Uncategorized

Exciting new research conducted at the Creighton University School of Medicine in Nebraska has revealed that supplementing with vitamin D and calcium can reduce your risk of cancer by an astonishing 77 percent. This includes breast cancer, colon cancer, skin cancer and other forms of cancer. This research provides strong new evidence that vitamin D is the single most effective medicine against cancer, far outpacing the benefits of any cancer drug known to modern science.

The study involved 1,179 healthy women from rural Nebraska. One group of women was given calcium (around 1500 mg daily) and vitamin D (1100 IU daily) while another group was given placebo. Over four year, the group receiving the calcium and vitamin D supplements showed a 60 percent decrease in cancers. Considering just the last three years of the study reveals an impressive 77 percent reduction in cancer due to supplementation.

Note that these astonishing effects were achieved on what many nutritionists consider to be a low dose of vitamin D. Exposure to sunlight, which creates even more vitamin D in the body, was not tested or considered, and the quality of the calcium supplements was likely not as high as it could have been (it was probably calcium carbonate and not high-grade calcium malate, aspartate or similar forms). What does all this mean? It means that if you take high-quality calcium supplements and get lots of natural sunlight exposure or take premium vitamin D supplements (such as those made from fish oil), you could easily have a greater reduction than the 77 percent reduction recorded in this study.

This research on vitamin D is such good news that the American Cancer Society, of course, had to say something against it. An ACS spokesperson, Marji McCullough, strategic director of nutritional epidemiology for the American Cancer Society, flatly stated that nobody should take supplements to prevent cancer.

If it seems surprising to you that the American Cancer Society — which claims to be against cancer — would dissuade people from taking supplements that slash their cancer risk by 77 percent, then you don’t know much about the ACS. In my opinion, the ACS is an organization that actually prevents prevention and openly supports the continuation of cancer as a way to boost its power and profits. The ACS is the wealthiest non-profit in America and has very close ties to pharmaceutical companies, mammography equipment companies and other corporations that profit from cancer. Notice the name, too: It isn’t the American Anti-Cancer Society, it’s the American Cancer Society!

This research on vitamin D is a huge threat to the cancer industry profit mongers because it reveals a way to prevent cancer for free — by seeking natural sunlight exposure and letting your skin manufacture your own powerful anti-cancer medicine (vitamin D). The idea that the cancer industry could lose 80% of its patients due to widespread education about vitamin D and sunlight scares the living daylights out of the cancer industry. Billions of dollars in cancer profits are at stake here, so the pro-cancer groups have to do everything they can to discredit vitamin D by creating doubt and confusion. The degree of dishonesty at work here is almost unbelievable to those who don’t really know what’s happening in the cancer industry.

Ten questions to ask yourself about the cancer industry:

#1: Why does the cancer industry refuse to educate people about cancer prevention?

#2: If people keep donating money for the “search” for a cancer cure, why won’t drug companies pledge to “open source” their patents on cancer drugs to benefit the people whose donations funded them in the first place? In other words, why do people donate money for cancer research but then get charged for cancer drugs?

#3: Why does the entire cancer industry so strongly dissuade people from using sunlight exposure to dramatically reduce their cancer risk? (Hint: Follow the money to the sunscreen industry…)

#4: Why have all the really good cancer supplements, clinics and naturopaths been banned, arrested or run out of the country? (Look up the FDA’s oppression of Lane Labs over MGN-3 for a fascinating review of this…)

#5: The U.S. has poured billions of dollars into the cancer industry over the last three decades. Cancer cures were promised in the 1970’s. Why are cancer rates still essentially the same today as they were in the 1970’s?

#6: Why does the cancer industry continue to use chemotherapy, radiation and other toxic procedures to “kill tumors” when the latest science clearly shows that cancer tumors are only the symptoms, not the cause, of cancer? Chemotherapy destroys immune function and causes permanent damage to the heart, brain and liver…

#7: The World Health Organization says that 70% of all cancers are easily preventable through dietary and lifestyle changes. This latest research shows that sunlight and low-cost calcium supplements can slash cancer risk by 77% in women. Why won’t conventional medicine embrace this low-cost, safe and highly effective method for preventing cancer?

#8: The cancer industry routinely attacks anti-cancer herbs, superfoods and supplements. Why is the cancer industry opposed to anti-cancer nutrition? Why does it believe that only man, not nature, can manufacture anti-cancer medicines?

