Along with coconut milk and coconut oil as healthy fat choices, we’ve also got coconut flour as a healthier flour option for baking. Coconut flour is an extremely high fiber flour alternative (almost ALL of the carbs in this flour are fiber and not starch!). Coconut flour is also VERY high in protein compared to most flours and is also gluten free!

Just beware that if you’re going to use coconut flour for baking, it absolutely NEEDS to be mixed with other flours as it sucks up moisture like crazy… I’ve made delicious baked goods by mixing coconut flour with almond flour and quinoa flour in equal parts, and adding slightly more liquid ingredients than the recipe calls for.

3. Grass-fed (pasture-raised) butter — yes, delicious smooth and rich BUTTER (real butter, not deadly margarine!)… It’s delicious, contains loads of healthy nutritional factors, and does NOT have to be avoided in order to get lean. In fact, I eat a couple pats of grass-fed butter daily and maintain single digit body fat most times of the year.

There’s a lot of confusion about this topic… in fact, I just saw a TV show today that was talking about unhealthy foods and one of the first things they showed was butter. It just shows that the majority of the population has zero idea that butter (grass-fed only!) can actually be a healthy part of your diet.

In fact, there’s even ample evidence that REAL butter can even help you to lose body fat for a couple of main reasons:

a. Grass-fed butter is known to have high levels of a healthy fat called CLA, which has been shown to have anti-cancer properties, and also has been shown to help burn abdominal fat and build lean muscle.

b. Grass-fed butter also has an ideal balance of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids (unlike conventional grain-fed butter) which helps fight inflammation in your body, and can help balance hormones.

c. The healthy fats in grass-fed butter also contain MCTs, which help to boost your immune system and are readily burned by the body for energy. The healthy fats in grass-fed butter also help to satisfy your appetite and control blood sugar levels, both of which help you to stay lean!

If you have a hard time finding a grass-fed butter at your grocery store, Kerrygold Irish butter is one of my favorites, and even though the label doesn’t clearly state “grass-fed”, the cows are 100% grass-fed on lush green pastures in Ireland. It’s one of the richest butters in color that I’ve seen, which indicates high levels of carotenoids.

4. Whole Eggs, including the yolk (not just egg whites) — Most people know that eggs are one of the highest quality sources of protein. However, most people don’t know that the egg yolks are the healthiest part of the egg… that’s where almost all of the vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants (such as lutein) are found in eggs.

In fact, the egg yolks contain more than 90% of the calcium, iron, phosphorus, zinc, thiamin, B6, folate, and B12, and panthothenic acid of the egg. In addition, the yolks contain ALL of the fat soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K in the egg, as well as ALL of the essential fatty acids. Also, the protein of whole eggs is more bio-available than egg whites alone due to a more balanced amino acid profile that the yolks help to build.

Just make sure to choose free-range organic eggs instead of normal grocery store eggs. Similar to the grass-fed beef scenerio, the nutrient content of the eggs and the balance between healthy omega-3 fatty acids and inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids (in excess) is controlled by the diet of the hens.

Chickens that are allowed to roam free outside and eat a more natural diet will give you healthier, more nutrient-rich eggs with a healthier fat balance compared with your typical grocery store eggs (that came from chickens fed nothing but soy and corn and crowded inside “egg factories” all day long).

5. Grass-fed beef or bison (NOT the typical grocery store beef!) — I know most people think that red meat is unhealthy for you, but that’s because they do not understand how the health of the animal affects how healthy the meat is for consumption. Keep this in mind — “an unhealthy animal provides unhealthy meat, but a healthy animal provides healthy meat”.

Typical beef or bison that you see at the grocery store is raised on grains, mainly corn (and to some extent,

soybeans). Soy and corn are NOT the natural diet of cattle or bison, and therefore changes the chemical balance of fats and other nutrients in the beef or bison. Grain-fed beef and bison is typically WAY too high in omega-6 fats and WAY too low in omega-3 fats. In addition, the practice of feeding cattle corn and soy as the main portion of their diet upsets their digestive system and makes them sick… and it also increases the amount of dangerous e-coli in the meat. This is not the case with grass-fed meat.

On the other hand, grass-fed beef from cattle and buffalo (or bison) that were raised on the type of natural foods that they were meant to eat in nature (grass and other forage), have much higher levels of healthy omega-3 fats and lower levels of inflammatory omega-6 fats (that most people already eat way too much of) compared to grain fed beef or bison.

