Welcome to The Truth News.Info

China reiterates support for Pakistan
Monday, October 27, 2008

Beijing to give Islamabad soft loan, encourage investment by top business corporations

BEIJING: China will stand by Pakistan in all circumstances to safeguard the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, while maintaining the existing bonds of their strategic partnership.

This assurance was conveyed to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani by Chinese leaders during Gilani’s visit to Beijing that concluded on Saturday, Pakistan’s Ambassador to China Masood Khan said.

Gilani, during his interaction with Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao and Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference Chairman Jia Qingling, was assured that China would continue to help Pakistan meet new challenges in the wake of terrorism and a financial crisis.

China is supportive of Pakistan's stand on counterterrorism, normalisation of its relations with India and its role as a frontline state to wipe out terrorism, Khan said.

Loan: China assured Pakistan that it would help the country overcome its financial difficulties. Besides giving direct financial help in terms of a soft loan, Chinese leadership will encourage its top-level business corporations to investment more in Pakistan.

Gilani also conveyed Pakistan's interest in constructing small and medium sized dams and hydel power generation, infrastructure development, energy and coal development, banking and financial co-operation in collaboration with China.

While addressing the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) summit meeting, the prime minister highlighted Pakistan's views on the prevailing situation in developing countries, including Pakistan, that were adversely affected in the wake of the global financial crisis.

In his address at the summit’s plenary session, the prime minister emphasised that the international community should show more willingness to assist Pakistan in fighting terrorism and eradicating poverty.

The ASEM leaders adopted three documents during the summit proceedings, the most important of which was the ‘Statement on the International Financial Situation’. Other documents endorsed by the summit were ‘China's Statement’ issued by Beijing as the host and ‘Beijing Declaration of Sustainable Development’.

Pakistan's initiative to hold a seminar on the Euro-Asia Land Bridge was also endorsed by the summit that was meant to highlight Pakistan's geo-strategic position as a link between Europe and Asia. The leadership of both the countries paid special emphasis on Chinese investment in Pakistan and raising bilateral trade to $15 billion by 2011. app


Syria furious over U.S. raid
October 27, 2008, 12:00

An alleged U.S. helicopter raid on a settlement in Syrian territory that left at least eight people dead has sparked furious reaction. Damascus has condemned the move as “serious aggression”.

Four U.S. military helicopters crossed the Iraqi-Syrian border on Sunday shortly before sunset and attacked the Sukkariyeh farm near the town of Abu Kamal, according to a Syrian government statement. The attack left at least eight people dead, including four children.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry summoned top U.S. and Iraqi envoys to the country to protest against the attack.

"Syria condemns this aggression and holds the American forces responsible for this aggression and all its repercussions. Syria also calls on the Iraqi government to shoulder its responsibilities and launch an immediate investigation into this serious violation and prevent the use of Iraqi territory for aggression against Syria," the government statement said.

The U.S. has so far neither confirmed nor denied the raid. An unnamed military official told Associated Press that the attack had targeted an Al Qaeda linked network that helped foreign fighters infiltrate into Iraqi territory through Syria. He said the Americans have been unable to block the inflow because Syria was out of their reach.

The attack mirrors U.S. border policy in Afghanistan where Washington sanctioned raids into Pakistani territory against Taliban insurgents. Islamabad said the U.S. had violated its sovereignty by carrying out these attacks.


Syrian attack leaves questions for US
China National News
Monday 27th October, 2008

US officials have called a raid into Syria a success, inasmuch as it resulted in the death of Abu Ghadiya, who has been described as a facilitator of rebels being sent into Iraq.

US counter-terrorism experts said American forces had killed the head of a Syrian network who had funneled fighters and weapons into Iraq.

But Syria has said the raid only killed eight unarmed civilians, including a father and his three children, a guard at a building site and his wife as well as a local fisherman.

Syria has described a US military raid inside Syria as an act of criminal aggression and vowed that Syria will further investigate the raid and consider retaliation.

Meanwhile, hundreds of villagers taking part in funerals for the dead have protested the American raid.

A crowd of mourners chanted slogans and carried banners mocking American democracy and President George Bush.


