God's Pharmacy!

A  sliced Carrot looks like the human eye. The  pupil, iris and radiating lines look just like the human eye... And YES, science now shows carrots  greatly enhance blood flow to and function of the  eyes.

A  Tomato has four chambers and is red. The  heart has four chambers and is red. All of the research shows tomatoes are loaded with lycopine and are indeed pure heart  and blood food.

Grapes hang in a cluster that has the shape of the heart. Each grape looks like a blood cell and all of the research todayshows grapes are also profound  heart and blood vitalizing food.

A  Walnut looks like a little brain, a left and right hemisphere, upper cerebrums and lower cerebellums.  Even the wrinkles or folds on  the nut are just like the neo-cortex. We now know walnuts help develop more than three (3) dozen  neuron-transmitters for brain function.

 
Kidney Beans actually heal and help maintain kidney function and yes, they look exactly like the human kidneys.

Celery, Bok Choy, Rhubarb and many more look just like bones. These foods specifically target bone strength. Bones are 23% sodium and these foods are 23% sodium. If you don't have enough sodium in your diet, the body pulls it from the bones, thus making them weak.  These foods replenish the skeletal needs of the body.

Avocadoes,  Eggplant and Pears target the health and function of the womb and cervix of the female - they look just like these organs. Today's research shows that when a woman eats one avocado a week, it balances hormones, sheds unwanted birth weight, and prevents cervical cancers. And how profound is this?  It takes exactly nine (9) months to grow an avocado from blossom to ripened fruit. There are over 14,000 photolytic chemical constituents of nutrition in each one of these foods (modern science has only studied and named about 141 of them).

Figs are full of seeds and hang in twos when they grow.  Figs increase the mobility of male sperm and increase the numbers of Sperm as well to overcome male sterility.

Sweet Potatoes look like the pancreas and actually balance the glycemic index of diabetics.
 

Olives assist the health and function of the ovaries

Oranges, Grapefruits, and other Citrus fruits look just like the mammary glands of the female and actually assist the health of the breasts and the movement of lymph in and out of the breasts.

Onions look like the body's cells. Today's research shows onions help clear waste materials from all of the body cells. They even produce tears which wash the epithelial layers of the eyes. A working companion, Garlic, also helps eliminate waste materials and dangerous free radicals from the body. 

__________________________________________________

Here is the perfect plan outlined in an excel spread sheet. May I add that this client has also experienced the most awesome results by being compliant with all that needed to be accomplished for optimum health.
Implement your plan as I have outlined for you and insert them into a spread sheet of your own.

Date: ________________________________

5:30 AM – Actual	Drink 8oz water with lemon
5:30AM - Actual	30 minutes on elliptical
While dressing	Brush teeth and floss
7:00AM – Actual	6 tablets of DGL by Enzymatic Therapy
7:00AM – Actual	Fruit Smoothie – Strawberries, banana, yogurt, apple juice, 2 teaspoons of Super Vital Foods, 1 teaspoon Super Bowel Pocket
8:00AM – Actual	Drink 16 oz water
8:00AM – Actual	2 Nerve/Stress Capsules
9:30AM – Actual	Snack - Fruit
9:30AM – Actual	Marshmallow Root – 6 caps
12:00PM – Actual	6 tablets of DGL by Enzymatic Therapy
12:00PM – Actual	Raw Green Salad and Grilled Chicken
3:00PM – Actual	Snack - Fruit
6:00PM – Actual	4 capsules Super Colon Cleanse and 12 oz water
6:00PM – Actual	6 tablets of DGL by Enzymatic Therapy
6:00PM – Actual	Raw Green Salad and Fish and 2 cooked veggies
7:00PM – Actual	GYM – Treadmill and Circuit Training
8:00PM – Actual	Yogurt – Add fresh fruit
8:00PM – Actual	Marshmallow Root – 6 caps
As directed – Actual	ParaGone or ParaStroy
Water	89 ounces – Actual -
Before Bed	Brush teeth and floss
Before Bed	Rub Ahava Dead Sea Mud
Before Bed	Get water for morning
Bed 10PM	NO TV
** Sweet Potato

Goals –

Urination – Hourly – light yellow to clear	Actual
Bowel Movements – 4-5x in baby yellow	Actual
NO ALCOHOL

 

__________________________________________________

Should You Get a Mammogram?

