Fighting Cancer Now a Matter of Money - When is a Profit Enough?

Those suffering from breast or lung cancer have something new to anguish over. In addition to dealing with chemotherapy, weakness and mortality, they now must worry if they have the resources necessary to pay for extremely expensive medicine. Not the $50,000 price tag associated with current therapies, but $100,000-for just one year's treatment.

That is what many cancer patients will have to pay for a course of Genentech's Avastin, a drug shown in clinical trials to extend the lives of late-stage breast and lung cancer patients by several months when combined with existing therapies.

Avastin is currently used to treat colon cancer, at a price of about $50,000 a year. But since it will be used at higher doses for lung and breast cancer the cost will double, to about $8,800 a month. Even though the additional cost of producing a higher dose is minimal, Genentech does not plan to reduce the unit price.

With a price this high, some cancer patients will be priced out of the treatment; namely, those without insurance and those with high deductibles. But even some patients with insurance are thinking hard before agreeing to treatment, as out-of-pocket co-payments for Avastin could easily run $10,000 to $20,000 a year.

Genentech is currently seeking FDA approval to sell the drug specifically for the treatment of breast and lung cancer. Until the FDA gives the okay to sell Avastin as treatment for these diseases, insurance companies will not pay for it and patients must sign a waiver agreeing to reimburse the hospital for the price of treatment.

Avastin went on sale during the first quarter of 2004 and had 2005 sales of $1.1 billion. With this new application it has a potential patient pool of hundreds of thousands of people, meaning its United States sales could grow nearly sevenfold-$7 billion by 2009. Genentech's profits are forecast to triple to $4 billion in 2009, as sales climb to $18 billion.

Herein lays the moral-ethical question: When is a profit enough?

In the past, drug manufacturers said high drug prices were necessary to recoup the large research and development costs associated with new drug development. For every successful drug that comes to market, dozens of other drugs in development could not be sold, for a variety of reasons: the drug did not perform as anticipated or perhaps could not gain FDA approval.

Genentech's reasoning for the high cost of an Avastin treatment for lung or breast cancer is decidedly different. The company and its majority owner, Roche, say the inherent value of life-sustaining therapies is the justification for a high price. With 2005 sales of more than $6 billion, pure profit also seems to be a motivator for the South San Francisco, CA-based firm.

"As we look at Avastin pricing, right now the health economics hold up, and therefore I don't see any reason to be touching them," said William M. Burns, the chief executive of Roche's pharmaceutical division and a member of Genentech's board.

Genentech's president of product development, Dr. Susan Desmond-Hellmann, said that Genentech set Avastin's price based on "the value of innovation, and the value of new therapies." To assist those who cannot afford treatment, Genentech has patient programs and last year contributed $21 million to charities that help patients with their insurance co-payments, she said.

Because of Genentech's status as a leading developer of cancer therapies, some doctors fear that the company's pricing plans for Avastin may encourage other companies to charge more for their own oncology drugs. If this happens, the overall costs of cancer treatments may rise to unsustainable levels.

Many medical professionals are opposed to the ever-rising costs of pharmaceuticals, but few are willing to discuss it. Efforts were made to reach local medical professional for comments. No pharmaceutical sales representatives were able to comment, as all major drug companies require employees to sign strict non-disclosure agreements. Pharmacists at chain pharmacies such as CVS and Walgreens are also not permitted to comment either on or off the record, and pharmacists at the local independent pharmacies contacted were hesitant to comment.

Robyn Gleason, MSN, MPH, ARNP, PhD(c) and Bethune-Cookman Nursing professor, was willing to comment. "They'll charge what the market will bear," she said in an interview. "I don't think the drug companies are justified in charging $100,000 a year for cancer treatment. But look at the cost of HIV drugs. It's no different."

"I'm sure it cost them a lot to develop this drug. But I'm not so sure it costs them enough to justify the $100,000 price," she added.

So why do drugs cost so much? Is it because of the huge R&D costs, or something else? A report by the U.S. consumer group Families USA refutes the long-standing pharmaceutical industry's claim that high prices are needed to sustain research and development-an argument not only advanced by industry, but by major industrial countries, the World Trade Organization, and even parts of the World Health Organization.

The report, "Off the Charts: Pay, Profits and Spending by Drug Companies," documents that drug companies spend more than twice as much on marketing, advertising, and administration than they do on R&D. It also purports that company profits, which are higher than those of all other industries, far exceed R&D expenditures, and that drug companies provide lavish compensation packages for their top executives. These expenses have to be recouped, and as of late the method for that has been to charge more and more for drugs.

An outspoken critic of exorbitant prices is Dr. Marcia Angell, author of the book The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. In her book Dr. Angell argues against the pharmaceutical industry's reputation as an "engine of innovation." According to Dr. Angell's research, the top U.S. drug makers spend 2.5 times as much on marketing and administration as they do on research.

She also found that a third of the drugs marketed by industry leaders were discovered by universities or small biotech companies and sold to the public at inflated prices. She cites cancer drug Taxol, which was discovered by the National Institutes of Health and then sold by Bristol-Myers Squibb at a treatment cost of $20,000 a year-20 times the manufacturing cost. Interestingly, Bristol-Myers Squibb pays the NIH only 0.5% in royalties.

The real test of legitimacy for extremely high prices is, how much profit are pharmaceutical companies making?

A PricewaterhouseCoopers study cataloged the profit per dollar of the largest, economy-driving industries. In the third quarter of 2005 the overall average was 18.5 cents of profit for every dollar of sales. The oil and gas industry earned 8.2 cents; banking, 18 cents; transportation a paltry 0.2 cents; and software, 9 cents. The pharmaceutical industry, however, earned 18.5 cents of profit for every dollar of sales-the highest of any industry.

Angell reports in her book that the top ten pharmaceutical companies make more in profits than the rest of the Fortune 500 companies combined. For many, this is evidence enough that too much is being charged for drugs.

Mandy Minor is the marketing director for St. Petersburg web design firm J Allan Studios.

Lung Cancer and Smoking

According to the American Cancer Society, today, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in women. In 2006, an estimated 162,460 deaths resulted from lung cancer, and of those deaths, an estimated 79,560 of those were women. At first glance, the numbers might not seem so alarming., but what is alarming is the fact that "between 1960 and 1990, deaths from lung cancer among women increased by more than 400%" (www.lungcancer.org). Do you need a moment to digest those statistics? I know I did.

In addition, to being the leading cause of cancer-related death for women, the National Cancer Institutes reports that the expected 5-year survival rate for all patients in whom lung cancer is diagnosed is 15.5 percent compared to 64.8 percent for colon, 89 percent for breast and 99.9 percent for prostate cancer. Further, about 6 out of 10 people with lung cancer die within 1 year of being diagnosed with the disease (Lungusa).

After reading the data, I did some research to uncover the cause of such high incidences of lung cancer overall, and particularly, in women. Studies show that while lung cancer can be caused by a variety of factors, including asbestos and environmental pollution, smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer in the United States, with an estimated 90 percent of lung cancer cases caused by smoking. 5 What that means, is that 90 percent of lung cancer cases are preventable; and in 2006, of the 79,560 women that died, 71,685 of those deaths were senseless.

