Latest Research

Heart Centered Holistic Healer

 Dr. Stephen Duncan, D.CH.

Jesus Christ

Latest Healthcare News

Keep informed here about important healthcare news Plano-Fort Worth!

Microwaved Water
- See What It Does To Plants...

NOTE: We received the following link from Ms. Nenah Sylver and found it of such importance that we are posting it hoping that the author will contact us so we can give full attribution. -ed
Below is a science fair project that my granddaughter did for 2006. In it she took filtered water and divided it into two parts. The first part she heated to boiling in a pan on the stove, and the second part she heated to boiling in a microwave. Then after cooling she used the water to water two identical plants to see if there would be any difference in the growth between the normal boiled water and the water boiled in a microwave. She was thinking that the structure or energy of the water may be compromised by microwave. As it turned out, even she was amazed at the difference.

I have known for years that the problem with microwaved anything is not the radiation people used to worry about, it's how it corrupts the DNA in the food so the body can not recognize it. So the body wraps it in fat cells to protect itself from the dead food or it eliminates it fast. Think of all the Mothers heating up milk in these "Safe" appliances. What about the nurse in Canada that warmed up blood for a transfusion patient and accidentally killed them when the blood went in dead. But the makers say it's safe. Never mind then, keep using them. Ask your Doctor. I am sure they will say it's safe too. Proof is in the pictures of living plants dying. Remember You are also Living. Take Care.

Action Alert from the Organic Consumers Association:

Congress Poised to Pass Bill Taking Away Right to Know What's in Your Food

Tell your Congressman or Congresswoman to vote "No" on House of Representatives Bill H.R. 4167, the "National Uniformity for Food Act"

The House of Representatives will vote this week on a controversial "national food uniformity" labeling law that will take away local government and states' power to require food safety food labels such as those required in California and other states on foods or beverages that are likely to cause cancer, birth defects, allergic reactions, or mercury poisoning. This bill would also prevent citizens in local municipalities and states from passing laws requiring that genetically engineered foods and ingredients such as Monsanto's recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) be labeled.

The House will vote March 2, 2006 on a bill that would gut state food safety and labeling laws. H.R. 4167, the "National Uniformity for Food Act," lowers the bar on food safety by overturning state food safety laws that are not "identical" to federal law. Hundreds of state laws and regulations are at risk, including those governing the safety of milk, fish, and shellfish. The bill is being pushed by large supermarket chains and food manufacturers, spearheaded by the powerful Grocery Manufacturers of America.

Big food corporations and the biotech industry understand that consumers are more and more concerned about food safety, genetic engineering, and chemical-intensive agriculture, and are reading labels more closely. They understand that pesticide and mercury residues and hazardous technologies such as genetic engineering and food irradiation will be rejected if there are truthful labels required on food products. Industry-sponsored H.R. 4167 is gaining momentum and must be stopped! Act now! Preserve local and regional democracy and protect yourself and your family from unsafe food by sending an email or calling your Representative and urging them to vote "No" on H.R. 4167.

Please Take Action Now--Send a Message to Your Congress Member in the House of Representatives to Vote "No" on H.R. 4167

And please call your Congress Member at 202-224-3121

Regards & Solidarity,

Ronnie Cummins,
Organic Consumers Association

6771 South Silver Hill Drive
Finland, MN 55603
Phone: (218)- 226-4164 Fax: (218) 353-7652



FDA Commission Lester Crawford abruptly resigned on Friday, Sept. 23, 2005. His resignation is effective immediately.

“After three and a half years as Deputy Commissioner, Acting Commissioner and, finally, as Commissioner, it is time at the age of 67, to step aside,” Crawford said in a memorandum to FDA staff.

Sources familiar with his departure said Crawford was asked to resign. 
Crawford's tenure was marked by increasing criticism of the agency by those who contended it had become more interested in politics than in its mission to protect consumers.  Asked if he was forced to resign, HHS spokeswoman Christina Pearson declined to comment further, calling it a personnel issue.

Last month, morale at the agency plummeted when Crawford indefinitely postponed nonprescription sales of morning-after contraception over the objections of staff scientists who had declared the pill safe. FDA's women's health chief resigned.

Many FDA critics lauded Crawford's departure.

“The American consumer should shed no tears at Mr. Crawford's resignation," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat who voted against Crawford's confirmation. “The fact is, he took the side of the pharmaceutical industry and against consumers at virtually every opportunity.”

“In recent years, the FDA has demonstrated a too-cozy relationship with the pharmaceutical industry and an attitude of shielding rather than disclosing information,” said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who has spent 18 months investigating the agency.

Crawford was confirmed as head of the FDA by the Senate on July 18. President Bush nominated him for the position in February.  He had managed the agency since he became acting commissioner in March 2004 following Dr. Mark B. McClellan's tenure as commissioner. Previously Crawford had served as deputy commissioner during 2002.

Full coverage of Crawford's resignation and the possible impact on health freedom will appear in our next member newsletter.

Don't forget to voice your concerns to Congress. Click here to visit our Legislation Action Center and contact your representatives. It's easy, fast, and important!  Did you know that 1 letter = 1,000 voices or more to members of Congress?  Here are just a few of the health freedom bills currently in Congress. 

Oppose Dietary Supplement Access and Awareness Act (HR 3156) - This legislation would regulate almost all dietary supplements like prescription drugs.


Support Consumer Access to Health Information (HR 2352) - This bill would ensure that the FDA does not suppress accurate health claims.

Oppose Dietary Supplement Regulatory Implementation (H.R. 2510) - this bill is trying a back-door approach to modifying DSHEA with focus on banning all supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids and establishing a system for the requirements for the reporting of serious adverse experiences.

Oppose Food Safety Administration (S. 729/HR 1507) – this bill would create a new food agency and transfers the FDA food functions, except dietary supplements, to the new agency and in essence repeal the Dietary Supplement Act (DSHEA).

Support Access to Medical Treatment Act (HR 2792) - would provide a much-needed federal statutory authority for Americans to use therapies and devices that have not yet been approved (or which may never be approved) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

AMA Study
released Monday Feb. 18, 2004  By Rob Stein

Antibiotics Increase Risk for Breast Cancer

Antibiotics could increase the risk for breast cancer by affecting bacteria in the digestive system in ways that interfere with the way the body uses foods that protect against cancers and other diseases. Or antibiotics increase the risk by affecting the immune system.  Remember, "Everything you put in your mouth that isn't food, has side-effects!" Here is a case in point! - Dr. Robin Surface

Journal of the American Medical Association:
released Monday Feb. 18, 2004  By Rob Stein

Antibiotic use is associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, a new study has found, raising the possibility that women who take the widely used medicines are prone to one of the most feared malignancies.

The first-of-its-kind study of more than 10,000 women in Washington state concluded that those who used the most antibiotics had double the chances of developing breast cancer, that the association was consistent for all forms of antibiotics and that the risk went up with the number of prescriptions, a powerful indication that the link was real.

A variety of experts quickly cautioned, however, that the findings should not stop women from taking the often lifesaving drugs when needed to treat infections. There could be other explanations for the association, and much more research is needed before scientists understand what the surprising results mean, they said.

"This is not saying that women should stop taking antibiotics. Women should take antibiotics for infections," said Stephen H. Taplin, a senior scientist at the National Cancer Institute who helped conduct the study. "We need to follow up and find out if this is a real association."

Nevertheless, the consistency of the findings in a study with such careful methodology could indicate that antibiotic use is an important, previously unrecognized risk factor for breast cancer, experts said.

Antibiotics could increase the risk for breast cancer by, for example, affecting bacteria in the digestive  system in ways that interfere with the way the body uses foods that protect against cancer, experts said.   Another possibility is that antibiotics increase the risk by affecting the immune system.

Even if it turns out that antibiotics do not increase the risk for breast cancer, the finding is likely to be important because it could lead to the discovery of whatever it is about women who use the drugs that appears to make them prone to the disease, researchers said. "This has opened up a picture that people had not been thinking about," Taplin said. "The important thing is more research and asking more questions about what it could be."

Until the results are sorted out, experts said, the findings provide yet another reason for doctors to more judiciously prescribe antibiotics, which are often used unnecessarily.

Link first proposed in 1981

Scientists first proposed that antibiotics may increase the risk for breast cancer in 1981, but the only other study to examine the question was in Finland in 2000. That study also found an association, but prompted the new research.

The study's design, however, made it impossible to rule out the chance that women who tend to use the medicines are biologically predisposed to breast cancer for other reasons, such as by having weak immune systems or a hormonal imbalance that could be the cause of both their increased risk for breast cancer and for infections that prompted antibiotic use.

"Antibiotics are used extensively in this country and in many parts of the world. The possible association between breast cancer and antibiotic use was important to examine," said Christine M. Velicer, an epidemiologist with Group Health Cooperative's Center for Health Studies who was the lead author of the study.

Breast cancer strikes more than 211,000 women each year in the United States and kills more than 40,000, making it the leading cause of cancer and the second leading cancer killer among women.

Velicer, Taplin and their colleagues examined computerized pharmacy and cancer screening records of 2,266 women in the Group Health Cooperative, a Seattle area health plan, who developed breast cancer, and 7,953 similar women who did not.

Women who had more than 25 individual prescriptions for antibiotics over an average period of 17 years had twice the risk of breast cancer as those who had taken no antibiotics. The risk was lower for women who took fewer antibiotics, but even those who had between one and 25 prescriptions were about 50 percent more likely to develop breast cancer, the researchers found.

"It was surprising for me that there was an association," Velicer said. "The overall consistency across a number of common antibiotics was really notable."

The researchers tried to explain the results by looking at other known risk factors, such as a family history of breast cancer and hormone use. But none could. They also did an analysis comparing women who were taking large amounts of antibiotics because of a skin condition associated with a hormonal imbalance with those taking antibiotics because of respiratory infections to see if the real cause might be the hormonal imbalance. That, too, failed to explain the findings, though it could not completely rule it out.

Jeanne Calle, the society's director of analytical epidemiology, called the study important because "it appears to be the first major work to describe a possible association between antibiotic use and the increased risk of cancer."

Antioxidants may protect kids from asthma

FRIDAY, Feb. 13 (HealthDayNews) — Children with high levels of antioxidants have lower rates of asthma, a new study finds.  The reduction in asthma prevalence proved most dramatic, Cornell University researchers report in the February issue of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

"This study raises the possibility that dietary intervention may be something to consider for prevention or treatment of asthma," says study author Patricia Cassano.

The Cornell researchers focused on 6,153 children, aged 4 to 16, who took part in the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 1988 to 1994. The researchers looked at results of a health exam, a household questionnaire on whether asthma had been diagnosed, and blood tests measuring antioxidant levels and exposure to cigarette smoke.

Children with higher levels of selenium had a 10 percent reduction in asthma prevalence compared with other children. In children exposed to secondhand smoke, the reduction associated with selenium climbed to 50 percent.

Higher beta carotene levels in children also were associated with a reduction in asthma — by 40 percent among those exposed to secondhand smoke and by 10 percent among those not exposed to smoke. Higher vitamin C levels, too, were associated with reducing asthma, by about 40 percent for those exposed to smoke and by 10 percent for others.

Beta carotene is found in fruits and vegetables such as carrots, mangos and oranges. Vitamin C is plentiful in oranges and other citrus fruits, as well strawberries, red and green peppers, broccoli and Brussels sprouts. Selenium can be found in liver, grains, fish and some nuts.

Other research has linked chronic asthma and low levels of antioxidants in the lungs.  "I agree that antioxidants play a role in inflammation, and there might be a role for using these agents" in asthma patients, says Dr. Marianne Frieri, director of allergy and immunology at Nassau University Medical Center in East Meadow, N.Y.

With higher levels of antioxidants, "you can potentially help certain forms of asthma," says Frieri, who's also a professor of medicine at the Stony Brook University, part of the State University of New York. But, she adds, asthma has many different triggers.

The American Lung Association estimates that 6.3 million U.S. children under 18 have asthma, the leading serious chronic illness among children. The number of cases of asthma has been on the rise, but the reason why remains unclear.

Dr. Jerry Shier, a doctor at the Asthma and Allergy Center in Montgomery County, Md., calls the Cornell study "provocative" and says the possible relationship between antioxidants and asthma deserves further study.

"Everyone's looking for a reason why we should have this increase in asthma cases —poor nutrition," says Shier, an assistant clinical professor at George Washington University School of Medicine. "Has our diet changed, leading to an increase in asthma?"

-- Gary Gately, Health Day News

Drug Alert Warning


All drugs containing PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE are being recalled. You may want to try calling the 800 number listed on most drug boxes and inquire about a refund. Please read this CAREFULLY. Also, please pass this on to everyone you know.

STOP TAKING anything containing this ingredient. It has been linked to increased hemorrhagic stroke (bleeding in the brain) among women ages 18-49 in the three days after starting use of medication.

Problems were not found in men, however, the FDA recommended that everyone (even children) seek an alternative medicine.

The following medicines contain PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE:

Acutrim Diet Gum Appetite Suppressant

Acutrim Plus Dietary Supplements

Acutrim Maximum Strength Appetite Control

Alka-Seltzer Plus Children's Cold Medicine


Alka-Seltzer Plus Cold Medicine (Cherry & Orange)

Alka-Seltzer Plus

Cold Medicine Original Alka-Seltzer Plus Cold & Cough

Alka-Seltzer Plus Cold & Flu Medicine

Alka-Seltzer Plus Cold & Sinus Effervescent

Alka-Seltzer Plus Night-time Cold Medicine

BC Allergy Sinus Cold Powder

Comtrex Flu Therapy and Fever Relief

Night and Day Contac 12 Hour Cold Capsules

Contac 12 Hour Caplets

Coricidin D Cold Flu and Sinus

Dexatrim Caffeine Free

Dexatrim Extended Duration

Dexatrim Gelcaps

Dexatrim Vitamin C\Caffeine Free

Dimetapp Cold and Allergy Chewable Tablets

Dimetapp Cold and Allergy Liqui-Gels

Dimetapp DM Cold and Cough Elixer

Dimetapp Elixer

Dimetapp 4 Hour Liquid Gels

Dimetapp 4 Hour Tablets

Dimetapp 12 Hour Extentabs Tablets

Naldecon DX Pediatric Drops

Permathene Mega 16

Robitussin CF

Tavist-D 12 Hour Relief of Sinus and Nasal Congestion

Triaminic DM Cough Relief

Triaminic Expectorant Chest and Head

Triaminic Syrup Cold and Allergy

Triaminic Triaminicol Cold and Cough

I just found out and called the 800 number on the container for Triaminic and they informed me they are voluntarily recalling the following medicines because of a certain ingredient that is causing strokes and seizures in children.

Orange 3D Cold and Allergy Cherry (Pink)

3D Cold and Cough Berry

3D Cold Relief Yellow 3D EXPECTORANT

They are asking you to call them at 800-548-3708 with the lot number on the box so they can send you postage for you to send it back to them and they will also
send you a refund. If you know anyone with small children, please pass this on as it is serious stuff.

DO PASS THIS ALONG TO ALL ON YOUR MAILING LIST so people are informed. They can then pass it along to their families.

To confirm these findings please take time to check the following URL Phenylpropanolamine Information Page:


Fatness kills...
Obesity catching tobacco as top preventable cause of early death
Associated Press Writer  

WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans are sitting around and eating themselves to death, with obesity closing in on tobacco as the nation's No. 1 underlying preventable killer.

The government is offering constructive, even lighthearted, advice to fight what it calls an epidemic of expanding waistlines. Americans will be told in a new ad campaign they can lose midsection "love handles" and double chins one step at a time if they eat less and exercising more.

"We're just too darn fat, ladies and gentlemen, and we're going to do something about it," Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said Tuesday at a news conference.