U.S. pulls the plug on the world
October 27, 2008, 19:59

The U.S. administration has prompted a huge surge in the U.S. dollar, which may help refinance its financial sector. The cost is a currency whirlwind that threatens the collapse not just of banks and companies but entire countries. In the past week the financial crisis, which began in banking and spread to stocks, has careered into the currency markets. The U.S. actively decided back in September 2008 to shut down the investment banks that lend to the biggest professional investors. This has caused those investors to sell anything and everything and to settle their trades.

The result was a whirlwind of liquidation. Korean won, Turkish lira, Brazilian real, British pounds and commodities from oil and metals, all were sucked into the downdraft.

Like a speeding truck heading home, dollar investors left a vacuum in their wake, a vortex of dust, where there had been steadily growing emerging market economies.

And you thought the U.S. authorities were doing their best to prop up asset prices? As the economic lights go out and the U.S. administration fumbles in the dark, maybe it's accidentally cut off the hand that feeds it.

Or has it deliberately prompted a shakeout of asset values and a flight to the dollar? On October 3 the $US 700 billion bailout of banks' bad bets was signed into law, after U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson assured U.S. Congress it was the only way to avoid financial Armageddon. The stated aim was to support asset prices.

But on September 22, with less publicity, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs gave up their investment bank status, which had allowed them to borrow and lend much more than traditional banking companies. That was just seven days after another investment bank, Lehman Brothers, filed for bankruptcy protection.

These prime brokers, or investment banks, provided the loans that allowed America's professional investors to hunt worldwide in search of ever-bigger game. While U.S. investors earned profits, foreign countries benefited from U.S. investment in their bank, retail and property sectors.

All this dates back to September 2004, when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission gave in to pleading from the big five investment banks, who wanted to borrow more heavily against reserves that served to cushion against losses. This allowed them to raise their leverage up to 20, 30 or 40 times, in other words, to borrow $US 30 against every dollar of assets – and lend it on.

They certainly lent it! For mortgage-backed securities, collateralised debt obligations, credit default swaps and dangerous stuff with even safer sounding names.

Read more Here.

The banks were Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns along with Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs headed at the time by Henry Paulson.

Treasury Secretary Paulson knows very well who lends to the hedge funds, how shutting down the prime broker system would force them to liquidate their trading strategies and cause a broad sell-off of all kinds of assets.

But what was he, along with the administration, trying to achieve? As professional investors dump foreign currencies and pile the dollars into that homeward bound truck, they're pushing up the U.S. currency.

The U.S. needs its currency to be strong. The U.S. is a debtor nation, spending more than it earns, dependent on foreign loans. Foreigners like the Chinese are financing the bailout of U.S. banks.

If the dollar were to crash in this environment the U.S., reliant as it is on borrowing, would struggle to raise the debt funding it needs to buy its way out of this crisis.

You would expect the dollar to fall as one state after another tips into recession and for gold to rise in times of uncertainty. Instead the reverse is happening.

Gold was approaching $US 700 in the last week of October, down from about $US 1200 just months before. It's a big leap to suggest the U.S. may be shorting gold as a way of supporting the dollar, but causing distressed hedge funds to sell gold amounts to the same thing.

There are other arguments for the rampant dollar. Some people argue that the U.S. entered this financial crisis earlier than other countries, that its housing market has been falling since 2006, and that the U.S. will recover before other countries. Traders may be anticipating interest rate cuts in the UK and Eurozone, while in the U.S. rates have less far to fall.

Companies are certainly buying dollars in order to pay off their debts. However, none of this explains the role of the U.S. administration in driving down asset prices.

I have argued before that governments should focus on supporting the real economy, on saving jobs and less on bailing out the banks. It is certainly not the job of governments to support asset prices at a particular level – and certainly not to spend $US 700 billion buying them off their banking chums.

Maybe Paulson's seen the light but, in that case, may the U.S. taxpayers have their $US 700 billion back please?

Mark Gay, RT


RAND Corporation Lobbies The Pentagon To Start New War To Save U.S. Economy
Saturday, 01 November 2008 19:24

Shocking proposal urges military leaders to attack major foreign power.

According to reports out of top Chinese mainstream news outlets, the RAND Corporation recently presented a shocking proposal to the Pentagon in which it lobbied for a war to be started with a major foreign power in an attempt to stimulate the American economy and prevent a recession.