To make the numbers understandable from a layman's point of view, what they correlate to is this: more people have died from smoking in one year than there were American military casualties in Iraq since the war started in 2003, and more than were murdered in the United States in 2005.

Hence, it begs to be considered that if lung cancer is preventable, why do over 1.1 billion people, over 1/6 of the world's total population choose to smoke and ingest harmful tobacco products? This includes 33% of the African population; 57% of the people in the United States; 72% of Europeans; 48% of Southeast Asians, 39% of Eastern Mediterraneans; and 68% of people in Western Pacific nations (World Heath Organization, 2000 estimates).

The answer in short is addiction.

With this in mind, I struck out to learn more about the history of the cigarette. I was in for quite an education. Besides providing you with a history of the cigarette, this article will also educate you on what lung cancer does to your body, steps you can take to prevent it, methods of screening, and resources. Hopefully, what you learn in the following pages will enable you to make a decision that could save a life.

History of the Cigarette

The primary ingredient in a cigarette is tobacco. Tobacco in cigarettes is usually a blend of several types of the tobacco leaf, which have the effect of euphoria on the nervous system. Tar, a by-product of the cigarette, is produced when the cigarette is lit. Nicotine is also part of the make up of the tobacco leaf. When a cigarette is lit and the smoke inhaled, nicotine moves into the blood vessels of the mucous membranes, skin and lungs, and then directly to your brain [within seconds], increasing adrenaline production, stimulating neurons in the brain that cause "good" feelings, which encourage a person to want to repeat the action that caused that feeling (addiction), further stimulating the production and release of endorphins, which cause feelings of euphoria. (howstuffworks.com).

Man has been using the tobacco product for thousands of years. Native Americans smoked prior to the arrival of European explores; and the practice is even depicted in early Mayan art dating back to 1,500 years ago, when tobacco was also used as a medicinal antidote. In the 16th century, smoking was common mostly among sailors. The cigar later became popular in England in the 1820s. The cigarette soon appeared in Spain. During World War I, tobacco products were included in military rations. After the war, manufacturers began advertising cigarette smoking as glamorous, and the rest, as they say is history (Wikipedia).

When manufacturers recognized the marketability of the cigarette, they became interested in learning how to get more people to smoke. Advertising was one way. The other way was to include additives that made cigarette smoking less harsh, more tasty...and more addictive. Today, there are over 599 known additives in cigarettes that have been approved by the United States (U.S.) Government. What most people don't know is that while some of these additives are safe and can be found in everyday foods, others are extremely dangerous when ingested and when burned, these additives produce chemical compounds that are toxic.

Some of the additives included in cigarettes are carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, formaldehyde and hydrazine, among others. These harsh chemicals have no natural place in a human body, and even to a layman, it is obvious that these products would be harmful when ingested. Carbon monoxide, for example, a poisonous gas found in car exhaust smoke, when inhaled, can cause fatigue, nausea, disorientation and chest pains. Hydrogen cyanide is used to make fibers, plastics, dyes, pesticides and under the name of Zyklon B, was used as a genocidal agent in World War I. Ammonia is a household cleaner which causes skin, eye, nose, throat and lung irritation. Formaldehyde is used to manufacture building materials and to preserve dead bodies. It causes watery eyes, burning of the eyes, nose and throat, coughing, wheezing and skin irritation. Together with the other additives in a cigarette, each time a smoker lights up and inhales, they are inhaling a "cocktail" of carcinogens, creating a multitude of illnesses in their bodies and speeding up death. At the same time, because the physiological and psychological rewards are so immediate, most smokers, after just one cigarette, are on their way to addiction. Nowadays, cigarettes can be found pretty much everywhere, at neighborhood grocery stores, gas stations, street vendors and even on-line.

Seizing on the lucrative business of addiction, cigarette manufacturers produce approximately 5.5 trillion cigarettes globally each year. China, the United States, Russia, and Japan-the four largest producers-manufacture just over half of the world's supply. In 2004, China produced 1.79 trillion cigarettes, 32 percent of the global total. The United States produced 499 billion, 9 percent of the total. ([http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4320])

There are billions of dollars spent every year to target current smokers and recruit new ones. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), major manufacturers like China National Tobacco Company (China), Altria Group, Inc., (previously Phillip Morris Companies) (USA), British American Tobacco PLC (UK), Japan Tobacco (Japan), R J. Reynolds Tobacco (USA), Reemtsman (Germany), Altadis (France and Spain), among others, spend a lot of money to market tobacco. The United States alone spends over $10 billion dollars. This includes promotional funds to retailers to expedite the sales.

This marketing is targeted at adults and youth alike, particularly preying on the naiveté', rebelliousness, experimentive nature of young adults. Cigarette brands like Virginia Slims and Capri's designs appeal to young women, wanting to look more mature, feminine or sexy; and the Joe Camel and the Marlboro man entice young boys who want to look cool, tough and grown up. Cigarette manufacturers went so far as to give cigarettes names that would appeal to younger people. After public outcry from advocacy groups, this year, J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., in particular, agreed to stop using candy, fruit and alcohol names for flavored cigarettes that might appeal to children, The company was using names such as Twista Lime", "Warm Winter Toffee" and "Winter MochaMint.

In the 21st century, the marketing efforts to target youth has evidently stepped up, showing the tenacity of the tobacco manufacturers in retaining what could be their most loyal customers, in spite of over 40 years of opposition from both public and private segments. In the late 1960's, attempts to curb adolescent exposure to cigarette advertising began with the banning of television and radio ads. [However]...the proportion of high school students who smoked rose from 27.5 percent in 1991 to a peak of 36.4 percent in 1997 before drifting back to 28.0 percent in 2000). This increase...was among the factors that prompted a reexamination of regulatory policy, culminating in the November 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), signed by tobacco manufacturers and forty-six states' attorneys general, prohibits tobacco manufacturers from taking "any action, directly or indirectly, to target Youth within any Settling State in the advertising, promotion or marketing of Tobacco Products." As a blanket youth-targeting ban, this provision applies to all types of advertising, including transit ads, billboards, and magazines (Healthaffairs). Today, in most countries, there are age limit restrictions on the purchase of cigarettes by youth.

As awareness of the health-related disadvantages of smoking and other tobacco products came to the forefront of public consciousness, the public has seen more airing of advertisements, public service announcements, smoking education awareness campaigns, lobbying for smoke free movies and the passing of no-smoking laws in certain building, states and even countries. In countries across the world, like Armenia, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Cuba, France, India, Lithuania, Malaysia, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Spain and Turkey, smoking is banned in certain public places or workplaces. As always, the cigarette manufacturers are trying to find ways to use even the advertising for non-smoking to their advantage, with large cigarette vendors hiring public relations firms to help them create soft marketing, "non-smoking" ads that would draw in more smokers.

In addition, in order to counter the loss in profits from the bans against smoking and public outcry in the 1980's in the United States and other countries, more aggressive marketing is done on the continents of Asia and Africa, where cigarettes are marketed in television, radio and print advertising, at schools, sports and music events, and even more subtly, in the form of sponsorship at charitable events. Still, there are thousands of organizations working to ban smoking, educate youth and adults about smoking and health related issues, like lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease among other diseases.