Grass fed meats also typically contain up to 3 times the Vitamin E as in grain fed meats.

In addition, grass-fed meat from healthy cattle or bison also contain a special healthy fat called conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) in MUCH higher levels than grain-fed meat. CLA has been proven in scientific studies in recent years to help in burning fat and building lean muscle (which can help you lose weight!). These benefits are on top of the fact that grass-fed meats are some of the highest quality proteins that you can possibly eat… and this also aids in burning fat and building lean muscle.

Grass-fed meats are a little harder to find, but just ask your butcher or find a specialty grocery store and they usually have cuts available. I’ve also found a great site to order grass-fed meats online and have gotten to know the owner of this company well, and they are dedicated to the quality of their foods.
6. Avocados — Even though avocados are typically thought of as a “fatty food”, they are chock full of healthy fats! Not only is this fruit (yes, surprisingly, avocados are actually a fruit) super-high in monounsaturated fat, but also chock full of vitamins, minerals, micro-nutrients, and antioxidants.

Also, in my opinion, guacamole (mashed avocados with garlic, onion, tomato, pepper, etc) is one of the most delicious food toppings ever created, and you can be happy to know that it’s also one of the healthiest toppings you can use on your foods. Try sliced avocados or guacamole on sandwiches, burgers, eggs or omelets, on salads or with fish, or as a delicious side to just about any meal.

The quality dose of healthy fats, fiber, and micronutrients that you get from avocados helps your body to maintain proper levels of hormones that help with fat loss and muscle building. Also, since avocados are an extremely satiating food, eating them helps to reduce your appetite in the hours after your meal. Say goodbye to junk food cravings and bring on that fat burning! I personally eat anywhere from a half to a full avocado DAILY and it only helps to keep me lean.
7. Nuts: Walnuts, Almonds, Pistachios, Pecans, Brazil Nuts, Macadamias, etc — Yes, this is yet another “fatty food” that can actually help you burn belly fat! Although nuts are generally between 75-90% fat in terms of a ratio of fat calories to total calories, this is another type of food that is all healthy fats, along with high levels of micronutrients such as vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants. Nuts are also a good source of fiber and protein, which of course, you know helps to control blood sugar and can aid in fat loss.

Nuts also help to maintain good levels of fat burning hormones in your body (adequate healthy fat intake is vitally important to hormone balance) as well as helping to control appetite and cravings so that you essentially eat less calories overall, even though you’re consuming a high-fat food. My favorite healthy nuts are pecans, pistachios, almonds, macadamias, and walnuts, and by eating them in variety, you help to broaden the types of vitamins and minerals and also the balance of polyunsaturated to monounsaturated fats you obtain.

Try to find raw nuts instead of roasted nuts if you can, as it helps to maintain the quality and nutritional content of the healthy fats that you will eat.

Also, try to broaden your horizons beyond the typical peanut butter that most people eat, and try almond butter, cashew butter, pecan butter, or macadamia butter to add variety to your diet.

One of the little “tricks” that I’ve used with clients when trying to cut down body fat is to have them eat a handful of nuts such as almonds or pecans about 20 minutes before lunch and dinner. This ends up being a perfect time to control your appetite before lunch or dinner and helps you to eat less overall calories on that meal.

When you or your child is injected with a vaccine, the aluminum compounds it contains accumulate not only at the site of injection but travel to your brain and accumulate there. In your brain, aluminum enters neurons and glial cells (astrocytes and microglia). Studies have shown that aluminum can activate microglia and do so for long periods, which means that the aluminum in your vaccination is priming your microglia to overreact.

Even a study in Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, admitted that:

“Aluminum is now being implicated as interfering with a variety of cellular and metabolic processes in the nervous system and in other tissues.”

Aluminum is not only toxic in and of itself, but it also impairs your body’s ability to excrete mercury, and it impairs glutathione synthesis. As a consequence, aluminum will make whatever amount of mercury you have in your system — from eating seafood, dental fillings, vaccines, etc. — even more toxic. The problem, of course, is that U.S. regulators have once again thrown the precautionary principle to the wind, and have allowed this known poison to be injected into our children without proper safety and toxicity testing.

Researchers continue in Current Medicinal Chemistry:

“Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds … We hope that the present paper will provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly contentious medical issue.”

Which Vaccine Contains the Most Aluminum?

