Notice of New Site Address

If you will, visit my new site that continues with the same type of information and listings as on this site.
(Click here)

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

# 81 Cancer and World Without Cancer - updated 1/3/07

Cancer and World Without Cancer
Just got hold of two books that I needed for more of my type of research. Doing a rapid browse through the index and chapter skimming, plus some chapter reads, is an eye opener. What I’m reading , is that people are actually getting rid of cancer. If you have cancer or know some one that has it, can only say check these books out. Now, for the cover to cover read.
Quite sure , there are more good books on this topic, but need to do my kind of research according to finances available and the time it takes to do it. So before the powers that be, start putting the pressure on to close down the availability factor of these books, get your copy. Amazon link will get you there for ordering.

Cancer Step Outside The Box, by Ty M.Bollinger ISBN 0978806506
World Without Cancer by G Edward Griffin ISBN 0912986190

Updated 11-30-2006 9:48 AM
Note: A superb new book, released in August, 2006, is one of very rare alternative cancer treatment books that focuses on "Stage IV" treatments and other strong treatments. The book is called: Cancer - Step Outside the Box, by researcher Ty Bollinger. It is recommended both for cancer patients and as a gift to others to help spread the word about the effectiveness of alternative cancer treatments. The ideal scenario is for someone to know about alternative cancer treatments before they are diagnosed with cancer. The book is available on Amazon. See also:Cancer - Step Outside the Box

Updated 12/29/06 "Cancer - Step Outside The Box" Book Description
If you're concerned about the "C" word, then the first thing you need to know is that cancer does NOT have to be a death sentence! There is hope! There are many potent and well-proven alternative strategies for preventing, treating, and even curing cancer... without surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation (i.e. the "Big 3"). Inside this book, you will find a wealth of information that your doctor probably doesn't know. Here's why: while at medical school, doctors not only receive biased information but also learn a very drug-intensive style of medicine. As a result, most doctors are still thinking "inside the box" when it comes to cancer. The "cancer box" is largely the creation of multinational pharmaceutical companies attempting to peddle their poisons (such as chemotherapy) in an effort to increase shareholder profits. Sadly, these profits are generated at the expense of cancer patients. Cancer - Step Outside the Box succinctly explains the facts and deceptions about cancer and cancer treatments, it documents multiple cases of persecution and suppression of effective cancer treatments, it details the most potent of the Stage IV and Stage III cancer treatment protocols, and it clearly explains the relationship between nutrition and cancer.

Updated 1/3/07
Very thorough coverage.While the theme is cancer coverage, other illnesses are mentioned, that are also induced, by cancer causing substances.

Updated 11-29=2006 5:20 PM CDT
From the book "Cancer Step Outside The Box"
listing a web site to visit:
Step 8:A Free online eBook:The War Between Orthodox Medicine and Alternative Medicine

Free eBook on the War Between Orthodox Medicine and Alternative Medicine
The article linked to above: "Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments" is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to detailing the corruption in orthodox medicine and in our government, etc. This book digs deeper and presents the big picture of what is going on, why it is going on, and unravels far more of the maze of deception.
If you are interested in knowing more, here is the free eBook:
Chapter 1
Introduction To The War in Medicine
Chapter 2
The Foundation Of The War in Medicine
Chapter 3
Case Study of Scientific Corruption
Chapter 4
Remission, Cure Rates and Other Deceptions
Chapter 5
The Approval of Chemotherapy Drugs
Chapter 6
The Scientific Evidence For Alternative Medicine
Chapter 7
Cancer Research
Chapter 8
Case Study of Media Corruption
Chapter 9
How The Media and Establishment Brainwash The Public
Chapter 10
Other Techniques the Media and Government Use
Chapter 11
The Role of the FDA
Chapter 12
The FDA Versus Freedom of Speech
Chapter 13
Who Do You Believe - Follow The Money Trail

Saturday, November 25, 2006

# 80 Digestion, GERD, and Health Problems

Was delighted to come across a PBS progam, while channel surfing last evening., that grabbed my attention. One of my favorite topics. Most people would skip a program like this, not fully realizing, how digestion affects ones health. If one has any health condition, especially GERD, do yourself a favor, check this site out. Be sure, also, to check the PBS stations in your area for listings of this programs run times.

Brenda's Back on PBS inNovember and December
with Brenda Watson’s H.O.P.E. Formula“The Ultimate Health Secret”

Over 100 million Americans suffer from digestive problems. Brenda Watson’s H.O.P.E. Formula is the answer.Click here for local showtimes.

Was unable to get these links to work.
Can Your Heartburn Lead to Cancer?
Could your peptic ulcer be misdiagnosed?
Probiotics successfully shown to treat Irritable Bowel Syndrome

These did work
Home About Brenda Mind & Body In the News Where's Brenda Books Ask Brenda Contact Site Map

# 79 Stress,Depression Rewires the Brain

Stress, Depression Rewires the Brain
Professionals as well as laymen are now accepting the strong link between stress and depression: When one is typically present, unfortunately, often the other isn't too far behind. According to National Institute of Mental Health, the damage caused by a combination of the two can be far more extensive than that. Developments in brain imaging and neurology have shown stress really works to "rewire" the brain's emotional circuitry, altering its connections in a way so that it affects the way the brain functions.
Stress triggers a "fear center" in the amygdala sector of the brain that takes over emotions and affects thinking. Usually, when a stressful event occurs, our body's response to it fades away. Combined with depression, the chemical imbalance in the brain holds onto the stress, keeping the feelings active. And it gets worse.
Brain imaging scans have shown those who suffer from long-term stress may fail to feel any positive feelings in the prefrontal cortex, the region of the brain that maintains and originates emotions. When that depressed brain is "rewired," dread and fear can flow unimpeded from the amygdala to the prefrontal cortex.
A variety of stressors can adversely affect the brain:
Growing up in poverty
Ongoing work stress
Overscheduled work/school commitments
Thanks to brain imaging technology, however, experts believe the stress/depression combo that destroys nerve cell connections in the brain may be reversible. The "structural plasticity" and the remodeling of neurons allow the brain to be highly adaptable.
Kansas City Star November 3, 2004
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
In nearly all the patients I see, stress is a key factor in their illnesses because it plays a major role in their immune systems. And stress can lead to negative effects on your blood pressure and cholesterol levels too.
To their credit, some of the medical experts interviewed for this article were concerned the "easy way out" -- toxic new antidepressants to address the stress and depression mix you're feeling -- wouldn't be enough to solve the problem, and they're right. But it's impossible to completely eliminate stress from your life either. So what can you really do?
I believe you can work to provide your body with tools to compensate for the bioelectrical short-circuiting that can cause serious disruption in many of your body's important systems. The key is not the stress itself but your body's ability to tolerate it.
I've found energy psychology tools, like the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), can be very useful to battle the dual effects of stress and depression. A form of psychological acupressure, EFT is based on the same energy meridians used in traditional acupuncture to treat physical and emotional ailments for more than 5,000 years, but without the invasiveness of needles. You can review my free online manual to learn how to use this effective tool.
There's no questioning the power of prayer either. So many studies have documented it and the science that proves its healing power is very solid. So solid, I believe it's criminally negligent for physicians not to recommend it. If you're interested in learning more about the prayer and how it affects medical science, read Dr. Larry Dossey's article on Prayer and Medical Science.
If you work with meditation to keep stress at bay, you may want to consider trying the Insight CD. This brain wave entrainment tool allows your brain to rapidly and easily synchronize to the delta waves commonly experienced in meditation. And it does a phenomenal job of enhancing and expanding emotion, mental and spiritual capabilities.
Related Articles:
The Secret to a Longer Life
Delay the Aging Process Naturally
Stress Can Be Very Costly
Stress Affects Your Immune System: Clearly Defined Patterns Revealed
More Evidence That Stress is Major Factor for Infections
Five Simple Strategies to Reduce Stress and Eliminate Exhaustion

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

# 75 Fibromyalgia: The Invented Disease !

What a mess we mortals are in. If one is in good health , no problem. If one is in fair health, life is still tolerable. But when one is not in good health and you start the doctor visits routine, is where health things can and often do, start to wear one out in frustration. You hurt, or don't feel well, and now some one is telling you on how best to correct the situation. You follow the directions given, and still don't feel well. So days, weeks months, and even years pass, and you still feel as sick as when you started. By now one is perhaps using two to ten medical prescriptions. Still ill. Other health problems may be popping up. Visits to various specialists have taken place. Still ill though. What's next?
When you keep hitting that brick wall of dogma in any profession, where do you go, what can you do? Lets face it, it's a scary, frightful thing to consider doing the unthinkable, like straying off of the tower of dogma. Right or wrong , I use the word "dogma" here, as it seems, at this moment, to be the right one.
I believe we are a "spirit, soul and body", and all must be considered, when endeavoring to correct a malfunction in ones body.