What Lung Cancer Does To Your Body

While all the advertising inundates the public with images of how "sexy" smoking is supposed to be, what they don't show is the ugly side of smoking, how it stains, erodes and damages your teeth, taste buds, throat, esophagus, lungs and inevitably, threatens your life. Granted, not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer and dies; however, it is proven that cigarettes do contribute to lung cancer.

Lung cancer occurs when cells start to grow uncontrollably in a random fashion, causing tumors in the bronchial tubes, mucous glands, and near the air sacs and surface of the lungs. These tumors grow rapidly into larger tumors and can eventually spread throughout the body and into the chest, bones, spine or other organs. The more rampant the cancer in a body, the higher chance one has of multiple tumors, organ failure; and, a lesser chance for survival.

Lung Cancer Prevention/Detection/Screening/Treatment

One can take several steps to prevent the occurrence of lung cancer. First, if you are a non-smoker, promise yourself that you will never pick up a cigarette. Secondly, avoid inhaling second-hand smoke. Also, since lung cancer can also be caused by toxins in the environment, like radon gas and asbestos, it is important to be aware of their existence, and to avoid exposure.

For people who have a history of lung cancer in their families, lung cancer can be detected by screening via x-rays, CT scans, biopsies, testing of coughed up mucus, and blood tests. Lung cancer, in its early stages has no noticeable symptoms; however, as it progresses, lumps, coughing, blood-stained phlegm, breathlessness, chest pain, recurrent pneumonia or bronchitis, weight loss and fatigue can occur.

According to lungcancer.org, there is currently no approved screening test for lung cancer that has been proven to improve survival or detect localized disease. However, there are many studies under way to find an appropriate screening tool. If detected early, lung cancer can be treated, depending on the type and extent of the cancer. In instances where the cancer is localized in the lung, surgery can remove the tumors. When the cancer has spread beyond the chest, chemotherapy and radiation are used as treatment. Some patients can even elect to have lung transplants, where the diseased lung is replaced by a healthy one.

Resources/Initiatives

For those trying to quit, the good news is that there are a myriad of resources, nationally and internationally, to help people quit. International agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have extensive data and resources on their websites to educate the public about the dangers of smoking. In 1998, WHO established the Tobacco Free Initiative (TFI), which is dedicated to framing global tobacco policy and focusing international resources on the global tobacco epidemic.

The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and lungcancer.org are among the many organizations that provide information, education and resources to help smokers quit. There are telephone, on-line, group and one-on-one support groups, government and community funded that provide counseling. Some people use and therapy, various medications, including the patch, hypnosis and nicotine pills to assist them in quitting.

One of the most important factors in quitting and sticking to it is having a strong support system. If you are trying to quit or help someone to quit, keep in mind that cigarette smoking is extremely addictive and that people trying to quit can experience anxiety, depression and irritability, as they crave the nicotine their body has become accustomed to ingesting. Because of how addictive nicotine is, some people give up quitting or experience relapses in smoking after only a short time. Thus, it is very important to get lots of support from family and friends, since they can provide reminders of the benefits to quitting.

Other Risks

Besides the risk of getting lung cancer, there are a multitude other health related illnesses that can develop due to smoking, including heart attack and stroke, blood pressure, respiratory diseases, cancer in other parts of the body and cardiovascular diseases. People who smoke also put others around them at risk. Women who smoke give birth to babies with lower birth rates, children of parents who smoke can develop respiratory illnesses and people who inhale second-hand smoke have a higher risk of developing lung cancer or other smoking-related disease. (National Cancer Institute).

Then, there is the economic downside to smoking. According to http://www.cancer.org, tobacco creates "...hugely increased healthcare costs...diversion of agricultural land that could grow food, the costs of fires and damage to buildings caused by careless smokers, the resulting increase in insurance premiums, employee absenteeism, decrease in worker productivity...widespread environmental costs due to large-scale deforestation...pollution, and the millions of discarded butts and cigarette packaging that litter streets and waterways (www.cancer.org)."

In the USA, between 1997 and 2001, tobacco smoking resulted in $92 billion of annual productivity losses; worldwide, smoking accounted for 10% of fire deaths, the total [number of people] killed by fires caused by smoking [was] 300,000 and the total cost of fires caused by smoking was $27 billion. In 2003, cigarette litter accounted for 34% of the trash collected along the world's coasts; every year, children start 1,000,000 fires using lighters, and as of 2005, the economic costs to the economy healthcare included was upwards of $300 billion dollars (www.cancer.org).

Benefits of Not Smoking

On the upside, there are a myriad of benefits to quitting smoking. You can prevent health related illnesses like emphysema, heart disease and lung cancer by never smoking or quitting smoking as soon as possible. Quitting as soon as possible can improve the quality and longevity of your life. According to the National Cancer Institute, there are almost instant health improvements when a person quits smoking. "Within just a few days of quitting, a person's sense of taste and smell return, and breathing becomes easier; blood pressure, which becomes elevated while smoking, begins to return to normal. Research has shown that people who stop smoking before the age of 35 reduce their risk of developing a tobacco-related disease by 90%, but older smokers can also benefit greatly from quitting. Even smokers who quit after being diagnosed with a smoking-related illness reduce their risk of medical complications and of dying from a tobacco-related disease".

The key thing that I want to leave with you is this. Your life is in your hands - literally. You are in control. Smoking, as addictive as it may be, is a choice. Every time a smoker lights up a cigarette and inhales, that individual is making a conscious decision to harm his/her body; and every time the smoker exhales the cigarette smoke, he/she is harming others and the environment.

I Read It, I Get It, But I Refuse To Accept It - A Survivors Response To The IARC Report On Cancer

Whenever anyone shows up to the party with bad news I always question the news they bring. Some people are like that, they really don't wish to see anyone having a good time so they tell you about the orphanage that burnt down or how bad the economy is or how bleak our future looks.

When the persons doing the talking are supposed to be the experts on the subject you are almost forced to take what is being said for granite. Thus what you have is optimism being oppressed by reality, a truly sad state of affairs.

Such is the case of the International Agency For Research on Cancer (IARC) and their report on the 20 year outlook for cancer fatalities.

The IARC is I believe an arm of the United Nations. ( No not where all the superheroes live, that's the justice league.) The article came out of London last week and boldly states that fatalities from cancer will double by the year 2030 with my arch nemesis, lung cancer, leading the way. Here's a startling little fact for you from the article, in 2008, lung cancer was the most commonly diagnosed form of cancer worldwide at 1.61 million cases. Lung cancer also accounted for the most fatalities at 1.38 million. Let's see a little quick math and that's roughly a 14 % survival rate if you are a true optimist. The overall figure of all cancers combined for 2008, 12.7 million diagnosed with 7.6 million fatalities. Now fast forward twenty years and we are faced with a staggering figure of 21.4 million worldwide cases along with 13.2 million fatalities.

If the director of the IARC, Christopher Wild, has provided us with his best assessment of the future then he is no longer invited to the party.

The research done to provide such a report I'm sure was completed by highly intelligent people, probably a panel of experts, top scientists, researchers, doctors, people who's walls hold many more plaques and certificates then mine ever will. Now let me tell you why I cannot accept their look into the crystal ball of our future.

