Thursday, September 22, 2011

Sex After Prostate Cancer

Lesbian Couple togetherness in bed 02Image via Wikipedia
By TARA PARKER-POPE

Treatments for prostate cancer take a significant toll on male potency, leaving a surprisingly high percentage of men unable to have a normal sex life, new research shows.
The findings, based on a study of more than 1,000 men treated for prostate cancer at multiple medical centers, show that whether a man is able to achieve adequate erections after treatment for prostate cancer varies greatly depending on a number of individual variables, including his age, the extent of his cancer and the quality of his sex life before treatment.

Over all, fewer than half of the men who reported good sexual function before cancer had managed to regain it two years after treatment. But the chances of sexual recovery varied widely. After two years, some men had less than a 10 percent chance of achieving adequate erections after treatment, whereas others had a 70 percent or greater chance of a relatively normal sex life.

The results were not encouraging, but for the first time offer men a more personalized model for predicting sexual recovery after cancer treatment.

Cancer experts say the data, published Tuesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association, are sorely needed, in light of marketing efforts that are aimed at wooing men toward particular types of treatment but that often leave patients with unrealistic expectations. Many men report feeling shocked and depressed when their sex lives fail to return to normal after treatment.

“I think being transparent about what the pros and cons are, the reality — that’s important,’’ said Dr. Martin G. Sanda, senior author on the research and co-director of the prostate cancer program at the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center. “For any of the treatments for prostate cancer, it would be misleading to tell someone they have a 100 percent chance of sexual recovery, or even a 95 percent chance. It’s easier for a couple to face that and deal with that if they are expecting it than if they were oversold and told there weren’t going to be any issues.”

The study evaluated sexual function among men at nine academic medical centers who had undergone one of three treatments for prostate cancer: surgical removal of the prostate; radiation therapy; or brachytherapy, which uses radioactive seed implants.

Over all, just 35 percent of men in the surgery group, 37 percent of men in the radiation group and 43 percent of men in the brachytherapy group were able to have sexual intercourse two years after treatment.

Because the men weren’t randomly assigned to a treatment, the data don’t demonstrate whether one treatment is better than another. For instance, men who opt for brachytherapy are typically younger and healthier than men who undergo radiation treatment, so the results can’t be compared.

However, the researchers were able to determine which variables are most important for predicting a man’s erectile function after treatment. In all three treatment groups, the quality of a man’s erections before treatment — determined using a questionnaire about his sex life — helped predict his sexual recovery. Among surgical patients, a man’s age and his P.S.A. score, which measures prostate specific antigen, and whether he had nerve-sparing surgery also helped predict his chances of resuming a normal sex life. For men undergoing radiation treatment, those who had not also undergone hormone therapy were more likely to regain erectile function two years after treatment. Among men who had brachytherapy, a younger age and lower body weight helped predict a better recovery compared with men who were older or obese.

One limit of the study is that it followed the men for only two years. Men who undergo radiation and brachytherapy may experience a decline in erectile function two or more years after treatment, whereas men who undergo surgery may experience improvement.

Dr. Sanda said the data would allow doctors to take a more personalized approach as they talk to patients about the risks of a given treatment and counsel them about the benefits of drugs and other therapies that can improve erectile function.

“By and large, a lot of what we counsel men has been based on generalized average numbers,’’ said Dr. Sanda. “This really creates a more concrete metric as to what patients might expect.”
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, September 16, 2011

Ovarian Cancer Screening - Doesn't Save Lives And May Not Need Treatment

Picture of ovary by the National Institute of ...Image via Wikipedia


(NaturalNews) There's no denying ovarian cancer is usually a terrible disease. A stealthy malignancy, it's often misdiagnosed as indigestion and by the time ovarian cancer is actually discovered by a doctor, the disease may have spread extensively. According to the National Institutes of Health, ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cancer among women and causes more deaths than any other type of female reproductive cancer.

