in the skin, usually as a mole, the disease is called cutaneous melanoma. Melanoma is most often found on the trunk (the area from the shoulders to the hips) of men and on the arms and legs of women. Melanoma can also occur in the eye, which is called intraocular or ocular melanoma.” 

This was the grave and possibly fatal illness that I contracted and had to face. And it was a very long way away from easy, both for me and for all the people in my life.
Many people, not surprisingly, feel themselves at a terrible loss for words when someone they know and love has cancer. They don’t know exactly the right thing to say, or do. 
What people should always keep in mind if they have to face this terrible situation is the body-mind-spirit connection. In other words, a cancer patient needs to hear and see words and attitudes that are positive and authentic.  This will facilitate their healing, although they are the ones who need to do the real work.

So, for one thing, it is very good to speak words of encouragement and the feeling that the patient can pull through, that he has the strength to make it and live a full life once again. But it’s not a good thing to try to sound like some mysterious faith healer and say things like “I just know that you’ll be healed of this in less than a week, so smile and rejoice!” or anything clearly fake like that. The patient is already in a heightened state of sensitivity because of one’s condition and will be more acute than ever with the perception that they are being lied to or “coddled”; and these latter feelings do not facilitate healing, but block it.

Another wonderful thing that you can do for a cancer patient is keep them laughing. It has been demonstrated through research and experience that cancer can be effectively fought through humor. A cancer patient naturally is going to have some very morbid thoughts and anything that can distract her from those and take her to another place mentally where she’s laughing and feeling that life is good is something that furthers healing. And while you definitely don’t want to seem like you’re making fun of her in her illness, you should make your comedy real and down to earth and not try to handle the patient with kid gloves as you try to make her laugh. A quip like, “I see you’ve lost weight”, or “I really envy you–you don’t have to put up with the traffic on the roads these days!” can bring some great peals of laughter and make the patient feel like a real human being rather than just a cancer patient.

Perhaps most important is to try to speak to the patient as much like you always did as you possibly can, all things considered. If the two of you bantered a lot, keep doing it. If the two of you liked to get involved in lengthy philosophical discussions, continue to do so (although you may want to de-emphasize reflections on death). If you played chess, play chess.

Above all, though, listen to the patient for cues as to how you should talk to him. Some people are going to prefer talking directly about their cancer; others will want to avoid all talk of it entirely. Listen to the patient and think about what you know him to be like, responding appropriately.

Do not say or be negative around someone who is severely ill. That negative energy can drain them of their valuable healing energy.   Use ife-affirming and words, actions and  attitudes to augment other natural cancer treatments and help the patient become a cancer survivor.

I overcame Stage 4 skin cancer through the use, among other things, of natural cancer treatments including energy work. Now I dedicate myself to giving cancer support and facilitating cancer healing to anyone who suffers from this terrifying condition.

One thing I want all people to know is that they need to understand something basic about cancer: everyone in the world can have cancer cells. The question is do you have the body, mind and spirit to kill the cells.  What this means for each one of us is that we can all get cancer under the “right” circumstances. But it also means that we are clearly equipped to deal with and survive cancer through natural healing, too.

Cancer has only become a regularly occurring disease since the beginning of the 20th century. And it only became the virtual epidemic that it is in the last 50 or 60 years. Our lifestyles and diets coupled with the ever increasing use of powerful synthetic medications are the culprit behind this tragic fact.

The use of natural energy work to treat and heal from cancer involves adopting an understanding that is at one and the same time ancient but new. The body is an energy field and naturally has an energy field all around and throughout itself. This fact is well-established and well known to people who practice ancient healing sciences involving the Chakras and Qi (“chi”) energy meridians that extend like a web throughout the body. 
For some reason, the Orient wound up remaining more in touch with this knowledge than the West in the last few hundred years, as the West became more advanced in other areas of medicine.  The ironic tragedy is that the West’s religion of Christianity is largely responsible for the loss of this knowledge, as the Church sought to suppress any teaching that authorities could not find a foundation for in the bible.
But of course modern Western science knows full well that energy is all around us, that all matter is a state of energy and can become energy, and that the human body and brain create measurable energy fields. And the knowledge of how to use the body’s energies for healing, including healing from cancer, is on the rise in the West once more.

