Rather Be Healthy

I’ll clarify that statement, there are lots of good chelators but only one way of truly establishing the mercury level.

Mercury in the blood…
I feel that this is a topic very much underestimated, your blood basically is the main provider of nutrition in your body, and everything you eat is hopefully assimilated and processed by the liver and gallbladder, then distributed throughout the body by the blood.
Your blood is a little like the earth, you can plant a flower, shrub or weed in it, it can be good or bad but your blood doesn’t have an opinion, it won’t say if it is good for you or not. Whatever you put in will be fertilized and grow. So irrespective of it tasting good, it might not be good for you which means it will create either an instant or long term problem.
Amalgam fillings, although my seem good, they may feel good initially because the dentist has corrected a problem with a dental cavity, is the primary provider of mercury in the body. Fish or any food from the ocean/sea is the second biggest.
Over time, and it maybe months or even years you notice health problems, allergies, brain fog, headaches or something far more serious. You might read about mercury or someone may mention it, but the chances are you will dismiss the idea of a mercury filling as being the reason for your health problem.
After seeing you doctor and dentist who have assured you that the mercury cannot escape (big lie) and you’ve tried OTC med’s, you talk to a Naturopath or some other alternative health practitioner who recommends a product that will do the job.
In the manufacturers research they had seen drops in mercury levels so high it was truly amazing, almost unbelievable!! Well actually it was unbelievable, because it never happened.
You see mercury doesn’t actually show up in the blood per se, what happens is this.. When your immune system sees something that isn’t supposed to be there, it will go into attack it. As mercury enters your blood stream from your amalgam fillings, it attaches to a blood cell, which changes the way it looks. Your immune system now sees a strange looking cell, a non self cell, a Hapten. It starts the process of elimination; I mean that’s what it’s supposed to do, protect you from invaders.
Sadly mercury is indestructible to anything in the body so what then takes place is this. The Globulin which went in to attack is rendered totally ineffective and the mercury now has a hiding place, unseen.
You have another blood test and the mercury doesn’t show up, so you and the manufacturer of the product you’ve taken are happy, that is until you notice that your condition hasn’t improved.
To my knowledge there is only one way of actually seeing how much mercury is in your blood, and that is done through a methyl mercury test. Methyl mercury is a vapor at times, clever little thing, morphing between a vapor and solid. The methyl mercury test is done only by Quicksilver Scientific of Boulder, Colorado.
Reach Dr Chris Shade at 303 263 6903 or [email protected]

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

My book “Dentistry and how it’s damaging your health” is available here for only $2.99

By Dr. Mercola

The debate over the dangers of fluoride has been ongoing for more than six decades. Study after study shows that fluoride is a dangerous, toxic poison that is ineffective at preventing dental decay.

Yet, even while it’s being dumped every day into U.S. municipal water systems, health officials that should know better are flooding the media with lies and propaganda singing the praises of fluoridation.

The video above exposes the zealous fluoridation promoters, their hidden agendas, and the harms that have come to people who have no choice in whether fluoride is added to their drinking water.

Top 10 Health Achievements of the 20th Century?

The following statement is often spouted as “proof” that water fluoridation is a panacea for oral health, but really it is an overused piece of propaganda:

“The CDC has stated that fluoridation is one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century.”

The information behind this quote comes from 1999 issue of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), which includes fluoridation in a list of “Ten Great Public Health Achievements―1900-1999.”

The contents of MMWR are published entirely by staff of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC); it is often called “the voice of CDC.” None of the information it contains has been independently peer-reviewed, and MMWR does not publish any article or research that runs counter to CDC policy or positions.

The CDC is unabashed in their support for water fluoridation, even though their support is at odds with a now very large body of scientific evidence detailing the profound and detrimental impact of fluoride on multiple biological functions.

And in the case of the statement above, which is often used as authoritative “proof” that fluoride is to drinking water what gold is to the economy, it comes from material written by a dentist who had not published any papers on fluoride before, and an economist. Neither of them had any credentials in toxicology, which is what is required to accurately assess the dangers of this poison. It’s not surprising, though, considering the CDC’s water fluoridation stance has been controlled by dentists for over 35 years …

CDC’s Support for Water Fluoridation Based on Flimsy, Insufficient Data

Last April, the CDC responded to an FOIA request asking for the names and job descriptions of all parties at the CDC who have had input into the agency’s decision to support water fluoridation.i

As it turns out, ever since the mid-1970s, when fluoridation activities transferred from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to the CDC under the directorship of William Bock, dental health professionals have been the sole body of experts directing the agency’s stance on water fluoridation. Glaringly absent from this list are … well, any health expert outside the Oral Health Division. Apparently, no toxicologist has ever been directly involved in the decision process, nor any minority health professionals, or experts on internal medicine or diabetes, for example.

This flies in the face of what the agency claims, and what water-, health- and political leaders have believed about the way the CDC operates. Without these additional experts from other fields, can we reasonably believe that the agency has properly assessed the research on whole-body harm from fluoridation?

While the CDC officially claims that “extensive research conducted over the past 60 years has shown that fluoridation of public water supplies is safe and effective for all community residents,”ii this claim appears to have the flimsiest of foundations.

According to a 2006 report from the National Research Council,iii extensive amounts of research are inconclusive, or still missing and need to be conducted to evaluate the whole-body impact of fluoride …

Not only that, but their scientific review also identified research suggesting a variety of harmful effects, from skeletal fluorosis, bone fractures, and, potentially, even cancer. With that in mind, how can the CDC claim that “extensive research” has concluded water fluoridation is safe for ALL community residents, without differentiation between infants and adults, the sick or the healthy? Not to mention, how can the CDC accurately claim that water fluoridation is one of the top public health achievements of the last century?

Water Fluoridation Blamed on Communist Conspiracy

The other widely used propaganda piece noted in the video is from Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 film Dr. Strangelove. In the film, General Jack D. Ripper tries to stop a Communist conspiracy to harm Americans with fluoridated water, and at one point states:

“Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?”

Of course, water fluoridation was not a communist plot — it was started by the U.S. Public Health Service. But the film pokes fun at the John Birch Society, an extreme right wing group that happened to be anti-fluoridation. So, of course, anyone at the time who dared speak out against fluoridation was also ruled to be a fanatic, a radical or just a lunatic – even when they could point to legitimate science to back up their claims. This stigma has, unfortunately, stuck through the decades, although now the walls are beginning to crumble.

Fluoride Harms Go “Mainstream”

Earlier this year, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted 253-23 in favor of mandating infant fluoride warnings on all water bills in fluoridated communities (the bill will now go to the Senate). According to the text of the bill, the warning would read, in part:

“According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, if your child under the age of 6 months is exclusively consuming infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water, there may be an increased chance of dental fluorosis.”

But dental fluorosis is not “just cosmetic.” It can also be an indication that other tissues, such as your bones and internal organs, including your brain, have been overexposed to fluoride as well. There are more than 100 published studies illustrating fluoride’s harm to the brain,iv plus 25 published studies directly linking fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children! Fluoride is a toxic agent that is biologically active in the human body where it accumulates in sensitive tissues over time, wreaks havoc with enzymes and produces a number of serious adverse health effects—including neurological and endocrine dysfunctions.

Adding insult to injury, even promoters of fluoridation now admit that fluoride’s predominant action is on the surface of the tooth (although even this is now questionable) and not from inside the body – so why are so many Americans still being forced to swallow it? Swallowing fluoride provides little or no benefit to your teeth!

Even China does NOT allow water fluoridation because it’s too toxic and causes damage, according to their studies. Instead, the waste product from their phosphate fertilizer industry is shipped to the United States, where we add it to our water supply! This is a very important point: the fluoride added to your water is NOT even pharmaceutical grade.

It’s a toxic industrial waste product, which is also contaminated with lead, arsenic, radionucleotides, aluminum and other industrial contaminants. The story gets even more convoluted, as now declassified files of the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Energy Commission show that the original motivation for promoting fluoride and water fluoridation in the United States was to protect the bomb-, aluminum-, and other fluoride-polluting industries from liability. In the early days some of the sodium fluoride used to fluoridate water supplies in the U.S. came from Alcoa.

A couple of years later, they switched to the even more hazardous waste product hydrofluorosilicic acid from the phosphate fertilizer industry. But none of the studies on fluoride actually used the far more toxic and contaminated hydrofluorosilicic acid that is presently added to the water supply. Rather, they use pharmaceutical-grade fluoride, which while harmful, is not quite as bad as what’s being used for water fluoridation. So, the health hazards are likely FAR worse than any study has so far discerned.

Unethical, Ineffective, Toxic and Compulsory: Are You Angry Yet?

I recently interviewed Jeff Green, who has been an activist in the movement to eliminate toxic fluoride from your water supply for the past 15 years. One element he addressed is that many of us who are first exposed to issues such as this enter into a world of anger at injustice, where we see the problem so passionately and so clearly that we carry the burden of truth and are in a hurry to tell others to set it right, viewing anyone who does not immediately agree with our view as opposition that must be overwhelmed with facts and a list of “shoulds.”

In this state we look angry, and are easily characterized as a zealot, probably because we are. Asking someone without our passion to join us may not be that inviting.

Should we expect that this would be any different when speaking to authorities and asking them to act? If you are able to suspend your anger at injustice, able to switch your focus from stating the problem to addressing solutions, there are avenues available. If you would like to elevate your discussions from the argumentative “he said, she said” to letting the facts declare themselves, and you are in a position of authority from which you can champion the performance of due diligence, contact us for access to guidance and further information.

If you are capable of being an advocate of safe drinking water and would like to assist in identifying a champion for due diligence in your community, contact us for approaches and further information.

What You Can Do TODAY!

The Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to END water fluoridation in both Canada and the United States. Our fluoride initiative will primarily focus on Canada since 60 percent of Canada is already non-fluoridated. If we can get Calgary and the rest of Canada to stop fluoridating their water, we believe the U.S. will be forced to follow.

Please, join the anti-fluoride movement in Canada and United States by contacting the representative for your area below.

Contact Information for Canadian Communities:

1.If you live in Ontario, Canada, please join the ongoing effort by contacting Diane Sprules at [email protected].
2.The point-of-contact for Toronto, Canada is Aliss Terpstra. You may email her at [email protected].

Contact Information for American Communities:

We’re also going to address three U.S. communities: New York City, Austin, and San Diego:
1.New York City, NY: The anti-fluoridation movement has a great champion in New York City councilor Peter Vallone, Jr. who introduced legislation “prohibiting the addition of fluoride to the water supply.” A victory there could signal the beginning of the end of fluoridation in the U.S.

If you live in the New York area I implore you to participate in this effort as your contribution could have a MAJOR difference. Remember that one person can make a difference.

The point person for this area is Carol Kopf, at the New York Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF). Email her at [email protected]. Please contact her if you’re interested in helping with this effort.
2.Austin, Texas: Join the effort by contacting Rae Nadler-Olenick at either: [email protected] or [email protected], or by regular mail or telephone:

POB 7486
Austin, Texas 78713
Phone: (512) 371-3786
3.San Diego, California: Contact Patty Ducey-Brooks, publisher of the Presidio Sentinel at [email protected].

In addition, you can:
•Make a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network, to help them fight for your rights to fluoride-free food and water.
•Check out FAN’s Action Page, as they are working on multiple fronts to rid our food and water supplies of fluoride.
•For timely updates, join the Fluoride Action Network Facebook page.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

My book “Dentistry and how it’s damaging your health” is available here for only $2.99

References:

——————————————————————————–
i CDC responds to FOIA request, April 2011
ii Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, Frequently Asked Questions: Tooth Decay and Fluoride
iii National Research Council Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards 2006
iv The Case Against Fluoride, Endnotes

I first read about Harry Hoxsey about three years ago and was stunned at his work and how it was dismissed by the powers that be..

To learn of a genuine way of beating cancer without the need for toxic drugs that in reality do as much damage as potential help you’d think it would be welcomed with open arms.

Sadly the world, lead by America or the American Drug Cartel simply do not want true healing to happen, it’s not in their best interests for complimentary/alternative healing to be accepted. So they throw billions of dollars to the advertising agencies to dole out compelling TV/radio and published ad’s to dissuade the general public.
This propoganda is not new, Adolf Hitler used it on the German people, is that what we are becoming!!!

When Healing Becomes a Crime

by Kenny Ausubel

Tikkun Magazine June 12, 2001

The Hoxsey Legend
The “Unproven Treatments”
The Big Business of Cancer

There is another cancer war — against “unproven” alternative cancer therapies. But is the medical standard of proof a double standard?

