Israel tests world’s most powerful missile defense system
”Dream as if you’ll live forever, Live as if you’ll die today”
Is Honey A Cancer-Killing Agent?
Written By:
Most of us know honey as a sweet treat, but few are aware of its powerful cancer killing properties.
Honey is a superlative healing food. We know it has over 69 health benefits, as confirmed by the biomedical literature itself. But did you know it could be of profound benefit in diseases as life threatening and seemingly incurable as cancer?
Indeed, a study published the journal Molecules looked at the role of honey in positively impacting the development and progression of tumors or cancers. The review identified the presence of flavonoids and phenolic acids in honey as the primary anti-cancer compounds involved in its beneficial properties.
According to the study, flavonoids are biologically active natural compounds with a 15-carbon (C6-C3-C6) structure, comprising two benzene rings joined by a heterocyclic pyrane ring, with honey containing the following:
- Chrysin
- Kaempeferol
- Quercetin
- Pinobanksin
- Pinocembrin
- Luteolin
- ·Apigenin
- Hesperetin
- Naringenin
- Genistein
Interestingly, many of these flavonoids are classified as phytoestrogens, which are phytochemicals structurally similar to mammalian estrogens and therefore can bind to estrogen receptors. While many of these honey-derived flavonoids have been demonstrated to have both inhibitory and stimulatory effects, the vast majority of the cell (in vitro) and animal (in vivo) studies have demonstrated the anti-breast and estrogen sensitive cancer properties of these compounds, indicating that flavonoid rich honeys are likely to positively influence estrogenic activity in estrogen-receptor positive cancers.
Furthermore, some honeys – such as Tualang honey – exhibit the property of selective cytotoxicity, meaning they target cancer cells by inducing programmed cell death while leaving non-cancerous cells unharmed. This is extremely different than the mechanism of action behind conventional chemotherapy agents and radiotherapy which indiscriminately target both healthy and cancerous tissue, often conferring increased survival advantage to the most tumorigenic cells themselves: cancer stem cells.
Unlike chemotherapy and radiotherapy, natural compounds commonly exhibit this ‘do no harm’ property when it comes to healthy tissue, while at the same time being exceptionally effective at targeting the harmful cells.
Honey Better than Chemotherapy?
Another recent study compared the effect of Tualang honey with that of the pharmaceutical tamoxifen (an estrogen receptor antagonist) in two breast cancer cell lines (MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231). The study found that the anti-cancer effect of tualang honey on breast cancer cells was comparable to that of tamoxifen, a multi-billion dollar blockbuster drug. This is all the more remarkable, considering that Tamoxifen is classified by the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society to be a human carcinogen, and is technically a xenobiotic chemical – inherently toxic and biologically alien to human physiology.
Honey Kills Cancer in Animals
According to the study, animal research has established honey’s significant anti-cancer properties, specifically in regard to inhibiting metastasis (invasiveness):
“Several studies have also confirmed the antimetastic, antiproliferative and anticancer effects of honey on breast tumor or cancer in rodents. In a murine (mammary carcinoma) tumor model, the anti-metastatic effect of honey when applied before tumor-cell inoculation has been reported [40]. The antimetastatic effect of honey may be due to its flavonoids such chrysin which have been shown to inhibit the metastatic potential of human breast cancer cells [41]. Similarly, a study investigated the antitumor effect of two honey samples containing different phenolic contents against Ehrlich ascites and solid carcinoma. Both honeys were found to markedly inhibit the growth of Ehrlich ascites carcinoma, but the honey containing higher phenolic content exerted a greater antitumor effect [42]. Research carried out by Tomasin and Gomes-Marcondes investigated the effects of combined Aloe vera and honey on tumor growth and cell proliferation against Walker 256 carcinoma implant in Wistar rats. Both agents were found to suppress tumor growth and inhibit cell proliferation [43].”
Honey Kills A Wide Range of Cancers
The review focused on the potential of honey to affect a variety of cancers, including:
- Liver Cancer: Gelam honey has been found to kill liver cancer cells, exhibiting selective cytotoxicity, anti-angiogenic, cytotoxic, and anti-proliferative properties, in both cell and animal research.
