Hidden Health Science

Posts Tagged ‘Medicine’

A new study published in the Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development looked at non-cancer chronic pain and complementary and alternative medicine use in military veterans.  It found that of the 401 veterans suffering chronic pain interviewed, 82% had tried a complementary or alternative medicine (CAM) for their pain. Nearly all (99%) were willing to try it.

Massage therapy was the most preferred method and those who used CAM therapies were less likely (68% vs 54%) to have service-connected disabilities, despite lifelong pain.

The study discusses the implications these findings have for Veterans Administration policy.

Although direct comparisons are difficult because of differing methodologies and definitions of CAM, a larger percentage of the veterans in this study reported previous CAM use and greater treatment willingness than in the few prior veteran studies [23,25]. Several reasons may explain these differences. As CAM is more accepted and used in the general public, an increase in CAM use among veterans over time may be expected.

Americans are using more alternative and preventive medicine as costs for traditional healthcare swells. 38 percent of American adults use alternative and complementary medicine, according to the National Institutes of Health. An increasing reliance on alternative and preventative medicine is not surprising when healthcare costs rise 8 percent each year, nearly three times the rate of inflation.

What may surprise some, though, is how effective alternative and preventative medicine can be. Elderberry, used medicinally in Europe for hundreds of years, received some long-overdue respect when researchers in Norway confirmed that it effectively relieves flu symptoms.¹ Even ardent fans of Dr. Oz may have a hard time pronouncing this funny-sounding herb after he featured it on one of his episodes, but Umckaloabo is gaining recognition as an immunity booster since The Journal of Family Practice cited four encouraging studies before saying that Umckaloabo “represents a promising treatment” for viral upper respiratory infections.² And while licorice may go down better than a spoonful of sugar, several studies show that it may be a promising treatment for ulcers as well.

While alternative treatments and herbs have shown promise when used in conjunction with traditional medicine for existing illnesses, the real promise in curtailing healthcare costs lies in prevention. According to the Prevention Institute, even a 5 percent reduction in preventable illnesses and injuries could mean substantial healthcare savings.

While genetics and lifestyle have long been the primary focus of preventative measures, recent science points to the immune system as a powerful predictor of illness. According to the Integrative Medicine Department at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City, the immune system is the deciding factor between who gets sick and who doesn’t.

The use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) has been extensively studied globally among adult and paediatric populations. Parents, as a group, had not been studied to assess their knowledge and attitude to CAM and general medicine use.

This study is necessary since parents’attitude to medicine use is known to influence their child’s attitude to medicine use later in life. We therefore aim to assess the extent and types of CAM use among Finnish parents, and to determine the factors that promote the CAM use.

Also, we aim to determine parents’attitude to general medicine use.

Methods: Children less than 12 years old, as of spring 2007, were identified from the database of the Finnish Population Register Centre and were selected by random sampling. The parents of these children were identified and a questionnaire was sent to them.

Only the parent who regularly takes care of the child’s medicine was requested to fill the questionnaire. Cross-tabulations and Chi-square test were used to determine the associations between categorical variables.

CAMs were defined as natural products that are not registered as medicines, such as homeopathic preparations, dietary food supplements, and traditional medicinal products.

Results: The response rate of the survey was 67% (n=4032). The use of CAM was 31% in the preceding two days.

The most commonly used CAM products were vitamins and minerals, followed by fish oils and fatty acids. Prescription and OTC medicines were used concomitantly with CAM by one-third of the parents.

CAM was frequently used by parents over 30 years (33%), female parents (32%), highly educated parents (35%), and parents with high monthly net income (3000-3999 euros, 34%). The users of CAM had more negative attitudes towards medicines than non-users of CAM.

Conclusions: Our findings are in accordance with those of previous studies that women over 30 years of age with a high education and income typically use CAMs.

Finnish parents seem to use CAMs as complementary rather than alternative to medicines. Health care professionals should take into consideration both the concomitant use as well as the negative attitudes among CAM users in encounters with the parents.

Author: Katri Hameen-AnttilaUlla NiskalaSanna SiponenRiitta Ahonen
Credits/Source: BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2011, 11:107

by Heidi Stevenson, Gaia-Health

If breastfeeding and improved immunity stand in the way of vaccine profits, then the solution is simple: Delay breastfeeding and undo the immunity.