So it might seem like a potentially life-saving move to have all women 55 and older -- the age group that suffers most often from this form of cancer -- screened regularly for the disease with transvaginal ultrasound and the blood test that measures serum cancer antigen 125 (CA-125).

These are expensive tests but, if they could save the lives of women by pinpointing ovarian malignancies early, they are certainly worth it. After all, the screening tests should save countless lives, right?

Unfortunately, according to new research headed by Saundra S. Buys, M.D., of the University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, that assumption is wrong. What's more, the tests can lead to unneeded surgeries and serious complications in women who actually have no cancer at all.

But the study came to another surprising -- and positive -- conclusion, too. It turns out that not all ovarian cancers may be deadly or even need treatment.

For the study, which was just published in the June 8 issue of JAMA, Dr. Buys and her team investigated studies of almost 80,000 women to compare outcomes between women who received standard health care with no specific testing for ovarian cancer, unless they had overt symptoms, and those who received regular, ovarian cancer screening. The results showed no reduced risk of death from ovarian cancer for those aggressively screened for the disease when compared to women who received usual care.

However, the study did reveal a big difference between the health outcomes of the women in the two groups. Those receiving the cancer screenings had an alarming increase in invasive medical procedures and associated harms as a result of being screened.

In all, there were 3,285 women who turned out to have false-positive results. And of these, over 1,000 were subjected to surgery (32.9 had their ovaries removed as part of the diagnostic workup). Among these 1,080 women, 163 (15 percent) experienced a total of 222 distinct major complications.

Bottom line: the research team concluded there is no evidence from clinical trials to support regular screening for ovarian cancer at this time. The authors of the study also stated that even an optimized program of annual screening may be insufficient to detect cancers early enough to prevent deaths.

"Evidence from modeling suggests that aggressive cancers progress rapidly through the early stages, limiting the ability to detect these cancers with yearly screening," they stated in the paper. "We conclude that annual screening for ovarian cancer...with simultaneous CA-125 and transvaginal ultrasound does not reduce disease-specific mortality in women at average risk for ovarian cancer but does increase invasive medical procedures and associated harms."

And the researchers ended with this startling news. Apparently, not all ovarian cancers detected may be deadly at all or even need treatment: "In contrast, more ovarian cancers were diagnosed in the screened group than in the usual care group (212 vs. 176), suggesting that some of the additional cancers detected by screenings were not clinically important and, if left undetected, may never have caused any symptoms or affected the women during their life-times (i.e., overdiagnosis)."

For more information:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/


Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Effects Of Common Psychiatrics Drugs - Online Database

(NaturalNews) If you have ever seen a commercial for a pharmaceutical drug, you are probably familiar with the long list of dangerous side effects that are rattled off in the last five seconds of the advertisement, just after viewers are told how Drug "X" is going to save their lives, improve their memories or give them unlimited energy. What was that? Did he just say that pill might cause bleeding out of my eyes?

Drug companies do a great job - and spend a lot of money - to ensure that most consumers aren't aware of the harmful side effects of common drugs prescribed for conditions like depression, heart disease, arthritis, ADHD or high blood pressure. Unfortunately, the result of this has created a society where the average person with a health problem is captivated by the promises delivered in clever advertising. There is a drug for everything? All I have to do is talk to my doctor? How convenient.

But what if there was a way to take back control of our lives and our health? What if, despite talking to your doctor, you still have questions or concerns about the safety of a drug?

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR) has a database that allows you to do just that. It's called the Psychiatric Drug Database, and it allows consumers to research the potential side effects of common psychiatric drugs, such as Ritalin or Wellbutrin.

While the database is limited to psychiatric drugs, this type of public information portal represents a significant step in the right direction to help patients find unbiased information and make informed decisions about their health.

The database allows you to search by drug and will retrieve information about adverse reactions reported by patients who have taken the drug, international warnings and studies that have been done on the drug and what side effects different age groups or genders have experienced. For example, a search of the effects of Ritalin on 18-30 year old women retrieved 89 reported cases of adverse side effects.

