Five Ways To Prevent Cancer
Did you know that cancer rates have doubled in the last 30 years and some cancers have tripled in people under 16 year olds?
For our young children and teenagers, this rise has occurred at a frightening 7% per year. Several causative factors have been implicated in this rise and it is vital that more is done to prevent cancer and halt this growing trend.
Here’s what you can do:
1. Don’t use pesticides on your lawn or garden and eat only organic food. Pesticides can cause cancer. According to the journal Cancer Causes Control, “In animal studies, many pesticides are carcinogenic, (e.g., organochlorines, creosote, and sulfallate) while others (notably, the organochlorines DDT, chlordane, and lindane) are tumor promoters... Human data, however, is limited by the small number of studies that evaluate individual pesticides. Epidemiologic studies, although sometimes contradictory, have linked phenoxy acid herbicides or contaminants in them with soft tissue sarcoma (STS) and malignant lymphoma; organochlorine insecticides are linked with STS, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), leukemia, and, less consistently, with cancers of the lung and breast; organophosphorous compounds are linked with NHL and leukemia; and triazine herbicides with ovarian cancer.”
2. Cut out toxic cleaners for your home. Many cleaners contain formaldehyde, phenols, ammonia and other harmful products known to cause cancer. Go back to basics and use good old fashioned white vinegar to clean your home!
3. Cut out toxic toiletries – many cosmetics also contain harmful chemicals like formaldehyde, sodium lauryl Sulphate (SLS), which when added to other ingredients like those in shampoo, can form nitrosamines that are carcinogenic. Talc has been known to cause ovarian cancer if it is used on the genital area. Buy only environmentally friendly toiletries.
4. Weigh up the pros and cons carefully before you have a vaccine. All vaccines have never been tested for their carcinogenic affect. For instance, the Gardasil vaccine manufacturer’s data sheet says 'Gardasil has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity'.
We value and respect the experiences of all of our HERWriters, but everyone is different. Many of our writers are speaking from personal experience, and what's worked for them may not work for you. Their articles are not a substitute for medical advice although we hope you can gain knowledge from their insight.
Add a Comment52 Comments
This is a list of possibly the most uninformed content on the entire internet. Please go take some science classes.
May 29, 2009 - 1:22amThis Comment
All references are from 'scientifically' based sources. If you have an issue, put your name. There's nothing worse than trolls on the internet who wish to start arguments but don't put their name to their complaint.
May 29, 2009 - 1:54amWhen I read articles like this and find something utterly stupid and not supported by evidence, I know I am dealing with a screwball. You made the claim: "Vaccines also contain cancer causing agents like formaldehyde, aluminium, thimerosal (a 50% mercury compound)..."
First, did you ever take, and stay awake during, high school chemistry? Doubtful. The fact that the one mercury atom in a molecule of thimerosal comprises 50% of the molecular weight, is utterly meaningless. For example, NaCl is comprised of two highly toxic atoms, but, it is commonly ingested by billions of people.
Second, formaldehyde is a typical by-product of metabolism, and you get far more of it from eating one piece of fruit than in the full course of childhood vaccinations.
Third, people consume aluminum in many forms, since aluminum is ubiquitous.
Fourth, I am quite familiar with Thimerosal, and, there is no evidence in any of a dozen MSDS that claims it is carcinogenic.
Sadly, there are people who hired you to spread disinformation. And, do not whine that I am posting annonymously, since I have included my email address to get notice of follow-ups. Also, you can find me at my blog, www.age-of-ignorance.blogspot.com.
May 29, 2009 - 6:01amWow, I guess it's great to eat chemicals and inject untested toxins directly into the blood stream bypassing the digestive route. I'm sure there must be absolutely no difference on the body from taking a chemical directly into the blood stream as opposed to the stomach/gut process we evolved. Your assertions are unscientific. Your argument is also not logical.
Simplistic dismissals and intelligence assassinations don't support your argument. If the author is guilty of unscientific drivel...prove it with facts since you are so enlightened. I think I remember the author stating that thimerosal wasn't tested on human's for carcinogenicity. If indeed it has...provide a reference. I too cannot seem to find a peer reviewed animal or human long term study. I read postings from your blog...angry insults and dismissive comments, very little fact. Linking to other articles doesn't prove your point or lack of logic. I 'get' that there is quite a bit of stupidity running around on blogs and in forums and it can become tiresome, I just fail to see how what you write is much different. Channel your anger/rage into something constructive.
Last jab: NaCl unbuffered (table salt)is not good long term for humans, still the digestive system attempts best it can to buffer it. Injected directly into the blood system...hmm let's test that on you? It's amazing what the body takes and keeps on going. It doesn't mean that it's good for you though. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. Safety must be proven not just stated. In a profit medical society, "safety" is gauged by the time frame for legally proving INJURY vs actual costs of paying our damages on the injury. With a blog about the 'age of ignorance' one would have hoped you were not so damned willfully ignorant.
June 4, 2009 - 8:17amJust another note, there is no way to post here, other than by posting as anonymous. IOW, you set up people who post here so you can whine they are posting anonymously.
BTW, if you do not post my comments, they wind up on my blog, with my special brand of contempt thrown in. And, I will not post your comments, since you advocate censorship.
FreeSpeaker
May 29, 2009 - 6:06amAnon
Please feel free to join our community, as thousands already have. You can join by clicking on the red signup button toward the top, right hand side of the homepage. It takes about one minute!
We do also advocate free speech (and then some!)and differing opinions although perhaps with less of a "special brand of contempt" because all opinions, including yours and others, are very welcome.
We hope to see more of you in our community!