According to the FDA, the maximum amount of allowable elemental aluminum is 850 mcg per vaccine. How was this limit determined? When Dr. Ayoub investigated the FDA regulations on aluminum, he discovered that the limitation of 850 mcg per vaccine is based on the effectiveness of the adjuvant and has nothing to do with limitations based on safety! So although 850 mcg of aluminum may be “legally” safe in a vaccine, this is based solely on the efficacy of the vaccine, NOT on any safety data whatsoever.

With that in mind, Dr. Ayoub has identified one vaccine in particular as being one of the absolute worst in terms of aluminum content — Pediatrix. It’s a combination vaccine, which contains the full legal limit: 850 mcg of elemental aluminum.

The average aluminum content per vaccine ranges between 200 to 400 mcg, but if your child receives multiple vaccines at one time, which is common, the dose will rise much higher. Based on the number of vaccines given, children today are receiving 17 shots that contain aluminum, compared to four vaccines in the 1970s into the mid-80s. According to Dr. Ayoub’s calculations, the milligram dose of aluminum received has more than doubled in that time.

How Do You Get Rid of Aluminum?

This is not an easy metal to eliminate but some preliminary evidence suggests that have enough sulfur in your body is essential. This is partially related to the fact that sulfur is essential for glutathione, which is a powerful intracellular detoxifier that your body produces. Although you can take supplemental glutathione it is not recommended as it is far inferior to your body’s own glutathione and costs much more.

As this point it is unclear to me if supplemental sulfur like MSM would be beneficial as I am in the process of doing comprehensive literature reviews on this topic. So my current recommendation is to optimize your sulfur intake through dietary sources. Onions and garlic are good if they are grown in sulfur replete soils but most soils are actually deficient in sulfur. So animal-based proteins seem to be one of your best bets. Whey protein concentrate is particularly high in cysteine, one of the two sulfur-bearing amino acids that is a direct precursor to glutathione.

Please note that if you avoid animal proteins it is VERY easy to become sulfur deficient and this may be one of the most significant risk factors for choosing an animal protein free diet.

Tips for Making Informed Vaccine Choices

It is up to you whether you want to avoid aluminum-containing vaccines, but if you do decide to use them for yourself or your child, you may want to separate aluminum-containing vaccines by 2-4 weeks, and only take single formulas/shots.

For more information, I strongly urge you to listen to the above interview with Dr. Ayoub in its entirely to learn more about the dangers of this common vaccine adjuvant. You can also read Aluminum in Vaccines — a Neurological Gamble, an e-book by Neil Miller, director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute, which documents many of the hazards associated with aluminum-laden vaccines.

Clearly, aluminum stands poised to take over mercury as one of the worst offenders against health, but remember this too is only one aspect of vaccination to consider. Before making a decision on vaccinating your children against anything, I strongly urge you to review ALL the side effects and risks involved. Making this effort could make a tremendous difference in the health of your child.

Remember: Vaccines can cause serious health problems including brain inflammation and autoimmune disorders, allergies, ear infections, and more

There’s a very real association between vaccine complications and learning and behavioral disorders in children

The components of vaccines, and the combination of vaccines administered together in the CDC’s official schedule, have never been proven safe

The ingredients and contaminants in vaccines can be detrimental to your health

For more information, I encourage you to get involved with the work that the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is doing to protect your right to choose which vaccines you want your children to receive, including the legal right to use all, some or no vaccines at all.

those white cells in order to reestablish homeostasis. What is missing is understandings that the white blood cells are just behaving in response to their job description in trying to defend your life. This is not a slam toward our system, just a suggestion of one more way to look at a problem that has found very little help over the past three decades. Maybe it is an accommodation for survival.

Taken from “The Mechanics of Toxicity”, by Dr Hal Huggins.

I have added this to show and justify dealing with the cause of the problem not just the symptom which is traditionally what is done by the average GP, and doctors treating patients in hospitals.

keep it quiet. Then there is the problem of GM contamination, which is becoming progressively more difficult to control.

If you’ve followed the debate about genetically engineered crops for some time, you may remember that the USDA initially proposed that the organic rules should allow GM foods to be labeled organic. Fortunately, the public outcry stopped this atrocious proposal. In fact, it was the second largest citizen response up until that time for any proposed regulation. After several hearings around the United States, the final organic rule did not allow for GM ingredients.