In February 2001, a federal government-sponsored report under the auspices of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was published finding “noteworthy cases of survival” among cancer patients using the Hoxsey herbal treatment. After seventy-five years, Uncle Sam is finally giving a state nod to what is arguably the most notorious alternative cancer therapy in American history.

In the 1950s at the height of organized medicine’s crusade against the Hoxsey Cancer Clinics, the American Medical Association crystallized the medical establishment’s sentiments in its supremely influential Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). “It is fair to observe that the American Medical Association or any other association or individual has no need to go beyond the Hoxsey label to be convinced. Any such person who would seriously contend that scientific medicine is under any obligation to investigate such a mixture or its promoter is either stupid or dishonest.”

The recent NIH report marks a surprising reversal in the longstanding medical civil war between conventional and alternative approaches. After a long exile, alternative therapies are now ascendant, riding a crest of popular demand, scientific validation, and commercial promise. The face of cancer treatment may soon become almost unrecognizable as valuable alternative therapies begin to permeate mainstream practice.

If Harry Hoxsey had lived to witness this apparent sea-change in medicine, he might likely feel very mixed emotions. He would heartily cheer the grassroots surge propelling the movement, the same kind that once carried his Hoxsey Cancer Clinics to unmatched heights of popularity and validation. He would be exhilarated by the philosophical conversion of his enemies. But he would also be cynical, suspicious that a clinging monopoly was fighting to save face and above all keep its corner on the cancer market. But then, Hoxsey survived decades of being “hunted like a wild beast” only to see his clinics padlocked without the scientific test he relentlessly sought. He died a broken man, anguished over the future he felt was robbed from humanity. Yet the Hoxsey treatment did live on, thriving as an underground legend, still attracting more patients today than any of the other banished therapies, irrepressible after all.

The astonishing saga of the rise and fall and rebirth of Hoxsey provides a classic case history of the corrosive medical politics that have long prevented the fair investigation of promising alternative cancer therapies.

Paradoxically, this long-standing denunciation has not been based on the objective scientific evidence that is supposed to determine the acceptance or rejection of medical therapies. Rather, the dismissal typifies the kind of pre-factual conclusion that has characterized “scientific” medicine’s century-long pattern of condemnation without investigation.

In fact, the unspoken reason for the renaissance of alternative cancer therapies is sadly obvious: The medical establishment has largely lost its celebrated “War on Cancer” based on surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. But what has remained hidden from most people is the existence of the other cancer war: organized medicine’s zealous campaign against “unorthodox” cancer treatments and their practitioners. Over the course of the twentieth century, innovators such as Harry Hoxsey advanced more than one hundred alternative approaches, at least several of which have seemed to hold significant promise. Yet rather than inviting interest and investigation from mainstream medicine, their champions have been ridiculed, threatened with the loss of professional licenses, harassed, prosecuted, or driven out of the country.

The facts clearly reveal that a consortium of interests has consistently condemned these treatments without investigation: the American Medical Association (AMA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and the American Cancer Society (ACS), as well as certain large corporations that profit from the cancer industry. It is important to emphasize that this confederation of interests known as organized medicine consists principally of medical politicians and business interests, not practicing doctors. Physicians themselves have often objected to the unscientific rejection of alternative therapies and to restrictions on their own freedom to research or administer them.

The news blackout and disinformation campaign muffling this scandal have been so effective that most people do not happen into the underground of “disappeared” therapies until the fateful moment when they or their friends or relations are diagnosed with the dread disease. Usually only while fighting for their lives do patients discover the plethora of alternative cancer therapies claiming to offer hope and benefit, though with little if any scientific evidence to support the assertions. The story of Hoxsey sheds disturbing light on the many anecdotes of “people who got well when they weren’t supposed to,” as cancer surgeon Dr. Bernie Siegel terms these remarkable remissions in the netherworld of alternative therapies.

The Hoxsey Legend

In 1840 Illinois horse farmer John Hoxsey found his prize stallion with a malignant tumor on its right hock. As a Quaker, he couldn’t bear shooting the animal, so he put it out to pasture to die peacefully. Three weeks later, he noticed the tumor stabilizing, and observed the animal browsing knee-deep in a corner of the pasture with a profusion of weeds, eating plants not part of its normal diet.

Within three months the tumor dried up and began to separate from the healthy tissue. The farmer retreated to the barn, where he began to experiment with these herbs revealed to him by “horse sense.” He devised three formulas: an internal tonic, an herbal-mineral red paste, and a mineral-based yellow powder for external use. Within a year the horse was well, and the veterinarian became locally famous for treating animals with cancer.

The farmer’s grandson John C. Hoxsey, a veterinarian in southern Illinois, was the first to try the remedies on people, and claimed positive results. His son Harry showed an early interest and began working with him at the age of eight. When John suffered an untimely accident, he bequeathed the formulas to the fifteen-year-old boy with a charge to treat poor people for free, and to minister to all races, creeds, and religions without prejudice. He asked that the treatment carry the Hoxsey name. Finally, he warned the boy against the “High Priests of Medicine” who would fight him tooth-and-nail because he was taking money out of their pockets.

Hoxsey planned to go to medical school to bring the treatment to the world, but soon found he had been blackballed after secretly treating several terminal patients who pled for their lives. With a local banker backing him, he founded the first Hoxsey Cancer Clinic in 1924, championed by the chamber of commerce and high school marching bands on Main Street.

As early word of his reputed successes spread, Hoxsey was invited to nearby Chicago, headquarters of the newly powerful AMA, to demonstrate the treatment. Grisly and indisputable photographic proof of the terminal case Hoxsey treated verifies that the patient recovered, living on for twelve years, cancer-free.

Hoxsey then claimed that a high AMA official offered him a contract for the rights to the formulas. The alleged agreement assigned the property rights to a consortium of doctors including Dr. Morris Fishbein, the AMA chief and editor of the JAMA. Hoxsey himself would be required to cease any further practice, to be awarded a small percentage of profits after ten years if the treatment panned out. Invoking his Quaker father’s deathbed charge that poor people be treated for free and that the treatment carry the family name, Hoxsey said the official threatened to hound him out of business unless he acquiesced.

Whatever may have happened, that’s when the battle started. The AMA first denied the entire incident, then later acknowledged the patient’s remission, though crediting it to prior treatments by surgery and radiation.

Yet one thing was certain: Hoxsey had made a very powerful enemy. By crossing swords with Fishbein, he alienated the most powerful figure in medicine. The AMA promptly dubbed him the worst cancer quack of the century, and he would be arrested more times than any other person in medical history.

Hoxsey quickly found himself opposing Fishbein’s emerging medical-corporate complex. As late as 1900, medicine was therapeutically pluralistic and financially unprofitable. Doctors had the highest suicide rate of any profession owing to their extreme poverty and low social standing. Fishbein’s AMA would engineer an industrialized medical monoculture. What radically tipped the balance of power was an arranged marriage between big business and organized medicine. Under Fishbein’s direction, the AMA sailed into a golden harbor of prosperity fueled by surgery, radiation, drugs, and a sprawling high-tech hospital system. The corporatization of medicine throttled diversity. The code word for competition was quackery.

It was easy for the medical profession to paint Hoxsey as a quack: he fit the image perfectly. Brandishing his famed tonic bottle, the ex-coal miner arrived straight from central casting as the stereotype of the snake-oil salesman. When the AMA coerced the pathologist who performed Hoxsey’s biopsies to cease and desist, Hoxsey could no longer verify the validity of his reputed successes. Organized medicine quickly adopted the stance that his alleged “cures” fell into three categories: those who never had cancer in the first place; those who were cured by prior radiation and surgery; and those who died. In exasperation, Hoxsey attempted an end run by approaching the National Cancer Institute. In close collaboration with the AMA, the federal agency refused his application for a test because his medical records did not include all the biopsies.

Meanwhile Hoxsey struck oil in Texas and used his riches to promote his burgeoning clinic and finance his court battles. Piqued at Hoxsey’s rise, Fishbein struck back in the public media, penning an inflammatory article in the Hearst Sunday papers entitled “Blood Money,” in a classic example of purple prose and yellow journalism. Outraged, Hoxsey sued Fishbein. In two consecutive trials, Hoxsey beat Fishbein, standing as the first person labeled a “quack” to defeat the AMA in court. During the trials, Hoxsey’s lawyers revealed that Fishbein had failed anatomy in medical school, never completed his internship, and never practiced a day of medicine in his entire career.

By now Fishbein was mired in multiple scandals, including his effective but unpopular obstruction of national health insurance at a time when doctors had become the richest professionals in the country and the Journal the most profitable publication in the world. Drug ads powered JAMA, but its biggest single advertiser in the 1940s was Phillip Morris. (Camel cigarettes had the largest booth at the AMA’s 1948 convention, boasting in its ads that “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.”) Enmeshed in controversy, Fishbein’s stock was trading low, and, shortly after his first loss to Hoxsey, the AMA chief was deposed in a humiliating spectacle.

But ironically Hoxsey’s stunning dark-horse victory against the “most terrifying trade organization on Earth” only ended up bringing the house down. He immediately faced a decade-long “quackdown” by the FDA.

By the 1950s, Hoxsey was riding what was arguably the largest alternative-medicine movement in American history. A survey by the Chicago Medical Society showed 85 percent of people still using “drugless healers.” Hoxsey’s Dallas stronghold grew to be the world’s largest privately owned cancer center with 12,000 patients and branches spreading to seventeen states. Congressmen, judges, and even some doctors ardently supported his quest for an investigation. Two federal courts upheld the therapeutic value of the treatment. Even his archenemies, the American Medical Association and the Food and Drug Administration, admitted that the therapy does cure certain forms of cancer. JAMA itself had published the research of a respected physician who got results superior to surgery using a red paste identical to Hoxsey’s for skin cancers including lethal melanoma, a skin cancer that also spreads internally.

Medical authorities escalated their quackdown in the McCarthyite wake of the 1950s. On the heels of a California law criminalizing all cancer treatments except surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, the federal government finally outlawed Hoxsey entirely in the United States in 1960 on questionable technicalities. Chief nurse Mildred Nelson took the clinic to Tijuana in 1963, abandoning any hope of operating in the United States. It was the first alternative clinic to set up shop south of the border. Mildred quietly treated another 30,000 patients there until her death in 1999. Like Hoxsey, she claimed a high success rate, but her contention is unverifiable since the treatment has yet to be rigorously tested.

Hoxsey never claimed a panacea or cure-all. He maintained that the Dallas doctors used his clinic as a “dumping ground” for hopeless cases, and that the great majority of patients he got were terminal, having already had the limit of surgery and radiation. He said he cured about 25 percent of those. Of virgin cases with no prior treatment, he claimed an 80 percent success rate. Seventy-five years after Hoxsey began, why do we still not know the validity of his claims?

The “Unproven Treatments”

Organized medicine has systematically dismissed alternative cancer therapies as “unproven,” lacking the rigorous scientific proof of clinical trials. But if the Hoxsey treatment is unproven, it’s not disproven. Like virtually all the “unorthodox” cancer therapies over the course of the twentieth century, it was politically railroaded rather than medically tested. However, over the last few decades, controlled laboratory tests have shown all the individual herbs in the internal tonic to possess anti-tumor and anti-cancer properties, as I documented in detail in my recent book on Hoxsey, When Healing Becomes A Crime. Though the formula has never been tested as a whole entity, clearly there is a credible scientific basis for looking at it. Organized medicine has not disputed the effectiveness of the external remedies since 1950, and the red paste (Mohs treatment) is listed in Taber’s Medical Encyclopedia as a “standard treatment,” though it is seldom used.

After all, plants are the cornerstone of pharmaceutical drugs. The very word drug derives from the Dutch term droog, which means “to dry,” since people have historically dried plants to make medicinal preparations. It is well proven that many botanicals possess powerful anti-cancer properties. Numerous primary pharmaceuticals derive from plants, as do several major chemotherapy drugs, such as Taxol from the Pacific Yew tree, Vincristine and Vinblastine from the Madagascar periwinkle, and Camptothecin from the wood and bark of a Chinese tree. About 30 percent of chemotherapy drugs altogether are derived from natural substances, mainly plants. A quarter of modern drugs still contain a plant substance, and about half are modeled on plant chemistry. During Hoxsey’s era, surgery and radiation were primitive and excessive. Both were solely local treatments, reflecting the profession’s belief that cancer was a local disease. As such they could address just a quarter of all cases, claiming to cure only about a quarter of those. With the advent of toxic chemotherapy drugs in the 1950s, organized medicine at last acknowledged cancer as a systemic disease, which Hoxsey and the other “unorthodox” practitioners had been asserting throughout.

