Author – Glen B. Stewart

2012 Enigma 11-11-11 The Spiritual Awakening and the Dawn of a New Era For All Mankind to Experience Spiritually part 2

Author – Glen B. Stewart 

Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 2

Natural News states:
Ever since the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force took a look, finally, at the scientific evidence and announced new recommendations earlier this month for routine mammograms — specifically that women under 50 should avoid them and women over 50 should only get them every other year — the reactions from many women, doctors and the mainstream media have reached the point of near hysteria. Not getting annual mammograms, some say, means countless women will receive a virtual death sentence because their breast tumors won’t be discovered.

But what is rarely discussed about mammograms is this: the tests could actually be causing many cases of breast cancer.
In fact, a new study just presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), concludes the low-dose radiation from annual mammography screening significantly increases breast cancer risk in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer. This is particularly worrisome because women who are at high risk for breast cancer are regularly pushed to start mammograms at a younger age — as early as 25 — and that means they are exposed to more radiation from mammography earlier and for more years than women who don’t have breast cancer in their family trees.

“For women at high risk for breast cancer, screening is very important, but a careful approach should be taken when considering mammography for screening young women, particularly under age 30,” Marijke C. Jansen-van der Weide, Ph.D., an epidemiologist in the Department of Epidemiology and Radiology at University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands, said in a statement to the media. “Further, repeated exposure to low-dose radiation should be avoided.”

Dr. Jansen-van der Weide and colleagues analyzed peer-reviewed, published medical research to investigate whether low-dose radiation exposure affects breast cancer risk among high-risk women. Out of the six studies included in this analysis, four looked at the effect of exposure to low-dose radiation among breast cancer gene mutation carriers. The other two studies traced the impact of radiation on women with a family history of breast cancer. The researchers took the combined data from all these research projects and then calculated odds ratios to estimate the risk of breast cancer caused by radiation.

The results? All the high-risk women in the study who were exposed to low-dose mammography type radiation had an increased risk of breast cancer that was 1.5 times greater than that of high-risk women who had not been exposed to low-dose radiation. What’s more, women at high risk for breast cancer who had been exposed to low-dose radiation before the age of 20 or who had five or more exposures to low-dose radiation were 2.5 times more likely to develop breast cancer than high-risk women not exposed to low-dose radiation.

Bottom line: any supposed benefit of early tumor detection using mammograms in young women with familial or genetic predisposition to breast cancer is offset by the potential risk of radiation-induced cancer.

“Our findings suggest that low-dose radiation increases breast cancer risk among these young high-risk women, and a careful approach is warranted,” Dr. Jansen-van der Weide said in the press statement.

The mammogram scam exposed

Incredibly, although it is rarely reported in the mainstream media, the new study follows on the heels of several others that have already sounded the warning that mammograms may cause breast cancer. For example, NaturalNews covered a Johns Hopkins study published earlier this year in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that warned radiation exposure from annual mammograms could trigger breast malignancies in women with a strong family history of breast and/or ovarian cancers who have altered genes (identified as BRCA1 or BRCA2).

And it may not be only women with a familial risk for breast cancer who are at extra risk from mammography radiation. As NaturalNews covered last year, a report published in the American Medical Association’sArchives of Internal Medicine found breast cancer rates increased significantly in four Norwegian counties after women there began getting mammograms every two years. In fact, the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been linked to an increased incidence of breast cancer.

Read Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 3 Here

 Author – Glen B. Stewart

 Organic Foods – What are the Critical Differences Between Organic Foods and Commercially Grown Foods part 4

So, are eating foods organically grown and sustainably raised the very best foods you can consume?

The short answer is yes, but let me tell you a dirty little secret: there are loopholes in organic rules that you can drive a Mack truck through. An example would be organic eggs. Do chickens have to spend time outdoors, or can they be kept cooped up in an enclosure? Can they eat a high percentage of their diet as organic grain, or must they hunt and peck for their food in a pasture in order to be called organic?

The guidelines can be murky—and subject to change. Here’s a case in point. In 2010, the USDA announced a new rule on access to pasture for organic ruminant animals (cows, sheep and goats). Called an “enhancement” to the National Organic Standards, the new rules laid out these additional requirements:

• Animals must graze in pasture during the grazing season, which must be at least 120 days per year.

• Animals must obtain a minimum of 30 percent dry matter intake from grazing pasture during the grazing season.

• Livestock are exempt from the 30 percent dry matter intake requirement during the finish feed period, not to exceed 120 days. Livestock must have access to pasture during the finishing phase. Notice the wording “access to pasture.”

Let me translate this last bullet point for you. The rule allows cattle to be taken from a pasture and taken to a livestock yard to “finish”—a euphemism for fattening them up prior to going to the slaughterhouse. During this period, which can be as long as 120 days or four months, the cattle can be fed just about anything—“as long as it’s organic”—since they are exempt from the 30 percent “dry matter,” which is another way of saying the grasses and forage they find in pasture fields.

When the rule also states that livestock must have access to pasture during the finishing phase, this can be broadly interpreted. Cowpokes could let the cattle out into a fenced-off “pasture” next to the stockyard for ten minutes and still be in compliance with the National Organic Standards.