#9: Dark skin pigmentation blocks ultraviolet radiation, meaning that people with black skin need far more time under the sun to generate the same amount of vitamin D as someone with white skin. Not surprisingly, black women suffer extremely high rates of breast cancer while black men show similarly high levels of prostate cancer. The white-dominated medical industry pretends to be “mystified” by all this. Why won’t conventional medicine simple tell black people the truth about vitamin D, skin pigmentation and cancer? Why do oncologists try to keep black people ignorant about their vitamin D deficiencies?

#10: Why is it illegal for nutritional supplement manufacturers to tell the truth about the anti-cancer effects of their products? Broccoli, garlic, onions and sprouts all have powerful anti-cancer effects, as do dozens of rainforest herbs (Cat’s Claw, for example), Chinese herbs and Western herbs. But the FDA threatens and censors any company that dares to mention cancer prevention on its supplement products. Why is the FDA enforcing a policy of nutritional ignorance with U.S. consumers? Why does the federal government want people to remain ignorant of methods for preventing or treating cancer?

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of 44 and 55. Dr. Gofinan, in his book, Preventing Breast Cancer, cites this startling statistic along with an in-depth look at mammographic screening, an early-detection practice that agencies like the American Cancer Society recommend to women of all age groups. According to most health experts, catching a tumor in its early stages increases a woman’s chances of survival by at least 17 percent.

The most common method for early detection is mammography. A mammogram is an X-ray picture of your breast that can reveal tumor growths otherwise undetectable in a physical exam. Like all x-rays, mammograms use doses of ionizing radiation to create this image. Radiologists then analyze the image for any abnormal growths. Despite continuous improvements and innovations, mammography has garnered a sizable opposition in the medical community because of an error rate that is still high and the amount of harmful radiation used in the procedure.

Is mammography an effective tool for detecting tumors? Some critics say no. In a Swedish study of 60,000 women, 70 percent of the mammographically detected tumors weren’t tumors at all. These “false positives” aren’t just financial and emotional strains, they may also lead to many unnecessary and invasive biopsies. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer.

At the same time, mammograms also have a high rate of missed tumors, or “false negatives.” Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, in his book, The Politics Of Cancer, claims that in women ages 40 to 49, one in four instances of cancer is missed at each mammography. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) puts the false negative rate even higher at 40 percent among women ages 40-49. National Institutes of Health spokespeople also admit that mammograms miss 10 percent of malignant tumors in women over 50. Researchers have found that breast tissue is denser among younger women, making it difficult to detect tumors. For this reason, false negatives are twice as likely to occur in premenopausal mammograms.

Many critics of mammography cite the hazardous health effects of radiation. In 1976, the controversy over radiation and mammography reached a saturation point. At that time mammographic technology delivered five to 10 rads (radiation-absorbed doses) per screening, as compared to 1 rad in current screening methods. In women between the ages of 35 and 50, each rad of exposure increased the risk of breast cancer by one percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then-director of the NCI.

According to Russell L. Blaylock, MD, one estimate is that annual radiological breast exams increase the risk of breast cancer by two percent a year. So over 10 years the risk will have increased 20 percent. In the 1960s and 70s, women, even those who received 10 screenings a year, were never told the risk they faced from exposure. In the midst of the 1976 radiation debate, Kodak, a major manufacturer of mammography film, took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic.

Despite better technology and decreased doses of radiation, scientists still claim mammography is a substantial risk. Dr. John W. Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75 percent of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation. This includes mammography, x-rays and other medical and dental sources.

Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent. Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography. In addition to harmful radiation, mammography may also help spread existing cancer cells due to the considerable pressure placed on the woman’s breast during the procedure. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.

Cancer research has also found a gene, called oncogene AC, that is extremely sensitive to even small doses of radiation. A significant percentage of women in the United States have this gene, which could increase their risk of mammography-induced cancer. They estimate that 10,000 A-T carriers will die of breast cancer this year due to mammography.

The risk of radiation is apparently higher among younger women. The NCI released evidence that, among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies. Another Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms. Dr. Samuel Epstein also claims that pregnant women exposed to radiation could endanger their fetus. He advises against mammography during pregnancy because “the future risks of leukemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it.” Similarly, studies reveal that children exposed to radiation are more likely to develop breast cancer as adults.While the number of deaths caused by breast cancer has decreased, the incidence of breast cancer is still rising. Since 1940, the incidence of breast cancer has risen by one to two percent every year. Between 1973 and 1991, the incidence of breast cancer in females over 65 rose nearly 40 percent in the United States.