A poor diet and physical inactivity caused 400,000 deaths in 2000, a 33 percent jump over 1990, said a study released Tuesday by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco-related deaths in the same period climbed by less than 9 percent and the gap between the two narrowed substantially.

"This is tragic," said Dr. Julie Gerberding, the CDC's director and an author of the study.

The report predicts obesity would surpass tobacco if current trends continue. "Our worst fears were confirmed," Gerberding said.

The study is the latest in a long line of research documenting widespread weight gain _ and its consequences _ among Americans, from children to seniors.

The researchers analyzed data from 2000 for the leading causes of death and for those preventable factors known to contribute to them. Like tobacco, obesity and inactivity increase the risks for the top three killers: heart disease, cancer and such cerebrovascular ailments as strokes. Obesity and a sedentary lifestyle also strongly increase the risk of diabetes, the sixth leading cause of death.

The results appear in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.

Americans' fast-food lifestyle, increased use of computers and a decline in school physical education programs all were cited by Thompson and other officials as factors contributing to the nation's fat problem. Two out of three adults and 9 million children are overweight or obese, they said.

Rather than call for dramatic changes in diet and exercise, Thompson said Americans could begin a gradual exercise program. They could get off the bus a block farther from their homes, he said, and slowly cut back on unhealthful foods.

The new public service announcements debuted by Thompson use humor to tell people they can slowly trim their waistlines. In one ad, someone turns in a pair of love handles found near the stairs in a shopping mall. "Lots of people lose them taking the stairs instead of the escalator," says a clerk at the lost and found.

In another ad, a shopping cart gets stuck on a double chin that someone lost near a supermarket's fruit and vegetable display.

Thompson said President Bush would play a prominent part in the campaign, but did not elucidate.

Thompson, a fierce anti-smoking advocate, drew parallels between the drives to stop smoking and to get Americans to eat less and exercise more. But unlike his campaign to end smoking, he is advocating only voluntary measures at this point.

The Food and Drug Administration also is expected to issue a report on obesity later this week. The FDA has been considering whether to require restaurants to provide more nutrition information and change nutrition labels on food sold in grocery stores and other outlets to help consumers.

Thompson praised McDonald's for its decision to end Supersize fries and drinks in its more than 13,000 U.S. restaurants by year's end except for special promotions.

Several soft-drink makers also have announced steps to offer a larger number of healthier products.

Thompson would not take a position on the bill to be debated Wednesday in the House. It would shield restaurants and fast food franchises from lawsuits seeking to blame them for obesity and health problems related to it. The bill was prompted by the fast-food industry's complaints about a rash of lawsuits that fault their food for Americans' bulging bellies.

Many states are making attempts to slow the increase in obesity among children. About two dozen of them are considering bans or limits on vending machine products in schools. Roughly 20 states already restrict students' access to junk food until after lunch.

The Texas Agriculture Department is revamping rules on what foods public schools in the state can serve to their 4.2 million students, cutting out deep-fried foods and reducing fat and sugar in menus.

Americans need to drastically reduce our consumption of "poor "food choices, and dramatically increase our consumption of "good" food choices like fruits, vegetables, and grains in our daily lives.


Dangerous Supplements: Still at large
Consumer Reports, May 2004

If you can buy it at a clean, well-lighted store, if it’s “all natural,” it’s not going to do you serious harm, right? That’s what many Americans assume about dietary supplements. But while most supplements are probably fairly benign, Consumer Reports has identified a dozen that according to government warnings, adverse-event reports, and top experts are too dangerous to be on the market. Yet they are. We easily purchased all 12 in Feburary in a few days of shopping online and in retail stores.

These unsafe supplements include Aristolochia, an herb conclusively linked to kidney failure and cancer in China, Europe, Japan, and the U.S.; yohimbe, a sexual stimulant linked to heart and respiratory problems; bitter orange, whose ingredients have effects similar to those of the banned weight-loss stimulant ephedra; and chaparral, comfrey, germander, and kava, all known or likely causes of liver failure. (For a complete list of the “dirty dozen.”

U.S. consumers shelled out some $76 million in 2002 for just three of these supplements: androstenedione, kava, and yohimbe, the only ones for which sales figures were available, according to the Nutrition Business Journal, which tracks the supplement industry.

The potentially dangerous effects of most of these products have been known for more than a decade, and at least five of them are banned in Asia, Europe, or Canada. Yet until very recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had not managed to remove a single dietary supplement from the market for safety reasons.

After seven years of trying, the agency announced a ban on the weight-loss aid ephedra in December 2003. And in March 2004 it warned 23 companies to stop marketing the body-building supplement androstenedione (andro).

Despite these actions against high-profile supplements, whose dangers were so well known that even industry trade groups had stopped defending them, the agency continues to be hamstrung by the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA, pronounced de-shay). While drug manufacturers are required to prove that their products are safe before being marketed, DSHEA makes the FDA prove that supplements on the market are unsafe and denies the agency all but the sketchiest information about the safety record of most of them.

“The standards for demonstrating a supplement is hazardous are so high that it can take the FDA years to build a case,” said Bruce Silverglade, legal director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington, D.C., consumer-advocacy group.

At the same time, the FDA’s supplement division is understaffed and underfunded, with about 60 people and a budget of only $10 million to police a $19.4 billion-a-year industry. To regulate drugs, annual sales of which are 12 times the amount of supplement sales, the FDA has almost 43 times as much money and almost 48 times as many people.

“The law has never been fully funded,” said William Hubbard, FDA associate commissioner for policy and planning. “There’s never been the resources to do all the things the law would command us to do.”

The agency has learned that it must tread carefully when regulating supplements. The first time it tried to regulate the dangerous stimulant ephedra, in 1997, overwhelming opposition from Congress and industry forced it to back down.

As a result, the FDA is sometimes left practicing what Silverglade calls “regulation by press release”--issuing warnings about dangerous supplements and hoping that consumers and health practitioners
read them.

There are signs of hope. The FDA has said that if the ban on ephedra holds up against likely legal challenges, it plans to go after other harmful supplements. Legislation has been introduced to strengthen the FDA’s authority under DSHEA and give the agency more money to enforce the act.

But the supplement marketplace still holds hidden hazards for consumers, especially among products that aren’t in the headlines. “Consumers are provided with more information about the composition and nutritional value of a loaf of bread than about the ingredients and potential hazards of botanical medicines,” said Arthur Grollman, M.D., professor of pharmacological sciences at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, and a critic of DSHEA.

A question of safety

Supplement-industry advocates say the ephedra ban demonstrates that DSHEA gives the FDA enough power to protect consumers from unsafe products. “I don’t think there’s anything wrong except that FDA has only recently begun vigorous and active enforcement of the law,” said Annette Dickinson, Ph.D., president of the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a major trade association for the supplement industry.

But critics of DSHEA think the ban illustrates the extremes to which the FDA must go to outlaw a hazardous product.

When the agency initially tried to rein in ephedra use in 1997, after receiving hundreds of reports of adverse events, it sought not an outright ban but dosage restrictions and sterner warning labels. The industry mounted a furious counter-attack, including the creation of a public-relations group called the Ephedra Education Council and a scientific review from a private consulting firm, commissioned by Dickinson’s trade group, that concluded ephedra was safe. After the U.S. General Accounting Office said the FDA “did not establish a causal link” between taking ephedra and deaths or injuries, the agency was forced to drop its proposal.

The industry continued to vigorously market and defend ephedra. Metabolife International, a leading ephedra manufacturer, did not let the FDA know that it had received 14,684 complaints of adverse events associated with its ephedra product, Metabolife 356, in the previous five years, including 18 heart attacks, 26 strokes, 43 seizures, and 5 deaths. It took the pressure of congressional and Justice Department investigations to get the company to turn over the complaints in 2002. Then Steve Bechler, a pitcher for the Baltimore Orioles, died unexpectedly in 2003 while taking another ephedra supplement, Xenadrine RFA-1. With sales suffering from the bad publicity, manufacturers began to replace ephedra with other stimulants such as bitter orange, which mimics ephedra in chemical composition and function.

“All of a sudden Congress dropped objections to an ephedra ban andstarted demanding the FDA act,” said Silverglade.

To amass the necessary scientific evidence that it hoped would satisfy the demanding standard set by DSHEA, the FDA took aggressive action: It commissioned an outside review from the RAND Corporation, analyzed adverse-event reports, and pored over every available shred of scientific evidence.

“We’ve gone the whole nine yards to collect and evaluate all the possible evidence,” Mark McClellan, commissioner of the FDA, said in announcing the ban. “We will be doing our best to defend this in court, and if that’s not sufficient, it may be time to re-examine the act.”

Drugs vs. supplements

In an October 2002 nationwide Harris Poll of 1,010 adults, 59 percent of respondents said they believed that supplements must be approved by a government agency before they can be sold to the public. Sixty-eight percent said the government requires warning labels on supplements’ potential side effects or dangers. Fifty-five percent said supplement manufacturers can’t make safety claims without solid scientific support.

They were wrong. None of those protections exist for supplements--only for prescription and over-the-counter medicines. Here are the major differences in the safety regulations:

Testing for hazards. Before approval, drugs must be proved effective, with an acceptable safety profile, by means of lab research and rigorous human clinical trials involving a minimum of several thousand people, many millions of dollars, and several years.

In contrast, supplement manufacturers can introduce new products without any testing for safety and efficacy. The maker’s only obligation is to send the FDA a copy of the language on the label.

“Products regulated by DSHEA were presumed to be safe because of their long history of use, often in other countries,” said Jane E. Henney, M.D., commissioner of the FDA from 1998 to 2001. “As their use dramatically increased in this country after the passage of DSHEA, the presumption of safety may have been misplaced, particularly for products other than traditional vitamins and minerals. Some, like ephedra, act like drugs and thus have similar risks.”

The only exceptions to this “presumption of safety” are supplement ingredients that weren’t being sold in the U.S. when DSHEA took effect. Makers of such “new dietary ingredients” must show the FDA evidence of the products’ safety before marketing them. The FDA invoked that rarely used provision in its action against androstenedione. After years of allowing andro to be marketed without restriction, the agency declared that it was “not aware” that the supplement was used before DSHEA, so it couldn’t be sold without evidence of safety.

Disclosing the risks. Drug labels and package inserts must mention all possible adverse effects and interactions. But supplement makers don’t have to put safety warnings on the labels, even for products with known serious hazards.

We bought a product called Relaxit whose label had no warning about the kava it contained, even though the American Herbal Products Association, an industry trade group, recommends a detailed, though voluntary warning label about potential liver toxicity on all kava products.

Ensuring product quality. Drugs must conform to “good manufacturing practices” that guarantee that their contents are pure and in the quantities stated on the label. While DSHEA gave the FDA authority to impose similar standards on supplements, it took until 2003 for the agency to propose regulations--as yet not final--to implement that part of the law.

Contaminants, too, regularly turn up in supplements. In 1998 Richard Ko, Ph.D., of the California Department of Health Services reported that 32 percent of the Asian patent medicines he tested contained pharmaceuticals or heavy metals that weren’t on the label. The FDA has seized supplements adulterated with prescription drugs, including, in 2002, an herbal “prostate health” supplement called PC SPES that turned out to contain a powerful prescription blood thinner, warfarin.

Reporting the problems. By law, drug companies are required to tell the FDA about any reports of product-related adverse events that they receive from any source. Almost every year, drugs are removed from the market based on safety risks that first surfaced in those reports.

In contrast, supplement makers don’t have to report adverse events. Indeed, in the five years after DSHEA took effect, 1994 to 1999, fewer than 10 of the more than 2,500 reports that the FDA received came from manufacturers, according to a 2001 estimate from the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Other sources of reports included consumers, health practitioners, and poison-control centers.) Overall, the FDA estimates that it learns of less than 1 percent of adverse events involving dietary supplements.


Many makers market their supplements as “natural,” exploiting assumptions that such products can’t harm you. That’s a dangerous assumption, said Lois Swirsky Gold, Ph.D., director of the Carcinogenic Potency Project at the University of California, Berkeley, and an expert on chemical carcinogens. “Natural is hemlock, natural is arsenic, natural is poisonous mushrooms,” she said.

A cautionary example is aristolochic acid, which occurs naturally in species of Aristolochia vines that grow wild in many parts of the world. In addition to being a powerful kidney toxin, it is on the World Health Organization’s list of human carcinogens. “It’s one of the most potent chemicals of 1,400 in my Carcinogenic Potency Database,” Gold said. “People have taken high doses similar to the doses that animals are given in tests, and they both get tumors very quickly.”

The dangers of aristolochic acid have been known since at least 1993, when medical-journal articles began appearing about 105 patrons of a Belgian weight-loss clinic who had suffered kidney failure after consuming Chinese herbs adulterated with Aristolochia. At least 18 of the women also subsequently developed cancer near
the kidney.

These findings prompted the FDA to issue a nationwide warning against Aristolochia in 2001 and to impose a ban on further imports of the herb. But in early 2004, more than two years after the import ban went into effect, Consumer Reports was able to purchase products online that were labeled as containing Aristolochia.
In 2003, Gold identified more than 100 products for sale online with botanical ingredients listed by the FDA as known or suspected to contain aristolochic acid.

Donna Andrade-Wheaton, a former aerobics instructor in Rhode Island, learned those facts too late to save her kidneys. After taking Chinese herbs containing Aristolochia for more than two years, she suffered severe kidney damage; her kidney tissues were found to contain aristolochic acid. In late 2002, at age 39, she underwent a kidney transplant.

Andrade-Wheaton is suing both the acupuncturist who gave her the herbs and several companies that manufactured them. The acupuncturist declined to discuss the case on the record, and the manufacturer did not return our phone calls.

There’s another widespread and false assumption about natural supplements: that they’re always pure, unprocessed products of the earth. Because DSHEA permits the marketing of concentrates and extracts, supplement makers can and do manipulate ingredients to increase the concentrations of pharmacologically active compounds.

That’s especially true of the many weight-loss supplements designed for “thermogenic” stimulant effects--boosting calorie expenditure by revving the metabolic rate.

On one Internet shopping tour, for instance, we bought a product called Thermorexin--”the Hottest new Thermogenic on the market!” Its label says it contains, among its 22 ingredients, 30 milligrams of theophylline derived from a black tea extract and the stimulant bitter orange. Sold as Theo-Dur and other brands, theophylline is a prescription drug and an effective asthma treatment, but most doctors seldom prescribe it because it can cause seizures and irregular heartbeats at relatively low doses.

Larry Berube, president of Anafit, Thermorexin’s manufacturer, based in Orlando, Fla., described how the product’s combination of ingredients was developed: “Once we find out that the FDA says it’s OK, we put them together in the lab, run our tests, and do our trials, and if it comes up good, we capsulate it, put it online and in the stores and sell it,” he said.

Those tests involved asking fitness professionals to use the supplement, and measuring their heart rate and blood pressure, Berube said. The company doesn’t use a control group, he said. Then “we go to the fitness discussion boards and let trainers and people know we have a new product and do they want to try it,” he said. “And then they try it, and they report back.” Berube said he has not heard of any bad reactions to Thermorexin.

"According to a study done at Washington State University,
the average American child eats 275 pounds of sugar per year - almost 3/4 of a pound per day!   The problem with this sugar consumption is that sugar contains no vitamins, protein or fiber.   It usually is consumed instead of nutritious foods. Sugar, while it contains no nutrients, does cause health problems.   For example, just 100 grams of sugar (the equivalent of a candy bar and a soft drink) can suppress the immune system for up to 6 hours.   According to Judith Hallfrish at the USDA - "When sugar consumption rises to about 30% of calories, there are elevations in blood pressure, triglycerides, total and LDL (bad) cholesterol, uric acid, glucose and insulin responses."  Most people believe that the real damage done by sugar is weight gain, but that is only a small part of its destructive capability!

