Monday, 30 November 2015

What is a ropeworm?

What is a Ropeworm?

Ropeworm, most likely you have never heard ropeworm. What is it? Is it some far-away treat, that we don't need to worry about? Well I wish!!!
My first encouter of ropeworm came some 2 years ago, after being tested positive of having one (by bioresonance testing). I had had strange pains in the lower-back and they were getting worse. Finally the pains were in the area of spinal cord. I got scared since I could feel difficulty in getting air. Obviously what ever I had was now in my spinal cord. How scary!

After being tested and doing research on the topic and getting some professional help, I started eliminating the ropeworm and it's "sisters", medusas. It has been a long journey, but bit by bit I've managed to get rid of them... well almost.

So where does this worm come from? It's origin is unknown and it is pretty new problem. But the problem is that it is spread all over. All over where exactly? Ropeworm and the medusa that is one format of it, is now in many tabwaters. Yes tabwater, you read it correctly. It is found in tabwater in the Northern countries in Italy, in Denmark, Sweden and Finland at least. Most likely in many other contries, since the problem is so widely spread.

How do we know Ropeworm is widely spread?

We can know it by reading conversations from all over the world with people having the same problem.

One format of the ropeworm, called medusa, is diagnozed by the medical world as a tumor called Pseudomyxoma peritonei. It is often called as "jellytype of tumor" and often is found in the stomach or colon area. It seems to be widely spread at the moment and I know of 3 persons that have gone through sugery for removing the "tumor". I als, o heard of a mother of a friend in Italy that had a "medusa in the nose". Yes you read it correctly, medusa in the nose. The local (Italian) doctors had said that this is a common problem in Italy. The medusa was operated.

I have noticed that many complain about strange stomach pain. This seems to be the case in several contries. After being tested, one by one these cases have turned out to be some format of this ropeworm epidemic, normally the ropeworm stage of the problem. This is causes very big pain for some people since the ropeworm can grow several meters long and can be some 1-1cm diameter.

What have I learned from this "journey" of trying to get rid of ropeworm and the medusas that they cause. I have learned to be 100% absolutist with the tab-water. I no longer drink the tab-water anywhere I go, not even 1 small drop. I use a Mini Waterfilter, which I have tested several times and found the water to be free of the different formats of the ropeworm. I do zap the water after filtering it, just in case. (Zapping means electronically treating the water by using 1000 Herz to eliminate pathogens from the water/food.) I always take my own water with me when going out. I no longer drink coffee even in a cafeteria without my zapper with me. I don't take risks, since eliminating the ropeworms is a costly and difficult road so why do it if we expose ourselves with it again and again.

How is that the water can have such a medusa and I don't see it?

Recently it was discovered that water holds an "imprint" of the materials it has been in contact with. So you don't actually need to see a whole "medusa" in the water for it to have the DNA of the medusa. So just having the DNA is enough.

What can you do to get rid of the ropeworm?

Well, it is pretty difficult. Firstly you need to stop drinking the tab-water and make sure you boil the tab-water for 3 minutes at the minimum if you have no other choice but the drink the tab-water.

Secondly get your self tested with bioresonance testing by a therapist who knows about this problem (make sure of it beforehand when making the appointment).

If the problem is in the colon then many have gotten help with the Colon Cleanse Kit by Blueherbs (if you're in EU or Blessend Herbs if you're in US. By doing the 5 day fasting with the kit, many have gotten out the actual ropeworm (it is thought to be a viscose plaque, but is the big ropeworm in reality).

Many have used Sutherlandia product from
with good results. What ever you do remember there is no quick fix, and you have to use the remedies for a longer period to get rid of the problem. Keep tract by regular testing.

 More information of the Ropeworm and Medusa you can find from here!

Wednesday, 15 May 2013

How to stay healthy? Million dollar question!

Lately I've been thinking much of different methods of keeping our body clean. We are bombarded with toxins from all over - air, water, food. Question is, how can we stay healthy in this bad environment? The key is eliminating toxins from our body. We cannot prevent toxins, but we can help our body to eliminate them better.

What is the connection of toxins and sicknesses?

Clean body is a healthy body. The more toxins we have in our body the more sick we are. For example tumors are body's way of hiding toxins your body is not able to eliminate by itself. Slow thyroid is a sign of thyroid-clan being too toxic to be able to work properly. Immune deficiency - HIV - is a sign of too much benzene in your body (check out Dr. Hulda Clark's book Cure for AIDS).

What is the key to eliminating toxins from our body?

The key to staying healthy is our colon. Maybe you've heard the old saying "Death lives in the colon". That means if your colon is not working properly and is not clean, you are not healthy and are exposed to death-causing sicknesses. Other important functions are sweating, so make sure you exercise regularly and use sauna as often as possible.

What can you do to help your colon to work better?

Number 1. is definitely DRINK A LOT OF LIQUIDS!!! Most people do not drink enough, or then drink sugary "toxins" like CocaCola or similar. These are not helping your thirst but are causing even more toxins to accumulate (softdrinks are a source of chemicals like benzene). Drink herbal-tee's and boiled water (do not drink tap-water without boiling it first, tap-water is one source of toxins (don't believe all you are told by the officials). According to Dr. Robert Young and his PH-method we should drink even 1liter per every 15 kilos of weight. This will help you detoxify your body! Without enough liquids you might have problems with your bowel movement! Many herbal-teas help you eliminate toxins.

Number 2. is to have enough good bacterias in your colon! According to one study with mice, it took 1 Million Salmonella bacterias to start an infection. But after giving mice antibiotics it only took 10 Salmonella bacterias to start an infection. Imagine what a difference, just because of an antibiotics. So key is to have a good bacterial balance in your colon. How can you achieve it? Eat sower-cabbage and other fermented vegetables DAILY!!!! They are not only helping you to achieve a good bacterial-balance in your colon, but also adding fiber in your colon. Use products like Molkosan (by Vogel) Valmarin daily to add good bacterias to your colon. They speed up the elimination of toxins anyway. Do not use antibiotics, but find other ways to treat yourself with natural antibiotics like Tee Tree oil, Cats Claw, Grapefruid seed oil, Colloidal Silver, homeopathic antibiotics etc.

Number 3. Add FIBER in your diet! Vegetables are a good source of fiber, eat them several times a day. Eat a smoothy every day and add linen seeds and nuts in your daily smoothies (smoothy is a good snack in the afternoon in between lunch and dinner). Add Curcuma (turmeric) a in your smoothies. Curcuma is an excellent natural antibiotic and pain-relief remedy. You can also add cinnamon in the smoothy since it has a positive effect in your blood-sugar. Use risemilk or oatmilk instead of cow-milk (milk products add toxins in your liver).

