How To Cure Cancer.. How To Cure Cancer… Many Say We Are Cancer Killers. We Can Cure Cancer With Diet, DeStress, Exercise, Alternative Methods, & Medicines.
  • scissors
    August 30th, 2013Healthy Choices


    Chemotherapy doesn’t work 97% of the time



    Published on Mar 21, 2012

    Medical Doctor Peter Glidden is interviewed on the subject of chemotherapy. He reveals details of a 12-year study performed on adults who had developed cancer and were given chemotherapy treatments, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 1994. The results were that chemotherapy doesn’t work 97% of the time, which begs the question as to why it is still being used. Glidden goes on to explain that the only reason chemotherapy is still being recommended is that doctors make a lot of money from it, as it is the only classification of drugs in which the doctor receives a direct commission. The fact is that chemotherapy just doesn’t work, and if you have cancer you need to instead undergo one of the more natural therapies with a high success rate

    Share Button
  • scissors
    August 27th, 2013Healthy Choices

    Are Doctors Lying About The Cure For Cancer ?

    Uploaded on Apr 12, 2010

    ‘The People’ have had enough apparently!

    Share Button
  • scissors
    August 23rd, 2013Healthy Choices

    Run from the cure – The Rick Simpson story – Part 6


    Uploaded on Feb 16, 2009

    Download the whole movie for free and share it… at
    A Film By Christian Laurette – After a serious head injury in 1997, Rick Simpson sought relief from his medical condition through the use of medicinal hemp oil. When Rick discovered that the hemp oil (with its high concentration of T.H.C.) cured cancers and other illnesses, he tried to share it with as many people as he could free of charge – curing and controlling literally hundreds of people’s illnesses… but when the story went public, the long arm of the law snatched the medicine – leaving potentially thousands of people without their cancer treatments – and leaving Rick with unconsitutional charges of possessing and trafficking marijuana!
    Canada is in the middle of a CANCER EPIDEMIC! Meet the people who were not allowed to testify on Rick’s behalf at the Supreme Court of Canada’s Infamous Rick Simpson Trial on September 10, 2007… INCLUDING A MAN WHO WAS CURED OF TERMINAL CANCER USING HEMP OIL!




    Share Button
  • scissors
    August 23rd, 2013Healthy Choices



    US Patent 6630507: The Nail in the Drug War Coffin?


    US Patent 6630507: The Nail in the Drug War Coffin? By []James F Davis

    The nail in the coffin of the US War on Drugs is a medical marijuana patent owned by the federal government. At least, it should have been the fatal mistake of a dying concept, but it wasn’t. Instead, the War on Drugs has sloshed onward, buoyed largely by the predation of the government on marijuana users based on the claim that the plant has no medical value. At the very least the feds could change their argument to the reality of the situation, which essentially boils down to the idea that even if marijuana does have medical uses, the government has secured a monopoly on any potential profits.

    Of course, this all makes perfect business sense. After all, the War on Drugs is extremely lucrative, so hedging one’s bets by securing a patent on medical marijuana will alleviate any pressure applied by an inevitable change in federal policy. That change will of course come on the heels of public outrage, but by then it won’t matter: Patent 6630507 ensures that the government will continue to profit handsomely by heavy-handed control of suddenly legal medical marijuana.

    What is US Patent 6630507?

    The Department of Health and Human Services filed for this patent in 2001 after apparently extensive medical marijuana research where the government claimed, among other things, that;

    “Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases.”

    The US DHHS provides evidence for a number of specific medicines and treatments to be included as part of the patent, and stated in the patent filing’s “Summary of the Invention” that;

    “It is an object of this invention to provide a new class of antioxidant drugs that have particular application as neuroprotectants, although they are generally useful in the treatment of many oxidation associated diseases.”

    (Patent Storm: Cannabinoids as Antioxidants and Neuroprotectants, Patent #6630507, Issued 10/07/2003, Expires 02/02/2021)

    What this means is that not only does the government hold a patent on various types of medical marijuana treatments, it also shows clear support for and evidence of its usefulness in many oxidation associated diseases. This is shocking news considering that oxidation associated diseases are those that we struggle with – and die from – every day. This includes conditions such as heart failure, cancer, bipolar, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, sickle cell anemia, autism and many other troubling diseases.