Clearly, conventional cancer treatments have an important place in medicine and save lives. But since the 1950s, evidence has steadily accumulated that surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy are far less effective than the public is being led to believe. Investigative journalist Daniel Greenberg, writing in the Columbia Journalism Review in 1975, produced the first widely reported exposé showing that cancer survival rates since the 1950s had not progressed, and that improvements from 1930 to 1950 were mainly a consequence of improved hospital nursing care and support systems. Greenberg found that even the valid improvements were very, very small, and that there had been no significant advancements in treating any of the major forms of cancer.

By 1969, Dr. Hardin Jones had already released a shocking report on this issue at the Science Writers Convention, sponsored by the American Cancer Society. Jones, a respected professor of medical physics from the University of California at Berkeley and an expert on statistics and the effects of radiation and drugs, concluded that “the common malignancies show a remarkably similar rate of demise, whether treated or untreated.” Joining the fray, Nobel laureate James Watson charged that the American public had been sold a “nasty bill of goods about cancer.” This eminent co-discoverer of the DNA double helix remarked bluntly that the War on Cancer was “a bunch of shit.”

These “proven” cancer treatments are themselves largely unproven. The standard of proof for therapeutic efficacy is in fact a double standard. Surgery was grandfathered in as standard practice early in the twentieth century without randomized, double-blind clinical trials, which only became widespread in the 1960s with the advent of chemotherapy. Its dangers and limitations have since been only superficially acknowledged or studied, and little is known about its efficacy in relation to a baseline marker of no treatment.

Like surgery, radiation therapy was grandfathered in without rigorous testing. Radiation is carcinogenic and mutagenic. In the few tests comparing radiation treatment against no treatment, according to Jones, “Most of the time, it makes not the slightest difference if the machine is turned on or not.” Jones went even further, saying, “My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims actually live up to four times longer.” Radiation is often combined with surgery despite the fact that tests have generally shown it made no apparent favorable difference. A recent study with patients with the most common form of lung cancer found that postoperative radiation therapy, which is routinely given, actually raises the relative risk of death by 21 percent, with its most detrimental effects on those in the early stages of illness. Nevertheless, radiation is used on about half of cancer patients.

It was into this disappointing setting that chemotherapy entered as the next great hope of cancer treatment. Chemotherapy drugs are poisons that are indiscriminate killers of cells, both healthy and malignant. The strategy is quite literally to kill the cancer without killing the patient. By the mid-1980s, prominent members of orthodoxy published unsettling assessments that could no longer be dismissed. Writing in Scientific American, Dr. John Cairns of Harvard found that chemotherapy was able to save the lives of just 2 to 3 percent of cancer patients, mostly those with the rarest kinds of the disease. By medicine’s own standards, at best chemotherapy is unproved against 90 percent of adult solid tumors, the huge majority of common cancers resulting in death. Moreover, true placebo controls have been almost abandoned in the testing of chemotherapy. Drug regimen is tested against drug regimen, and doctors hardly ever look at whether the drugs do better than simple good nursing care. Because chemotherapy drugs are outright poisons, many carcinogenic, the drugs themselves can cause “treatment deaths” and additional cancers. One study among women surviving ovarian cancer after chemotherapy treatment showed a one-hundred-fold greater subsequent incidence of leukemia over those not receiving chemotherapy. In some studies, when chemotherapy and radiation were combined, the incidence of secondary tumors was about twenty-five times the expected rate. Nevertheless, chemotherapy is given to 80 percent of patients

Amazingly, 85 percent of prescribed standard medical treatments across the board lack scientific validation, according to the New York Times. Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical Journal, suggests that “this is partly because only one percent of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound, and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all.”

A hundred years from now, medicine will likely come to regard some of these “proven” cancer treatments the way we now remember the use of mercury and bloodletting. As Dr. Abigail Zuger recently wrote in the New York Times contemplating the hundredth anniversary of the 1899 Merck Manual: “We have harnessed our own set of poisons for medical treatment; in a hundred years a discussion of cancer chemotherapy may read as chillingly as endorsements of strychnine for tuberculosis and arsenic for diabetes do today.”

The Big Business of Cancer

The medical civil war between Hoxsey and organized medicine has largely reflected a trade war. Profitability has often been the driving force behind the adoption of official therapeutics. At over $110 billion a year just in the United States, cancer is big business, a whopping 10 percent of the national health-care bill. The typical cancer patient spends upward of $100,000 on treatment. It is estimated that each hospital admission for cancer produces two to three times the billings of a typical non-cancer admission. More people work in the field than die from the disease each year. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein, a professor of environmental and occupational medicine at the University of Illinois in Chicago, “For decades, the war on cancer has been dominated by powerful groups of interlocking professional and financial interests, with the highly profitable drug development system at its hub.” Global sales of chemotherapy drugs in 1997 were $30.9 billion, about $12 billion of it in the United States.

Pharmaceutical companies pin the high costs of drugs on the forbidding expense of testing and approving each new drug, now pegged at $500 million. In fact, this prohibitive figure has served as a barrier of entry for all but giant corporations. The entire system is founded in patents, twenty-year exclusive licenses that provide monopoly protection. As an herbal product, the Hoxsey tonic cannot be patented and therefore occupies the status of an orphan drug that no company will develop. While approving about forty highly toxic cancer drugs, the FDA has yet to approve a single nontoxic cancer agent or one not patented by a major pharmaceutical company.

Alternative therapies are finally emerging in part because of the dramatic cost savings they represent, and because at least some may well represent a major new profit center. “Alternative medicine is clearly the largest growth industry in health care today,” wrote Jane Brody in the New York Times in 1998. Dr. David Eisenberg of Harvard surveyed the American public to find 42 percent using alternative therapies in 1997. The number of visits to alternative practitioners exceeded total visits to primary-care physicians. Spending was conservatively estimated at $21.2 billion, with at least $12.2 billion paid out-of-pocket by committed customers. Total out-of-pocket expenditures for alternative therapies were comparable with expenditures for all physician services.

The numbers are no less dramatic for cancer treatment. A national study estimated 64 percent of cancer patients to be using alternative therapies. A recent survey at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, the world’s largest with 13,000 patients, found an astounding 83 percent using alternatives.

Major corporations are already entering the alternative marketplace. Procter & Gamble initially spent millions sponsoring the research of Dr. Nick Gonzalez, who took up the work of Donald Kelley, a dentist who reputedly cured himself of terminal pancreatic cancer using enzymes and other nutritional means. A pilot study with pancreatic cancer patients provided better results than had been seen in the history of medicine for a disease that is 95 percent incurable. The subjects lived an average of triple the usual survival rate, and two patients have lived for four and five years with no detectable disease. Nestlé has also financed the work of Dr. Gonzalez. These studies led to a $1.4 million grant to Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons by the NIH’s National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) and supervised by the NCI. The engagement of large corporations vaulted the formerly reviled treatment to instant plausibility. When big companies start to take a stake in alternative cancer therapies, it signifies the maturation of a market and consecrates a political realignment.

Both M. D. Anderson and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center have been testing green tea, or more accurately several of its “active” ingredients, for anti-cancer properties. Because various studies have shown that green tea reduces the risk of colorectal, lung, esophageal, and pancreatic cancers, Lipton tea company is also testing the substance at the University of Arizona.

In association with the NCI, M. D. Anderson is set to evaluate shark cartilage, which is reputed to have anti-cancer activity and is widely used by a cancer underground in the United States and abroad. (Sadly, this market surge is further endangering several shark species.) The University of Toronto is testing mistletoe, a folk remedy for cancer espoused by the Austrian spiritual philosopher Rudolf Steiner, originator of Waldorf education and biodynamic farming. Mistletoe has shown anti-tumor effects in both human and animals studies in Germany.

The release of the report on Hoxsey through the NIH’s NCCAM is a harbinger of the changes to come. As the report concludes, further investigation “is justified not only because of the public health issue to justify the large number of patients who seek treatment at this clinic, but also because of the several noteworthy cases of survival.” The report specifically notes a seven-year melanoma patient who had no other treatment besides Hoxsey’s tonic and external salves. Average survival time for advanced melanoma is seven months. If such a remarkable remission occurred using conventional treatments, it would be front-page news worldwide.

“It’s interesting to contemplate the dilemma that the National Cancer Institute is in,” conjectures Ralph Moss, an advisor to the NCCAM and NCI, and a respected researcher and author on both alternative and conventional cancer treatments. “If they do decide to do the tests, then there’s always that possibility — and I think it’s a damn good possibility — that some of these treatments are going to turn out to be quite valuable. If they decide not to do the tests, there’s going to be tremendous fury in Congress and the public, because what then are they about? If they’re not about scientific testing, what good are they? Why are we wasting our money?

“What we’re saying is: Prove them or disprove them. We’ve had seventy-five years of Hoxsey. Does it work? Doesn’t it work? Nobody knows. How do you know? Short of good studies, how does one decide issues like that? We don’t want people doing something if it’s not going to work for them, not in terms of just conventional treatment, but alternative treatments as well.”

“The best-case scenario,” Moss speculates, “is that some tests will be carried out with the imprimatur of NCI, NCCAM, and probably other collaborative centers like the University of Texas and Columbia. Some of those will show that there’s no effectiveness, and some of them will probably show that there is effectiveness in some treatments. The ones that are shown to be effective that are funded by and based on NCI-reported research are then going to be published in major medical journals. The first one that validates a nontoxic treatment is the beginning of the end of this Middle Ages that we’re in. Because once one goes through the door, then a lot of others are going through the door, and that’s what they’re afraid of. They’re afraid that, if a Hoxsey were proven to be effective, the public will run to it because nobody wants the chemo drugs. If chemo is the only choice, then they’ll reluctantly take it, but the minute it’s known there is something nontoxic out there, everybody’s going to want it.”

The abiding truth for cancer patients is that they want unrestricted access to all treatments. According to one analysis, only about 5 percent entirely abandon conventional cancer care even when pursuing an alternative. What patients seek is the best of all worlds, an expanded menu of options supported by access to credible information. The stereotype that orthodoxy has long put forth of poor, credulous cancer patients ripe for exploitation by clever promoters turns out to be false. In a study by sociologist Barrie Cassileth, the profile of patients using alternative cancer therapies describes well-educated, middle-income, often female clients who have done a considerable amount of due diligence to make their choice.

While physicians fought fiercely for their professional sovereignty during the twentieth century, the greater social issue today is the sovereignty of the patient. In a market economy, goes the old saw, the customer is always right. The AMA’s Oliver Field, an architect of the aggressive repression against Hoxsey and myriad “quack” therapies in the 1950s, responded surprisingly when I posed to him the polarizing question of freedom of medical choice. “This is a free country. You pays your money and you takes your choice. If it’s wrong, you’re the one who’s going to suffer.”

It was anomalous to hear the former head of the AMA’s Bureau of Investigation, which once boasted a rolodex of over 300,000 “quacks,” echo the words of his
past nemesis. Judge William Hawley Atwell, who ruled twice in Hoxsey’s favor in federal courts and fully affirmed the therapy’s value, had stated in 1949 regarding Hoxsey’s victory over Dr. Morris Fishbein: “So I wish to say, pay your money and take your choice. Those who need a doctor, if you think one side is the best, go and get him. If you think the other side is best, you certainly have the right to go and get him. This is a free country; that is what we stand for in America.”

Why was the Hoxsey therapy not investigated in the first place seventy-five years ago? The overarching truth is that it has been politically railroaded instead of medically tested. The medical civil war has distorted cancer from a medical question into a political issue. The many practitioners and doctors thrust involuntarily into the front lines of the cancer wars would surely prefer to settle the question in a clinic or laboratory, not a courtroom. Meanwhile, cancer patients remain trapped in the crossfire, fighting for their lives.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

My book “Dentistry and how it’s damaging your health” is available here for only $2.99

By Dr. Mercola

Twenty years ago today, former Monsanto lawyer and present FDA deputy commissioner Michael Taylor declared genetically engineered foods “substantially equivalent” and declared they would not need to be labeled for consumers.

Today is also the last day of the Money Bomb Against Monsanto Campaign, which launched on May 1. Earlier this month, volunteers and staff from the California Right to Know Campaign submitted nearly 1 million signed petitions from registered voters across the state of California to county officials, to place Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act on the Ballot for November 6.

This Act will require food manufacturers to identify genetically engineered ingredients on the labels of foods sold in California.

When California voters pass this ballot initiative, the Label Genetically Engineered Food Act will also not allow the common practice of mislabeling genetically engineered foods as “natural” or “all natural.” But the biotech industry is not about to let this pass without a fight.

