Hi there, welcome to my 'personal library'. I am just another ordinary guy who love to share and care! This is some sort of my very own one-stop reference centre. It's kinda 'out of the box' thinking, not to the average Malaysians.. to dig of such infos up to this depth. Whatever health challenge happened to the other side of the globe is possible to happen to me as well. U R most welcome to visit my library.. I Care, U Care, We Care!! Love U all..
1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.
2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person's lifetime.
3. When the person's immune system is strong, the cancer cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.
4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.
5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and including supplements will strengthen the immune system.
6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastro-intestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.
7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.
8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.
9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.
10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites.
11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply. CANCER CELLS FEED ON:
Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important food supply to the cancer cells. Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in colour. Better alternative is Bragg's aminos or sea salt.
Milk: Be careful with the milk you buy off the shelves because some of them could have been produced under dubious circumstances. Buy milk only from known dairy producers or those that have been established for a long time. Take colostrum to help the body replenish the vital nutrients in the body.
Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.
A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).
Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties. Water - best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.
12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines become putrefied and leads to more toxic buildup.
13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the body's killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.
14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the body's own killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body's normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.
15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A pro-active and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger, unforgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.
16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily, and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.
(PLEASE FORWARD IT TO PEOPLE YOU CARE ABOUT) CANCER UPDATE FROM JOHN HOPKINS HOSPITAL , U S - PLEASE READ
NO plastic containers in microwave
NO personal use water bottles in freezer.
NO plastic wrap in microwave.
Johns Hopkins has recently sent this out in its newsletters. This information is being circulated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as well.
Dioxin chemicals causes cancer, especially breast cancer.
Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies.
Don't freeze your plastic bottles with water in them for drinking as this releases dioxins from the plastic.
Recently, Dr. Edward Fujimoto, Wellness Program Manager at Castle Hospital was on a TV program to explain this health hazard. He talked about dioxins and how bad they are for us. He said that we should not be heating our food in the microwave using plastic container. This especially applies to foods that contain fat. He said that the combination of fat, high heat, and plastics releases dioxin into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body. Instead, he recommends using glass, such as Corning Ware, Pyrex or ceramic containers for heating food. You get the same results, only without the dioxin. So such things as TV dinners, instant ramen and soups, etc., should be removed from the container and heated in something else. Paper isn't bad but you don't know what is in the paper. It's just safer to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, etc. He reminded us that a while ago some of the fast food restaurants moved away from the foam containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of the reasons.
Also, he pointed out that plastic wrap, such as Saran, is just as dangerous when placed over foods to be cooked in the microwave. As the food is nuked, the high heat causes poisonous toxins to actually melt out of the plastic wrap and drip into the food. Cover food with a paper towel instead.
This is an article that should be sent to anyone important in your life!
The average American consumes an astounding 2-3 pounds of sugar each week, which is not surprising considering that highly refined sugars in the forms of sucrose (table sugar), dextrose (corn sugar), and high-fructose corn syrup are being processed into so many foods such as bread, breakfast cereal, mayonnaise, peanut butter, ketchup, spaghetti sauce, and a plethora of microwave meals.
In the last 20 years, we have increased sugar consumption in the U.S. 26 pounds to 135 lbs. of sugar per person per year! Prior to the turn of this century (1887-1890), the average consumption was only 5 lbs. per person per year! Cardiovascular disease and cancer was virtually unknown in the early 1900's.
The "glycemic index" is a measure of how a given food affects blood-glucose levels, with each food being assigned a numbered rating. The lower the rating, the slower the absorption and digestion process, which provides a more gradual, healthier infusion of sugars into the bloodstream. On the other hand, a high rating means that blood-glucose levels are increased quickly, which stimulates the pancreas to secrete insulin to drop blood-sugar levels. These rapid fluctuations of blood-sugar levels are not healthy because of the stress they place on the body.
One of sugar's major drawbacks is that it raises the insulin level, which inhibits the release of growth hormones, which in turn depresses the immune system. This is not something you want to take place if you want to avoid disease.
An influx of sugar into the bloodstream upsets the body's blood-sugar balance, triggering the release of insulin, which the body uses to keep blood-sugar at a constant and safe level. Insulin also promotes the storage of fat, so that when you eat sweets high in sugar, you're making way for rapid weight gain and elevated triglyceride levels, both of which have been linked to cardiovascular disease. Complex carbohydrates tend to be absorbed more slowly, lessening the impact on blood-sugar levels.