    This gives rise to the thought that if the government clearly and enthusiastically admits that marijuana is a useful weapon in the battle against these diseases, but then simultaneously persecutes those who use marijuana to treat those same conditions, then it doesn’t seem logical to suggest that the DHHS is acting in the best interest of the American people. Unless, of course, we’re talking about the best financial interest of some Americans.

    But regardless of the fact that the government’s medical marijuana patent was filed and granted more than a decade ago, it hasn’t caused much of a stir despite several short bouts of ineffective media coverage. Of course, it could be argued that the stance of the government has changed, considering the fact that 16 states have passed medical marijuana legislation.

    However, this argument only adds further insult to injury considering that starting in the spring of 2011 the federal government began an aggressive crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries and suppliers that continues to this day. The reason these law-abiding citizens are being arrested and incarcerated? Because there are no medically accepted uses for marijuana.

    Of course, pointing out that patent 6630507 is a blatant, potentially criminal contradiction to this stance invariably leads to the tired excuse of “if we legalize pot for medical use, we’ll have to legalize everything else as well.”

    This argument is correct but flawed considering that we already have legalized most of the other illicit chemicals for medical use. Opiates are possibly the largest class of drug on the planet, and include substances like Vicodin, Morphine, Methadone, Percocet and many others. Cocaine is used for medical purposes including pain management and as an anesthetic, and amphetamines are found in many drugs including popular prescription medications like Adderall, Benzedrine and Dexedrine.

    So in reality, this argument only points out the fact that medical marijuana is actually behind the times of perilous street drugs like heroin, cocaine and meth. Of course, even in the filing documentation for Patent 6630507 it’s clear that the government tried – unsuccessfully – to patent a class of drugs that were non-psychoactive. However, why should this matter? Prescription drugs are dangerously addictive because they are highly psychoactive, while medical marijuana – even if habit forming – isn’t viewed as dangerous by anyone, including the people who demonize it.

    Ultimately, the entire War on Drugs is propped up by the marijuana trade. By removing this component from the “War,” the federal government wouldn’t have any legs to stand on. This is because while the demand for drugs like cocaine and heroin is high, it pales in comparison with the demand for marijuana – medical and otherwise. Additionally, it’s likely that the more difficult marijuana is to obtain – as in a high interdiction rate – the more users will turn to other drugs.

    But at the base of this issue is the two-sidedness of the US stance on medical marijuana: the government harasses, persecutes and imprisons those who take part in state-sanctioned, legitimate medical marijuana programs by citing the “fact” that marijuana has no medical uses while holding a medical marijuana medicine patent behind their backs.

    In fact, even the government’s studies have found that this is a useless policy and one that can’t hope to survive. The conclusion of a federally-funded study on drug demand and supply stated that;

    “Given experiences since the beginning of the war on drugs, which initiated major expansions in expenditures on supply-based programs, it seems more reasonable to conclude that the Nation will not be able to have any large future influence on decreasing the availability and increasing the price of illicit drugs.” (William Rhodes; Patrick Johnston; Song Han;Quentin McMullen; Lynne Hozik, Illicit Drugs: Price Elasticity of Demand and Supply January 10, 2002)

    Overall, any sane person who examines this issue subjectively will come to the same conclusion: you can’t have your cake and eat it too. But for some reason, we the American people have allowed our government to do exactly that. And because of our ineffectiveness at collaboration, dissemination, organization and action, even if we do succeed in ending the War on Drugs, we’ll be at the mercy of a highly controlled, government-monopolized program for marijuana – a weed that can grow in any ditch or backyard. The government is playing its people like a game of chess: Exit the War on Drugs, enter Patent 6630507.

    Want to do something about it? Spread the news. Create a fire. Share this article, and tell anyone who will listen that there is clear, easy to obtain proof that our government is soldiering on both sides of the War on Drugs. This means that no matter what side you’re on personally, you’re battling a hypocritical traitor.