- Colorectal Cancer: gelam and nenas monofloral honeys exhibit anti-cancer properites in colorectal cell lines.
- Prostate Cancer: Greek honeys (thyme, pine and fir honey) have been found to exhibit anti-proliferative properties.
- Other Forms of Cancer: There has been a battery of studies on the anti-cancer properties of honey, focusing on the following types: a) bladder b) endometrial c) renal cell carcinoma d) skin cancer cells e) cervical f) non-small cell lung cancer g) mouth cancer h) bone cancer (osteosarcoma).
What are the Mechanisms of Honey’s Anti-Cancer Properties?
There are a wide range of observed mechanisms of honey’s cancer-killing properties, which include:
- Cell Cycle Arrest – The normal process of cancer cell replication is halted.
- Activation of the Mitochondrial Pathway – compounds or agents such as honey rich in flavonoids that are capable of activating mitochondrial pathway and release of proteins such as cytochrome C are considered potential cytotoxic (cell killing) agents.
- Induction of Mitochondrial Outer Membrane Permeabilization – The induction of mitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization (MOMP) leads to leakage of intermembrane space proteins into the cytosol and consequently causing cell death
- Induction of Programmed Cell Death (Apoptosis): The activation of a “cell death” program designed to protect against cancer.
- Modulation of Oxidative Stress: It is believed that honey’s antioxidant properties may nip one of the fundamental processes in cancer’s progression – oxidative stress – in the bud.
- Amelioration of Inflammation: Inflammation is at the root of many cancers, and since honey is able to suppress it, it is can significant impact carcinogenesis.
- Modulation of Insulin Signaling: Because cancer is associated with increased insulin resistance and honey is capable of reducing insulin resistance, it is believed to mitigate a major driving factor in carcinogenesis.
- Inhibition of Angiogenesis: Honey has been found to inhibit the fundamental process of cancer expansion (the production of a new blood supply) by inhibiting angiogenesis.
The study reviewed all possible avenues through which honey suppressed cancer, with 20 depicted in the image below:
The study concluded with following summarization:
“Honey is a natural product that shows potential effects to inhibit or suppress the development and progression of tumor and cancer. Its antiproliferative, antitumor, antimetastic and anticancer effects are mediated via diverse mechanisms, including cell cycle arrest, activation of mitochondrial pathway, induction of mitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization, induction of apoptosis, modulation of oxidative stress, amelioration of inflammation, modulation of insulin signaling, and inhibition of angiogenesis in cancer cells. Honey is highly and selectively cytotoxic against tumor or cancer cells while it is non-cytotoxic to normal cells. It can inhibit cancerogenesis by modulating or interfering with the molecular processes or events of initiation, promotion, and progression stages. It, therefore, can be considered a potential and promising anticancer agent which warrants further research—both in experimental and clinical studies.”
Multidisciplinary Team Completes First-Ever EXIT to Ventricular Pacing Procedure
In the face of ongoing Islamist attacks, the faith is growing in Nigeria
Categories: News, The Suffering Church
THE NIGERIAN government has begun to regain control over areas that had been occupied by Islamist terror organization Boko Haram; yet, attacks on Christians and their communities continue to take place regularly, particularly in the northeastern part of the country.
Archbishop Matthew Man-Oso Ndagoso of Kaduna, last fall visited his former Diocese of Maiduguri, which was not long ago still the heart of Boko Haram territory. Just days after his visit, an attack left numerous dead and wounded. “Attacks such as these make our day-to-day lives very uncertain,” the archbishop told us.
Boko Haram may be diminished, but its reign of terror has left a deep wound. By official estimates, there are almost 1.8 million Internally Displaced People in Nigeria; that figure grew by at least 140,000 last year alone due to ongoing attacks, many of them perpetrated by suicide bombers who blow themselves up in marketplaces, and in churches or mosques.
The archbishop explained: “Terrorist groups pretend they would like to pray. They mingle among those gathered in places where one would normally not suspect bomb attacks—this spreads great confusion.” According to the prelate, among the greatest problems today are abductions and demands for ransom payments.