Sugar depresses the immune system.
We have known this for decades. It was only in the 1970's that researchers found out that vitamin C was needed by white blood cells so that they could phagocytize viruses and bacteria. White blood cells require a 50 times higher concentration inside the cell as outside so they have to accumulate vitamin C.
There is something called a "phagocytic index" which tells you how rapidly a particular macrophage or lymphocyte can gobble up a virus, bacteria, or cancer cell. It was in the 1970's that Linus Pauling realized that white blood cells need a high dose of vitamin C and that is when he came up with his theory that you need high doses of vitamin C to combat the common cold.
We know that glucose and vitamin C have similar chemical structures, so what happens when the sugar levels go up? They compete for one another upon entering the cells. And the thing that mediates the entry of glucose into the cells is the same thing that mediates the entry of vitamin C into the cells. If there is more glucose around, there is going to be less vitamin C allowed into the cell. It doesn't take much: a blood sugar value of 120 reduces the phagocytic index by 75%. So when you eat sugar, think of your immune system slowing down to a crawl.
Here we are getting a little bit closer to the roots of disease. It doesn't matter what disease we are talking about, whether we are talking about a common cold or about cardiovascular disease, or cancer or osteoporosis, the root is always going to be at the cellular and molecular level, and more often than not insulin is going to have its hand in it, if not totally controlling it.
The health dangers which ingesting sugar on an habitual basis creates are certain. Simple sugars have been observed to aggravate asthma, move mood swings, provoke personality changes, muster mental illness, nourish nervous disorders, deliver diabetes, hurry heart disease, grow gallstones, hasten hypertension, and add arthritis.
Because refined dietary sugars lack minerals and vitamins, they must draw upon the body's micro-nutrient stores in order to be metabolized into the system. When these storehouses are depleted, metabolization of cholesterol and fatty acid is impeded, contributing to higher blood serum triglycerides, cholesterol, promoting obesity due to higher fatty acid storage around organs and in sub-cutaneous tissue folds.
Because sugar is devoid of minerals, vitamins, fiber, and has such a deteriorating effect on the endocrine system, major researchers and major health organizations (American Dietetic Association and American Diabetic Association) agree that sugar consumption in America is one of the 3 major causes of degenerative disease.
Honey is a simple sugar
There are 4 classes of simple sugars which are regarded by most nutritionists as "harmful" to optimal health when prolonged consumption in amounts above 15% of the carbohydrate calories are ingested: Sucrose, fructose, honey, and malts.
Some of you may be surprised to find honey here. Although honey is a natural sweetener, it is considered a refined sugar because 96% of dry matter are simple sugars: fructose, glucose and sucrose. It is little wonder that the honey bear is the only animal found in nature with a problem with tooth-decay (honey decays teeth faster than table sugar). Honey has the highest calorie content of all sugars with 65 calories/tablespoon, compared to the 48 calories/tablespoon found in table sugar. The increased calories are bound to cause increased blood serum fatty acids, as well as weight gain, on top of the risk of more cavities.
Pesticides used on farm crops and residential flowers have been found in commercial honey. Honey can be fatal to an infant whose immature digestive tracts are unable to deal effectively with Botulinum Spore growth. What nutrients or enzymes raw honey does contain are destroyed by manufacturers who heat it in order to give it a clear appearance to enhance sales. If you are going to consume honey, make sure it is raw, unheated honey. Good to use in special cures, but not as an every day food. It is not much better than white or brown sugar. window.google_render_ad();
Here is a list of ways sugar can affect your health:
Of the over 4 million cancer patients being treated in the U.S. today, almost none are offered any scientifically guided nutrition therapy other than being told to "just eat good foods." Many cancer patients would have a major improvement in their conditions if they controlled the supply of cancer's preferred fuel: GLUCOSE. By slowing the cancer's growth, patients make it possible for their immune systems to catch up to the disease. Controlling one's blood-glucose levels through diet, exercise, supplements, meditation and prescription drugs - when necessary - can be one of the most crucial components to a cancer treatment program. The saying "Sugar feeds cancer" is simple. The explanation is a little more involved.