Industry Propaganda Aimed at Confusing and Misleading Consumers

The Council for Biotechnology and the Grocery Manufacturers Association have filed as formal opposition to this initiative. Not surprisingly, Monsanto is a member of both groups.

Big Biotech and major processed food manufacturers are pooling tens of millions of dollars together to spread their propaganda in an effort to defeat the California Ballot Initiative. In a recent Organic Consumers Association article, Alexis Baden-Mayer, Esq., Political Director of the Organic Consumers Fund writesi:

“Kathy Fairbanks, spokeswoman with the Coalition Against the Costly Food Labeling Proposition, says requiring labels on genetically engineered food would increase food prices.

What she doesn’t say is that she’s being paid by the trade association that represents both the biotech behemoths like Monsanto that engineer the GMO crops and the food industry giants like PepsiCo that use ingredients made from these crops in their products. PepsiCo., Kraft, Kellogg’s and other top food processors market so-called “natural” protects at a premium that rivals what consumers pay for non-GMO and organic foods – even though these so-called “natural” foods contain unlabeled GMOs. The money these companies swindle from us as they trick us into paying top-dollar for GMO foods disguised as “natural” dwarfs the miniscule 0.01% of food costs attributable to GMO labels…

Maryann Marino, Southern California regional director of California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse says GMO labels will make family farmers and small businesses vulnerable to lawsuits.

Her organization is a state chapter of the American Tort Reform Association (funded by Monsanto) which thinks it’s okay for Monsanto to sue farmers in 143 different patent infringement lawsuits when their crops are unintentionally contaminated with Monsanto’s GMOs, but it isn’t okay for farmers to get together and bring one lawsuit against Monsanto to stop the harassment. Think they really care about family farmers or small businesses? Their only interests are protecting Monsanto’s market share and helping companies sneak Monsanto’s ingredients into their products without letting consumers know.”

Why Labeling Genetically Engineered Foods Will Not Significantly Raise Prices

Baden-Mayer also explains why you shouldn’t fall for such fear-mongering, as these scenarios have little if any bearing in factual truth. She writes:

“A 2002 Oregon State University study reviewed the true costs of actual laws requiring labels on genetically engineered food in other countries. According to the study, a law in the UK, like the one proposed for CA, increased food spending by only 0.01%. The most any GMO labeling proposal was projected to cost was 1.8%. (This was from a Canadian study where, the authors note, the costs of segregating crops, changing processing procedures and changing the label were exaggerated and came only from expectations expressed by industry spokespersons.)

The 0.01% to 1.8% increase in the cost of labeling GMO foods must be put in perspective by looking at what companies already spend and consumers currently pay to avoid genetically engineered ingredients. A 2005 University of Delaware study showed that consumers would pay 20-30% more for non-GMO or organicii.

The so-called “natural” food industry has taken full advantage of consumer interest in avoiding GMOs and consumer ignorance in where those GMOs may be lurking. A review by the Cornucopia Institute of “natural,” non-GMO and organic cereals showed that so-called “natural” cereals that contained unlabeled GMOs were sometimes more expensive than real non-GMO and organic cerealsiii.

Once GMOs are labeled, consumers will easily be able to substitute products that contain non-GMO cane sugar for products made with GMO sugar beet sugar or high-fructose corn syrup and change from vegetable oils made from GMO canola to non-GMO sunflower or olive oil. They’ll be able to eat more non-GMO wheat and rice and less GMO corn and soy. They can choose non-GMO fruits and vegetables and avoid the few that are GMO. Eating non-GMO won’t involve paying a premium, just making a choice between the foods that are genetically engineered and the ones that aren’t. Foods that are GMO won’t be able to be falsely labeled as “natural.”

Why GE Labeling Will Not Open Up Farmers and Small Businesses to Lawsuits

The claim that farmers and grocers may become more vulnerable to lawsuits as a result of the Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act is also false and nothing but a scare tactic.

Why?

First of all, farmers and grocery stores are not responsible for listing ingredients on food labels. The only way a grocer could get into trouble would be if they knowingly mislabel their own store-brand product. They cannot be held liable if a food processor or food packer fails to comply with the labeling law.

The language in the Act is also very clear—it only requires labeling of foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients. Each new genetically engineered crop must be deregulated by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which makes them easy to track. Once deregulated, farmers clearly know whether their crop is genetically engineered or not since they are required to purchase expensive patented seeds that are clearly branded and marketed as genetically engineered by the seed companies. So when they sell their crops to a food manufacturer, there’s no question whether they’re dealing with a GE ingredient or not.

Furthermore, under the proposed law, foods containing genetically engineered ingredients cannot be labeled as “natural.” Food packers and processors are given 18 months to comply with the new labeling requirements—which is the typical timeframe within which labels are routinely updated anyway—so complying with the new regulations should not be a major problem. Baden-Mayer also points out that:

“Food packers and processors may decide to seek non-GMO sources to avoid the law’s labeling requirements, and that may increase markets for farmers who grow non-GMO crops, but that is a different issue than simply complying with a new labeling requirement.” And, “If PepsiCo continues to sell unlabeled genetically engineered food in CA once this law is passed, we’ll definitely sue them (we’d rather see them comply), but this law creates no incentive to go after small businesses.”

The Future of Your Food is at Stake

Although The Future of Food is five years old, this excellent film is more relevant now than ever. If you haven’t watched it, please set aside some time to see it. It’s required viewing for anyone who wants to understand what they’re putting into their belly. If it’s been awhile since you saw it, you may want to refresh your memory.

“This is a Flash based video and may not be viewable on mobile devices.”

The Time for Action is NOW!

We need to send the biotech and food industry a clear message: We have the right to know what they put into our food!

Can we win? Yes, I believe we can! But we need to get the word out, which requires a strong campaign to educate the citizens of California to vote for the initiative on November 6. If you missed my recent panel interview with Ronnie Cummins with the Organic Consumers Association, Pamm Larry, founder of LabelGMOs.org and Dave Murphy, founder of Food Democracy Now, in which we discuss the California Right to Know Campaign, please take a moment to listen to it now.

According to Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association, we stand a good chance of winning in California because:
•This time, we have far more scientific information and greater public awareness on our side. GE contamination is now a mainstream media issue. Monsanto has become the most hated corporation in the world.
•This time, we have overwhelming public support. Polls show that more than 8 out of 10 voters in California want mandatory GE labeling.
•This time, we have built the strongest coalition of concerned food consumers in history, for the exclusive purpose of passing this law.

So today, I ask you to invest in this Initiative. Invest in your future. And invest as generously as you can. If you’ve already sent in your donation, thank you! If not, please contribute to this historic and critical campaign today. And then please forward this email to your friends. Share it on Facebook and Twitter. Print it out, hand it to all your friends. Every action counts! As stated by Ronnie Cummins with the Organic Consumers Association:

“Monsanto is one of the most powerful, arrogant and destructive companies in the world. For decades, they have controlled the world’s food supply by buying off politicians and regulatory agencies, intimidating small farmers, manipulating the outcome of scientific studies, lying to consumers – and threatening to sue states like Vermont if they dare to pass a GMO labeling law.

… Despite Monsanto’s claims to the contrary, scientists are clear: genetically engineered food has been linked to a wide range of health hazards, including kidney and liver damage, infertility, auto-immune disorders, allergies and autism, accelerated aging, and birth defects… We have the right to know if the food we buy has been genetically engineered…. It’s time to take back our food. Our farms. Our power. It’s time to show Monsanto what ordinary people like us can do when we come together.”

Hundreds of thousands of people making small donations can help the coalition behind this initiative run a dynamic, effective campaign to bring down Monsanto and the rest of the Biotech Bullies

Now it’s time to organize, educate, and promote this cause. We won’t need to spend the tens of millions that the biotech bullies are using to fight this initiative – but we will need several million to combat their propoganda adequately.

So please, join us, and make a donation right now! You can donate online, by phone, or by dropping a check in the mail.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

My book “Dentistry and how it’s damaging your health” is available here for only $2.99

References:

——————————————————————————–
i Organic Consumers Association May 5, 2012
ii Department of Food and Resource Economics University of Delaware, Experimental Investigation of Willingness to Pay for Non-GM and Organic Food Products, Katie Gifford, John C. Bernard, Ulrich C. Toensmeyer, Richard Bacon, Department of Food and Resource Economics University of Delaware
iii Cornucopia Institute, Cereal Crimes 2011 Report

By Dr. Mercola

How far will companies go to ensure they continue making money on products that make you sick? Answer: No extreme is too extreme, including bold-faced lying, if it means keeping the bucks rolling in.

This article will cover an assortment of examples of how you’re being deceived by four of the largest industries the chemical, biotech, pharmaceutical, and processed food industry.

Lies, Damn Lies!

One of the biggest lies that toxic chemical companies have told so far includes the heart-wrenching stories of babies dying agonizing deaths in fires. Throwing integrity out the window, the company hired professional experts to lie as they were not under oath. The babies didn’t actually die―in fact, they never even existed.

The Chicago Tribune learned this recently when it wanted to know more about a 7-week-old baby who a burn doctor testified as having died in agony because she was on a pillow that lacked flame retardantsi. Lo and behold, the entire story was a fabrication, from beginning to end. It turns out other tiny patients the doctor had described in testimony supporting toxic flame retardant materials didn’t exist either.

According to the Chicago Tribune:

“… [Dr. David] Heimbach’s passionate testimony about the baby’s death made the long-term health concerns about flame retardants voiced by doctors, environmentalists and even firefighters sound abstract and petty. But there was a problem with his testimony: It wasn’t true.

Records show there was no dangerous pillow or candle fire. The baby he described didn’t exist. Neither did the 9-week-old patient who Heimbach told California legislators died in a candle fire in 2009. Nor did the 6-week-old patient who he told Alaska lawmakers was fatally burned in her crib in 2010.

Heimbach is not just a prominent burn doctor. He is a star witness for the manufacturers of flame retardants. His testimony, the Tribune found, is part of a decades-long campaign of deception that has loaded the furniture and electronics in American homes with pounds of toxic chemicals linked to cancer, neurological deficits, developmental problems and impaired fertility.

The tactics started with Big Tobacco, which wanted to shift focus away from cigarettes as the cause of fire deaths, and continued as chemical companies worked to preserve a lucrative market for their products, according to a Tribune review of thousands of government, scientific and internal industry documents.

These powerful industries distorted science in ways that overstated the benefits of the chemicals, created a phony consumer watchdog group that stoked the public’s fear of fire and helped organize and steer an association of top fire officials that spent more than a decade campaigning for their cause…”

Unfortunately, these lies do not just result in profits for the chemical industry it may not otherwise have enjoyed. These lies directly impact and harm your health, and the health of your children—children who, contrary to the infants in Dr. Heimbach’s fantasy drama, are very much alive and dependent on adults to make appropriate decisions.

According to Patricia Callahan and Sam Roe, reporters with the Chicago Tribune, between 1970 and 2004, blood levels of certain flame retardant chemicals doubled in American adults every two to five years, and American infants are born with the highest levels of these chemicals in their systems of any other nation on the planet. Why? Because of lies that tug at heart strings rather than provide evidence of safety and effectiveness of the chemical in question.

Health Hazards of Flame Retardant Chemicals Abound…

Incredibly, certain common flame retardants, such as PBDEs, have been detected in the blood of up to 97 percent of U.S. residents, at levels that are 20 times higher than those of Europeans. Californians have some of the highest exposures due to the state’s strict flammability laws.

Research has shown that pregnant women with higher blood levels of PBDEs, a common class of flame retardants, have altered thyroid hormone levels — a fact that could have implications for fetal health.

PBDEs, or polybrominated diphenyl ethers, are organobromine compounds now found in household items such as carpets, electronics and plastics, and these chemicals are known to accumulate in human fat cells. Although the mechanics of how PBDEs affect your thyroid are still unclear, it is believed that PBDE chemicals mimic your thyroid hormones.

Another study published two years ago found an inverse link between exposure to fire retardant chemicals and the time it takes for exposed women to become pregnantii. Higher exposures were associated with decreased fertility.

PBDEs are also showing up in breast milk, and in various foods, including wild fish, and in the sewage sludge being applied as fertilizer on food crops across the U.S. This is yet another tragic case where lack of foresight and safety testing has turned out to have very significant, “unanticipated” human and environmental health risks.

Do Flame Retardants Even Work?