A fierce debate has now ensued in China about who that foreign power may be, with China itself as well as Russia and even Japan suspected to be the targets of aggression.

The reports cite French media news sources as having uncovered the proposal, in which RAND suggested that the $700 billion dollars that has been earmarked to bailout Wall Street and failing banks instead be used to finance a new war which would in turn re-invigorate the flagging stock markets.

The RAND Corporation is a notoriously powerful NGO with deep ties to the U.S. military-industrial complex as well as interlocking connections with the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations.

Current directors of RAND include Frank Charles Carlucci III, former Defense Secretary and Deputy Director of the CIA, Ronald L. Olson, Council on Foreign Relations luminary and former Secretary of Labor, and Carl Bildt, top Bilderberg member and former Swedish Prime Minister.

Carlucci was chairman of the Carlyle Group from 1989-2005 and oversaw gargantuan profits the defense contractor made in the aftermath of 9/11 following the invasion of Afghanistan. The Carlyle Group has also received investment money from the Bin Laden family.

Reportedly, the RAND proposal brazenly urged that a new war could be launched to benefit the economy, but stressed that the target country would have to be a major influential power, and not a smaller country on the scale of Afghanistan or Iraq.

The reports have prompted a surge of public debate and tension in China about the possibility that a new global conflict is on the horizon.

China’s biggest media outlet, Sohu, speculated that the target of the new war would probably be China or Russia, but that it could also be Iran or another middle eastern country. Japan was also mentioned as a potential target for the reason that Japan holds the most U.S. debt.

North Korea was considered as a target but ruled out because the scale of such a war would not be large enough for RAND’s requirements.

The reported RAND proposal dovetails with recent comments made by Joe Biden, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright and others, concerning the “guarantee” that Barack Obama will face a major “international crisis” soon after taking office.

It also arrives following a warning from Michael Bayer, chairman of a key Pentagon advisory panel, who echoed the statement that the next administration will face an international crisis within months of taking office.

One would hope that good people, or at least sane people who don’t wish to start a global nuclear war, will oppose the RAND proposal, such as top the military generals who threatened to quit if Bush ordered an attack on Iran. Admiral William Fallon, the head of US Central Command, quit in March last year as a result of his opposition to Bush administration policy on Iran.

Unlabeled Genetically Engineered Sugar, Chimeras, and Drugs Slipped into Your Food
By Beth Harrison
October 21 2008

Take Action Now:

Hello everyone,

This new blog post has been added to my website at this recent blog post BELOW covers three NEW categories of GE food.

Please take the time to read it over and click on the links provided. If you haven't already read my book, please do so. Politics - not science - has driven genetically engineered food. My book shows the political backstory of how global food supply has been affected and what we can do about it. Don't be a guinea pig in the multinational corporations' genetic experiment. Get informed and make conscious decisions about what you and your family are eating.

Thank you for your interest in my book and updates. Please tell you friends about it and feel free to forward this email and/or my website to as many people as possible.

Beth Harrison

Shedding Light on Genetically Engineered Food

Take Action Now: Unlabeled Genetically Engineered Sugar, Chimeras, and Drugs Slipped into Your Food

Forget the hype about it feeding the world, yielding more crops, needing fewer pesticides, and other nonsense, genetically engineered (GE) food is solely about profits and corporate control over farmers and the global food supply.

By entering into contracts with biotech companies, farmers have to buy seeds from a biotech company, use a companyA´s patented chemicals along with those seeds, and then they are not permitted to save seeds. It is astounding when you realize that about eighty percent of the worldA´s farmers rely on seed saving.

Just as critically, none of the GE foods on the market today have ever been proven safe for human consumption. Independent scientific evidence has shown that human health effects of eating GE food can include toxic and allergic reactions, antibiotic resistance, immune suppression, and other serious illnesses.

Why do people continue to mistakenly believe (and some passionately defend this misguided notion) that GE crops feed the world and help the environment by reducing pesticide use? Perhaps itA´s because the government and the biotechnology industry expend questionable efforts to "educate" consumers, the media, and politicians with propaganda championing GE food as safe and necessary.