Where does all this sugar come from?   Soft drinks, cokes and baked goods are some obvious sources.   But some foods perceived to be "healthy" contain amazing amounts of sugar.   The following chart illustrates this point:

(4grams of sugar = 1 teaspoon = 1 packet of sugar)

 Minute Maid Orange Soda     12 OZ         48 gr.
 McDonald's Chocolate Shake  10 oz.        38 gr.
 Hawaiian Punch Double C     1 C           28 gr.
 Motts Apple Sauce           1/2 C         18 gr.
 Dannon Raspberry Yogurt     1 C.          43 gr.
 Hostess Snowballs           1 pkg.        35 gr.
 Oreos                       3 cookies     13 gr.
 3 Musketeers                2.1 oz        40 gr.

Dannon Yogurt has more sugar than a 3 Musketeers bars or a McDonald's chocolate shake!"  (try reading “My Kids a Garbologist” by Dr. Pam Popper Ph.D.



SACRAMENTO -- April 6th, Lawsuits were filed in three separate California courts against twelve companies who either produce or use the artificial sweetener aspartame as a sugar substitute in their products. The suits were filed in Shasta, Sonoma and Butte County, California.

The suits allege that the food companies committed fraud and breach of warranty by marketing products to the public such as diet Coke, diet Pepsi, sugar free gum, Flintstone's vitamins, yogurt and children's aspirin with the full knowledge that aspartame, the sweetener in them, is neurotoxic.

Aspartame is a drug masquerading as an additive. It interacts with other drugs, has a synergistic and additive effect with MSG, and is a chemical hyper-sensitization agent. As far back as 1970, Dr. John Olney founded the field of neuroscience called excitotoxicity when he did studies on aspartic acid, which makes up 40% of aspartame, and found it caused lesions in the brains of mice. He made world news on the aspartame/brain tumor connection in l996. Dr. Ralph Walton, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine has written of the behavioral and psychiatric problems triggered by aspartame-caused depletion of serotonin.

Aspartame causes headache, memory loss, seizures, vision loss, coma and cancer. It worsens or mimics the symptoms of such diseases and conditions as fibromyalgia, MS, lupus, ADD, diabetes, Alzheimer's, chronic fatigue and depression.

Aspartame liberates free methyl alcohol. The resulting chronic methanol poisoning affects the dopamine system of the brain causing addiction. Methanol, or wood alcohol, constitutes one-third of the aspartame molecule and is classified as a severe metabolic poison and narcotic. Recent news is full of reports of world-class athletes and other healthy consumers of aspartame suddenly dropping dead. Sudden death can occur from aspartame use because it damages the cardiac conduction system.

Dr. Woodrow Monte in the peer reviewed journal, Aspartame: Methanol and the Public Health, wrote: "When diet sodas and soft drinks, sweetened with aspartame, are used to replace fluid loss during exercise and physical exertion in hot climates, the intake of methanol can exceed 250 mg/day or 32 times the Environmental Protection Agency's recommended limit of consumption for this cumulative poison."

The effects of aspartame are documented by the FDA's own data. In 1995 the agency was forced, under the Freedom Of Information Act, to release a list of ninety-two aspartame symptoms reported by thousands of victims. This is only the tip of the iceberg. H. J. Roberts, MD, published the medical text "Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic" -- 1,000 pages of symptoms and diseases triggered by this neurotoxin including the sordid history of its approval.

Since its discovery in 1965, controversy has raged over the health risks associated with the sugar substitute. From laboratory testing of the chemical on rats, researchers have discovered that the drug induces brain tumors. On Sept 30, l980 the Board of Inquiry of the FDA concurred and denied the petition for approval. In l981, the newly appointed FDA Commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, ignored the negative ruling and approved aspartame for dry goods. As recorded in the Congressional Record of 1985, then CEO of Searle Laboratories Donald Rumsfeld said that he would call in his markers to get aspartame approved. Rumsfeld was on President Reagan's transition team and a day after taking office appointed Hayes. No FDA Commissioner in the previous sixteen years had allowed Aspartame on the market.

In 1983, aspartame was approved for use in carbonated beverages. Today it is found in over 5000 foods, drinks and medicines.

Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, MD, author of "Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills" ( wrote about the relationship between aspartame and macular degeneration, diabetic blindness and glaucoma (all known to result from excitotoxin accumulation in the retina).

All of these neurodegenerative diseases are worsened by aspartame. In addition, we now have evidence that excitotoxins play a major role in exacerbation of MS and other demyelinating disorders including trigeminal neuraliga. Blaylock says that new studies show excitotoxins trigger significant elevation of free radicals in the lining (endothelial cells) of arteries, which means that aspartame will increase the incidence of heart attacks and strokes (atherosclerosis).

In original studies, aspartame has triggered brain, mammary, uterine, ovarian, testicular, thyroid and pancreatic tumors.

Defendants in the lawsuits include Coca-cola, PepsiCo, Bayer Corp., the Dannon Company, William Wrigley Jr. Company, ConAgra Foods, Wyeth, Inc., The NutraSweet Company, and Altria Corp. (parent company of Kraft Foods and Philip Morris).

Plaintiffs have asked for an injunction to stop companies from producing, manufacturing, processing, selling or using aspartame.

Plaintiffs in all three cases are seeking a jury trial.

If you would like to schedule someone from the National Justice League for an interview, please call or fax us at (530) 248-3483.


Dangers of Artificial Sweeteners


Detailed account of the controversial sweetener:

    Aspartame sugar substitutes cause worrying symptoms from memory loss to brain tumors. But despite US FDA approval as a 'safe' food additive, aspartame is one of the most dangerous substances ever to be foisted upon an unsuspecting public.

    Aspartame is the technical name for the brand names, NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, and Equal-Measure. Aspartame was discovered by accident in 1965, when James Schlatter, a chemist of G.D. Searle Company was testing an anti-ulcer drug. Aspartame was approved for dry goods in 1981 and for carbonated beverages in 1983. It was originally approved for dry goods on July 26, 1974, but objections filed by neuroscience researcher Dr John W. Olney and Consumer attorney James Turner in August 1974 as well as investigations of G.D. Searle's research practices caused the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to put approval of aspartame on hold (December 5, 1974). In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle and made Searle Pharmaceuticals and The NutraSweet Company separate subsidiaries.

    Aspartame is, by far, the most dangerous substance on the market that is added to foods. Aspartame accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Many of these reactions are very serious including seizures and death as recently disclosed in a February 1994 Department of Health and Human Services report.(1) A few of the 90 different documented symptoms listed in the report as being caused by aspartame include:     Headaches/migraines, dizziness, seizures, nausea, numbness, muscle spasms, weight gain, rashes, depression, fatigue, irritability,
tachycardia, insomnia, vision problems, hearing loss, heart palpitations, breathing difficulties, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, loss of taste, tinnitus, vertigo, memory loss, and joint pain.

    According to researchers and physicians studying the adverse effects of aspartame, the following chronic illnesses can be triggered or worsened by ingesting of aspartame:(2)
    Brain tumors, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, parkinson's disease, alzheimer's, mental retardation, lymphoma, birth defects, fibromyalgia, and diabetes.

    Aspartame is made up of three chemicals: Aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol. The book, Prescription for Nutritional Healing, by James and Phyllis Balch, lists aspartame under the category of "chemical poison." As you shall see, that is exactly what it is.

    ASPARTIC ACID (40% OF ASPARTAME)     Dr Russell L. Blaylock, a professor of Neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi, recently published a book thoroughly
detailing the damage that is caused by the ingestion of excessive aspartic acid from aspartame. [Ninety nine percent of monosodium glutamate 9MSG) is glutamic acid. The damage it causes is also documented in Blaylock's book.] Blaylock makes use of almost 500 scientific references to show how excess free excitatory amino acids such as aspartic acid and glutamic acid in our food supply are causing serious chronic neurological disorders and a myriad of other acute symptoms.(3)

    Aspartate and glutamate act as neurotransmitters in the brain by facilitating the transmittion of information from neuron to neuron. Too much aspartate or glutamate in the brain kills certain neurons by allowing the influx of too much calcium into the cells. This influx
triggers excessive amounts of free radicals which kill the cells. The neural cell damage that can be caused by excessive aspartate and glutamate is why they are referred to as "excitotoxins." They "excite" or stimulate the neural cells to death.

    Aspartic acid is an amino acid. Taken in its free form (unbound to proteins) it significantly raises the blood plasma level of aspartate and glutamate. The excess aspartate and glutamate in the blood plasma shortly after ingesting aspartame or products with free glutamic acid (glutamate precursor) leads to a high level of those neurotransmitters
in certain areas of the brain.

    The blood brain barrier (BBB) which normally protects the brain from excess glutamate and aspartate as well as toxins 1) is not fully developed during childhood, 2) does not fully protect all areas of the brain, 3) is damaged by numerous chronic and acute conditions, and 4) allows seepage of excess glutamate and aspartate into the brain even
when intact.

    The excess glutamate and aspartate slowly begin to destroy neurons. The large majority (75%+) of neural cells in a particular area of the brain are killed before any clinical symptoms of a chronic illness are noticed. A few of the many chronic illnesses that have been shown to be contributed to by long-term exposure excitatory amino acid damage include:

    Multiple sclerosis (MS), ALS, memory loss, hormonal problems, hearing loss, epilepsy, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, hypoglycemia, AIDS dementia, brain lessions, and neuroendocrine disorders.

    The risk to infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly, and persons with certain chronic health problems from excitotoxins are great. Even the Federation of American Societies For Experimental Biology (FASEB), which usually understates problems and mimics the FDA
party-line, recently stated in a review that "it is prudent to avoid the use of dietary supplements of L-glutamic acid by pregnant women, infants, and children. The Existence of evidence of potential endocrine responses, i.e., elevated cortisol and prolactin, and differential responses between males and females, would also suggest a neuroendocrine
link and that supplemental L-glutamic acid should be avoided by women of childbearing age and individuals with affective disorders."(4) Aspartic acid from aspartame has the same deleterious effects on the body as glutamic acid.

    The exact mechanism of acute reactions to excess free glutamate and aspartate is currently being debated. As reported to the FDA, those reactions include:(5)     Headaches/migraines, nausea, abdominal pains, fatigue (blocks sufficient glucose entry into brain), sleep problems, vision problems, anxiety attacks, depression, and asthma/chest tightness.

    One common complaint of persons suffering from the effect of aspartame is memory loss. Ironically, in 1987, G.D. Searle, the manufacturer of aspartame, undertook a search for a drug to combat memory loss caused by excititory amino acid damage. Blaylock is one of
many scientists and physicians who are concerned about excititory amino acid damage caused by ingestion of aspartame and MSG. A few of the many experts who have spoken out against the damage being caused by aspartate and glutamate include Adrienne Samuels, Ph.D., an experimental psychologist specializing in research design. Another is Olney, a
professor in the department of psychiatry, School of Medicine, Washington University, a neuroscientist and researcher, and one of the world's foremost authorities on excitotoxins. (He informed Searle in 1971 that aspartic acid caused holes in the brain of mice.) Also
included is Francis J. Waickman, M.D., a recipient of the Rinkel and Forman Awards, and Board certified in Pediatrics, Allergy, and Immunology.

    Other concerned scientists include: John R. Hain, M.D., Board Certified Forensic Pathologist, and H.J. Roberts, M.D., FACP, FCCP, Diabetic Specialist, and selected by a national medical publication as "The Best Doctor in the US"

    John Samuels is concerned, also. He compiled a list of scientific research sufficient to show the dangers of ingesting excess free glutamic and aspartic acid.

    And there are many more who can be added to this long list.

    Phenylalanine is an amino acid normally found in the brain. Persons with the genetic disorder, phenylketonuria (PKU) cannot metabolize phenylalanine. This leads to dangerously high levels of phenylalanine in the brain (sometimes lethal). It has been shown that ingesting aspartame, especially along with carbohydrates can lead to excess levels of phenylalanine in the brain even in persons who do not have PKU. This is not just a theory, as many people who have eaten large amounts of aspartame over a long period of time and do not have PKU have been shown to have excessive levels of phenylalanine in the blood. Excessive levels of phenylalanine in the brain can cause the levels of serotonin in the brain to decrease, leading to emotional disorders such as depression. It was shown in human testing that phenylalanine levels of the blood were increased significantly in human subjects who chronically used aspartame.(6) Even a single use of aspartame raised the blood phenylalanine levels. In his testimony before the US Congress, Dr Louis J. Elsas showed that high blood phenylalanine can be concentrated in parts of the brain, and is especially dangerous for infants and
fetuses. He also showed that phenylalanine is metabolized much more efficiently by rodents than by humans.(7)

    One account of a case of extremely high phenylalanine levels caused by aspartame was recently published the the "Wednesday Journal" in an article entitled "An Aspartame Nightmare." John Cook began drinking 6 to 8 diet drinks every day. His symptoms started out as memory loss and frequent headaches. He began to crave more aspartame-sweetened drinks. His condition deteriorated so much that he experienced wide mood swings and violent rages. Even though he did not suffer from PKU, a blood test revealed a phenylalanine level of 80 mg/dl. He also showed abnormal brain function and brain damage. After he kicked his aspartame habit, his symptoms improved dramatically.(8)

    As Blaylock points out in his book, early studies measuring phenylalanine buildup in the brain were flawed. Investigators who measured specific brain regions and not the average throughout the brain notice significant rises in phenylalanine levels. Specifically the
hypothalamus, medulla oblongata, and corpus striatum areas of the brain had the largest increases in phenylalanine. Blaylock goes on to point out that excessive buildup of phenylalanine in the brain can cause schizophrenia or make one more susceptible to seizures.

    Therefore, long-term, excessive use of aspartame may provided a boost to sales of seratonin reuptake inhibitors such as Prozac and drugs to control schizophrenia and seizures.

    Methanol/wood alcohol is a deadly poison. Some people may remember methanol as the poison that has caused some "skid row" alcoholics to end up blind or dead. Methanol is gradually released in the small intestine when the methyl group of aspartame encounter the
enzyme chymotrypsin.

    The absorption of methanol into the body is sped up considerably when free methanol is ingested. Free methanol is created from aspartame when it is heated to above 86 Fahrenheit (30 Centigrade). This would occur when aspartame-containing product is improperly stored or when it is heated (e.g., as part of a "food" product such as Jello).