Children in poor countries do not develop as many antibodies as those in wealthy nations. Rather than ask whether it may be an indication that their bodies are refusing for a good reason, medical researchers assume that it’s bad. Therefore, they’re making a couple of the most inane suggestions imaginable.

Their suggestions include:

• Delay breastfeeding so that it won’t “interfere” with the development of antibodies.
• Medically modify gut biota in healthy children.

When conventional medicine makes inane suggestions, you know that it’s in trouble. That’s exactly what’s happening in the zeal to promote vaccinations in developing nations.

The Problem

Big Pharma sees Big Profits in vaccines, and the number of people in the nonindustrialized nations is enormous, well over half the world’s population. Getting them vaccinated could mean enormous amounts of money—car, train, boat, and plane loads of it.

They have an artificial way of determining whether vaccines are effective—and they’re locked into that system. They measure antibodies to their vaccine, and if they reach a certain arbitrary level, they say that the vaccination is successful. It’s rather clever, because it nicely evades having to demonstrate that people are actually immune from the diseases.

GreenMedInfo describes the issue beautifully:

First, it must be made clear that the term “efficacy” when used in the context of a vaccine’s antibody elevating effects does not equate to effectiveness, i.e. whether a vaccine actually works in real life to protect against the intended infection.

It is this semantic trick (conflating and confusing “efficacy” with “effectiveness”) which convinces most of the “developed” world that vaccine research is “evidence-based” and focused on creating enhanced immunity, when in fact it is simply a highly successful business enterprise founded on defrauding its “customers” of both their money and health. The dangers of common vaccines are so well known by the “experts” and the manufacturers who produce them that their risk (like nuclear power) is underwritten by world governments. The importance of this fact can not be understated.⁽¹⁾

The problem is that children in developing nations are not producing antibodies at the prescribed levels. And if they don’t, then the arbitrary definition of success hasn’t been met. Therefore, something needs to be done. To that end, two possible solutions have been offered—and neither one makes one iota of sense.

Delay Breastfeeding

In Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal, an article on the ineffectiveness of live oral rotavirus vaccines in poor developing countries found that the culprit is breast feeding.⁽²⁾

The best source of disease immunity in babies is their mothers’ milk. It is well recognized that babies fed on their mothers’ breast milk are healthier. But that, of course, isn’t the real goal. The goal is profits. Therefore, if breast milk interferes with Big Pharma’s profit machine, then something needs to be done about it.

The primary antibody in the intestinal tract is IgA (immunoglobulin A). It’s a significant factor in gut health. The authors of the rotavirus vaccine study surmise that the higher amounts of IgA in mothers’ milk neutralizes or prevents antibodies from forming.

Therefore, the researchers suggest that breast feeding be delayed so that the obvious benefits to the baby cannot interfere with the dubious one of developing rotavirus vaccine antibodies. Are they concerned about a loss of protection during that time? Apparently not. All they care about is that their dog and pony antibody show look good, so they can push the rotavirus vaccine on more and more babies.

Modify Gut Biota

The journal Biology published an article about the difficulty in achieving efficacy of vaccines in undeveloped countries. The author, Myron M. Levine, is concerned that vaccine efficacy—as defined by GreenMedInfo above—is diminished in these places. Here is his explanation:

Giardia infections are highly prevalent among children in developing countries but are increasingly recognized not to be associated with either diarrhea or adverse nutritional consequences. Nevertheless, Giardia may have an impact on mucosal integrity and function that may diminish responses to oral vaccines. Thus, I would advocate a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which half the participants receive metronidazole to eradicate Giardia before oral vaccination.⁽³⁾

He is saying that giardia, which is a devastating infection in developed nations, is harmless to most children in undeveloped areas because their intestinal mucosa prevents the parasite from harming them. So, Levine hopes to undo this advance in their immunology! He wants to give them the antibiotic metronidazole.

Metronidazole’s adverse effects include encephalopathy, neuropathy (including the optic nerve), pancreatitis, seizures, skin necrolysis, leukopenia, and other unpleasant effects, including, of course, candidiasis, the ever-common fungal result of antibiotics, and the now recognized life-long increased risk of cancer.