You can finish your cattle on an almost entirely grain-based ration “as long as the grain is organic,” just as the conventional feedlots do, and you can still label your steaks and hamburger meat “organic.” But that “organic” cow could be fattened on grains or feasted on corn-based feed just like conventionally raised cows only without the hormones and antibiotics which is certainly an improvement. That’s why I tell people, “When it comes to beef, it’s not so much how they start, it’s how they finish.”

In my opinion, the USDA Organic standards can be limiting in scope and potentially misleading to consumers, especially if they think organic is the ultimate standard for what is healthy.

The USDA then established three descriptions that can be put on food products:

• 100 percent Organic. This food must be all organic or contain only organically produced ingredients before it can receive this green-and- white USDA seal.

• Organic. The food must be at least 95 percent organic before it can receive this blue seal.

• Made with Organic Ingredients. The food must contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients. The remaining 30 percent cannot include any genetically modified ingredients.

 Read Organic Foods – What are the Critical Differences Between Organic Foods and Commercially Grown Foods part 5 Here

Author – Glen B. Stewart

Organic Foods – What are the Critical Differences Between Organic Foods and Commercially Grown Foods part 5 

The next Generation of eating: 

Organic standards are not perfect, but choosing to eat organic foods is an excellent and necessary step in the journey of reestablishing health and sustainability. While organic is far better than natural and leaps and bounds ahead of conventionally grown foods, I believe we can do better. I do not seek to tarnish or invalidate the USDA organic standards, but I desire to elevate the level of awareness and knowledge of true health and wellness as it applies to humans and our planet.

Our Ten Point Organic Livestock Standards Can Be Summed up In This Fashion:

1) Never use GMO feed or plants in the field. genetically modified organisms are widespread in conventional agriculture, but have no place at Organic ranches and farms.

2) Animals should be GreenFed and GreenFinished. This means our dairy cattle intensely graze on grasses and a “salad bar” of forbs, herbs, and legumes—with no grains and our beef cattle partake in our greenFinishing program that includes a bovine detoxification program and a diet of fresh organic pasture supplemented in the winter with green foods such as alfalfa and certified organic hay with no grain.

3) Use Olde World production methods. We want to revive the ancient methods of producing foods and beverages that enhance, not destroy, their health benefits.

4) Use “fair made” ethical business practices. We will treat others as we would want to be treated, guided by principles of financial stewardship, economic self-sufficiency, and environmental integrity. We will pay fair wages to our employees and seek higher social standards.

5) Use Olde World based processing methods. Our beef and poultry animals must be slaughtered in accordance with Olde World principals. This method of slaughter is widely recognized as the most humane method possible. We will not process animals that have died of natural causes or have been killed by other animals, and we will make best efforts to thoroughly drain the blood.

6) Our grazing lands are free of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and chemical fertilizers. This is a cornerstone of who we are.

7) We will not treat our cattle with antibiotics, hormones, or vaccines. The conventional cattle-raising business relies on chemical medicines to treat their sickly animals, but on organic ranches and farms, we do not.

We will treat our animals with respect and kindness. god made everything that lives on the earth, including the animals, and he commands us to be respectful and kind to the animals under our care. A righteous man takes care of his animals, yet another reminder that god has called us to be stewards of his creation.

9) We will follow sustainable land and soil management practices. It behooves us to be responsible for the way we treat the land by not polluting it and by managing it well for future years starting with the micro and macro organisms that improve the health of our soil.

10) We pursue quality and safety for our finished products. We combine the best of ancient wisdom and modern science to ensure that our foods and beverages deliver maximum health benefits and minimal toxicity. We use probiotics in our processing and finished products to ensure safety and efficacy at every step.

The Organic Movement started as an attempt to “know your farmer and know your food.” At its inception, the term organic usually referred to the food coming from small, family farms that were only available locally.

As the demand for organic grew, official standards were applied to the term. Organic was defined to mean, among other things, free of artificial food additives and produced without the use of synthetic pesticides. The combination of an increased market and defined standards enticed large companies to enter the organic market.

Today unfortunately, organic has gone mainstream, as the chart below shows. In fact, companies like Pepsi, CocaCola, Nestle, Kellogg, Heinz, Cargill, Dean, Kraft, Hershey, Cadbury, M&M Mars, ConAgra and General Mills “own” organic.

This chart may be a little tough to read, but if you want more details to see “Who Owns Organic” up close and personal, visit www.cornucopia.org for a more complete view.

That’s not to say that organic is bad. it’s not, but it has become industrialized big business and is owned by companies that aren’t typically known for their health emphasis.

You might call it “industrial organic.”

If your know the life transforming value of discovering the next generation of healthy eating with Organic Foods – Go to the acclaimed “Fat Loss Gourmet” and Get on the Notification List for the next FREE Online Seminar Event Today

- Glen

Glen B. Stewart

Master Trainer

Author – Glen B. Stewart  

Organic Foods – What are the Critical Differences Between Organic Foods and Commercially Grown Foods part 3

What does it mean to live “Organic?”