These effects including anxiety, fatigue, hypertension, tremors, chest discomfort, nausea, panic attacks, cardiac murmurs, aggression, suicide attempts and completed suicides. The results are broken down by case and list specific symptoms and reactions caused by the drug in each reported case.

Another search of Zoloft and its effects on young children included cases of cerebral disorders, upper respiratory tract infections, sleep disorders, vertigo, hallucinations, psychomotor hyperactivity and suicidal ideation.

The database only includes information on cases that were actually reported to the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System between 2004 and 2008. Based on the FDA's own estimates, only about 1 to 10 percent of adverse drug side effects are even reported to the FDA. The CCHR's database, therefore, represents only a small margin of the population that has been affected by adverse side effects of pharmaceutical psychiatric drugs.

Visitors to the site will also notice an interesting anecdote that describes how the definition of poison - a substance that causes death or harm when consumed by a living organism - clearly characterizes the drugs listed in the database. Consumers are encouraged to research potential problems of a drug before agreeing with their doctors to start a course of therapy.
To find more information about a particular drug, visit www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers

Sources for this article include

http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdan...

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Alternative Cancer Treatments - Oncologists Don't Know The Power Of Nutrition and Detoxing

(NaturalNews) Science can be used to obfuscate reality, especially in medicine. Several disclosures from whistle blowers and investigators have uncovered scandalous false medical journal reports. Most oncologists don't want to know the power of nutrition and detoxification. The extremely low rate of recovery from cancer using expensive toxic methods and creating more suffering continues. Why? Authoritative medical science says it's the only way.

A Few Examples of Real Cancer Cures

A retired teacher decides to burn both ends of her life's candle and winds up with cancer. Her oncologist was insisting on surgery. She went to a friend who told her of the Gerson Institute and a retreat in Australia that applies pretty much the same approach as Gerson. She was cured beyond expectation. Hear this incredible woman tell her story with link (1) in the sources below.

A man diagnosed with stage four prostate cancer is told that sudden pH surges destroy cancer. He orders cesium, but it didn't arrive in time for his next medical examination. Instead, he tried pH surging with bicarbonate of soda and molasses. In weeks, he was cancer free. http://www.naturalnews.com/027481_p...

A concerned father sneaks THC hemp oil into his toddler son's feeding tube to reverse his ebbing health during cancer treatments. The little boy's health surged and he became cancer free. The doctors never knew what the father did to reverse the boy's failing health. [Short video link (2) below]

A middle aged New Zealand man with leukemia goes into a coma from flu/pneumonia complications. The hospital staff threatens to pull his life support until family members insist they try mega-dose IV vitamin C. He walks out of the hospital days later. A year later his checkup showed that he was now leukemia free. http://www.naturalnews.com/030599_v...

Real Stats

These highlights are but a few examples of real cases that were cured without chemo or radiation. There are thousands. Curing cancer naturally with patients who have not undergone chemo or radiation has an over 80% cure rate. Those who come to alternative methods half-dead from chemo and radiation average just around a 50% cure rate.

But even this 50% is higher than the three to five percent cure rate proudly offered by mainstream medicine. Mainstream medicine considers five years cancer free as cured.

Authority Lies and Ridicules

Real people, who use alternative treatments to successfully cure their cancer, are disregarded because they can't scientifically prove that the alternative therapy cured their cancer. But it's the science of authoritative obfuscation that the medical mafia uses to confuse others. [Source (3) below]

Medical authorities claim alternative healers can't provide documentation. Charlotte Gerson says otherwise. Case documents were stolen by a medical mafia mole from her father Max Gerons's office before he died. She and her staff have offered documents since then, but mainstream medicine refuses to accept them. http://www.naturalnews.com/027004_c...

Canadian nurse Rene Caisse was allowed to use a Native American herbal remedy that she named Essiac Tea in her clinic as long as her patients were diagnosed by MDs before and after treatments. Her high cure rate was acknowledged by third party examining physicians. When nurse Caisse died, almost all of her documents were seized and burned. http://www.naturalnews.com/026928_c...