Making matters worse, it appears the science does not even support the industry’s claims of effectiveness, so the health risks you’re exposing yourself and your children to are not even for a valid cause! According to the Chicago Tribune:

“People might be willing to accept the health risks if the flame retardants packed into sofas and easy chairs worked as promised. But they don’t. The chemical industry often points to a government study from the 1980s as proof that flame retardants save lives. But the study’s lead author, Vytenis Babrauskas, said in an interview that the industry has grossly distorted his findings and that the amount of retardants used in household furniture doesn’t work. “The fire just laughs at it,” he said. Other government scientists subsequently found that the flame retardants in household furniture don’t protect consumers from fire in any meaningful way.”

Biotech—An Industry Built on “Adjustable Truths”

Another flaming example of a corporate giant that gets caught lying again and again is Monsanto which, in 2009, was found guilty by France’s highest court of false advertising for claims that its toxic weed killer Roundup is biodegradable and leaves “the soil clean.”

The French court noted that Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, is dangerous for the environment and toxic for aquatic organisms. But that’s just one example of the lies Monsanto tells to keep on selling its products; this company has a long history of fraudulent statements about the safety of Roundup. They long used the slogans, “It’s Safer than Mowing,” “Biodegradable,” and “Environmentally Friendly” to describe Roundup — until the real effects of this toxic herbicide were revealed and they were forced to discontinue their deceptive advertising.

Monsanto—who is in the convicted liar’s club—has unfortunately managed to work its way into a large number of high-level federal regulatory positions in the U.S. government; many of which are positions meant to protect your food safety!

Furthermore, the entire biotech industry is built on half-truths and claims that are largely unsupported by independent scientific reviews. The following video discusses and dispels some of these falsehoods.

Big Pharma Still Leads the Pack of Convicted Liars

But the chemical and biotech industries certainly do not have a monopoly on using dirty tactics to maintain and increase market share and boost profits. This honor probably goes to the pharmaceutical industry, which, in terms of dollars and cents, is more powerful than 168 individual nations on this planet. Just consider the ramifications of these statistics for a moment… As of 2009, the global market for pharmaceuticalsiii was worth more than $837 billion, and is expected to reach $1.1 TRILLION in 2014.

If Big Pharma’s annual global market was compared to the GDP—the market value of all the output produced in a nation in one year—then Big Pharma would rank # 15 on a list of 183 nationsiv. That’s how BIG the pharmaceutical industry is!

Americans are disproportionally supporting this behemoth of an industry. Americans, including children, are the most drugged people in the entire world, with the average adult taking 11 prescription drugs—each of which comes with an average of 70 different potential side effects that are then typically addressed with yet more drugs…

Direct-to-consumer advertising has played a major role in turning the U.S. into a nation of over-medicated people with the most expensive health care in the world, while continuously dropping in life expectancy and other health indexes.

If you believe their advertisements, Big Pharma has a fix for just about any physiological condition you can think of. Most of these fixes come in the form of expensive prescriptions ordered by your doctor—that’s why the ads usually suggest that you ask your doctor if the product they’re promoting “would be right for you.”

It’s a subliminal message that makes you your own drug peddler, and it’s a profoundly successful strategy. In a recent AlterNet article, Jim Hightower discusses how direct-to-consumer advertising—which about 30 years ago wasn’t allowed in the U.S.—carries a major responsibility for having created a drugged-up Americav. He rightfully points out that since lifting the ban on direct-to-consumer advertising “America’s healthcare system has radically metamorphosed from a public service network (largely run by independent physicians and nonprofit hospitals) into a corporate profit machine.”

The situation has gotten so out of hand that a renowned former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Arnold Relman, is accusing drug makers of creating an epidemic that’s endangering public health, jacking up healthcare costs, and weakening the curative connection between health professionals and patients.

Healthcare has Been Reduced to a “Buyer Beware” For-Profit Industry

It’s a dishonorable way to generate sales of potentially deadly drugs, but it works: according to Hightower, for every $1,000 that a drug company spends on direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising in the U.S. produces 24 new patients. It’s a bonanza that generates seven times more customers than if the companies didn’t advertise, and the results on public health are often devastating, further driving up the nation’s health care costs.

Take Vioxx, for example―Merck’s failed drug that caused 140,000 cardiac events, including more than 60,000 deaths, before it was pulled from the market. Merck admits that Vioxx was never intended for the general public. Yet Merck advertised it, and people saw the ads and started demanding it from their doctors, and Merck sold 20 million prescriptions. Many people died before Merck pulled both the ads and the drug. Vioxx became a blockbuster drug, primarily through the use of aggressive DTC advertising. And as a result, thousands of unsuspecting people died or suffered heart attacks that would never have used the drug had they not been lured in by the glossy adverts.

But Merck isn’t alone in this; direct-to-consumer marketing is a general practice by almost every drug company in America. The problem is that, like Vioxx, some of the drugs being advertised are not what they appear; meaning if you see it advertised, the old axiom, caveat emptor―let the buyer beware―is something to remember. This is to be expected when you consider the source, because pharmaceutical companies lead the pack when it comes to corporate crime.

The Real Thugs of the Drug World

The “war on drugs” has focused nearly exclusively on the illegal trafficking of drugs like cocaine, heroin and marijuana, while the most powerful drug dealers of all — the pharmaceutical companies — are allowed to grow their businesses with the U.S. government’s golden seal of approval. But make no mistake – the leading pharmaceutical companies are also among the largest corporate criminals in the world, and they are little more than white-collar drug dealers.

Although many fail to realize this, prescription drugs can be just as addictive as illegal drugs. In fact, in many cases there’s no difference between a street drug and a prescription drug. For example, hydrocodone, a prescription opiate, is synthetic heroin. It’s indistinguishable from any other heroin as far as your brain and body are concerned. So, if you’re hooked on hydrocodone, you are in fact a good-old-fashioned heroin addict.

But aside from the nature of their business, fraud, kickbacks, price-setting, bribery and illegal sales activities are all par for the course for big-name drug companies.

Two years ago, I set out to investigate some of the criminal activities that some of the largest pharmaceutical companies had been convicted of lately, and the amount of gross misconduct, fraud and deceit I found was so insidious, so massive, and so overwhelming that it shocked even me. In all, no less than 19 drug companies made AllBusiness.com’s Top 100 Corporate Criminals List for the 1990s! You can read the grim details in full here, but here’s a sampling of what the top drug companies are up to:
•Merck: With a long list of deaths to its credit and more than $5.5 billion in judgments and fines levied against it, it was five years before Merck made its $30-billion recall of the painkiller Vioxx that I warned my readers that it might be a real killer for some people.

After the drug was withdrawn, and 60,000 had already died, Merck picked up the pieces by getting a new drug fast-tracked and on the market. That drug is Gardasil, a vaccine that so far has been linked to thousands of adverse events, and at least 26 unexplained deaths in just ONE YEAR. It’s a situation that the FDA and CDC have repeatedly denied, keeping their heads buried in the sand as adverse reports mount.

Meanwhile, over 90 percent of women infected with HPV clear the infection naturally within two years, at which point cervical cells go back to normal. Even more importantly, PAP smears can identify cervical changes, thereby preventing cervical cancer deaths far more effectively than the HPV vaccine ever will, because there’s a sufficient amount of time to find and treat any cervical abnormalities if you’re getting regular PAP smears. Alas, as the HPV vaccine is gaining favor, health officials are beginning to argue against the routine use of PAP smears, despite the fact that no one has ever died from this test, while the HPV vaccine is now harming thousands each year.
•Baxter: Dozens of recalls of products that caused deaths and injuries, at least 11 different guilty pleas to fraud and illegal sales activity, more than 200 lawsuits – many of them stemming from selling AIDS-tainted blood to hemophiliacs – and more than $1.3 billion in criminal fines and civil penalties.
•Pfizer: In the largest health care fraud settlement in history, Pfizer was ordered to pay $2.3 billion to resolve criminal and civil allegations that the company illegally promoted uses of four of its drugs, including the painkiller Bextra, the antipsychotic Geodon, the antibiotic Zyvox, and the anti-epileptic Lyrica.

FDA Approves HIV Prevention Drug

If I were to pick out the next blockbuster drug destined to wreak havoc on public health, the brand new drug for HIV prevention would probably be it, and this is primarily related to the fact that there is a strong likelihood that through lobbying and pressure, it will likely be recommended to everyone, just like vaccines, and enforced with similar rules so that the vast majority of the population will be on it.

A drug that’s already being used as a treatment for AIDS has now been approved by the FDA as a preventive pill for use with people who have no infection at all―a move that even AIDS activists say is the wrong thing to do. According to CNN, more than 40 health professionals, AIDS advocates and patients implored the FDA committee not to recommend the drug for the new indicationvi. But the committee ignored their pleas and did it anyway. (The FDA doesn’t have to follow the recommendations of its advisory committees, but it often does.)

The drug, Truvada, is manufactured by Gilead Sciences Inc. It’s not cheap―a month’s supply costs about $1,200. The committee’s approval gives Gilead a whole new, wide-open market for selling the drug.

While currently approved only as pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV-infected homosexual men and the uninfected partners to HIV-infected individuals, it’s fairly easy to see how this will in short order be relaxed to include literally everyone, regardless of age, sex or sexual preference (barring only those who have committed to complete abstinence, I would presume), just like Gardasil suddenly—against all reasonable logic—became a recommended prophylactic necessity for young boys…

In case you think you have heard of Gilead Sciences before, you have if you have been reading this newsletter for some time. Gilead Sciences is the company that Donald Rumsfeld was the former chairman of, and received $7.1 billion dollars for the sale of government-recommended Tamiflu for the non-existent Bird Flu that was projected to kill millions.

More Medical Corruption and Conflicts of Interest

Like a broken record, news of corruption and conflicts of interest between drug makers and medical groups that promote the drugs has erupted again, this time in an investigation led by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and Senator Chuck Grassley.

The bi-partisan probe of drug marketing practices was triggered by the huge jump in deadly overdoses from painkillers known as opioids. According to 2008 statistics from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, opioids were involved in 14,800 overdose deaths that year, surpassing overdose deaths caused by cocaine and heroin combined!

The Senate probe follows an investigation by ProPublica and The Washington Post, which found that the American Pain Foundation received 90 percent of its funding from the drug and medical device industry in 2010, while simultaneously producing written guidance that downplayed side effects and risks and highlighted the benefits of the drugs.

According to a recent Reuter’s report, the senators have sent letters to three major drug makers (Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals unit, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Purdue Pharma), demanding documents about their financial connections to seven medical groups that may have been promoting misleading information about the risks and benefits of opioid use while receiving financial support from the manufacturersvii.

According to Baucus:

“These painkillers have an important role in health care when prescribed and used properly, but pushing misinformation on consumers to boost profits is not only wrong, it’s dangerous.” .

Crime Pays Off Big When You’re a Corporation

In the medical world, there seems to be few crimes that don’t pay off—as long as you don’t get caught (and even then, all you’re bound to receive is a slap on the wrist as long as you’re large and important enough).

The U.S. government is constantly bilked of much needed funds through fraudulent means. In the past few years, the Department of Justice busted doctors, nurses, clinics, hospitals, nursing homes, and drug companies for charging the Medicare and Medicaid system billions of dollars for treatments, drugs, and medical devices that government investigators say either weren’t needed or were never provided at all.

MSNBC News recently reported that, in the largest bust to date, federal agents have charged 197 people in schemes that cheated the Medicare system out of a record $452 millionviii.

The sweep included major cities such as Miami, Tampa, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles and Baton Rouge. The government also suspended payments to 52 provider organizations as part of the bust. The types of medical care involved ran the gamut of health services. For example, in Baton Rouge seven people who ran two community health centers are accused of defrauding the government of $225 million in false claims. The health centers allegedly rounded up drug addicts, homeless people and the elderly, and used them to submit false claims for treatment.

Unless caught, cheaters can make vast sums of money, sometimes upwards of a billion dollars a year just through filing false or “upgraded” payment claims! These types of health care fraud cost US taxpayers an estimated $80-160 billion per year. The latest drug company to get caught is Abbott Laboratories, which pled guilty to promoting its drug Depakote to nursing homes and other healthcare providers for treatment of patients with dementia. Abbott agreed to pay the government $1.5 billion to resolve the criminal investigation.

Why is U.S. Congress More Concerned with Protecting Profits than Kids’ Health?