Number 4. Use natural products that cause your bowel to work better.
- Aloe juice (to an empty stomach in the morning)
- Cold-pressed COCONUT OIL (use daily 1-2 tea-spoons) (Get up to 10$ off from first order) NOTE!!! If you have a slow thyroid then this will fasten your thyroid-function and you might need to readjust your thyroid-medication.
- PH-powders (alkaline body eliminates toxins better than acid one)
These are for example:
- Drink hot lemon-water in the morning (you can add some honey) to an empty stomach
- Salt-flush in the morning (drink first thing in the morning 1 liter of frizzy-water with 1-2 teaspoons of seasalt) an EXCELLENT color-cleaner!!!
- Bentonite Clay powder - use 2-3 times a day for cleaning up your cut! This has been used by african and asian women for centuries. Very effective method for cleaning up your cut! (Get up to 10$ off from your first order by using this CouponCode QSG318 or use this link to order)

Number 5. Eat foods that clean your body. Vegetables and fruits are excellent. Use especially vegetables like celery, parsley, cucumber, onions, garlic, ginger. Use whole rise regularly rather than pasta or potatoes. Eat berries and fruits. Eat pineapple and papaya (with it's seeds). An excellent drink is pineapple-whole papaya, juice (non sweetened) and gin and ice. This drink is a good parasite-killer and is good to drink it at least during one day each month. Remember to eat every 3-4 hours to keep your bowel working (of cause you must eat smaller portions when eating several times during the day).

Number 6. Have regular cleanse weeks? If you are not up to a real fast (like Master Cleanse with lemon, cayenne pepper and maple syrup) you can also keep a rise-week (eat whole rise and vegetables only, no meat, no grains) or simply eat vegetables for 1-2 weeks. Have a cleanse when ever you feel tired, but at least twice a month. User enemas during your cleanse-weeks to cleanse your colon more effectively.

Make a liver-cleanse a regular part of your toxin-elimination program! Liver-cleanse instructions Keeping your liver clean will help you in your toxin elimination.

Remember the more methods you add into your regular program, the more effective you are in your toxin elimination and the more healthier you are! Can you implement all of these methods into your regular program? Are you afraid that you'll forget to do these? Why not print this article and put it on your fridge-door! Then you cannot forget!

If you liked the article please leave a comment!

- Amy

Monday, 8 August 2011

The Stunning Effect of This Single Vitamin on CANCER...

Hi everyone,

I had to share this article with you! This is one of those articles showing the hypocrisy of the FDA (Food and drug association). Something I have brought out earlier, unjust treatment of natural ways of treating sicknesses. Please read and leave a comment to tell me what you think!


By Dr. Joseph Mercola
What if a cure for cancer has been right here all along? What if the very agency charged with protecting your health is the one keeping you from that cure?

A Lawless, Rogue Agency Out of Control

Ten years ago a former New York State assemblyman, Daniel Haley, wrote a scathing exposé on how the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) systematically shuts the door on effective and non-toxic products, many for cancer.
The FDA is the chief agency in charge of protecting and promoting Americans' health and safety. But in 10 stunning, true stories in his book, "The Politics of Healing," Haley describes how the FDA has suppressed and banned natural health cures – eight of them for cancer. He later wrote about two additional cancer cures that worked, which the FDA also disallowed.
The FDA even admitted that one of these treatments, discovered by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, was successful with some of the most incurable forms of cancer. I shared this with you in a recent article that showed his film, but stories like this are far too common, and you can't help but wonder how many people have died while the FDA denied them cancer treatments that work.
Haley brazenly calls the FDA a rogue, out of control agency that has lied in Congressional testimonies, deliberately falsified data, and destroyed evidence to prohibit cures like Burzynki's from coming to market. The FDA's loyalties are to the drug industry, not to individuals, Haley says.
His claims mirror those of Dr. David Graham, who once worked in the FDA's Office of Drug Safety. In 2004 Dr. Graham blew the whistle on six drugs that were harming people, including Vioxx, but instead of acting on his warnings, Graham's superiors pulled him off his job. He fought back in a PBS television special when he told how he'd been chastised at the FDA for thinking the FDA served the public. The "FDA is there to serve the drug industry," Graham said his supervisors told him.

'Virtually Every' Drug Company Now Targeting Cancer Therapies

Today, the FDA continues to serve its client, Big Pharma, by making sure that toxic chemotherapy, along with surgery and radiation, are the only cancer treatment options legally available to you. This industry is huge, with 139 cancer treatment drugs in the pipeline just for women alone. All told there are over 900 experimental cancer therapies under investigation. No wonder so many pharmaceutical companies are ramping up their cancer drug research!
According to the New York Times:
"Virtually every large pharmaceutical company seems to have discovered cancer, and a substantial portion of the smaller biotechnology companies are focused on it as well. Together, the companies are pouring billions of dollars into developing cancer drugs."
Note they said drugs, not cures. That's because this industry isn't set up for a cure, even though they say that's what they're looking for. It's also why economic forecasts predict 20 million new cancers by 2025, with the $50 billion-a-year cancer treatment business increasing by 15 percent a year. Pfizer alone projects its annual cancer drug returns will be $11 billion by 2018.

The Truth about Vitamin D

Everyone's talking about vitamin D right now, especially since the Institute of Medicine's Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) updated their recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for it. The truth is that most Americans are deficient in vitamin D, and studies show that vitamin D supplementation can both prevent and kill many infections and diseases, including cancer.
Vitamin D isn't actually a vitamin, although scientists refer to it as such. It's actually a steroid hormone that you get from sun exposure, food sources and/or supplementation. The term refers to either vitamin D2 or D3, but according to the National Vitamin D Council, D3 (chemical name 25-hydroxy vitamin D) is real vitamin D, and is the same substance produced naturally through your skin by sun exposure.
Older research appears at odds on whether your body cares which form of D it's getting. But a study in the January 2011 Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism found that D3 is 87 percent more effective than D2, and is the preferred form for treating vitamin D deficiency. It's measured in international units (IU's) in nanograms per milliliter, or ng/mL. The Vitamin D Council believes that a person's D3 levels should be at least 50 ng/mLfor your body to function properly. (To determine whether you might be deficient, you need to get your vitamin D levels tested, and ideally, you'll want to get tested regularly thereafter to ensure you're maintaining optimal levels year-round.)
Fourteen famous vitamin D researchers gave the FNB this information, but the FNB apparently ignored the information that the researchers presented because their "updated" RDA levels ended up being so pitifully low that it's doubtful it can significantly impact Americans' deficiency, let alone fight off diseases like cancer and heart disease.