According to Steingraber, the rise in breast cancer predates the introduction of mammograms as a common diagnostic tool. In addition, the groups of women in whom breast cancer incidence is ascending most swiftly – blacks and the elderly – are also least likely to get regular mammograms.

The majority of health experts agree that the risk of breast cancer for women under 35 is not high enough to warrant the risk of radiation exposure. Similarly, the risk of breast cancer to women over 55 justifies the risk of mammograms. The statistics about mammography and women between the ages of 40 and 55 are the most contentious. A 1992 Canadian National Breast Cancer Study showed that mammography had no positive effect on mortality for women between the ages of 40 and 50. In fact, the study seemed to suggest that women in that age group are more likely to die of breast cancer when screened regularly.

While screening is an important step in fighting breast cancer, many researchers are looking for alternatives to mammography. Burton Goldberg totes the safety and accuracy of new thermography technologies. Able to detect cancers at a minute physical stage of development, thermography does not use x-rays, nor is there any compression of the breast. Also important, new thermography technologies do not lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, decreasing the chances of false-negative results.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Any woman wanting to avoid breast cancer or its recurrence needs to be aware of the real risk factors. These are not the factors you hear about from the typical oncologist who is interested in pushing drugs. Imbalances in the body are the real risk factors that explain why women get breast cancer, not lack of drugs. The only way to avoid cancer or its recurrence is to address these imbalances. Two minerals, zinc and selenium, are key in maintaining balance in the body and keeping cancer away. Lack of zinc has been implicated not only in the initiation of breast cancer, but also in the transition, progression, and metastasis of the disease. When zinc is deficient, cellular functioning in the breast is compromised. (Genes and Nutrition, April 2)

In a recent study done at the University of Washington, scientists investigated the signaling pathways modulated by selenium. They compared global gene expression profiles in mammary tissues from pubescent female rats maintained on a selenium (3ppm) diet with those on a standardized diet. The selenium-enriched diet altered the steady-state levels of genes involved in various cellular functioning, the most dramatic of which was the changes in the expression of multiple genes that regulate circadian rhythm.

The primary gene protecting women from breast cancer, p53, is thought to be the most frequently mutated or altered gene in the development of cancer. This gene requires zinc, and if it is missing, the gene becomes mutated, resulting in it becoming inactivated or suppressed. Dysfunction of p53 is well documented in the development of breast cancer, indicating that a zinc deficiency is a risk factor for breast cancer independent of the levels of boron, copper and calcium. In France, scientists report that estrogen receptor expression in breast cancers is associated with differentiated tumors and a more favorable prognosis. The greater the resemblance of cancerous breast cells to non-cancerous breast cells, the less threatening is the disease. Although the exact mechanism underlying the protection ERs play against cancer progression remains to be researched, these scientists studied the actions of ER alpha, and documented that one of the ways this ER inhibits invasion is though its first zinc finger. A zinc finger is a group of proteins organized around a zinc ion that can bind to DNA and influence gene regulation. (Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 2008)

The relationship between selenium status and intake among breast cancer patients was studied by scientists in Kuala Lumpur. 64 women with breast cancer and 127 matched controls were interviewed to obtain information on their habitual dietary intakes, demographic data, and medical history. Selenium status was determined from toenail and hair analysis. The researchers found that total energy and protein intake was significantly higher among controls than among the breast cancer cases. The selenium intake among the women with breast cancer was significantly lower than the controls. Breast cancer risk decreased with the increasing quartiles of selenium intake. Selenium in hair did not differ among breast cancer cases and controls, but selenium status in the nails of controls was significantly higher compared to the breast cancer cases. (Singapore Medical Journal, March 2009).

Drink your minerals ladies

Be well

Dr Sundardas

The FDA has, for decades, ridiculously insisted that mercury fillings pose no health threat whatsoever to children. While dismissing hundreds of studies showing a clear link between mercury amalgam fillings (“silver fillings”) and disastrous neurological effects in the human body, the FDA denied the truth about mercury and effectively protected the mercury filling racket that has brought so much harm to so many people. For over a hundred years, a cabal of “mercury mongers” made up of the American Dental Association, mercury filling manufactu-  rers and indignant dentists have reaped windfall profits by implanting toxic fillings into the mouths of children, all while insisting that mercury — one of the most toxic heavy metals known to modern science — posed no health threat whatsoever.