 

By Dr. Ben Kim on April 28, 2009

• Health Warnings
• Health Questions

Q. I am scheduled for a mammogram in a few weeks. My GP and I are in disagreement over mammograms - she feels that I definitely need to have one whereas I try to avoid radiation as much as possible.
I know there are other methods of breast screening out there but none are available within this vicinity and come at a large cost when they are available.
I do self examinations regularly and my GP does an annual breast manipulation and has found nothing of alarm.
Am I being paranoid about radiation and are my fears of creating other issues (possibly caused by radiation) legitimate and/or well-founded?
Who knows - maybe it will 'surface' (sooner than later) that mammograms ARE one of the causes of breast cancer. Even my Naturopath feels I should have a mammogram.
Needless to say, Dr. Kim, at the moment I am feeling pressured into having one.
Any advice and/or thoughts on this subject would be greatly appreciated.
Susan S., Canada
***
A. It's been more than a couple of years since I last wrote about mammograms and the effects of ionizing radiation on human health, so while I empathize with Susan's angst, I welcome the opportunity to re-visit this topic and highlight the latest relevant findings that have been generated in peer-reviewed medical literature.
To me, Susan's question boils down to this: Do the benefits of mammograms outweigh their potential harmful effects?
Let's answer this systematically.
What are the benefits of having a mammogram?
Clearly, the chief benefit is potential detection of a malignant mass. I write potential detection because we know that in some cases, mammograms miss malignant masses. Some studies indicate that close to a third of malignant masses in women between the ages of 40 and 49 are missed with routine mammograms.
I'm also mindful in writing "detection" rather than "early detection" because it typically takes several years for a mass to become large enough to detect via a mammogram; finding cancer with a mammogram cannot be considered an effective screening measure to make an "early diagnosis."
What are the potential harmful effects of mammograms?
A routine mammogram screening typically involves shooting four x-rays, two per breast. This amounts to more than 150 times the amount of radiation that is used for a single chest x-ray.
According to Dr. John Gofman, Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California in Berkeley, here's what we can clearly state about x-rays:
 

• For decades, the scientific community has known that x-rays cause a variety of mutations.
   
• X-rays are known to cause instability in our genetic material, which is usually the central characteristic of most aggressive cancers.
   
• There is no risk-free dose of x-rays. Even the weakest doses of x-rays can cause cellular damage that cannot be repaired.
   
• There is strong epidemiological evidence to support the contention that x-rays can contribute to the development of every type of human cancer.
   
• There is strong evidence to support the contention that x-rays are a significant cause of ischemic heart disease.
   

This is not to say that you should never have an x-ray; this is to say that getting exposed to ionizing radiation comes with real risks, and these risks should be considered before consenting to any procedure that leads to exposure.
So in terms of ionizing radiation, what's the price that your body pays for a routine mammogram?
In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration mandates that no more than 300 millirems (a unit used to measure doses of radiation that are absorbed by the body) of radiation can be delivered per film during a mammogram.
Given that routine mammograms typically involve taking four films, two per breast, this amounts to up to 1200 millirems per mammogram.
According to the physics department at the University of Richmond in Virginia, the average American is exposed to approximately 360 millirems of radiation each year - this exposure comes from the sun and other natural elements, as well as from man-made devices.
To provide some perspective on everyday events that can add up to 360 millirems of radiation over the course of a year, here is more data from the University of Richmond:
 