Experts Protest 'Impossible' New RDA Levels

Depending on your age, the new recommendations are 600 to 800 IUs a day for adults and between zero and 600 IUs a day for children. The FNB also said that taking vitamin D in amounts of 10,000 IUs or more could be dangerous – but that's ridiculous, seeing that a 30-minute dose of sunshine can give an adult more than 10,000 IUs! Since countless studies indicate that much higher levels of vitamin D are required for optimal health, it's no surprise that experts lost no time denouncing the FNB's recommendations.
"It's almost impossible to significantly raise your vitamin D levels when supplementing (at the FNB levels)," the Vitamin D Council posted on its website.

Hidden Agendas and Conflicts of Interest

Suspecting that conflicts of interest and hidden agendas played a part in this, the Vitamin D Council filed Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests so they could examine the FNB's notes on the process. They're still waiting on an answer, but I'm wondering if it doesn't have something to do with the fact that over 1,350 clinical trials on vitamin D are currently being conducted by major drug companies, all based on the prevention or cure of many illnesses and diseases, including 388 for cancer.
Yes, cancer.
From breast to prostate, to colorectal to brain cancers, and even basal cell carcinoma (skin cancer), Drug companies such as Pfizer and Merck are currently either sponsoring or collaborating on clinical trials based on the premise that vitamin D administered orally, intravenously or topically (for skin cancer) may either prevent or cure cancer. Cancer foundations and institutes are all in on the clinical study game as well, such as the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. Even the U.S. Department of Defense and the Department of Veteran Affairs are studying ways to prevent and cure cancer with vitamin D!
What's really interesting is that several of these studies are using vitamin D in amounts of 50,000 IUs a day or more – which flies strongly in the face of the FNB's claims that self-supplementing with 10,000 could be dangerous to your health. Since recent studies show that supplements of up to 40,000 IUs a day don't appear to be toxic, and that doses as low as 400 IUs a day are too low to even maintain skeletal health, let alone prevent cancer,

The FDA's Definition of Drug vs. Supplement

Over 800 studies already show that vitamin D could have cancer-prevention and/or treatment possibilities. But the problem is that it's a natural substance that can't be patented as a simple supplement, meaning there's no real revenue in it, compared to a prescription brand drug. That's why many drug studies involving vitamins of any kind hinge on how the FDA defines drugs and supplements.
A drug is defined as a product meant for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of a disease. A supplement is defined as a product that is meant to simply "supplement" or "enhance" a normal diet within the daily allowances recommended by the FDA. Drugs – and retailers who sell supplements are not allowed to tell you that vitamin D can possibly "prevent, mitigate or cure" cancer without having the FDA accuse them of selling a drug that hasn't been approved through the proper FDA process.

Again, Follow the Money if You Want to Know the Truth

That process of getting a drug to market costs an average $359 million and takes nearly 10 years– with a good portion of the money going directly to the FDA through user fees. Over the years these fees have become a major funding source for the FDA. What drug companies get in return is faster FDA reviews and drug approvals.
As a result, a kind of you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours scenario has ensued, with drug companies maintaining major leverage over the FDA when it comes to protecting their revenue sources, including making sure the $60 billion-a-year supplement business doesn't get in the way of drug sales. The history of FDA laws and regulations on file at Harvard Law School, explains how years ago an FDA task force long ago established this policy
"… to ensure that the presence of dietary supplements on the market does not act as a disincentive to drug development."
So how does this relate to too-low RDA levels for vitamin D?
A look at the clinical trials shows that most of them involve "high-potency" D3 supplements, which puts them in the drug category if it turns out they can mitigate, treat or cure cancer. And that means they can be patented – and sold to you as prescriptions at sky-high prices.

Drug Companies Are Elbowing Their Way into Your Healthcare Plan

Another way that Big Pharma has moved in on the cancer industry is through pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), which administer drug benefits for about 95 percent of all patients with prescription drug coverage. PBMs decide which drugs flow through the healthcare system. Supposedly they choose the best drugs and prices for your plan. But what if I told you that the businesses that sell the drugs have been helping to decide which drugs your PBM pays for?
Regulators have been working hard to nip conflicts of interest in the bud, but over the years numerous court cases have shown that drug companies and PBMs working together has led to higher prices and limited drug choices – and allegations of price-setting through secret deals with pharmaceutical companies.

Official Agencies Wedded to Toxic Chemotherapy

I have an employee who was diagnosed with breast cancer last year. After her mastectomy, she was told she had several months of chemotherapy and radiation ahead of her. But she sought a second opinion at a renowned cancer treatment center – and learned that chemotherapy was NOT going to be part of her treatment plan because her type of cancer doesn't respond to chemotherapy.
"And since chemo is poison, why would we want to poison you for no reason?" the oncologist told her.
That's right – a person in the business of "selling" cancer treatment actually said he wasn't going to poison her "for no reason" – something I consider unusual in an industry that is wedded to toxic chemotherapy. The employee was pronounced cancer-free four months later, without chemo or radiation, which may leave you wondering, as it did me, how many patients die every year from toxic chemotherapy they got but didn't need?
Some experts believe that as much as 25 percent, or more, of patients who undergo chemotherapy are killed by it. Dr. Vincent Speckhart, a former U.S. Air Force flight surgeon and oncologist, was so concerned about deaths from chemo that he told a Congressional committee:
"After 13 years of using FDA-approved chemotherapy protocols, I concluded that such therapies were extremely toxic, poorly tolerated, and not effective in prolonging survival in most solid tumors of adults. In 1983, my patients began to request therapies other than chemotherapy. I agreed, and without even knowing it, I became an 'alternative practitioner' and was red-flagged by opponents of this form of therapy."
In other words, if you're a physician who divorces the status quo of cancer treatment, you'd better watch out. In his book, Haley talks about how this "gross government intrusion into the healing arts," costs thousands – and perhaps millions – of lives and facilitates the drug industry by squelching people like Dr. Speckhart and Burzynski.