“Many people are intimated by technology. I happen to be one of those people. Whether it is computers or smart phones, TVs or VCRs (they still make VCRS, right?), something about technology throws me off. It seems that just as many people, if not more, are confused when it comes to health.”

What is the deal with Organic?

How is it different from Natural?

What are GMOs? How do I avoid them?

Should I get farm-raised, pasture-fed or corn-fed?

These are questions I have heard countless times at lectures and events all across this great nation of ours. And it underscores an issue when it comes to standards and institutions. essentially, most people’s questions boil down to:

Who can I trust?

Am I getting the right information to make informed decisions?

“I have dedicated my life to helping people take control of their own health by empowering them with knowledge and developing solutions in the field of human health and nutrition. One of the reasons I support Organic Foods was to create a platform of education—in addition to the foods and beverages—that would allow people to turn to a source they can trust for their information.”

Why Live Organic?

The following are highlights from my latest book, Live Beyond organic, where i attempt to help the reader navigate the oft-confusing world of health.

No Meaning Any More: natural Food

When I was young, if asked, I told people that I ate “natural foods.”

Back then, natural meant something—a food that didn’t contain any artificial ingredients, no chemical preservatives, or, in the case of meat and poultry, was minimally processed. But over the years, conventional food companies and processors chipped away at these standards to the point where “natural” has no meaning these days. In fact, there is no legal U.S. definition for natural foods at the present time, and because of this, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) discourages companies from labeling their foods “all natural” or “natural.”

Since federal authorities have chosen not to define how the word “natural” can be used, we’re left with all sorts of shenanigans. You can find the adjective “Natural!” slapped on just about anything in a supermarket. For instance, food bars give you a “natural energy boost”— whatever that means. You can start your day with “natural fiber” in your breakfast cereal, which may or not be made from genetically modified grains. Potato chips are labeled “natural” because one of the “natural” ingredients is salt.

The USDA requires natural meat and poultry to be free of artificial colors, flavors, sweeteners, and preservatives, but some poultry producers inject their chickens with saline solution, claiming it adds flavor—after all, salt is “natural”—but that practice conveniently adds 25 percent extra weight to the bird, which is sold by the pound.

So, with the meaning of natural obliterated, the only good news to report is that natural does not mean organic, but there again, the public is confused about what organic really means.

Getting More Popular but not Perfect: Organic Food

Organic agriculture has been around since Adam and Eve were forced from the Garden and had to grow their own food. Farming and raising livestock didn’t change much for centuries. As recently as 1900, half of the U.S. labor force were farmers or working a ranch, but as mechanization and technology made huge leaps in the 20th century, that number has shrunk to just 2 percent today— and 60 percent of those hard-working folks are part-time farmers.

I’ve already described how modern agriculture has morphed into an agribusiness that feeds the world, but the price has been horribly steep. Voices in the wilderness like J.I. Rodale and others like Paul Bragg and Ann Wigmore gave the organic movement a voice in the pivotal 1970s and 1980s, but even then, few knew exactly what “organic” meant as the movement picked up steam.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture stepped in and began working on standards during the 1990s, but I can only imagine the lobbying efforts and political pressures that came to bear on this federal agency. After years of bureaucratic infighting, the USDA established guidelines in 2002 that outline what steps farmers, ranchers, dairies, and other food producers must follow in order to be certified organic by the U.S. government.

The USDA regulations on what can and can’t be called “organic” is as thick as a Manhattan phone book. The super-digest version is that organic meats must come from animals that eat 100 percent organic feed without any animal byproducts; for dairy cows, the whole herd must have eaten organic feed for the previous twelve months. Organic produce cannot be grown with chemical pesticides or most synthetic fertilizers, and animals cannot be fed or injected with antibiotics and growth hormones. Organic farms undergo a rigorous certification process and are inspected for compliance by an independent agent.

This would be a good place to define the term “sustainably,” which is often spoken in the same sentence as “organic practices.” Sustainability refers to a system of farming that maintains and replenishes soil fertility without the use of toxic and persistent pesticides and fertilizers. Livestock are pasture-raised, and fish are not pulled from the ocean faster than they can reproduce or caught in ways that destroy other sea life or undersea habitat.

 Read Organic Foods – What are the Critical Differences Between Organic Foods and Commercially Grown Foods part 4 Here

Author – Glen B. Stewart

Organic Foods – What are the Critical Differences Between Organic Foods and Commercially Grown Foods part 2

So is it Healthier to Eat Meat?

From a clinical standpoint, I do believe virtually everyone benefits from some animal protein. However, this doesn’t have to be meat, as there are other healthy animal proteins like raw organic dairy and organic pastured eggs. The evidence suggests that raw organic milk is actually one of the healthiest options as it has the highest biologic value and utilization of any protein. The only caution is that it is loaded with lactose, which can disrupt insulin sensitivity, so I would advise to consume it cultured in yogurt or kefir where the bacteria will predigest the lactose and also help optimize your gut flora.

If you are sincerely objective and honest in seeking to understand what diet is best for you it will be important to trust your body to guide you. It is my recommendation to abandon any previously held convictions you might have about food and instead carefully listen to your body as you experiment with different food ratios and including or excluding animal foods.