    Methanol breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde in the body. Formaldehyde is a deadly neurotoxin. An EPA assessment of methanol states that methanol "is considered a cumulative poison due to the low rate of excretion once it is absorbed. In the body, methanol is oxidized to formaldehyde and formic acid; both of these metabolites are toxic." The recommend a limit of consumption of 7.8 mg/day. A one-liter (approx. 1 quart) aspartame-sweetened beverage contains about 56 mg of methanol. Heavy users of aspartame-containing products consume as much as 250 mg of methanol daily or 32 times the EPA limit.(9)

    Symptoms from methanol poisoning include headaches, ear buzzing, dizziness, nausea, gastrointestinal disturbances, weakness, vertigo, chills, memory lapses, numbness and shooting pains in the extremities, behavioral disturbances, and neuritis. The most well known problems from methanol poisoning are vision problems including misty vision, progressive contraction of visual fields, blurring of vision, obscuration of vision, retinal damage, and blindness. Formaldehye is a known carcinogen, causes retinal damage, interferes with DNA
replication, causes birth defects.(10) Due to the lack of a couple of key enzymes, humans are many times more sensitive to the toxic effects of methanol than animals. Therefore, tests of aspartame or methanol on animals do not accurately reflect the danger for humans. As pointed out by Dr Woodrow C. Monte, Director of the Food Science and Nutrition Laboratory at Arizona State University, "There are no human or mammalian studies to evaluate the possible mutagenic, teratogenic, or carcinogenic effects of chronic administration of methyl alcohol."(11)

    He was so concerned about the unresolved safety issues that he filed suit with the FDA requesting a hearing to address these issues. He asked the FDA to "slow down on this soft drink issue long enough to answer some of the important questions. It's not fair that you are
leaving the full burden of proof on the few of us who are concerned and have such limited resources. You must remember that you are the American public's last defense. Once you allow usage (of aspartame) there is literally nothing I or my colleagues can do to reverse the course. Aspartame will then join saccharin, the sulfiting agents, and God knows how many other questionable compounds enjoined to insult the human constitution with governmental approval."(10) Shortly thereafter, the Commissioner of the FDA, Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., approved the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages, he then left for a position with G.D.
Searle's Public Relations firm.(11)

    It has been pointed out that some fruit juices and alcoholic beverages contain small amounts of methanol. It is important to remember, however, that methanol never appears alone. In every case, ethanol is present, usually in much higher amounts. Ethanol is an
antidote for methanol toxicity in humans.(9) The troops of Desert Storm were "treated" to large amounts of aspartame-sweetened beverages which had been heated to over 86 degrees F. in the Saudi Arabian sun. Many of them returned home with numerous disorders similar to what has been seen in persons who have been chemically poisoned by formaldehyde. The free methanol in the beverages may have been a contributing factor in these illnesses. Other breakdown products of aspartame such as DKP (discussed
below) may also have been a factor.

    In a 1993 act that can only be described as "unconscionable," the FDA approved aspartame as an ingredient in numerous food items that would always be heated to above 86 degrees F (30 degrees C).

    DKP is a by-product of aspartame metabolism. DKP has been implicated in the occurance of brain tumors. Olney noticed that DKP, when nitrosated in the gut, produced a compound which was similar to N-nitrosourea, a powerful brain tumor causing chemical. Some authors have said that DKP is produced after aspartame ingestion. I am not sure
if that is correct. It is definately true that DKP is formed in liquid aspartame-containing products during prolonged storage.

    G.D. Searle conducted animal experiments on the safety of DKP. The FDA found numerous experimental errors occurred, including "clerical errors, mixed-up animals, animals not getting drugs they were supposed to get, pathological specimens lost because of improper handling," and many other errors.(12) These sloppy laboratory procedures may explain why both the test and control animals had sixteen times more brain tumors than would be expected in experiments of this length. In an ironic twist, shortly after these experimental errors were discovered, the FDA used guidelines recommended by G.D. Searle to develop the Industry-wide FDA standards for Good Laboratory Practies.(11) DKP has also been implicated as a cause of uterine polyps and changes in blood cholesterol by FDA Toxicologist Dr Jacqueline Verrett in her testimony before the US Senate.(13)

    The components of aspartame can lead to a wide variety of ailments. Some of these problems occur gradually, others are immediate, acute reactions. There is an enormous population of people who are suffering from symptoms contributed to by aspartame, yet they have no idea why herbs or drugs are not helping relieve their problems. There are other users of aspartame who appear not to be suffering immediate reactions to aspartame. But even these individuals are susceptible to the long-term damage caused by excitatory amino acids, phenylalanine, methanol, and DKP. A few of the many disorders that are of particular
concern to me include the following.

    Birth Defects.
    Dr Diana Dow Edwards, a researcher was funded by Monsanto to study possible birth defects caused by the ingestion of aspartame. After preliminary data showed damaging information about aspartame, funding for the study was cut off. A Genetic Pediatrician at Emory University has testified that aspartame is causing birth defects.7360-367.

    In the book, While Waiting: A Prenatal Guidebook by George R. Verrilli, M.D. and Anne Marie Mueser, it is stated that aspartame is suspected of causing brain damage in sensitive individuals. A fetus may be at risk for these effects. Some researchers have suggested that high doses of aspartame may be associated with problems ranging from dizziness and subtle brain changes to mental retardation.

    Cancer (Brain Cancer).
    In 1981, Satya Dubey, an FDA statistician, stated that the brain tumor data on aspartame was so "worrisome" that he could not recommend approval of NutraSweet.(14) In a two-year study conducted by the manufacturer of aspartame, twelve of the 320 rats fed a normal diet and aspartame developed brain tumors while none of the control rats had tumors. Five of the twelve tumors were in rats given a low dose of aspartame.(15) The approval of aspartame was a violation of the Delaney Amendment which was supposed to prevent cancer-causing substances such as methanol (formaldehye) and DKP from entering our food supply. The
late Dr Adrian Gross, an FDA toxicologist, testified before the US Congress that aspartame was capable of producing brain tumors. This made it illegal for the FDA to set an allowable daily intake at any level. He stated in his testimony that Searle's studies were "to a large extent unreliable" and that "at least one of those studies has established beyond any reasonable doubt that aspartame is capable of inducing brain tumors in experimental animals...." He concluded his testimony by asking, "What is the reason for the apparent refusal by the FDA to invoke for this food additive the so-called Delaney Amendment to the
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act? .... And if the FDA itself elects to violate the law, who is left to protect the health of the public?"(16)

    In the mid-1970s it was discovered that the manufacturer of aspartame falsified studies in several ways. One of the techniques used was to cut tumors out of test animals and put them back in the study. Another technique used to falsify the studies was to list animals that
had actually died as surviving the study. Thus, the data on brain tumors was likely worse than discussed above. In addition, a former employee of the manufacturer of aspartame, Raymond Schroeder told the FDA on July 13, 1977 that the particles of DKP were so large that the rats could discriminate between the DKP and their normal diet.(12)

    It is interesting to note that the incidence of brain tumors in persons over 65 years of age has increase 67% between the years 1973 and 1990. Brain tumors in all age groups has jumped 10%. The greatest increase has come during the years 1985-1987.(17)

    In his book, Aspartame (NutraSweet). Is it Safe?, Roberts gives evidence that aspartame can cause a particularly dangerous form of cancer - primary lymphoma of the brain.

    The American Diabetes Association (ADA) is actually recommending this chemical poison to persons with diabetes. According to research conducted by H.J. Roberts, a diabetes specialist, a member of the ADA, and an authority on artificial sweeteners, aspartame:
    1) Leads to the precipitation of clinical diabetes.
    2) Causes poorer diabetic control in diabetics on insulin or oral drugs.
    3) Leads to the aggravation of diabetic complications such as retinopathy, cataracts, neuropathy and gastroparesis.
    4) Causes convulsions.

    In a statement concerning the use of products containing aspartain by persons with diabetes and hypoglycemia, Roberts says: "Unfortunately, many patients in my practice, and others seen in consultation, developed serious metabolic, neurologic and other complications that could be specifically attributed to using aspartame products. This was evidenced by:
    "The loss of diabetic control, the intensification of hypoglycemia, the occurrence of presumed 'insulin reactions' (including convulsions) that proved to be aspartame reactions, and the precipitation, aggravation or simulation of diabetic complications (especially impaired vision and neuropathy) while using these products.

    "Dramatic improvement of such features after avoiding aspartame, and the prompt predictable recurrence of these problems when the patient resumed aspartame products, knowingly or inadvertently."

    Roberts goes on to say:
    "I regret the failure of other physicians and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) to sound appropriate warnings to patients and consumers based on these repeated findings which have been described in my corporate-neutral studies and publications."

    Blaylock stated that excitotoxins such as that found in aspartame can precipitate diabetes in persons who are genetically susceptible to the disease.(5)

    Emotional Disorders.
    A double blind study of the effects of aspartame on persons with mood disorders was recently conducted by Dr Ralph G. Walton. Since the study wasn't funded/controlled by the makers of aspartame, The NutraSweet Company refused to sell him the aspartame. Walton was forced to obtain and certify it from an outside source.

    The study showed a large increase in serious symptoms for persons taking aspartame. Since some of the symptoms were so serious, the Institutional Review Board had to stop the study. Three of the participants had said that they had been "poisoned" by aspartame. Walton concludes that "individuals with mood disorders are particularly sensitive to this artificial sweetener; its use in this population should be discouraged."(18) Aware that the experiment could not be repeated because of the danger to the test subjects, Walton was recently quoted as saying, "I know it causes seizures. I'm convinced also that it definitely causes behavioral changes. I'm very angry that this substance is on the market. I personally question the reliability and validity of any studies funded by the NutraSweet Company."(19)

    There are numerous reported cases of low brain serotonin levels, depression and other emotional disorders that have been linked to aspartame and often are relieved by stopping the intake of aspartame. Researchers have pointed out that increasing in phenylalanine levels in the brain, which can and does occur in persons without PKU, leads to a decreased level of the neurotransmitter, serotonin, which leads to a variety of emotional disorders. Dr William M. Pardridge of UCLA testified before the US Senate that a youth drinking four 16-ounce bottles of diet soda per day leads to an enormous increase in the phenylalanine level.

    With the large and growing number of seizures caused by aspartame, it is sad to see that the Epilepsy Foundation is promoting the "safety" of aspartame. At Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 80 people who had suffered seizures after ingesting aspartame were
surveyed. Community Nutrition Institute concluded the following about the survey:

    "These 80 cases meet the FDA's own definition of an imminent hazard to the public health, which requires the FDA to expeditiously remove a product from the market."

    Both the Air Force's magazine Flying Safety and the Navy's magazine, Navy Physiology published articles warning about the many dangers of aspartame including the cumlative deliterious effects of methanol and the greater likelihood of birth defects. The articles note
that the ingestion of aspartame can make pilots more susceptible to seizures and vertigo. Twenty articles sounding warnings about ingesting aspartame while flying have also appeared in the National Business Aircraft Association Digest (NBAA Digest 1993), Aviation Medical Bulletin (1988), The Aviation Consumer (1988), Canadian General Aviation
News (1990), Pacific Flyer (1988), General Aviation News (1989), Aviation Safety Digest (1989), and Plane and Pilot (1990) and a paper warning about aspartame was presented at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Aerospace Medical Association (Gaffney 1986).

    Recently, a hotline was set up for pilots suffering from acute reactions to aspartame ingestion. Over 600 pilots have reported symptoms including some who have reported suffering grand mal seizures in the cockpit due to aspartame.(21)

    One of the original studies on aspartame was performed in 1969 by an independent scientist, Dr Harry Waisman. He studied the effects of aspartame on infant primates. Out of the seven infant monkeys, one died after 300 days and five others had grand mal seizures. Of course, these negative findings were not submitted to the FDA during the approval

    Why don't we hear about these things?

    The reason many people do not hear about serious reactions to aspartame is twofold:
    1) Lack of awareness by the general population. Aspartame-caused diseases are not reported in the newspapers like plane crashes. This is because these incidents occur one at a time in thousands of different locations across the US.
    2) Most people do not associate their symptoms with the long-term use of aspartame. For the people who have killed a significant percentage of the brain cells and thereby caused a chronic illness, there is no way that they would normally associate such an illness with
aspartame consumption. How aspartame was approved is a lesson in how chemical and pharmaceutical companies can manipulate government agencies such as the FDA, "bribe" organizations such as the American Dietetic Association, and flood the scientific community with flawed and fraudulent industry-sponsored studies funded by the makers of aspartame.

    Erik Millstone, a researcher at the Science Policy Research Unit of Sussex University has compiled thousands of pages of evidence, some of which have been obtained using the freedom of information act 23, showing:
    1. Laboratory tests were faked and dangers were concealed.
    2. Tumors were removed from animals and animals that had died were "restored to life" in laboratory records.
    3. False and misleading statements were made to the FDA.
    4. The two US Attorneys given the task of bringing fraud charges against the aspartame manufacturer took positions with the manufacturer's law firm, letting the statute of limitations run out.
    5. The Commissioner of the FDA overruled the objections of the FDA's own scientific board of inquiry. Shortly after that decision, he took a position with Burson-Marsteller, the firm in charge of public relations for G.D. Searle.

    A Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) was conducted in 1980. There were three scientists who reviewed the objections of Olney and Turner to the approval of aspartame. They voted unanimously against aspartame's approval. The FDA Commissioner, Dr Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. then created a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the PBOI findings. After it
became clear that the Commission would uphold the PBOI's decision by a vote of 3 to 2, another person was added to the Commission, creating a deadlocked vote. This allowed the FDA Commissioner to break the deadlock and approve aspartame for dry goods in 1981. Dr Jacqueline Verrett, the Senior Scientist in an FDA Bureau of Foods review team created in August 1977 to review the Bressler Report (a report that detailed G.D. Searle's abuses during the pre-approval testing) said:
    "It was pretty obvious that somewhere along the line, the bureau officials were working up to a whitewash." In 1987, Verrett testified before the US Senate stating that the experiments conducted by Searle were a "disaster." She stated that her team was instructed not to
comment on or be concerned with the overall validity of the studies. She stated that questions about birth defects have not been answered. She continued her testimony by discussing the fact that DKP has been shown to increase uterine polyps and change blood cholesterol and that increasing the temperature of the product leads to an increase in production of DKP.(13)

Revolving doors 

    The FDA and the manufacturers of aspartame have had a revolving door of employment for many years. In addition to the FDA Commissioner and two US Attorneys leaving to take positions with companies connected with G.D. Searle, four other FDA officials connected with the approval of aspartame took positions connected with the NutraSweet industry
between 1979 and 1982 including the Deputy FDA Commissioner, the Special Assistant to the FDA Commissioner, the Associate Director of the Bureau of Foods and Toxicology and the Attorney involved with the Public Board of Inquiry.(24)

    It is important to realize that this type of revolving-door activity has been going on for decades. The Townsend Letter for Doctors (11/92) reported on a study revealing that 37 of 49 top FDA officials who left the FDA took positions with companies they had regulated. They also reported that over 150 FDA officials owned stock in drug companies they were assigned to manage. Many organizations and universities receive large sums of money from companies connected to the NutraSweet Association, a group of companies promoting the use of aspartame. In January 1993, the American Dietetic Association received a US$75,000 grant from the NutraSweet Company. The American Dietetic Association has
stated that the NutraSweet Company writes their "Facts" sheets.(25)

    Many other "independent" organizations and researchers receive large sums of money from the manufacturers of aspartame. The American Diabetes Association has received a large amount of money from Nutrasweet, including money to run a cooking school in Chicago
(presumably to teach diabetes how to use Nutrasweet in their cooking).

    A researcher in New England who has pointed out the dangers of aspartame in the past is now a Monsanto consultant. Another researcher in the Southeastern US had testified about the dangers of aspartame on fetuses. An investigative reporter has discovered that he was told to keep his mouth shut to avoid causing the loss of a large grant from a diet cola manufacturer in the NutraSweet Association.

    What is the FDA doing to protect the consumer from the dangers of aspartame? Less than nothing.

    In 1992, the FDA approved aspartame for use in malt beverages, breakfast cereals, and refrigerated puddings and fillings. In 1993 the FDA approved aspartame for use in hard and soft candies, non-alcoholic favored beverages, tea beverages, fruit juices and concentrates, baked goods and baking mixes, and frostings, toppings and fillings for baked

    In 1991, the FDA banned the importation of stevia. The powder of the leaf has been used for hundreds of years as an alternative sweetner. It is used widely in Japan with no adverse effects. Scientists involved in reviewing stevia have declared it to be safe for human consumption - something which has been well known in many parts of the world where it
is not banned. Everyone that I have spoken with in regards to this issue believes that stevia was banned to keep the product from taking hold in the US and cutting into sales of aspartame.(26)

    What is the US Congress doing to protect the consumer from the dangers of aspartame? Nothing.

    What is the US Administration (President) doing to protect the consumer from the dangers of aspartame? Nothing.

