Sunday, September 25, 2016


On this blog in March 2011 I posted this article and today I still ask myself is the FDA helping us or not.  Through other articles that I have posted ~ are you still sure they are looking after our best interests.

First we need to know just who is the FDA and what it does.  My question is why are other countries so more advanced with functional oncology then us?  If I did not go to Mexico, I could of not done the treatment that I had.  We as Americans are not given a choice on treatment when it comes time for cancer.  There is so much out there to explore then chemo and radiation.

What is the FDA?

The Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, is a United States Department of Health and Human Services agency that is charged with regulating food (both human and animal), dietary supplements, drugs (human and animal), cosmetics, medical devices (human and animal) and radiation emitting devices (including non-medical), biologics, and blood products in America.

The agency’s main objective is to protect citizens from products that are inherently unsafe or that make claims of effectiveness that cannot be substantiated. The FDA has the power to regulate a multitude of products to ensure the safety of the American public and the effectiveness of marketed food, medical and cosmetic products. Regulations include, but are not limited to, outright ban, controlled distribution, and controlled marketing.

The FDA also sets the standards under which individuals may be licensed to prescribe drugs or other medical devices. Unlike drugs, the FDA does not pre-approve dietary supplements on their safety and efficency. Rather, the FDA can only pursue dietary supplement manufacturers after they have put unsafe products on the market. However, certain foods (such as medical foods or baby formula) are deemed special nutritionals due to their consumption by highly vulnerable populations, and are therefore regulated more strictly than the majority of dietary supplements.

The FDA is currently divided into five major Centers. These include The Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), The Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), and The Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

Please, if you have any comments, you can either post on the blog or e-mail to or tweet me twitter@othermed  


Thursday, August 18, 2011


Michael Taylor was just appointed senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. This is the same man that was in charge of FDA policy when GMO's were allowed into the US food supply without undergoing a single test to determine their safety. He "had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA [and then] he became Monsanto's Vice President and chief lobbyist. This month [he] became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America's food safety czar. This is no joke

When FDA scientists were asked to weigh in on what was to become the most radical and potentially dangerous change in our food supply -- the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods -- secret documents now reveal that the experts were very concerned. Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried "serious health hazards," and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply.

But the biotech industry had rigged the game so that neither science nor scientists would stand in their way. They had placed their own man in charge of FDA policy and he wasn't going to be swayed by feeble arguments related to food safety. No, he was going to do what corporations had done for decades to get past these types of pesky concerns. He was going to lie.

Dangerous Food Safety Lies

When the FDA was constructing their GMO policy in 1991-2, their scientists were clear that gene-sliced foods were significantly different and could lead to "different risks" than conventional foods. But official policy declared the opposite, claiming that the FDA knew nothing of significant differences, and declared GMOs substantially equivalent.

This fiction became the rationale for allowing GM foods on the market without any required safety studies whatsoever! The determination of whether GM foods were safe to eat was placed entirely in the hands of the companies that made them -- companies like Monsanto, which told us that the PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange were safe.

GMOs were rushed onto our plates in 1996. Over the next nine years, multiple chronic illnesses in the US nearly doubled -- from 7% to 13%. Allergy-related emergency room visits doubled between 1997 and 2002 while food allergies, especially among children, skyrocketed. We also witnessed a dramatic rise in asthma, autism, obesity, diabetes, digestive disorders, and certain cancers.

In January of this year, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world's top biologists, told me that after reviewing 600 scientific journals, he concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases.

In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine concluded that animal studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between GM foods and infertility, accelerated aging, dysfunctional insulin regulation, changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system, and immune problems such as asthma, allergies, and inflammation

In July, a report by eight international experts determined that the flimsy and superficial evaluations of GMOs by both regulators and GM companies "systematically overlook the side effects" and significantly underestimate "the initial signs of diseases like cancer and diseases of the hormonal, immune, nervous and reproductive systems, among others."

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

FDA Approves 54 New Cancer Drugs Without Proof They Extend Life -

FDA approves cancer drugs without proof they’re extending lives

By John Fauber The Journal Sentinel


For decades, researchers have focused on developing new cancer drugs that save lives or improve the quality of life. But when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration allowed Inlyta, a $10,000 a month drug, on the market in 2012, there was no proof that it did either.