Arm Yourself with Knowledge to Protect Your Healthcare Freedom

It doesn't help that the FDA as well as other "official cancer medicine" agencies have a swinging door of employees going back forth between the agency and Big Pharma to work. In a new book, "National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest," former Cancer Prevention Coalition president Dr. Samuel S. Epstein shows just how bad the conflicts are.
Quoting former NCI director Samuel Broder, Epstein says "the NCI has become a government pharmaceutical company." And the ACS, Epstein says, is more interested in "accumulating wealth than saving lives." With close ties to cancer treatment businesses, the ACS has a track record that "clearly reflects conflicts of interest" when it comes to cancer treatment policies and prevention strategies, Epstein alleges.
And so it goes… So, what you can do to protect yourself from getting cancer, or what can you do if you already have it? The good news is that knowledge is power, and there are things you can do for yourself, right now, not to only to prevent cancer, but to make sure you have the right cancer treatment if you do get it.
Because cancer is almost wholly a man-made disease, it's especially important to recognize that you do have power over many things that could cause you to get cancer. Taking control of your health will put you in a position to make the best health decisions possible if you do get cancer.
Here's a list to get you started on a cancer prevention plan:
  1. Normalize your vitamin D levels with safe amounts of sun exposure. This works primarily by optimizing your vitamin D level. Ideally, monitor your vitamin D levels throughout the year.
  2. Control your insulin levels by limiting your intake of processed foods and sugars/fructose as much as possible.
  3. Get appropriate amounts of animal-based omega-3 fats.
  4. Get appropriate exercise. One of the primary reasons exercise works is that it drives your insulin levels down. Controlling insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risks.
  5. Eat according to your nutritional type. The potent anti-cancer effects of this principle are very much underappreciated. When we treat cancer patients in our clinic this is one of the most powerful anti-cancer strategies we have.
  6. Have a tool to permanently erase the neurological short-circuiting that can activate cancer genes. Even the CDC states that 85 percent of disease is caused by emotions. It is likely that this factor may be more important than all the other physical ones listed here, so make sure this is addressed. My particular favorite tool for this purpose, as you may know, is the Emotional Freedom Technique.
  7. Only 25 percent of people eat enough vegetables, so by all means eat as many vegetables as you are comfortable with. Ideally, they should be fresh and organic. Cruciferous vegetables in particular have been identified as having potent anti-cancer properties. Remember that carb nutritional types may need up to 300 percent more vegetables than protein nutritional types.
  8. Maintain an ideal body weight.
  9. Get enough high-quality sleep.
  10. Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, household chemical cleaners, synthetic air fresheners and air pollution.
  11. Reduce your use of cell phones and other wireless technologies, and implement as many safety strategies as possible if/when you cannot avoid their use.
  12. Boil, poach or steam your foods, rather than frying or charbroiling them.
You also can help by voicing your opposition to the FDA's censorship of alternative cancer treatments by sending a letter to your Congressional representatives and asking them to support H.R. 1364, a bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act concerning the distribution of information on legitimate scientific research in connection with foods and dietary supplements. Call or write your Congressman now, and stop the censorship of your right to alternative cancer therapies and possibly a cure.

Friday, 6 May 2011

SALT, SALT AND MORE SALT!!! Don't believe "Salt is bad for you"! It's another fraud!

The following is a blog post written by Dr. Robert O.Young:


"All sickness and disease conditions, including all cancers show a deficiency in blood plasma sodium." Dr. Robert O. Young

Salt is GOOD for you: Eating more could even lower the chances of heart disease.

For years, doctors have been telling us that too much salt is bad for us. Until now.
A study claims that cutting down on salt can actually increase the risk of dying from a heart attack or a stroke.

The research has left nutritionists scratching their heads.

Its findings indicate that those who eat the least sodium – about one teaspoon a day – don’t show any health advantage over those who eat the most.

Long-term effects: In the eight-year study, people with the lowest salt intake had the highest rate of death from heart disease

In the eight-year study, people with the lowest salt intake had the highest rate of death from heart disease!

In fact, those with less salty diets actually had slightly higher death rates from heart disease.

The study, which followed 3,681 healthy European men and women aged 60 or younger, for about eight years, also found that above-average salt intake did not appear to increase the danger of developing high blood pressure.
The report, in the latest issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, was released just three months after the U.S. government launched a public health campaign urging restaurants and food manufacturers to cut down on their use of salt.

Sodium was measured in the urine of those taking part, at the beginning and end of the study.

A little more than six per cent of the participants suffered a heart attack, a stroke or some other cardiovascular emergency during the eight years. About a third of these were fatal.

Those who consumed the least salt had a 56 per cent higher risk of death from a heart attack or stroke compared with those who consumed the most. This was even after obesity, cholesterol levels, smoking, diabetes and other risk factors were taken into account.
There were 50 deaths in the third of participants with the lowest salt consumption, 24 in the third with medium intake and just ten deaths in those with the highest salt levels.

The scientists did not have a firm explanation for their results, but they reportedly speculated that low levels of salt in the body could cause more stress in the nervous system, decrease sensitivity to insulin and affect hormones that control blood pressure and sodium absorption.

Read more:


When you are tired and/or fatigued and need energy that is the need for salt. All sugar cravings are the need for salt.

Salt is the ion of life in which all energy is transported. Without salt there is no life.

Tuesday, 26 April 2011

Cancer Research - A Super Fraud?

This is something I wanted to share with you all. I hope you read this! 

Cancer Research - A Super Fraud?  by Robert Ryan, B.Sc.

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner).
Have you ever wondered why, despite the billions of dollars spent on cancer research over many decades, and the constant promise of a cure which is forever "just around the corner", cancer continues to increase?

Cancer Is Increasing

Once quite rare, cancer is now the second major cause of death in Western countries such as Australia, the U.S.A. and the United Kingdom. In the early 1940s cancer accounted for 12% of Australian deaths. (1) By 1992 this figure had climbed to 25.9% of Australian deaths. (2) The increasing trend of cancer deaths and incidence is typical of most Western nations. It has been said that this increase in cancer is just due to the fact that people now live longer than their ancestors did, and that therefore the increase of cancer is merely due to the fact that more people are living to be older and thereby have a greater chance of contracting cancer. However, this argument is disproved by the fact that cancer is also increasing in younger age groups, as well as by the findings of numerous population studies which have linked various life-style factors of particular cultures to the particular forms of cancer that are predominant there.