    Aspartame consumption is not only a problem in the US. It is being sold in over 70 countries throughout the world.

    - instant breakfasts
    - breath mints
    - cereals
    - sugar-free chewing gum
    - cocoa mixes
    - coffee beverages
    - frozen desserts
    - gelatin desserts
    - juice beverages
    - laxatives
    - multivitamins
    - milk drinks
    - pharmaceuticals and supplements
    - shake mixes
    - soft drinks
    - tabletop sweeteners
    - tea beverages
    - instant teas and coffees
    - topping mixes
    - wine coolers
    - yogurt

    I have been told that aspartame has been found in products where it is not listed on the label. One must be particular careful of pharmaceuticals and supplements. I have been informed that even some supplements made by well-known supplement manufacturers such as Twinlabs contain aspartame.

    The information I have related above is just the tip of the iceberg as far as damaging information about aspartame. In order for the reader to find out more, I have included some resources below.


    *   Blaylock, Russell L., Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills
(Health Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico, c1994). One of the best books
available on excitotoxins. Well worth reading!
    *   H. J. Roberts, M.D., Aspartame (NutraSweet), Is it Safe?
Available from the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network.
    *   Sweet'ner Dearest, Available from the Aspartame Consumer
Safety Network
    *   Mary Nash Stoddard, The Deadly Deception, Available from
the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network.
    *   Barbara Mullarkey, Editor, Bittersweet Aspartame - A
Diet Delusion,
    *   Available from the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network.
    *   The Aspartame Consumer Safety Network, The Aspartame
Consumer Safety Network Synopsis.
    *   Dennis Remington, M.D. and Barbara Higa, R.D., The
Bitter Truth About Artificial Sweetners, Available from the Aspartame
Consumer Safety Network

    PO Box 780634
    Plano, Texas 75378, USA.
    Phone: (214) 352-4268


    (1) Department of Health and Human Services, Report on All
Adverse Reactions in the Adverse Reaction Monitoring System, (February
25 and 28, 1994).
    (2) Compiled by researchers, physicians, and artificial sweetner
experts for Mission Possible, a group dedicated to warning consumers
about aspartame.
    (3) Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, by Russell L. Blaylock,
    (4) Safety of Amino Acids, Life Sciences Research Office, FASEB,
FDA Contract No. 223-88-2124, Task Order No. 8.
    (5) FDA Adverse Reaction Monitoring System.
    (6) Wurtman and Walker, "Dietary Phenylalanine and Brain
Function," Proceedings of the First International Meeting on Dietary
Phenylalanine and Brain Function., Washington, D.C., May 8, 1987.
    (7) Hearing Before the Committee On Labor and Human Resources
United States Senate, First Session on Examing the Health and Safety
Concerns of Nutrasweet (Aspartame).
    (8) Account of John Cook as published in Informed Consent
Magazine. "How Safe Is Your Artificial Sweetner" by Barbara Mullarkey,
September/October 1994.
    (9) Woodrow C. Monte, Ph.D., R.D., "Aspartame: Methanol and the
Public Health," Journal of Applied Nutrition, 36 (1): 42-53.
    (10) US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,
No. 84-1153 Community Nutrition Institute and Dr Woodrow Monte v. Dr
Mark Novitch, Acting Commissioner, US FDA (9/24/85).
    (11) Aspartame Time Line by Barbara Mullarkey as published in
Informed Consent Magazine, May/June 1994.
    (12) FDA Searle Investigation Task Force. "Final Report of
Investigation of G.D. Searle Company." (March 24, 1976)
    (13) Testimony of Dr Jacqueline Verrett, FDA Toxicologist before
the US Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, (November 3,
    (14) Internal FDA memorandum.
    (15) Analysis prepared by Dr John Olney as a statement before
the Aspartame Board of Inquire of the FDA. Also Excitotoxins by Russell
Blaylock, M.D.
    (16) Congressional Record SID835: 131 (August 1, 1985)
    (17) National Cancer Institute SEER Program Data.
    (18) Walton, Ralph G., Robert Hudak, Ruth Green-Waite "Adverse
Reactions to Aspartame: Double-Blind Challenge in Patients from a
Vulnerable Population," Biological Psychiatry, 1993:34:13-17.
    (19) Barbara Mullarkey, "How Safe Is Your Artificial Sweetner,"
September/October 1994 issue of Informed Consent Magazine.
    (20) US Air Force. "Aspartame Alert." Flying Safety, 48 (5):
20-21 (May 1992).
    (21) Reported by the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network.
    (22) Barbara Mullarkey, Bittersweet Aspartame, A Diet Delusion.
    (23) Millstone, Eric "Sweet and Sour." The Ecologist, 25
(March/April 1994).
    (24) Mary Nash Stoddard, Editor, "The Deadly Deception,"
Aspartame Consumer Safety Network.
    (25) ADA Courier, January 1993, Volume 32, Number 1. (26) "FDA
Rejects AHPA Stevia Petition" by Mark Blumenthal, Whole Foods, April

Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 2, #28 (Oct-Nov '95) and
Volume 3, #1 (Dec '95-Jan '96).
    PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia.
    Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
    From our web page at:

    C 1995 by Mark D. Gold, 35 Inman St, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
    Phone: (617) 497 7843,
    Web page:

Originally published in Blazing Tattles, Vol. 4, Nos. 4, 5, 6,
April-June 1995
    PO Box 1073, Half Moon Bay,
    CA 94019 USA.



Carbonated Beverages May Increase Risk of Esophageal Cancer

Reviewed By Charlotte Grayson, MD
on Tuesday, May 18, 2004
WebMD Medical News

May 18, 2004 -- You may want to think twice before reaching for a soda. A new study suggests that carbonated soft drinks may raise the risk of cancer of the esophagus, the tube that connects the mouth to the stomach.

Cancer of the esophagus is one of the fastest growing cancers in the western world. It is often in an advanced stage when it is diagnosed. In advanced stages, esophageal cancer can be treated but rarely can be cured.

"Since many cancers are affected by what we eat and drink, we looked back at data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to see what [changes in the diet] could explain the [more than fivefold] increase in esophageal cancer rates over the past 50 years," says Mohandas K. Mallath, MD, professor and head of the department of digestive diseases and clinical nutrition at Tata Memorial Hospital.

Mallath presented the results of his study at a meeting of digestive disease specialists this week in New Orleans.

"What we found was a huge rise in intake of carbonated soft drinks," he tells WebMD. Per capita consumption of carbonated soft drinks rose by more than 450% during the past half-century, from 11 gallons in 1946 to 50 gallons in 2000 -- the equivalent of two cans of soft drinks per person per day, he says.

Since exposure to cancer-causing agents usually precedes the disease by about two decades, "an association seemed possible," Mallath says.

Searching the medical literature for evidence to bolster the theory, his team found a study offering a strong biological basis to explain the link, he says.

The study showed that drinking carbonated beverages exposes the gastrointestinal tract to excess acid, the hallmark of acid reflux disease, or GERD, he says. And other studies show that GERD is a risk factor for esophageal cancer.

Also, countries in which people drink very few carbonated beverages, including Eastern Europe, Japan, China, Taiwan, Korea, and India, have had little increase in the incidence of esophageal cancer, Mallath notes.

ADD/ADHD or Other Names for Malnutrition

by Samuel C. Zeiler M.S., C.N.

I find it disturbing with the increase in numbers of children I see and hear about who receive recommendations for undergoing therapy with Ritalin and other drugs to "quiet" the mind. Certainly, the drugs do work to hide the symptoms of a much deeper problem. They do not correct the underlying factors of cause.

The problem, from my professional perspective as a clinical nutritionist, is one of multiple dietary imbalances compounded by increased stress and environmental factors. Consider these alarming facts.

Recent statistics indicate that 25% of our children are clinically overweight.  The most popular vegetable in American society is the potato in the form of french fries.  The most frequently purchased item in the grocery store is prepackaged meals.  The average adolescent consumes six carbonated soft drinks per day.

Our fast-paced, fast-food, fast-everything, convenience oriented, sedentary lifestyle has put demands on our bodily systems that were never intended. In the process of preparing packaged and fast-foods, most of the available nutrients and fiber are removed. Couple this with the fact that most children avoid eating raw vegetables and fruits for one reason or another.

How does this relate to ADD and ADHD? Consider that the brain runs on vitamins, minerals, oxygen and blood sugar in a combinations that are called neurotransmitters. Under stress and a diet high in simple carbohydrates, the natural brain function uses up the neurotransmitters and can only replace them if the necessary building blocks are present. These building blocks come from fresh fruits and vegetables, essential fats and high quality, protein sources.

Due to genetic predisposition and variations in environment, diet and exercise, some children are more noticeably affected with neuro-developmental disorders. Neuro-developmental disorders like ADD and ADHD can be helped with a return to a proper food regimen and specific supplementation designed to restore the building blocks for brain and neurotransmitter development.

A change in lifestyle is most beneficial over time, not drugs. Specifically, diet, exercise and environment. Environment plays an important role in developing habits that improve health instead of degrade health. We are all born with a full complement of life factors and due to our environment (mental, emotional and physical) we follow a process of slow destruction, status quo or growth. Our resilience to disease and mental processes is partially determined by our environment. For example, a house where mold is present can impair immune and brain function because the body is using many resources to keep the mold from infecting the cells. This takes a lot of cellular energy that is then not available to operate the nervous system properly and other body functions at peak efficiency.

This all sounds pretty complex and is when all the interactions in our bodies are considered. Suffice it to say that all conditions occurring in our bodies, including ADD and ADHD have a significant relationship to nutritional status.

Where does one begin? The environment, physically, mentally and emotionally is a good place to start. The presence of toxins in our homes create health challenges for everyone. I recommend removing all household chemicals at least. Replace them with environmentally safe products with no fragrances.

Mold from an overly damp environment or poor ventilation can cause a myriad of health challenges including neurologic disturbances. Clean up the mold that may or may not be visible. Keep the house well ventilated with fresh clean air. A filter system may be additional benefit in more polluted or high pollen areas.

On an individual level, improving the diet will clearly improve neurologic function. This means:

Remove all processed foods made from white flour, corn syrup and sugar.
Eliminate dairy products.
Eliminate sweets and high starch foods.
Eliminate processed meats (i.e. hot dogs, hamburger, sausage etc.)
Eliminate carbonated beverages in any form.
Include a wide variety of raw vegetables to equal 3 cups per day.
Increase raw, fresh fruit to 3 half cup servings daily minimum.
Sip plenty of filtered water throughout the day.
Include chicken, cold water fish, and vegetable protein.
Include essential fats like pure virgin olive oil and nut oils.

Because we are all biochemically unique, it is necessary to evaluate each individual for specific nutrient deficiencies to further support the body in correcting and healing itself. The same is true for exercise except in the case of walking, which we all could benefit from. I recommend 35-40 minutes per day of relaxed walking. This helps the mind focus and stimulates all body systems to function more efficiently. 

For more information, please contact Samuel C. Zeiler MS, CN at or by phone: 206-365-1030.
This information is provided by OSPI and New Horizons for Learning, funded by a development grant from the Discuren Charitable Foundation.

Office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Special Education
P O Box 47200
Olympia, WA 98504-7200
(360) 725-6088
E-mail: Kathy Bartlett

How long will you and your kids "last"...  Very insightful letter by a 10 year old.

Jeff Huling
Future Health Systems, Inc.

Trans Fats are "Hiding" in Your Food  Dr. Carol Watson

Trans fatty acids are hydrogenated or partly hydrogenated vegetable oils which have undergone an industrial process of conversion from their liquid state to a semi-solid state by adding hydrogen in order to make them last longer on the grocers shelf (and in your pantry). This is beneficial for the food industry as it prolongs shelf life, but not without a higher cost to your health!!

I would like to share with you a very moving letter written by a 10-year old boy, Jacob Schultz, on his perception of the dangers trans fats/hydrogenated oils. This should serve as a great educational piece     for you to help you understand what trans fats are and their associated dangers. According to his mother, Kristen Schultz of San Clemente, CA, the educational process for Jacob was prompted by going to a restaurant one day where she requested fruit as a substitute for French fries for his little sister and the restaurant didn’t have any!!!! A big “thank you” goes out to his parents for educating this young boy so that he will grow up to be an informed adult, taking responsibility for his own health! He is now 11 y/o and in the 5th grade…if we could all educate our children like this, our future would look much better for healthy generations to come!

 “I would like to talk about hydrogenated fats. They are bad fats. They are found in most sugary and baked foods, including white crackers, Pringles, Doritos, Cheetos, cookies, doughnuts, chocolate candy, cupcakes, cake, and stuff like that. Hydrogenated fats were once ‘OK’ fats. Then they are injected with hydrogen so they can last longer. Then they become bad fats. That's how Ding Dongs, Krispy Kreme doughnuts and McDonald's French fries can sit on the shelves and then in a few years you can say, ‘Look it's the Krispy Kreme doughnuts we got three years ago! They look as good as new.’ Hydrogenated fats clog up your arteries. When you eat a Twinkie, you are pretty much dumping garbage into your arteries. Your arteries are pretty much like little rivers that carry blood throughout your body. Eating Twinkies is kind of like dumping trash into a river. When the rivers get clogged up with trash, they can't deliver water to the factory that bottles water for us and we have a problem. Same thing with your body. That beloved Twinkie is actually clogging up your arteries so your blood can't flow to your brain and heart good and over a course of 40 to 60 years you could die. My grandpa had this sort of problem. He died at 55 years old, just before I was born. His arteries were clogged and his heart got sick. They spotted it too late. Don't let that happen to you! After all, how long your body lasts is a lot more important than how long your food lasts. I wished I had my grandpa.” By Jacob Schultz, 10 years old.

Texas Group Takes Aim at Splenda's Campaign of Misinformation

FTC to Investigate

AUSTIN, Texas, Jan. 31 /PRNewswire/ -- The Texas Consumer Association today asked the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to investigate the misleading and deceptive marketing campaign being conducted by Johnson & Johnson's McNeil Nutritionals for its artificial sweetener Splenda.

By continually using the word "sugar" in its advertisements and in its packaging, McNeil is attempting to link Splenda and sugar in consumers' minds and convince consumers that Splenda is somehow "more natural" -- and therefore more healthy -- than any other artificial sweetener or food additive.

"With consumers across the country concerned about their health and trying to eat more natural foods, it is alarming that McNeil is engaged in an underhanded campaign to confuse consumers into believing Splenda is natural," commented Sandra Haverlah, president of the Texas Consumer Association.

The Texas Consumer Association asked the FTC to step in and mandate that McNeil provide consumers with accurate and truthful information about Splenda.

McNeil has no foundation for the claims it is making in its deceptive ads, since Splenda is not a natural derivative of sugar. What's more, it is not even necessary to use sugar to manufacture Splenda.

"McNeil's campaign is a sham," Haverlah asserted. "It's time for the FTC to investigate."

McNeil's deception, however, has begun to have a significant impact: Splenda has grabbed almost 40% of the U.S. consumer sweetener market, taking market share not just from artificial sweeteners, but also from natural sugar.

Splenda's success in the marketplace comes as Texas and the rest of the country grapple with a growing obesity crisis. Thirty-five percent of children in Texas are overweight or obese, according to the Texas Agriculture Commission, and childhood obesity in Texas has doubled over the past 20 years.

Haverlah said that many consumers are purchasing Splenda based on a belief that it is in some way "more natural" than -- and therefore preferable to -- other artificial sweeteners or food additives.

"Consumers should be given the truth about the products they buy and eat, and McNeil is trying to pull the wool over consumers' eyes," Haverlah continued. "This campaign of misinformation must be stopped."