As a current lung cancer survivor, I sometimes replace rational, practical thinking for straight passion in what I do and what I believe in. When I read a projection of this nature, it is a direct assault not only upon me but against every cancer group and organization worldwide. It's an indictment against who we are and what we stand for. If you are going to stand up and say, "Sorry, every mile you walked, every minute you've volunteered along with every dime that you have ever raised or donated to fund one of the many worthy cancer organizations or institutions that provide research that are out there was for nothing." Are you attempting to convince me that in a world of the future we have made no advances in the treatment of various cancers. Is what your saying to me and every other person, family, child, loved one on the face of the earth that we still have no answers, no cure, in fact it is getting worse? Are you telling me that the scientists and researchers who have dedicated their lives, spent the long, long hours in the laboratories the world over have lived a life in vain?

Why would I accept any of that? You might as well try to convince me that fighting for survival was not worth the fight.

The Human Factor.

Whenever I hear the phrase the "The Human Factor," it seems to be meant to conjure up that "We just could win this thing feeling." The feeling that even against overwhelming odds the human spirit will find a way to overcome and be successful. In this instance I believe the human factor has a darker idea behind it. It would seem to me that if we cannot reduce the fatalities from cancer in the future then the human factor is in play. In this case it would mean that the people who benefit more by us not finding a cure have won and are keeping the status quo meanwhile continuing to profit from overpriced treatments and medications billed on your behalf to insurance companies that are happy to pay it and then just raise the patients premiums to pay for it. A finely greased money machine. Let's face it there is plenty of money to be made at the cost of someone else's misery and if someday an executive should happen to find themselves battling a severe case of guilty conscience, Well, we feel bad for old Charlie, but Betty is waiting in the wings to keep the machine running please pass the torch.

If there are no significant advances made, you can bet your bottom dollar it's because curing cancer is not cost effective.

So if the human factor comes into play as it has over the past twenty years then what are some other things that we might have to look forward to in 2030?

To change our future some thing would have to change today. Before we start to discuss the need for alternative energy sources, health care, recycling, food and water safety, we must first discuss a fundamental change in the way we conduct business, starting at the top and working backwards.

First all lobbyist should be removed from the political system and anyone who has taken large amounts of lobby money from places like oil companies should be removed from office. So take the money and the special interest groups out of the politics and your left hopefully with people making decisions based on what is in our best interest. That would be a great advancement for our society.

In the future if we could change the current human factor thought process from "the one who dies with the most stuff wins," to "the one who gives back the most stuff wins," wouldn't that help brighten the future?

In the future, one day, what if we realized that just because we can afford to super size our meals,does not mean that it is in our best interest to do so.

What if in the future we outlawed plastic containers? No more water bottles, plastic storage devices, plastic food containers. Lets go back to glass. Why, you ask. For what's left of our environment. How about this, so we do not continue to add to the floating country the size of Texas that is made up of plastic garbage that has been dumped in the ocean where it gathers in the pacific out of sight out of mind. If you are not aware of this do some homework. If it's Texas sized now, in twenty years what will it be?

In the future if we took a step back and once again began growing our own food at least enough to supplement some of what is being purchased, could we not begin to alter the effects of all the chemicals placed in our food? Bring back the family farm and you will re grow strong communities, teaching our children how to be self sufficient and live a life based off of being good neighbors and not what some mindless bimbo is doing on reality TV. If you grew corn and your neighbor grew wheat maybe you would take the time to get to know them again and arrange a practical arrangement, without the fear of being sewed for stepping on their property.

With a change to the current "Human Factor", maybe we would have a universal healthcare system in this country like the rest of the civilized world. Maybe the wellbeing of each citizen would mean enough to us to disband the health insurance industry altogether and restructure the way the health system works.

Twenty years from now if we changed our thought process from being disposable consumers to being people more in tune with the world around them willing to give up a little in return for a better not necessarily easier life, would we see the results of that effort in our lifetime? Would our children or grandchildren?

Twenty years from now, will having it all, still mean the same thing? Or will decades of having it all finally have caught up with us and forced us to change what we were so unwilling to change when the decision was ours?

One of the greatest things about the country we live in is that we have the freedom to alter our future by simply opening our eyes to the present and as individuals making the necessary changes to our lifestyle, not necessarily the easiest changes to improve our life and health.

Twenty years is the blink of an eye, twenty years passes like the moon on a warm summers night. We could have such an impact in twenty years if we chose to. We could commit to alternative fuel sources, we could eliminate things from our lives that destroy our environment. We could change our eating habits to become healthier. We could change our buying habits to fit a lifestyle that doesn't end up being our downfall.

Twenty years from now we could reduce the cancer fatality rate by twenty five percent and we could do it without the need for new toxic remedies or even finding a cure after the cancer cells have been activated. Many of us talk about it all the time. I am constantly seeing articles referring to three things. Proper diet, exercise, natural vitamin sources. But the fact of the matter is this, you are probably reading this article and others like it because you have a connection to cancer already either you yourself have been effected or someone close to you. You are likely to already be aware of the effect of proper diet on the body, It is getting information out to everyone else who have not been directly effected but could easily find themselves as statistics twenty years from now.

Here's how you can have a direct impact on the future, help those who have not had a direct cancer impact, understand how to help themselves avoid it.

Cancer once it has begun, once the cells are active and spreading is unpredictable at best. Lung cancer is so lethal of a killer that it claims over seventy percent of those diagnosed. If we do not change some things right away, then I'm afraid that the U.N. report will be dead on accurate (please forgive the poor choice of phrase)if not understated. But the things that need to be changed need to come from each one of us. We have to be the ones who take charge of our lives, if we are waiting for the government to intervene then we are fools. If we are waiting for large health care or pharmaceutical companies to save us with a mystical cure, It is not in their best interest to cure it, just find new and expensive ways to treat it. Our best chance for a cure seems to me to be found on one of the many college campuses where research is performed. Of course the fear being that a cure will be found and then tied up and obscured in the red tape world we live in. A cure for cancer, is going to cost some big businesses a whole lot of cash when discovered.

Let's talk about that way to reduce the fatality rate. Cancer cells have the capability of killing you once they become active and begin to multiply and spread. Cancer cells are present in everyone's body but they are held at bay by our immune systems. It is when we have a fundamental breakdown in our immune systems that the flood gates open for the multiplication of cancer cells.

If you allow enough cancer cells to gather and that's when you have problems my friend. Now pay attention please. The best way to reduce cancer fatalities, the best way to fight cancer.....avoid it. You cannot avoid having bad cells in your body, what you can avoid is letting your immune system go to hell and opening yourself up for an attack.

For the future, let's just concentrate on what we know and what we can control. First of all, you can greatly reduce many life threatening illnesses including cancer by keeping your bodies ph balance level. If you began today to make healthier dietary choices and began to reduce your intake of fast foods or questionably prepared foods you would be taking a step in the right direction. If you started questioning where the meat you purchase comes from, how it is raised, how it is prepared for market and what type of chemicals are used in raising it, you would be making a step in the right direction. Farm fresh does not substitute for organic. I believe and I'm not alone, that the immune system is effected greatly by our intake of various chemicals in our industrial farm produced foods. Take control of what you eat. Reduce the amount of coffee you drink maybe supplement green tea for coffee. You need to find ways to reduce the amount of acid you are adding to your body. Cancer cells thrive in an acidic environment. Meat is also a high acid contributor which is why fish and chicken are considered better for you then beef and pork.

