ALT_IMG

Codex: Yes to Malnutrition

Our thanks go to the National Health Federation and Scott Tips for his shattering report on the recent CODEX deliberations in Germany. You should too.As these government directed pundits go you see for the most part that not only do they have no understanding of nutrients and nutrition Readmore...

ALT_IMG

UDOH Looking flr People Ready to Quit Tobacco

The Utah Department of Health (UDOH) today released the Utah Hospital Comparison Report, 2011. Utahns can use the report to access important information on all Utah hospitals regarding quality and patient safety measures that include:1. Rates of accidental lacerations and punctures;2. Death rates for diagnoses that should rarely result in death (e.g., hip dislocation, cesarean delivery);3 Readmore..

Alt img

How fruit and veg can beat breast cancer

London Nutritionist Yvonne Bishop-Weston said today "New laws forbid nutritionists to say or do anything that may encourage patients to forgo their standard treatment and seek an alternative treatment or even a diet so it's hard to honestly and freely comment on these studies"t Readmore...

Showing posts with label Dr Gayle Eversole. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dr Gayle Eversole. Show all posts
Saturday, December 15, 2012

What You Don't Know About Energy Drinks

0 comments
Energy drinks are at it again, and in the news.  The 5 Hour Energy CEO has played the "I don't know" game along with "I'll have to get back to you with that information" and more prattle while avoiding the real issues. While 5 Hour Energy is not the only member of this product category, one thing for sure is that it does contain sucralose. And if you don't know about sucralose (marketed as Splenda) by now you can go here for more information. Another of my trusted sources, that today re-issued one of their older articles, has this to say:
Energy drinks are labeled wrong. They don’t energize you – they stimulate you. Research shows that beyond a brief caffeine high, there are actually no health benefits to energy drinks. In fact, the combination of different chemicals is likely to do more harm than good, especially for children. People need to stop over-reaching for that buzz that will not carry through the day. Drinking 3, 4 or even 5 Five Hour Energy shots in one sitting will not help you stay energized throughout the day. The circumstances suggest that, for some, it could be deadly.



Here's why: 5 Hour Energy Shots contain synthesized versions of Citicoline, Tyrosine, Phenylalanine, Taurine, Malic Acid, Glucuronolactone, and phenylalanine.

Besides the same amount of caffeine as 12 ounces of the leading cup of premium coffee, 5 Hour Energy does not contain carbohydrates, yet they claim it provides energy. 5 Hour Energy contains 2000% daily value of B6 and the 8333% of B12. All other ingredients including amino acids are in amounts considered to be healthy, but what about the amount of B Vitamins? The company states that the B Vitamins in their supplement; B6, B12, B3, and B9 are water soluble, any amount that is not absorbed is “expelled with no toxic effects.”  

What they fail to explain is that water, an essential ingredient that is needed to expel unused B Vitamins, should be mega-dosed to offset the mega-dose of B Vitamins in a 5 Hour Energy shot. Contrary to belief, it is possible to overdose on Vitamin B. Overdosing on Vitamin B happens when intolerable amounts are taken over a long period of time which can result in headache, dizziness, fainting, yellowing of skin, and temporary nerve/brain damage that can last 3 months to 3 years.

One case for toxicity reported 5,500mg for one dose, while another reported 500mg over a period of time (3 months or so), which happens to be the equivalent of B12 in one bottle of 5 hour energy. The recommended daily dose for B3 is 6mg, .8 for B6, and 30mg for B12. The amount of B3 in a 5 Hour Energy drink is 30mg, 40mg of B6, and 500mcg of B12. The amount of B Vitamins could potentially lead to an overdose. In the most extreme case, if taken daily and over a period of time 5 Hour Energy shots could very well cause temporary nerve/brain damage (in the most extreme cases). Symptoms such as numb hands and feet are signs of toxic levels. This is also the type of toxicity that can be expected from synthesized B vitamins.
If you are interested in a really unique, safe, and health promoting energy shot please be open to using our reliable and effective EVB Concentrate, you'll be glad you did!