Experience/Event	Units of Radiation Absorbed (millirems)
Plane trip from New York to Los Angeles	5
Chest x-ray	8
Dental x-ray	10
Series of x-rays for head and neck	20
CT scan (head and body)	1100
Full body therapeutic thyroid treatment	7000
Average annual dose per person per year	360

So each time you receive a mammogram that involves four shots, you may be exposed to about the same amount of ionizing radiation that you're exposed to over the course of about three years and four months. This is assuming that the maximum allowable dosage is used, but even if less is used, it should be clear that the amount of ionizing radiation that is involved with mammograms is significant.
Some highly respected physicians and scientists like Dr. Samuel Epstein have comprehensively analyzed this and other available data, and contend that every 1000 millirems of exposure increases a person's risk of developing some types of breast cancer by 1 percent.
I'm not sure how accurate anyone can be about these numbers, but there is credible evidence to suggest that going for a mammogram every year over decades can significantly increase your risk of developing breast cancer.
Even those who support going for annual mammograms acknowledge that the overall net benefit is itty bitty at best; the numbers indicate that two thousand women have to be screened for ten years for just one woman to experience benefit to her lifespan.
One of the most comprehensive studies of routine mammograms conducted on women aged 40 to 49 found that:
 

• Women who went for annual mammograms developed breast cancer at a clip that was 22% higher than that of women who relied just on self breast exams.
   
• Women who went for annual mammograms had twice as many cases of metastatic cancer compared to the group that did not receive mammograms.
   

But let's step back a bit from epidemiological data and put our focus on you.
We know that if you get a mammogram, you're not preventing anything. You're screening for abnormal masses.
If the medical professional who performs and interprets your mammogram deems you to have an abnormal mass, you're likely to receive a biopsy. And if your biopsy reveals a malignant mass, chances are good that your physician will refer you to an oncologist who will prescribe treatment, most likely a mix of surgical excision, chemotherapy, and perhaps a course of radiation.
The point is, when medical professionals and studies talk about mammograms saving lives, this has nothing to do with you preventing or overcoming cancer.
You are 100% unique in genetic composition, life history, and current life circumstances, and most importantly, your chances of developing and overcoming breast cancer have very little to do with survival rates that are calculated for entire populations.
All of the factors that determine your chances of developing and overcoming any type of cancer are not accounted for when a physician tells you that getting a mammogram can help save your life. These factors include what you eat, how you eat, your exposure to toxins, your living and work environments, the states of your closest relationships, and how fulfilled you feel.
With all of this in mind, it should be clear that experiencing significant stress over the decision to receive or decline a mammogram is in and of itself a contributing cause of every health challenge that we know of. Stress contributes to the development of disease, including all types of cancer; never forget that your body and health cannot be compartmentalized; every aspect of your life has some impact on the health of every cell in your body.
Having a physician whom you respect strongly recommend a mammogram doesn't make things easy, that's for sure. At the end of the day, I remind myself that no one carries more responsibility for my health than me.
I know my health and life better than anyone.
I know when I need more rest than I'm getting.
I know when I need to eat more of certain foods and less of others.
I know when there is friction in an important relationship in my life, and I know that transcending both pride and a desire for the other party to apologize is a good path to erasing friction that hurts my health.
I know when I have a guilty conscience and need to step up and do the right thing.
I know that I can use all of my awareness and autonomy to screen my health on my own with each passing day. Making the adjustments mentioned above as needed is the best program of disease prevention that I know of, and I put my confidence in this approach above all conventional measures that come with significant risk.
Put another way, the best line of screening for disease is your own set of observations of how you feel physically and emotionally. And the best line of preventing dis-ease involves living in a way that optimally supports your innate self-healing mechanisms.
There's no question that some conventional medical tests provide immense value in assessing our health and helping us make decisions on how to approach various health challenges. The key is to make use of the least harmful tests available, and only when deemed truly necessary by our best instincts.
With regard to specific medical screening procedures for breast cancer, I feel that for the vast majority of women, regular self examinations coupled with a manual exam by one's physician on an annual basis is an effective approach that is virtually risk-free.
When a person's medical history and/or a finding with a manual examination indicate that it's prudent to investigate further, I feel that diagnostic ultrasound and even magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be used before mammograms, though the cost of magnetic resonance imaging is significant.
 