Vitamins, minerals and anti-oxidants are vital to helping grow and unleash the cells in our bodies that kill things like cancer cells keeping them in check.

Exercise and sunlight, these two things can not be understated. Unfortunately, we have found a way to make exercise a multi billion dollar industry and we as a society have changed the definition of exercise to joining a gym or buying a ton of equipment. Let me help you out with this, walk, learn some deep breathing exercises, cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Walk and preferably take a walk in the sunshine, the body needs sunshine it helps keep everything in check. What else does the body need? Water. We are organic beings and if you look at it in that manner, Sunshine, water proper intake of minerals avoidance of harmful toxins. Couple some dietary alterations with finding ways to reduce stress in your life and your well on your way to avoiding becoming a 2030 statistic.

If in places where it were possible we could alter our over eating and poor choice eating habits I think we reduce cancer as well as other major disease fatalities greatly. If we remain too busy to care, too busy to teach our children better habits, too busy to stop and look at the world we have forged for ourselves, then I am afraid that everything will be in vain. I'm afraid we will visit a future where over thirteen million people dieing from cancer alone will be just a small piece of a much larger problem.

I am not asking you to donate money, I'm not asking you to walk a marathon. I'm not asking you to completely change or live your life afraid that the sky might be falling. What I am asking for is that you open your mind to finding better ways to live in the future by making small changes now starting with your health and the health of the people you are responsible for. Then let's look at the way we do things, the way we govern ourselves and our actions and the things we need to do to reduce cancer by fifty percent in the year 2050.

Tim Giardina is the co-founder and President of the GFLCCO as well as a current small cell lung cancer survivor. The GFLCCO is developing a World Wide network of supporters with facts and information regarding lung cancer, lung cancer treatment, proper diets and exercise and alternative medicines and treatments as well as valuable links to a deep pool of resourses for patients and their families. The primary function of the GFLCCO is to support Scientists by funding research for a cure. If you would like to learn more about the GFLCCO, need information or support or would be interested in reading more of Tim's work, please visit us at http://www.gflcco.com. We are a non profit organization that also relies on the support of others to carry on with our work, if you find our site useful, your support would be greatly appreciated.

Treatments Focusing on Sugars May Help Cure Cancer - New Hope for Texas

It turns out that the key to defeating cancer just may found in sugar...well, at least in the polysaccarides, or "sugar molecules," surrounding tumors. That's good news for developed countries like the U.S., in which cancer is a leading cause of death. Texas alone endures approximately 10,000 lung-cancer related deaths every year, many of which are in high-pollutant areas like Dallas, Houston, and Austin. The implications this has for potential lifesaving treatments, and, subsequently, for the health care and health insurance industries, are profound.

According to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, altering some of the sugars found on the surface of cancer cells can control tumor growth. Theorizing that changes in the polysaccarides surrounding tumors indicated the stages or aggressiveness of cancers, Ram Sasisekharan and colleagues from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) conducted studies in which cancer-infected mice were given doses of two enzymes and their products predicted to cut the sugar heparan sulfate glycosaminoglycans in different places. Heparinase I (hep I) promoted the growth of melanoma tumors, while heparinase III (hep III) inhibited their growth, and prevented subsequent spreading.

Tumors "bind to (hence, disrupt) activity of certain signaling molecules involved in tumor activity." The implication is that cancerous tumors can be restricted or encouraged by enzymes released by the body, or, as experiments would suggest, introduced to the body through polysaccharide-based anti-cancer drugs. Though further testing is necessary, such treatments may also come with the added bonus of having relatively few side-effects.

Further research has been done on enzymes' link to cancer growth. Results of a study conducted on lung cancer, released by the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and published in the journal, Cancer Research, suggested that blocking the enzyme telomerase -- which prevents the death of cancer cells -- may also slow or halt the spread of most malignancies. Such treatments may be most effective after chemotherapy, radiation, surgery, or other treatments are administered to rid the body of most of the disease. Enzymatic treatment, then, can follow, eliminating remaining cancer cells. Such therapies may also be used during the course of treatment to slow malignant growth.

This all makes a little more sense in light of some basic cell biology. In normal cells, the tail end of the chromosomes are called telomores. As cells divide and age, they become shorter and shorter, and, at a certain length, they simply stop dividing and die. Cancer cells, on the other hand, have a certain enzyme, telomerase, that activates and keeps the chromosomes the same length, thereby preventing their death. Malignant cells are so hard to kill partly because they live so long and multiply so rapidly. Enzymatic therapy that would halt this growth would be a major breakthrough in the treatment of nearly all cancers.

Between 1995 and 2000, there were 81,132 lung cancer cases recorded in Texas alone. Ninety percent of those who were diagnosed didn't make it past five years. The rates were higher in counties with higher emissions, especially emissions containing zinc, chromium, and copper. Ominously, a report entitled An Ecological Study of the Association of Metal Air Pollutants with Lung Cancer Incidence in Texas, released by the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, concluded that "a positive relationship" between air pollution and lung cancer existed. Long-term exposure to fine particulate matter, produced from the combustion of fossil fuels (such as in power plants, incinerators and motor vehicles) also conferred lung cancer risks.

Undoubtedly, most lung cancer is associated with cigarette smoking, but around 15% of those with this horrid disease are nonsmokers. Such a significant percentage implies that other factors are to blame, such as air pollution (obviously higher in cities like Dallas and Houston), secondhand smoke, asbestos, and Radon exposure. Lung cancer rates are so significant because few people diagnosed are actually cured. If scientists can somehow find a way to treat even the toughest of cancers, there is hope for even the most desperate of patients.

What is so exciting about the possibility of enzymatic therapy for cancer patients is that it's relatively simple. Scientists are discovering the basic processes allowing cancers to exist and grow, and are attempting to cut them off before the malignancies overtake the body. Perhaps, just perhaps, we may even soon stop this often-fatal disease well before it can take hold. Now that would be something.

No one wants to be afflicted with cancer. How you take care of yourself can surely help reduce your risk, and will certainly affect you as you age -- eventually your wallet, as well. If you’re a young individual who tries to keep informed and maintain a healthy condition and lifestyle, you should take a look at the revolutionary, comprehensive and highly-affordable individual health insurance solutions created by Precedent specifically for you. Visit our website, [http://www.precedent.com], for more information. We offer a unique and innovative suite of individual health insurance solutions, including highly-competitive HSA-qualified plans, and an unparalleled "real time" application and acceptance process.