To sell the public on GE food, they have methodically promised a variety of benefits, such as higher crop yields, fewer pesticides, longer shelf life, and more. In April 2008, a published UN report, the work of more than 400 international scientists, concluded that GE crops "will not play a substantial role in addressing the key problems of climate change, biodiversity loss, hunger, and poverty."

GE crops fail to deliver benefits, while consumers assume all of the health risks. Food prices are soaring, people continue to go hungry worldwide, and the use of pesticides with GE crops is escalating. US Department of Agriculture (USDA) data reveals that in the ten years after the 1994 introduction of MonsantoA´s Roundup Ready crops, herbicide use increased by fifteen times.

In addition to the major GE foods currently on grocery store shelves today (soy, corn, canola, cotton, and dairy products), these new categories of GE foods a€“ GE sugar, GE farm animals, and pharmaceutical plants a€“ have never been proven safe for human consumption and may be on your dinner table soon a€“ if not already.

Genetically Engineered Sugar:

We have all been advised to stay away from high fructose corn syrup and the likea€¦and if trying to avoid GE ingredients, we might opt for sugar anyway. Think again, because now Monsanto has convinced the USDA to deregulate their GE sugar beets. In fact, thousands of acres of MonsantoA´s Roundup Ready GE sugar beets have already been planted, and GE sugar is expected to enter the food supply this year.

Sugar beets account for more than half of U.S. production of sugar, while the rest is produced using sugarcane. Americans consume about 10 million tons of refined sugar each year and about 12 tons of corn sweeteners such as high fructose corn syrup.

With the introduction of GE sugar beets, the two leading sweeteners consumed in the US will now be derived from GE corn and GE sugar beets. Because U.S. law does not require labeling of GE ingredients, consumers of products from candy to breakfast cereal will be unknowingly eating GE sugar, with unknown health consequences.

But wait a minute, why are they engineering our sweeteners? What does that have to do with feeding the world?

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) sent a letter to KelloggA´s in June, requesting the company not use sugar from GE sugar beets in its products or face a consumer boycott.

Even though KelloggA´s products are GE-free in Europe, they responded to OCAA´s request, claiming that U.S. consumersA´ "concerns about the usage of biotech ingredients in food production are low." Of course, U.S. consumers concern is low a€“ because they donA´t know what they are, what potential health hazards they pose, or that GE ingredients are already in their food!

To find out more about GE sugar and to sign OCAA´s petition, visit OCAA´s webpage at http://www.organicconsumers.org/kelloggs.cfm.

Genetically Engineered Meat:

In January 2008, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ruled that meat and milk from cloned pigs, cattle and goats and their offspring is "safe." As they have done in the past, FDA based their ruling on studies supplied by cloning companies that want to force cloned food on consumers. The FDA does not require food derived from cloned animals to be labeled as such.

Taking this into a new and different direction, scientists have also been tinkering to create chimeras, farm animals with a variety of cross-species characteristics a€“ also to be served up, unknowingly, for public consumption.

Fast-growing fish, super-sized and featherless chickens, goats engineered with spider genes to produce silk in their milk, pigs carrying mouse and bacterial genesa€¦these and more are headed to your dinner table without your knowledge. The ethics of such unlabeled, untested, and unsafe aberrations of animals in our food supply have clearly not been considered.

In September 2008, the FDA proposed that they will only review GE animals for their safety as food a€“ and will not require any labeling. Jean Halloran, director of Food Policy Initiatives at Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, said:

It is incomprehensible to us that FDA does not view these animals as different from their conventional counterparts [i.e. a cow is a cow regardless of how it was created or where it came from]a€¦In our view, consumers have a right to know if the ham, bacon or pork chops they are buying come from pigs that have been engineered with mouse genes.

Just because something was created in the laboratory, doesnA´t mean we should have to eat it. Sign the Consumers UnionA´s petition before November 18, 2008 and show the FDA that we want to know whatA´s in our food at: https://secure.consumersunion.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=NIMF_Frankenfood&JServSessionIdr001=43k3dol5s1.app46a.

Pharmaceutical ("Pharma") Crops:

On another front, drug and biotech companies are using food crops to produce pharmaceutical drugs, hormones, and vaccines; industrial chemicals such as detergent enzymes, bio-fuels, and plastics; research chemicals; and untested food additives and supplements.