Aside from Boko Haram, other Islamic groups have in the meantime also become radicalized, including members of the Fulani, a nomadic, pastoral people. It has raised suspicion that they are outfitted with modern weapons, which suggest that “powerful forces with connections to terrorist organizations such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda are behind groups such as these,” Archbishop Ndagoso said.
However, no matter how hard Christians are hit by the attacks, “they just grow stronger in their faith,” the archbishop stressed. Not only has the number of seminarians grown, there has been an increase in the overall Christian population has grown significantly. “Over the past four years, I have opened at least three new parishes each year,” reported the leader of the Church in Kaduna; and that is a remarkable development in light of the fact that Kaduna is in a Muslim-majority region, which in parts is ruled by sharia law.
The activities of Boko Haram were “a wake-up call” for the Christians in his See, Archbishop Ndagoso said. He gave the example of a church in the city of Kaduna that became the target of an attack in 2012, which killed several people and wounded more than 100. Three services a week were held in that church before the attack—today, Mass is held almost every day; the number of faithful has tripled since the attack. Our organization has helped rebuild a nearby pastoral center.
As regards the role of Christians in his country, Ndagoso emphasized: “We have to be as patient as God has been with all people for millennia; time and again we must take the initiative ourselves; we must take a stand for truth – because our God is a God of peace, not of violence.”
Government agencies have now allocated relief goods to the local Church for further distribution among displaced persons; that is testimony to transparency of the aid work carried out by Christians in the northeastern part of Nigeria.
In the past 10 years, our organization has committed more than $10M in aid for the Nigerian Church. In addition to rebuilding church buildings, we have set up a program for widows and orphans whose husbands and fathers were murdered by Boko Haram.
Feeling the pressure of societal expectation?
How we want to be perceived influences how we act, and that presents persuasion opportunities. But the social factors involved are not easy to unravel.
Humans are social beings, and many of the choices we make in our lives happen in a social context, with neighbors, friends and family judging our decisions. How does this social pressure affect the choices we make about what to buy, whether to vote, or what political views we hold? Leonardo Bursztyn, a behavioral economist at the University of Chicago, has focused his research on exploring the complexities of that question.
Bursztyn describes what he and others have learned from real-world experiments on social pressure and behavior in a 2017 article he coauthored in the Annual Review of Economics, “Social Image and Economic Behavior in the Field: Identifying, Understanding, and Shaping Social Pressure.”
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
How do you study social pressure?
The approach I’ve been taking is to use field experiments to identify the effects in a natural setting. One type of manipulation I’ve been using is to randomize whether or not someone’s action is visible to others. The first paper I wrote with this approach, we were interested in understanding whether kids felt pressure to avoid making educational investment because they didn’t want to signal they were uncool or that they were nerds. We did an experiment in which high school students in a low-income setting in Los Angeles were offered free access to a $200 prep course for the SAT [a standard college entry examination]. We randomized so that some kids expected their decision to be completely private, and others believed their classmates could find out their decision. You see a big decrease in the likelihood that they’ll take the offerwhen their decision is public, which would have to be explained by their concern about their classmates finding out.
If kids are avoiding some opportunities in school because of peer pressure, why are they doing it? What type of image are they trying to portray to their classmates? Are they trying to signal that they’re cool, and that’s why they don’t need to study, or are they trying to signal that they’re smart, and that’s why they don’t need to study? If you think there’s a stigma associated with not being smart, that leads to certain policy recommendations. If you think that the stigma is something like “too cool for school, school is lame,” then it leads to different policy implications. In fact, both reasons are important, though for different groups of students. So beyond showing there is an effect, understanding the mechanics, the underlying reasons, is also important.
One of the main lessons from your work is that social pressure is a very complex force. People are part of multiple groups with competing pressures sometimes. How difficult does that make it to draw clear conclusions?
You need to understand who the peer group is, what is driving the peer pressure, what image people are trying to portray, and whether the social pressure people think they face is based on a correct assessment of their social environment. This makes it a very difficult problem, and that also makes it very interesting for a social scientist. People are more and more aware of the importance of social forces. Understanding them, and what to do with them, and thinking of policies associated with them — I think that becomes the new frontier.