    If you’re in recovery and you’ve battled relapses or are clean but still fighting from what seem like withdrawal symptoms, you may be suffering from post acute withdrawal syndrome. Please help us understand this condition better and develop more effective treatments, which will ultimately take more people out of the War on Drugs and therefore limit its effect while helping addicts all over the world. Please take the confidential, 20 question survey now via the website for our []Post Acute Withdrawal Survey.

    For more information, for additional resources or to schedule an immediate assessment and confidential consultation, please see the original source of this article and related links:

    Article Source: [] US Patent 6630507: The Nail in the Drug War Coffin?


    The US Govt’s Patent on Medical Marijuana (THC Cures Cancer)


    Share Button
  • scissors
    August 16th, 2013Healthy Choices


    Doctors Are MORE DANGEROUS Than Germs 5/5

    Doctors Make Money On Disease

    Uploaded on Mar 11, 2011

    Germ Theory is wrong. Find out more about health and wellness along with how corrupt the current industry of disease care is in fact. Dr. Harvey Bigelsen is guest on Coast to Coastam with George Noory. Edited down with no commercials or annoying calls, etc. This one is a must hear for anyone who questions whether medical industry is really worth the trouble to go to or not. Keep well my friends ! Aloha (literal alo’ exchange ha’ breath of life)




    Share Button
  • scissors
    August 16th, 2013Healthy Choices

    Vanishing Breast Cancer LIES


    Uploaded on Nov 25, 2008

    Do you believe the media liars and poisoners? CBS and USA Today think you are so braindead, you will swallow their BS like you swallow that fluoride.

    “The researchers compared the number of breast cancers diagnosed in 100,000 Norwegian women who were screened every two years with the number found in a group of women who were screened once in six years. Doctors diagnosed 22 percent more breast cancers in women who were screened more frequently. That, the study authors say, suggests that more frequent screening found cancers that would eventually go away and did not need to be treated, according to USA Today.”

    YouTube’s video compression has made the text pretty much unreadable. Sorry about that. Here is the link to the article, but please keep this window up and listen to the commentary (or stay for the informative annotations):…
    Watch the CBS video here, and see why you shouldn’t worry, and why women should keep getting mammograms just as often.…
    Post your comment for CBS to delete (that’s probably why there are none at the time of this posting)
    Click the above link for resources on the possibility that mammograms actually cause breast cancer

    Share Button
  • scissors
    August 10th, 2013Healthy Choices

                Uploaded on May 22, 2009 

    SUBTITLES EN, CZ. Original video by bipolarorwakingup.
    SKUTEČNÁ PŘÍČINA MANIODEPRESIVNÍ PSYCHÓZY TITULKY ČJ, AJ. Původní video od uživatele bipolarorwakingup

    Share Button
    Tags: ,
  • scissors
    August 1st, 2013Healthy Choices


    Share Button
  • scissors
    August 1st, 2013Healthy Choices

    by Charles Ornstein, Tracy Weber and Dan Nguyen
    ProPublica, Sept. 7, 2011, 4:31 p.m. 


    Eight pharmaceutical companies, including the nation’s three largest, doled out more than $220 million last year to promotional speakers for their products, according to a ProPublica analysis of company data.

    For the first time, all these companies have reported a full year of payments, allowing for head-to-head comparisons of how much they spent on physicians to help push their pills. Some appear to be paring back.

    Related Stories

    Patients Deserve to Know What Drug Companies Pay Their Doctor

    by Tracy Weber and Charles Ornstein, ProPublica, Sept. 7

    Doctors Dine on Drug Companies’ Dime

    by Charles Ornstein, ProPublica, Sept. 7

    Tracking the Money

    Firms with the highest U.S. sales last year didn’t spend the most on physician marketers. Industry leader Pfizer, with sales of $26.2 billion, spent $34.4 million on speakers, ranking third among the eight companies. By comparison, Eli Lilly and Co. spent the most on speakers, $61.5 million, even though its sales were about half of Pfizer’s.

    “We continue to believe in the benefits and value that educational programs led by physicians provide to patient care,” Lilly spokesman J. Scott MacGregor said in an email.