Corporations do not typically disclose the types of chemicals that are being developeda€”they classify this information as "confidential business information". Keep in mind, hundreds of pharma-crop products are in the pipeline.

These drugs and chemicals were never meant to be eaten by the general public, yet the potential for human health effects could be massive if they wind up in common foods such as corn chips, breakfast cereal, snack foods, and baby food.

In October 2008, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) denounced newly proposed USDA rules governing GE crops, including food crops engineered to produce pharmaceutical and industrial products. The proposed USDA regulations would not protect the U.S. food supply from potential contamination by drugs from pharma-crops.

The key here is that the agency could allow certain levels of drugs in food that the USDA says are "safe" to eat. However, as we know, U.S. regulatory agencies often rely on advisory committees made up of outside experts to offer "science-based" advice, and those panels typically includea€”and are sometimes dominated bya€”scientists or researchers who have direct financial relationships with the companies whose products are under scrutiny.

If the above proposals for pharma-crops are enacted into law, American consumers will be unaware (due to no labeling) and must accept the possibility of drugs in their common daily food choices.

Do you want the USDA deciding for you (without your knowledge) which chemicals and drug levels they say are "safe" for you to consume in your food?

Take action by signing the UCSA´s petition at: http://ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/what_you_can_do/sign-the-ucs-petition-to-the.html.

The only way for change to happen is if we drive this on a consumer, grassroots level and stop eating GE food. Call food manufacturers (almost every package has a company 800# on it) and tell them you donA´t want GE food or ingredients. If food processors stop accepting GE crops because of consumer rejection, the agriculture biotech industry wonA´t have a market.

In Europe , governments took a precautionary first step with regard to GE food and labeled it, which led to consumer awareness and rejection of it. Because of that, many of the same companies that use genetically engineered ingredients in the U.S. are GE-free in Europe . We can be GE-free in the U.S. if enough consumers become aware.

To avoid GE food, go organic. When you buy organic, no animals are permitted to have been given antibiotics, growth hormones, or feed made from animal byproducts. No genetically engineered ingredients, irradiated ingredients, synthetic ingredients, or fertilizers made with sewage sludge are legally permitted in organic food. All of these are permitted in most conventional food production.

Get informed and let your voice be heard. Take action and sign these petitions. Tell your friends and family about GE food and the risks. We have to act today to protect our health, our environment, and future generations. As consumers become aware, big changes can happen.

We have the power to make big change happen.

Why should you be a guinea pig for the biotech industry? ShouldnA´t you be the "the Decider" when it comes to the food you eat?

By Beth H. Harrison, PhD, author of four-time award-winning Shedding Light on Genetically Engineered Food, exploring why and how you have been kept in the dark about GE foods and the risks, why these foods continue to go unlabeled, and what foods to avoid and how to take action. www.TheTruthAboutGMOs.com

Go here http://www.thetruthaboutgmos.com/gmo-foods-order-books.html to order one for yourself and a friend now.


Analyst Blames Illuminati for Financial Crisis on CNBC


Alternative Approaches to Prostate Cancer Care
Mark Stengler, ND
La Jolla Whole Health Clinic

Over the course of a lifetime, one man in six eventually will be diagnosed with prostate cancer... one in 35 will die from it. Despite how common the disease is, the treatment path for prostate cancer is seldom clear. Even conventional doctors who specialize in prostate cancer frequently disagree about the best course of action.

Surgery to remove the prostate gland and perhaps the nearby lymph nodes often is recommended, yet it can have onerous side effects -- including incontinence that lasts for months or years and lifelong erectile dysfunction. What's more, statistics show that surgery does not necessarily increase a man's life span.

For these reasons, many doctors now recommend a "watch and wait" approach rather than surgery. Prostate cancer usually is slow-growing, and more than 70% of the men who develop it are over age 65. The older a man is, the more likely he is to die of some other condition before his prostate cancer becomes a real threat. The American Cancer Society (www.cancer.org) states, "At this time, watchful waiting is a reasonable option for some men with slow-growing cancers because it is not known whether active treatment, such as surgery, radiation therapy and hormone therapy, prolongs survival."