The Orthodox "War on Cancer" Has Failed

"My overall assessment is that the national cancer programme must be judged a qualified failure" Dr. John Bailer, who spent 20 years on the staff of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and was editor of its journal. (3) Dr. Bailer also says: "The five year survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a total failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before . . . More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being 'cured'. When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly."
A 1986 report in the New England Journal of Medicine assessed progress against cancer in the United States during the years 1950 to 1982. Despite progress against some rare forms of cancer, which account for 1 to 2 per cent of total deaths caused by the disease, the report found that the overall death rate had increased substantially since 1950: "The main conclusion we draw is that some 35 years of intense effort focussed largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure." The report further concluded that ". . . we are losing the war against cancer" and argued for a shift in emphasis towards prevention if there is to be substantial progress. (4)

Most Cancer IS Preventable

According to the International Agency for Research in Cancer "...80-90 per cent of human cancer is determined environmentally and thus theoretically avoidable." (5) Environmental causes of cancer include lifestyle factors such as smoking, a diet high in animal products and low in fresh fruit & vegetables, excessive exposure to sunlight, food additives, alcohol, workplace hazards, pollution, electromagnetic radiation, and even certain pharmaceutical drugs and medical procedures. But unfortunately, as expressed by medical historian Hans Ruesch, "Despite the general recognition that 85 per cent of all cancers is caused by environmental influences, less than 10 per cent of the (U.S.) National Cancer Institute budget is given to environmental causes. And despite the recognition that the majority of environmental causes are linked to nutrition, less than 1 per cent of the National Cancer Institute budget is devoted to nutrition studies. And even that small amount had to be forced on the Institute by a special amendment of the National Cancer Act in 1974." (6)

Prevention - Not Profitable to Industry

According to Dr. Robert Sharpe, " . . . in our culture treating disease is enormously profitable, preventing it is not. In 1985 the U.S., Western Europe and Japanese market in cancer therapies was estimated at over 3.2 billion pounds with the 'market' showing a steady annual rise of 10 per cent over the past five years. Preventing the disease benefits no one except the patient. Just as the drug industry thrives on the 'pill for every ill' mentality, so many of the leading medical charities are financially sustained by the dream of a miracle cure, just around the corner." (7)

Desired: A State of No Cure?

In fact, some analysts consider that the cancer industry is sustained by a policy of deliberately facing in the wrong direction. For instance, in the late 1970s, after studying the policies, activities, and assets of the major U.S. cancer institutions, the investigative reporters Robert Houston and Gary Null concluded that these institutions had become self-perpetuating organisations whose survival depended on the state of no cure. They wrote, "a solution to cancer would mean the termination of research programs, the obsolescence of skills, the end of dreams of personal glory, triumph over cancer would dry up contributions to self-perpetuating charities and cut off funding from Congress, it would mortally threaten the present clinical establishments by rendering obsolete the expensive surgical, radiological and chemotherapeutic treatments in which so much money, training and equipment is invested. Such fear, however unconscious, may result in resistance and hostility to alternative approaches in proportion as they are therapeutically promising. The new therapy must be disbelieved, denied, discouraged and disallowed at all costs, regardless of actual testing results, and preferably without any testing at all. As we shall see, this pattern has in actuality occurred repeatedly, and almost consistently." (8) Indeed, many people around the world consider that they have been cured by therapies which were 'blacklisted' by the major cancer organisations.
Does this mean that ALL of the people who work in the cancer research industry are consciously part of a conspiracy to hold back a cure for cancer? Author G.Edward Griffin explains ". . . let's face it, these people die from cancer like everybody else. . . [I]t's obvious that these people are not consciously holding back a control for cancer. It does mean, however, that the [pharmaceutical-chemical] cartel's medical monopoly has created a climate of bias in our educational system, in which scientific truth often is sacrificed to vested interests . . . [I]f the money is coming from drug companies, or indirectly from drug companies, the impetus is in the direction of drug research. That doesn't mean somebody blew the whistle and said "hey, don't research nutrition!" It just means that nobody is financing nutrition research. So it is a bias where scientific truth often is obscured by vested interest." (9) This point is similarly expressed by Dr. Sydney Singer: "Researchers are like prostitutes. They work for grant money. If there is no money for the projects they are personally interested in, they go where there is money. Their incomes come directly from their grants, not from the universities. And they want to please the granting source to get more grants in the future. Their careers depend on it." (10)

Money Spent on Fraudulent Research?

A large portion of money donated to cancer research by the public is spent on animal research which has, since its inception, been widely condemned as a waste of time and resources. For instance, consider the 1981 Congressional Testimony by Dr. Irwin Bross, former director of the Sloan-Kettering, the largest cancer research institute in the world, and then Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research, Bufallo, NY: "The uselessness of most of the animal model studies is less well known. For example, the discovery of chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of human cancer is widely-heralded as a triumph due to use of animal model systems. However, here again, these exaggerated claims are coming from or are endorsed by the same people who get the federal dollars for animal research. There is little, if any, factual evidence that would support these claims. Indeed, while conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance either in the prevention or treatment of human cancer. For instance, practically all of the chemotherapeutic agents which are of value in the treatment of human cancer were found in a clinical context rather than in animal studies." (11)
In fact, many substances which cause cancer in humans are marketed as "safe" on the basis of animal tests. As expressed by Dr. Werner Hartinger of Germany, in regard to cancer-causing products of the pharmaceutical-petro-chemical industry, "Their constant consumption is legalised on the basis of misleading animal experiments . . . which seduce the consumer into a false sense of security." (12)

Imagine What Could Be Achieved

The next time you are asked to donate to a cancer organisation, bear in mind that your money will be used to sustain an industry which has been deemed by many eminent scientists as a qualified failure and by others, as a complete fraud. If you would like to make a difference, inform these organisations that you won't donate to them until they change their approach to one which is focussed on prevention and study of the human condition. We have the power to change things by making their present approach unprofitable. It is only through our charitable donations and taxes that these institutions survive on their present unproductive path.
Return to the Top

Copyright 1997 by the Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research,
This article may be copied or distributed, provided the copyright and disclaimer messages are clearly attached.
Disclaimer: This article is presented for educational purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for professional or medical advice. CAFMR disclaims all liability to any person arising directly or indirectly from the use of the information provided.


  1. d'Espaignet, E.T. et al., Trends in Australian Mortality 1921-1988, Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS), Canberra, 1991, p. 33
  2. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Causes of Death, Australia 1992, ABS, Canberra, 1993, p.1
  3. Dr. Bailer, speaking at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in May 1985, as quoted in Bette Overall, Animal Research Takes Lives - Humans and Animals BOTH Suffer, NZAVS, 1993, p.132
  4. Robert Sharpe, The Cruel Deception, Thorsons Publishing Group, Wellingborough, U.K. 1988, p.47
  5. Robert Sharpe, op. cit. 1988, p.47
  6. Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress - the Great Medical Fraud, CIVIS, Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland, 1992, p.77
  7. Robert Sharpe, op. cit. 1988, p.65
  8. as quoted in Hans Ruesch, op.cit. 1992, p.65-66
  9. Edward Griffin, The Politics of Cancer, (audio cassette) American Media, 1975 available from CAFMR $14.
  10. Sydney Singer, Medical Demystification (M.D.) Report, Vol.1 No.1 p.5., Medical Demystification Crusade, 1992, CA, U.S.A.
  11. Irwin Bross, as quoted in Robert Sharpe, op.cit., 1988 p.179
  12. Dr. Werner Hartinger, in a speech given at the 2nd International Scientific Congress of the Doctors in Britain Against Animal Experiments (D.B.A.E.), London, 24 Sept. 1992.