So let me make it clear that I’m not advocating that everyone should, or even needs to, eat meat. However, there are health consequences of abstaining from animal protein entirely.

Further, if you do eat meat one of the primary questions you need to ask is how was it raised? This makes all the difference in the world when it comes to nutritional content and the health benefits of meat.

There’s no question in my mind that we should all avoid factory-farmed meat from CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations), as the harm likely outweighs the benefit for most. Factory farming is not only inhumane in the extreme, but it also produces inferior meat. Organically raised, grass-fed and free-range meats are a whole other animal. Nutritionally, they’re just not the same. And you certainly cannot compare the stress- and disease levels between a pastured cow and one stuck in a feedlot.

So, when eating meat the following three factors need to be considered:

How it’s raised, i.e. factory farmed or raised organically. Conventional meat is loaded with pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and other chemicals and should be avoided.
Whether or not it’s grass-fed. This is an essential requirement of healthy meat.
Whether or not it contains nitrates, preservatives linked to cancer. Processed meats are not a healthful choice for anyone and should be avoided entirely, according to a review of more than 7,000 clinical studies examining the connection between diet and cancer.
Next, how you cook the meat will also influence its health benefits because any time you cook meat at high temperatures, dangerous chemicals are created, including:

Heterocyclic Amines (HCAs): These form when food is cooked at high temperatures, and they’re linked to cancer. In terms of HCA, the worst part of the meat is the blackened section, which is why you should always avoid charring your meat, and never eat blackened sections.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): When fat drips onto the heat source, causing excess smoke, and the smoke surrounds your food, it can transfer cancer-causing PAHs to the meat.
Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs): When food is cooked at high temperatures (including when it is pasteurized or sterilized), it increases the formation of AGEs in your food. When you eat the food, it transfers the AGEs into your body. AGEs build up in your body over time leading to oxidative stress, inflammation and an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and kidney disease.
To sum up, eating factory farmed, grain-fed beef that’s been charred to a crisp will NOT improve your health.In order for meat to be its healthiest, it should be organic and grass-fed, and it should be cooked as little as possible. You can, for example, quickly sear the meat on both sides, leaving the inside quite rare. This gives the illusion that you’re eating cooked meat, while still getting many of the benefits of raw.

Can You Get Enough Dietary Sulfur if You Don’t Eat Animal Protein?

It’s important for your heart health to have adequate dietary sulfur, and this comes almost exclusively from dietary protein. As such, high-quality (organic and/or grass-fed/pastured) beef and poultry are ideal complete sources, but if you don’t eat meat you can also get sulfur from coconut oil and olive oil. Other dietary sources that contain small amounts of sulfur IF the food was grown in soil that contains adequate amounts of sulfur, include:

Organic pastured eggs
Legumes
Garlic
Onion
Brussel sprouts
Asparagus
Kale

 Read Organic Foods – What are the Critical Differences Between Organic Foods and Commercially Grown Foods part 3 Here

Author – Glen B. Stewart

Organic Foods – What are the Critical Differences Between Organic Foods and Commercially Grown Foods part 1

So – What are the critical differences between organic foods and commercially grown foods?

A very popular question in the resurgence of health awareness today. To answer that question, I share the well researched findings of two very respected pioneers in the alternative health community, Dr, Mercola and Jordan Rubin.

Dr. Mercola Shares his research on the value Eating an Organic Based Diet consisting of Organic Vegetables and Grass Fed Beef:

“Eating Only Plant-Based Foods Might be BAD for Your Heart” by Dr. Mercola

Plant-based foods like vegetables are obviously excellent for your heart and your overall health, so there is absolutely no reason to worry if you eat loads of plant foods as this is a healthy goal that most of us should ascribe to. The risks come in if you also exclude all animal proteins from your diet, as these are also valuable sources of nutrients that cannot be obtained elsewhere.

Research published in Nutrition shows that people who eat a strictly plant-based diet may suffer from subclinical protein malnutrition, which means you’re also likely not getting enough dietary sulfur. Sulfur is derived almost exclusively from dietary protein, such as fish and high-quality (organic and/or grass-fed/pastured) beef and poultry. Meat and fish are considered “complete” as they contain all the sulfur-containing amino acids you need to produce new protein.

Needless to say, those who abstain from animal protein are placing themselves at far greater risk of sulfur deficiency and its related health problems.

Sulfur also plays a vital role in the structure and biological activity of both proteins and enzymes. If you don’t have sufficient amounts of sulfur in your body, this deficiency can cascade into a number of health problems as it will affect bones, joints, connective tissues, metabolic processes, and more. As Dr. Stephanie Seneff, senior scientist at MIT, discusses in the video above, areas where sulfur plays an important role include:

1) Your body’s electron transport system, as part of iron/sulfur proteins in mitochondria, the energy factories of your cells.

2) Vitamin-B thiamine (B1) and biotin conversion, which in turn are essential for converting carbohydrates into energy.

3) Synthesizing important metabolic intermediates, such as glutathione.

4) Proper insulin function - The insulin molecule consists of two amino acid chains connected to each other by sulfur bridges, without which the insulin cannot perform its biological activity.