The holistic view: For prostate cancer patients age 65 and older, as well as for some younger men whose cancer does not appear to be fast-growing, I support the decision to watch and wait before pursuing aggressive conventional treatment -- with one important caveat. Instead of waiting passively and doing nothing, I recommend a proactive approach using natural therapies that may slow or halt cancer growth or even cause the cancer to diminish.

My regimen includes various nutritional supplements -- including two new ones being researched at major university medical centers. Several of my patients with localized prostate cancer are using these natural therapies under my care -- and now, up to 12 years after diagnosis, they continue to do well.

Unless noted otherwise, all supplements described below are available at health-food stores, generally are safe to take indefinitely and cause no significant side effects. Important: It is vital that men who have prostate cancer be monitored by an oncologist. Show your doctor this article, and discuss your desire to incorporate these natural therapies.


Aaron E. Katz, MD, associate professor of clinical urology and director of the Center of Holistic Urology at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City, is heading the research on two new supplements that are showing promise in the fight against prostate cancer. Studies are still in progress. Here is what we know so far...

Zyflamend. This unique formula from New Chapter (800-543-7279, www.newchapter.com, about $50 for 120 capsules) combines phytochemicals (beneficial plant chemicals) with herbal extracts from turmeric, ginger, green tea, rosemary, hu zhang (Japanese knotweed), Chinese goldthread, barberry, oregano, baikal skullcap and holy basil.

Dr. Katz's laboratory study, published in 2005, found that Zyflamend reduced prostate cancer cell proliferation by up to 78% and may even have killed some existing prostate cancer cells. How it works: Chronic inflammation is linked to the formation of cancerous cells... and Zyflamend inhibits activity of two enzymes (COX-1 and COX-2) that promote inflammation.

Last year, researchers at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center published their own laboratory study showing that Zyflamend reduces activity of a family of proteins called NF-kappa B. When overactive, these proteins stimulate abnormal prostate cell growth.

Dr. Katz's team is now analyzing results of a clinical trial of Zyflamend among men at high risk for prostate cancer. Preliminary findings are encouraging. The trial included 23 men, ages 46 to 75, who were diagnosed via biopsy with a type of precancerous cell proliferation called high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) -- a marker suggesting an 80% chance that cancer will develop within 10 years. The men also had elevated levels of prostate specific antigen (PSA) -- a substance produced by prostate gland cells and often elevated when cancer exists. Participants took one Zyflamend pill three times a day for 18 months. Blood tests and biopsies then showed...

The PIN disappeared in 62% of patients.

Half of the men had decreases in PSA levels -- some by more than 50% -- indicating a return to more normal prostate cell activity.

For all of the nine patients who did develop cancer, the disease was the slow-growing type and confined to a small area.

If you are at risk: Based on the evidence that Zyflamend can reverse PIN and reduce PSA, I recommend taking three Zyflamend capsules daily (with meals to avoid gastric upset), continuing indefinitely, if you have any of the following...

An enlarged prostate (as detected during a doctor's exam)

Any abnormal prostate PIN

PSA that is elevated for your age. PSA is considered elevated if it is at or above 2.5 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml) in your 40s... 3.5 ng/ml in your 50s... 4.5 ng/ml in your 60s... or 6.5 ng/ml in your 70s.

An ultrasound or other imaging test showing prostate lesions

One or more immediate family members with a history of prostate cancer, if you are over age 50.

If you have high-grade PIN or prostate cancer: In addition to taking Zyflamend, consider taking a second new supplement, Prostabel, described below...

Prostabel. Available on-line from Natural Source International (888-308-7066, www.natural-source.com, $145 for 100 capsules), Prostabel combines extracts from the barks of the Amazonian Pao pereira tree and the sub-Saharan plant Rauwolfia vomitoria. In 1980, scientists from the Pasteur Institute in France identified the cancer-fighting properties of these substances.

Dr. Katz's team at Columbia is now conducting a clinical trial on Prostabel. The study currently has 25 men, ages 40 to 75, with negative biopsy reports but elevated PSA levels. Participants were assigned to take from two to eight capsules of Prostabel daily for 12 months.