Inlyta is not an exception to the rule.

A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel/MedPage Today analysis of 54 new cancer drugs found that over the last decade the FDA allowed 74% of them on the market without proof that they extended life. Seldom was there proof of improved quality of life, either.

Nor has the FDA demanded companies provide such evidence.

FDA secretly legalizes GM salmon during holidays while nobody was watching

Saturday, December 29, 2012 by: J. D. Heyes

Learn more:

(NaturalNews) Once the bastion of purity, seafood has now entered the realm of "manufactured" sustenance, thanks to a couple of U.S. government bureaucracies.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted permission to a firm that will allow it to produce GM salmon, a decision that has been called a genetically modified food "breakthrough" by breathless journalists who obviously don't understand the gravity of what has just occurred.

According to Britain's Independent newspaper, the FDA's decision means the salmon - which reportedly grow twice as fast as ordinary fish - "could become the first genetically-modified animal in the world to be declared officially safe to eat."

In reaching its decision FDA officials said they couldn't find any valid scientific reasons to ban production of GM Atlantic salmon, which are engineered using extra genes from two other species of fish - the Pacific Chinook salmon and an eel-like species called the ocean pout.

A 'perfect storm' of deceit regarding GM foods

The Shocking Story of How Aspartame Became Legal

January 19, 2013 by Joe Martino

Did you know that Aspartame was banned by the FDA twice? How is this product legal now?

The bittersweet argument over whether Aspartame is safe or not has been going on for a long time. On one side we have medical evidence that suggests we should avoid using it and on the other side we lean on the FDA’s approval that suggests it is safe. Since generally that seems to be the factor that many continue to hold trust based upon, I thought we could look into the Aspartame story to find out how it came to be accepted as safe by the FDA. You would think that something so widely used and so well accepted would have quite the pristine story leading to its acceptance. I imagine one will discover otherwise after reading this post.

It all starts in the mid 1960′s with a company called G.D. Searle. One of their chemists accidentally creates aspartame while trying to create a cure for stomach ulcers. Searle decides to put aspartame through a testing process which eventually leads to its approval by the FDA. Not long after, serious health effects begin to arise and G.D. Searle comes under fire for their testing practices. It is revealed that the testing process of Aspartame was among the worst the investigators had ever seen and that in fact the product was unsafe for use. Aspartame triggers the first criminal investigation of a manufacturer put into place by the FDA in 1977. By 1980 the FDA bans aspartame from use after having 3 independent scientists study the sweetener. It was determined that one main health effects were that it had a high chance of inducing brain tumors. At this point it was clear that aspartame was not fit to be used in foods and banned is where it stayed, but not for long.

Early in 1981 Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld (who is a former Secretary of Defense.. surprise surprise) vowed to “call in his markers,” to get it approved. January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Searle took the steps to re-apply aspartame’s approval for use by the FDA. Ronald Reagans’ new FDA commissioner Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It did not take long for the panel to decide 3-2 in favor of maintaining the ban of aspartame. Hull then decided to appoint a 6th member to the board, which created a tie in the voting, 3-3. Hull then decided to personally break the tie and approve aspartame for use. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller. Burstone-Marstella is the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time, he has never spoken publicly about aspartame.

It is clear to this point that if anything the safety of aspartame is incredibly shaky.  It has already been through a process of being banned and without the illegitimate un-banning of the product, it would not be being used today. Makes you wonder how much corruption and money was involved with names like Rumsfeld, Reagan and Hull involved so heavily. In 1985, Monsanto decides to purchase the aspartame patent from G.D. Searle. Remember that Arthur Hull now had the connection to Monsanto. Monsanto did not seem too concerned with the past challenges and ugly image aspartame had based on its past. I personally find this comical as Monsanto’s products are banned in many countries and of all companies to buy the product they seem to fit best as they are champions of producing incredibly unsafe and untested products and making sure they stay in the market place.

Since then, aspartame has been under a lot of attack by scientists, doctors, chemists and consumers about it’s safety and neurotoxic properties. Piles of comprehensive studies have been completed that show aspartame is a cause for over 90 serious health problems such as cancer, leukemia, headaches, seizures, fibromyalgia, and epilepsy just to name a few. We have written several articles discussing various effects of aspartame. Aspartame Leukemia Link. Aspartame and Brain Damage.