Sandra Haverlah, President of Texas Consumer Association, sent the following letter, dated Jan. 31, to the Division of Advertising Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, at the Federal Trade Commission:

Consumers in Texas and across the country deserve to be told the truth about the food they eat and the products they buy. That's why it's so alarming that throughout the course of its marketing campaign, Johnson & Johnson company McNeil Nutritionals has been attempting to confuse consumers into believing that its artificial sweetener Splenda is a natural product by linking Splenda to sugar. It's up to the Federal Trade Commission to ensure that the information provided to us through advertising is accurate. The Texas Consumer Association therefore asks the FTC to fully investigate this misleading advertising campaign and stop McNeil from continuing its campaign of misinformation.

By continually using the word "sugar" in its advertisements and in its packaging, McNeil is attempting to link Splenda and sugar in consumers' minds. But McNeil has no foundation for its claims. Splenda isn't natural. On the contrary, it is a man-made artificial sweetener formed by a complex chemical reaction.

With obesity at an all-time high in the U.S. and the low-carbohydrate diet phenomenon remaining strong, Splenda has grabbed almost 40% of the U.S. consumer sweetener market share. An increasing number of consumers are purchasing Splenda based on their belief that it is in some way "more natural" -- and therefore more healthy -- than any other artificial sweetener or food additive.

Consumers need to understand that developing good, healthy eating habits will lead to weight loss. This is especially important for children, who are developing eating habits they will carry with them throughout life. Thirty- five percent of children in Texas are overweight or obese, according to the Texas Agriculture Commission. Childhood obesity in Texas has doubled over the past 20 years. These are startling statistics.

Luckily, Texas schools have started to take constructive steps toward helping students eat better. Like the latest edition of the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, the state of Texas is recommending eating natural, whole grain foods, fruits and vegetables.

Given the state and national push for healthy, natural foods, it is greatly disturbing that McNeil would try to confuse and mislead consumers into believing that Splenda is natural. Even more troubling, many of Splenda's new advertisements focus on children and many of the new foods that include Splenda are juices, cereals, and snacks children tend to eat. In its recent letter to the FTC on this topic, Generation Green noted that these ads aim to encourage children to eat low-sugar products suggesting that "low sugar" and "with Splenda" means the product is healthier. The Texas Consumer Association shares Generation Green's concern that this misleading marketing campaign is hindering the ability of parents to make informed, health-guided decisions about the food they buy for their families.

It's time for McNeil to stop misleading the public. The Texas Consumer Association strongly urges the FTC to investigate this advertising campaign and instruct McNeil to tell the truth about Splenda.

Source: Texas Consumer Association

Your life and health could be severely affected if this law passes.
Please read carefully.

Your life and health could be severely affected if this law passes. Please read carefully. Read this very important health message below and contact everyone you know to try to prevent this.

Your right to choose your vitamin, mineral, herb, and other supplements may end in June of this year (2005).

After that, US supplements will be defined and controlled by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

It is called the CODEX ALIMENTARIUS (food code) and it is setting the supplement standards for all countries in the WTO. CODEX met secretly in November, 2004 and finalized ‘Step 8 (the final stage)’ to begin implementation in June, 2005, severely restricting the use and availability of numerous vitamins, minerals and other supplements.

The US president and congress agreed to the takeover when the WTO treaty was signed, therefore these supplement standards WILL BE ENFORCED BY THE WTO AND WILL OVERRIDE US LAWS. CODEX violations are/will be punished by WTO trade sanctions.

CODEX Includes:

No supplement can be sold for preventive or therapeutic use. Any potency higher than RDA (recommended daily allowance, aka minimal strength) is a ‘drug’ requiring a prescription and must be produced by drug companies. Over 5000 safe items now in health stores will be banned, terminating health stores as we now know them. CODEX regulations become binding internationally.
New supplements are banned unless given very expensive CODEX testing and approval.
CODEX now applies to Norway and Germany, among others, where:
Zinc tablets rose from $4 per bottle to $52.
Echinacea (an ancient immune-enhancement herb) rose from $14 to $153.
Both examples above are now allowed by prescription only. They are now ‘drugs’.
Vitamin C above 200mg? Banned for over-the-counter. Sold as a prescription drug only.
Niacin above 32 mg? Banned for over-the-counter. Sold as a prescription drug only.
Bitamin B6 above 4 mg? Banned for over-the-counter. Sold as a prescription drug only.
Same for Amino Acids like arginine, lysine, carnitine, etc.
Same for the Omega Essential Fatty Acids and many more supplements including DMEA, DHEA, CoQ10, MSM, beta-carotene, etc.The CODEX rules are not based on real science. They were made by a few people meeting in secret (see web sites below); not necessarily scientists. In 1993 the FDA and drug companies tried to put all supplements under restriction and prescription, but over 4 million Americans told congress and the president to protect their freedom of choice on health supplements. The DSHEA law was passed in 1994 which does so, but this will be overruled by CODEX and the WTO.

Virtually nothing about it has been in the media. What the drug corporations have failed to do through congress, they have gotten by sneak attachk through CODEX with the help of a silent media.

So…what can be done at this late hour?

Spread the word as much as possible. Inform yourselves fully at and Oppose bills S.722 and H.R.3377. These support the CODEX restrictions with US laws, changing the DSHEA law.  Support H.R.1146 which would restore the sovereignty of the US Constitution over CODEX, etc. Express your wishes ASAP to the president, senators and representatives (they got us into this!). Contact multi-level health marketing groups that can get their members to inform the government. Send donations, however small, to the British Alliance for Natural Health (see website above). It has succeeded in challenging the CODEX directives in World Court later this month or next. They need help financially, having carried the fight effectively for everyone. CODEX claims to wish to protect us the same way the FDA protects us from prescription drugs. To accomplish this, they used a study of prescription drugs (not supplements) by three medical scientists as reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998-Vol. 279, No. 15, p. 1200, "…Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) was found to be extremely high." Covering 30 years from 1966 to 1996, it was found that in the US, an average of 106,000 hospitalized patients per year die from ADRs. That’s equivalent to 290 people per day. 2.2 MILLLION need more hospitalization for recovery. And these were FDA approved drugs, properly administered by competent professionals in hospitals…yet none were considered malpractice. ADRs represent the number four cause of death in the US. When combined, they account for 7% of all hospitalized patients. This is equivalent to a 9/11 attach every ten days.

Contrary to pharmaceutical drugs, there are few fatalities from supplements. Can you just imagine the news coverage if vitamins and supplements created the amount of death that drugs do?

There is no need for more FDA control of supplements than is already in place, which is substantial. Instead of drastically restricting supplements, why doesn’t the FDA better control and restrict the extremely dangerous pharmaceutical drugs which are now killing us at the rate of a major airline crash per day?

Wallace G. Heath, PhD.

1145 Marine DriveBellingham, WA98225

A Devastating Disease
There is a tendency in some older people to think of diabetes as "just a little sugar," a common family problem. They fail to take it seriously and make the connection between it and the costly, crippling and often fatal diseases that can ensue.

Diabetes, with its consequences of heart attack, stroke, kidney failure, amputations and blindness, among others, already ranks No. 1 in direct health care costs, consuming $1 of every $7 spent on health care.

'Diabesity,' a Crisis in an Expanding Country
Published: March 29, 2005
I can't understand why we still don't have a national initiative to control what is fast emerging as the most serious and costly health problem in America: excess weight. Are our schools, our parents, our national leaders blind to what is happening - a health crisis that looms even larger than our former and current smoking habits?

Just look at the numbers, so graphically described in an eye-opening new book, "Diabesity: The Obesity-Diabetes Epidemic That Threatens America - and What We Must Do to Stop It" (Bantam), by Dr. Francine R. Kaufman, a pediatric endocrinologist, the director of the diabetes clinic at Children's Hospital Los Angeles and a past president of the American Diabetes Association.

In just over a decade, she noted, the prevalence of diabetes nearly doubled in the American adult population: to 8.7 percent in 2002, from 4.9 percent in 1990. Furthermore, an estimated one-third of Americans with Type 2 diabetes don't even know they have it because the disease is hard to spot until it causes a medical crisis.

An estimated 18.2 million Americans now have diabetes, 90 percent of them the environmentally influenced type that used to be called adult-onset diabetes. But adults are no longer the only victims - a trend that prompted an official change in name in 1997 to Type 2 diabetes.
More and more children are developing this health-robbing disease or its precursor, prediabetes. Counting children and adults together, some 41 million Americans have a higher-than-normal blood sugar level that typically precedes the development of full-blown diabetes.

'Then Everything Changed'
And what is the reason for this runaway epidemic? Being overweight or obese, especially with the accumulation of large amounts of body fat around the abdomen. In Dr. Kaufman's first 15 years as a pediatric endocrinologist, 1978 to 1993, she wrote, "I never saw a young patient with Type 2 diabetes. But then everything changed."

Teenagers now come into her clinic weighing 200, 300, even nearly 400 pounds with blood sugar levels that are off the charts. But, she adds, we cannot simply blame this problem on gluttony and laziness and "assume that the sole solution is individual change."

The major causes, Dr. Kaufman says, are "an economic structure that makes it cheaper to eat fries than fruit" and a food industry and mass media that lure children to eat the wrong foods and too much of them. "We have defined progress in terms of the quantity rather than the quality of our food," she wrote.
Her views are supported by a 15-year study published in January in The Lancet. A team headed by Dr. Mark A. Pereira of the University of Minnesota analyzed the eating habits of 3,031 young adults and found that weight gain and the development of prediabetes were directly related to unhealthful fast food.
Taking other factors into consideration, consuming fast food two or more times a week resulted, on average, in an extra weight gain of 10 pounds and doubled the risk of prediabetes over the 15-year period.

Other important factors in the diabesity epidemic, Dr. Kaufman explained, are the failure of schools to set good examples by providing only healthful fare, a loss of required physical activity in schools and the inability of many children these days to walk or bike safely to school or to play outside later.

Genes do play a role as well for certain people. Some people are more prone to developing Type 2 diabetes than others. The risk is 1.6 times as great for blacks as for whites of similar age. It is 1.5 times as great for Hispanic-Americans, and 2 times as great for Mexican-Americans and Native Americans.
Unless we change our eating and exercise habits and pay greater attention to this disease, more than one-third of whites, two-fifths of blacks and half of Hispanic people in this country will develop diabetes.
It is also obvious from the disastrous patient histories recounted in Dr. Kaufman's book that the nation's medical structure is a factor as well. Many people do not have readily accessible medical care, and still many others have no coverage for preventive medicine. As a result, millions fall between the cracks until they are felled by heart attacks or strokes.

A Devastating Disease
There is a tendency in some older people to think of diabetes as "just a little sugar," a common family problem. They fail to take it seriously and make the connection between it and the costly, crippling and often fatal diseases that can ensue.
Diabetes, with its consequences of heart attack, stroke, kidney failure, amputations and blindness, among others, already ranks No. 1 in direct health care costs, consuming $1 of every $7 spent on health care.

Nor is this epidemic confined to American borders. Internationally, "we are witnessing an epidemic that is the scourge of the 21st century," Dr. Kaufman wrote.
Unlike some other killer diseases, Type 2 diabetes issues an easily detected wake-up call: the accumulation of excess weight, especially around the abdomen. When the average fasting level of blood sugar (glucose) rises above 100 milligrams per deciliter, diabetes is looming.

Abdominal fat is highly active. The chemical output of its cells increases blood levels of hormones like estrogen, providing the link between obesity and breast cancer, and decreases androgens, which can cause a decline in libido. As the cells in abdominal fat expand, they also release chemicals that increase fat accumulation, ensuring their own existence.

The result is an increasing cellular resistance to the effects of the hormone insulin, which enables cells to burn blood sugar for energy. As blood sugar rises with increasing insulin resistance, the pancreas puts out more and more insulin (promoting further fat storage) until this gland is exhausted. Then when your fasting blood sugar level reaches 126 milligrams, you have diabetes.

Two recent clinical trials showed that Type 2 diabetes could be prevented by changes in diet and exercise. The Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group involving 3,234 overweight adults showed that "intensive lifestyle intervention" was more effective than a drug that increases insulin sensitivity in preventing diabetes over three years.

Many changes are needed to combat this epidemic, starting with schools and parents.

Dr. Kaufman tells of a challenge to get fit and lose weight by Caesars Entertainment in which 4,600 workers who completed the program lost a total of 45,000 pounds in 90 days. Others could follow this example.

Drug Companies Spend More on Lobbying Than Anyone Else

From the April 25, 2005 edition of USA Today comes an expose` story showing how much influence the pharmaceutical industry has over US lawmakers. The article starts by describing how drug companies allow their corporate jets to be used by politicians, and that the politicians are only legally required to pay the cost of a first class commercial flight.

In addition to flights and numerous other perks, the article chronicles the vast amount of money that the drug industry contributes to political candidates. They note that drug companies and their officials contributed at least $17 million to federal candidates in last year's elections. Additionally it was noted that they contributed nearly $1 million to President Bush and more than $500,000 to his opponent, John Kerry.

The Center for Responsive Politics, who keeps track of contributions, listed that in the year 2004 the drug companies spent $158 million dollars to lobby the federal government. They spent $17 million in campaign contributions in 2004 to federal candidates, and an additional $7.3 million in support for the 2004 political party conventions.

The article theorizes that the reasoning behind this scale of activity is that drug companies are heavily dependent on federal decisions. They note that it is the federal government that determines which products drug companies can market and how they're labeled. The article also pointed out that the government buys large quantities of drugs through Medicaid, the Veterans Administration and several other programs. When the new Medicare prescription drug benefit takes effect in 2006, the government will be paying 41% of Americans` drug bills, up from 24% at present.

Money also buys manpower. According to Amy Allina of the National Women's Health Network, 1,274 people were registered in Washington to lobby for drug makers in 2003. Of that amazing number, some 476 are former federal officials, including 40 former members of Congress. Ms. Allina commented, "They are one of the strongest, most well-connected and most effective lobbies in Washington. Going up against them is more often than not a losing battle."

Is what you're putting in your body contributing to health or dis-ease?!

Jeff Huling
Future Health Systems, Inc.


"I have discovered that obesity is a disease of malnutrition and that we need to nourish the body back to health, not starve it," Patricia McPeak, CEO of NutraCea and member of the California Obesity-Prevention Committee

Breaking News on Supplements & Nutrition in the USA

6/13/2005 - A study showing that sweet drinks have overtaken white bread as the leading source of calories in the American diet may mean that the nutrition gap is even wider than previously thought, reports Jess Halliday. But according to the lead researcher, functional and fortified alternatives may not be a safe bridge.

Tufts University's Dr Odilia Bermudez studied information obtained from the 1999 to 2000 National Health and Nutrition Survey and found that 67 percent of respondents reported drinking as much as three servings of soda or sweet drinks each day.

“Now soda accounts for 14 percent of total energy, and that is surprising,” Dr Bermudez told

Previously white bread was identified as the main energy contributor in the American diet, accounting for between five and six percent of calories consumed. Although white bread is not a good food compared with other more nutritious foodstuffs, this was seen as a preferable state of affairs since sweet drinks are nothing more than empty calories.

“If sweet drinks are displacing bread, they are also displacing other foods below bread,” said Bermudez. “We can assume that people are eating less of other nutritional foods.”

Despite this, she does not advocate bridging the nutrition gap through wholesale replacement of sweet drinks with functional or fortified alternatives because of the quantities that are being consumed.

Replacing three cups of soda a day with fortified or functional beverages could result in over supplementation of the population, she said, as is currently no across-the-board advice as to quantities that can be safely consumed.

The findings may also indicate that not as many people are becoming aware of the connection between diet and health as media reports may suggest.

Bermudez said that the survey could encourage the industry to take a long, hard look at how they advertise food and drink products with little or no nutritional value, as well as serve as a tool to help educate consumers about how to obtain the most nutritional benefit from calories consumed.