To sum it up, Levine wants to give healthy children a dose of metronidazole, a highly dangerous antibiotic, to all the children of undeveloped nations because their immune systems are able to prevent harm from at least one disease. He wants to strip their improved health away, and at the same time, permanently harm and even kill many of them.

Nonetheless, Big Pharma’s imperative, to increase profits, must be satisfied. Therefore, these children’s advantage must be taken from them by giving them a drug that will certainly kill some of them, maim others, and increase their chances of developing cancer. Then, they can be given vaccines that will likely further harm their immune systems.

Back to the Bottom Line

Of course, the most important problem is resolved. Big Pharma’s profits are protected. Does it matter that it comes at the cost of lives around the world? That it costs the health of children? That it causes suffering? That it undoes improvements in immune systems? No, it doesn’t. There is only one ethic in Big Pharma. It’s spelled:

P R O F I T

Editor’s Note: Inducing labor is not always a bad thing and there are some medical reasons for it, but as the author points out, much of the time, it is done more for convenience than it is for need.

by T.M. Hartle, NaturalNews

Pregnant mothers often anxiously await the arrival of their little one. Unfortunately, this anxious waiting has turned into an epidemic of labor induction. Scientific research has recently uncovered the reality that labor induction poses several risks to both mother and baby. In April 2011 Researchers from the Department of Psychiatry at Colorado State University published a study showing a strong relationship between pitocin induction and the incidence of ADHD. Labor induction has been linked in previous studies to increased risk of c-section, instrumental delivery, shoulder dystocia, NICU admission, and respiratory problems in the baby, among other complications. Elective induction of labor should be brought into question as research continues to increase indicating significant health risks without adequate benefit.

Researchers of the Colorado State University study concluded that there is a strong predictive relationship between pitocin in labor and subsequent ADHD development in childhood. The occurrence of ADHD in the pitocin group was 67.1% as opposed to 35.6% in the non-exposure group. The natural ebb and flow of nature is commonly overridden in our ever technology-reliant world, and often with risky results. As science continues to investigate invasive interventions in natural life events, such as childbirth, the dangers of intervening with nature are exposed.

There is a commonly held fear of birth in the medical community. Birth is a powerful, miraculous event that cannot be quantified or controlled. Induction is a seductive solution for both medical personnel and pregnant women. Doctors can induce women according to their own personal schedules and be home for dinner. Women can schedule the birth of their baby for their own convenience. Pregnant women praise modern technology and the ability to deliver early and be done with the discomforts of pregnancy. The question remains whether this is a wise option with respect to the health and wellbeing of the mother and baby.

Researchers of the pitocin study stated, ‘these findings suggest a pitocin-linked, interactive constellation of mechanisms initiates a neuro-developmental cascade that disrupts cognitive executive functioning, kindling ADHD.’ Researchers also mention concerns over deprivation of oxygen and prolonged exposure to hypertonic uterine contractions along with a combination of other factors in the development of ADHD in pitocin-exposed children. The risks of elective induction is known, and yet hospitals have failed to respond with policy changes restricting interventions for medical necessity only. Science is just beginning to understand the importance of the natural initiation of labor.

A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences revealed that a protein released from the lungs of a developing fetus initiates the cascade of chemical events leading to the initiation of labor in the mother. Research has shown failure to allow the baby to signal readiness results in increased risk of NICU admission, resuscitation, jaundice and other complications for babies. Pregnant mothers should educate themselves about the risks of elective induction and avoid pressuring their healthcare provider to induce them for convenience.

It is critically important to recognize that we may not fully understand the lifelong implications of interfering with the natural flow of pregnancy, labor and birth. The International Cesarean Awareness Network advises pregnant women to work with their practitioners to avoid induction unless there is a medical condition requiring induction of labor. This natural synergy between the mother and baby is carefully orchestrated for the baby to be born when the baby is physiologically ready to meet the world.

source:
http://www.suite101.com/content/new…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/…
http://www.chadd.org/Content/CHADD/…
http://stg.jfponline.com/Pages.asp?…
Boulvain M, Marcoux S, Bureau M, Fortier M, Fraser W. Risks of induction of labour in uncomplicated term pregnancies. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2001 Apr;15(2):131-8.