That reign of toxicity ended  in June 2008. Thanks to the tireless, multi-year efforts of people like Charles Brown, National Counsel for Consumers for Dental Choice (www.ToxicTeeth.org), the FDA was forced to acknowledge a fact so fundamental that, by any measure of honest science, it should have adopted the position decades ago. What position is that? Simply that mercury is toxic to humans.

The FDA has to be sued to do its job of protecting consumers. The FDA’s stonewalling on this issue has been nothing less than a circus of politically-motivated denials, much like the Big Tobacco executives swearing under oath that “Nicotine is not addictive.” In similar style, the FDA insisted for decades that “Mercury is not toxic.” Both statements, as any sane person can readily conclude, are the outbursts of lunatics. Sadly, those lunatics somehow remain in charge of America’s food, drugs and cosmetics (and dental care), meaning that any real progress to protect the People must come from outside the FDA.

And that’s exactly what happened. Consumers for Dental Choice teamed up with Moms Against Mercury (www.MomsAgainstMercury.org) and sued the FDA and its commissioner whose name sounds like an evil-minded villian right out of a Marvel comic book: Von Eschenbach. The lawsuit, entitled, Moms Against Mercury et al. v. Von Eschenbach, Commissioner, et al was concluded in June 2008 with a reluctant agreement by the FDA to both change its website on the issue of mercury and to reclassify mercury within one year, following a period of public comment (which the agency will no doubt try to drag out as long as possible in order to avoid actually sticking to the terms of the lawsuit agreement).

Remarkably, the FDA’s website no longer claims mercury is harmless. The language has now been changed in dramatic fashion, reading: “Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetus.”Speaking of people going mad with mercury, that’s the history of the term “as mad as a hatter.” As explained by Wikipedia:
There is scientific evidence behind the meaning of insanity. Mercury was used in the process of curing felt used in some hats. It was impossible for hatters to avoid inhaling the mercury fumes given off during the hat making process. Hatters and other men in working mills died early due to the residual mercury caused neurological damage, as well as confused speech and distorted vision. As the mercury poisoning progressed to dangerously high levels, sufferers could also experience psychotic symptoms, such as hallucinations.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

When a group of scientists began to study the incidence of osteoporosis in different countries, they found the highest incidence in countries like UK, Sweden, the United States of America and the lowest in China where the diet avoids all of the risk factors mentioned above as well as including all of the protective items that follow below. Osteoporosis that is not due to dis-ease can develop from malnutrition and malabsorption of Calcium and or Vitamin D. It can   also be triggered by a Vitamin C deficiency and a high acid ash (high protein) diet. A high phosphate intake or an iron overload can aggravate the condition also. Also smoking and drinking lots of milk.

Women’s bones are greatly influenced by hormonal fluctuations, poor nutritional uptake, diet, childbirth and exercise. Men’s bones are influenced by stress, diet and exercise only. While mild osteoporosis leads to stress fractures only, serious osteoporosis amongst the elderly result in hip fractures. While having bed rest for hip fractures, further bone loss occurs. The bed sores can get infected and gangrenous and they die. Hip bones and the  lumbar spine are particularly prone to fractures.

According to Dr Maurine Tsakok, head and senior consultant of Singapore General Hospital’s department of obstetrics and gynaecology, women taking soy bean products from dougan to miso soup to legumes like peanuts and beans are naturally increasing their estrogen levels. This is because soya products contained plant estrogens and if sufficient quantities are consumed (which was about three times more soya products a week than normal). In a retrospective study of 98 menopausal Singapore women only half were found they needed Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT). Dr Tsakok also found that two-fifths of the women who did not need HRT exercised regularly compared with about one- tenth of those on HRT.

Phytoestrogens and phytosterols have complex biochemical effects – acting as natural forms of estrogen stimulators (agonist receptor-site action) and protect against higher levels of estrogens by competitive inhibition (antagonist receptor-site action). This dual behaviour results in increasing declining natural estrogen levels as well as providing protection against sites that stimulate breast and uterus cells from becoming cancerous (normally caused by high levels of estrogen production).