This message was key to the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans, published in January of this year. Although she hopes that these, as well as the new food guidance system known as MyPyramid, will help improve the nation’s diet, Bermudez believes there is scope for the government to introduce more initiatives.

Dr Bermudez’s initial findings were presented at Experimental Biology in March and more controlled analysis currently underway using same data looks set to deliver the same results.

Although more recent data have been gathered, they are not available for use in the current analysis. Given the continuing increase in obesity rates in the US, Dr Bermudez said she would expect these to show similar trends.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 64 percent of adults age 20 years and over are overweight or obese. In recent months the industry voices have pronounced a link between obesity and malnutrition.

In December Patricia McPeak, CEO of NutraCea and member of the California obesity-prevention committee told that malnutrition is the main problem faced by the US because of its eating habits.

"I have discovered that obesity is a disease of malnutrition and that we need to nourish the body back to health, not starve it," she said.

Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:

* 29 have been accused of spousal abuse
* 7 have been arrested for fraud
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks
* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
* 3 have done time for assault
* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

Can you guess which organization this is?

Give up yet?

It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group of idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

You gotta pass this on.

2006 Biggest Health Threat to the United States - US Dentistry...

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen 

Monday, May 22nd, 2006

The US Health Care System, rated 72nd in quality, but number one in cost - worldwide, is known, by government reports, to be the NUMBER ONE KILLER of Americans - ahead of heart disease, cancer, and strokes. There is no argument against facts.

But what is up for speculation are the REASONS why this is so. No one I know of (government agencies, think tanks, etc.) has taken the time to describe, and rate, the reasons why US citizens are being so short-changed.

It is easy to point fingers at the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA), Hospitals, health insurance companies, etc...

But what if there is an industry, completely trusted by the public, that knowingly, and intentionally, is causing significant harm to America's health?

There is one. It is called "Official dentistry" and I believe that this entity, by itself, is the number one problem in American health care.

Let me tell you why I think so...

The Self-Serving Dental Bureaucracy  - "Official dentistry" is not now, and has not been for some time, about Dentists or dentistry. It is about the Dental Bureaucracy protecting the IMMENSE CASH FLOW FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES, into that bureaucratic system. That huge amount of cash sets "Official dentistry's" priorities, and THOSE PRIORITIES do not serve the needs of America's Dentists, and certainly not the needs of the American public. Dentists, within the system, have little, or no, control over what happens in American Dentistry.

Simply, "Official dentistry" is controlled by those that write the checks to that bureaucracy. For instance, forty-two percent of the ADA's annual income is from "Product Endorsement." And, to my knowledge, that 42% DOES NOT INCLUDE the money "Official dentistry" gets from the US fertilizer industry.

The fertilizer industry? Did I say "The fertilizer industry?"

Yup, that's exactly what I said. And, that's not all. There are FOUR reasons I think "Official Dentistry" is the number one US health care problem. All of those reasons will shock and surprise you...

To read the entire article, and access the interesting links, click on the URL below:

Tim Bolen - Consumer Advocate


This "Millions of Health Freedom Fighters - Newsletter" is a NON-COMMERCIAL email newsletter about the politics of “Health Care” on Planet Earth. It talks about the raging battle between the forces of "Health” and “Medicine." In the US, the ultra-expensive “Medical System” has failed. It is the NUMBER ONE killer of Americans – ahead of heart disease and cancer. That failing system protects itself, and attacks its critics viciously. But, there are literally, "Millions" of people forcing change on that system.

This newsletter is about all of that. Tim Bolen is an op/ed writer with extensive knowledge, and contacts, on this subject.

The Hidden Hazards of Microwave Cooking

Recent research shows that microwave oven-cooked food suffers severe molecular damage. When eaten, it causes abnormal changes in human blood and immune systems.
Not surprisingly, the public has been denied details on these significant health dangers.

Extracted from NEXUS Magazine, Volume 2, #25 (April-May '95).
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia.
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
From our web page at:

Originally printed from the April 1994 edition of Acres, USA.
PO Box 8800, Metairie, Louisiana, 70011 USA
Telephone: (504) 889 2100; Fax: (504) 889 2777

Back in May of 1989, after Tom Valentine first moved to St Paul, Minnesota, he heard on the car radio a short announcement that bolted him upright in the driver's seat. The announcement was sponsored by Young Families, the Minnesota Extension Service of the University of Minnesota:

"Although microwaves heat food quickly, they are not recommended for heating a baby's bottle," the announcement said. The bottle may seem cool to the touch, but the liquid inside may become extremely hot and could burn the baby's mouth and throat. Also, the buildup of steam in a closed container such as a baby's bottle could cause it to explode. "Heating the bottle in a microwave can cause slight changes in the milk. In infant formulas, there may be a loss of some vitamins. In expressed breast milk, some protective properties may be destroyed." The report went on. "Warming a bottle by holding it under tap water or by setting it in a bowl of warm water, then testing it on your wrist before feeding, may take a few minutes longer, but it is much safer."
Valentine asked himself: If an established institution like the University of Minnesota can warn about the loss of particular nutrient qualities in microwaved baby formula or mother's milk, then somebody must know something about microwaving they are not telling everybody.


In early 1991, word leaked out about a lawsuit in Oklahoma. A woman named Norma Levitt had hip surgery, only to be killed by a simple blood transfusion when a nurse "warmed the blood for the transfusion in a microwave oven"!

Logic suggests that if heating or cooking is all there is to it, then it doesn't matter what mode of heating technology one uses. However, it is quite apparent that there is more to 'heating' with microwaves than we've been led to believe.

Blood for transfusions is routinely warmed-but not in microwave ovens! In the case of Mrs Levitt, the microwaving altered the blood and it killed her.

Does it not therefore follow that this form of heating does, indeed, do 'something different' to the substances being heated? Is it not prudent to determine what that 'something different' might do?
A funny thing happened on the way to the bank with all that microwave oven revenue: nobody thought about the obvious. Only 'health nuts' who are constantly aware of the value of quality nutrition discerned a problem with the widespread 'denaturing' of our food. Enter Hans Hertel.


In the tiny town of Wattenwil, near Basel in Switzerland, there lives a scientist who is alarmed at the lack of purity and naturalness in the many pursuits of modern mankind. He worked as a food scientist for several years with one of the many major Swiss food companies that do business on a global scale. A few years ago, he was fired from his job for questioning procedures in processing food because they denatured it.

"The world needs our help," Hans Hertel told Tom Valentine as they shared a fine meal at a resort hotel in Todtmoss, Germany.

"We, the scientists, carry the main responsibility for the present unacceptable conditions. It is therefore our job to correct the situation and bring the remedy to the world. I am striving to bring man and techniques back into harmony with nature. We can have wonderful technologies without violating nature."

Hans is an intense man, driven by personal knowledge of violations of nature by corporate man and his state-supported monopolies in science, technology and education. At the same time, as the two talked, his intensity shattered into a warm smile and he spoke of the way things could be if mankind's immense talent were to work with nature and not against her.

Hans Hertel is the first scientist to conceive of and carry out a quality study on the effects of microwaved nutrients on the blood and physiology of human beings. This small but well-controlled study pointed the firm finger at a degenerative force of microwave ovens and the food produced in them. The conclusion was clear: microwave cooking changed the nutrients so that changes took place in the participants' blood; these were not healthy changes but were changes that could cause deterioration in the human systems.

Working with Bernard H. Blanc of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the University Institute for Biochemistry, Hertel not only conceived of the study and carried it out, he was one of eight participants.

"To control as many variables as possible, we selected eight individuals who were strict macrobiotic diet participants from the Macrobiotic Institute at Kientel, Switzerland," Hertel explained. "We were all housed in the same hotel environment for eight weeks. There was no smoking, no alcohol and no sex."

One can readily see that this protocol makes sense. After all, how could you tell about subtle changes in a human's blood from eating microwaved food if smoking, booze, junk food, pollution, pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and everything else in the common environment were also present?

"We had one American, one Canadian and six Europeans in the group. I was the oldest at 64 years, the others were in their 20s and 30s," Hertel added.
Valentine published the results of this study in Search for Health in the Spring of 1992. But the follow-up information is available only in a later edition, and also in Acres, USA.

In intervals of two to five days, the volunteers in the study received one of the food variants on an empty stomach. The food variants were: raw milk from a biofarm (no. 1); the same milk conventionally cooked (no. 2); pasteurised milk from Intermilk Berne (no. 3); the same raw milk cooked in a microwave oven (no. 4); raw vegetables from an organic farm (no. 5); the same vegetables cooked conventionally (no. 6); the same vegetables frozen and defrosted in the microwave oven (no. 7); and the same vegetables cooked in the microwave oven (no. 8). The overall experiment had some of the earmarks of the Pottenger cat studies, except that now human beings were test objects, the experiment's time-frame was shorter, and a new heat form was tested.

Once the volunteers were isolated at the resort hotel, the test began. Blood samples were taken from every volunteer immediately before eating. Then blood samples were taken at defined intervals after eating from the above-numbered milk or vegetable preparations.

Significant changes were discovered in the blood of the volunteers who consumed foods cooked in the microwave oven. These changes included a decrease in all haemoglobin values and cholesterol values, especially the HDL (good cholesterol) and LDL (bad cholesterol) values and ratio. Lymphocytes (white blood cells) showed a more distinct short-term decrease following the intake of microwaved food than after the intake of all the other variants. Each of these indicators point in a direction away from robust health and toward degeneration. Additionally, there was a highly significant association between the amount of microwave energy in the test foods and the luminous power of luminescent bacteria exposed to serum from test persons who ate that food. This led Hertel to the conclusion that such technically derived energies may, indeed, be passed along to man inductively via consumption of microwaved food.

"This process is based on physical principles and has already been confirmed in the literature," Hertel explained. The apparent additional energy exhibited by the luminescent bacteria was merely extra confirmation.

"There is extensive scientific literature concerning the hazardous effects of direct microwave radiation on living systems," Hertel continued. "It is astonishing, therefore, to realise how little effort has been made to replace this detrimental technique of microwaves with technology more in accordance with nature.

"Technically produced microwaves are based on the principle of alternating current. Atoms, molecules and cells hit by this hard electromagnetic radiation are forced to reverse polarity 1 to 100 billion times a second. There are no atoms, molecules or cells of any organic system able to withstand such a violent, destructive power for any extended period of time, not even in the low energy range of milliwatts.

"Of all the natural substances-which are polar-the oxygen of water molecules reacts most sensitively. This is how microwave cooking heat is generated-friction from this violence in water molecules. Structures of molecules are torn apart, molecules are forcefully deformed (called structural isomerism) and thus become impaired in quality.


"This is contrary to conventional heating of food, in which heat transfers convectionally from without to within. Cooking by microwaves begins within the cells and molecules where water is present and where the energy is transformed into frictional heat."

The question naturally arises: What about microwaves from the sun? Aren't they harmful?
Hertel responded: "The microwaves from the Sun are based on principles of pulsed direct current. These rays create no frictional heat in organic substance."

In addition to violent frictional heat effects (called thermic effects), there are also athermic effects which have hardly ever been taken into account, Hertel added.

"These athermic effects are not presently measurable, but they can also deform the structures of molecules and have qualitative consequences. For example, the weakening of cell membranes by microwaves is used in the field of gene altering technology. Because of the force involved, the cells are actually broken, thereby neutralising the electrical potentials-the very life of the cells-between the outer and inner sides of the cell membranes. Impaired cells become easy prey for viruses, fungi and other micro-organisms. The natural repair mechanisms are suppressed, and cells are forced to adapt to a state of energy emergency: they switch from aerobic to anaerobic respiration. Instead of water and carbon dioxide, hydrogen peroxide and carbon monoxide are produced."

It has long been pointed out in the literature that any reversal of healthy cell processes may occur because of a number of reasons, and our cells then revert from a "robust oxidation" to an unhealthy "fermentation".

The same violent friction and athermic deformations that can occur in our bodies when we are subjected to radar or microwaves, happens to the molecules in the food cooked in a microwave oven. In fact, when anyone microwaves food, the oven exerts a power input of about 1,000 watts or more. This radiation results in destruction and deformation of molecules of food, and in the formation of new compounds (called radiolytic compounds) unknown to man and nature.

Today's established science and technology argues forcefully that microwaved food and irradiated foods do not have any significantly higher "radiolytic compounds" than do broiled, baked or other conventionally cooked foods-but microwaving does produce more of these critters. Curiously, neither established science nor our ever-protective government has conducted tests-on the blood of the eaters-of the effects of eating various kinds of cooked foods. Hertel and his group did test it, and the indication is clear that something is amiss and that larger studies should be funded. The apparently toxic effects of microwave cooking is another in a long list of unnatural additives in our daily diets. However, the establishment has not taken kindly to this work.

"The first drawing of blood samples took place on an empty stomach at 7.45 each morning," Hertel explained. "The second drawing of blood took place 15 minutes after the food intake. The third drawing was two hours later."

From each sample, 50 millilitres of blood was used for the chemistry and five millimetres for the haematology and the luminescence. The haematological examinations took place immediately after drawing the samples. Erythrocytes, haemoglobin, mean haemoglobin concentration, mean haemoglobin content, leukocytes and lymphocytes were measured. The chemical analysis consisted of iron, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and LDL cholesterol.

The results of erythrocyte, haemoglobin, haematocrit and leukocyte determinations were at the "lower limits of normal" in those tested following the eating of the microwaved samples.
"These results show anaemic tendencies. The situation became even more pronounced during the second month of the study," Hertel added. "And with those decreasing values, there was a corresponding increase of cholesterol values."

Hertel admits that stress factors, from getting punctured for the blood samples so often each day, for example, cannot be ruled out, but the established baseline for each individual became the "zero values" marker, and only changes from the zero values were statistically determined.
With only one round of test substances completed, the different effects between conventionally prepared food and microwaved food were marginal-although noticed as definite "tendencies". As the test continued, the differences in the blood markers became "statistically significant". The changes are generally considered to be signs of stress on the body. For example, erythrocytes tended to increase after eating vegetables from the microwave oven. Haemoglobin and both of the mean concentration and content haemoglobin markers also tended to decrease significantly after eating the microwaved substances.


"Leukocytosis," Hertel explained, "which cannot be accounted for by normal daily deviations such as following the intake of food, is taken seriously by haematologists. Leukocyte response is especially sensitive to stress. They are often signs of pathogenic effects on the living system, such as poisoning and cell damage. The increase of leukocytes with the microwaved foods was more pronounced than with all the other variants. It appears that these marked increases were caused entirely by ingesting the microwaved substances."

The cholesterol markers were very interesting, Hertel stressed:
"Common scientific belief states that cholesterol values usually alter slowly over longer periods of time. In this study, the markers increased rapidly after the consumption of the microwaved vegetables. However, with milk, the cholesterol values remained the same and even decreased with the raw milk significantly."

Hertel believes his study tends to confirm newer scientific data that suggest cholesterol may rapidly increase in the blood secondary to acute stress. "Also," he added, "blood cholesterol levels are less influenced by cholesterol content of food than by stress factors. Such stress-causing factors can apparently consist of foods which contain virtually no cholesterol-the microwaved vegetables."

It is plain to see that this individually financed and conducted study has enough meat in it to make anyone with a modicum of common sense sit up and take notice. Food from the microwave oven caused abnormal changes, representing stress, to occur in the blood of all the test individuals. Biological individuality, a key variable that makes a mockery of many allegedly scientific studies, was well accounted for by the established baselines.

So, how has the brilliant world of modern technology, medicine and 'protect the public' government reacted to this impressive effort?