What are some other ways that social pressure affects our behavior?
People sometimes have incorrect beliefs about what other people think. In those cases, just by correcting people’s beliefs about others, you can lead to changes in the effect of social pressure. I’m working on a project right now indicating that married men in Saudi Arabia seem to be relatively progressive regarding female labor force participation, but they think that other men are against it. What happens when you teach them that other men are progressive? It may actually change their actions relative to female employment.
“You need to understand who the peer group is, what is driving the peer pressure, what image people are trying to portray.”
Leonardo Bursztyn
Leonardo Bursztyn
I have another project studying the unravelling of political correctness in the US, in some areas, with the rising popularity of Donald Trump. People who were xenophobic believed they were in a small minority, because on TV they never saw people saying those things. They thought they would be judged for saying xenophobic things. Trump’s rise in power served as a way to tell these people that in fact there are more people like them than they thought there were. Those people don’t feel the pressure to avoid this type of language any more — and we see increasing expressions of hate and xenophobia.
Have you tested this by comparing private versus public actions?
Exactly. We asked people to donate in private or in public to anti-immigration organizations. Originally there was a difference: A large share of participants would not donate in public but would donate in private. After the election, they’re no longer embarrassed to donate to the xenophobic organization in public. So we showed that social pressure is very powerful, but at the same time it can be shifted very fast.
Why do we care about our social image?
That’s still an open question. Is it for some instrumental reason, meaning I want to cause a good impression because I’ll get good things out of it — for example, if people think I’m rich, they’re going to treat me better? Or do I care if people think well of me even if they’re not going to treat me better? We call that second case a hedonic social concern.
How can you tell the difference?
One way to think about it is: Someone that you’re never going to interact with in the future, do you still care about how they view you? The answer seems to be yes, which suggests there must be some hedonic concern about social image, something intrinsic that doesn’t have anything to do with anything else. Why we feel that way is an interesting question that will require more work.
How does the importance of social media today change the way that social pressure works? Is the quality of pressure different now, or is it the same, just more intense?
If the norm is to have everything that you do being portrayed on social media, then for sure, social image becomes more important. Many actions are now expected to be shared, and the mere fact of not sharing sends a signal that there’s nothing interesting to share. That creates pressure to share. This is just a conjecture, but we might be getting to the stage where people care more about the image of what they’re doing, how it looks to others, than the actual experience. This may create anxiety. People might look at what others are sharing and feel bad about their own life. They don’t understand that everyone’s trying to make their life look amazing on social media.
How can we use this knowledge to help us be better at nudging?
One way is to vary observability. An action that is private, you can make it public. Some countries use shaming incentives — if you don’t pay your taxes, your name is going to be posted in the newspaper. That’s one type of nudging.
There’s other ways to do it. For example, you can create a leaderboard at a company. Then people can see who the best-ranked people are. If you care about being seen as a high-performing employee, you work hard, not necessarily because of the money, but because you want to be seen as a top person. On the other hand, many high school students avoid effort if there is a public leaderboard because they don’t want to be seen as nerds.
In a later study of SAT courses, you found that the appropriate nudge is different in different contexts, because of different social pressures.
We showed that in the same schools, with kids who take both honors and non-honors classes, in the non-honors classes, people are less likely to sign up for the SAT course in public than in private, suggesting the direction of social pressure is away from signing up. Now when you look at the same group of kids in honors classes, they’re more likely to sign up for the SAT course in public than in private, suggesting that the direction of social pressure is toward signing up. They want to signal to others that they’re doing it. The results suggest that even within the same school, different local norms might exist.
“Dollars are pretty much dollars everywhere. Social pressures are more complex.”
Leonardo Bursztyn
Leonardo Bursztyn
That’s very important. If you think about monetary incentives, dollars are pretty much dollars everywhere. Social pressures are more complex, because it really depends on the norm that exists within the peer group. So it’s important to understand the specific context.
What about the ethical concerns about using social pressure in nudging? You mentioned shaming, which is a powerful kind of social pressure, but not necessarily the sort of force we want to harness.