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/033259_pitocin_ADHD.html#ixzz1UbeTkJM3

by Aaron Turpen, HealthFreedomNetwork

The War on Cancer is largely a failure, despite billions of dollars being spent every year and a continually-growing number of cancer patients getting diagnosed. To date, the greatest advances in cancer treatment have all lead to only two things: more cancer diagnosis and slightly longer lifespans after diagnosis.

For the most part, other than more people being found to have cancer and those who are treated for it living slightly longer (often in pain), the War on Cancer has been about as effective as the War on Terror.. it’s spent a lot of money and come up with little to show for it that would be considered progress.

In fact, odds are that you’re going to get cancer by the age of 74 – higher than they are that you’ll have heart disease, even.

Here are five reasons the War on Cancer has failed:

1. Most cancers have no accepted, known cause. Nearly all cancers are likely caused by environmental toxins and manifest as complications, but mainstream science rarely accepts this as the overriding cause of cancer. This is largely due to the way that clinical trials are conducted – these trials cannot account for more than one issue, cause, or concern due to the very methods used. So saying that a “combination of toxins” caused the cancer is generally not possible.
2. Most cancer treatments attack the whole body – all cells – rather than specifically targeting the cancer. Chemotherapy is a good example of this. It’s a general killer, destroying just about everything in its path. Doctors just hope that it destroys more cancer than non-cancer. It’s like dumping bleach on red cloth and hoping it “only takes the stain out.”
3. Fads in research and reporting often become misleading or, worse, urban legends in cancer’s causes. Remember ten years ago when it was “proven” that cancer is almost always genetically derived? A few cancers are genetic in nature, but by and large, we know that most are not. Some are caused by viruses, but only a handful. Yet many people were mislead by these stories and the myth of cancer being a genetic concern – so if your mom had it, you might too – still prevails. Even insurance forms and doctor’s offices ask about “cancer history” in your family tree.
4. Animal-based tests for cancer are often inadequate and, worse, wasteful of animal life.It’s hard to argue that animal testing is not beneficial in some cases, but it’s become so common that just about everything is tested on lab animals now. Cancer is one of them. Science has, interestingly, not figured out most of the root causes of cancer (see #1), but nonetheless has become very proficient at giving it to lab animals for testing. Seem like a Catch-22 to you? You’re not alone. This one factoid has often fueled the “conspiracy theory” that cancer is man-made, but scientists and doctors don’t want to admit it. Beyond that, though, animal testing of new treatments and possible cures often fails for the same reason outlined in #1.
5. Cancer drugs, treatments, etc. almost never work beyond either prolonging life for a few extra months (which doctors considered a “success”) or by doing more of #2 – attacking everything indiscriminately. Often these treatments and drugs do both. Like most things in mainstream medicine, much of the treatment is aimed at the symptoms, not the root cause.

So what is the root cause of cancer? Nearly all of those who aren’t part of the War on Cancer’s trillions of dollar payouts agree: it’s toxic overload. Hundreds of successful treatments, derided or ignored by mainstream medicine, have proven that the same core approach nearly always works: attack the toxic overload and the cancer goes away.

Every successful cancer therapy has this as its basic premise. From colon and liver cleanses to heavy metal chelation, the ultimate goal is to rid the body of as many toxins as possible. Once that is done, nearly all forms of cancer are removed from the body naturally, by the body itself.

This is likely because, in theory at least, cancer is caused by an overactive and overtaxed immune system coupled with cells laden with toxins that become confused about their role in the body.

A recent study that surveyed mummies from ancient times found that cancer was almost unheard of then. What is different between the people of a thousand (or a few thousand) years ago and the people of today? Anatomically, we are identical. Our DNA profiles are almost 100% the same. So what was different?

Right. Lifestyle. Including exposure to toxins via diet, industry, chemicals, and other aspects of our lives that didn’t exist then. Rid the body of those toxins and you rid it of cancer.

I didn’t need a multi-million dollar research grant to figure that out. Neither should you.

A survey conducted by the Hartman Group on behalf of Boiron, a homeopathic medicine manufacturer, has found that 82% of women shoppers ages 25-70 avoid over the counter (OTC) drugs for headaches and influenza (and similar problems) as often as possible.  These women believe that these OTC drugs are not good for them and instead look for natural, alternative options.