Laetrile, derived from legally available apricot seeds' amygdaline, is illegal despite its efficacy and safety. This is all because the Sloane-Kettering Institute said it didn't work even though their research was positive. Sloane-Kettering's spokesman, Dr. Ralph Moss, was so disgusted by the lies that he resigned and leaked the actual research papers to G. Edward Griffin, who then wrote World Without Cancer. http://www.naturalnews.com/027088_c...

Sources for this article include:

(1) http://healthmaven.blogspot.com/201...

(2) http://healthmaven.blogspot.com/201...

(3) When the Blood Boils, article by Jon Rappoport (a must read) http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2...

Monday, August 1, 2011

Dog Time!

Golden Retriever puppyImage via Wikipedia
I appreciate the guest post, Jewel Rodgers

Getting a dog was something I’d always wanted to do but it didn’t really make sense until I moved into my new house. I finally had a yard and tons of room for one to play in and I had already gone to www.texaselectricityproviders.COM and taken care of the insurance and all the other “adult” parts of owning a house. So a few Saturdays ago my best friend and I went to the pound and I found the most adorable long haired golden puppy – it was just meant to be! I named her Chloe and brought her home that afternoon and now I’m a bonafide (no pun intended) dog owner! Chloe loves the backyard where she can run around and play and I love being able to come home to a happy adorable puppy every day after work. She’s changed my life in all the best ways possible and though I hoped I would like having a dog it’s been even better than I could have imagined!
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, June 13, 2011

Japan Hit By Nuclear Weapon And Not An Earthquake?

South-Yokohama Powerplant (Yokohama,Japan)Image via Wikipedia



(NaturalNews) What if the alleged 9.0+ magnitude mega earthquake that was said to have hit off the coast of Japan back on March 11 never actually happened, and the resultant tsunami that destroyed the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant was actually a deliberate, false flag attack using nuclear weapons? Freelance journalist Jim Stone offers compelling evidence that the official story we have all been told concerning the disaster is a phony coverup for a concerted attack against Japan, possibly for offering to enrich uranium for Iran.

An actual 9.0+ mega-quake would have leveled the whole country of Japan

Consider first the massive impact of an actual 9.0 magnitude earthquake, which would have been about 100 times more powerful than the 6.8 magnitude Great Hanshin earthquake of 1995 that destroyed much of the city of Kobe, located about 12.5 miles from the epicenter, and that killed more than 6,400 people. If the March 11 earthquake in Japan was actually a 9.0, it would have devastated everything within a 1,000-mile radius of the epicenter -- and yet the city of Sendai, for example, which is only about 48 miles from the epicenter, suffered virtually no structural damage whatsoever.

Truth be told, the only areas that suffered any significant damage at all were areas hit by the tsunami, which included the Fukushima nuclear plant. Besides the immense damage that occurred at the tsunami-hit nuclear plant, there was virtually no seismic damage in any other towns or cities near the epicenter that were not hit by the tsunami, which suggests that the earthquake could not have been anywhere close to a 9.0. According to Stone's review, the size of the earthquake that hit off Japan's coast actually registered at only about a 6.67 magnitude, according to some readings, while the tsunami that ensued was the equivalent of what would have occurred during an actual 9.0.

Cities and towns hit by tsunami appeared strangely unaware that it was even coming

Another factor to consider is that the towns and cities hit by the tsunami appeared to be largely unaware that it was even coming until moments before it arrived. If a 9.0 earthquake had actually hit as claimed, these areas would have not only experienced monumental destruction beforehand, but people living in them would have already been evacuating the area between when the earthquake supposedly hit, and roughly 40 minutes later when the tsunami actually arrived.

Various video clips and photos in towns and cities about to be hit by the approaching tsunami reveal that business was largely taking place a usual just minutes before it hit. People are shown walking around, buildings are intact, and little appears to be out of place, despite the fact that a mega-quake has supposedly just occurred. Take a look for yourself at Stone's information, as well as photos and videos captured, and think to yourself whether or not the official story makes sense in light of what actually took place (http://www.abeldanger.net/2011/05/j...).