Read my post for more information with a similar theme.
# 61 Can We Cure.....More on EFT.

Fibromyalgia -- The Invented Disease
November 22, 2006
When The MD Can't Solve Your Pain He Says It Is In Your Head And Sends You To A Psychiatrist Who Prescribes A Pill That Works -- Every Time!
Fibromyalgia! If you have it, you certainly know that you have it! It is so "similar" to "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" that the two are often lumped together -- if you have one, you have the other. These are abbreviated as FMS and CFS. They are invented diseases -- invented by the hidden world of psychiatry for the sole purpose of selling psychiatric drugs.
You have a pain -- it hurts a lot. You go to your doctor. He fusses and gives you pills, but he can't figure out what will cure the pain. He can't find anything "wrong."
So, when an MD can't help he has a garbage collector -- he sends you to the psychiatrist because, after all, "it's in your head."
The psychiatrist has a pill which dulls the pain -- the pain goes away -- you don't feel it. It's not a "pain-killer" it is a "worry killer."
The anti-depressant smooths away lots of other stress and worry in your life. Why? Because "vegetables" don't "worry!"
Your social life changes because you now join victim's groups.
If you think you have this problem, or worry about it, you might go onto the web and search for the word in your favorite search engine. It is astonishing to find that virtually every search engine will serve up the
American Fibromyalgia Syndrome (FMS) Association, Inc.
as the one of the highest ranked web sites.
In fact, for any one of twelve different "popular hopeless diseases," there seems to be an "official" Society, Foundation, Association, or other non-commercial group that asserts itself as an source of honest information about the disease, particularly the recommended treatments. Click Here for a complete study on this subject.
That "honest information" is paid for by drug companies. Psychiatric drugs are among the most profitable any drug company makes.
So we are becoming a nation of mood enhancer pill takers.
Click on the link to read more about Fibromyalgia -- and the natural remedy Karl Loren. from
The Pain Is NOT In Your Head -- But The Solution Is NOT A Pill!