The survey was done online and included 1,400 women in the U.S.  The participants also believe that the purity and healthfulness of medicines is very important (42%) and 31% said they pay close attention to chemical and irritation-causing content when choosing OTC medications.

Most had not, however, used a recognized homeopathic remedy (only 15%) and about the same number (14%) had given homeopathic remedies to their children in the past year.  Most responded that they did not know enough about homeopathy to consider it.

Critics will point out that the survey was conducted by a homeopathic medicine maker, so it’s “biased.”  Well, the majority of surveys done for OTC and mainstream medicine are the same way, usually paid for by a pharmaceutical or drug maker.

Related articles

• Exclusive: Fibromyalgia and Homeopathy – Perfectly Complementary (hiddenhealthscience.com)

by Sebastian Sheppis and Justin Silver
from Issue #376 of the Health Freedom Network Newsletter

The cannabis plant is both a subject of wonder and of derision. The plant is so ingrained into western culture as “evil” that its ban was included in the charter for the League of Nations and later the United Nations.

The cannabis plant family includes several plants, some of which produce tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) in quantities large enough to be absorbed by humans. Most cannabis plants are actually benign – these are commonly known as “hemp” and have been grown for most of known human civilization. THC-producing plants are commonly called “marijuana” in the U.S. and have varying levels of THC in them according to their strain (hybrid type).

The Politics of Pot

For centuries, cannabis has had known medicinal uses, but the scientific exploration of those uses has been stilted by political opposition and societal pressures against marijuana as a street drug. Although little evidence exists to show cannabis as a negative recreational substance – especially as compared to the effects of alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, and other drugs both legal and not – the push to keep it as an illicit substance remains.

Despite this, while illegal in all parts of the world, cannabis has been decriminalized in many areas and legalized as medication in others. Currently, cannabis as a medicine (or for personal use) is legal in Austria, Canada, Finland, Germany, Israel, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and 15 states plus the District of Columbia in the United States.

Cannabis In Science

The discovery of cannabinoids, receptors in most animals, including humans, that react specifically with the compounds present in cananbis, changed the way medical science looked at marijuana as medicine. This discovery in the 1990s lead to a wide scale research push into the beneficial uses (and possible synthesis) of cannabis and its active compounds. In 2010, more than 2,500 reputable scientific studies about cannabis were published world wide.

Cannabis has been found to be beneficial for the amelioration of nausea and vomiting, stimulation of hunger, lowering of intraocular eye pressure, for relief of muscle over-stimulation (spasms), and more. In fact, the studies showing the efficacy of cannabis and cannabinoids continue to grow daily.

The compounds in cannabis or the plant or resins it produces are used to treat side effects and symptoms in AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis and others.

Using Cannabis for Medication

Public perception commonly treats marijuana use as a “hippie” or “pot head” thing with visions of young people coughing thick smoke in rooms covered in psychedelic posters and drawings. The reality is that most medicinal cannabis users do smoke, but often they use vaporizers, water filtration systems (bongs or hookas), etc.

While the press seems enamored with the more creative (but generally less effective) cannabis intake methods such as “pot brownies” or THC-imbued candy and soda pop, many serious medical users are finding more potent and less debilitating ways to ingest their medication.

A growing number of medicinal users, however, are getting right to the compounds that do the most good by distilling or otherwise processing cannabis buds and resins to create pastes, cremes, tinctures, and other ways of using the medicine without smoking or even getting the associated high (psychoactive effects).

Pharmaceutical companies, by the same token, are working on both synthetic and naturally-derived options for isolating and distributing cannabinoids as pills. While the practice is controversial, it is lending some legitimacy to the idea of medical cannabis in the wider medical community.

The Future of Medical Marijuana

Although the current market and science behind cannabis as a medicinal plant is still young, the fundamentals behind how it works and why it works have been ironed out enough that refuting it as a medication is to ignore science. Yet those who continue to refute its medicinal properties are either in the scientific establishment themselves (often as medical practitioners) or attempt to cite scientific backing for their claims.

Although some side effects and psychological possibilities may exist for cannabinoids, these are far fewer and less severe than the same side effects for most pharmaceuticals that are legally on the market. Many of the so-called studies that claim marijuana has extreme adverse effects, such as schizophrenia in teenagers, are fraught with bad methodology or questionable conclusions and are what the medical industry calls “proof of preconception” – they are created merely to “prove” a preconceived notion.