The ancient wisdom concerning this natural cancer treatment tells us that we have an Aetheric Body, an Emotional Body, a Mental Body, and an Astral Body, all of which come together within the physical body. This fact is analogous to the “mind-body” connection that more and more medical professionals and health experts are taking with scientific seriousness. So, it follows that one of the most important parts of the use of energy work to heal from cancer is the power of positive thinking and meditating on positive imagery–that is, thinking that you can and will heal, and being able to “see” your cancer diminishing and an image of yourself whole and healthy, rid of the cancer.
Imagining these things as real visions of the near future and not “just” fantasy generates a certain kind of energy in the body by this action’s nature–and that energy is cancer-fighting and healing. 

If you have ever heard of people who had a terminal illness like cancer making themselves well without even really trying by watching hours and hours of comedy movies on DVD, you have heard a tale of energy healing. The people in question, probably without realizing it, were altering the energy state of their Emotional Body; instead of feeling defeated and dying, they made themselves feel joyful about life, they laughed in the face of Death until Death lost all dominion over them. The rest of the bodies picked up on this alteration and together they acted to kill the cancer. 

One type of energy healing work that is making strong inroads now in the West is Reiki. A Japanese word roughly meaning “universal life energy”, Reiki practitioners are skilled in using light touches upon the body to positively influence the Aetheric Body, the personal energy “bubble” that surrounds us. Highly skilled masters can even influence healing from a distance, as long as their target patient has a receptive attitude.

So if you have skin cancer or are otherwise in need of cancer support and healing, I am a cancer survivor and can testify first hand that energy healing feels wonderful, is painless, and works.

One of the first products I became aware of was processed and refined sugar.  It is everywhere, in everything.  We don’t even stop and consider what these processes are doing to our food before we put it into our body.  We are trusting others that they are safe.  I found that I could not feed myself or my kids water and refined sugar. Most of the drinks and juices available for our kids have no nutritional value and we have no idea the harm they are causing to their little brains and bodies from all the chemicals and processing. 

I found stevia to be an all natural easy to use substitute.  Now check out what this company is using stevia for. 

As part of my cancer support I will continue to pass on new products and companies.  Tell me what you thing in the comments or what you would like to hear more about.

Seattle-based Zevia selling all-natural, zero-calorie drink
By ANDREA JAMES
P-I REPORTER

Diet soda addicts — they know who they are — have a special bond with their choice drinks.

But the founders of Seattle-based Zevia, a year-old soda company, are encouraging Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi devotees to cheat on their beloveds.

It takes about one can to get hooked, explained Ian Eisenberg, one of three founders. Zevia’s Cola has 45 milligrams of caffeine — comparable to a can of Diet Coke.

In the race to put an all-natural, zero-calorie soft drink on the market, Zevia has beaten the beverage giants. Zevia, which comes in four flavors, is sweetened with stevia.

Stevia is a natural sweetener emerging into U.S. consumer consciousness. It is extracted from the stevia herb, native to the South American rain forest. Its leaf tastes like honeysuckle.

Stevia competes with artificial sweeteners and sugar. The sweetener wars — saccharin as Sweet’N Low, sucralose as Splenda, aspartame as NutraSweet and Equal, sugar as itself — are well-documented and have left consumers confused.

“People are looking for a natural diet soda,” said Jessica Newman, another founder.

Newman is a marathoner who would pump her body full of Diet Coke after a workout, according to her husband and business partner, Derek Newman.

“It really worried me,” he said, especially when he couldn’t find diet soda without chemicals.

Before their Zevia venture, Derek, 36, and Jessica, 37, ran their own Seattle law firm, Newman & Newman. Reformed Diet Coke fiend Eisenberg, 40, founded the now-defunct Blue Frog Mobile.