Another industry given free rein to wreak havoc on public health is the food industry. Processed foods, which contain few nutrients and plenty of disease-promoting sugar and poorly tested chemicals, are at the heart of the obesity epidemic. But if you thought the federal government was really going to do something about childhood obesity in America, all it takes to change your mind is to follow the corporate money trail to Congress…

In a new report by the Sunlight Foundation Reporting Groupix, researchers found that federal guidelines for marketing aimed at children were stopped in their tracks by money thrown at politicians charged with making the change happen. In a recent AlterNet article, Steven Rosenfeld reviewsx the lengths to which corporate America will go to protect their profits. Common tactics include:
•Campaign donations
•Attacking science
•Asserting constitutional rights, and
•Threatening federal agencies with smear campaigns

As a result of industry pressure, nearly 200 lawmakers buckled on the marketing guidelines and ignored the nationwide health epidemic affecting millions of children and teenagers, proving yet again that ingrained in Washington is the impetus to protect corporate profits, as opposed to standing up for the public interest.

Is There a Solution to these Travesties?

As discussed by former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who served three-and-a-half years in federal prison after pleading guilty to corrupting public officials, tax evasion and fraud, our current political system basically runs on bribes. So one necessary step to have any chance of quelling this out-of-control corruption, fraud, and criminal activity is to prohibit all members of Congress and their staff from ever becoming a lobbyist after their service on the Hill is over.

The good news is that increasing numbers of people are now waking up to these harsh realities, and you, being among those who are informed, can help share this knowledge with others. Remember that the definition of fascism is a government system that has complete power in regimenting all industry and forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism. What we have here is a hybrid—a sort of corporate fascism, where industry has powerful control over government, and forcefully suppresses anything that threatens their monopoly on profits.

But, this doesn’t mean that you have to buy into their agenda.

The goal is to ultimately have a critical mass of people refuse the unnecessarily dangerous and counterproductive solutions currently offered by all of these industries, and demand that our public servants serve the public rather than corporate interests. That will serve as the powerful stimulus to generate authentic change. More than 1.6 million people receive this newsletter, and together we can make a huge difference.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

My book “Dentistry and how it’s damaging your health” is available here for only $2.99

References:

——————————————————————————–
i Chicago Tribune May 6, 2012
ii Environmental Health Perspectives May 2010;118(5):699-704
iii IMSHealth.com April 20, 2010
iv Wikipedia.com List of countries by GDP (PPP)
v AlterNet.org May 8, 2012
vi CNN May 11, 2012
vii Reuters May 9, 2012
viii MSNBC News May 2, 2012
ix Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group, May 21, 2012
x AlterNet.org May 11, 2012

Sources:
Chicago Tribune May 6, 2012
Corporate Crime October 17, 2009
AlterNet May 8, 2012
Reuters May 9, 2012
MSNBC.com May 2, 2012
U.S. Department of Justice May 3, 2012
U.S. Department of Justice May 12, 2012
AlterNet May 11, 2012
CNN May 11, 2012
The Washington Post May 8, 2012

By Dr. Mercola

In 1776, Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, foretold a grim scenario that has now taken shape right before our eyes. He said:

“Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution the time will come when medicine will organize itself into an undercover dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to doctors and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic.”

Now, in 2012, we are very much facing this reality, as we live in an era where our medical freedom is increasingly under attack, and “healing” has been replaced with “treating” disease, most often with toxic chemicals and surgery. This drug-driven medical paradigm not only depends on the sacrifice and, some might say, torture, of animals in medical research, but also in many ways uses humans as sacrificial lambs.

Modern Medical Care is a Leading Cause of Death

There were nearly 4.6 million drug-related visits to emergency roomsi in the United States in 2009, with more than half due to adverse reactions to prescription medications – most of which were being taken exactly as prescribedii. The fact of the matter is, as echoed by a study released by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA)iii, it is a mistake to assume there’s no risk in prescribed medicines! As Sayer Ji writes on GreenMedInfo.comiv:

“The “medicines” themselves are often devoid of intrinsic value, being nothing more than rebranded and re-purposed chemicals, intended (though all too often failing) to be administered in sub-lethal concentrations. Indeed, many of these chemicals are too toxic to be legally released into the environment, and should never be administered intentionally to a human who is already sick. You need look no farther than a typical drug package insert to find proof that the side effects of most drugs far outnumber their purported beneficial effects.

These chemicals, in fact, are so highly leveraged against their true value (or lack thereof), that they can sell for as much as 500,000% percent from cost! Only medical/pharmaceutical and financial institutions (e.g. Federal Reserve) are legally empowered to generate the illusion that they are creating something of value out of nothing of value, on this scale.”

Medical care is actually one of the leading causes of death in the U.S., with medical errors, adverse drug reactions, and hospital-acquired infectionsv killing an unacceptable number of Americans each and every day! Drug-related ER visits jumped by more than half between 2004 and 2008vi, stirring health officials to look for ways to stop what has become a near-epidemic that often ends in deathvii.

And when you consider that 2.7 million of those visitsviii involved prescriptions for largely preventable health issues, you can’t help but wonder why we have strayed so far from true health care in lieu of health treatments.

You may be tempted to point your finger at your physician. After all, he or she is on the “front lines” doing most of the prescribing and advising. But whether or not doctors succeed in upholding the Hippocratic Oath — the promise to Do No Harm — is not always entirely in their own hands.

The conventional medical system is simply not designed to give them that freedom. It’s VITAL that you understand that regardless of their personal opinions, many times they’re simply not allowed to offer you any other alternatives than what the “standard protocol” demands. As written on GreenMedInfo.comix:

“Within our present dominant medical system, healing has not simply been forgotten but intentionally exorcized as it represents the antithesis of perpetual profitability which requires the incurability of the human body. Were the truth be told, and the body’s self-regenerative capabilities acknowledged, the entire superstructure of drug-based medicine and hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue it generates annually, would crumble overnight.”

Are You Intentionally Being Misled about Your Body’s Innate Healing Abilities?

This issue runs much deeper than your physician’s office. The entire medical system as it currently stands has been quite carefully orchestrated to make you believe that drugs, vaccinations, screening tests, and surgery are what is required to be well, while an assault has been launched against natural strategies and supplements that have proven vital to well-being for centuries.

For instance, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has launched a full-fledged war against the sale of raw milk, a substance that provides many natural beneficial and healing properties, even though between 1999 and 2010 there was an average of only 42 cases of illness per year attributed to raw milk, and that includes both “confirmed” and “presumed” cases. Meanwhile, they have allowed livestock producers to continue to add low doses of antibiotics to animal feed for growth promotion, even though this practice is undeniably linked to the spread of deadly antibiotic-resistant disease!

They have also issued new Draft Guidance on New Dietary Ingredients that threatens to remove some of your most commonly used supplements from the market, all while approving drugs, prescribed by doctors every day, that kill over 125,000 Americans a year.

They are but one government agency that is so thoroughly enmeshed in the drug-medical paradigm that they are utterly unable to protect you. The American Medical Association (AMA) has maintained a decades-long battle against “alternative” healing traditions, dating back to the 1920s and arguably even earlier. The courts eventually ruled in favor of the chiropractors in 1987, finding the AMA guilty of a conspiracy to take down the chiropractic profession, but their battle has continued on anyway.

According to Naturopathy Digest, the AMA and other medical groups justify their opposition to natural medicine, a primary principle of which is supporting your body’s own innate healing potential, on the basis of three areas of concernx:
•Quality of patient care
•Patient safety
•Quality of education of medical practitioners

As the article so eloquently points out, none of these arguments hold up, and most are based on medical and pharmaceutical industry propaganda. If they were TRULY concerned about patient care and safety, they would not be targeting natural medicine, which has an incredibly low incidence of adverse consequences and proven successes, but instead going after their own allopathic medical practices that are leaving a trail of death and destruction.

Other medical associations whose claims that they exist for the betterment of public health are entirely questionable include the following:
•American Dental Association (ADA): Continues to support the use of mercury fillings and demonizes biological dentists who oppose the use of mercury in dentistry; continues to support fluoridation, in spite of the evidence it does more harm than good.
•American Cancer Society (ACS): This charity has close ties to the mammography industry, the cancer drug industry, and the pesticide industry; has rampant conflicts of interest; consistently promotes drugs and screening procedures while ignoring environmental causes of cancer.
•National Cancer Institute (NCI): Has spent billions of taxpayer dollars promoting treatments while ignoring strategies for preventing cancer; abundant ties to the cancer drug industry (for more information, read Samuel Epstein’s new book, National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest)xi
•American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP): Claiming to be protecting your children, the AAP is largely funded by vaccine manufacturers but refuses to disclose just how much money it gets from them; partners with Congress to protect pediatricians and drug companies from liability for vaccine injuries, while preventing you from getting truthful vaccine information.

However, even the government is not at the top of the totem pole when it comes to this attack on your ability to access natural therapies and obtain optimal health. GreenMedInfo.com continuesxii:

“Although the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) behave as if they are at the top of this pyramid of power relations, they serve far lower on the hierarchy. While the government of the United States and American corporate lobbying groups may appear to be behind the FDA’s shameless pandering to the interests of the drug companies, transnational corporations and organizations — and a hand full of elite governing them — are in fact pulling the strings.”

Natural Therapies are Increasingly Under Attack, or Intentionally Suppressed

Did you know a cream containing eggplant extract, known as BEC and BEC5, appears to eliminate most non-melanoma skin cancers in several weeks time? Or that studies conducted so far show significant potential for the use of cannabis in the prevention and treatment of a wide range of health conditions, including cancer?

Have you heard about Dr. Nick Gonzalez, who has had remarkable success treating patients with some of the most lethal forms of cancer that conventional medicine cannot effectively address using a three-pronged nutritional approach?

There’s a good chance you answered “no” to these questions, and that’s not a coincidence. Information like this is not easy to come by in the mainstream press or from most conventional health care authorities, which is one of the primary reasons why I started this site. Alternatives to drugs and surgery are out there, but unless there is a profit to be had, you aren’t likely to hear about them. In fact, the system is set up to make sure that you don’t.

One of the prime examples of this is vitamin D.

Over 800 studies already show that vitamin D could have cancer-prevention and/or treatment possibilities. But the problem is that it’s a natural substance that can’t be patented as a simple supplement, meaning there’s no real revenue in it, compared to a prescription brand drug. That’s why many drug studies involving vitamins of any kind hinge on how the FDA defines drugs and supplements.

A drug is defined as a product meant for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of a diseasexiii. A supplement is defined as a product that is meant to simply “supplement” or “enhance” a normal diet within the daily allowances recommended by the FDAxiv. Retailers who sell supplements are not allowed to tell you that vitamin D can possibly “prevent, mitigate or cure” cancer without having the FDA accuse them of selling a drug that hasn’t been approved through the proper FDA process.

That process of getting a drug to market costs an average $359 millionxv and takes nearly 10 years – with a good portion of the money going directly to the FDA through user feesxvi. Over the years these fees have become a major funding source for the FDA. What drug companies get in return is faster FDA reviews and drug approvals.

As a result, a kind of you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours scenario has ensued, with drug companies maintaining major leverage over the FDA when it comes to protecting their revenue sources, including making sure the $60 billion-a-year supplement business doesn’t get in the way of drug salesxvii. The history of FDA laws and regulations on file at Harvard Law School, explains how years ago an FDA task force long ago established this policy…

“… to ensure that the presence of dietary supplements on the market does not act as a disincentive to drug development.”

What Can You do to Support Real Health and Healing?

For starters, recognize that health does not come from a pill … and no disease is caused by a “drug or vaccine deficiency.” As written on GreenMedInfo.comxviii:

” … is there any greater absurdity than a medical model that treats the symptoms of disease with sub-lethal dosages of toxic chemicals and in which there is no attempt to uncover, understand or remove the causes of those imbalances?

After all, what disease has ever been found to be caused by a lack of a drug?

Is acid reflux caused by a lack of proton-pump inhibitors?

Is heart disease caused by a lack of statin drugs?

Is osteoporosis caused by a lack of Fosamax?

Is cancer caused by a lack of chemotherapy?

Is depression caused by a lack of Paxil?

Absolutely not! Then why would anyone consider it sound practice to use potentially toxic chemicals as a first-line treatment for conditions that are not caused by a lack of a chemical? To the contrary many diseases are caused exactly by culminative exposures to chemicals that not unlike drugs are biologically alien to the body, i.e we are treating poisoning with poisons! Can we dignify this approach by calling it medicine? Or, is it more accurately described as a form of sorcery?”

Until real systemic change takes place, your best health strategy is quite simply to employ and maintain a naturally healthy lifestyle that will optimize your body’s innate healing abilities and minimize your need for the drug companies’ latest concoctions. We are, however, working hard to change the system and help protect your health freedoms from corrupt influences like the drug industry; you can learn more about our newest initiative toward this end, Health Liberty, now.