Precedent puts a new spin on health insurance. Learn more at [http://www.precedent.com]

Young Women Are Learning To Fight Back - What You Can Do To Reduce Your Breast Cancer Risk

The American Cancer Society predicts 34,170 new cancer cases in Texas this year. Of those, 2, 480 are expected to be breast—in third place, following lung (9,920 cases expected), and colon/rectum (3,220). Nationally, 26% of new cancer diagnoses—178,480—will be breast, accounting for one-third of all cancers in women. Warnings about environmental toxins, the dangers of inadequate diet and nutrition, and risk factors associated with family history abound. Combined with dismal statistics on the declining number of those able to afford individual health insurance—25.1% in Texas are uninsured—it can all seem more than a little overwhelming.

The lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer is approximately one in eight, or 13.2%. Risk substantially increases with age, genetic tendencies, family history, personal medical history, and obesity. A woman in her thirties has only a 1 in 229 (0.4%) chance of being diagnosed, while a woman in her sixties has a 1 in 26 chance (3.8%). Survival rates for cancer increase with proper screening, early detection, and quality treatment (which, in turn, increases with health insurance coverage). These low percentages overall seem unconcerning, very low, in fact, but when we stop to consider what this means in actual numbers, or the fact we probably know someone affected by the disease, it hits closer to home.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure, along with the American Cancer Society and other non-profit groups, are helping women in Texas and across the country take control of their health by reducing risk factors. Women of all ages are fighting back with knowledge, support groups, and a push for healthier lifestyles. One can substantially reduce risk by becoming aware of, and adjusting for, personal vulnerabilities to the disease and establishing healthy habits. The younger the better, and young women are becoming more and more aware.

Many still believe that what puts a woman primarily at risk is genetic tendency (i.e., family history), but this simply isn't true. Only 5-10% of cases are linked with the BRCA genes, and only 30% of women with breast cancer have a family history of it. While certain uncontrollable factors significantly contribute to its incidence—including family history, early onset of menarche (having the first period before 12), late onset of menopause, the first full-term pregnancy after 30, hormone use, and being over 5'3"—a woman can reduce her risk, family history or not, by following a healthy lifestyle and making certain key medical decisions.

Obesity and physical activity are among those controllable risks. Weight gain of more than 20-30 pounds after 18 is of particular note. An obese woman has a higher risk of getting breast cancer, as do physically inactive women. The belief is that higher fat content produces more estrogen in the body, which, in turn, increases risk.

In 2005, Texas reported 27% of its residents as obese, above the national average of 24.4%. Recent studies of children in Dallas, Houston, and other cities across the state indicate troublingly high percentages of obesity in those under 18, as well. A child with unhealthy lifestyle habits has a higher chance of retaining those unhealthy habits as an adult, which, in turn, puts that adult at higher risk for certain cancers and chronic conditions. Establishing regular exercise and smart diet choices as early as possible in young women not only reduces the risk of breast cancer, but also improves overall well-being. A consistent physical regimen, producing an elevated heart rate for thirty or more minutes, several times a week, will decrease chances of not only breast cancer, but also many other diseases.

Estrogen exposure is another reason behind the slight increase of breast cancer in women taking (and shortly after taking) the birth control pill, as well as the risk associated with women participating in HRT (hormone replacement therapy), particularly after menopause. While short-term use of these hormones has been associated with reduced danger, anyone considering these treatments would be wise to weigh all the pros and cons before beginning.

Alcohol consumption increases cancer risk. Even a few drinks a week could affect one's chances, but, in general, physicians say not to worry too much about enjoying a glass of wine or the occasional beer. Data suggests that the biggest concern over alcohol is its overuse; alcohol affects the way the liver processes estrogen.

Larger breasts, as well as asymmetrical breasts, may work against a woman, and choosing not to nurse may also increase the chances of getting breast cancer. Why nursing can dramatically influence risk—reducing it by as much as 50%--is not exactly known, but studies have shown that women who breastfeed several children, for extended periods, gain the greatest benefits.

Overall, it can be a little frightening. Cancer is one of the leading causes of death in the United States, and, with so many women being diagnosed with breast cancer alone every year, it's hard not to become overwhelmed. But we're fighting back, and young women are becoming more aware every day of what they can do to reduce their chances. Exercise, reduce stress, don't drink too much alcohol, nurse if possible, and, for goodness sake's, monitor yourself. If you're without individual health insurance and find it difficult to go for annual exams (which should include a breast exam), do everything you can to get it. In the end, it's up to you to take control and to fight back.

How you treat your body when you're young will certainly affect your health as you age, and eventually your wallet. If you're interested in high-quality individual health insurance at affordable rates, specifically created for young, healthy individuals, you should take a look at Precedent. Visit our website, [http://www.precedent.com], for more information. We offer a unique and innovative suite of individual health insurance solutions, including highly-competitive HSA-qualified plans, and an unparalleled "real time" application and acceptance experience.

Precedent puts a new spin on health insurance. Learn more at [http://www.precedent.com].

Life, and Insurance, After Breast Cancer

Breast cancer strikes fear in women's hearts. It is the leading cause of cancer in women, with 207,090 women expected to be diagnosed with the disease this year alone, and is expected to claim the lives of more than 40,000 women in 2010, according to the American Cancer Society. Many of its victims are scarred by the trauma of going through treatments and possibly losing part of their womanhood.

But there is cause for hope. The likelihood of surviving the disease and subsequently getting life insurance has improved over the last several years.

As a result of earlier detection, improved treatment and decreased incidence, death rates from breast cancer have been steadily decreasing since 1999, according to Cancer Facts & Figures 2010-Atlanta: American Cancer Society report.

Survivors can obtain life insurance after they've been successfully treated for the disease. How long after depends on a number of factors including the stage or severity of the cancer, whether it spread to other organs and if it is a repeat cancer, says Anna Hart, principal and consulting underwriter with ARH Consulting in Eastland, Tex.

Treatment and follow-up is key

"Those with small, early stage, good risk breast cancer can get life insurance as soon as they have completed treatment and had a follow-up visit. For a later stage breast cancer, the postpone period may be 2-5 years. For more advanced breast cancer and recurrent breast cancer, the postpone period may be 5-10 years," says Dr. Ann Hoven, chief medical director of The Hartford's Individual Life Division. She says insurance companies don't look at the type of treatment used to cure the cancer-mastectomy versus chemotherapy-but at its overall success.

Life insurance companies base their charges on several rating categories, with preferred plus being the best and cheapest and substandard the lowest and most expensive. Hart says most survivors would be offered standard rates. Some companies will offer preferred rates for Stage 1 cancer and after a minimum of 10 years without recurrence, she says. She says those with recurring cancer are generally uninsurable.

Those with cancer in both breasts have a higher risk and therefore, a higher rating, than those with cancer in just one breast, Hoven adds. Hart says family history is considered as a screen for preferred exclusion, but not for possible denial.

Hart says both men and women breast cancer survivors receive the same rates. Survivors could be eligible for both term and whole life insurance.

If you've been denied life insurance in the past, Hart and Hoven recommend you try again, provided your treatments are completed and you've undergone the wait period. Hoven urges women to get annual mammograms and screenings for other cancers, following a healthy diet and exercise routine and taking care of other health issues like high blood pressure to improve your chances of getting life insurance.

If you're still undergoing treatment, Hoven says The Hartford can often offer a joint life policy if your spouse/partner is in good health.

Debunking breast cancer myths

Using antiperspirants and shaving your underarms increase a person's risk of developing breast cancer.