Friday, 24 December 2010

EU Petition for Free Access to herbal Medicine

I wanted to share with you an article from Dr. Hulda Clark Research center regarding the herbal medicine and EU laws. This clearly shows again how all is about money and the profits for the pharmaceutical companies, not about our health! Hope you enjoy this:

There has been a lot of talk in Europe lately about the Traditional Herbal Medicine Directive which will be in full effect for all 27 member states as of 1 April 2011, after a seven year transition period. It has raised a lot of concerns that many herbs will not be available any longer after this.
Let me start by explaining a little about the Directive, because there are many alarming e-mails going around which are not quite correct, saying that "all herbs will be banned" and so forth.
In the US and in Europe, medicinal claims are not legal for nutritional products, even though they are well documented scientifically. To sell the same product with a medicinal claim (which includes any preventive purposes!), it has to be registered as a new drug, the same way as any pharmaceutical drug. How costly the process to register a new drug is can be seen from the fact that the FDA only gets about two dozen applications per year. For an herb, which cannot be patented, it would be all but impossible for any small company to register it as a medicine.
The authorities' true purpose is, of course, to clearly distinguish between foods which are "useless for medicinal purposes" and medicines which are effective. Of course we all know that this is not true and serves only the industry.
Europe has decided that it should be easier to sell traditional herbal medicines and for that purpose has created a law that reduces the cost and effort it takes to register an herb as a traditional herbal medicine. So one would think that this law should be welcomed by the natural health community. And it is, by some.
But the Directive is a double edged sword.
The positive side is that herbs can be sold with their medicinal claims and the registration of a traditional herbal remedy will cost no more than maybe $100,000 per product. Still a lot, but still affordable even for a small company, for a limited amount of products.
But there are substantial negatives:
  • Some herbs may be deemed toxic and disallowed form the process of being registered altogether. Again the authorities display the same attitude here they generally display, namely that for pharmaceutical drugs it is OPK when people drop dead when taking them (see the Starfield report); but for natural remedies, no one must ever have the slightest side effects.
  • Only herbs that have been used traditionally fall under this Directive. Paradoxically, this rules out most Traditional Herbal Medicine, which has been in use for a couple of thousand years -- because it is not traditional IN EUROPE.
  • Furthermore, the authorities lay down standards for such remedies. Those may require standardized extracts or other requirements, but those procedures sometimes require an adulteration of the natural product. The customer will therefore not have a choice in the matter any longer.
  • Finally, the most important question is which herbs will MANDATORILY have to be registered as traditional herbal remedies and which can be sold as nutritional supplements without medicinal claims, like they have been. The only Government I know that has set down half way clear rules about this is the British. In a nutshell, their rule is that if an herb has any history of food use, it can be sold as a nutritional supplement, but if it does not, it has to be a traditional herbal remedy. That means that a number of herbs will disappear as of 1 April, 2011 unless the company has gone through the registration process. The process takes about 2 years, so this can't be remedied quickly. Other Governments have not commented and only time will tell whether this turns into a major issue or whether life will mostly go on the same way.
For detailed information I recommend the ANH website (Alliance for Natural Health), the ANH being the most active and competent entity fighting for health freedom in Europe. I also encourage you to support the ANH with donations, as it is very much needed. I have supported the ANH in the past but most our donations go to the US/International health Freedom fight, namely to the National Council for Health Freedom, where we are the main sponsor. Our means are not sufficient to save the whole planet so I would like to encourage everyone to help the ANH in the European fight.


Tuesday, 2 November 2010

Cholesterol - the big scam - and we believe it

Cholesterol - the big scam

For years we have been thought that high cholesterol levels are bad for us and that we can die if we do not fix them by medication. Is this a big scam? Can we really trust the doctors and the officials? What is behind the decisions when officials are making their recommendations and decisions.

What are some facts about cholesterol?
1) over 75 year olds having higher cholesterol levels live longer
2) cholesterol is a tread to young men from 30-47 years
3) higher cholesterol is not causing high mortality after 48years of age

Cholesterol is not the cause but the sign:
How does the cholesterol get attached to the veins? Two professors in Finland were not so convinced of the official view of the matter so they (P.Tuohimaa, M.Järvilehto) studied the issue further. What they found was that a lack of oxygen (e.g. caused by smoking tobacco) results injury in the veins, infection causes blood-block and that can cause a heart-attack. Instead of cholesterol being the cause of the problem, cause seems to be the lack of oxygen and high blood-pressure, not cholesterol.

Statins - medication used for high cholesterol
What are statins? Statins are used to lower the bad cholesterol. Statins were found when it was discovered that so called red-rice lowered the cholesterol levels of people eating them. Red color on the rice is actually a type of mold. This mold has naturally high quantity of statins in it. When it it was discovered that statins lower cholesterol levels, statins were developed as a medicine. So if you are eating red rice to lower your cholesterol you are actually eating mold - statins.

What is bad cholesterol?
LDL is supposed to be the "BAD" cholesterol. But study in England showed that the more LDL level got lower the more mortality rate got higher.... interesting!!! If high LDL levels would be the cause of heart attacks then people why is it that many people with high cholesterol do not die for heart attacks?

What are the The hidden side-effects of Statins?
Study in US of a drug called Inegy showed that it is harmful and causes e.g. pancreatic-infections, problems in legs, weakened eye-sight. Study was hidden from the public for 2 years and thousands of people were still eating the medication. In Finland the medication was still used in the Fall of 2010 - some years after the study was made.

What is the situation in Finland?
In Finland some 100 000 people use statins. Seems that doctors can't connect the 60% higher rate of pancreatic infections to the medicine. Some 6 people die each year for the infections. Probably more since doctors do not normally connect the infection and statins.

Why the sudden change in the study results of medication?
10 trials done after 2007 show all negative results - in other words they showed that using cholesterol medication was harmful. Trials done before 2007 cannot be considered reliable since then the negative results were not controlled. From 2007 also the negative results of medication trials have to be published. Before negative results were hidden from public. According to a researcher in France "All trails were manipulated before year 2007".