It is, of course, of paramount importance to take control of your health so you can stay well naturally, without the use of drugs or even frequent conventional medical care. If you adhere to a healthy lifestyle, you most likely will not need medications in the first place. This encompasses several principles, including:
•Proper Food Choices

For a comprehensive guide on which foods to eat and which to avoid, see my nutrition plan. Generally speaking, you should be looking to focus your diet on whole, unprocessed foods (vegetables, meats, raw dairy, nuts, and so forth) that come from healthy, sustainable, local sources, such as a small organic farm not far from your home.

For the best nutrition and health benefits, you will want to have raw food as a good portion of your diet. Personally, I aim to eat about 80-85 percent of my food raw, including raw eggs and humanely raised organic animal products that have not been raised on a CAFO (confined animal feeding operation).

Nearly as important as knowing which foods to eat more of is knowing which foods to avoid, and topping the list is fructose. Sugar, and fructose in particular, contributes to multiple disease processes in your body, not the least of which is insulin resistance, a major cause of accelerated aging.
•Comprehensive Exercise Program, including High-Intensity Exercise like Peak Fitness

Even if you’re eating the healthiest diet in the world, you still need to exercise to reach the highest levels of health, and you need to be exercising effectively, which means including not only core-strengthening exercises, strength training, and stretching but also high-intensity activities into your rotation. High-intensity, interval-type training boosts human growth hormone (HGH) production, which is essential for optimal health, strength and vigor. I’ve discussed the importance of Peak Fitness for your health on numerous occasions, so for more information please review this previous article.
•Stress Reduction and Positive Thinking

You cannot be optimally healthy if you avoid addressing the emotional component of your health and longevity, as your emotional state plays a role in nearly every physical disease — from heart disease and depression, to arthritis and cancer. Effective coping mechanisms are a major longevity-promoting factor in part because stress has a direct impact on inflammation, which in turn underlies many of the chronic diseases that kill people prematurely every day. Meditation, prayer, social support and exercise are all viable options that can help you maintain emotional and mental equilibrium.
•Proper Sun Exposure to Optimize Vitamin D

We have long known that it is best to get your vitamin D from sun exposure, and if at all possible, I strongly urge you to make sure you’re getting out in the sun on a daily basis or if this is not an option use a safe tanning bed.

Just keep in mind that it’s really best to get ALL your vitamin D from the sun. It appears that vitamin D plays a crucial role in sulfur metabolismxix and when you swallow it orally it may not have the same benefit as getting it from the sun.
•Take High Quality Animal-Based Omega-3 Fats

Animal-based omega-3 fat is a strong factor in helping people live longer, and many experts believe that it is likely the predominant reason why the Japanese are the longest lived people on the planet.
•Avoid as Many Chemicals, Toxins, and Pollutants as Possible

This includes tossing out your toxic household cleaners, soaps, personal hygiene products, air fresheners, bug sprays, lawn pesticides, and insecticides, just to name a few, and replacing them with non-toxic alternatives.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

My book “Dentistry and how it’s damaging your health” is available here for only $2.99

References:

——————————————————————————–
i InfoFacts: Drug-Related Hospital Emergency Room Visits, National Institute on Drug Abuse, May 2011.
ii Highlights of the 2009 Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) Findings on Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits, The DAWN Report, December 28, 2010.
iii Emergency Department Visits Involving Adverse Reactions to Medications among Older Adults, The Dawn Report, February 24, 2011. (PDF)
iv Has Drug-Driven Medicine Become A Form of Human Sacrifice?, GreenMedInfo.com, December 29, 2011: Sayer Ji.
v New Study Shows Sepsis and Pneumonia Caused by Hospital-acquired Infections Kill 48,000 Patients, EurekAlert, February 22, 2010. (Press release)
vi Rx Side Effects Causing More Hospitalizations, American Medical News, May 2, 2011: Kevin B. O’Reilly.
vii Prescription Drugs More Overdoses in U.S. Than Heroin and Cocaine, Bloomberg, July 8, 2011: Oliver Renick.
viii Rx Side Effects Causing More Hospitalizations, American Medical News, May 2, 2011: Kevin B. O’Reilly.
ix Has Drug-Driven Medicine Become A Form of Human Sacrifice?, GreenMedInfo.com, December 29, 2011: Sayer Ji.
x AMA Declares War on Naturopathic Medicine, Patient Safety and Freedom of Choice in Health Care, Naturopathy Digest, 2006: Alex Vasquez.
xi National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest, Amazon.com, May 17, 2011: Samuel S. Epstein, MD.
xii Has Drug-Driven Medicine Become A Form of Human Sacrifice?, GreenMedInfo.com, December 29, 2011: Sayer Ji.
xiii Cosmetics, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, July 8, 2002.
xiv Drugs, U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
xv What Does It Cost to Bring a New Drug to Market?, Answers Encyclopedia.
xvi How Long Does Drug Development Take?, PharmTech.com, January 15, 2009.
xvii Dietary Supplement Industry Contributes Billion to National Economy, Natural Products Foundation, April 5, 2010.
xviii Has Drug-Driven Medicine Become A Form of Human Sacrifice?, GreenMedInfo.com, December 29, 2011: Sayer Ji.
xix Critical Role of Vitamin D in Sulfate Homeostasis: Regulation of the Sodium-Sulfate Cotransporter by 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3, American Journal of Physiology: Endocrinology and Metabolism, October 2004: 287(4); E744-E749, Merry J.G. Bolt, et al.

Sources:
Green Med Info December 29, 2011

Germier Than Toilet Seats, But You Touch Them Every Day

What do restaurant menus, hands-free faucets, ATM machines and your physician’s scrubs have in common? They are all among the “germiest” objects on Earth.

Yes, really.

As much as you might like to give the gold medal to toilet seats when it comes to squeamishly germ-ridden locations, science suggests there are much “germier” places that you’re probably frequenting daily.

For example, one study found that each key on an ATM keypad harbors 1,200 germs, including E. coli and cold and flu viruses. The worst button is the “Enter” button, because everyone has to touch it. Flu viruses can survive on hard surfaces such as restaurant menus for as long as 18 hours, according to an article in Mental Flossi. Some of the other dirtiest places and objects might surprise you:

•Hospitals
•Lemon Slices in Restaurant Drinks
•Hotel Room Glasses
•Kitchen Cloths and Sponges
•Faucets and Sink Drains
•Toothbrushes
•Food Court Tables
•Fitting Rooms

•Restaurant Condiment
•Toy Stores
•Hotel Bedspreads and Pillows
•Light Switches
•Drinking Fountains
•Wet laundry—after it’s been washed
•Escalator Handrails
•Shopping Cart Handles

•Handbag Bottoms
•Gadget Shops
•Remote Controls and Computer Keyboards
•Door Knobs and Handles
•Cutting Boards
•Playground Equipment (Swings, Slides and Monkey Bars)
•Shopping Cart Handles
•Makeup Samples

Hospitals are Some of the Germiest Places on Earth

When you see hospital staff in bright, cheerfully colored scrubs and crisp white lab coats, do you think bacteria? That’s exactly what you should think, considering the findings of several recent studies that show hospitals are not the safe, clean environments we’d like them to be.
1.A study published in 2011 in the American Journal of Infection Controlii found that more than 60 percent of healthcare workers’ uniforms tested positive for potentially dangerous bacteria, including germs that cause pneumonia, bloodstream infections and drug-resistant infections such as MRSA. The samples were obtained from the sleeves, waists, and pockets of 75 registered nurses and 60 physicians at a busy university-based hospital. Eleven percent of the bugs were resistant to multiple front-line antibiotics. This study suggests healthcare workers’ attire may be one surprising route by which pathogenic bacteria are transmitted from staff to patients.
2.Another 2011 studyiii found pathogenic bacteria—including MRSA—on the privacy curtains that separate care spaces in hospitals and clinics.
3.A 2009 studyiv showed that pathogenic microorganisms can even survive on the paper commonly used in clinical settings—so the penicillin script your physician hands you may come with its own colony of dangerous bacteria
4.A 2009 studyv of U.K. nursing homes found 24 percent of residents and seven percent of staff were colonized with MRSA, which means they were carrying the bacteria on their skin (and lab coats) but not showing signs of infection.

Rates of MRSA in health care settings have been climbing steadily. Statistically, six out of seven people infected with MRSA contract it at a healthcare facility, where the infection shows up in surgical wounds or around feeding tubes, catheters or other invasive devicesvi. However, these “super bugs” are no longer originating only in healthcare facilities. The bacteria are constantly adapting, and now they are being found in livestock that ends up on your dinner plate.

The “Farming” of Super Bugs

Today, as much as 70 percent of all antibiotic use in the United States takes place at concentrated animal feedlot operations (CAFOs), and these factory-scale farms are now brewing a novel strain of MRSA. CAFO animals are often fed antibiotics at low doses to prevent disease and promote growth.

MRSA, short for “Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus,” is a very dangerous strain of staph bacteria that has developed resistance to the broad-spectrum antibiotics commonly used to treat it (methicillin, penicillin, oxacillin, amoxicillin, etc.). Initially, these “super bugs” were coming exclusively from hospital environments, but they’ve now adapted and spread to other public settings, such as schools, gyms, and locker rooms. And now a new strain has appeared in livestock animals as a direct result of antibiotic overuse.

Experts are concerned this new MRSA strain in livestock could begin to infect humans all over the globe.

Realizing that antibiotics abuse threatens public health, the U.S. FDA plans to issue new regulations for the use of antibiotics in the livestock industry by requiring a veterinarian’s prescription before antibiotics can be given.vii

Other countries have also realized the inherent hazards of antibiotic overuse and have opted for a healthier approach to the raising of livestock. For example, Denmark stopped the widespread use of antibiotics in their pork industry 12 years ago. After they implemented the antibiotic ban, a Danish study later confirmed that Denmark had drastically reduced antibiotic-resistant bacteria in their animals and food. This is one reason why I feel it’s so important to support smaller, local farms that raise livestock and poultry without antibiotics, on pastures where the animals graze on natural grasses, as opposed to confined to buildings and fed grains.

Bad Bugs, Bad Bugs… Whatchya Gonna Do?

As hard as you might try, you simply can’t outrun or outsmart the microbes. They’re literally everywhere, including all over you as you read this right now. We are their reproductive vectors–they ride around on us and hop from person to person, using us like an interpersonal railway system. Knowing this, how do you live your life without fearing an attack from every mustard bottle or stationary bike handle you come across?

Relax. You don’t have to worry, as long as your immune system is in good shape.

We have shared our lives with the microbial world for many thousands of years, and we will probably do so for millions more. If your defenses are strong, your body will be pretty successful in fighting off invaders. It’s only when your immune system is compromised that you’re more likely to become ill.

And many of these microorganisms are beneficial—even the pathological ones. Some microbial exposure actually makes you stronger by “training” your immune system to react appropriately, especially when the exposure occurs in childhood. This concept is known as the “hygiene hypothesis.”

There is evidence that our modern germophobic culture, with hand sanitizers on every shelf, is counterproductive to good health. Science has found that overly sterile environments are linked with higher rates of depression, increased inflammation, heart disease, asthma, allergies, and eczema. That said, some of today’s pathogens are quite a bit more dangerous than those present a century ago, so taking some reasonable precautions is advisable. One of the simplest and most effective preventative measures is proper hand washing.

Your Number ONE Defense Against Germs: Proper Hand Washing

Getting back to basics is often the best advice, and that definitely applies here. Good old-fashioned hand washing with plain soap and water is one of the oldest and most powerful antibacterial treatments there is; no harsh disinfectants or antimicrobial soaps required. To make sure you’re actually removing the germs when you wash your hands, follow these guidelines:

1. Use warm water

2. Use a mild non-antibacterial soap

3. Work up a good lather, all the way up to your wrists, for at least 10 or 15 seconds

4. Make sure you cover all surfaces, including the backs of your hands, wrists, between your fingers, and around and below your fingernails

5. Rinse thoroughly under running water

6. In public places, use a paper towel to open the door as a protection from germs that the handles may harbor

Also remember that your skin is your primary defense against bacteria—not the soap. So resist the urge to become obsessive about washing your hands. Washing too vigorously or too frequently can extract many of the protective oils in your skin, causing it to crack and potentially even bleed, providing germs a point of entry into your body where they can do harm. So mild to moderate washing is really all you need.

AVOID Anti-Bacterial Soaps

You should especially avoid the use of antibacterial soaps and wipes, especially those containing triclosan and triclocarban, chemicals that can worsen the problem of bacterial resistance. There is also recent evidence that triclosan may disrupt your hormone balance. If you wish to use a hand sanitizer, make sure it’s made with safe plant-based ingredients such as rice bran extract, aloe vera, chamomile and tea tree oil, rather than the chemical agents you typically find. Now that you’ve taken care of your outer defenses, you should pay some attention to your inner defenses—your immune system.