As soon as Hertel and Blanc announced their results, the hammer of authority slammed down on them. A powerful trade organisation, the Swiss Association of Dealers for Electroapparatuses for Households and Industry, known simply as FEA, struck swiftly. They forced the President of the Court of Seftigen, Kanton Bern, to issue a 'gag order' against Hertel and Blanc. The attack was so ferocious that Blanc quickly recanted his support-but it was too late. He had already put into writing his views on the validity of the studies where he concurred with the opinion that microwaved food caused the blood abnormalities.

Hertel stood his ground, and today is steadfastly demanding his rights to a trial. Preliminary hearings on the matter have been appealed to higher courts, and it's quite obvious the powers that be do not want a 'show trial' to erupt on this issue.

In March 1993, the court handed down this decision based upon the complaint of the FEA:

1. Request from the plaintiff (FEA) to prohibit the defendant (Dr Ing. Hans Hertel) from declaring that food prepared in the microwave oven shall be dangerous to health and lead to changes in the blood of consumers, giving reference to pathologic troubles as also indicative for the beginning of a cancerous process. The defendant shall be prohibited from repeating such a statement in publications and in public talks by punishment laid down in the law.
2. The jurisdiction of the judge is given according to law.
3. The active legitimacy of the plaintiff is given according to the law.
4. The passive legitimacy of the defendant is given by the fact that he is the author of the polemic [published study] in question, especially since the present new and revised law allows to exclude the necessity of a competitive situation, therefore delinquents may also be persons who are not co-competitors, but may damage the competing position of others by mere declarations.
[Apparently, Swiss corporations have lobbied in a law that nails "delinquents" who disparage products and might do damage to commerce by such remarks. So far, the US Constitution still preserves freedom of the press.]
5. Considering the relevant situation it is referred to three publications: the public renunciation [sic] of the so-called co-author Professor Bernard Blanc, the expertise of Professor Teuber [expert witness from the FEA] about the above-mentioned publication, the opinion of the public health authorities with regard to the present stage of research with microwave ovens as well as to repeated statements from the side of the defendant about the danger of such ovens.
6. It is not considered of importance whether or not the polemic of the defendant meets the approval of the public, because all that is necessary is that a possibility exists that such a statement could find approval with people not being experts themselves. Also, advertising involving fear is not allowed and is always disqualified by the law. The necessity for a fast interference is in no case more advised than in the processes of competition. Basically, the defendant has the right to defend himself against such accusations. This right, however, can be denied in cases of pressing danger with regard to impairing the rights of the plaintiff when this is requested.


On grounds of this pending request of the plaintiff, the court arrives at the conclusion that because of special presuppositions as in this case, a definite disadvantage for the plaintiff does exist, which may not easily be repaired, and therefore must be considered to be of immediate danger. The case thus warrants the request of the plaintiff to be justified, even without hearing the defendant. Also, because it is not known when the defendant will bring further statements into the public.
The judge is also of the opinion that because the publications are made up to appear as scientific, and therefore especially reliable-looking, they may cause additional bad disadvantages. It must be added that there does obviously not exist a just reason for this publication because there is no public interest for pseudo-scientific unproved declarations. Finally, these ordered measures do not prove to be disproportionate.

The defendant is prohibited, under punishment of up to F5,000, or up to one year in prison, to declare that food prepared in microwave ovens is dangerous to health and leads to pathologic troubles as also indicative for the beginning of a cancerous process. The plaintiff pays the costs.
(Signed) President of the Court of Seftigen Kraemer."

If you cannot imagine this kind of decision coming from a court in the United States, you have not been paying attention to the advances of administrative law.

Hertel defied the court and has loudly demanded a fair hearing on the truth of his claims. The court has continued to delay, dodge, appeal and avoid any media-catching confrontation. As of this writing, Hans is still waiting for a hearing with media coverage-and he's still talking and publishing his findings.

"They have not been able to intimidate me into silence, and I will not accept their conditions," Hertel declared. "I have appeared at large seminars in Germany, and the study results have been well-received. Also, I think the authorities are aware that scientists at Ciba-Geigy [the world's largest pharmaceutical company, headquartered in Switzerland] have vowed to support me in court."

As those powerful special interests in Switzerland who desire to sell microwave ovens by the millions continued to suppress open debate on this vital issue for modern civilisation, new microwave developments blossomed in the United States.


In the journal Pediatrics (vol. 89, no. 4, April 1992), there appeared an article titled, "Effects of Microwave Radiation on Anti-infective Factors in Human Milk". Richard Quan, M.D. from Plano, Texas, was the lead name of the study team. John A. Kerner, M.D., from Stanford University, was also on the research team, and he was quoted in a summary article on the research that appeared in the 25 April 1992 issue of Science News. To get the full flavour of what may lie ahead for microwaving, here is that summary article:
"Women who work outside the home can express and store breast milk for feedings when they are away. But parents and caregivers should be careful how they warm this milk. A new study shows that microwaving human milk-even at a low setting-can destroy some of its important disease-fighting capabilities.

"Breast milk can be refrigerated safely for a few days or frozen for up to a month; however, studies have shown that heating the milk well above body temperature-37C-can break down not only its antibodies to infectious agents, but also its lysozymes or bacteria-digesting enzymes. So, when paediatrician John A. Kerner, Jr, witnessed neonatal nurses routinely thawing or reheating breast milk with the microwave oven in their lounge, he became concerned.
"In the April 1992 issue of Pediatrics (Part I), he and his Stanford University co-workers reported finding that unheated breast milk that was microwaved lost lysozyme activity, antibodies and fostered the growth of more potentially pathogenic bacteria. Milk heated at a high setting (72 degrees Celsius to 98 degrees C) lost 96 per cent of its immunoglobulin-A antibodies, agents that fend off invading microbes.

"What really surprised him, Kerner said, was finding some loss of anti-infective properties in the milk microwaved at a low setting-and to a mean of just 33.5 degrees C. Adverse changes at such low temperatures suggest 'microwaving itself may in fact cause some injury to the milk above and beyond the heating'.

"But Randall M. Goldblum of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston disagrees, saying: 'I don't see any compelling evidence that the microwaves did any harm. It was the heating.' Lysozyme and antibody degradation in the coolest samples may simply reflect the development of small hot spots-potentially 60 degrees C or above-during microwaving, noted Madeleine Sigman-Grant of Pennsylvania State University, University Park. And that's to be expected, she said, because microwave heating is inherently uneven-and quite unpredictable when volumes less than four millilitres are involved, as was the case in the Kerner's study.

"Goldblum considers use of a microwave to thaw milk an especially bad idea, since it is likely to boil some of the milk before all has even liquefied. Stanford University Medical Center no longer microwaves breast milk, Kerner notes. And that's appropriate, Sigman-Grant believes, because of the small volumes of milk that hospitals typically serve newborns-especially premature infants."


Journalist Tom Valentine, after chasing this story, found it interesting that 'scientists' have so many 'beliefs' to express rather than prove fact. Yet facts eventually snuff out credential-based conjecture. Researcher Quan, in a phone interview, said that he believed the results of research so far warranted further detailed study of the effects of microwave cooking on nutrients. The summary sentence in an abstract of the research paper is very clear:

  • "Microwaving appears to be contra-indicated at high temperatures, and questions regarding its safety exist even at low temperatures."

The final statement of the study conclusion reads:

  • "This preliminary study suggests that microwaving human milk could be detrimental. Further studies are needed to determine whether and how microwaving could safely be done." Unfortunately, further studies are not scheduled at this time.

If there are so many indications that the effects of microwaves on foods can degrade the foods far above the known breakdowns of standard cooking, is it not reasonable to conduct exhaustive studies on living, breathing human beings to determine if it's possible that eating microwaved foods continuously, as many people do, can be significantly detrimental to individual health?

If you wanted to introduce a herbal supplement into the American mainstream and make any health claims for it, you would be subjected to exhaustive documentation and costly research. Yet the microwave-oven industry had only to prove that the dangerous microwaves could, indeed, be contained within the oven and not escape into the surrounding area where the radiation could do damage to people. The industry must admit that some microwaves escape even in the best-made ovens. So far, not one thought has been given by the industry to the possibility that the nutrients could be so altered as to be deleterious to health.

Well, this makes sense in a land that encourages farmers to poison crops and soils with massive amounts of synthesised chemicals, and encourages food processors to use additives that enhance shelf-life of foods regardless of the potential for degrading the health of the consumer.
How many hundreds of pounds of microwaved food per capita is consumed in America each year?

Are we going to continue to take it from established authority, without question, on the premise that they know best? printable article

Originally published May 14 2007

American College of Physicians warns women in their 40s about dangers of mammograms

by Staff writer

The American College of Physicians has recommended women in their 40s consult with their doctors before undergoing routine annual mammography screening. An expert panel from the American College of Physicians (ACP), which represents 120,000 internists, made this recommendation in the April 3rd issue of the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

After reviewing 117 studies conducted between 1966 and 2005, the panel found the data on mammography screening for women in their 40s are so unclear that the effectiveness of reducing breast cancer death could be either 15 percent or "...nearly zero."

The panel pointed out that benefits must be weighed against the harmful effects of mammograms, including exposure to radiation and unnecessary biopsies, surgery, and chemotherapy.

Dr. Amir Qaseem, lead author of the ACP guidelines, stated "It is important to tailor the decision of screening mammography by discussing the benefits and risks with a woman, addressing her concerns, and making it a joint decision between her and her physician." The ACP noted cancer risk varies from woman to woman, and decisions about annual mammography screenings are best made on a case-by-case basis.

The ACP pointed out for women who have a known high risk of breast cancer (family history or early menarche, for example) annual screenings are appropriate.

The group is not opposed to mammography, but rather questions the efficacy of annual mammography exams commencing at age 40. "We agree that mammography can save lives," said Douglas K. Owens of Stanford University, who chaired the committee that wrote the guidelines, "But there are also potential harms. We don't think the evidence supports a blanket recommendation."

The dangers of mammography are recognized in the medical field. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, "Screening mammography poses significant and cumulative risks of breast cancer for pre-menopausal women. The routine practice of taking four films of each breast annually results in approximately 1 rad (radiation absorbed dose) exposure, about 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray. The pre-menopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade's screening. These risks are even greater for younger women subject to 'baseline screening.'"

The coalition reports women who carry the A-T gene are especially prone to risk from early mammography screening: "Radiation risks are some four-fold greater for the 1 to 2 percent of women who are silent carriers of the A-T (ataxia-telangiectasia) gene; by some estimates this accounts for up to 20 percent of all breast cancers diagnosed annually."

"Mammography is used primarily as a tool to recruit new patients into conventional cancer treatments, regardless of whether they would actually benefit from such treatments," said Mike Adams, author of Natural Health Solutions and the Conspiracy to Keep You From Knowing About Them. "The breast cancer industry harms ten women for every one it helps. It is an industry of greed, profits, and scare tactics," Adams added.

At the heart of the current blanket recommendations to begin annual mammography exams at age 40 is the American Cancer Society (ACS). Robert A. Smith, director of cancer screening at the ACS, responded to the new recommendations stating, "The danger here is that some women will elect not to get screened. Mammography is the single most effective way of finding breast cancer early, and when we find breast cancer early, women have the greatest chance of successful treatment." Just last month the ACS advised women who are at a perceived "high risk" of breast cancer to also undergo annual MRIs.


I've never heard cancer cells explained this way.

Cancer Update from John Hopkins

1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.

2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person's lifetime

3. When the person's immune system is strong the cancer cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.

4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.

5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and including supplements will strengthen the immune system.

6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastro-intestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.

7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.

8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.

9 When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.

10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites.

11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply.


a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important food supply to the cancer cells. Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal,Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in color. Better alternative is Bragg's aminos or sea salt.

b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soya milk cancer cells are being starved.

c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.

d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains,seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment.About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts)and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).

e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine.Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties. Water-best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.

12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines become putrified and leads to more toxic buildup.

13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the body's killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.

14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence,Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the body's own killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body's normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.

15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger, unforgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.

16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily, and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.


1. No plastic containers in micro.
2. No water bottles in freezer.
3. No plastic wrap in microwave.

Johns Hopkins has recently sent this out in its newsletters. This information is being circulated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as well. Dioxin chemicals causes cancer, especially breast cancer.  Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies.  Don't freeze your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic.

Recently, Dr. Edward Fujimoto, Wellness Program Manager at Castle Hospital , was on a TV program to explain this health hazard. He talked about dioxins and how bad they are for us.. He said that we should not be heating our food in the microwave using plastic containers.  This especially applies to foods that contain fat. He said that the combination of fat, high heat, and plastics releases dioxin into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body. Instead, he recommends using glass, such as Corning Ware, Pyrex or ceramic containers for heating food. You get the same results, only without the dioxin. So such things as TV dinners, instant ramen and soups, etc., should be removed from the container and heated in something else.  Paper isn't bad but you don't know what is in the paper. It's just safer to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, etc. He reminded us that a while ago some of the fast food restaurants moved away from the foam containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of the reasons.  Also, he pointed out that plastic wrap, such as Saran, is just as dangerous when placed over foods to be cooked in the microwave. As the food is nuked, the high heat causes poisonous toxins to actually melt out of the plastic wrap and rip into the food. Cover food with a paper towel instead.

Special Update from the American Holistic Health Association with items of interest to those actively enhancing their health and well-being. Another free service from AHHA.

Many people consider poor vision an inevitable fact of aging. The most common cause of diminishing visual acuity is the condition called cataracts. A cataract is a clouding of the lens in the eye. Most results of Internet searches for information on cataracts offer only surgery under treatment options. According to Jonathan Wright, M.D., there is, however, a natural treatment with no negative side effects. If you or a loved one are dealing with cataracts, you may want to review "Don't allow Congress to let you go blind!: Reverse cataracts with a simple-and safe-eye drop formula" and related research with your ophthalmologist. This article appeared in the July, 2008, issue of Dr. Jonathan V. Wright's Nutrition & Healing newsletter.

Have you been reading the articles about the possible danger of using a cell phone? The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), first reports, "The available scientific evidence does not show that any health problems are associated with using wireless phones." Then adds, "There is no proof, however, that wireless phones are absolutely safe." When you are educating yourself on this subject, you might want to keep in mind that many experts feel any studies tracking the impact of using cell phone handsets need to cover a minimum of ten years, though most are far shorter studies. If you are concerned about any possible risk, a simple solution is to use a headset.

"Experts Revive Debate Over Cellphones and Cancer"
New York Times

"Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'"
The Independent

"Health Hazards of Cell Phone Use"
Cell Phone Safety

"Cell Phone Facts: Consumer Information on Wireless Phones"
U.S. Food and Drug Administration

How many different healing modalities have you experienced along your healing journey? The dozens of modalities on our Practitioner Referral Sources list offer numerous options, most of which are referral programs to professional modality associations, so they are also an excellent resource for learning about healing options.

You can help AHHA continue to help others. Details for how to make your contribution are at
AHHA Special Update Editor: Suzan Walter
PO Box 17400, Anaheim, CA 92817-7400 USA
Phone:  (714) 779-6152
Web site:
AHHA Special Updates are archived at

DISCLAIMER: The information and resources presented on this site are not intended to replace the care of a qualified health professional. While the ideas presented here are based on extensive research, they are not intended to provide specific advice for any individual person's medical concerns. The resources on this site are for educational purposes; it is recommended that each individual choose a trusted health care professional for diagnosis and treatment purposes. The author of this site encourages visitors to educate themselves about the various theories and treatment approaches for health care issues, so that the safest, most effective approach can be identified.

Copyright 1999-2010 Body Harmony by Dr. Stephen
All rights reserved. Revised: 28 Mar 2011 19:38:47 -0500.


Web Site Design Search Engine Marketing Plano