The American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute and U.S. Food and Drug Administration agree there is no good scientific evidence to support this claim. The ACS says an epidemiologic study of this issue published in 2002 found no link between breast cancer risk and antiperspirant or deodorant use. Another study published in 2003 reported younger women who were diagnosed with breast cancer said they used antiperspirants and started shaving their underarms earlier and more often than women who were diagnosed when they were older. But this study did not include a control group of women without breast cancer and has been criticized by experts, the ACS reports.

Wearing a bra for a whole day compresses the lymphatic system of the breast, resulting in accumulation of toxins that cause breast cancer.

The ACS says there are no scientifically valid studies that show wearing bras of any type causes breast cancer. The claim making its way through e-mails appears to be based on the writings of a husband and wife team of medical anthropologists who link breast cancer to wearing a bra. However, their study was not conducted according to standard principles of epidemiological research and did not take into consideration other variables, including known risk factors for breast cancer, the ACS notes.

Paget's disease, which looks like a rash around the nipple, is a rare form of breast cancer that can be misdiagnosed as a dermatological condition.

This e-mail myth is actually a very plausible description of a case of this rare disease, says the ACS's medical editor, Ted Gansler. "I do not doubt that some cases of Paget's disease might be initially overlooked and attributed to a benign skin condition," Gansler states. Paget's disease starts in the breast ducts and spreads to the skin of the nipple and then to the areola, the dark circle around the nipple. Paget's disease accounts for only 1 percent of all cases of breast cancer. The skin of the nipple and areola often appears crusted, scaly, and red, with areas of bleeding or oozing. The woman may notice burning or itching. See a doctor if any change occurs, such as development of a lump or swelling in the breast or underarm area, skin irritation or dimpling, nipple pain or retraction (turning inward), redness or scaliness of the nipple or breast skin, or a discharge other than breast milk, the ACS recommends.

Power lines, microwave ovens and TV could cause breast cancer.

There have been several studies over the past 15 years evaluating children's and adults' residential exposure to electro-magnetic fields in relation to breast cancer, brain cancer and leukemia, most of which have been inconclusive, the National Cancer Institute says. Still, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences recommends increasing the space between devices that emit EMFs, including TVs, microwaves and electric blankets, and yourself and discouraging children from playing near power lines. EMFs are emitted from devices that produce, transmit or use electric power.

You can only inherit breast cancer from your mother's side of the family.

Not true, says the NCI. Genes related to it can be inherited from your father's side, too.

This article originally published at Life Quotes, Inc.

Life Quotes provides access to comparative quotes for auto, life, health and business insurance quotes so that busy consumers and business owners can save time and money. Life Quotes is dedicated to providing impartial insurance information.

Cancer, Diet and Global Warming With the Producer of Healing Cancer From the Inside Out

In this article, Mike Anderson shares on cancer, diet and global warming. Mike Anderson, is a medical researcher, author of The Rave Diet and film maker/producer of "Eating" and "Healing Cancer from the Inside Out."

Kevin: So, Mike. If all this stuff isn't working, what is?

Mike: Food. I site some studies in the film... the Office of Technology Assessment funded the Gerson Therapy. It beat the pants off conventional treatments. This was in different stages of melanoma. It just beat the pants off of conventional treatments. They don't like these studies. They don't want to fund them. It's very hard.

Macrobiotics went in front of the NIH, National Institute of Health and they tried to get funding because they presented six terminal cases, cancer cases, where the cancers were totally reversed. They were all biopsied and they were all confirmed and everything. Now, wouldn't you think that people should be interested in this? That they should fund more studies? No, they can't get any money for anymore funding for any.

You know allopathic medicine doesn't, their history is to shut down any nutritional approach because they are so threatened by it. Even, this was around the turn of the century, 2001 or so. It's on the website, the Sushi Institute. Anyway, they're totally threatened because it does work. It is more effective. Instead of destroying the body, you're trying to build it up.

I specifically included Macrobiotics because they have a long history, 100- year history. In fact, the founder of Macrobiotics reversed cancer. But they have a long history of reversing cancers. So I look at Macrobiotics and that's almost 100% cooked. Then I look at raw, and that's 100% raw, uncooked. And I think the bottom line here is that, the common ground is that they are all plant-based, 100% plant-based. They are all organic. Organic is very, very important because organic food is much higher in micronutrients, the anti-oxidant families. Those are the ones that are going to fight cancer effectively. It's a whole-foods organic diet and that's it. Whether it's raw or whether it's cooked is partly personal preference, in terms of case and stuff.

Kevin: You knew that this film was going to cause some waves. So, one, how did you prepare for it? Two, what kind of feedback have you gotten from people who were not happy?

Mike: I actually did not prepare very much for it. What I did was try and make it as credible as I can and close the loop on all the arguments. To make it as tight as possible. I'll tell you a story. I don't know if Brian Clement wants me to tell this or not, he was interviewed in the film, but he and his wife watched it for seven hours, seven hours looking for a loophole. They were primarily looking at some angle conventional doctors could use to attack me and they couldn't find it. So my approach was just make it as tight as possible and as credible as possible. As a result of that, I haven't had much negative feedback except that people don't want to talk to me.

I have been on KPFK, they are a nonprofit, local station here in L.A. I've been on there and they were very receptive and so was the audience. I mean, people are hungry for this new. But getting it out there is very, very difficult.

People will say, "Oh, my gosh. You should be on major news shows," and stuff like that. And I say, "Well, have you looked at the sponsors of those news shows? They'll never have me on." You know, you've got meat and dairy and drugs and I'm preaching against all of those. So, it's difficult to get it out, but word of mouth is extraordinarily strong; it's pushing this whole thing. And thanks to shows like your and others, more and more people are getting on the bandwagon.

I was at the Raw Spirit Festival in Sedona this weekend and I had a lady and her husband come out, specifically to see me. They flew out from Tampa. And it was because they saw "Healing Cancer" a month ago. Her father started off with colon cancer, it spread to his liver, now it's in his lungs. He's had one round of chemo; he couldn't take it anymore. So they were looking for something. They put him on the diet and within a month all of his cancer markers had dropped dramatically. They were just thrilled by the whole thing. They wanted to fly out and just thank me because of it.

The strange thing is most people they have it in their mind that cancer is this dreaded disease that kills people. Well, you know, cardio vascular disease kills over twice as many people a cancer, that's a pretty scary disease. But people have it in their minds that cancer is more scary, but it's not. It can be controlled through food. People have this idea that, well, gee, cancer's a dangerous disease you need strong medicine. You need something that will make people's hair fall out and make them throw up all day for days on end and make them just sick. That's strong medicine. You need just the opposite. You need something that's going to build up the body. People, if they'll get off this toxic diet they're on and get on a good diet, they'll see miraculous things happening. Not just with cancer, but the whole body will be healing.

Kevin: Let's talk a little bit about the Rave diet. There's a lot of people who are on this call who don't know what that is. So, let's give a little bit of information on that and...