5) Detoxification - Researchers also concluded that the low intake of sulfur amino acids by vegetarians and vegans explains the origin of hyperhomocysteinemia (high blood levels of homocysteine, which may lead to blood clots in your arteries — i.e. heart attack and stroke) and the increased vulnerability of vegetarians to cardiovascular diseases.

Heart Disease May be a Cholesterol Deficiency Problem…

The other misconception plaguing the vegetarian community (and actually conventional nutrition recommendations as well) is the notion that animal foods are bad for your heart because they contain cholesterol. Conventional medicine tells us that heart disease is due to elevated cholesterol and recommends lowering cholesterol levels as much as possible, including in your diet. But according to Dr. Seneff, it’s difficult to get “too much” cholesterol in your diet, particularly in the standard American diet. But you may very well be getting too little, especially if you eat only plant foods, and that can cause problems.

She states:

“Heart disease, I think, is a cholesterol deficiency problem, and in particular a cholesterol sulfate deficiency problem…”

She points out that all of this information is available in the research literature, but it requires putting all the pieces together to see the full picture. Through her research, she believes that the mechanism we call “cardiovascular disease,” of which arterial plaque is a hallmark, is actually your body’s way to compensate for not having enough cholesterol sulfate.

She explains:

“The macrophages in the plaque take up LDL, the small dense LDL particles that have been damaged by sugar… The liver cannot take them back because the receptor can’t receive them, because they are gummed with sugar basically. So they’re stuck floating in your body… Those macrophages in the plaque do a heroic job in taking that gummed up LDL out of the blood circulation, carefully extracting the cholesterol from it to save it – the cholesterol is important – and then exporting the cholesterol into HDL – HDL A1 in particular… That’s the good guy, HDL.

The platelets in the plaque take in HDL A1 cholesterol and they won’t take anything else… They take in sulfate, and they produce cholesterol sulfate in the plaque.

The sulfate actually comes from homocysteine. Elevated homocysteine is another risk factor for heart disease. Homocysteine is a source of sulfate. It also involves hemoglobin. You have to consume energy to produce a sulfate from homocysteine, and the red blood cells actually supply the ATP to the plaque.

So everything is there and the intent is to produce cholesterol sulfate and it’s done in the arteries feeding the heart, because it’s the heart that needs the cholesterol sulfate. If [cholesterol sulfate is not produced]… you end up with heart failure.”

So, in a nutshell, high LDL appears to be a sign of cholesterol sulfate deficiency—it’s your body’s way of trying to maintain the correct balance by taking damaged LDL and turning it into plaque, within which the blood platelets produce the cholesterol sulfate your heart and brain need for optimal function.

Read Organic Foods – What are the Critical Differences Between Organic Foods and Commercially Grown Foods part 2 Here

Author – Glen B. Stewart

Pancreatic Cancer – Was The Tragic Loss of Steve Jobs Due to Medical Malpractice and Vested Interest part 6

For cancer, specifically, I think Suzanne did a good job. She really worked hard to put together resources that she thought legitimate and would be helpful resources for patients. There are clinics and doctors all over the country that she thought were respectable and would want investigation in case the patient has a question. So that’s a good place to start in terms of general recommendations. As I’ve discussed, I believe everybody should have organic – that’s the first step. You know, different people need different types.

DM: We both promote the same approach to diet, which is Metabolic Typing. In our case, we rephrased it to Nutritional Typing just to make it more palatable from a word perspective.

DG: I understand Metabolic Typing doesn’t really mean anything to the average person. We have different diets for different people, but as I’ve always said, even though we have complicated, sophisticated tests to help us determine the diet that the patient needs, your proclivity to the food you like tend to tell you a lot. They love meat, they love pot roast – we’ve discussed this before. Vegetarians love to hate meat; they love fruits and vegetables.

Balanced people always want a lot of different foods: fruits, vegetables, read meat, fish, poultry. But not as much red meat as a meat eater would want, most of which are fatty red meat – that’s all they want to eat. That’s what they’re designed to eat. So you can tell by the foods you like. If you like fatty red meat with the fat and you salivate over it, you’re probably a meat eater – that’s almost guaranteed. If that makes you gag and what you really want is a piece of fruit and salad, you’re on the vegetarian side. You can get by doing that; it works the whole day if you’re on the vegetarian side. You can tell by your own proclivities.

But whether you’re a meat eater, vegetarian, or balanced, you need to eat the cleanest food possible. No one should be on pesticides. Pesticides have neurotoxins –that’s how they kill insects. You don’t want to be taking that stuff with you three times a day. Every time you get an apple, you get a load of neurotoxins. Not smart. The cleaner the food, the better. Even conventional scientists are now starting to accept that organic food is more nutritious and probably healthier. So start eating clean food. You can go by your own preferences.

DM: It’s more expensive, but you have to look at the long term. It’s an investment, and it’s probably going to be less expensive in the long run. More people buying will ultimately drive down the prices of organic.