I am not pointing the finger ~ just making an observation on the facts.  It is up to you to take control of your own health and interest by researching and educating our selves. KNOWELDGE IS POWER. 

Thursday, September 22, 2016


Kill Sinus Infection in 20 Seconds With This Simple Method And This Common Household Ingredient! 

  • 1/2 cup of water
  • 1/4 cup unfiltered apple cider vinegar
  • 1 tablespoon raw honey
  • 1 tps. minced ginger
  • 1 tsp. cayenne pepper
  • 1 lemon, juiced
  1. Boil water and combine with apple cider vinegar.
  2. Add the honey and cayenne and stir.
  3. Lastly, add lemon juice.
  4. Drink multiple times a day until your sinuses clear up.

How It Works

Lemon reduces inflammation of the mucous membranes and boosts the immune system to fight off an infection on your own .

Cayenne contains capsaicin, which thins mucus to help it drain out.

Ginger kills bacteria and viruses to fight the cause of infection. It also soothes throat irritation and fights headaches .

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

It's been 2119 Days or 5 years ~ 9 months ~ and 18 days

It’s been 2119 Days or 5 years ~ 9months ~ and 18 days

Of My New Lifestyle


Every day I am constantly dealing with change, which I call obstacles that surround my daily life.   From the beginning of conception, we all are faced with these so called obstacles.  Some of us can handle them with grace and others have a hard time making that adjustment.  As children we are faced with having someone take care of us by feeding, changing our diapers along with entertaining one from crying.  We all had faced those obstacles along with learning to crawl and walk and we had made it through those changes.

We overcome school years good or bad, those changes have molded us to where we are today.  Like the seasons of the year we face the obstacles and challenge the way we decide on how we are going to live.  I have been faced with other challenges in my life by the loss of my dad at an early age.  So when I received cancer in my early 50’s, I was faced with an obstacle that changed my life forever.  I began researching and focusing on why one gets it and battles with it.  In all my research it mostly comes down to this, the environment (products, food, energy) Body, Soul and Mind.

It’s up to us to follow our gut and change individually first and then show others whatever is out there so they can choose to better oneself.  Not everyone is going to make the right change, but if we do not show and prove that there are other ways to manage cancer and other diseases then there will not be a change.  Yes, there are obstacles in everything we do; however, if you learn by them others will profit by your actions.  There is this saying that I try to live by that goes like this: Remember there are no mistakes, only lessons, love yourself, trust your choices and everything is possible.  Throughout my life I have learned that with a positive attitude the change or obstacles that one faces are all up to you and how you handle it.

So, lets help me make a change and educate others on treatments, preventions and ways to manage cancer without poisons.  Check out my websites and goals for a greater future.  KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.

" Know where to find the information and how to use it - That's the secret of success "
- Albert Einstein
If you have not signed the petition, please do so and shar

Sunday, September 4, 2016


I have researched the past several years to find what are the best treatments with less side effects. Then, what is the very thing that causes cancer.  Chemotherapy and radiation are the conventional treatments that are widely known by the professionals in United States and throughout the world. These, however; can be just another reason that causes cancer in the first place.  It’s been a long time of sleepless nights and turning and tossing to be able to put CANCER in terms with what we are facing in the future.

With my own self attacked by this disease, I turned to Mexico and other scientific methods that are known not to have side effects.  Yes, it has been six years since my treatments and I do not have any signs of cancer.    The key is not just treatments, but also, what was the cause.  So the treatments are not the only method to stop cancer.  It’s the environment that we live in, the products we use (may it be what we put on our bodies to chemicals we spray to clean with), foods we eat (gluten and processed sugar feeds on cancer, foods that are GMO and are sprayed), and stress all contributes to lowering your immune system which causes this type of disease and many more.

We need to look at the bigger picture. What is the best way for one to live a quality of life?  People say they would never go to Mexico for treatment for they fear that it is not safe!! Has anyone watched the news in the states recently? Nonsense, I went six years ago and fell in love with the people and the culture.  Yes, I went over to the other side and never regret the decision I and my husband made.  Now, for nearly four years we have made it our home along with our other family member Heckle our pet turtle.  I have learned a lot of survival from him by the environment he lives in that we have provided for him.  It’s the little things that matter from the space you live in, to the type of foods.