Mike: OK. I wrote the book primarily because people were asking me for something to accompany the "Eating" DVD. Because after they see the "Eating" DVD, they'll say, "OK, I'm ready to change my diet, but what do I do?" And even though I list, at the end of the film, all kinds of books, and on the website even more, they wanted something from me. So, I put it together primarily as a very short, it reads very easily, very short guide, if you will, to how to change to this diet.

I have a transitional diet, too, because sometimes it's difficult for people to go on the full Rave diet. So I have an easier transitional diet so they can evolve into it. One guy, for example, it was too much for him because he had been eating processed foods all of his life and he had horrendous gas because of all the fiber. So I tell people, "Ease up on it. You can go slowly," you know, unless you have some terrible disease you're fighting. But what it stands for, Rave is an acronym, it means no refined foods. The A is no animal foods, the V, which gets me in trouble with most people all the time, means no vegetable oils; the E means no exceptions and exercise. There are a number of sub-rules within that. It's not just that acronym alone. Like, eat at least half of your food uncooked type of thing. Also ingredients lists, it's got a whole explanation of how to read ingredient lists and so forth. But it's done very well.

Kevin: No oil. Let's talk about that.

Mike: OK. I got this primarily, started out if you look at Ornish, Essylstyn, Furman, a lot of doctors who actually reversed heart disease and have studies to prove it; they all specifically exclude vegetable oils. There are clinical studies, it tears up the arteries. Essylstyn says it's as good for your arteries as roast beef. If you look at nutrient scales, the key to a good diet is getting the maximum amount of nutrients per calorie that you can. If you look at vegetable oils, they have the lowest nutrient value of any food on the planet. It's all fat, very few nutrient values per calorie on it.

It's a refined food, on top of it; the molecules in vegetable oils are unstable. They produce free radicals. It's a promoter of some cancers, particularly skin cancers, and on and on and on. So, I just say there are substitutes for it. If you're cooking and you want to brown potatoes or something, use applesauce or apple juice or vegetable broth or something. You have to cook it slower, but it browns just as good. So, that's the schtook on vegetable oils. I'm telling people in the beginning with this, "Hey, you get on this you can reverse your heart disease." I'm not going to go against all the doctors who have proven successfully through tests that you can reverse heart disease. They all exclude the vegetable oils.

Kevin: Yeah, I think it makes sense to follow the research of people that you have mentioned, like Furman and Essylstyn and these guys, instead of recreating the wheel on a theory.

Mike: Right, right. I have to follow; these guys are my heroes. I can't challenge them and I want to, if someone comes out with a study of heart disease reversal which specifically includes vegetable oils, then I'll take a second look at it, as will they. But so far that hasn't happened.

Kevin: Who do you think you've learned the most from?

Mike: Geez, I don't know. That's hard. Everyone's saying the same thing, essentially, in different ways and they're doing their own thing. In the beginning, there were John Robbins, the emotional aspect of it, environmental, in particular. He was huge. McDougall, he was huge, too. He was giving all this reinforcement to the health. Then, of course, Fuhrman and Ornish and a number of others, Esselston. I would say probably McDougall and, in the very beginning, McDougall and John Robbins.

Kevin: Great. You mentioned global warming, again, and I think we should probably talk about that because it was an added portion of the film, "Eating." What are some of the implications of the way we eat, as related to global warming and the environment?

Mike: It's methane, that's the major thing that's been overlooked. I'm no expert in it, but what I did was summarize what the experts have said. It's hard for people to visualize this, but there are hundreds of millions of cows, and other livestock out there, that emit methane, both through the mouths and their rear ends. It goes into the atmosphere and methane is a powerful heat-trapper, much more powerful than carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide will stay in the atmosphere much longer, but methane really traps heat. Studies have shown that, in fact, methane has caused nearly half of the global warming to-date. The number one source of methane is the animals we raise and eventually eat. So, the good thing about methane is that it only stays in the atmosphere for eight years. If people would cut back on their consumption of animal products, you could recycle out very quickly. There could be a more immediate impact on global warming, on cooling. That's not going to happen, but, say, everyone in the world cut back 1/3 of their meat consumption and reduced the livestock accordingly. That could have a major impact on global warming, and quite soon. Whereas carbon dioxide that stays in the atmosphere for so long. It's not going to have such an immediate impact on it and that's what we need is an immediate impact, because we're right there, as they call the tipping point.

Kevin Gianni the host of "Renegade Health Show" - a fun and informative daily health show that is changing the perception of health across the world. His is an internationally known health advocate, author, and film consultant. He has helped thousands and thousands of people in over 21 countries though online health teleseminars about abundance, optimum health and longevity. He is also the creator and co-author of "The Busy Person's Fitness Solution."

CoQ10 Benefits - National Cancer Institute Confirms That CoQ10 Has Potential As Cancer Treatment

Can CoQ10 benefit cancer patients? The answer is yes, according to the National Cancer Institute, which has recognized the coenzyme's potential as an adjutant therapy for cancer.

Coenzyme Q10 is a natural substance produced by the body and found in the mitochondria, or power production center, of every cell. In addition to playing a key role in the production of energy at the cellular level, it is a potent antioxidant capable of neutralizing damaging free radicals (chemically unstable molecules created when cells interact with oxygen and other substances).

Research on CoQ10's potential as a cancer treatment has been ongoing since the early 1960s, when it was first observed that patients with some types of cancer typically had low blood levels of the coenzyme. Low levels are associated with cancers of the breast, lung, prostate, pancreas, colon, kidney, and head/neck.

The National Cancer Institute says that because the coenzyme may improve immune system function, it has potential as an adjuvant therapy (treatment given following primary treatment to increase the chances of a cure) for cancer. In addition, its antioxidant properties may protect cells against free radical damage that can lead to cancer.

Both animal studies and clinical trials have indicated that increasing levels of the coenzyme stimulates the immune system, making the body more resistant to disease. In addition, animal studies show that CoQ10 helped protect the hearts of animals given anti-cancer drugs capable of damaging the heart and decreasing cardiac function.

Though relatively few clinical trials involving human cancer patients have been conducted, those that have been carried out produced very positive results:

A randomized clinical trial involving 20 cancer patients taking doxorubicin, an anti-cancer drug known to be capable of producing heart damage, confirmed the findings of the animal studies.
A Danish study of 32 breast cancer patients who were given supplements of the coenzyme along with conventional treatment reported that six of the patients experienced remission, while all participants took fewer painkillers, lost less weight, and experienced an improved quality of life.
In followup studies, the Danish research team gave high-dose supplements of the coenzyme to limited number of patients and observed them for periods ranging from four months to five years. All of the patients given high dosage supplements appeared to experience complete remission.

Though researchers agree that more studies are needed, anecdotal evidence confirms the findings with reports that increased amounts of the coenzyme increased the survival of patients with lung, colon, rectal, and pancreatic cancer. Though no serious side effects of CoQ10 have been observed, the NCI stresses that it's important to check with health care providers to confirm that the supplement can be safely used with other drugs.

Medical research has proved that CoQ10's benefits include increased energy, endurance, and mental alertness - find out more at http://coq10answers.info/coq10-benefits-include-increased-energy-endurance-and-mental-alertness It is also a powerful anti-aging tool; read more at CoQ10 Benefits - http://coq10answers.info/coq10-benefits-include-solutions-to-common-age-related-problems