SELECTIONS FROM NATURAL HEALTH NEWS
and there are about 30 more...
May 02, 2012
More today on the dangers of commercailly available sports and energy drinks from Health Day. In the midst of this just remember this is the reason I created herbalYODA's sportZtea many years ago. This is an all natural and ...
Jan 17, 2012
Energy Drinks. UPDATE:15 January 2012. Once again energy drinks are in the news and it appears that it isn't good (no surprise!). Agence France-Presse reports that "Australia experts call for energy drink warnings".
Oct 13, 2009
For some time we have been writing about energy drinks, and out most recent update gives you information along with the several other articles we have posted about energy drinks here on Natural Health News. Safe Energy ...
Aug 20, 2010
Study authors Stephanie Ballard of Nova Southeastern University and colleagues Jennifer Wellborn-Kim and Kevin Clauson say energy drinks typically feature caffeine and a combination of other ingredients -- including ...
Continue reading →

What You Don't Know About Energy Drinks

1 comments
Energy drinks are at it again, and in the news.  The 5 Hour Energy CEO has played the "I don't know" game along with "I'll have to get back to you with that information" and more prattle while avoiding the real issues. While 5 Hour Energy is not the only member of this product category, one thing for sure is that it does contain sucralose. And if you don't know about sucralose (marketed as Splenda) by now you can go here for more information. Another of my trusted sources, that today re-issued one of their older articles, has this to say:
Energy drinks are labeled wrong. They don’t energize you – they stimulate you. Research shows that beyond a brief caffeine high, there are actually no health benefits to energy drinks. In fact, the combination of different chemicals is likely to do more harm than good, especially for children. People need to stop over-reaching for that buzz that will not carry through the day. Drinking 3, 4 or even 5 Five Hour Energy shots in one sitting will not help you stay energized throughout the day. The circumstances suggest that, for some, it could be deadly.



Here's why: 5 Hour Energy Shots contain synthesized versions of Citicoline, Tyrosine, Phenylalanine, Taurine, Malic Acid, Glucuronolactone, and phenylalanine.

Besides the same amount of caffeine as 12 ounces of the leading cup of premium coffee, 5 Hour Energy does not contain carbohydrates, yet they claim it provides energy. 5 Hour Energy contains 2000% daily value of B6 and the 8333% of B12. All other ingredients including amino acids are in amounts considered to be healthy, but what about the amount of B Vitamins? The company states that the B Vitamins in their supplement; B6, B12, B3, and B9 are water soluble, any amount that is not absorbed is “expelled with no toxic effects.”  

What they fail to explain is that water, an essential ingredient that is needed to expel unused B Vitamins, should be mega-dosed to offset the mega-dose of B Vitamins in a 5 Hour Energy shot. Contrary to belief, it is possible to overdose on Vitamin B. Overdosing on Vitamin B happens when intolerable amounts are taken over a long period of time which can result in headache, dizziness, fainting, yellowing of skin, and temporary nerve/brain damage that can last 3 months to 3 years.

One case for toxicity reported 5,500mg for one dose, while another reported 500mg over a period of time (3 months or so), which happens to be the equivalent of B12 in one bottle of 5 hour energy. The recommended daily dose for B3 is 6mg, .8 for B6, and 30mg for B12. The amount of B3 in a 5 Hour Energy drink is 30mg, 40mg of B6, and 500mcg of B12. The amount of B Vitamins could potentially lead to an overdose. In the most extreme case, if taken daily and over a period of time 5 Hour Energy shots could very well cause temporary nerve/brain damage (in the most extreme cases). Symptoms such as numb hands and feet are signs of toxic levels. This is also the type of toxicity that can be expected from synthesized B vitamins.
If you are interested in a really unique, safe, and health promoting energy shot please be open to using our reliable and effective EVB Concentrate, you'll be glad you did!


SELECTIONS FROM NATURAL HEALTH NEWS
and there are about 30 more...
May 02, 2012
More today on the dangers of commercailly available sports and energy drinks from Health Day. In the midst of this just remember this is the reason I created herbalYODA's sportZtea many years ago. This is an all natural and ...
Jan 17, 2012
Energy Drinks. UPDATE:15 January 2012. Once again energy drinks are in the news and it appears that it isn't good (no surprise!). Agence France-Presse reports that "Australia experts call for energy drink warnings".
Oct 13, 2009
For some time we have been writing about energy drinks, and out most recent update gives you information along with the several other articles we have posted about energy drinks here on Natural Health News. Safe Energy ...
Aug 20, 2010
Study authors Stephanie Ballard of Nova Southeastern University and colleagues Jennifer Wellborn-Kim and Kevin Clauson say energy drinks typically feature caffeine and a combination of other ingredients -- including ...
Continue reading →

CODEX: Yes to Malnutrition

0 comments
Our thanks go to the National Health Federation and Scott Tips for his shattering report on the recent CODEX deliberations in Germany.  You should too.