In 2005, the three friends learned about stevia from a California friend who was a “health food nut.”

Eisenberg said they realized, “We should start a soda company using this.”

The trio hired a flavor artist to create a formula that eliminates stevia’s bitter aftertaste. Its formula is patent-pending.

“We made a lot of really, really bad soda and drank it,” Eisenberg said.

Perfecting the cola was particularly tough. Says Jessica Newman, “There’s a reason Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi don’t have a lot of competition. We are on a crusade to get people to kick the diet soda habit.”

Zevia has developed a devout following: People who order a $24 case of 24 cans online have to pay another $24 for shipping — and they do it. The company gets about 30 online orders per day.

Earlier this week, Derek Newman triumphantly opened his inbox to show off the fan e-mails. By the hundreds, they contained subject lines such as, “wow,” “thank you!!!” and “yum.”

One customer, self-identified as Paula A. from Idaho and Texas, wrote, “This is THE GREATEST discovery since life began on this planet! The flavors are fabulous — my very favorite is orange. Any chances of developing a grape soda? MMMmmmm!! ”

After a legal career full of depressing messages, Jessica Newman said, “These are why we get up in the morning.”

Native people in Paraguay and Brazil use stevia to sweeten hot teas. And stevia has been used in Japan since the early 1970s to sweeten foods. But the Food and Drug Administration has turned down companies that asked to add it to foods here. Stevia fans say that the FDA has banned the plant extract under pressure from the artificial sweetener industry.

Stevia products, including Zevia, are now sold as dietary supplements, a class of food and vitamins over which the FDA has less control.

Studies on the benefits and weaknesses of stevia haven’t been widespread, and mostly focus on large doses given to rats, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Zevia may soon face huge competition. In May, Cargill and Coca-Cola Co. made a stevia product named Truvia. The companies say that their research submitted to the FDA proves that Truvia is safe.

Atlanta-based Coca-Cola could market a beverage containing stevia by the end of this year, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported this month.

Also this summer, PepsiCo and Merisant Co. introduced PureVia as a sweetener. Pepsi plans to sell a drink containing the sweetener in Peru. Purchase, N.Y.-based Pepsi also plans to release PureVia tabletop sweetener into the U.S. market this fall.

Both Coke and Pepsi appear to be waiting on FDA approval to sell stevia in a soft drink.

Zevia doesn’t really need an FDA stamp of approval to do well, especially as the agency loses credibility. In November, a panel of scientific advisers reported to Congress that the FDA “cannot fulfill its mission because its scientific base has eroded and its scientific organizational structure is weak.”

Zevia is sold nationwide in about 900 stores. It sells alongside other types of sodas, even though it’s classified as a dietary supplement, not a food product. The restrictions mean that Zevia cannot claim to be a soft drink and cannot declare zero calories. Thus, a Zevia can says, “A dietary supplement is not permitted to disclose the amount of calories, carbs, fat, when there is zero. For that reason, Zevia does not disclose them.”

The company is privately held and backed by its founders and angel investors.

Dr. Jonathan Wright, medical director of the Tahoma Clinic, invested in the company after first recommending the soda to his patients.

Wright said his 35-year-old son called him about six weeks ago and said, “Dad, you’ll never guess what I found — a soft drink that’s actually safe.”

He added, “I didn’t believe him.”

But after researching the product, Wright said, he found Zevia trustworthy because its sweetener has been used for centuries in other countries.

“People say, ‘Aren’t there any soft drinks I can drink?’ ” Wright said.

“I’ve had to until now tell them, ‘I’m sorry, no.’ Even though this is officially a carbonated stevia supplement — that’s FDA for you — and not a soft drink.”
SWEET
Stevia is a sugar substitute with no calories, no fat and no carbohydrates. It comes from a South American tropical plant, and has been used in South America and Asia as a sweetener for hot teas. The FDA considers it safe as a dietary supplement but not as a food product — a designation that critics have called confusing.