However, we’re now facing significant contamination, both in the fields and during processing, and as a result it’s becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to guarantee a food will not contain any kind of GM substance. This is an industry fact that holds true for all organic retailers. Even the Non-GMO project has admitted this. The approval of GM alfalfa this year will only make matters worse, as alfalfa is a powerful pollinator.

“Contamination is an intentional strategy,” Dr. Philip Bereano, professor emeritus at the University of Washington and an engaged activist concerning GM foods, says. “It’s an intentional strategy by both the government and the industry. We have statements to that effect… Contamination in the field by pollen flow; contamination in the processing. They use the same railcars for engineered and non-engineered crops and things like that.”

Ronnie Cummins with the Organic Consumers Association also discussed this in an interview, warning that any alfalfa growing within a five mile radius of GM alfalfa will immediately become contaminated. The ramifications of this contamination are actually far worse than you might think, because alfalfa is a major food source for organic dairy cows. So once organic alfalfa becomes contaminated, organic milk and beef goes out the window too.

Total Video Length: 01:28:08
Download Interview Transcript

Echoing Dr. Bereano’s beliefs exactly, Cummins also said:

“I believe that this is an act of premeditated genetic pollution of the gene pool of alfalfa and related plants

by Monsanto. They know exactly what they’re doing.

They understand is that if you pollute enough alfalfa across the country to where it becomes impossible to grow organic alfalfa that isn’t contaminated, perhaps then the organic community will weaken and allow genetically engineered animal feed under the rules of organic production.”

GM contamination is really getting worse by the day. Just a few months ago, Riceland Foods, the largest rice cooperative in the U.S., filed suit against Bayer Corporation after its natural long-grain rice was contaminated with Bayer’s unapproved GM rice—and they won. The jury determined that Bayer caused “tremendous harm to Riceland and the entire industry,” awarding Riceland $11.8 million in compensatory damages and $125 million in punitive damages.

This type of contamination is going on all over the world, which is why we cannot rest on our laurels and must fight against the approval of each and every new GM crop. You cannot contain them. They absolutely WILL contaminate their conventional and organic counterparts, which will mean ultimately the entire food supply will contain GMOs.

New GM Dangerous Described as a Health “Emergency”

Research by Dr. Don M. Huber, an internationally recognized plant pathologist and professor emeritus at Purdue University, has unearthed new evidence of potential harm to both livestock and humans from GM crops. On January 17, he alerted the federal government to a newly discovered organism related to GM corn and soy, which appears to be responsible for plant death, as well as infertility and spontaneous abortion in animals fed GM crops.

In a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, Huber urged the government to immediately stop deregulation of Roundup Ready crops, and to delay the approval of alfalfa until further research has been conducted.

The letter reads, in part:

“Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn—suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science! … I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high-risk status.

In layman’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency.”

Unfortunately, his strong words fell on deaf ears, and GM alfalfa was approved anyway. I urge you to watch the video below, featuring Dr. Huber. In it he explains the science behind the new organism, and the threat it poses.

Dr. Huber Explains Science Behind New Organism and Threat from Monsanto’s Roundup, GMOs to Disease and Infertility from Food Democracy Now! on Vimeo.

Eat “Natural” Processed Foods at Your Own Peril

There’s no doubt in my mind that if you want to maintain good health, you simply must educate yourself about how the foods you eat are produced. When you compare unadulterated, organic foods to conventional processed foods (most of which contain GM ingredients), there’s simply no question that one is real, natural food, and the other is anything but!

Since the U.S. government prevents the labeling of GM foods, it’s imperative to educate yourself on what they are, and to help spread awareness. First and foremost, avoid most processed foods, unless it’s labeled USDA 100% Organic. You can also avoid GM foods that are not found in processed foods, if you know what to look for. There are currently eight genetically modified food crops on the market:

The free Non-GMO Shopping Guide is a great resource to help you determine which food brands and processed food products are GM-free. Print it out for yourself, and share it with everyone you know. If you feel more ambitious you can order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure in bulk, and bring them to the grocery stores in your area. Talk to the owner or manager and get permission to post them in their store.

Remember, 90 percent of the money Americans spend on food is spent on processed foods, which is a disaster for your health even if you’re buying “natural” processed foods.

And GM ingredients are only one reason for this … many processed foods will also contain any number of other health hazards, including pesticides, antibiotics, hormone-disrupting chemicals, rancid fats, chemical additives, colors and preservatives, and an untold amount of other chemically-derived byproducts and toxins that may or may not claim to be “natural” on their labels.