This is yet another open area for research. How do you think about society’s welfare in the world of social pressure? With shaming, you might be creating a lot of dissatisfaction. How do you weigh this against the positive outcomes of actually increasing tax payments? It becomes very complicated. There’s very little work done on understanding welfare and how to take social image concerns into account when designing policy.
Why Satan Tempts Us | Catholic Answers
How to Be The Best Role Model
 by lollydaskal |
Chances are, at some point you’ve worked with a leader whose example is still with you today. Maybe it was a leader who showed confidence when everyone else was frazzled, who stayed calm under intense pressure. Or a boss who deftly handled whiners and complainers, or a mentor whose patient guidance set you on the path you’re still following.
Whatever their role, these are the people who know that who they are is as important as what they do. For them, setting a positive example is an integral element of leadership, a part of their life and work every day.
So what kind of example are you setting? Whether you’re aware of it or not, your actions and attitudes are being watched. You’re setting an example, modeling acceptable behavior to others.
How can you tell if you’re setting an example people can look up to? Here are some traits the best role models share:
They lead with self-awareness. The best role models reflect honestly and productively on their own behavior and the impact they have on others. They consider the needs and feelings of others, they’re responsible for their actions and accountable for their mistakes, and, most important, they pay attention to how their words and actions affect others.
They lead with positivity. Great role models know that no one can be cheerful all the time, but they look for opportunities in difficult situations and face challenges with resilience and energy. They inspire those around them with their positivity and optimism.
They lead with empathy. Part of being a role model is tuning in to the feelings of those around you. It means meeting people where they are and relating to them with kindness, compassion, and understanding. At the heart, it’s as simple as acknowledging our shared humanity.
They lead with humility. The best role models are humble enough to be honest when they’re not sure about something. They’re supportive when you need help, sincere when others are manipulative, and modest when others are showing off. Those who lead with humility are at their best when they’re encouraging others to succeed.
They lead with integrity. Great role models enter every situation with their good character, morals, and principles firmly in place. They don’t preach; they don’t have to. They know their values and use them as the basis of their choices, and they have the decency to do the right thing even when it’s difficult.
They lead with trust. Leaders with consistent character—the ones who “walk their talk”—develop an atmosphere of accountability and responsibility. And those elements form the foundations of trust. A commitment to building and earning trust is one of the most important elements of a great team.
They lead with respect. Many people aspire to impressive titles in an effort to get others to respect them. But the best roles model understand that you earn respect through the way you treat others. They give respect, and in turn they receive it.
They lead with honesty. People will naturally look up to you if they can count on you to tell the truth, however difficult or awkward it may be. This includes telling the truth about yourself, the mistakes you’ve made, and the places where your judgment has faltered. Your people will appreciate and emulate your transparency
Whether you want to be or not, unless you live alone in a cave you’re probably somebody’s role model. That makes it important for each of us to remember that people learn more from what we do than what we say, more from what we are than what we teach.
A Study of Suffering After Abortion
Important takeaways from Women Who Suffered Emotionally from Abortion: A Qualitative Synthesis of Their Experiences.
This new study by Priscilla K. Coleman, Ph.D., sheds light on the suffering women experience after an abortion. In this article, I hope to identify key insights from the full article, which can be found at http://www.jpands.org/vol22no4/coleman.pdf
Numerous factors affect a woman’s adjustment to life after an abortion. Priscilla K. Coleman, Ph.D., and three assistants published the results of a qualitative study they conducted in 2012-2013 with 987 participants. The study was designed to enhance understanding of the breadth and depth of individuals’ experiences. Respondents were asked to describe the most significant positive and negative aspects of their abortion histories in an anonymous online survey. The majority of the respondents had contacted a pregnancy center seeking post-abortion services. The primary means for recruitment of respondents came through Care Net directors from across the United States. The respondents ranged in age from 20 to over 60. Most were white, married, and well educated, with a wide range of income levels.
Less than one third identified any personal benefits from their abortions. Commonly voiced positives focused on spiritual growth, outreach to other women who were considering abortion or had already experienced one, and various forms of pro-life activism.