The damage at Fukushima, and particularly at non-operational Reactor 4, could not have occurred simply from flooding or an earthquake

According to Stone's analysis, the damage that took place at the Fukushima nuclear facility could not have been the result of just flooding or even a 9.0 earthquake, assuming that one actually occurred. High-resolution aerial images of the damaged plant taken on March 24 show not only a completely missing Reactor 3, despite ongoing reports that it was still there, but also a completely demolished Reactor 4.

Remember the massive explosion that took place at Reactor 3 just a few days after the tsunami hit? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw2A...) Blamed on hydrogen buildup, this disastrous event could not have occurred as a result of damage caused by the earthquake or tsunami because a special emergency hydrogen stack designed specifically to deal with hydrogen buildup had been installed at Fukushima following the disastrous Three Mile Island accident. This special hydrogen stack does not require electricity to run, so it was fully operational during the time of the explosion and would have mitigated any hydrogen buildup.

And what about the mysterious Reactor 4 explosion, which occurred despite the fact that the reactor had been de-fueled, and was allegedly non-operational? Even in a worst-case scenario where its fuel rods completely melt down, the type of explosion that would follow would not be capable of literally disintegrating Reactor 4's thick, concrete walls, which is what actually occurred. And Reactor 4 was so heavily damaged by this explosion that it was expected to literally collapse.

So what caused these massive explosions in Reactors 3 and 4 to occur? According to Stone, nuclear weaponry was used to forcibly demolish these structures. Magna BSP, a security firm, allegedly installed massive "security cameras" inside the reactors prior to the disaster. These cameras weighed over 1,000 pounds, and look oddly similar to uranium gun-type nuclear bombs (http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/co...).

When you put two and two together, it appears as though nuclear weapons disguised as security cameras may have been used to blow up Fukushima's reactors. Perhaps this explains the reason for the information blackout on Reactor 4 that occurred in the days following the disaster (http://www.naturalnews.com/031758_F...).

Add to the mix a nuclear-induced tsnuami and corresponding earthquake, and you have the perfect scapegoat for deliberately targeting a nuclear facility and blaming it on natural causes.

A critical analysis of the facts actually makes the official story look like a conspiracy theory

Before dismissing this information as just another wacky conspiracy theory, take the time to review Stone's analysis, and think critically about the basic laws of physics in light of the information we have been told by the media. Would a real 9.0 earthquake have left nearby cities that were not hit by the tsunami undamaged? Why did the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) withhold crucial information about Reactor 4 for so long? And why did such massive damage occur from supposed explosions that, in reality, could not have physically caused them?

These and other questions raise doubt about the official story concerning the Japan earthquake and tsunami. Of course, the reasons why anyone would inflict this type of disaster on purpose is a different subject entirely, but that the disaster appears to have been deliberately caused is a possibility that every critical-thinking person would do best to consider.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.abeldanger.net/2011/05/j...

Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, June 10, 2011

Lithium To Be Added To Our Water Supply?

Clean drinking water...not self-evident for ev...Image via Wikipedia
(NaturalNews) Lithium, the psychiatric drug prescribed for depression, mania and bipolar disorder, is now being viewed as the new fluoride by some experts. These experts are calling for the addition of lithium to the water supply as a cure-all for social problems, including suicide, violent crime and drug use.

Lithium is the new fluoride

Dr. Gerald Schrauzer, who published the first paper in 1989 connecting lithium in water supplies to a decrease in certain undesirable social behaviors, became interested in lithium after growing up next to a "miracle spring" in Franzensbad, Czechoslovakia. This lithium-containing spring was alleged to moderate the temperaments of women in particular.

For centuries, people worldwide have been attracted to springs like these for their calming benefits, and scientists have since found the benefits to be credited to unusually high natural lithium levels.