May 29, 2009 - 1:06pmThis person seems to be willfully blind and dumb. SO much anger that thinking is cut off. Ready to argue seemingly for the sake of arguing. You wonder why AoA apparently banned you in your blogs and take it as a badge?
If you were angry, blinded by your own ignorance (proved in the anonymous comment,'no place for name'), and bitter how would you know? If you actually were a problem for yourself how would someone be able to kindly let you know? Would you listen or just find yourself getting angry writing your next attack thinking you could not possibly be wrong?
How would you know if you were THAT girl/guy?
June 4, 2009 - 8:27amFirstly, there IS a way to post your name on here, as others have done it.
If I was the type to censor your remarks, 'freespeaker', I would have deleted them. By all means, put me on your blog :)
Secondly, thimerosal IS 50% mercury and it is dangerous.
See here:
http://www.vce.org/mercury/thimerosal-usp.pdf
This says:
''HAZARD SYMBOL T+ (VERY TOXIC). Criteria: Inhalation, swallowing or absorbtion through the skin in very small amounts can cause considerable damage to health and may sometimes be lethal.'
This is written by Merck, who MAKE the vaccines and since they are vaccinologists and spend their whole career making vaccines, I presume they know more about it than you do.
It is also the reason why thimerosal has been removed from infant teething powders and the majority of childhood vaccines (except for Hep B and flu jabs) and why mercury fillings are no longer recommended for pregnant women and warnings have been issued on fish consumption.
As for formaldehyde, according to the US government, the occupational safety and health administration, formaldehyde is:
'"reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen"
See: http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/formaldehyde/index.html
They state concern over formaldehyde in DIY products like paints, ply-wood and textiles so there is no reason to assume then that formaldehyde would be safe in vaccines.
Of course if you think the government are wrong, by all means challenge them.
There have been news reports recently of concern being raised about 'cancer causing' formaldehyde in baby products:
http://safecosmetics.live2.radicaldesigns.org/article.php?id=414
Aluminium is known to cause dementia conditions and potentially to breast cancer (due to aluminium in anti-perspirants). The Institute of Medicine said in their book, 'The adverse effects of Pertussis and Rubella vaccines', that:
'Interest has developed recently in the potential health effects of aluminum, particularly in the setting of chronic renal failure, in which aluminum is not excreted from the body normally (Alfrey, 1984; Monteagudo et al., 1989). A severe, often fatal encephalopathy found in patients undergoing long-term dialysis was attributed to aluminum deposition in the brain (Alfrey et al., 1976). Reduction of aluminum in dialysate has largely eliminated this condition, but dialysis patients may still have subtle psychomotor defects that may be due to aluminum toxicity (Altmann et al., 1989). Animal studies have shown that aluminum can increase the rate of transmembrane diffusion across the blood—brain barrier (Banks and Kastin, 1989), which could possibly permit greater access of toxins to the brain.
You can read this book here:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1815&page=347
Now of course if you think the Institute of Medicine are wrong too, contact them. They didn't make up the research.
I didn't suggest in my article that vaccines are solely responsible for causing cancer. But there is evidence to suggest, merely from their composition that they are one possible cause in a list of many causes, and since the manufacturer's of these vaccines all state that they haven't been evaluated for their carcinogenic properties, this should be investigated.
May 29, 2009 - 12:47pmIt is quite obvious to me that you did not bother to read my comment for understanding and comprehenison.
You said: "Secondly, thimerosal IS 50% mercury and it is dangerous".
No, that does not make it dangerous. If you read AND understood my comment, AND had an open mind, you would have taken the time to actually go and learn a little chemistry. There mere fact that the ONE mercury atom comprises approximately 50% of the molecular weight of Thimerosal, is chemically irrelevant. Anyone who stayed awake in high school chemistry would know that.
You said: "Merck, who MAKE the vaccines and since they are vaccinologists and spend their whole career making vaccines"
While Merck develops and manufactures vaccines, it is but a small part of their business. Vaccines are not big money makers.
Yes, Thimerosal is dangerous. Many things are dangerous.However, in Toxicology 101, they teach that dose and method in ingestion are all important. The adage goes "dose makes the poison". At the dosages used Thimerosal is harmless. If you still do not understand this, note that botulinum toxin is the basis for botox, used to treat wrinkles, and spasticity in neuromuscular disorders. Another excellent example is the medical use of curare.
As for the rest of your uninformed opinion, you really do not understand what you are reading, thus your writing is woefully misinforming. This is quite typical of anti-vaccinationists.
Oh, and I do not get my knowledge from books, as any moron can write one and self publish. However, since you like them, let me suggest that you read anything written by Paul Offit. He has the training and experience to know what he is talking about.
FreeSpeaker
May 30, 2009 - 5:31pmRe your paranoia about Aluminum. As I pointed out, Al is ubiquitous in our environment. We are constantly ingesting it. Your reference, though is 1) old, as the DPT vaccine is no longer in common use,, and 2) not on point, as it discusses long term exposure by parenteral application. As I pointed out, in Toxicology 101, dose makes the poison. The amounts added are minute, and necessary for an effective vaccine.
One of your problems is that you have never faced the specter of those vaccine preventable diseases we no longer face. You did not grow up in an era where Johnny did not come back to school in September, because he was in this "iron lung". Or seeing a child become a vegetable because of meningitis or measles encephalitis which are now preventable.
I have seen all that, first hand, and more. I never want to see that again. However, for those who do not want to be vaccinated, I hope that this fall, they fore go the flu vaccine. Perhaps a repeat of 1918-1919, where my paternal grandparents and two of their daughters died, will repeat itself, and Darwin will run his course.
You are obviously not a student of history, or chemistry, or toxicology, or biology, or.....
May 30, 2009 - 5:44pm