Much has been written about reproductive decision-making and the adjustment to the choice to abort. There have been conflicts over the methods used and the results pertaining to mental health issues. A number of risk factors related to abortion have been identified and are accepted in the academic community. They are routinely taught to abortion providers and also acknowledged by the American Psychological Association. Many professional studies focus on group–level quantitative methodologies that usually fail to capture the deeper thoughts and feelings of participants relative to their abortions. Dr. Coleman took a different approach by asking study participants to identify the most profound negative elements and also identify any positive aspects of their abortion experience.
Whether high risk or not, many women who have aborted report a mixture of positive and negative feelings about the experience. These feelings fluctuate over time. Other researchers agree that there is a need for far more than clinical trials and statistical analysis. Women themselves must be free to express the full range of feelings they have about their abortion(s).
So far, very few qualitative studies have been done with large numbers of subjects, and most have been limited in the range of the age of participants and the length of time since the abortion. There are numerous and complex factors that influence feelings about the experience, such as perceived coercion, ambivalence, pre-existing trauma, etc. Qualitative studies offer the opportunity to shed light on the interactions among these factors.
Coleman’s study used minimal prompting and offers a thematic analysis of responses from a large nationwide survey. It primarily examines open-ended responses to two questions asked of women who have sought post-abortion care.
The questions were:
• What are the most significant positives if any that have come from your decision to abort?
• What are the most significant negatives if any that have come from your decision to abort?
Hopefully, the study will add insight into the development of pre-and post-abortion counseling guidelines. The survey covered more than 400 quantitative and qualitative items and it took most people an hour to complete. Responses were coded and themes developed to coordinate the vast number of responses received.
The study shows that 13% of respondents had visited a mental health professional before the first pregnancy and abortion, compared to 67.5% who made such visits afterward. Another key finding was that only 6.6% used prescription drugs for psychological health before the abortion experience, compared with 51% afterward. This indicates that most of the respondents were psychologically healthy before their first abortion and that there was a significant increase in their use of mental health professionals and medications after their abortions.
The article then lists the themes identified from the analysis and gives an example to illustrate each one, directly quoting a participant’s description. The examples are very familiar ones to those who are involved in helping women recover from abortion and are echoed in numerous testimonies. Feelings of loss, reduced quality of life, living with regret, shame, guilt, depression, and anxiety were named repeatedly. Forty-nine respondents said they lacked the desire to keep on living at some point after the abortion. The majority described numerous negative outcomes, usually centered on the life lost. Most identified feeling relief and peace only after experiencing divine forgiveness.
Because the participants were self-selected and had contact with pregnancy centers, the results cannot be generalized to the entire population of post-abortive women. The participants sought help in faith-based, pro-life centers. The majority also sought other forms of professional help at some point.
Dr. Coleman is a Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. She writes and speaks frequently on the topic of abortion and has conducted other research studies.
OBSERVATIONS
The debate over the impact of abortion on mental health has been under discussion for many years. Dr. Julius Fogel, a psychiatrist and an abortionist referred to the psychological disturbance abortion caused in his own patients back in the late 80s. He said in an interview published in Wanderer magazine on April 13, 1989, “I’ve had patients who had an abortion a year or two ago…women who did the best thing at the time for themselves… but it still bothers them. Many come in…some are just mute, some hostile. Some burst out crying…there is no question in my mind that we are disturbing a life process. The trauma may sink into the unconscious and never surface in the woman’s lifetime…but a psychological price is paid. It may be alienation, it may be pushing away from human warmth, perhaps a hardening of the maternal instinct. Something happens on the deeper levels of a woman’s consciousness when she destroys a pregnancy. I know this as a psychiatrist.”
As a graduate student at the time, I was aware that the commonly held assumption was that women with mental health conditions would benefit from abortion when facing an unplanned pregnancy. Over the years, experience proved to many professional caregivers that abortion in such cases usually exacerbated distress, especially where some form of coercion existed.
This study provides some scientific support to the huge anecdotal evidence of the emotional suffering many suffer from abortion.
It stirs me to continue to advocate for making comprehensive and competent counseling the highest priority in our efforts to reach the hearts and minds of women considering abortion. We need to use all the appropriate means and methods at our disposal.
My Awesome Fearless Blog 