German Otto Warburg, Ph.D., the 1931 Nobel laureate in medicine, first discovered that cancer cells have a fundamentally different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells. The gist of his Nobel thesis was this: malignant tumors frequently exhibit an increase in "anaerobic glycolysis" - a process whereby glucose is used by cancer cells as a fuel with lactic acid as an anaerobic by-product - compared to normal tissues.(1) The large amount of lactic acid produced by this fermentation of glucose from the cancer cells is then transported to the liver. This conversion of glucose to lactate creates a lower, more acidic PH in cancerous tissues as well as overall physical fatigue from lactic acid build-up.(2,3) Therefore, larger tumors tend to exhibit a more acidic PH.(4)
Hence, cancer therapies should attempt to regulate blood-glucose levels through diet, supplements, exercise, medication when necessary, gradual weight loss and stress reduction. Since cancer cells derive most of their energy from anaerobic glycolysis, the goal is not to eliminate sugars or carbohydrates entirely from the diet but rather to control blood-glucose within a narrow range to help starve the cancer cells and boost immune function.
and has been approved by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA).
Since 1982 complaints of 92 different symptoms have been submitted to the FDA for adverse reactions to Aspartame. This accounts for over 75 percent of adverse reactions to all food additives reported.
Is Aspartame Really Safe?
Aspartame breaks down into 3 Components (Aspartame: C14H1805: L-aspartyl-L-phenylalnine Methyl Ester):
aspartate the conjugate base of aspartic acid Aspartic acid in its free form becomes an excitotoxin, a toxic molecule that stimulates nerve cells to the point of damage or death.
phenylalanine an amino acid Once phenylalanine is released in its free form, it is metabolized into diketopiperazine, a carcinogen.
methanol a methyl ester Once within the body, the methanol is broken down into formaldehyde and formic acid.
How Aspartame is Broken Down in Our Bodies
When Aspartame is absorbed into the body, it is broken down into the component parts: phenylalanine (50%), aspartate (40%), and methanol (10%).
Aspartame is made by combining phenylalanine which is naturally produced by bacteria, with another amino acid.
Once phenylalanine is released in its free form, it is metabolized into diketopiperazine, a carcinogen. Phenylalanine is a natural amino acid, that in high doses can produce neurotoxicity. To enable the bacteria produce more phenylalanine , Monsanto has Genetically engineered them.
The way things work in nature almost all amino acids occur as whole proteins. Therefore, our bodies slowly assimilate it, break it down, and then convert it in the liver so that the level or concentration of their amino acids is kept at low levels, and the brain is not assaulted by dangerous proteins.
In food, naturally occurring phenylalanine and aspartic acid are bound to other amino acids in long, complex chains of proteins so that they are not absorbed in a way that could cause damage. But in Aspartame they are not, and enzymes in the gut can easily split them apart.
When companies like Monsanto manipulate foods and drinks, creating sweeteners that contain high levels of these amino acids in isolation, blood levels become extraordinarily high, resulting in a significant increase of these amino acids in the brain. It is these high levels that produce destruction of certain groups of brain cells and produce disease, seizures, even death.
Methanol, known also as wood alcohol, is used to bind the phenylalanine molecule to the aspartate molecule in Aspartame. Anyone drinking about three cans of a drink sweetened with Aspartame per day is consuming about 56mg of methanol. When freed of its bonded state, methanol quickly circulates throughout the body, accumulating predominantly in the liver and the nervous system.
Each time you consume a product containing Aspartame, the methanol is accumulating near the DNA resulting in damage to the DNA in the form of deletions and breakage of genes. Methanol has an affinity for cellular DNA and it tends to accumulate with each dose. Every time you consume Aspartame, these toxins are accumulating within your body.
It is very easy for us to gain an accumulation of Aspartame in our bodies since so many products contain it. Breakfasts, gelatin desserts, breath mints, juice beverages, soft drinks such as Diet Coke, Coke zero and Diet Pepsi, tabletop sweeteners, tea beverages, sugar-free chewing gum, milk drinks, yogurts, Monster Munch crisps, some forms of Lipton Tea, Icebreakers Mints, Clear Splash flavored water, vitamins, including children’s vitamins, pharmaceuticals and supplements, we could go on and on.
Methanol is naturally occurring in fruits and vegetables and plants even in higher dosages than Aspartame but is always accompanied by ethanol. The alcohol ethanol (grain alcohol) is used medically as a treatment of wood alcohol (methanol) poisoning. When you eat say… a piece of fruit, the ethanol in that fruit neutralizes the methanol very quickly so no harm is done.