Why do the doctors doing research approve these false trials?
Cholesterol-hypotheses - if you support that hypotheses you can be sure of financial support from pharmaceutical companies. For a researcher this is something very important. Research relies on financial support. Livelihood relies on ongoing research. It is understandble that in such a situation it is easy to look the other way and approve the manipulated trials. But who is taking care of the little people? The ones dyeing for bad medication?

Let me know what you think...leave a comment!

Click Here!

Theamy health blog

Thursday, 14 October 2010

Low-fat versus high-fat diets - Fat-war

I've been following the FAT-WAR in the Finnish TV and Newspapers. There is two different sides, those sticking to the old low-fat diet instructions and then those who talk strongly against this old-fashioned Low-fat diet system. Before mentioning my personal view, let's see the origin of the low-fat diet.

The start for the low-fat-diet came as early as in the 1940's when there was an idea that high-fat diet and heart decease have something to do with each others. In the 50's and 60's there were studies about the same issue. In 1957 a report said that “It must be emphasized that there is as yet no final proof that heart attacks or strokes will be prevented by such measures (low-fat-diet)." Similar beliefs were prevalent in the 70's and 80's. While the obesity and heart decease was found to be connected the studies still did not give proof that high-fat diet is causing cholesterol or heart decease. It still remained as a popular belief, but not as a proofed fact.

How did the belief that low-fat-diet is best diet become a International official view for the "correct diet"? In 1977 in US a committee of Dietary Goals gave a report stating the new official diet plan. The report recommended that Americans eat more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, poultry and fish, but less meat, eggs, and high-fat foods Same report recommended that they substitute nonfat for whole milk. Sound familiar? This same is in use today in 2010 in many countries - Finland included. Scientists were not agreeing with this hypotheses as they said. Since it was not proved by scientific studies. This was done under a strong pressure from the food industry in US. Why did the food industry want to promote low-fat foods? By the 1980s food producers had begun to realize that low-fat could provide profit-making opportunities. By the 1990's the food pyramid was published - recommending the same low-fat - high carbohydrates/sugar diet. Still today the food pyramid is widely used. 

What have been the results of this low-fat diet? Diabetes, obesity and high cholesterol have sky-rocketed. Alcoholism and mental problems have sky-rocketed. Why? To supplement the lack of fat in the diet food industry has used sugar and carbohydrates and trans-fatty acids. Never have people as a hole been so fat before. Shouldn't low-fat diet do just the opposite? No fat is not the bad guy in the diet. Cause for diabetes and obesity and high cholesterol is sugar and glucose (carbohydrates transform into glucose in the body). Alcoholism has a connection with high sugar diet and interestingly also maybe with high grain-diet. (Consider American Indians who have not consumed wheat earlier and suffer the highest levels of alcoholism and also Finns who have only had grains in their diet for some tens of year also suffer high percentage of alcoholism. Compare this to the Mediterraneans who have been using grains for hundreds of years.) Mental problems have a connection with low-fat diet since our brain is over 50% of fat (a lot of being cholesterol!!!). With low-fat diet our brains are not getting enough fat. We are in fact starving while over-eating sugars and carbohydrates.

What kind of effects are people experimenting while eating high-fat low sugar/carbohydrate diet? Doctor of Medicine Antti Heikkilä in Finland has listed some 96 deceases that his patients have gotten rid of by eating high-fat low carb diet (mentioned in Akuutti Tv-program in 10/2010). These range from diabetes to alcoholism and many others (Yes alcholisim, seems eating low-carb diet stops the alcohol graving. Check out Ph.D. Joan Mathews Larsons books about Mental health and Alcoholism). In general within just a few days low-carb diet brings added energy and rapid weight-loss. This requires that carbohydrates consumption is max 75 g per day. How much is 75g of carbs? 100g of bread is about 60g carbs. 3,5 kg of cabbage has about 75g. So you can eat a lot of vegetable!

Are there any dangers in low-carb diet? No as long as you use fats like butter, fat from meats, eggs and olive-oil not from linoleic fatty-acids (Omega 6) or trans-fatty acids (in most ready-foods). Test it yourself and see the results. If you don't feel much better within one month (or actually you should feel better in a week) you haven't lost anything. Just remember to check out all theingredients in foods you consume. Remember industry adds sugar even to meat-products!!! Amazing when you think of it! Check the labels! Check the labels! Check the labels! 

So by now you can figure out side I have taken. Within some years I have been reading books like "Melt the fat away" by Susan Sommers, Eat yourself slim by Michael Montignac , Dr Richard K.Bernsteind MD book about Diabetes Solution and Dr. Atkins books and so on. All these bring out the same issue, we get too much sugars and carbs and therefore our body is producing too much insulin. The end result will be diabetes if we do not watch out. 

So who are we to believe? Real question here is that what is the origin of the believe that low-fat-diet is healthy? It was a political issue, not a result of scientific research. This is the key issue here! There are several new studies that show low-carb diet brings good results both in weigh-loss and cholesterol levels. There are still today no studies that would connect high-fat (low carb) diet to heart attach or high cholesterol. There are studies that connect high cholesterol to heart attacks yes, but that is not the same thing. You can get high cholesterol while eating fatty foods IF YOU EAT THEM TOGETHER WITH CARBS AND SUGARS!!! That is the key, not fat itself! When insulin is not produced in the body (in low carb diet) the fat you consume does not store in your body.

The best part of the low-carb diet is that you can eat all the butter you want and enjoy your food. Food actually tastes good!


Useful links:

Click here:

Article about the Origin of low-fat diet

Interview of Dr. Antti Heikkilä in Finnish

Friday, 8 October 2010

Natural medicine verses official FDA's?

Can we trust the official FDA's (Federal Drug Administration) and alike in different countries? Each country has it's own official department responsible for the "official view" of different treatments and medicine. Can these be trusted? What is their relationship to commercial institutes?

Let me first tell you why I am interested of the issue. I was a sickling as a child, constantly having different infections, low immune and antibiotics after antibiotics. By the teenage years I was having antibiotics once a month. I felt myself so tired, and this was supposed to be a "time of my life".  I understood that this cannot go on. I was feeling worse and worse with prescription medicine and that doctors could not fix me.

