null

Nutritional Yeast for Cancer, Mammograms, Breast Cancer Survival

$69.00

Description

8 CEC’s / Quiz

This two-hour online presentation features the discussion of topics related to holistic health and nutrition. The holistic nutrition and health course also includes written transcripts for each topic as well as comprehensive linked references for further research.

Holistic Nutrition Topics Covered:

  • Coconut Oil and Abdominal Fat
  • Benefits of Nutritional Yeast and Cancer
  • Lead in Calcium Supplements
  • 9 out of 10 Women Misinformed about Mammograms
  • Mammograms Recommendations: Why the Conflicting Guidelines?
  • Is Autism Really on the Rise?
  • The Role of Pesticides and Pollution in Autism
  • Should Women Get Mammograms Starting at Age 40?
  • Do Mammograms Save Lives?
  • Are Avocados Fattening?
  • Consequences of False-Positive Mammograms Results
  • Do Mammograms Hurt?
  • The Role of Dairy and Gluten in Canker Sores
  • Can Mammogram Radiation Cause Breast Cancer?
  • Understanding the Mammograms Paradox
  • Is Marijuana Addictive?
  • Does Marijuana Cause Health Problems?
  • Over-treatment of Stage 0 Breast Cancer DCIS
  • Women Deserve to Know the Truth About Mammograms
  • Do Cell Phones Lower Sperm Counts?
  • Breast Cancer and the 5-Year Survival Rate Myth
  • Why Mammograms Don’t Appear to Save Lives
  • Why Patients Aren’t Informed About Mammograms
  • The Pros and Cons of Mammograms
  • Dining by Traffic Light


Benefits of Nutritional Yeast for Cancer

There was evidently a study on taking a yeast beta-glucan supplement to help “cancer relapse after surgery. There were no relapses in the treated group compared to [about one in five] in the control group.” Even more intriguing, yeast beta-glucans for inoperable cancer patients, end-stage cancer, since only about one in 20 patients made it three months. And by six months, they were all dead, “whereas in the treated group, [most] survived for more than 3 months”, not one in 20, but most, “and 43% were still alive after 6 months.”

Is Autism Really on the Rise
Autism is currently “considered…a multi-factorial disorder resulting from both genetic and non-genetic risk factors.” Yes, it can run in families, but “genetic factors may account for only 10 to 20% of autism cases.” This is based in part on the fact that you can have identical twins, with identical DNA, the same genes, and one identical twin may have autism, and the other not. So: “While genetic susceptibility may be a key contributor to these autism spectrum disorders, it may just ‘load the gun’ so to speak, with prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal environmental exposures some kinds of exposures during, around, or after pregnancy being the events that ‘pull the trigger’ and may actually give rise to the disease.”

Do Mammograms Save Lives?  
Basically, mammograms have “been promoted to the public with three simple promises that all appear to be wrong.  Screening does not seem to make the women live longer; it [instead may unnecessarily] increase…mastectomies; and cancers are not caught early.” It may take decades for a tumor to grow large enough to be picked up on a mammogram. And, even when they are, they may not grow any further; that’s the concern we’re catching too many. “There is so much over-diagnosis that” if a woman really doesn’t want to become “a breast cancer patient,” maybe they should “avoid [mammogram] screening” altogether. 

Breast Cancer and the 5-Year Survival Rate Myth
So, that’s the second way how changes in survival rates, with screening, may not correlate with changes in actual cancer death rates. And, in fact, the correlation is zero. There is no correlation at all between “increases in survival rates,” and “decreases in mortality rates.” That’s why “if there were an Oscar for misleading statistics, using survival statistics to judge the benefit of screening would win a lifetime achievement award hands down. There is no way to disentangle [the] lead time [bias] and [the] over diagnosis bias from screening survival data.” That’s why “these statistics are meaningless” when it comes to screening. Yet, that’s what you see in the ads and the leaflets from most of the cancer charities. That’s what you hear coming from the government. Even prestigious cancer centers, like M.D. Anderson, have tried to hoodwink the public like that.

Why Patients Aren’t Informed About Mammograms
“Only 12% of thousands of OB-GYNS residents were able to correctly answer 2 simple questions on medical statistics.” “What will the uninformed 88% of these residents say when their first patient asks about her chance of truly having breast cancer given a positive mammogram?” And, what’s particularly frightening is that in some studies, “those [doctors] most confident in their estimates were furthest away from the correct response.” So, they didn’t even know that they didn’t know. “All of these studies document the same phenomenon: A considerable number of physicians are statistically illiterate, that is, they do not understand the statistics of their own discipline.”