As these government directed pundits go you see for the most part that not only do they have no understanding of nutrients and nutrition, they seem stubbornly to hold on to old thinking not based on current science.  This thinking too is not in the best interest of your health and well being, only the corporate mantras.

This excerpt clues you in to what is on the way to your food, well beyond the interest in labeling GMO (genetically modified organisms) ingredients in food.
[3] The proposed Codex NRVs are: Vitamin A (dropped from 800 mcg to 550 mcg); Vitamin D (5 mcg or 200 IUs); Vitamin E (8.8 mg); Vitamin K (60 mcg); Vitamin C (dropped from 60 mg to 45 mg); Thiamin (dropped from 1.4 to 1.2 mg); Riboflavin (dropped from 1.6 mg to 1.2 mg); Niacin (dropped from 18 mg to 15 mg); Vitamin B6 (dropped from 2 mg to 1.3 mg); Folate (raised to 400 mcg); Vitamin B12 (2.4 mcg); Pantothenate (5 mg); Biotin (30 mcg); Calcium (raised from 800 mg to 1000 mg); Magnesium (dropped from 300 mg to 240 mg); Iodine (150 mcg); Iron (14.3-43.1 mg depending upon bioavailability); Zinc (dropped from 15 mg to 3.6-11.9, depending upon bioavailability); Selenium (30 mcg); Phosphorus (700 mg); Chloride (2.3 grams); Copper (900 mcg); Fluoride (3.5 mg); Manganese (2.1 mg); Chromium (30 mcg); and Molybdenum (45 mcg).
To read the complete article and learn more about why these nutrient values are non supportive of health please go here.

SELECTIONS FROM NATURAL HEALTH NEWS
May 17, 2010
UPDATE: 17 May, 2010 - International Advocates for Health Freedom was the first to call the Codex international threat to health freedom in 1996 via an article by John C. Hammell in Life Extension Magazine. More about ...
Sep 13, 2010
In regard to herbs and CODEX. NB: While I do not accept the move to standardization of herbs, because it moves them more into the category of drugs as they become fractionated and may offer more in the form of side effects ...
Jul 06, 2008
The National Health Federation is the only sanctioned Codex-accredited health-freedom organization with the right to attend Codex committee meetings such as the one reprted here. In fact, NHF has for years been attending ...
Jul 13, 2005
By explaining to those vitamin-popping seniors that CODEX's bottom-line purpose is not to make Big Pharma and doctors and pharmacists rich, but to reduce socialist nations' elderly populations, and to the reduce the life ...
 
May 03, 2006
In recent years the Codex process has been criticized by the international agency's parent organizations, the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization for failing to contribute to better health.
Aug 24, 2007
Additionally, we work closely on Codex issues with the National Health Federation, which is the only health freedom organisation to have official observer status— and thus enabling it to speak—at Codex meetings. However ...
Apr 13, 2010
Supplements Are Exempted From Codex Language in Food Safety Bill The FDA Food Modernization Act (S. 510), also referred to as the “Food Safety” bill, has been modified to exempt dietary supplements from language that ...
Apr 16, 2010
ALLOWABLE VITAMIN POTENCY UNDER CODEX: Vitamin C (225 mg - up from the original 60 mg); Vitamin E (15 mg - up from the original 7)(Gamma Tocopherol); Magnesium (400 mg); Vitamin B-12 (9 mcg when normal ...
Continue reading →

CODEX: Yes to Malnutrition

0 comments
Our thanks go to the National Health Federation and Scott Tips for his shattering report on the recent CODEX deliberations in Germany.  You should too.

As these government directed pundits go you see for the most part that not only do they have no understanding of nutrients and nutrition, they seem stubbornly to hold on to old thinking not based on current science.  This thinking too is not in the best interest of your health and well being, only the corporate mantras.