DG: It used to be much more expensive when I first got interested 30 years ago. It was very hard to find, but now you can get it. Any corner in New York is going to have a health food store of whole foods. A supermarket in New York is loaded with organic now. It’s getting cheaper and easier to find. But I always hear people say, “Good health is expensive.” No, no, no. Getting sick is expensive. With being sick, you’re not able to achieve as much in your life, like progressing in your career the way you want to.

12DM: And we have the classic example why we have these calls: Steve Jobs dying at least 40 to 50 years prematurely.

DG: Yeah, and he’s so smart. He could have been productive for decades. To die in your early fifties – what a waste. Einstein died, I think, at 74. But he was working to the day he died. Jobs had a minimal 20 more years.

DM: And it’s a total loss to the world. Who knows what he would have come up with in another 20 to 30 years.

DG: That’s what’s scary, because a guy that’s smart, anything they do, they do well. And who knows what discoveries will never be discovered now because he’s gone.

DM: And he literally turned Apple around in the late 90s, which is a little over 10 years ago. And he could in another 20 to 30 years.

DG: That’s right. So if you think about that loss, poor health is not cheap. And good health is really… Finding organic is cheap, compared to the value of this. There are studies now that show that children who eating organic do better in school. They don’t have all these nerve toxins in their brain. No preservatives or additives poison their brain. Of course, they do better in school. They don’t have ADHD or whatever. They do better in school and they can achieve better, and they’re going to be more motivated. They’re going to earn more money. They’re not going to drop out of high school because they’re depressed. They’re going to function better.

There’s nothing better than good health – you can’t put a price on good health. It is the greatest gift. And organic costs 10 or 20 cents more for carrots or whatever. But the value in terms of your life is something you can’t just put a price on.

My patients come to me and they think their life is over. But once they get well, they go on and get back to their lives. I’ve seen what it can do – believe me it isn’t cheap.

Good Health is ‘A Long-Term Miracle’

DM: And I think the challenge many people fail to appreciate is that they don’t notice an immediate difference. So they purchase a conventional bunch of celery versus an organic one, and they’re not going to see anything immediately. It’s a long-term consequence. It’s an understanding the the side effects of using these on a long-term basis is the central issue.

DG: Good health is not an instant miracle; it’s a long-term miracle. It’s something you do over time. It’s a gradual process of repairing and rebuilding every cell in your body. You know, I grew up on junk food. When I met Kelley in 1981, it changed my life. I started taking supplements and coffee enemas. I’ve been eating organic ever since. And I see year by year as I get older that I get stronger. I can work hard now as much as I can 10 years ago. And it’s not because of some mystical process that’s happening; it’s because of good nutrition. The foundation and materials for my body are such high-quality. My body is healthy now, and it was when I was 20. Good nutrition can do that – it can slow aging, improve the aging process, and make us productive. I have patients since the mid-90s and they’ve been with me for 15 to 20 years, and they were as productive as they were 20 years ago. They think clearly, they don’t have Alzheimer’s and heart disease. I have one patient who’s 95, and two of her doctors have died and she keeps going on. It’s a tragic story because two of her doctors now are dead. She had breast cancer, and she does a program. She had no intention to die – she’s now 95, 96 years old. So good health is a long-term investment.

Read Pancreatic Cancer – Was The Tragic Loss of Steve Jobs Due to Medical Malpractice and Vested Interest part 7 Here

Author – Glen B. Stewart

Pancreatic Cancer – Was The Tragic Loss of Steve Jobs Due to Medical Malpractice and Vested Interest part 1

The following is an eye-opening expose into the tragic death of Apple’s Co-Founder Steve Jobs and the circumstances and possible alternative solutions that could have saved his life.

“To Steve – You inspired me half of my life, I dearly wish I knew of your plight in time to save yours…” – Glen B. Stewart Author, Healer 2.0

A Special Interview with Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez By Dr. Mercola
Dr. Mercola: Welcome everyone. Today we’re here with Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, who is an expert in the treatment of cancer, specifically pancreatic cancer. We’ve done a previous interview with Dr. Gonzalez, which is linked to this page as you can review. So we’ve gone into much more details about his history and some of the approaches he use for therapy.
But we’re speaking today because of the tragic announcement of Steve Jobs’ recent death – he’s been an enormous benefactor to the human race, and his innovation, creativity, and ability to create instruments serve as such a useful tool so we can advance our efforts to improve ourselves. It’s really sad that we’re discussing this, but Steve is dead. It’s somewhat of a challenge, because there are some things that could have been done. That’s what we’re going to discuss today, and hopefully this information can help those who struggle with similar diseases. There are a large number of people who can take advantage of the therapies that may have helped Steve.

So welcome, Dr. Gonzalez. Dr. Gonzalez: It’s great to be back again, although under sad circumstances. Alternative Pancreatic Cancer Treatment

DM: So for those who haven’t listened to the other interview, you have been involved in the natural treatments of cancer for over 25 years now. He offers really innovative therapies. I wonder if you can briefly summarize those. You’re known pretty much internationally for your expertise on pancreatic cancer, although your therapies have wider applications.

DG: Yeah, we’re known for treating pancreatic cancer. Our research studies have been involved with pancreatic cancer, which has good success and is considered one of the, if not the most, aggressive forms of cancer (among the two or three most aggressive). We have patients who have been with us for 22 years.