However the methanol in Aspartame is not accompanied by ethanol. In Aspartame, methanol is a pure toxin. Then once within the body, the methanol is broken down into formaldehyde and formic acid. Formaldehyde used to be used as an embalming fluid and preservative for laboratory specimens, though not since it has been shown to be a potent and dangerous carcinogen.
Aspartate is converted in the liver into Glutamic Acid. This makes up for 40% of the molecular structure. Aspartate is also an isolate amino acid. Aspartate is a powerful excitotoxin and reacts like phenylalanine does in the brain as a neurotoxin. (Blaylock,1997)
Excitotoxin is an unusual group of compounds of which are proteins. When you expose brain cells to it the brain cells become hyper-excited, firing their impulses very rapidly. They continue this behaviour until the cell becomes so exhausted that it actually dies.
Normally substances in the brain, glutamate and aspartate, are used as transmitter substances, allowing cells to communicate with each other. These compounds are so toxic that the brain ‘normally’ keeps them in minutely low concentrations; it is very carefully regulated. Anything that alters that and causes these compounds to increase can destroy brain cells and produce what is called neurodegeneration, or degeneration of the brain and spinal cord. This is the case with Aspartame.
The aspartic acid is an exitotoxin and phenylalanine and methanol are neurotoxins at high levels in the brain.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (usually) controls methanol exposure very carefully, allowing only very minute levels to be found in foods or in environmental exposures. Yet the level allowed in NutraSweet is 7 (Seven!) times the amount that the EPA will allow used elsewhere.
So we now have a product called Aspartame, which breaks down in our bodies into phenylalanine, aspartic acid and methanol which are all recognized as neurotoxins and combined into one sweet sugar. (Blaylock, 1997)
Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and Aspartame
November 21, 1986 the FDA: “The data and information supporting the safety of Aspartame are extensive. It is likely that no food product has ever been so closely examined for safety. Moreover, the decisions of the agency to approve Aspartame for its uses have been given the fullest airing that the legal process requires. Few compounds have withstood such detailed testing and repeated, close scrutiny and the process through which Aspartame has gone should provide the public with additional confidence of it’s safety.” (FDA, 2002)
The FDA figures indicate most Aspartame users only consume about 4-7 percent of the ‘acceptable daily intake’ the agency has set for NutraSweet/Aspartame. (Remember what you read above; anyone drinking about three cans of a drink sweetened with Aspartame per day is consuming about 56mg of methanol. That’s not taking into account consumption of Aspartame from any additional sources throughout the day; and that’s just the methanol.)
That level of daily consumption that is judged to be safe per the FDA is 50 milligrams (50 Milligrams = 0.0017636980974790206 Ounces) per kilogram (1 Kilogram = 2.2046 pounds) of body weight per day. The FDA considers Aspartame to be one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved. More than 100 toxicologists and clinicians studied and the agency has reviewed, confirming that Aspartame is safe for the general population. (Harvey, 2002)
Some math…0.00176369809747902 ounces = 50mg2.204600 pounds = 1 kilo0.0000352739619495804 ounces = 1 mgSo per the FDA for every 2.2046 of your pounds you can have 0.00176369809747902 ounces Divide your weight by 2.2046
Example: if you are 100 pounds, 100/2.2046=45.359702 Multiply your result, in this case 45.359702, by 0.00176369809747902 ounces = 0.080000821 ounces.0.080000821 ounces converts to 2267.95mg. That’s your limit if you’re 100lbs.0.080000821 ounces, or 2267.95mg per day says the FDA. That’s the limit set by the FDA. It gets worse. According to the FDA, Aspartame users are supposedly only consuming 4-7 percent of those 0.080000821 ounces. Four percent of 0.080000821 ounces = 0.003200033 ouncesFour percent 2267.95mg = 90.718mg
Yet one soda can in the United States is 12 (Twelve) ounces.12 ounces = 340,194.278mg
One can of Diet Coke is Illegal. One can of Diet Coke exceeds the level of daily consumption that is judged to be safe for even a one hundred pound person… heck, anybody! per the FDA.
However in1981, Satya Dubey, an FDA statistician, stated that the brain tumor data on Aspartame was so “worrisome” that he could not recommend approval of NutraSweet.
The late Dr. Adrian Gross, an FDA toxicologist, even testified before the United States Congress that Aspartame was capable of producing brain tumors.