This excerpt clues you in to what is on the way to your food, well beyond the interest in labeling GMO (genetically modified organisms) ingredients in food.
[3] The proposed Codex NRVs are: Vitamin A (dropped from 800 mcg to 550 mcg); Vitamin D (5 mcg or 200 IUs); Vitamin E (8.8 mg); Vitamin K (60 mcg); Vitamin C (dropped from 60 mg to 45 mg); Thiamin (dropped from 1.4 to 1.2 mg); Riboflavin (dropped from 1.6 mg to 1.2 mg); Niacin (dropped from 18 mg to 15 mg); Vitamin B6 (dropped from 2 mg to 1.3 mg); Folate (raised to 400 mcg); Vitamin B12 (2.4 mcg); Pantothenate (5 mg); Biotin (30 mcg); Calcium (raised from 800 mg to 1000 mg); Magnesium (dropped from 300 mg to 240 mg); Iodine (150 mcg); Iron (14.3-43.1 mg depending upon bioavailability); Zinc (dropped from 15 mg to 3.6-11.9, depending upon bioavailability); Selenium (30 mcg); Phosphorus (700 mg); Chloride (2.3 grams); Copper (900 mcg); Fluoride (3.5 mg); Manganese (2.1 mg); Chromium (30 mcg); and Molybdenum (45 mcg).
To read the complete article and learn more about why these nutrient values are non supportive of health please go here.

SELECTIONS FROM NATURAL HEALTH NEWS
May 17, 2010
UPDATE: 17 May, 2010 - International Advocates for Health Freedom was the first to call the Codex international threat to health freedom in 1996 via an article by John C. Hammell in Life Extension Magazine. More about ...
Sep 13, 2010
In regard to herbs and CODEX. NB: While I do not accept the move to standardization of herbs, because it moves them more into the category of drugs as they become fractionated and may offer more in the form of side effects ...
Jul 06, 2008
The National Health Federation is the only sanctioned Codex-accredited health-freedom organization with the right to attend Codex committee meetings such as the one reprted here. In fact, NHF has for years been attending ...
Jul 13, 2005
By explaining to those vitamin-popping seniors that CODEX's bottom-line purpose is not to make Big Pharma and doctors and pharmacists rich, but to reduce socialist nations' elderly populations, and to the reduce the life ...
 
May 03, 2006
In recent years the Codex process has been criticized by the international agency's parent organizations, the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization for failing to contribute to better health.
Aug 24, 2007
Additionally, we work closely on Codex issues with the National Health Federation, which is the only health freedom organisation to have official observer status— and thus enabling it to speak—at Codex meetings. However ...
Apr 13, 2010
Supplements Are Exempted From Codex Language in Food Safety Bill The FDA Food Modernization Act (S. 510), also referred to as the “Food Safety” bill, has been modified to exempt dietary supplements from language that ...
Apr 16, 2010
ALLOWABLE VITAMIN POTENCY UNDER CODEX: Vitamin C (225 mg - up from the original 60 mg); Vitamin E (15 mg - up from the original 7)(Gamma Tocopherol); Magnesium (400 mg); Vitamin B-12 (9 mcg when normal ...
Continue reading →
Thursday, October 25, 2012

Ultrasound, less X-Ray

0 comments

Breast cancer: 

Ultrasound better for some, and do not overlook Thermography

United Press International, 10-23-12

For women ages 30-39 with symptoms of possible breast cancer, ultrasound is a superior diagnostic tool to mammography, U.S. researchers say.

Dr. Constance Lehman, director of radiology at Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and professor and vice chair of radiology at the University of Washington, said the use of ultrasound in women ages 30-39 who have overt breast symptoms -- palpable lumps, localized pain and tissue thickening -- is common practice in Europe, where guidelines typically recommend ultrasound as the primary diagnostic imaging tool.

The risk for malignancy among women in this age group is small, but real, at about 1.9 percent, Lehman said.
The study, published in the American Journal of Roentgenology, found in the 1,208 cases examined, sensitivity for ultrasound was 95.7 percent compared to 60.9 percent for mammography -- ultrasound exams found 22 cancers versus 14 by mammography.