The 9 Signs of Truly Natural Food

If a “natural” label claim is no measure of food quality, then what is? First and foremost, you’ll want to focus your purchases on items that have no labels at all … namely fresh vegetables, preferably organic and locally grown. Grass-fed, organic meats and raw dairy products are also staples your family can safely invest in. To help you find organically grown, wholesome food in your area, check out these helpful resources:

Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)

Local Harvest — This Web site will help you find farmers’ markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.

USDA Farmer’s Markets database

Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals — The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.

Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) — CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.

FoodRoutes — The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSA’s, and markets near you.

A Campaign for Real Milk — To help you find resources for pasture-fed, unprocessed, raw dairy products.

Next, whether you’re shopping at a supermarket or a farmer’s market, here are the 9 signs of a high-quality, healthy food:

It’s grown without pesticides and chemical fertilizers (organic foods fit this description, but so do some non-organic foods)

It’s not genetically modified, and contains NO GM ingredients

It contains no added growth hormones, antibiotics, or other drugs

It does not contain artificial anything, nor any preservatives

It is a whole food, and this means it will not have a long list of ingredients (for instance, high-quality almond butter should contain almonds (preferably raw) and maybe sea salt — no added oils, sugars, etc.)

It is fresh (if you have to choose between wilted organic produce or fresh local conventional produce, the latter is the better option)

It did not come from a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO)

It is grown with the laws of nature in mind (meaning animals are fed their native diets, not a mix of grains and animal byproducts, and have free-range access to the outdoors)

It is grown in a sustainable way (using minimal amounts of water, protecting the soil from burnout, and turning animal wastes into natural fertilizers instead of environmental pollutants)

When you keep these principles in mind when you shop for food, the definition of the word “natural” on a label becomes a moot point. You needn’t rely on buzz words and other “green” marketing tricks to determine a truly healthy food. Instead opt for the freshest foods in the least processed and least altered forms, and this will almost always be the healthiest choice.

fluoride levels of carbonated soft drinks. Journal of the American Dental Association 130(11):1593-9.

6. Wine – “Analyses of nineteen California wines revealed fluoride concentrations ranging from 0.23 to 2.80 ppm (mean 1.02 ppm, with seven samples above the international limit of 1 ppm).” – Burgstahler AW, et al. (1997). Fluoride in California wines and raisins. Fluoride 30: 142-146.

7. Beer – “Soda and beer bottled with fluoridated water contain 0.7 to 1 ppm fluoride; consumption of these beverages is almost certainly more variable among individuals than consumption of water… If beer contains 0.7 ppm fluoride, heavy beer-drinkers may ingest more than 4 mg daily from beer alone.” – Groth, E. (1973), Two Issues of Science and Public Policy: Air Pollution Control in the San Francisco Bay Area, and Fluoridation of Community Water Supplies. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, May 1973.

8. Teflon Pans – “Teflon-lined cookware contributes to the fluoride ingested by humans. Full and Parkins boiled fluoridated water at a moderate rate until a one-third or one-half reduction in volume was attained, then determined the fluoride content of the residual water… In Teflon-coated ware, the concentration of fluoride ion increased to nearly 3 ppm.

9. Rat Poison – Since the 1800s, fluoride has been a key component in rat poison and insecticides. When mixed into grain or other food, rats will readily consume the poison and die

10. PROZAC! – Part of the main ingredient in Prozac is fluoride. Talk about dumbing down society.

The below countries have made a stand against fluoridation of their drinking water.

Germany: “Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication.” (Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999). www.fluoridealert.org/Germany.jpeg

France: “Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of ‘chemicals for drinking water treatment’]. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations.” (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l’Environment, August 25, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/France.jpeg

Belgium: “This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.” (Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-belgium.htm

Luxembourg: “Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn’t the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by

their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs.” (Jean-Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L’Environment, May 3, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/luxembourg.jpeg

Sweden: “Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden…New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown.” (Gunnar Guzikowski, Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket — National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-sweden.htm

Denmark: “We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated.” (Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999). www.fluoridation.com/c-denmark.htm

Norway: “In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated.” (Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa Statens institutt for folkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-norway.htm

Finland: “We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need.” (Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-finland.htm

Northern Ireland: “The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for operational reasons. At this time, there are no plans to commence fluoridation of water supplies in Northern Ireland.” (C.J. Grimes, Department for Regional Development, Belfast, November 6, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/northern-ireland.jpeg