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

# 78 Chokehold on America's Health Care A Book Review

The drug industry’s chokehold on America’s health care
By Joanne Laurier3 January 2005
Use this version to print Send this link by email Email the author
The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to do About it by Marcia Angell M.D., published by Random House, 304 pp.; Overdosed America: the Broken Promise of American Medicine, by John Abramson, M.D., published by Harper Collins, 332 pp.
Major pharmaceutical companies have been hit recently by an array of scandals regarding the safety of certain “ blockbuster” drugs. Merck’s Vioxx, a leading arthritis and pain medication was withdrawn from the market after it was shown to have caused thousands of heart attacks and an estimated 55,000 deaths. Its leading competitor, Celebrex, manufactured by Pfizer, faces similar difficulties.
Other drugs, including over-the-counter remedies, are also being scrutinized for severe, unwanted side-effects. On December 18 the Detroit Free Press released its own analysis concluding that many thousands of Americans are getting sick and dying from prescription drugs prematurely entering the market.
Two recently-published books provide valuable insights and describe in devastating detail the operations of the pharmaceutical industry—the consequences of its domination of government agencies and the medical establishment. The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us And What To Do About It is written by Marcia Angell, M.D.; Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine is authored by John Abramson, M.D.
A former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Angell witnessed the work of that prestigious journal come increasingly under the influence of the drug industry. She claims in the volume’s introduction that the pharmaceuticals began exercising “a level of control over the way research is done that was unheard of when I first came to the journal, and the aim was clearly to load the dice to make sure their drugs looked good.” (p. xviii)
The author of Overdosed America, Abramson, is a family doctor on the clinical faculty of Harvard Medical School. He was prompted to write his book because of what he perceived as the corporate takeover of medical research. Trained as a statistician, he “ researched the research,” and found that “even the most respected medical journals seemed more like infomercials whose purpose was to promote their sponsors’ products rather than to search for the best ways to improve people’s health.” (p. xii)
The most profitable industry
Americans spend a staggering $200 billion a year on prescription drugs out of worldwide sales of $400 billion. From 1980 to 2000, prescription drugs tripled as a percentage of US gross domestic product. Since that time, PhRMA—the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America—has consistently ranked by far as the most profitable industry, while its CEOs have raked in eight digit salaries combined with eight digit stock options. In 2002, the combined profits of the 10 drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9 billion) were more than the total profits of the other 490 businesses ($33.7 billion).
Both Angell and Abramson contend that PhRMA began its astronomical rise in the late 1970s and early 1980s—particularly under Ronald Reagan. In 1980, Congress enacted a series of laws, such as the Bayh-Dole Act (Senator Birch Bayh [D-Indiana] and Senator Robert Dole [R-Kansas]) that enabled universities and small companies to patent discoveries made through publicly funded research and then grant exclusive licenses to drug companies. Until that time, taxpayer-financed research was public property available to any company. The nascent biotech industry was thus given a tremendous boost. Through similar legislation, the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—the major distributor of tax dollars for medical research—was permitted to enter into deals that would directly transfer NIH discoveries to industry.
As Angell points out: “These laws mean that drug companies no longer have to rely on their own research for new drugs, and few of the large ones do. Increasingly, they rely on academia, small biotech start-up companies, and the NIH for that.” (p. 8) This, argues Angell, has changed the ethos of medical schools and teaching hospitals, who now see themselves as partners of industry and become “just as enthusiastic as any entrepreneur about the opportunities to parlay their discoveries into financial gain.” (p. 8) She cites the example of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, a Harvard hospital, which has a deal with the drug company Novartis, giving it rights to discoveries that lead to new cancer drugs.
In 1984, the Hatch-Waxman Act extended monopoly rights for brand-name drugs—drugs for which the manufacturer has marketing exclusivity. (After brand-marketing rights expire on a drug, generic copies can be produced by any manufacturer for a fraction of the cost. The monopoly status of a brand-name drug also translates into an exorbitant selling price by comparison with its generic equivalent.) Other congressional laws enacted in the 1990s have increased the patent life of brand-name drugs from 8 years in 1980 to 14 years in 2000.
In 1992 Congress passed the landmark Prescription Drug User Fee Act, effectively putting the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the pharmaceutical industry’s payroll, according to Angell. To expedite approval of drugs, the law authorized drug companies to pay user fees to the FDA, making the governmental agency dependent on the industry it regulates. Today, industry-paid FDA employees constitute more than half of the agency’s staff involved in approving drugs. The FDA now generally approves drugs faster than counterpart agencies anywhere in the world. Since the law was enacted, 13 prescription drugs, causing hundreds of deaths, have had to be withdrawn from the market.
The origin of the FDA is not discussed extensively by either Angell or Abramson, but a brief historical review would be in order. The agency was established in 1906, by the Food and Drug Act, partially in response to exposures such as muckraker Upton Sinclair’s famous novel, The Jungle, treating the appalling conditions in Chicago’s slaughterhouses.
Several medical disasters in 1937 and 1938 compelled President Franklin Roosevelt in the New Deal era to sign the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, which brought cosmetics and medical devices under government control and required that drugs be labeled with adequate directions for safe use. The quarter century that followed the 1938 bill saw a vast expansion of the pharmaceutical industry. As science matured and patent laws changed—making possible the profitable control of a drug by the company that owned it—the industry discovered, developed and marketed drugs, some of which no doubt had important value in treating disease.
Drug companies also used the 1938 law to devise the concept of prescription drugs—drugs available only through physicians at a price set by the companies.
Anti-regulatory action began under the Carter administration, but Reagan slashed the FDA’s enforcement budgets in earnest. The routine actions by which the agency kept contaminated foods and problem drugs off the market—seizures, injunctions and prosecutions—dropped dramatically. The limits of the FDA budget paved the way for the 1992 bill, which provided additional funds for the agency—by putting it at the service of the pharmaceutical industry.
Bringing the companies into the drug approval process was vital for the pharmaceuticals because patents on new drugs are usually obtained before clinical testing begins, thereby eating into a drug’s 20-year patent life—the time it can be sold without competition. To maximize profitability, the drug companies are under pressure to shorten the trials so that marketing the drug can get underway.
The truth about research and development
As public opposition to rapacious drug pricing has grown, Angell reveals that the industry’s media campaign to counter this centers on its claims to be innovative. “Big pharma likes to refer to itself as a ‘research-based industry,’ but it is hardly that.”(p. 73) In reality, the budget of the drug companies for research and development is dwarfed by massive marketing expenditures. Only a handful of important drugs have been developed—mostly based on taxpayer-funded research—in recent years. (R&D costs are tax-deductible.) This despite the fact that the number of clinical trials under way in any given year is staggering. In 2001, about 2.3 million American were involved in an estimated 80,000 studies.
“The great majority of ‘new’ drugs are not new at all but merely variations of older drugs already on the market. These are called ‘me-too’ drugs. The idea is to grab a share of the established, lucrative market by producing something very similar to a top-selling drug,” (p. xvi) writes Angell. For example, there are six cholesterol-lowering drugs (Mevacor, Lipitor, Zocor, Pravachol, Lescol and the newest, Crestor). She continues: “But instead of investing more in innovative drugs and moderating prices, drug companies are pouring money into marketing, legal maneuvers to extend patent rights, and government lobbying to prevent any form of price regulation.” (p. xix)
In 2002, of the 78 drugs approved by the FDA, only 17 contained new active ingredients and only 7 were classified as improvements over their older versions. Consequently, trouble may be looming for PhRMA. Some of the top-selling drugs, representing combined sales of some $35 billion a year, are scheduled to go off patent within a few years of each other.
Pharmaceuticals also extend the life of a blockbuster drug that is going off patent by creating another drug just different enough to qualify for a new patent and then shifting users to the new drug. AstraZenaca’s Nexium, a revamped version of the company’s older drug, Prilosec, is a case in point. Shortly before the patent for Prilosec was set to expire, the FDA approved Nexium, which became the most heavily advertised drug in the US. “Today’s purple pill is Nexium, from the makers of Prilosec,” became a well-aired sound bite. After Nexium sales outstripped Prilosec’s, the latter became a non-prescription drug, selling for a fraction of Nexium’s cost.
The market for existing drugs is also expanded by redefining what constitutes medical need or illness. For example, the cutoff for high cholesterol has been lowered over the years, from more than 280 milligrams per deciliter to 240 and now to below 200. Although many doctors will recommend diet and exercise to achieve that level, it may be easier for the patient to take a prescription. The expansion of the definition increases the demand for medication by millions of customers. The cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor was the top-selling drug in the world in 2002, followed by its competitor Zocor. Similar processes are at work with remedies for other ailments, such as hypertension.
Shortage of life-saving drugs
While me-too, or copycat, drugs flood the market—proliferating in many cases because of an industry-created demand—there are growing shortages for life-saving medicines, as companies try to free production capacity for drugs with bigger market potential. Angell reports that in 2001 there were serious shortages of drugs to treat premature infants, antidotes for certain drug overdoses, and an anti-clotting drug for hemophilia, as well as drugs used for cardiac resuscitation and gonorrhea and vaccines against flu and pneumonia, among other much-needed remedies. This season’s flu vaccine shortage in the US imperiled thousands of high-risk sections of the population, including the elderly, children, pregnant women and those with chronic and life-threatening diseases such as cancer.
The situation is particularly stark in relation to the development of drugs for life-threatening diseases common in underdeveloped countries. In contrast to the cornucopia of drugs to treat erectile dysfunction, mood disorders, hay fever and heartburn, the pharmaceuticals are largely uninterested in developing drugs to treat widespread tropical diseases like malaria. Under the Clinton administration, the pharmaceuticals vehemently opposed South Africa’s threat to produce or import generic drugs to control its raging HIV/AIDS epidemic. While the Clinton administration was eventually forced to back off from its warning of trade sanctions at the behest of the drug industry, the Bush administration stood alone among 143 World Trade Organization countries in opposing the relaxation of patent protection for HIV/AIDS medicines for Third World countries.