The researchers identified all women 30-39, who presented for diagnostic breast imaging evaluation at Seattle Cancer Care Alliance from January 2002 to August 2006.

"Imaging plays an important role in evaluating women with palpable breast lumps," Lehman said. "Most lumps are not cancer. Ultrasound and mammography help us separate women who need a biopsy from those who can safely be followed or reassured that the lump is benign. In women under age 40, ultrasound is better at evaluating breast lumps compared to mammography. Mammography is still our best tool for screening women 40 and older, but targeted ultrasound is our tool of choice in evaluating symptomatic women under 40."

Copyright United Press International 2012

Selections from Natural Health News

Oct 07, 2009
EDINA, Minn., Oct. 7 (UPI) -- Dr. John Wild, a leading developer of the use of ultrasound in cancer detection, died recently in Minnesota at the age of 95, his daughter said. Wild applied ultrasound technology that was being ...
May 13, 2008
I have been an advocate of ultrasound for breast screening for more than a decade. I have taught thousands of women to demand ultrasound - and better yet - THERMOGRAPHY - in the classes, workshops and writings that I ...
May 21, 2010
The web site mentioned in this article promotes MRI and ultrasound, also less cancer promoting than mammogram and doing a better diagnostic job as well. Dense breast increases cancer risk. Published: May 21, 2010 at ...
Apr 04, 2007
Ultrasound is effective too. Read more here and here. Computers hinder mammogram readings, report finds. By Gene Emery, Reuters 4 April 07. Computer-aided mammogram designed to help doctors spot cancer do not ...
Continue reading →

Ultrasound, less X-Ray

0 comments

Breast cancer: 

Ultrasound better for some, and do not overlook Thermography

United Press International, 10-23-12

For women ages 30-39 with symptoms of possible breast cancer, ultrasound is a superior diagnostic tool to mammography, U.S. researchers say.

Dr. Constance Lehman, director of radiology at Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and professor and vice chair of radiology at the University of Washington, said the use of ultrasound in women ages 30-39 who have overt breast symptoms -- palpable lumps, localized pain and tissue thickening -- is common practice in Europe, where guidelines typically recommend ultrasound as the primary diagnostic imaging tool.

The risk for malignancy among women in this age group is small, but real, at about 1.9 percent, Lehman said.
The study, published in the American Journal of Roentgenology, found in the 1,208 cases examined, sensitivity for ultrasound was 95.7 percent compared to 60.9 percent for mammography -- ultrasound exams found 22 cancers versus 14 by mammography.

The researchers identified all women 30-39, who presented for diagnostic breast imaging evaluation at Seattle Cancer Care Alliance from January 2002 to August 2006.

"Imaging plays an important role in evaluating women with palpable breast lumps," Lehman said. "Most lumps are not cancer. Ultrasound and mammography help us separate women who need a biopsy from those who can safely be followed or reassured that the lump is benign. In women under age 40, ultrasound is better at evaluating breast lumps compared to mammography. Mammography is still our best tool for screening women 40 and older, but targeted ultrasound is our tool of choice in evaluating symptomatic women under 40."

Copyright United Press International 2012

Selections from Natural Health News

Oct 07, 2009
EDINA, Minn., Oct. 7 (UPI) -- Dr. John Wild, a leading developer of the use of ultrasound in cancer detection, died recently in Minnesota at the age of 95, his daughter said. Wild applied ultrasound technology that was being ...
May 13, 2008
I have been an advocate of ultrasound for breast screening for more than a decade. I have taught thousands of women to demand ultrasound - and better yet - THERMOGRAPHY - in the classes, workshops and writings that I ...
May 21, 2010
The web site mentioned in this article promotes MRI and ultrasound, also less cancer promoting than mammogram and doing a better diagnostic job as well. Dense breast increases cancer risk. Published: May 21, 2010 at ...
Apr 04, 2007
Ultrasound is effective too. Read more here and here. Computers hinder mammogram readings, report finds. By Gene Emery, Reuters 4 April 07. Computer-aided mammogram designed to help doctors spot cancer do not ...
Continue reading →

Just Say NO to GMO!