Austria: “Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria.” (M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-austria.htm

As of 26th May 2011, 3692 medical professionals have signed the statement calling for the end of water fluoridation. Full details can be found here

• 650 Nurses (RN, MSN, BSN, ARNP, APRN, LNC, RGON)
• 533 DC’s (Doctor of Chiropractic, includes M Chiro)
• 457 PhD’s – includes DSc, Doctor of Science; EdD (Doctor of Education); DrPH (Doctor of Public Health)
• 397 MD’s (includes MBBS)
• 311 Dentists (DDS, DMD, BDS)
• 155 ND’s (Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine)

• 82 Lawyers (JD, LLB, Avvocato)
• 82 Pharmacists (Pharm.D, B. Pharm, DPh, RPH)
• 77 RDHs (Registered Dental Hygienist); also DH, RDHAP, EFDA, RDAEF, and RDN
• 59 Acupuncturists (LAc – Licensed Acupuncturist, and, MAc -Master Acupuncturist)
• 34 DO’s (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine)
• 25 Veterinarians (DMV, VMD, BVMS)
• 17 OD (Doctor of Optometry)
• 15 PA-C (Physician Assistant – Certified); also MPAS and RPA-C

So it is apparent that fluoride is a poisonous by-product of industry. If fluoride is a main ingredient in Procaz, are governments that allow water fluoridation attempting to dumb their people down? Are we more malleable as a society when fluoride is present? I would say Yes and Yes!!

body, this test is done by a wonderful company called “Quicksliver Scientific”
in Lafayette, Colorado run by Chris Shade, PhD.

This is a methyl and inorganic mercury test, and as far as I know, Dr Shade is the
only one in the country doing this. At the beginning of 2011 the cost was $250.00.

There are several tests that can be done in addition to the methyl mercury test that
will help, please spend some time at their web site.

Dr. Shade is a wonderful man and can be contacted:

303 531 0861

[email protected]

The test is done by Quicksilver Scientific but you still need pay to have the blood
draw, this is done through a lab such as LabCorp or Quest Diagnostics, you’ll
need to do your own research here because the blood draw can vary from $35 to
$100. At the end of the day it’s just a blood draw and should be on the lower
end of the scale.

Probably the easiest and least traumatic way of detoxifying is to use the C-flush method
which is basically using Vitamin C or Sodium Ascorbate powder, when doing this
you should always ensure you have the following ingredients:

Sodium Ascorbate powder

Probiotic capsules/tablets/drink

Activated charcoal capsules

Electrolyte
drink

Or you can call Huggins Applied Healing and buy the C-Flush package which includes
all the above. 1 800 948 4638

This process is best started on a Saturday if you work during the week; this is to
allow a day of rest following the C-flush.

The program is done over a 7 week period, week one you start by taking one gram of
sodium ascorbate powder (roughly a level teaspoon) in 2 oz’s of water, mix
thoroughly and swallow.

This is done every 20 minutes until the onset of diarrhea, it typically takes 8 or 9
grams to induce diarrhea, and once the diarrhea starts it will normally
continue for a couple of hours. Do not take any more sodium ascorbate powder
that day. If however diarrhea hasn’t started by the fifteenth gram you should
stop and try again the next day.

You should drink the electrolyte drink to replace those lost during the elimination;
I found that taking two activated charcoal caps a few hours after the diarrhea
has stopped will also help in preventing an unexpected reoccurrence.

Now I said this is done over a 7 week period so here are the specific instructions:

Week 1.

One gram of sodium ascorbate powder in 2 oz’s of water every 20 minutes until diarrhea
starts, continue to eat normally during the day. Take two charcoal capsules
several hours after the diarrhea has stopped, also take the electrolyte drink
and the Probiotic.

The following day should be a day of rest and recuperation because you will feel

rather drained and a little tired.

Week 2.

Repeat the process as per week one.

Week 3.

Repeat the process as per week one.

Week 4, 5 and 6.

Eat normally; take no sodium ascorbate powder.

Week 7.

Repeat process for week one.

This is the least traumatic way of detoxifying and one that is recommended by Dr.
Huggins.

When I first joined Dr. Huggins, I wanted to try the C Flush so I would have
firsthand experience and be able to honestly relate my findings to the clients
I talked to each day. So during the first seven weeks I used this method of
detoxifying and found it quite helpful and very easy to do.

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.