Herbs can effectively lessen the effects of menopause and work as estrogen stimulators. The following are commonly used and ones you will find in Menopausal combined-herb formulations:

Black Cohosh – relieves hot flashes and vaginal dryness

Don Quai – relieves hot flashes and improves circulation. Contains beta-sitosterol.

Ginseng – balances stress, improves circulation, stimulates the immune system.

Vitex Agnus-Castus or Chasteberry – affects the pituitary and the stimulation of the three pituitary releasing hormones. Normalizes progesterone levels.

Valerian – natures valium. A calming agent.

Wild Yam – a prohormonal support

Licorice Root – Stimulates the adrenal glands by compensating for “weak adrenal” syndrome. simulating Aldosterone, the major blood pressure hormone (mineralocorticoid).

Be well

Dr Sundardas               www.NaturalTherapies.com,

As men age past age 40, hormonal changes occur that perceptibly inhibit physical, sexual, and cognitive function. The outward appearance of a typical middle-aged male shows in- creased abdominal fat and shrinkage of muscle mass, a hallmark effect of hormone imbal-lance. Loss of a feeling of well-being, sometimes manifesting as depression, is a common psychological complication of hormone imbalance. Until recently, these changes were attri- buted to “growing old,” and men were expected to accept the fact that their bodies were entering into a long degenerative process that would someday result in death.

A remarkable amount of data has been compiled indicating that many of the diseases that middle-aged men begin experiencing, including depression, fatigue, abdominal weight gain, alterations in mood and cognition, decreased libido, erectile dysfunction, prostate disease, and heart disease are directly related to hormone imbalances that are correctable with currently available drug and nutrient therapies. The onset of these symptoms usually appears in the early 50s, although with smokers the onset is significantly earlier.

Andropause is about biochemical changes that brings about physical and emotional changes. Mid-life crisis is an emotional event that brings about more emotional and less physical changes .They may occur independently or they may occur at the same time in which case the impact is multiplied. I think until their 40’s men generally buy into “I am a man and I have to do all this”, cultural and social programming. They do not t question that the load is heavy. At forty as they reach a certain maturity, they may begin to question why it has to be this way. They may even become aware of the load they are carrying and wonder why they should do this.

Certain characteristics displayed by individuals experiencing a mid-life crisis often include but are not limited to a vague and undefined feeling of restlessness for what they do not know . It can include the search of an undefined dream or goal, desire to achieve a feeling of youth- fulness, acquiring of unusual or expensive items such as clothing, muscle cars, jewelery, pay- ing extra special attention to physical appearance, need to spend more time alone or with cert- a certain peers, a deep sense of remorse for goals not accomplished, an underlying desire to initiate new sexual partnerships.

A poll conducted by Desertion Survivors found that 37.1% of respondents’ spouses/partners had deserted them after 20-30 years together, suggesting a strong link to mid-life crisis, with the 20-25 year bracket being the most common, accounting for 20.9% of the overall total.

Positive effects only occur if the individual succesfully negotiates the mid-life crisis.. When they do then they realise  they  are actually in a time of their lives when they can afford to do the things they wanted to do when they were young, which may explain the indulgences in certain commodities or activities. Physically we can do specific hormones and blood tests that would help identify what hormones and issues need to be addressed. We routinely check our male patients’ blood levels of estrogen, testosterone, thyroid, and DHEA to determine what they real picture is. Psychologically, I run specific seminars and programmes that help to clean up old psychological baggage as well as develop new proactive strategies for living.

Be well

Dr Sundardas               www.NaturalTherapies.com,   www.fftcentre.com

In western medicine, the whole concept of wellness is overlooked. Western medicine practitioners and scientists have made great advances in the management of pathology by studying disease. When they study physiology, they do so to better understand abnormal physiology. They do not study physiology in the hope that they can better understand how to optimize physiology.

Due to this perspective, there has been a great deal of skepticism about subtle energetic screening devices and healing technologies. The fundamental challenge in the model can be stated in the following ways.