    The data provide a preview of what the public can expect to see in 2013, when all drug and medical-device companies — potentially hundreds — must report such figures to the federal government.

    Until 2009, pharmaceutical company payments to health professionals were closely held trade secrets. But several companies began reporting the information publicly under pressure from lawmakers or as a condition of settling federal whistle-blower lawsuits.

    Company 2010 Speaker Payments 2010 U.S. Sales
    Lilly $61,477,547 $14.3 billion
    GlaxoSmithKline $52,755,793 $13.6 billion
    Pfizer $34,382,574 $26.2 billion
    AstraZeneca $31,647,101 $18.3 billion
    Merck $20,365,446 $18.8 billion
    Johnson & Johnson $11,712,900 $12.9 billion
    Cephalon $4,241,080 $2.1 billion
    ViiV Healthcare $3,975,102 Unavailable

    In October, ProPublica published a database called Dollars for Docs that included information from those companies. It allows the public to search for individual physicians to see whether they’ve been on pharma’s payroll.

    Today, ProPublica is updating that tool to include payments made to health professionals by 12 companies. Eight of those published data for all of 2010: Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Merck, Cephalon, Johnson & Johnson, ViiV Healthcare and AstraZeneca.

    In addition to the payments made to speakers, some of the companies also disclosed how much they’ve spent on consulting, travel, meals and research.

    In all, payments to doctors and other health-care providers in ProPublica’s database total more than $760 million and cover reports from drug companies between 2009 and the second quarter of 2011.

    Some Docs Pull Out

    The new data offer a glimpse of how the firms have adapted their strategies over time, both to changes in the marketplace and to increased scrutiny of their sales techniques.

    Many experts predict physicians will back away from working for the companies once their names and pay are publicly revealed.

    It’s too early to know if this is true, but ProPublica’s analysis shows that the payouts to dozens of doctors and other health professionals took a steep dive last year.

    Pulmonologist Veena Antony, for example, was paid at least $88,000 to give promotional talks for GlaxoSmithKline in 2009. But last year, the Birmingham, Ala., doctor gave them up out of concern that patients might think her advice was tainted.

    “You don’t even want the appearance that I might be influenced by anything that a company gave,” she said.

    Cancer specialist Nam Dang was a regular on Cephalon’s speaking circuit, pulling in $131,250 in 2009. But those promotional gigs stopped, he said, after he took a job at the University of Florida in Gainesville, which bans such talks. In 2010, he received $10,000 for consulting for Cephalon and Pfizer.

    Nurse practitioner Terri Warren, who runs a Portland, Ore., health clinic, earned at least $113,000 from Glaxo in 2009, mostly talking about its herpes drug Valtrex. In 2010, that dropped to $300 after the drug went off patent and Glaxo no longer had a financial incentive to promote it.

    “It’s a business decision, clearly,” said Warren, who felt her talks helped educate other health professionals about treating a taboo illness. “My money [from Glaxo] went into keeping this little clinic alive, and now we have to figure out some other way to do that.”

    Another group of physicians has ramped up speaking engagements and consulting.

    Buffalo hematologist Zale Bernstein earned $49,250 from Cephalon in 2009. The following year, his pay jumped to $177,800 (plus an additional $35,500 for travel). Bernstein did not return calls for comment.

    Pain specialist Gerald M. Sacks spoke and consulted for four companies in the database and was among the highest paid. The Santa Monica, Calif., doctor earned $270,825 from Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly and Cephalon in 2010, up from $225,575 in 2009. Those figures do not include travel costs and meals.

    Over 18 months, Pfizer alone paid Sacks $318,250 for speaking. He did not return repeated calls for comment.

    Pfizer’s new disclosure also revealed an unusual recipient. Its top-paid physician consultant last year, Dr. Christiana Goh Bardon, runs a hedge fund in Boston that bets on the rise and fall of health-care companies. She was paid nearly $308,000 to “provide input on our BioTherapeutics business development plan,” Pfizer spokeswoman Kristen Neese wrote in an email.