Thermography is also a good option in some cases, though like all other screening measures, it cannot detect every type of growth.
But again, I feel that it's best to depend less on medical tests and more on how we feel day to day to stay on top of our health, and of course, to live as healthfully as possible. Why wait for a health crisis to prompt us into doing what we know we should every day?
 

__________________________________________________

Why Mammography is NOT an Effective Breast Cancer Screen   The most devastating loss of life from breast cancer occurs between the ages of 30 to 50. Fortunately, you have more options available to you today to help detect breast cancer than in the past decades. Unfortunately, education and awareness of these options and their effectiveness in detecting breast cancer at different stages in life are woefully deficient. Beyond Mammography In the first part of the in-depth article linked below, Beyond Mammography, Dr. Len Saputo explores the latest findings on the effectiveness and shortcomings of various detection methods used by the mainstream medical community, including mammography, clinical breast exams, ultrasound, and to a lesser extent, magnetic resonance imaging (MRIs) and PET scans. The second part goes beyond mammography, exploring a highly advanced but much maligned detection tool for breast cancer -- breast thermography. Breast thermography, which involves using a heat-sensing scanner to detect variations in the temperature of breast tissue, has been around since the 1960s. However, early infrared scanners were not very sensitive, and were insufficiently tested before being put into clinical practice, resulting in misdiagnosed cases. Modern-day breast thermography boasts vastly improved technology and more extensive scientific clinical research. In fact, the article references data from major peer review journals and research on more than 300,000 women who have been tested using the technology. Combined with the successes in detecting breast cancer with greater accuracy than other methods, the technology is slowly gaining ground among more progressive practitioners. About the Author Dr. Len Saputo, MD, is a graduate of Duke University Medical School, and is the Founder and Director of the Health Medicine Forum, which has hosted and moderated over 350 events. He's also the Co-founder and Medical Director of the Health Medicine Institute and Health Medicine Center, and runs a private practice in Internal Medicine and Health Medicine.   Sources:     Beyond Mammography (pdf)   Dr. Mercola's Comments: Breast cancer is the second most deadly form of cancer for women in the U.S. Only lung cancer claims more women’s lives than breast cancer.  According to Cancer.org’s latest report, Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2007-2008, 2007 ushered in more than 178,000 new cases of invasive breast cancer, and more than 40,000 women died from the disease.   But men are by no means immune to breast cancer. Just over 2,000 men were diagnosed with breast cancer in 2007, and approximately 450 men died. Since routine screening for men is next to nonexistent, men are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, and therefore have poorer chances for survival.  Unfortunately, conventional medicine is stubbornly holding on to outmoded ideas of cancer detection and treatment, no matter how ineffective it’s been proven to be.   Mammography is a perfect example of this stubborn head-in-the-sand approach to cancer screening.  Education and awareness of better, less risky and more effective options for detecting breast cancer are woefully deficient, but they do exist, and it is my hope you will take the time to review this important information, whether you’re a man or a woman, and forward it widely to your family and friends.   The Case Against Mammography Health officials recommend that all women over 40 get a mammogram every one to two years, yet there is no solid evidence that mammograms save lives, and the benefits of mammograms are controversial at best. Meanwhile, the health hazards of mammography have been well established. John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D. – a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor, and one of the leading experts in the world on the dangers of radiation – presents compelling evidence in his book, Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, that over 50 percent of the death-rate from cancer is in fact induced by x-rays.  Now consider the fact that the routine practice of taking four films of each breast annually results in approximately 1 rad (radiation absorbed dose) exposure, which is about 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray. Even the American Cancer Society lists high-dose radiation to the chest as a medium to high risk factor for developing cancer.

__________________________________________________