Sadly, that latter event is something that happens all too often in today’s politically-charged science, especially in medicine.

Sebastian Scheppis and Justin Silver are the owners of CannaCentral.com, a medical marijuana directory and community website. The site features location-based search tools for strains and dispensaries, useful medical and clinic information and more.

 

by Aaron Turpen, Health Freedom Network Newsletter #374

Recent studies have shown that Vitamin D may play a much bigger role in cancer and other chronic disease prevention than previously thought. Scientists at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha published findings in the journal Anticancer Research that most people are not getting nearly enough Vitamin D in their diet.

The study involved thousands of volunteers who took supplements containing between 1,000 and 10,000 international units (IU) of Vitamin D daily. The scientists tested the blood of those in the study regularly, looking for the most common form of D in the blood stream – 25-vitamin D. They found that in order to maintain healthy levels in the blood, patients needed from 4,000 to 8,000 IU of supplement daily.

Maintaining this has been shown to reduce the risks of several diseases, including cancers, degenerative bone diseases, and some neurological diseases, by half.

Yet the government and most mainstream recommendations call for only 400 IU per day for adults. Ten times less than the minimum the study found necessary. Another finding in the research was that 90% of participants were Vitamin D deficient at the outset.

Dr. Cedric Garland of the UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center says that the low 400 IU daily intake is only just enough to prevent rickets – a horrible childhood bone deficiency. Those low levels, however, do little else in terms of prevention or healing.

The reasons for keeping Vitamin D information from the public are obvious. The government’s low recommendations – including a ridiculous claim from the Institute of Medicine that this nutrient has little to do with anything chronic and that most Americans get plenty of it for their needs – have a purpose.

Should the public understand how this nutrient works to stabilize and improve so many bodily functions, it would be only a matter of weeks before the pharmaceutical industry and much of the medical establishment began to go bankrupt. In fact, it’s possibly the number one threat to the Sick Care Industry and its profits. Billions of dollars in research grants, public donations, and modern medicine scare campaigns would be lost as well.

Finally, and most importantly, the study shot down the myth that too much Vitamin D is “toxic.” Participants who were taking 10,000 or more IU daily showed no toxicity. The best part? Vitamin D is FREE – you just need to get a little sun – and supplements are very cheap and broadly available.

by Aaron Turpen, Health Freedom Network Newsletter Editor (via Truth2America)

Several states, including Nevada and North Carolina, have introduced legislation that would license and control (and ultimately outlaw) non-mainstream health practices. These include alternative medical treatments such as acupuncture, Ayurveda, holistic medicine, homeopathy, etc.

There are several reasons for this push, not the least of which is pressure from mainstream medicine as it sees more and more people going to alternatives they like to call “complementary and alternative medicine” or CAM. Doctors use this term in a semi-derisive manner to refer to things like acupuncture and the like. They prefer CAM because it implies that these are add-on medical treatments rather than replacements for western (supposedly) science-based medical practice.

The bills function by creating licensing boards that get to decide who can and can’t practice any form of regulated health care in the state. Like doctors, nurses, and even morticians, this would put alternative health practitioners at the mercy of overseers who may or may not be sympathetic to the type of practice the practitioners use.

This is the first step towards regulating what those health and wellness professionals can and can’t say, prescribe, or use for treatment.

The bills, of course, are being touted as a way to “bring disparate medical practices together” and “regulate alternative practitioners for public safety.” They’ll do neither.

The mainstream medical press has been rife lately with reports of what they consider to be malpractice and false claims by alternative medical supporters. The news loves to show the mother whose child dies because she refused cancer treatments that, incidentally, would not have saved the child either – only prolonged the suffering. But the news does not show people like the woman featured in Issue #375 of theHealth Freedom Network Newsletter, Jessica Ainscough, who is using an alternative called the Gerson Therapy to combat her cancer (she’s winning).

The fight over who gets to decide what type of medical treatment and wellness options you have is continual. The control freaks who make up our government are intent on regulating every aspect of our lives, including (and especially) health options.

It’s time for the American people to stand up, refuse, and resist these attempts to nanny our lives. It’s time for us to take back our freedom to choose for ourselves!