Of course this is how the addition of fluoride to the water supply came about. It was discovered that people with "Colorado Brown Stain" or "Texas Teeth", names that described a mottling and staining of the tooth enamel (http://www.fluoridealert.org/dental...), lived in areas in Colorado and Texas that had higher naturally occurring levels of fluoride (http://www.austinchronicle.com/news...). It was believed that the naturally occurring fluoride in the water made the enamel of the teeth harder and more resistant to cavities, so it was suggested that fluoride be distributed through the water supply to benefit public health (http://www.fluoridealert.org/cdc.htm).

Unfortunately, we now know that "Colorado Brown Stain" and "Texas Teeth" were cases of dental fluorosis, which can cause pitting and decay of teeth in its severe form, and may actually cause them to be structurally weaker (http://www.fluoridealert.org/health...). 41 percent of American adolescents now suffer from this fluoride induced condition (http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert...).

The argument for it

Proponents of lithium in the water supply claim that it has compelling benefits.

A 2009 study across 18 communities in Japan showed that those with higher levels of naturally occurring fluoride were significantly less vulnerable to suicide. A study from this year corroborated the findings, showing that 4 to 15 percent of the variation in suicides across 99 counties in Austria was due to lithium content in regional water supplies.

"As a matter of empirical science, this connection between water-based lithium and suicide is absolutely becoming widely accepted," said Jacob Appel, a psychiatrist and bioethicist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City. "The research, when one of a scientific persuasion reads it, is compelling -- even if it might be jaw-dropping."

If the research continues to show good results, Appel sees America as a possible first candidate for implementation, citing as a precedent how easily genetically modified and fortified foods have been both approved by the U.S. government and accepted by American consumers.

The public is not buying it

It seems that experts who put forward the notion of adding lithium to the water supply often encounter harsh and sometimes violent feedback.

Dr. Allan Young, a psychiatry professor at Imperial College in London who published a 2009 commentary on the subject, received a handful of death threats and was likened to a Nazi. He also received 500 vitriolic emails after publishing an article on The Huffington Post, several of which were so provocative that they caused him to contact the authorities.

But even experts enthusiastic about adding lithium to the water supply caution about unintended consequences. First, it is still not clear how lithium affects the brain and, second, there is also the consideration of possible personality changes within the recipient.

"Lithium certainly dampens impulsivity, which would explain how it dampens suicide rates," Young said. "But at a population level, what if that impulsivity is being directed in a healthy way -- the person jumping onto the subway tracks to save a life?"

Adding lithium to the water supply could also have the unintended consequence of widespread personality homogenization, according to Peter Kramer, a psychiatrist at Brown Medical School.

"When you change these resilience factors in the brain, you see other changes too, People are less timid and shy, for example," Kramer said. "But maybe people want the right not to have these subtle changes taking place, without making the choice for themselves."

Freedom of choice

To begin with, psychology does not always have the best track record with mental health solutions, particularly when it comes to prescription medications, as evidenced by the implication of antidepressants in suicides and school shootings. (http://www.naturalnews.com/025826_A...)

But there is a much more obvious problem. Dr. Paul Connett, director of Fluoride Action Network, has been fighting to get fluoride out of the water in the remaining 2 percent of countries worldwide that still fluoridate, and one of the major arguments against adding fluoride, or any drug -- lithium included, to the water supply is that you cannot control the dose that any one person will get. Connett argues that, to mass medicate in this way, the government would need to ensure that the dose for every individual in the society was at such a level that it would be safe and completely non-toxic -- this means accommodating an adequately safe dose for everyone including infants to large males or different races, ethnicities, ages and sexes (http://austintx.swagit.com/player.p...).

If it were even possible to arrive at such a dosage, Connett argues that such a policy would violate informed consent because those drinking the water are not being made aware of the risks associated with the drug and do not have the right to opt out if they do not wish to assume those risks.

Sources for this article include:
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/0...
http://austintx.swagit.com/player.p...
http://www.naturalnews.com/025826_A...
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news...
http://www.fluoridealert.org/cdc.htm)
http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert...).
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health...
http://www.fluoridealert.org/dental...

Enhanced by Zemanta