The peak point was when after straining my back I was given strong painkillers for my back. I could hardly sit down the pain was so bad, but the doctors treated me like someone just wanting to get time off from work. After eating painkillers for a few weeks the problem escalated, I got an infection in my gullet (due to eating so many painkillers). Now I had a new problem that needed medication. 5 months I suffered this problem and was eating medication for the infection. I was dead tired due to high infection levels. And way? Due to the painkillers given to me by the doctor. No more I thought! I went to the library and started reading and reading. I found a book called "Natural Cure with Apple cider and honey" by Dr. Jarvis. Simple remedy cured my infection in just one week - something that the medicine from the doctor could not do in 5 months. That really changed my life!

Ever since then I have been on a request of methods to treat different sicknesses in natural ways. I have read and again re-read many books. Tried many methods. I feel better now than ever before, definitely better than for years. I haven't used an antibiotics for 10 years. I don't go to the doctors if they do not use homeopathy as well. I have learned about sicknesses and cures for them. My friends call me to find out about different options to treat themselves or their loved ones. If I don't know what to do I find out different methods and cures. I can't help myself, I just need to know!

But let's get back to the FDA's. I use plural because I mean all similar officials in different countries. Why do they not accept natural medicine or natural ways of treatment? Bottom line is MONEY. Yes you read it correctly - Money! FDA's are married to Pharmaceutical companies. Doctors are married with Pharmaceutical companies. My mother, who worked for years for a University for the Pharmacological department, always said that doctors are married with the Pharmaceutical companies. How so? These companies start to woe the soon-to-be-doctors already before they graduate. Weekend trips, all you can eat and drink gatherings. Free this free that... By the time they graduate they are fully hooked.

Is it the goal of the Pharmaceutical companies to cure people? Not at all! Why would they want people to get cured? They would loose money. Their goal is to get people hooked into drugs, regular drugs. That is also more profitable for the doctors. In US doctors often give you a prescription for only one month. Why so? That you have to go to visit your doctor again in one month. Hey  - that's regular money for them. In Finland doctors often give you a prescription for 3-6 months even for a hole year. Why is that? The public health system means they get the same payment each month, no matter if you come each month or not.

What proof there is that the FDA's are not always there for the public, but have their own motives? Check out the Burzynski Movie. This doctor was fighting for year against FDA. FDA was trying to steel his work because they did not want a doctor to get the patent for the medicine. FDA had selfish goals (together with the Pharmaceutical companies ofcause) for this new medicine.

Here another example of a cure for cancer that the FDA has dismissed.
Why is that? You cannot make money with this!

Another good example of a scientist that has given her research to the public and has helped thousands of people (yours truly included) has been Biologist Dr. Hulda Clark. She was thrown into prison for practising medicine when she was doing scientific research (as a biologist) by using a machine she helped to develop Syncrometer. 

If you still believe that doctors and officials tell you the truth or that they goal is to get you healed - think again! Do not let others choose for you. Find out for yourself. Do a bit of research. Ask around. Read and test methods like Bioresonance by Dr. Clark. Don't be a victim! But do try anything without doing some research first!


Click Here!

Here still an interesting Book about cholesterol!

Thursday, 30 September 2010

Feeling tired? Is it a flu? Are you radioactive?

Feeling tired? Does it feel like the flu-season started too early this year? Are  you living in Finland? If you said yes to those questions you might have something quite different than the regular seasonal flu.

"Flu-season" started this year in the middle of the August. Seasonal flu's for the autumn never start in the middle of August! How is it possible that all people are sick all of a sudden and at the same time? And what is a flu that has all the normal sumptoms like tiredness, throat and sinus reactions, but seems like the flue doesn't really come with full force?

Interestingly this year (2010) together with the "flu" came the smoke from Russian forest fires. They started in August and reached Finland and Baltic in the middle of August. Officials both in Russia and Finland were reassuring the public that there is no harm with the smoke. Just do not do outdoors exercise in the heavy smoke.

I of cause were not really listening the officials. That day when we got the heaviest dose of the smoke in Helsinki I of cause were doing my favourite summer hobby - kayaking at the sea... not a good choice in retrospect. When the air was full of smoke I was enjoying the some-what smoky scenery in front of Helsinki. Yes, sure I noticed the smoke, but would I let it bother my love - kayaking at the sea? Of cause not! Nothing would keep me away from the sea in the summer time if time and weather permits.

Well the symptoms started the same evening, tiredness. The next day I had to take a nap during the day time - me a nap. I never do that!!! I could not even think of sleeping during the day time. I am always full awake from the minute I wake up until 11-12 pm in the evening. No problems there normally. After that smoky day I had a nap during several days. And the days I didn't have a nap I felt like I'm dying. So tired, so exhausted. What was wrong with me? This was not normal, I thought. Autumn tiredness never catches me. Winter-tiredness, maybe, but this in the middle of the August? What was this?

Tiredness continued for 2 weeks, every day. Luckily I had an appointment with a doctor doing tests with bioresonance testing machine. The machine found some Hafnium in my body. Same was found in my brother and many other patiences the doctor had been treating during the few weeks before that. Hafnium, never heard of that. What is it? After some research I found that hafnium itself is not a radioactive substance, but it is used in mechanism of the nuclear-power-plant. But how did it end up in my body, in my thyroid clan? I have never been near a nuclear power-plant in my life - I think. And at least not for the last 6 months - time after my previous test in the same machine.

Research in the internet took me to a report done by some environmentalists that the Russian officials took to see the burning forests near Moscow. Report brings out that contrary to the official reports there were radioactive forests burning in Russia. Radioactive forests burning? Can that be? Yes, according to the report the satellite footage shows that also radioactive forest is also burning. So how does that link to our getting sick here in Finland?

The burning forest left smoke in the air - smoke with radioactive materials like hafnium. This hafnium spread to Finland among other countries - thanks to our strategic location next to Russia. This hafnium according to the reports causes the following symptoms: flu-like symptoms like sinus irritation, eye irritation, throat ache, ear irritation, tiredness. Sound familiar?

What to do with those symptoms? How does hafnium in the body affect us years to come? Worst scenario is an increase in breast and prostate cancers. But hey, I will not sit and wait for that, do I? No for sure I will not. Instead I took homoeopathic hafnium each weekday for about a month. The first week already I could feel the difference. I did not any more want to sleep at 8pm as the previous 2 weeks, but I could stay up as normally until 12pm. What a relief, no more tiredness! Back to my usual energetic self -  until the next Tschernobyl or dose of Tschernobyl waste.

What do we learn from this? Do not trust blindly to the officials and their "reports". Find out for yourself what's really going on!


Learn about the Cholesterol lie...Click Here!

Learn about Diabetes and the cure...Click Here!

Want to loose weight...Click Here!

Cholesterol free... read more