0 comments

SOURCE: http://www.encognitive.com/node/18609

Selections from 30+ on Natural Health News

Jun 23, 2012
Enjoy Your Holiday, GMO FREE. Originally published July 2010. As the Fourth of July holiday comes along this week end, here's wishing you a great time, and hope you BUY ORGANIC to avoid the risk of FRANKENFOOD ...
Oct 09, 2011
2011: This is the second year for the NO GMO Campaign. Natural Health News has been covering this issue for many years and our blog has many related articles. Today I learned that USDA gave a $500,000 grant to the firm ...
Jun 21, 2010
Generally speaking, Monsanto asked the Supreme Court to rule on three main issues: (1) to lift the injunction on GMO alfalfa; (2) to allow the planting and sale of GMO alfalfa; (3) to rule that contamination from GMO crops not ...
Dec 27, 2009
More herbicide use reported on genetically modified crops. Soy, corn, wheat, and any other crop you might want to list - again and again - are showing the long-criticized concerns postulated by scientists who have not been ...


Continue reading →

Just Say NO to GMO!

0 comments

SOURCE: http://www.encognitive.com/node/18609

Selections from 30+ on Natural Health News

Jun 23, 2012
Enjoy Your Holiday, GMO FREE. Originally published July 2010. As the Fourth of July holiday comes along this week end, here's wishing you a great time, and hope you BUY ORGANIC to avoid the risk of FRANKENFOOD ...
Oct 09, 2011
2011: This is the second year for the NO GMO Campaign. Natural Health News has been covering this issue for many years and our blog has many related articles. Today I learned that USDA gave a $500,000 grant to the firm ...
Jun 21, 2010
Generally speaking, Monsanto asked the Supreme Court to rule on three main issues: (1) to lift the injunction on GMO alfalfa; (2) to allow the planting and sale of GMO alfalfa; (3) to rule that contamination from GMO crops not ...
Dec 27, 2009
More herbicide use reported on genetically modified crops. Soy, corn, wheat, and any other crop you might want to list - again and again - are showing the long-criticized concerns postulated by scientists who have not been ...


Continue reading →
Friday, October 5, 2012

Cancer Prevention

0 comments
We do need to change the way we look at cancer and also every other disease that has an impact on people today.  For too long we have held hard to dogma with no hope of changing thinking patterns to ones that might really lead to something beneficial.

In this mode it is exciting to learn of a tremendous new book that is doing just this. 

Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer written by Thomas Seyfried PhD, picking up where Otto Warburg left off.

The book is about, as stated by the publisher, "...addresses controversies related to the origins of cancer and provides solutions to cancer management and prevention. It expands upon Otto Warburg's well-known theory that all cancer is a disease of energy metabolism.  However, Warburg did not link his theory to the "hallmarks of cancer" and thus his theory was discredited.  This book aims to provide evidence, through case studies, that cancer is primarily a metabolic disease requring metabolic solutions for its management and prevention.  Support for this position is derived from critical assessment of current cancer theories.  Brain cancer case studies are presented as a proof of principle for metabolic solutions to disease management, but similarities are drawn to other types of cancer, including breast and colon, due to the same cellular mutations that they demonstrate."

This is in line with the work I have been doing for many years based on the work of Dr William D Kelley.  

From the Back Cover

A groundbreaking new approach to understanding, preventing, and treating cancer
Supported by evidence from more than 1,000 scientific and clinical studies, this groundbreaking book demonstrates that cancer is a metabolic disease and, more importantly, that it can be more effectively managed and prevented when it is recognized as such. Moreover, the book provides detailed evidence that the traditional view of cancer as a genetic disease has been largely responsible for the failure to develop effective therapies and preventive strategies.
Cancer as a Metabolic Disease reevaluates the origins of cancer based on the latest research findings as well as several decades of studies exploring the defects in tumor cell energy metabolism. Author Thomas Seyfried is a biochemical geneticist who has been investigating the lipid biochemistry of cancer for thirty years. In this book, he carefully establishes why approaching cancer as a metabolic disease leads to better understanding and management of all aspects of the disease, including inflammation, vascularization, cell death, drug resistance, and genomic instability. In addition, the book explores:
  • Origin of metastasis
  • New treatment strategies that target tumor cell energy metabolism, including the ketogenic diet
  • More effective prevention strategies in light of the metabolic origin of cancer
  • Case studies and perspectives from the point of view of physicians, patients, and caregivers
Throughout the book, tables, figures, and graphs summarize key information and clarify complex concepts. In addition, the renowned cancer biochemist Peter Pedersen from Johns Hopkins Medical School also provides a historical perspective on the importance of the information presented in his foreward to the book.
Cancer as a Metabolic Disease is essential reading for all cancer researchers and clinicians as well as public health professionals. By treating cancer as a metabolic disease, the book sets readers on a new, more promising path to understanding the origins of cancer and developing new, more effective strategies to treat and prevent it.