If you just want me to sum up my program, there are three basic components: individualized diet (diets for pure vegetarians or of meat, depending on metabolism of the patient). The second is individualized supplement programs for doses of pancreatic enzymes, vitamins, and minerals. Again, we’re precisely prescribing for each patient, and doses vary from patient to patient. We don’t think that vitamins and minerals have a particular anti-cancer effect, but we used to treat cancer specifically with large doses of pancreatic enzymes, which conventional medicine are thought only to help with digestion. But there’s evidence that goes back to a hundred years that those pancreatic protein digestive enzymes – the same enzymes we use every day to digest our protein foods – have an anti-cancer effect and may represent the body’s main defense again cancer. My average cancer patient probably takes 10 capsules of pancreatic enzymes a day.

The third component is detoxification – there’s a simple procedure to help the body mobilize, neutralize, and excrete the toxic debris that results from the repair of the damaged body and the killing of the tumor. You kill a tumor, that’s wonderful. You get all the tumor debris floating around the body. It’s quite poisonous. Things like coffee enemas help the liver work better. All these toxic wastes from tumor destruction are processed for the liver, and it enhances the ability of the body to get rid of this debris. So that’s the program.

Steve Jobs and Cancer

DG: In terms of pancreatic cancer, you know, Jobs had violent cell carcinoma. There are two basic types of pancreatic cancer. The most aggressive form, which is the one we tend to think about, is adrenal carcinoma, which develops actually in the cells that produce pancreatic enzymes – ironically. About 95 percent of pancreatic cancers develop in those cells, in the enzyme-producing cells are the toxin-carrying enzymes of the intestinal tract. About five percent are developed in the endocrine component of the pancreas. The pancreas not only produces enzymes, but also produces hormones like insulin and glucagon. Cancer can develop in the insulin-producing cells, but it’s much less common. They tend to be a little less aggressive – the average survival for carcinoma of the enzyme-producing cells is probably three to six months. I saw the patients from the last couple of years, and invariably, they progress and eventually the patients die. There was a Sloan-Kettering series some years ago where they had some patients that lived as long as four years. But very rarely do they live longer.

DM: Is it the type that Steve had?

DG: Yeah, he had [islet 04:51] cell carcinoma. He didn’t have the most aggressive form, although I don’t want to downplay the fact that. Although patients can live longer as he has (certainly he’s lived longer that Patrick Swayze or Michael Landon who had a more aggressive adenocarcinoma of the enzyme-producing cells). But they tend to live longer; he’s had it for many years. He had a liver transplant in Memphis about two years ago. Again, he’s been very secretive about what’s going on. He takes a leave of absence because he’s got the flu, but everyone knows it’s not because he’s got the flu or he’s got work. It’s because he’s fighting cancer and he ends up in Memphis to get a liver transplant. And it must have meant he has a metastasis in the liver.

First then he had to be on immunosuppressants. Whenever you have to transplant an organ, the body would tend to reject it, so you have to suppress the immune system.

That’s not good when you have a history of cancer, because immunosuppression can stimulate cancer growth because you’re suppressing your own immune ability to fight cancer.

So it seems like he did everything he could, and he certainly had unlimited resources to do whatever he needed to do. Getting liver transplant – that’s pretty expensive stuff.

DM: Well, it’s relative if you’re a billionaire. But why would he require a liver transplant with this disease?

DG: I don’t know his medical history other than what I’ve read in the press. I have some details, and maybe they have been in the press through word-of-mouth. The only reason I know he had to do that is he had metastasis in the liver. He had to take the liver out. You can’t get a liver transplant if you have hepatitis-C and you end up with cirrhosis. If you have the primary liver cancer, they sometimes do a liver transplant. It’s possible he had liver failure from some of the drugs they gave him when they initially treated his pancreatic cancer. But I don’t know; they never released the details why he had a liver transplant. But with some of that history and those resources, I would suspect that he had a metastasis in the liver, and some doctor-genius got the idea that they should do a liver transplant.

DM: This can only accelerate his disease, because as you mentioned, the use of immunosuppressants is certainly not good for the long-term prognosis of the cancer.

DG: Liver transplants, when they are successful… They’ve been most successful for primary liver cancer, which is cancer that starts in the liver. In the US, that’s mostly associated with chronic hepatitis-C, chronic hepatitis-B that can lead to primary hepatoma or primary liver cancer. And if it’s limited to the liver, a liver transplant can be curative. Liver cancer tends to be pretty aggressive – oftentimes it’s not limited to the liver, and oftentimes it recurs. But some patients have actually agreed to give conventional doctors… Primary liver cancer — liver transplant can be curative.

Now when you have metastatic pancreatic cancer in your liver – whether it’s islet cell carcinoma or the enzyme-producing cells – you assume it’s gone somewhere else, even if you think all the visible cancer has recurred only in the liver. If it’s in the pancreas and the liver, it’s also in the lymph nodes, the abdominal lymphatic tissues. It’s not going to be limited to the liver. So taking out the liver or transplant – if indeed it was because of liver metastasis– would be an unproductive course of events. I mean, it might buy us some time. If you’re a billionaire, I guess money doesn’t matter, so you’ll go ahead and do it.