Marketing a drug
Angell cites some of the more egregious examples of direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising. DTC was made legal in 1981 and extended in 1997 by allowing that only major side effects and contraindications had to be included in the media ads. The sky was then the limit: GlaxoSmithKline and its co-marketer Bayer signed a deal with the National Football League to promote Levitra, the me-too erectile dysfunction competitor of Viagra. Angell quips: “In fact, to watch the 2004 Super Bowl was to wonder whether football causes erectile dysfunction.” (p. 116) Pfizer, the maker of Viagra, then phased out its old and tired promoter Bob Dole in favor of baseball star Rafael Palmeiro. The company also sponsors a Viagra car on the NASCAR circuit.
The explosion of drug ads in the 1990s coincided with the transition of many Americans to HMO-type health plans that covered the cost of prescription drugs. Researchers from Dartmouth Medical School found, among other things, that two out of five ads attempted to medicalize ordinary life issues. (“Routine hair loss or a runny nose, for example, became a medical problem requiring treatment with expensive prescription drugs.” p. 154) Not only was advertising a boon for the drug industry, but it has also become the financial staple of many media outlets; most medical journals are also dependent on drug ads for survival. DTC ads are prohibited in every other advanced capitalist country except New Zealand.
Angell asks: “If prescription drugs are so good why do they have to be pushed so hard?... Important new drugs require very little marketing. Me-too drugs, by contrast, require relentless flogging, because companies need to persuade doctors and the public that there is some reason to prescribe one instead of another.” (p. 133) Or perhaps instead of a far-cheaper, over-the-counter drug with equal or better benefits.
Big advertising agencies have become involved in the PhRMA direct-to-consumer advertising bonanza. Madison Avenue giants such as Omnicom, WPP and Interpublic are cashing in. Omnicom owns a medical education and communication company that ghostwrote the articles that turned Neurontin, a drug originally approved for a very limited use affecting only around 250,000 people, into a blockbuster taken by millions. This was accomplished by marketing the drug for unapproved (“off-label”) uses. Angell notes that such practices are “illegal.”
Covering all bases, the pharmaceutical companies also fund a major portion of the costs of continuing medical education for physicians. They financially endow the meetings of professional organizations, such as the American College of Cardiology and the American Society of Hematology, where much of the continuing education for doctors takes place. This is combined with the $11 billion worth of “free samples” the drug companies gave doctors in 2001.
Marketing a disease
“Marketing a disease is the best way to market a drug,” notes the well-known breast cancer expert, Dr. Susan Love. Abramson quotes Love in Overdosed America in regard to the marketing of Premarin, a hormone replacement therapy (HRT) drug. In an attempt to overcome bad publicity that linked the drug to cancer in 1975, Premarin was rehabilitated as a drug to prevent osteoporosis. With the help of the National Osteoporosis Foundation and a New England Journal of Medicine report on the positive effects of estrogen on heart disease, Premarin sales in 1992 once again soared to their 1975 levels. One out of five postmenopausal women in the US was taking hormones. Premarin use increased another 40 percent over the next three years and in 1995 became the most frequently prescribed brand-name drug in the US.
In 1998, the results of the first randomized controlled clinical trial of HRT were published, establishing that HRT increased women’s risk of heart disease by 50 percent. Despite this, Premarin was still the third most frequently prescribed drug in the country. Premarin’s demise came with the well-publicized Million Women Study in 2003.
Abramson writes: “Twenty million American women have taken HRT not only to relieve symptoms such as hot flashes and vaginal dryness but also believing that hormones would protect their hearts, decrease Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, prevent tooth loss and diabetes, strengthen their bones, preserve sexual function and urinary continence, improve the quality of their lives, and increase their longevity. The women who took HRT had access to the best care that American medicine had to offer: Compared with the population at large, they were more likely to have graduated from college, were wealthier, and were more likely to have received preventative care. Despite this, they unwittingly exposed themselves to increased risks of breast cancer, heart attack, stroke, Alzheimer’s disease and blood clots.” (pp. 70-71)
Related to this development is the marketing of drugs for osteoporosis—a disease whose risks were largely unknown until the HRT educational campaign was initiated in 1982. Drugs such as Fosamax and Actonel became approved by the FDA. However, a 2001 study in NEJM showed that even women with severe osteoporosis derived only small benefit from these drugs. Although these drugs increase the score on bone-density tests, they do not necessarily contribute proportionately to fracture resistance. This is because the new bone, as a result of taking the osteoporosis drugs, is formed primarily on the cortical bone—the outer part of the bone. Neither drug affects the locations of the body that have an internal structure of trabecular bone, bone that provides additional strength in areas of the skeleton most vulnerable to fracture, such as hips, wrists and spine.
“In the final analysis,” argues Abramson, “the ‘disease’ of age-related osteoporosis is not a disease at all, but the quintessential example of successful ‘disease mongering.’ The drug industry has succeeded in planting the fear that bones will suddenly and without warning ‘snap’ in women who had naively believed they were healthy.” (p. 219) He further states: “The net effect of drug treatment on the risk of serious illness in the highest risk women? Nothing—except the cost of the drug” (p. 214). Citing the NIH’s Study of Osteoporotic Fractures, the author reveals that regular exercise achieved twice the reduction in hip fractures compared to Fosamax use in women over 65.
One of the most serious risks attendant on the commercialization of medicine, according to both Angell and Abramson, is “polypharmacy,” the taking of several prescriptions at once. Both authors point out that very few drugs have only one side effect. Besides the real possibility of drug interactions, multiple drug taking likely leads to one of the drugs interfering with organ function. It would be extremely difficult to gauge with complete accuracy the implications of all the various side effects—short term and long term—of multiple prescriptions on an individual. Drug testing is generally not slanted to produce such an evaluation. In any event, multiple prescription takers don’t all imbibe the same drug cocktails.
Bush’s prescription drug plan
Drug company lobbyists, doling out tens of millions of dollars, are extremely well connected to both Republicans and Democrats. Drug company influence reaches deep into the Bush administration. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was CEO, president and chairman of G.D. Searle, a major drug firm that merged with Pharmacia and was then bought out by Pfizer. The elder George Bush was on Eli Lilly’s board of directors before becoming president. The 2003 meeting of PhRMA featured Bush the elder, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, former FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan and the chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, Senator George Allen (R-Va.).
Last year, former FDA chief McClellan, brother of White House press secretary Scott McClellan, delivered a speech in Mexico in which he excoriated other advanced countries for regulating drug prices, demanding that the gap between the high costs of drugs in the US and those of other countries be bridged by the latter raising their own drug prices.
“The heavy hand of big pharma is felt at all levels of government. Nothing demonstrates that influence more plainly than the prescription drug benefit added to Medicare in late 2003,” writes Angell in The Truth About the Drug Companies. (p. 193) Described by both authors as a gargantuan bonanza for PhRMA, the Medicare “reform” is dealt with in more detail by Abramson. He notes that not only will the drug plan cost seniors more money (an average Medicare recipient who spent $2,318 out-of-pocket for prescription drugs in 2003 will spend $2,911 in 2007), but the bill also specifically prohibits the federal government from negotiating prices with drug manufacturers. PhRMA also helped defeat an amendment that would have funded research to determine which drugs actually provide safe and effective treatment—a worthwhile endeavor considering that 3 of the top 15 drugs most frequently prescribed for American seniors in 2003 were Celebrex, Vioxx and Fosamax!
While The Truth About the Drug Companies and Overdosed America have their independent areas of focus, there is much overlapping material. The contamination of science and the scientific process is a theme seriously addressed by both Angell and Abramson. Unfortunately, their works confirm that an in-depth analysis does not automatically lead to adequate conclusions.
Angell’s book ends with a whimper not a bang as she promotes the notion that “most of the changes could be achieved with simple congressional legislation.” Although she does mention that the pharmaceutical industry should be “regarded much as a public utility,” demanding that its books be opened, her basic advice is to strengthen the FDA; require that new drugs be compared not just with placebos but with older drugs for the same ailments; curb monopoly marketing rights; and prohibit direct-to-consumer advertising. As is often the case these days with many such powerful exposés, the ensuing recommendations appear as an impotent wish list attached to the faint hope that the powers-that-be can be persuaded to take the moral high ground and eliminate their anti-social excesses.
On a somewhat different note, Abramson correctly states that the failure of the market to serve American’s medical needs is not a “market failure, but a market success.” He adds: “Drug companies earn higher profits when more people use expensive drugs, not when people achieve better health. Doctors and hospitals are paid more for doing more, largely without regard for evidence of improved health outcomes.... Health care providers that deliver high quality, efficient care are financially penalized for not delivering a higher volume of more intensive services, beneficial or not (referred to as the ‘perverse incentive’).” He goes to on to say the “[A]merican politics, science, and health care has created an imbalance between corporate goals and public interest that is no longer self-correcting. In, fact, it was become resistant to correction” (pp. 254-256).
An advocate of universal health care, Abramson pushes for his version of reforming the system. He believes that extending coverage to the uninsured would trigger a demand for accountability from industry and government, thereby resurrecting the medical watchdogs. If Americans would stop thinking that universal health care is “un-American,” then commerce and the state would fall into line.
In fact, extricating medical science from the clutches of the conglomerates is bound up with a far greater social transformation, which requires an attack on the foundations of the present economic system. The present disastrous state of health care in America, which results in tens of thousands dying prematurely each year as the result of a lack of coverage, is the logical outcome of a medical system entirely subordinated to profit. Protest and public awareness will not halt the process, nor will futile appeals to a bought-and-sold Congress.
The only rational solution to the crisis is a socialist program of providing universal, comprehensive medical coverage paid for by the government and turning the giant pharmaceutical firms into public utilities so that they can become the instruments for medical-scientific breakthroughs beneficial to all.
Despite their political limitations, The Truth About the Drug Companies and Overdosed America draw a disturbing picture of the inhuman character of production-for-profit in the medical sphere. The books are an important contribution to exposing the utter incompatibility of the present state of affairs with the health and welfare of the population.