1)      Subtle energy changes predate biochemical dysfunctions/medical conditions (i.e. liver cirrhosis)

2)      Western medical professionals will typically ignore these changes because they will maintain these changes have no relation to any changes in physiology

3)      Wellness medicine practitioners who habitually look for these changes and successfully help to optimize the patient’s condition will avert the eventual development of these conditions

4)      The Western medical professional will then claim energetic changes have no relationship to pathology because the patient never went on to develop the  alleged biochemical dysfunction/medical condition  (i.e. liver cirrhosis)

The medical model basically employs the so-called lock-and-key paradigm of biochemistry, according to which, any biochemical reaction needs a specific arrangement of the reacting molecules. Meanwhile, a living organism and its functions cannot be reduced to a set of chemical reactions, even if it were possible to account for all of them. This constitutes a serious problem of any acute treatment. Any illness – actually illness in general – generates a kind of communicational gap within the organism’s functional network. Since living beings are highly integrated open dynamic systems, their health – all health in general – is supported by a permanent mass, energy and information exchange. The dynamics of communication thus is vital for organisms.

One of the fundamental communication processes that our body uses to communicate with us when we are approaching dis-ease is our emotions. Our emotions are our primary mechanisms that our body minds use to communicate how well our lives physical, mental or emotional are working. In the Western Medicine Model when you are feeling emotionally unwell like depression, they would prescribe prozac. In the Wellness Medicine Model, when you feel unwell, you are getting a signal about some state of disharmony whether physical, mental or emotional.

So do you want to pay attention to your Body-Mind or do you wish to drug yourself so you that feel nothing? That is the real difference between Western Medicine and Wellness Medicine.

Be well

Dr Sundardas                    www.NaturalTherapies.com,   www.fftcentre.com

If you want to protect yourself from these toxic chemicals, here’s how to do it:

#1) Don’t put anything on your skin you wouldn’t eat! Avoid all mainstream consumer skin care, cosmetics and personal care products, period! Need soap? Try natural, organic brands like Dr Bronner’s, AnnMarie Gianni or Pangea Organics.

#2) Don’t eat foods made with chemicals you can’t pronounce. Read the ingredients labels. If the list of ingredients is too long and complex to figure out, it’s probably made more with chemicals than actual food.

#3) Don’t poison your body with over-the-counter drugs or prescription pharmaceuticals. If you do need to use medication for short-term emergency use, be sure to detoxify your liver afterwards.

#4) Detox your liver, kidneys and colon at least once a year. You can do this with a juice fast combined with detox supplements . (get professional guidance from a naturopath before fasting).

#5) Drink more water. Most people simply don’t consume enough water to effectively remove toxins from their bodies. If you don’t like water by itself, drink fresh vegetable juices such as celery or cucumber juice (which are actually structured water).

#6) Cleanse your body with parsley, alfalfa, red clover, chlorella or chlorophyll. All these substances can help cleanse your body and eliminate toxic substances that may be detrimental to your health.

#7) Don’t fill your home or apartment with products that off-gas toxic chemicals: Air fresheners, perfumed candles, particle board furniture, carpets, glues, etc.

#8) Don’t cook on non-stick cookware. These are the worst! Invest in quality copper-clad stainless steel pans and use those. They’ll last a lifetime and they don’t contaminate your body with chemicals. Don’t eat at restaurants that use non-stick cookware. (That’s just about every restaurant in the world, it seems…)

#9) Buy certified organic products. In the USA, the USDA Organic Seal is a trusted seal that genuinely indicates organic quality (both in foods and personal care products). Don’t be fooled by brand names that use the word “organics” in their name but aren’t really organic. Organic Consumers Association (http://www.organicconsumers.org/) can keep you posted on what’s what.

#10) Get the cancer out of your laundry! Stop washing your clothes in toxic brand-name laundry detergents, and stop using brand-name fabric softeners or dryer sheets. Do you have any idea what chemicals are used in those products? The truth would astonish you.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

If you are reading this section, you are probably suffering with pain or you may know someone who is.  Please continue reading, because this page contains very important information on pain.

Because the cause of pain can vary from patient to patient and effective treatment methods vary as well, it is important to have a wide range of treatment modalities available to you .Acute pain is the most common symptom for which patients seek medical evaluation. New pain complaints result in 40 million visits to the doctor annually, and 45% of persons in the United States will visit a doctor for pain at some point in their lives. The prevalence of various chronic pain syndromes in the United States is estimated to range from 2% to 40%. Approximately 75 million persons in the United States live with “serious pain,” and nearly 50 million are partially or totally disabled by pain.