Now let’s get into the treatments in United States compared with the treatments in the Mexico that I had.  The pricing is different and it varies where you go in Mexico and it includes more than what is done in the United States.  First, in the states it is per treatment (each time) compared in Mexico it is either per week or a package which includes education, stem cell, hyperthermia, your stay, food and any other type of functional medicine.  The difference is the professionals trained in Functional Medicine are more educated in Mexico with treating the individual person then the disease itself. 

Both the United States and Mexico the treatment is not covered by most insurances for it is not FDA approved.  However, we need to again look at the big picture.  Look at the stats for the coming years at the prices for cancer treatments in the United States.

Based on growth and aging of the U.S. population, medical expenditures for cancer in the year 2020 are projected to reach at least $158 billion (in 2010 dollars) — an increase of 27 percent over 2010, according to a National Institutes of Health analysis. If newly developed tools for cancer diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up continue to be more expensive, medical expenditures for cancer could reach as high as $207 billion, said the researchers from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the NIH. The analysis appears online, Jan. 12, 2011, in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The projections were based on the most recent data available on cancer incidence, survival, and costs of care. In 2010, medical costs associated with cancer were projected to reach $124.6 billion, with the highest costs associated with breast cancer ($16.5 billion), followed by colorectal cancer ($14 billion), lymphoma ($12 billion), lung cancer ($12 billion) and prostate cancer ($12 billion).

If cancer incidence and survival rates and costs remain stable and the U.S. population ages at the rate predicted by the U.S. Census Bureau, direct cancer care expenditures would reach $158 billion in 2020, the report said.

However, the researchers also did additional analyses to account for changes in cancer incidence and survival rates and for the likelihood that cancer care costs will increase as new technologies and treatments are developed. Assuming a 2 percent annual increase in medical costs in the initial and final phases of care — which would mirror recent trends — the projected 2020 costs increased to $173 billion. Estimating a 5 percent annual increase in these costs raised the projection to $207 billion. These figures do not include other types of costs, such as lost productivity, which add to the overall financial burden of cancer.

"Rising health care costs pose a challenge for policy makers charged with allocating future resources on cancer research, treatment, and prevention,” said study author Angela Mariotto, Ph.D., from NCI’s Surveillance Research Program. “Because it is difficult to anticipate future developments of cancer control technologies and their impact on the burden of cancer, we evaluated a variety of possible scenarios."

To project national cancer expenditures, the researchers combined cancer prevalence, which is the current number of people living with cancer, with average annual costs of care by age (less than 65 or 65 and older). According to their prevalence estimates, there were 13.8 million cancer survivors alive in 2010, 58 percent of whom were age 65 or older. If cancer incidence and survival rates remain stable, the number of cancer survivors in 2020 will increase by 31 percent, to about 18.1 million. Because of the aging of the U.S. population, the researchers expect the largest increase in cancer survivors over the next 10 years to be among Americans age 65 and older.

"The rising costs of cancer care illustrate how important it is for us to advance the science of cancer prevention and treatment to ensure that we’re using the most effective approaches,” said Robert Croyle, Ph.D., director, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, NCI. “This is especially important for elderly cancer patients with other complex health problems."

To develop their cost projections, the authors used average medical costs for the different phases of cancer care: the first year after diagnosis, the last year of life, and the time in between. For all types of cancer, per-person costs of care were highest in the final year of life. Per-person costs associated with the first year after a cancer diagnosis were more varied, with cancers of the brain, pancreas, ovaries, esophagus and stomach having the highest initial costs and melanoma, prostate and breast cancers having the lowest initial-year costs.

These new projections are higher than previously published estimates of direct cancer expenditures, largely because the researchers used the most recent data available — including Medicare claims data through 2006, which include payments for newer, more expensive, targeted therapies which attack specific cancer cells and often have fewer side effects than other types of cancer treatments. In addition, by analyzing costs according to phase of care, which revealed the higher costs of care associated with the first year of treatment and last year of life (for those who die from their disease), the researchers were able to generate more precise estimates of the cost of care.

The researchers used 2005 incidence and mortality data from NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program to estimate cancer prevalence for 2010 and 2020. Population estimates for the United States was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau's National Interim Projections for 2006 to 2020. Medical cost estimates were obtained using the SEER-Medicare database which links SEER data to Medicare claims data from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.