Saturday, November 18, 2006

# 77 Sites To Visit For Serious Health Concerns

There are many more sites, with good information. Be sure to understand all that is shown and written on each site. I use the "" site quite often, to get deeply researched data, you will find good information about cancers and other serious conditions. On a personal note, am more concerned about"quality of life" than on "length of life", and to tie the two together, is the desired goal.

# 76 What Causes Cancer?

Well now, here I go again. Does it pay to advertise, better believe it does. Why, you ask? Why do you buy certain products! Deep down some where in your memory bank, is a message that relates to what was just purchased. The same process applies to all one hears, reads, sees and are told. Now I don't and wont take lightly, all I've heard and read about cancer. Anyone having cancer can be terrified and rightly so. After all didn't you hear or read about how there is no real cure for it, and the nasty thing it did to....... . The way I see it, as long as one holds these kind of thoughts, the more difficult it might be to actually overcome the condition. In other posts , I've mentioned that we are"spirit, soul and body". I feel that all of these parts must be addressed when faced with serious health conditions, that persist. Further feel that the physical, mental and spiritual must be brought into action on things like cancer and other conditions. Can a cancer condition be corrected, my belief is , yes it can.Are people actually correcting these conditions! Can only say, from what I've been finding "online" that there are many and various protocols being used that do just that. Get rid of cancer. Easy, no, doable, yes. One must, first, absolutely, nullify all the terrible things you've heard about cancer conditions. EFT, mentioned in other posts might be a good step in doing so. Prayer is another good step, and no, God is not the cause of your condition. Will keep posting items as time permits, along the lines of correcting cancer conditions. Do all protocols work? I dont have all the answers, but it appears others are having great success in doing so. If any one person can overcome cancer, why not be the second one to do so. When faced with immediate life threathening conditions, an operation is a must, first step, to take. Gain the extra time. Now work on your belief factors. Believe you can overcome the condition and do what you must, but do it because you now believe, it can be done.