    Bardon, who started her hedge fund after her Pfizer contract ended, was required to sign a confidentiality agreement and not allowed to invest in Pfizer or any of the biotech companies that Pfizer was looking at acquiring or partnering with for projects, Neese said.

    Bardon said in a voice-mail message that she does not currently practice as a physician and her work was based on her business acumen.

    Drug Companies Change Their Strategies

    Some companies apparently have used fewer physician speakers and consultants since they began posting their data publicly.

    Cephalon, a relatively small Pennsylvania company that specializes in pain, cancer and central nervous system drugs, paid physicians nearly $9.3 million in 2009 for speaking and consulting. That figure dropped to $5 million last year.

    “There wasn’t one big thing that happened that shifted the focus,” said spokeswoman Jenifer Antonacci. Rather, the company’s marketing strategies for its brands changed.

    AstraZeneca cut its spending on speakers from roughly $22.8 million in the first half of 2010 to about $9.2 million in the second half.

    The company’s U.S. compliance officer, Marie Martino, said AstraZeneca typically holds most of its speaker events in the beginning of each year. But she acknowledged that the company’s spending on promotional talks has been decreasing.

    “We’re in a period now where we don’t have a lot of new indications [approved uses] or new products that have been introduced in recent months, and that really is the fundamental explanation for what you’re seeing,” Martino said.

    AstraZeneca, like other companies, is also replacing some in-person speaking events with teleconferences, webcasts and video conferences.

    Glaxo’s spending on speakers also slowed in 2010, averaging about $13.2 million per quarter in 2010, down 15 percent from the last three quarters of 2009. (Glaxo did not report data in the first quarter of 2009.)

    Company spokeswoman Mary Anne Rhyne said the company is working to reduce its speaker rolls by 50 percent. “We feel it is a better use of resources to use fewer speakers more often. This cuts down on training costs as well as lessens the number of contracts needed,” she wrote in an email.

    And Lilly’s speaker payments dropped 10 percent from 2009 to 2010, which spokesman MacGregor said was likely due to “normal year-to-year fluctuation.”

    ProPublica’s early analysis of the data is limited because so few companies report their spending and even then, disclose different information. Lilly, for example, reports every health professional it pays to speak, while Pfizer includes only those who can prescribe.

    “It’s really unclear how much money is being spent in any one of these areas,” said Vincent DeChellis, a principal at NHHS Healthcare Consulting, which has studied the data. “As you get more and more companies participating and submitting this information, you’re going to get an initial look” at what may be a multibillion-dollar practice.

    When Massachusetts required drug and device companies to report payments to doctors in that state last year, 286 companies did so.

    Scrutiny of speaker programs has prompted changes.

    After ProPublica reported last year that some drug-company speakers had been sanctioned by their state medical boards, the firms pledged to toughen their screening procedures and exclude physicians with disciplinary records.

    Separately, ProPublica found that universities were not enforcing their own policies barring physicians from giving promotional speeches. In response, a number of schools said they would begin using the payment rosters to check for rule-breakers.

    Pharma’s trade group said the focus of most companies right now is ensuring the accuracy of data that will be publicly released in 2013. But this transparency also must be put into context for patients, said Diane Bieri, executive vice president and general counsel for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

    Doctors help develop new medicines, advise companies on marketing and help educate their peers about appropriate uses of new drugs, she said.

    “If the only information that’s available is that company A paid doctor B $75,000 for a consulting arrangement,” she said, “that’s typically not enough information to really educate the patient about what was involved in that relationship.”

    Share Button
    Tags: ,
  • scissors
    August 1st, 2013Healthy Choices

    Is Cancer Hereditary? Dr Bruce Lipton Says No – Use EFT For Cancer Prevention

    Uploaded on Mar 21, 2010

    EFT for cancer prevention:
    – Dr Bruce Lipton says, we can stop the spread of diseases like cancer in our family tree. We are not helpless victims of our genes! Is cancer hereditary? Dr Bruce Lipton says no, not likely according to the astonishing research he reveals in this clip from The Living Matrix Movie:

    When children are adopted in to a new family, they take on the new family dynamic of cancer that preexisted in the new family…





    Share Button
    Tags: ,
  • « Older Entries