A procedure like that can run several hundred thousand dollars, at least. So my assumption, having treated pancreatic cancer for over two decades, he probably had metastasis in the liver, and it was some desperate attempt to try to keep it under control, although it would be ultimately futile. There’s always the possibility of some kind of liver failure, maybe from medication, hepatitis-C from transfusion or something. But again, it’s never released, so we don’t know. But most likely, he had metastasis in the liver.

Read Pancreatic Cancer – Was The Tragic Loss of Steve Jobs Due to Medical Malpractice and Vested Interest part 2 Here

Author – Glen B. Stewart

Energy Healing Secrets for Everything from Sports Injury and Sports Rehabilitation to Fighting Cancer as Well as Insomnia and Depression part 3

“In trying to envision yourself healthy, you need not view realistic representations of the ailing body part.  Instead, imagine a virus as tiny spots on a blackboard that need erasing.  Imagine yourself building new, healthy cells or sending cleaning blood to an unhealthy organ or area”

“If you have a headache, picture your brain as a rough, bumpy road that needs smoothing and proceed to smooth it out.  The point is to focus on the area you believe is causing you to feel sick, and to concentrate on visualizing or imaging it to be well.  The more clearly and vividly you can do this, the more effective the technique becomes”

Another method for banishing pain was developed by Russian memory expert, Solomon V. Sherehevskii, as reported by Russian psychologist Professor Luria.  To banish pain, such as a headache, Sherehevskii would visualize the pain as having an actual shape, mass and color.  Then, when he had a “tangible” image of the pain in his mind, he would visualize or imagine this concrete picture slowly becoming smaller and smaller until it disappeared from his mental vision.  The real pain disappears with it.

Others have modified this same technique and suggest that you imagine a big bird or eagle taking the concrete image of the pain away.  As it flies over the horizon, see it becoming smaller until it disappears from your view.  The actual pain will disappear with it.

“Life’s blows cannot break a person whose spirit is warmed at the fire of enthusiasm” – Norman Vincent Peale

Of course, the effectiveness of this imaging technique depends on the strength of your desire to improve your health and your ability to visualize well.  But there is no harm in trying it, because unlike drugs, creative visualization has no side effects.

Practice any of these visualization techniques three times a day for one week and observe your health improve.

Creative visualization and success in Sports

“Success means never letting the competition define you. You are the only one who should define yourself!” Chappell

Let me guess.  You are grinning like Michael Jordan upon reading the title of this chapter, right?  Sure, every athlete on earth wants to be successful, wants to be somebody that others can look up to and emulate.  More often than not, if you are successful in sports, you learn how to pursue your dreams and live life to the fullest.  You also have the greater responsibility of “paying forward” everything that you have accumulated. There is nothing wrong with hankering for success.  It only becomes a mistake if you let it go to your head and allow it to make you an arrogant fool.

“Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away” – Author Unknown

In whatever type of sport you choose, success is the mark of excellence.  It is the distinction which separates you from ordinary individuals.  It is the delineation between the mediocre and the best.

If you want to be an amazing success in sports, follow these tips:

“There is nothing like a dream to create the future” – Victor Hugo

Pay close attention to the thoughts in your mind.  Try to distinguish whether the thoughts are mostly reflecting optimistic or pessimistic views.  Are you happy with what you’ve discovered?  If your often-repeated thoughts are constructive, well and good.  If not, don’t fret.  It’s not the end of the world yet.

“Raise the Bar of Your Commitment so High that Excuses can’t Jump Up and Pull You Down”

Review what you have learned earlier.  Like attracts like.  If you think of breakdowns in the workplace or at home and a miserable life every day, that’s what will come to you.  Again, your predominant thoughts are the key to success or failure.  Use this knowledge consciously and in a positive way.

Unlike most people, you already know that creative visualization is a portal to success.  Use it to your advantage.  Utilize certain traits of characters and skills that you have such as faith in yourself and in your abilities.  Add to these limitless patience, perseverance, powerful concentration, willpower, intense discipline and strong ambition.

“Success means having the courage, the determination, and the will to become the person you believe you were meant to be” – Sheehan

Success is within your grasp, if you believe it to be so.   What you imagine is the seed of what you will experience.  Every success in sports starts in YOUR mind.  The mental images you have attract the corresponding situations and circumstances into your life.  Believe that you can impress the detail minded coach. Trust your potential to be selected on the “All Star Team”.  Carry on in completing the seemingly insurmountable workouts with passion.  Do your road work without hesitation.  Use your passionate desire to Win – to bring out the best in every situation.

By following the tips given above, you will find out what your true goals and abilities in sports really are.  You will have more more satisfying and rewarding experiences to be sure.  Make the necessary focused changes in your life.  Do not be afraid to prune the unwanted aspects because it will ultimately help you attain your goal of being a successful athlete.

They did it — and so can you!

“Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our possibilities become limitless.” - Paolinetti

- Glen 

Glen B. Stewart 

Master Trainer and Acclaimed Author