Cancer Intro
Cancer Index
Cancer Diagnostic Test
As far as the official medical "party line" goes, the absolute cause of cancer remains unknown, although numerous cancer-causing agents have been identified, from chemicals to viruses. There are a number of theories out there, however, that have a basis in documented fact. There may be many causes, not just one, and many effective avenues of treatment, particularly if anecdotal cases are considered.
Cancer Theories
Dr. Harold Dick, N.D., Naturopathic PioneerDr. Dick theorized that when previously normal cells evolve into cancer cells, it actually becomes an act of survival when the internal environment fails to provide a healthy terrain in which cells are able to eat, breathe and excrete their wastes normally as they go about their necessary functions.He believed that when toxic metabolic wastes (the by-product of normal cell activities) or acquired poisons build up around healthy cells due to enervation, poor blood circulation, faulty eliminations, injury to the tissue, drug suppression of the cleansing process, or whatever other cause, that oxygen and healthy nutrients are thereby cut off from the cell. As well as needing the food and oxygen, the cell must be able to "clean house" or face an increasingly unhealthy environment.His idea was that to survive, the cell must have some means to transform itself and adapt to this hostile terrain, perhaps by reverting back to an earlier stage of development when also cut off from chemical messengers that otherwise control its form and function, and in that embryonic stage of uncontrolled growth it becomes an acid-loving garbage-eating anaerobic organism that consumes its way through the very toxic sludge that would otherwise kill a normal cell. In that manner it could possibly clean up it's own backyard until it came to a more fertile terrain, at which time free oxygen, healthy food, and the chemicals that control its activities would be available from the extracellular fluids, and the cell could de-evolve back into a normal cell.
Of course, that would presume that a healthy terrain could be arrived at before an entire organ or system had lost it's function in the process. If the entire body or even a large enough area becomes an unlivable internal terrain, then it must perish.
Dr. Dick treated many cancer patients, which he divided into two groups: Those who came to his clinic for treatment instead of submitting to "conventional medical treatment" and those who came to him as a last resort after orthodox medicine failed them.
Of the first group, he cured virtually every patient who stuck with the healing process. Of the "terminal" group, his rule of thumb was, "If they can walk through the door on their own, they have a chance. If they come in on a stretcher, probably not, but I can take the pain and mind-numbing drugs away and make death easier."
His diagnostic methods involved blood analysis by observation (he was able to photograph a blood sample with a camera attached to a microscope), the O.G. Carroll Food Intolerance test, which also determines primary tissue (cell) salt deficiencies, Iridology, homeopathic diagnostics, observation of physical symptoms, and any other means he could come up with to diagnose underlying causes of disease.
He then went about fixing the problem with nutritional counseling to establish a nutritional healing diet, nutritional supplements, glandular protomorphogens to heal sick or weakened glands themselves rather than providing hormone replacement which could further damage normal glandular function, herbal medicines for digestion, elimination, detoxification, etc., and herbal salves for different purposes.
Aside from correcting the diet and eliminating often life-threatening food poisons--the most powerful healing agents he had were the in-house therapeutic treatments for "jump-starting" the immune system and blood circulation.
Constitutional hydrotherapy combined with electrotherapy treatments at his clinic involved the scientific application of alternating hot and cold packs to stimulate blood circulation, coupled with electrical current applied over the vital organs of the body (no shocks, it comes from pads hooked up to a machine and feels like a deep, pulsating massage) to rev up the activity of the organs such as liver, kidneys, bladder, etc. had almost miraculous healing affects. He used to say that 15 such treatments could do in 3 weeks what the diet could do in a year. Also, there were times when the body of a sick person simply lacked the vitality to heal itself without these treatments learned from the mentor he interned with, the great Dr. O.G. Carroll.
However, as conventional medicine became increasingly invasive and drug suppression of symptoms more powerful, it began to take more and more treatments to undo the damage done by "orthodox" medicine to those who went there first, and to get the patient well.
He was also a licensed chiropractor who occasionally used manipulation when needed, and a licensed homeopath (considered a medical license in some states) who used homeopathic remedies, particularly in cases where the patient was unable to stay in town for treatment.
All of his treatments were aimed at bringing the patient to a state of "cleansing crisis" (also referred to as "reaction" and "detoxification") when the body is able to throw off it's toxic load and resume normal or improved function with the proper healing and rebuilding materials now provided.
He believed "emotional stress" becomes a non-issue in a healthy body, which possesses the "tools" to handle enormous amounts of stress when followed by periods of recovery, but that unrelieved stress of any kind, including nutritional stress from wrong foods, becomes a different matter and can lead to a loss of nerve energy (enervation) and a resulting state of toxemia, the underlying cause of most diseases.
His cure rate for cancer and other diseases proved anecdotally that he had answers far beyond that provided by so-called modern medicine. As they say, "The proof's in the pudding" and his "pudding" was a rich and nourishing feast to those hungry for healing.
(Anecdotal cures are those that occur on an individual basis without the "scientific" proof of classic double-blind studies to back them up.)
Ingrid Naiman, author of the definitive book an Cancer Salves and it's corresponding website,, researcher, writer, therapist, speaker, and visionary claims to have had a vision or dream of cancer cells explaining themselves as sick, suffering cells surrounded by a killing sludge made of cell wastes and toxins, in need of cleansing ...a mystical version of Dr. Dick's more intellectual vision.
Both opinions are supported in part by a large body of scientific material.
Nitriloside:Vitamin B-17 (Laetrile) Read the trophoblastic/unitarian thesis
Trans-fatty acids--Hydrogenated OilsOne pioneer nutrition scientist in Germany, Dr. Johanna Budwig, has proposed that trans-fatty acids are at the heart of cancerous tumor growth. Dr. Budwig developed new techniques to accurately identify the different fatty components in a mix of biological material. She systematically analyzed thousands of blood samples from sick and healthy people. Blood samples from people suffering from cancer, diabetes, and some liver diseases consistently lacked the EFA cs-linoleic acid and substances which combine with LA: phosphatides, vital to cell membranes, and fatty acid carrying albumin, a type of blood lipoprotein. The blood lipoproteins containing LA plus sulphur-rich proteins were gone. In their place Dr. Budwig found a sickly yellow-green protein substance.
She reasoned that if cancer is a deficiency disease involving a lack of EFA then feeding patients a diet high in EFAs should alleviate some of their problems. When she fed flax oil high in LNA and LA along with sulfur-rich skim milk protein to cancer patients whom traditional cancer therapy had failed the yellow-green pigment slowly disappeared; tumors receded and patients recuperated. It took about three months and during this time symptoms of diabetes and liver disease also disappeared.
Dr. Budwig has used her oil-protein combination therapy to successfully treat cancers of the brain, breast, liver, lymph and stomach; leukemia; melanoma; CVD; diabetes; acne and other skin conditions; weak vision and hearing; dry skin; menstrual problems like cramps and breast pain; glandular atrophy; fatty liver; gall stones; pancreas malfunction; kidney degeneration; immune deficiency; low vitality and many other ailments including arthritic conditions.
Dr. Budwig ran afoul of the FOCs when she discovered that fatty substances in soft tumors contained polymerized fats of marine animal origin. These polymers are formed when highly unsaturated fish and whale oils are heated to very high temperatures. She knew these oils were used to make margarine, a partially hydrogenated fat that cannot be made without high temperatures.
The director of the institute where she worked had financial interests in margarine. He held patents on its manufacture including the hydrogenation processes that produced the toxic polymers she had found in tumors. He was afraid her discoveries would ruin margarine sales. He offered her money and ownership of a drugstore to keep her quiet. Dr. Budwig refused to be bribed, and in her official capacity made public statements warning people of the possible health hazards from consuming margarine.
Access to her laboratory was cut off. She was prevented from using research facilities at other institutes, and she could not get any more of her papers published in the fat research journals. This was astonishing because she had worked in collaboration with several hospitals, plus she held a high government post. It was her official responsibility to monitor the effects of drugs and processed foods on health.
Dr. Budwig courageously fulfilled her public duty in the face of FOC opposition and threats to her career. She left the government position in 1953 and opened the clinic where she has successfully treated cancer patients by nutritional therapy. Because this great woman was blackballed by FOC greed, EFA research has been slowed for over 30 years. Current investigations are merely following in her footsteps.
Cardiovascular disease and cancer are the greatest killers in modern society because we have become obese and malnourished. It's an insane paradox that most of the foods offered in the commercial marketplace ultimately fatten us up while our strength and vitality slowly shrivel and wane.
We eat too much junk food loaded with empty calories from starch, sugar, saturated animal fat and refined vegetable fat. Few would defend the nutritional value of junk foods. They're simply convenient.
A great deal of the foods we eat come from ingredients conveniently available at the supermarket. You buy wheat flour by the five-pound sack. It's refined and bleached white. That means the protein, vitamins and fiber have been refined out of the grain; the starch remains. The human body is built with protein not starch. It can't make disease-fighting antibodies with starch. In fact, you can live without starch or any other carbohydrates including sugar. Excess carbohydrates your body can't burn outright or store as glycogen in the liver are converted into sticky fats that can clog up your arteries. But sugar is delicious and a sweet tooth is fun to feed. If you're health conscious and concerned about what you eat, you have to look long and hard or go somewhere else to find any stone-ground whole-grain flour on the supermarket shelf.
You will have to go on a crusade not unlike the quest for the Holy Grail if you want to find food oils rich in cs-polyunsaturated fatty acids. Food oil companies don't make cold pressed raw vegetable oils because the cs-fatty acids - the EFAs - they contain are too unstable. Our bodies utilize that very instability - that sensitivity to light and oxygen - to enable the energy of life to flow through each of us. The high percentage of trans-polyunsaturated fatty acids in refined vegetable oils dampen the flow-of-life energy through our bodies, causing short circuits and brown-outs that eventually manifest as one or more of the degenerative symptoms of cardiovascular disease and cancer.
When I contacted Procter and Gamble to ask about the nutritional value and chemical content of the food oils and shortenings they manufacture, my call was immediately transferred to product nutrition information. However, the spokesperson was unable to answer any questions about the essential fatty acid content of their food oil products. Instead she offered to send me the free Procter & Gamble official product nutrition brochure.
Procter & Gamble's "Helpful Guide to Understanding Dietary Fats" says polyunsaturated fats are "Fatty acids with two or more double bonds, such as the essential fatty acids linoleic and alpha-linolenic acids. Previous studies showed that polyunsaturates can have the beneficial effect of lowering serum cholesterol. Recent studies suggest that moderation in consumption of polyunsaturates is desirable."
Proctor & Gamble recognizes that LA and LNA are essential fatty acids, yet they make no distinction between EFAs and trans-polyunsaturates in their fats and oils products. Instead they divide fat and oil content into three categories: polyunsaturated, monounsaturated and saturated. They downplay the issue by suggesting moderation. Of course, common sense says moderation is desirable when consuming any food. But trans-fatty acids are not food; they're artificially-altered unnatural vegetable fats and oils.
Like the tobacco companies, the FOC nutrition think tanks are very guarded when it comes to questions about the health value of their products.
I contacted the FDA to see if the government could shed some light on the nutritional value of vegetable oils. John Wallingford from the FDA's clinical nutrition division said the FDA has established no minimum daily requirements for LA and LNA. When I asked if the FDA considered LA and LNA to be essential to human nutrition, he replied by stating the FDA does not take a position on whether one type of food is essential to the diet, but prefers to consider nutritional value from the standpoint of a balanced diet.
"Is the FDA aware of the electro-chemical difference between the cs- and trans- forms of LA and LNA?"
"Yes," he answered, and went on to say FDA clinical nutrition scientists had completed extensive analysis of the European research papers on fatty acid value to human health.
"And what did they find?"
"The results were inconclusive."
Dr. Budwig's clinical reports and research papers are published in German. Europeans are way ahead of the US in realizing that bigger is not always better. They're turning away from the unnatural trans-polyunsaturates refined by the FOCs. The flax oil cottage industry in Europe is making a big comeback using the old cold press methods that make fresh, unrefined, nutritious oils. This trend is slow in coming to the US because most of the European studies haven't
been published in English. Our ignorance is fading now, and the FOCs are worried after seeing European trends in food oil consumption change, adversely affecting refined oil sales.
The energy of life is in the whole seed. And we should eat more whole seeds to insure we get enough essential amino acids and essential fatty acids, to build strong bodies and immune systems, and to maintain vitality and health. You can get the most of both by adding hempseed to your diet.
The amino acids in hempseed are complete and easy to digest. The EFAs in hempseed are in the optimum ratio for human nutrition, two-and-one-half parts LA to one part LNA. Hempseed can abundantly supply the human body with these essential nutrients. And the seed's outer shell safely protects the vital oils and vitamins within from spoilage. It's a perfect food in a perfectly edible container.
Ground hempseed has a taste similar to peanut butter only more delicate. And even more wholesome foods are being created from it by the new George Washington Carvers of hempseed, who like the original, work quietly out of the way, getting no respect from conventional wisdom. here
X-Ray Link to Cancer--A Compelling Reason Why John Gofman is Correct in Identifying Medical X-rays as a Major Cause of Cancer: More on X-ray page.
Disease-Causing Mental States"Studies of people with serious illnesses, including cancer, reveal that the state of a person’s mind and spirit can make him or her more or less susceptible to illness, from the common cold to severe systemic diseases. Even more, German New Medicine theory claims that emotional trauma of different kinds translate directly into corresponding disease conditions, cancer in
Blood Tranfusion Link to CancerDr. William Kelly, who successfully treated thousands of cancer patients, spoke to Doctor Friedman and Doctor Burton from the Immunological Center in Great Neck, New York, which conducts much sophisticated research into cancer. Dr. Burton believes, as several religious groups do, that one of the major causes of cancer today is blood transfusions.
Dr. Burton says it works something like this...
"A tumor, in its natural drive to sustain its own life, secretes compounds, called blocking factors, which prevent the body‘s natural defense system from destroying it. He warns that blood from supposedly normal, healthy people often shows a higher level of blocking factor than known cancer patients.
On one hand, this further substantiates my data that many people have undiagnosed cancer. On the other, when you give a transfusion, you pass on the blood donor‘s blocking factors. This can suppress the recipient‘s own immune system sufficiently to allow a tumor to develop. Then, this new tumor, in turn, secretes its own blocking factor, which inhibits the immune system further.
So, while cancer is not contagious, its blocking factors can be transmitted. In this way, a blood transfusion may destroy your resistance to cancer."--from an interview between researcher Sam Bizer and Dr. Kelly
Diabetes: Cancer Precursor?(Also, some unrecognized signs signaling the beginning of or presence of diabetes)A summary of an interview between researcher Sam Biser and the legendary Dr. Paul Eck, whose Analytical Research Laboratories (ARL) set the stage for all of the mineral analysis labs since then. (My family has used this lab, and the results were amazing!--DJT)
According to Dr. Eck, diabetes is a precursor to cancer because they are both associated with anaerobic metabolism, which is a type of metabolism that occurs without oxygen. Aerobic metabolism is "oxidative metabolism" which requires oxygen to be completed. He claims that our bodies use both kinds, depending on what is being digested.
He explains that sugar is burned by anaerobic metabolism in a process called glycosis, which doesn't require oxygen for energy to be produced. On the other hand, he says that proteins and fats require oxidative metabolism."Anaerobic metabolism is a more primitive form of metabolism than oxidative metabolism. Cancer cells are anaerobic. So are the cells of candida, a yeast infestation closely associated with diabetes."--
Dr. Paul Eck The Sugar Connection (coming soon)
Nobel Prize Otto W.--anaerobic cancer cells
Dr. Weston A. Price--"The Charles Darwin of Nutrition"Vilhjalmur Stefansson--
Cancer: Disease of Civilization
Dr. Jordan S. Rubin--The Maker's Diet
Dr. D'Adamo--Blood Type Diets
Dr. Joel D. Wallach--Impoverished soils/mineral deficiencies
Dr. Hulda Clark--the microbe connections...more