Findings are preliminary -- eight men have completed the 12-month course of treatment to date. Prostabel significantly lowered PSA in five of the eight men. While four of the men have developed cancer, their cancers are small and slow-growing. Researchers are waiting to see if Prostabel suppresses cancer cell growth in the remaining 17 participants. Just one patient, who was on the highest dosage, developed liver enzyme problems as a side effect. Surprising: Patients experienced significant improvements in urination problems common among older men, such as frequent need to urinate and slowed stream.

To inquire about the clinical trial, call 212-305-3790.

Recommended dosage: Three Prostabel capsules daily. Take on an empty stomach to maximize absorption -- if it causes digestive upset, take with meals instead.


In addition to taking Zyflamend and/or Prostabel, I recommend that men who have had a diagnosis of prostate cancer take all of the following, continuing indefinitely...

Zinc. The prostate gland is extremely sensitive to hormones, especially estrogen. Although estrogen is primarily a female hormone, as men age and their testosterone levels decrease, an enzyme called aromatase converts some of the remaining testosterone to estrogen, thereby increasing risk for prostate cancer. Zinc helps to slow the activity of aromatase.

Dosage: 50 mg daily. Caution: Check with your doctor before taking zinc if you are undergoing chemotherapy -- zinc may not be compatible with some chemotherapy drugs.

Copper. Long-term zinc supplementation can lead to a copper deficiency, so also take 2 mg of copper daily.

Selenium. This mineral appears to protect against prostate cancer, perhaps by providing antioxidants (chemical compounds that protect cells from free radicals that can damage cell DNA).

Dosage: 200 micrograms (mcg) daily. Note: Although evidence is not conclusive, selenium has been linked to increased risk for diabetes -- so have your blood sugar monitored regularly.

Vitamin E. This provides antioxidants that guard against cell damage.

Dosage: 200 international units (IU) daily of "mixed" vitamin E (as indicated on label).

Calcium limit. Take no more than 500 mg of supplemental calcium daily. Some evidence links high doses to increased prostate cancer risk.

Men who have been diagnosed with prostate cancer and who want a more aggressive approach can add the following and continue taking them indefinitely...

Indole 3-carbinol. Supplementing with this plant chemical found in cruciferous vegetables helps the liver metabolize and excrete estrogen.

Dosage: 400 mg daily.

Maitake mushroom extract. This enhances immune function. Use capsules or tincture labeled "standardized MD-fraction."

Dosage: 1 mg per day for every 2.2 pounds of body weight (for instance, a 165-pound man would take 75 mg daily... a 200-pound man would take 90 mg daily). Take in two divided doses on an empty stomach. Beta glucan. Beta glucan is a complex sugar. The most beneficial form is derived from baker's yeast and sold under the brand name WPG 3-6. It boosts the immune system's effectiveness against cancer and other diseases.

Dosage: 500 mg twice daily. The brand I recommend is ImmunotiX 3-6, the potent and purified WGP 3-6 product from Xymogen (800-647-6100, www.xymogen.com).

Bottom Line/Natural Healing interviewed Mark Stengler, ND, a naturopathic physician and leading authority on the practice of alternative and integrated medicine. He is director of the La Jolla Whole Health Clinic, La Jolla, California, and adjunct associate clinical professor at the National College of Natural Medicine, Portland, Oregon. He is author of the newsletter Bottom Line/Natural Healing, www.DrStengler.com.


I am not for either Presidential candidates and I am not racist, I just find it hard to believe that anyone can possibly be our next president without documents such as these being public.
These are strange and dangerous times for sure.

14 Documents that the American People are ENTITLED to See.
1- Occidental College records -- Not released
2- Columbia College records -- Not released
3- Columbia Thesis paper -- ' not available '
4- Harvard College records -- Not released
5- Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6- Medical records -- Not released
7- Illinois State Senate schedule -- ' not available '
8- Law practice client list -- Not released
9- Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released
10- Embossed, signed, paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
11- Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
12- University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
13- Your Record of baptism-- Not released or ' not available '
14- Your Illinois State Senate records-- ' not available '

What ' s that? ...Who wants to know these things, Senator Obama?

link below related information and video


"I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

The Tube And The Truth

Network - "There is no democracy"

Click Here To Comment