About the Author

THOMAS N. SEYFRIED, PhD, has taught and conducted research in the fields of neurogenetics, neurochemistry, and cancer for more than twenty-five years at Yale University and Boston College. He has published more than 150 scientific articles and book chapters and is on the editorial boards of Nutrition & Metabolism, Journal of Lipid Research, Neurochemical Research, and ASN Neuro.

While the book is expensive and large it must be considered a viable resource for people and practitioners alike. 
Continue reading →

Cancer Prevention

0 comments
We do need to change the way we look at cancer and also every other disease that has an impact on people today.  For too long we have held hard to dogma with no hope of changing thinking patterns to ones that might really lead to something beneficial.

In this mode it is exciting to learn of a tremendous new book that is doing just this. 

Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer written by Thomas Seyfried PhD, picking up where Otto Warburg left off.

The book is about, as stated by the publisher, "...addresses controversies related to the origins of cancer and provides solutions to cancer management and prevention. It expands upon Otto Warburg's well-known theory that all cancer is a disease of energy metabolism.  However, Warburg did not link his theory to the "hallmarks of cancer" and thus his theory was discredited.  This book aims to provide evidence, through case studies, that cancer is primarily a metabolic disease requring metabolic solutions for its management and prevention.  Support for this position is derived from critical assessment of current cancer theories.  Brain cancer case studies are presented as a proof of principle for metabolic solutions to disease management, but similarities are drawn to other types of cancer, including breast and colon, due to the same cellular mutations that they demonstrate."

This is in line with the work I have been doing for many years based on the work of Dr William D Kelley.  

From the Back Cover

A groundbreaking new approach to understanding, preventing, and treating cancer
Supported by evidence from more than 1,000 scientific and clinical studies, this groundbreaking book demonstrates that cancer is a metabolic disease and, more importantly, that it can be more effectively managed and prevented when it is recognized as such. Moreover, the book provides detailed evidence that the traditional view of cancer as a genetic disease has been largely responsible for the failure to develop effective therapies and preventive strategies.
Cancer as a Metabolic Disease reevaluates the origins of cancer based on the latest research findings as well as several decades of studies exploring the defects in tumor cell energy metabolism. Author Thomas Seyfried is a biochemical geneticist who has been investigating the lipid biochemistry of cancer for thirty years. In this book, he carefully establishes why approaching cancer as a metabolic disease leads to better understanding and management of all aspects of the disease, including inflammation, vascularization, cell death, drug resistance, and genomic instability. In addition, the book explores:
  • Origin of metastasis
  • New treatment strategies that target tumor cell energy metabolism, including the ketogenic diet
  • More effective prevention strategies in light of the metabolic origin of cancer
  • Case studies and perspectives from the point of view of physicians, patients, and caregivers
Throughout the book, tables, figures, and graphs summarize key information and clarify complex concepts. In addition, the renowned cancer biochemist Peter Pedersen from Johns Hopkins Medical School also provides a historical perspective on the importance of the information presented in his foreward to the book.
Cancer as a Metabolic Disease is essential reading for all cancer researchers and clinicians as well as public health professionals. By treating cancer as a metabolic disease, the book sets readers on a new, more promising path to understanding the origins of cancer and developing new, more effective strategies to treat and prevent it.

About the Author

THOMAS N. SEYFRIED, PhD, has taught and conducted research in the fields of neurogenetics, neurochemistry, and cancer for more than twenty-five years at Yale University and Boston College. He has published more than 150 scientific articles and book chapters and is on the editorial boards of Nutrition & Metabolism, Journal of Lipid Research, Neurochemical Research, and ASN Neuro.

While the book is expensive and large it must be considered a viable resource for people and practitioners alike. 
Continue reading →

Labels