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

# 74 Myths & Truths about Soy

Home>Basics>Myths & Truths>About Soy

Read this article in: Danish Dutch French German Japanese Russian Spanish

Myths & Truths About Soy

Myth: Use of soy as a food dates back many thousands of years.
Truth: Soy was first used as a food during the late Chou dynasty (1134-246 BC), only after the Chinese learned to ferment soy beans to make foods like tempeh, natto and tamari.

Myth: Asians consume large amounts of soy foods.
Truth: Average consumption of soy foods in Japan and China is 10 grams (about 2 teaspoons) per day. Asians consume soy foods in small amounts as a condiment, and not as a replacement for animal foods.

Myth: Modern soy foods confer the same health benefits as traditionally fermented soy foods.
Truth: Most modern soy foods are not fermented to neutralize toxins in soybeans, and are processed in a way that denatures proteins and increases levels of carcinogens.

Myth: Soy foods provide complete protein.
Truth: Like all legumes, soy beans are deficient in sulfur-containing amino acids methionine and cystine. In addition, modern processing denatures fragile lysine.

Myth: Fermented soy foods can provide vitamin B12 in vegetarian diets.
Truth: The compound that resembles vitamin B12 in soy cannot be used by the human body; in fact, soy foods cause the body to require more B12

Myth: Soy formula is safe for infants.
Truth: Soy foods contain trypsin inhibitors that inhibit protein digestion and affect pancreatic function. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors led to stunted growth and pancreatic disorders. Soy foods increase the body's requirement for vitamin D, needed for strong bones and normal growth. Phytic acid in soy foods results in reduced bioavailabilty of iron and zinc which are required for the health and development of the brain and nervous system. Soy also lacks cholesterol, likewise essential for the development of the brain and nervous system. Megadoses of phytoestrogens in soy formula have been implicated in the current trend toward increasingly premature sexual development in girls and delayed or retarded sexual development in boys.

Myth: Soy foods can prevent osteoporosis.
Truth: Soy foods can cause deficiencies in calcium and vitamin D, both needed for healthy bones. Calcium from bone broths and vitamin D from seafood, lard and organ meats prevent osteoporosis in Asian countries—not soy foods.

Myth: Modern soy foods protect against many types of cancer.
Truth: A British government report concluded that there is little evidence that soy foods protect against breast cancer or any other forms of cancer. In fact, soy foods may result in an increased risk of cancer.

Myth: Soy foods protect against heart disease.
Truth: In some people, consumption of soy foods will lower cholesterol, but there is no evidence that lowering cholesterol improves one's risk of having heart disease.

Myth: Soy estrogens (isoflavones) are good for you.
Truth: Soy isoflavones are phyto-endocrine disrupters. At dietary levels, they can prevent ovulation and stimulate the growth of cancer cells. Eating as little as 30 grams (about 4 tablespoons) of soy per day can result in hypothyroidism with symptoms of lethargy, constipation, weight gain and fatigue.

Myth: Soy foods are safe and beneficial for women to use in their postmenopausal years.
Truth: Soy foods can stimulate the growth of estrogen-dependent tumors and cause thyroid problems. Low thyroid function is associated with difficulties in menopause.

Myth: Phytoestrogens in soy foods can enhance mental ability.
Truth: A recent study found that women with the highest levels of estrogen in their blood had the lowest levels of cognitive function; In Japanese Americans tofu consumption in mid-life is associated with the occurrence of Alzheimer's disease in later life.

Myth: Soy isoflavones and soy protein isolate have GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status.
Truth: Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) recently withdrew its application to the FDA for GRAS status for soy isoflavones following an outpouring of protest from the scientific community. The FDA never approved GRAS status for soy protein isolate because of concern regarding the presence of toxins and carcinogens in processed soy.

Myth: Soy foods are good for your sex life.
Truth: Numerous animal studies show that soy foods cause infertility in animals. Soy consumption enhances hair growth in middle-aged men, indicating lowered testosterone levels. Japanese housewives feed tofu to their husbands frequently when they want to reduce his virility.

Myth: Soy beans are good for the environment.
Truth: Most soy beans grown in the US are genetically engineered to allow farmers to use large amounts of herbicides.

Myth: Soy beans are good for developing nations.
Truth: In third world countries, soybeans replace traditional crops and transfer the value-added of processing from the local population to multinational corporations.

These Myths & Truths as well as our summary of soy dangers are provided on our Soy Alert! trifold brochure. You may print this PDF at home for mass distribution. If you wish, you can order quantities of professionally printed trifold brochures for a suggested donation of 25 cents each by using the Order Form.
Click here to become a member of the Foundation and receive our quarterly journal, full of informative articles as well as sources of healthy food.
Copyright Notice: The material on this site is copyrighted by the Weston A. Price Foundation. Please contact the Foundation for permission if you wish to use the material for any purpose. Disclaimer: The information published herein is not intended to be used as a substitute for appropriate care by a qualified health practitioner.
The Weston A. Price Foundation PMB 106-380, 4200 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Washington DC 20016Phone: (202) 363-4394 Fax: (202) 363-4396 Web: General Information/Membership/Brochures: info@westonaprice.orgLocal Chapters and Chapter Leaders: chapters@westonaprice.orgWebsite:
This page was posted on 01 JAN 2000.
<Back Home Tour Calendar Contact Us Funding Join Now