This made it illegal for the FDA to even set an allowable daily intake at any level. The Research on Aspartame:
Who Conducted it, Who Sponsored it It is critical for us to observe what was researched, how it was researched, who paid for it, and who conducted the tests that were relied upon to bring the Aspartame product to market. Was the study(s) that were relied upon to bring the product to market done by parties with a vested interest with the sale or selling of the product? (As is often the case when Monsanto is involved?) Or were the study(s) that were relied upon to bring the product to market done independently? The FDA, Butchko,1994, Leon 1989, Moser 1994, all cited this study by Schiffman: In 1987 Schiffman published a double-blind cross-over study of 40 subjects claiming to have headaches from Aspartame ingestion. The author concluded no increase in headaches were seen in the Aspartame group. “In this population, Aspartame is no more likely to produce headaches than a placebo.” What the researcher$ fail to mention is that the $chiffman (1987) research is useless because of major design flaw$. Schiffman 1987 major flaws: 1.) Aspartame was given for only 1 day. 2.) The Aspartame was given in encapsulated form, thereby decreasing the toxicity by eliminating the sudden absorption of the excitotoxin amino acid and methanol. (Stegink,1987) 3.) The Schiffman study was partially funded byMonsanto/NurtaSweet and conducted at the Searle Center at Duke University. 4.) G.D.Searle is owned by Monsanto. 5.) Susan Schiffman performed her research at the “Searle Center” at Duke University. 6.) The Searle Center is under the guidance of William Anlyan, a former G.D. Searle Director. 7.) Schiffman is a former General Foods and G.D. Searle Consultant. 8.) The FDA itself assisted in the very design of the study protocol. The following study was done at the Clinical Research Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, USA. It was also supported by a grant from the NutraSweet Company itself, to the Center for Brain Sciences and Metabolism Charitable trust. ( JCN, 1998 ): The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition cited the research report done by P.A. Spies, L.Sabounjian, A. Reiner, D.K. Myers, J. Wurtman and D.L. Schomer, who stated in their study: Background: Neurobehavioral symptoms have been reported anecdotally with Aspartame. Objective: This study sought to determine whether Aspartame can disrupt cognitive neurophysiologic or behavioral functioning in normal individuals. Results: Plasma phenylalanine concentrations increased significantly during Aspartame treatment. Conclusion: Large doses of Aspartame had no effect in neuopsychologic, neurophysiologic or behavioral functioning in healthy young adults. In the Journal of the American Medical Association Article “Aspartame and Memory Loss” The question was asked “Is there any evidence that Aspartame causes memory loss?” The response provided by Robert H. Moser, “Aspartame does not cause memory loss. Aspartame is a dipeptide; it is composed of two amino acids, L-aspartic acid and L-phenylalanine as the methyl ester. It is completely digested into its components, which enter the portal blood and are rapidly incorporated into the metabolic cycles of the body. These amino acids are identical to those that occur after the digestion of all protein foods, except the amounts are far less. Thus the end products of Aspartame digestion are normal food components found in much greater amounts in common foods.” Then he goes on to say “ I am a consultant to the NutraSweet Company and have been for the past 8 years, and I have reviewed the world literature on this subject.” (JAMA, 1994) Yet the Koehler ( 1988 ) Study administered Aspartame for 4 weeks and came up with a much different conclusion. Not one of the above mentioned cited the Koehler ( 1988 ) double blind study. Not one. Clearly many of studies that have been cited, quoted and relied upon for accurate and truthful data indicating the safety of Aspartame have been done by interested, vested parties that have a close connection to the NutraSweet Company themselves. In a survey of 166 studies on the effects of Aspartame on human health, 74 had industry-related funding and 92 were independently funded. Of the industry-sponsored articles 100 percent attested to aspartame’s safety. Of the non-industry sponsored articles 92 percent demonstrated some type of adverse reaction. Data provided by research that is unbiased and studied independently clearly paints a completely different picture of the safety, and lack thereof, of Aspartame/NutraSweet: The Ecologist in June 2000 states in their article titled “Sweet Talking” that research shows the potential health risks of Aspartame. While NutraSweet maintains that its product is entirely safe, independent researchers continue to present evidence of the chemicals neurotoxicity. It has linked it’s ingestion with the onset of numerous adverse symptoms including headaches, seizures, convulsions and mood disorders. Aspartame had been the focus of controversy long before it was approved for public consumption in 1981. It is 18 years later that further tests on brain tumors are being conducted, not by NutraSweet (of course