My Basic Recipe for Building a Strong Immune System

Maintaining a strong immune system requires following the basic tenets of good health. There is no magic bullet. Staying healthy, or regaining your health, requires some diligence in making good choices about nutrition, exercise, sleep and the rest, over the long term. Good health habits will minimize your risk of getting sick from ANY cause.

Manage your stress; science has proven that stress and unresolved emotional issues have lingering adverse effects on your health

Optimize your vitamin D level with exposure to sunlight or a safe tanning bed; if this isn’t possible, take an oral vitamin D supplement

Drink plenty of clean water

Eat foods that are best for your body, according to my Nutrition Plan

Optimize your insulin and leptin levels

Avoid excess sugar (especially fructose) and grain consumption

Avoid processed foods, chemical additives, artificial sweeteners, MSG, and all genetically modified ingredients

Consider taking a high-quality probiotic supplement, as your gastrointestinal system is an important part of your immune system

Exercise three to five times a week

Get plenty of restorative sleep every night

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

My book “Dentistry and how it’s damaging your health” is available here for only $2.99

References:

——————————————————————————–
i Mental Floss January 11, 2012
ii Am J Infection Control September 2011
iii Am J Infection Control April 2011
iv AJN December 2011
v Journal of the American Geriatrics Society April 2009
vi Seattle Times
vii MNN April 12, 2012

This is an extract taken directly from the book.
The Liver and Gallbladder miracle cleanse
Andreas Moritz PhD

Having read his book twice now, I am a firm believer in his work, in it he talks about the many illness’s and disease’s that will find their origins in gallstones in the liver and gallbladder, one of which is MS which I have been struggling with for 12 years.
That being the case I decided to see if following his guidance would help me, so six days ago I started on the preparation for the cleanse.
Today is Thursday May 24th and the day of the actual cleanse.
Tomorrow I will hopefully be able to tell you about the many gallstones I eliminated from my body..

The liver and gallbladder cleanse

Cleansing the liver and gallbladder from gallstones is one of the most important and powerful approaches you can take to improve your health.
The liver cleanse requires 6 days of preparation, followed byt 16 to 20 hours of actual cleaning. To remove gallstones you need the following items.
• Six 1 liter (32 oz) containers of apple juice
• 4 tablespoons of Epsom salts dissolved in three 8 oz glasses of water
• ½ cup (4 oz) of fresh grapefruit juice or freesh lemon and orange juice combined
• 2 pint jars, one with a lid
Preparation
Drink 32 oz of packaged apple juice per day for a period of 6 days. The malic acid in the apple juice softens the gallstones and makes their passage through the bile ducts smooth and easy.
The apples juice has a strong and cleansing effect. Some sensitive people may experience bloating and occasionally, diarrhea during the first few days. Much of the diarrhea is actually stagnant bile, released by the liver and gallbladder. The fermenting effect of the juice helps widen the bile ducts. If this becomes somewhat uncomfortable you can dilute the apple juice with any amount of water.
Drink the apple juice slowly throughout the day, between meals, avoid drinking the juice during, just before and in the first two hours after a meal. This is in addition to your normal water intake of six to eight glasses.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

My book “Dentistry and how it’s damaging your health” is available here for only $2.99

How to genuinely fight MS…

In February 2004 I was diagnosed with MS, like everyone who is told that horrible news I was devastated, I had been seeing a physicians assistant not the doctor and he gave me some great advice, he suggested that I didn’t allow them to officially diagnose MS. The reason was that MS would be on my health records forever and it would affect everything I did in the future. My insurance would sky rocket, not just health insurance but also my vehicle and life insurance. So I took his advice and didn’t go back for the official dianosis when they would try to put me on medication to address the symptoms rather than the cause.
Through a great deal of research I found several ways of addressing the problem, some seemed to have some validity but others didn’t, in 2007 I met Dr Huggins who had been an MS patient for 37 years but was living a normal life. I was offered a job as the Client Service Director and began three and a half years of learning the truth about illness.
I’ve said this thousands of times before and I’m sure I will say it at least another thousand times, mercury is the most toxic non radioactive substance on earth, the majority of MS patients will have amalgam fillings in their teeth. Every time you brush your teeth, drink hot drinks or chew, you stimulate the release of methyl mercury which is 100 times more toxic. The most sensitive parts of your body are the insides of your cheeks and under your tongue, so guess where the methyl mercury goes.
Once inside your body, it is attached to the hemeglobin in your red blood cells and is transported throughout your body, in fact there is a very good chance it will find a home in a filter organ and for the MS patient it has crossed the blood brain barrier.
The answer is not just to rush into your local holistic or biological dentist, because they do not know the correct way of removing amalgams, there is a very specific sequence to do this and only a dentist that has gone through the official training with Dr Huggins will know the correct way.
So having the amalgam fillings removed the correct way is the first part of your healing.
Another possible way of beating my MS was to use H202 or hydrogen peroxide, Dr Madison Cavanaugh wrote a book called “One minute cure” which I bought for $40 a few years ago, it was a 119 page download. She talked very positively about using 35% food grade hydrogen peroxide, it was administered using a dropper, 3 drops in 8 ozs of distilled water three times per day. Then increasing by one drop each day until you took 25 drops three times a day.
I strongly recommend that you do not do this unless you have the book, Dr Cavanaugh explains in great detail how this is to be taken and the safety precautions that must be followed. H202 will burn your skin, badly if you are not extremely careful.
I think there were three things that made the biggest impact on my health and recovery, firstly to have the dentistry done by a Huggins trained dentist, I was very lucky because I was able to use Dr Blanche Grube in Scranton, PA. I had over ten hours of dental work done on two sittings.
Body chemistry re-balancing with Dr Huggins and finally the CCSVI operation in Bulgaria.
Dr Grube is far and away the best at what she does, skill, passion, compassion and experience all of which in my opinion far exceed anyone else.
Now I’ve said several times, I truly believe that there isn’t one way to cure everything, there are so many protocols that profess to address the many problems we as frail delicate human are subject to. The food conglomerates spend millions if not billions with slick advertising agencies to bamboozle the general public into thinking their food product, that in reality has very little nutritional value after processing, is good and nutritious.
We get into a rhythm of eating a food product for breakfast, we give it religiously to our children thinking we are doing the right thing when in reality, all we are doing is depriving ourselves and our children of the very nutrition necessary to sustain life.
It’s no wonder that this nation, the most powerful nation in the world is close to being in the bottom half of the world’s nations from a health standpoint. That is according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
When I was first diagnosed with MS in February 2004, I honestly thought my life was over as I knew it, however the English and German in me (English dad and German mother) which makes a good combination for a stubborn attitude, refused to give in.
I surfed the internet for months and talked to anyone and everyone I could, eventually a friend told me about a health beverage, no, not the Noni or Viavienti but something called XanGo. A juice made from the mangosteen fruit, it grows in south East Asia, not in the US or Europe. The whole fruit is processed or blended including the rind of the fruit, actually I’d better go back a bit to explain some very important details.
A man called Joe Morton was in Malaysia on business, while there he stumbled across a fruit that was being served for desert. Yes the fruit was deliscious but Joe’s inquisitive mind made him ask a lot of questions.
To cut a long story short, Joe teamed up with two of his brothers and three other amazing men, they eventually struck up a partnership with “Wild Flavours” the biggest health beverage company in the world, based out of Germany.
Together they produced the juice XanGo a name created from Xanthones and Mangosteen, there are only 200 xanthones known to man and 43 of them can be found in the mangosteen fruit.
Now because of the phenomenal success of XanGo, there are lots of imitators, none of which have the xanthones or at least the beneficial ones in their product, so don’t be fooled by their claims.
I use XanGo to this day and I truly believe I’d be in a wheelchair if I didn’t take it.
I drink about 6 ozs of he juice each day, 2 ozs three times per day, this is because it has a half life of about 4 hrs in your body to it’s best to consume it three times each day.
Don’t be put off because it’s a network marketing company, it is simply the best way of avoiding the middle men and having it cost significantly more. You can just go online to www.xango.com and order it, they are an incredible company that stand by their product and their name. The best way is to join for $35 and then you can buy it wholesale, also if you order two cases and for some unknown reason decide at any time it’s not working for you they will reimburse you the money you paid for the product, no questions asked…
Several years ago I did a search on “natural ways of beating MS”, I came across a company called Micro Bio Flora who sold a product called “Progurt” a Probiotic in yogurt form that contained more than 200 times the CFU’s (colony forming units) than any other probiotic in the world.
I talked with the owner of the company a Mr Robert Beson a new yorker living in Australia; they had found their product was having great effects on MS patients.
Its not cheap at $620 per month but I can vouch for its efficacy, I used it for about a year and had only positive results from using it, the only reason I stopped was that I started working for Dr Huggins and realised there were other issues involved such as amalgam fillings.
As far as I am concerned the benefits of using Progurt far outweigh the cost, so it’s well worth a try if…and only if you’ve had your amalgams replaced by a Huggins trained dentist.
A point to mention here is that if you buy your Probiotic from the health food store, you will find it primarily in two forms, pills or drinks, they vary from as little as 1 million CFU’s to as high as 35 billion CFU’s ( colony forming units) and they are made from 1 to 5 different strains of Probiotic.
Progurt however is made from a lot more strains of Probiotic providing far more protection and benefit’s over the regular Probiotic. The massive difference is that Progurt has 1 trillion CFU’s, that is at least 200 times more powerful than anything else available.
It can be mailed from Australia and be anywhere in the world in three days at no extra charge, it arrives with a yogotherm to “cook” the Progurt and a month’s supply of product. It is in powder form in very slim sachet’s which you mix with ultra pasteurized milk and leave in the yogotherm for 8 hrs. I actually found it to be more palatable if left for 24 hours. It is a really nice vanilla flavored yogurt which you drink each day. I was told to start by having two pints per day for he first month then to reduce my consumption to one pint for the next month.
If finances allowed I would still be taking it now.

Over the past year since I lost my job, actually I was laid off because my employer wanted a DNA specialist and as I didn’t fit the bill and was one of only two salaried employees it was obvious who would have to go in his eyes. They used the excuse that the company was struggling financially but as the biggest revenue generator he had ever had I found that to be an invalid excuse, the real reason was that I had MS and he was too concerned about financial liability as we didn’t have any health insurance.
So I’ve struggled on trying to do my best, at the end of the day it is my own responsibility not anyone else.
I’ve maintained my supplemental regimine but it is hard to cope financially and physically of course. I am determined to win this challenge. I think in a couple of weeks I will be starting a Bee Venom threrapy, if the bee keeper is able to let me have the bee’s of course.
I will keep you updated on my progress…

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

My book “Dentistry and how it’s damaging your health” is available here for only $2.99

Diseases of the mouth

Gallstones in the liver and gallbladder are also responsible for most disease of the mouth. The stones interfere with the digestion and absorption of food which, in turn forces waste products meant for elimination to remain in the inte3rstinal tract. The storage of waste in the intestines creates a toxic, anaerobic environment that supports breeding of destructive germs and parasites and undermines preservation of healthy, resilient tissues.
Bacterial infection (thrush) and vial infection (herpes) in the mouth occur only when the intestines have accumulated considerable amounts of undigested waste matter. Destructive bacteria attempt to decompose some of the waste, but not without producing powerful toxins. Some of these toxins are absorbed into the blood and lymph fluids, which carry them to the liver. The rest of the toxins remain trapped in the intestines, where they are a constant source of irritation to the intestinal lining (which begins in the mouth and ends in the anus). Eventually, the intestinal wall becomes inflaned and develops ulcerous lesions.
The damaged intestinal tissue begins to “invite” more and more microbes to the scene of injury to help destroy and dispose of any weak and damaged cells.
We call this “infection”.
Infection is a normal phenomenon seen everywhere in nature whenever there is something that needs to be decomposed. Bacteria never attack-that is, infect something that is as clean, vital and healthy as a well nourished fruit hanging on a tree. Only when the fruit becomes overripe, lacks nourishment or falls to the ground can bacteria begin their clean up job. While decomposing food or flesh, bacteria produce toxins. You can recognize these toxins by their unpleasant odor and acidic nature. The same occurs when bacteria act on improperly digested food in the intestines. If this situation takes place day after day and month after month, the resulting toxins will lead to symptoms.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

My book “Dentistry and how it’s damaging your health” is available here for only $2.99