Saturday, November 11, 2006

# 73 Confused Soy Enthusiast: So Who Is Correct!

Have read the book " The While Soy Story" it is a hard read, showing detailed research that has taken place on soy use. It did convince me to that point, where I now try to avoid products laced with soy. Dr Kaala Daniel's book does point out that under certain conditions , soy, may with more research, and at some future date, be used in medicine. But not yet. If you or family have health problems, and no doctoring seems to help, check out what is being said in this informative book, on many health conditions related to soy use.
The following was on Dr Mercola's web site:
Rebuttal to Seriously Confused Soy Enthusiast
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
This below inflammatory letter has been circulating the Internet attempting to discredit the research on the harmful effects of soy completed by Dr. Russell Blaylock and myself.
In his book, 'Prescription for Nutritional Healing," Dr. James Balch says this about glutamic acid, one of 28 amino acids:
"L-Glutamic Acid (or glutamate) increases firing of neurons in the nervous system. It metabolizes sugars and fats, and detoxifies ammonia when used with L-glutamine. This amino acid also helps correct personality disorders. Besides glucose, glutamic acid is the only compound used for brain fuel. The brain converts glutamic acid to a compound that regulates brain cell activity."
Some misinformants claim that soy is dangerous because it contains glutamic acid. The doctor putting out the greatest amount of disinformation on that subject is Russell Blaylock, author of "Excitotoxins." Dr. Blaylock is right on about his criticism of Aspartame, the artificial sweetener. Aspartame (Nutrapoison) has three components: Phenylalanine, Methanol, and Aspartic Acid. Blaylock (and other poorly informed physicians like him, including Mercola) believe that aspartic acid is poison. What ignorance. Both Mercola and Blaylock are meat-eating dairy-consuming ignoramuses. That is their choice, of course, but their obligation, having taken the Hippocratic oath, is to disseminate truth, not lies. To eat chicken and not tofu because of the glutamic acid "threat" is to consume nearly six times the amount of glutamic acid. To Dr. Blaylock: Knock, knock. Wake up and climb upon the bandwagon of truth. Having done research to determine the level of glutamic acid in various portions of food, let me share the facts with you.
One portion (100 grams) of human breast milk contains 0.17 grams of glutamic acid. Just for the record, a 100-gram portion of soymilk contains almost four times the amount of glutamic acid as does breast milk, 0.64 grams.
Both Blaylock and Mercola label soymilk as being dangerous because of that relatively high amount of glutamic acid. Take note that a 100-gram portion of tofu (Mori-nu silken soft) contains 0.80 grams of glutamic acid. Both Blaylock and Mercola are cheeseheads, and continue to eat large amounts of fish and chicken. If their claim that soymilk is bad because it contains four times the amount of glutamic acid as does human breast milk, conclude what you will about their advice after reading the amounts of glutamic acid in hundred-gram portions of animal products:
human milk = 0.17 gramssoy milk = 0.64 grams (3.8 times that of human milk)soft tofu = 0.80 grams (4.7 times human milk)broiled salmon = 3.23 grams (19 times)broiled steak = 3.35 grams (19.7 times)broiled chicken (white meat) = 4.63 grams (27.2 times)cheddar cheese = 6.09 grams (35.8 times)
One might assume that the brains of men like Dr. Blaylock and Dr. Mercola not have been compromised by internal secretions of aspartic acid. Instead, it is clear that these two poorly informed physicians have neurons and synapses ovedosed by copious amounts of assanine acid.
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Below is the response Dr. Blaylock formulated addressed to the misinformed newsletter editor who made these false claims and accusations.
I must say your slanderous rantings are that of a 3-year old having a temper tantrum, not a reasoned discussion of the issues involved. You portray yourself as a "scientist," but I fail to see your credentials posted.
I am a board-certified neurosurgeon, retired clinical assistant professor of neurosurgey, visiting professor of biology at Belhaven College and
have written over 30 papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I serve on the editorial board of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons and the Journal of the American Nutriceutical Association. My recent papers on the connection between excitotoxicity and fluoride neurotoxiocity, and autism and the Gulf War Syndrome have received praise from leading authorities in each of these areas of research. I am the co-developer of one of the most commonly used methods for removal of intraventricular meningiomas, for which I am given credit in all major neurosurgical texts, along with my mentor Ludwig G, Kempe, one of the most famous names in neurosurgery.
I have written three chapters in three medical textbooks as well as three nutrition books for the lay public, one of which you quoted, citing me as an expert in the field. I also do extensive study in the field of excitotoxicity. Since you are now in the business of selling soy products and a soy-milk making machine, I can understand your concern for your financial future. That has nothing to do with science. If your reading public wants an excellent review of the dangers of soy I suggest they read Dr. Kaayla Daniel's newly released book- The Whole Soy Story.
Your rambling defense of soy safety falls far short of science for a number of reasons. Aspartic acid, which is a naturally occurring amino acid, that, despite your statement that it is an essential amino acid, is not. It can be synthesized from oxaloacetate and glutamate via transamination. What you and many of the defenders of excitatory amino acid safety cannot seem to understand, or refuse to understand, is that free amino acids act differently than those occurring in whole foods.
Digestion breaks most proteins into amino acids only at a very slow rate. I quote Guyton's Textbook of Medical Physiology, page 794, "As a result the normal rate of absorption... (amino acid absorption is determined) by the rate at which they can be released from the proteins during digestion. For these reasons, essentially no free amino acids can be
found in the intestine during digestion."
How Soy is Broken Down in the Body
When soybeans are processed, the excitotoxic amino acids (glutamate and aspartate) are not only released, they are concentrated. This is especially so in soy protein isolates and soy protein concentrates-which are used in soy milk. This means that your figures on the glutamic and aspartic acid contents is much lower than in fact exist in your product.
Olney and others have shown that human blood levels of glutamate increase as much as 20 times on glutamate loading with concentrations found in such hydrolyzed proteins. These high blood levels are transferred into the human brain, especially under certain circumstances. Even in the completely normal brain, glutamate, asparate and other excitotoxins can enter the brain via the circumventricular organs, which includes the hypothalamus. As you certainly know, or should know, one of the most sensitive structures in the brain is the arcuate nucleus. It is easily destroyed by levels of glutamate found in hydrolyzed proteins and this has been proven in laboratory studies.
It is also known that the blood-brain barrier contains glutamate receptors and that free glutamate at these concentrations, can open the barrier, allowing these high levels of glutamate to freely enter the brain.
It is also known that a multitude of conditions open the barrier, including strokes (both gross and silent), brain injury, brain tumors, certain pesticides, mercury, lead, autoimmune disorders (lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, etc), radiofrequency radiation (cell phones), seizures, multiple sclerosis and infections. Anyone with these conditions should avoid products that contain high levels of excitotoxins, such as hydrolyzed soy products. This constitutes a large percentage of the population.
Soy Cautions for Pregnant Women and Brain Development of Small Children
In addition, pregnant women should avoid such excitotoxin-containing products, since the placenta concentrates the glutamate, exposing the baby to much higher levels of glutamate than the mother. This has been proven. It has also been proven, that the baby's brain is 5 times more sensitive to excitotoxin exposure than is the adult brain and that humans are 4 times more sensitive than the next most sensitive animal species. And this is under the best of conditions.
It has been shown that inflammation dramatically increases the toxicity of excitotoxins on the brain, especially in small children. This means that any inflammatory condition, virus, bacterial infection or immune disorder, will increase a person's and especially a baby's risk of injury. Since the human baby's brain undergoes its most rapid growth and development from the last trimester of pregnancy through the first two years of life, it is most at risk from food-based excitotoxins, such as hydrolyzed soy.
A number of recent studies have shown that excess glutamate exposure during this period of "brain growth spurt" can alter the development of the child's brain, especially neuroendocrine, cognitive, behavioral and language functions.
Soy and its Link to the Growing Obesity Epidemic
I am sure many of your readers are not aware that one of the earliest findings during glutamate research was that newborn animals fed glutamate developed gross obesity. This has been repeated numerous times and is used in obesity studies. An international panel of neuroscientists cited this as a possible reason for the obesity epidemic in the developed world. With the dramatic increase in glutamate food additives and consumption of soy products, especially soy based formula and soy milk by babies and small children, it is no wonder we are seeing this epidemic of childhood gross obesity and diabetes. Experimentally, glutamate exposure in these same doses can induce diabetes in animals.
Experiments have also shown that early exposure to glutamate can
alter-permanently-the baby's vascular reactivity. This would have major implications in cardiovascular disease. Likewise, early exposure to
higher levels of glutamate, equal to that of food-based excitotoxins, results in behavioral problems, endocrine disruption, increased susceptibility to seizures early in life and alterations in lipid profiles that increase the likelihood of cardiovascular disease later in life. In fact, newer studies have shown that elevated blood glutamate significantly increases free radical generation in the endothelial lining of blood vessels-the very mechanism that causes atherosclerosis.
Recent research has also shown that many tissues and organs in the
body contain glutamate receptors and that overstimulation of these receptors can cause a number of clinical problems. For example, glutamate receptor stimulation of pulmonary tissues can result in bronchiospasm (as in asthma) and worsening of pulmonary function in those with lung diseases. The heart muscle and heart conduction system (AV and SA nodes) also contain numerous glutamate receptors.
As I pointed out, the pancreas (ilets of Langerhans) also contains abundant glutamate receptors, and explains the resulting diabetes.
Other Reasons to Avoid Soy--The Soy/Chronic Disease Connection
Even more frightening is the recent discovery that glutamate greatly enhances the growth of a number of cancers--especially brain cancers, such as the glioblastoma and malignant astrocytoma. Breast, lung and ovarian cancers have also been shown to spread and metastasize faster when glutamate levels are elevated. This has been proven, and is beyond dispute. We know that under certain conditions, glutamate toxicity is greatly increased, which includes low magnesium levels, deficient mitochondrial energy production such as hypoglycemia, mitochondrial disease, during aging, with all of the neurodegenerative disease
(Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and ALS and most chronic diseases), during inflammation and when associated with other toxins-including mercury, lead, cadmium, aluminum, pesticides, fluoride and industrial chemicals. This would include tens of millions of Americans, who should be avoiding soy products. While there is a lot more concerning excitotoxins, which can be found in my two books-Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills and Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life, unfortunately, there is a lot more involved than just excitotoxins. Soybeans and especially their hydrolyzed and processed products, contain high levels of manganese, aluminum and fluoride-all of which are powerful cell toxins, especially for brain cells.
Recent studies have shown that when aluminum is combined with fluoride, which occurs very easily, brain levels of aluminum are doubled. Extensive research connects aluminum in the brain with most of the neurodegenerative diseases. When hydrolyzed as in soy milk, the fluoride and aluminum easily bind, forming neurotoxic fluoroaluminum compounds. The concentration at which this occurs in 0.5 ppm, a very small concentration. Fluoroaluminum compounds interact with G-proteins, which are common cell communication systems, especially in the brain and operate most of the glutamanergic receptors in the brain (glutamate receptors).
A Critical Study of Soy and its Effects on Brain Development
I would call attention to a most important study reported in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition in the year 2000. It describes a
25-year study of middle-aged individuals consuming a diet containing tofu, which found a strong association with brain atrophy and cognitive impairment and the consumption of this soy product. Brain atrophy was determined by MRI scans. In fact, low brain weight was seen in 12 percent of men consuming the lowest amount of tofu and 40 percent consuming the highest amount. This indicates a dose-response effect, making a stronger case of neurotoxicity.
I can go on forever with research and studies showing a significant danger of consuming large amounts of soy products, especially soy milk, but I have other things to do-like research processed food toxicology.
I would hope that this misinformed editor would in the future refrain from his temper tantrums and childish, slanderous name-calling. Neither I nor Dr. Mercola are idiots, morons or suffering from delusions. What we are not doing is making money selling soy products. I expect this response to appear on your Web site.
Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.
Related Articles:
Soy: Is it Healthy or is it Harmful?
Soy No Help to Women With Heart Disease Prevention
Soy Formula May Stunt the Intestinal Growth in Your Baby
Soy Sales Slow for First Time Since 2001

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

# 72 Glioblastoma and Your Future

Will post further info in the near future. So until that happens check out the survivor list blow. While this condition ( glioblastoma ) is some very serious stuff, there is hope for you. Not everyone believes so. As I further research it out, will get back here to put in updates.

11-22-06 update
Have added comments in my other posts, related to cancers. Will admit though, that hearing about this type, really shook me up. But as mentioned in the other posts, its all doable in correcting. Have added another site that has encouraging data in correcting the cancer / tumor conditions , and are listed below.

11-25-06 update
Author of this book was operated on in 1995, tells of how he did it.
Full book version
Short version

Related information

Updated 12 - 13 - 2006 - added another source.