not) instead, by independent researchers at King’s College London. In August 1979 the Bressler Report was released. Investigators found significant deviations from acceptable procedures for conducting non-clinical studies. In 1987 Dr. Jacqueline Verrett, a toxicologist and member of the Bressler Task Force, testified before a US Senate hearing. She described the discrepancies found in the Searle Tests of Aspartame as serious departures from acceptable toxicological protocols. Dr. Jacqueline Verrett stated, “It is unthinkable that any reputable toxicologist giving a complete objective evaluation of this data resulting from such a study could conclude anything other that the study was uninterruptible and worthless and should be repeated.” Many of the flaws cited in these studies were also present in all of the other studies submitted by Searle. (Gold, Martini and Metcalfe, 2000) Therefore it appears the safety of Aspartame and its breakdown products has still not been satisfactorily determined by NutraSweet’s own researchers. The American Dietetic Association, “As the market for foods containing Aspartame continues to increase, practitioners need to be aware of Aspartame’s health implications. There is concern about the influence of Aspartame’s constituent amino acids in brain function.” ( JADA, 1990) R.J. Wurtman did a study that was reported in The New England Journal of Medicine indicating Neurochemicals changed following high-doses of Aspartame consumption with dietary carbohydrates. (1983) Dr. Adrian Gross, an FDA toxicologist, testified before the United States Congress that Aspartame was capable of producing brain tumors. Making it illegal for the FDA to set an allowable daily intake at any level. He stated in his testimony before the United States Congress that Searle’s studies were in most aspects unreliable, and that at least one of those studies has actually established beyond any reasonable doubt that Aspartame is capable of inducing brain tumors in experimental animals. (Hearing, 1987) Many Healthcare Professionals, including Nutritionists have known all along that Aspartame is hazardous. Now a growing number of those Professionals are seeing the consequences of medium and long-term aspartame uses and have begun to warn their clients to stay away from Aspartame. (Barua &Bal, 1995) In 1981, Satya Dubey, an FDA statistician, stated that the brain tumor data on Aspartame was so “worrisome” that he surely could not recommend approval of NutraSweet. Labeling, Your food, and Aspartame Aspartame containing products must be labeled: “Phenylketonurics: Contains phenylalanine.” This warning is specifically to aid individuals who suffer from PKU (The genetic disorder Phenylketonuria), so that they can avoid such foods. This dietary restriction also applies to pregnant women with hyperphenylalanine (high levels of phenylalanine in blood) because they do not properly metabolize the amino acid phenylalanine. United Kingdom: According to the Food Standards Agency In the UK, foods containing Aspartame must carry ingredient panels that refer to the presence of ‘Aspartame’ or it can state ‘E951′. They must include a warning on the label: “Contains a source of phenylalanine.” This is usually towards the last line of the ingredients. Products containing sweeteners such as Aspartame also must show the statement “with sweetener(s)”, this should be close to the main product name. Foods that contain both sugar and Aspartame must carry the statement “with sugar and sweetener(s)”. Now I ask you the question: “Is Aspartame Really Safe?”
Did you know that many retired FDA officials go to work as special advisors to the pharmaceutical and food industries? It's true. Federal agencies like the FDA—which were created to protect consumers—often behave like branch offices of companies like Monsanto, which they are supposed to regulate. And when the names and dossiers of the individuals who work with allies in Congress and the White House to oppose food safety measures are revealed, the picture becomes even more sinister. The fact is, it has been widely reported that FDA (Federal Drug Administration), EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), and USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) officials are frequently rewarded with lucrative jobs at the companies they were regulating.
Conflict of interest
This insidious conflict of interest exhibited by the U.S. food and pharmaceutical industries has been going on for almost half a century. Mark Gold, founder of the Aspartame Toxicity Information Center in Concord, New Hampshire (mgold@holisticmed.com) provides an overview of the situation in his "Analysis of the influence of the Aspartame Industry on the Scientific Committee on Food."1 "In the United States, corruption of governmental and scientific committees by the food industry was disclosed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In an article in the journal Science (1972), it was revealed that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Food Protection Committee was being funded by the food, chemical and packaging industries. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration was relying on the NAS Committee for 'independent' information. The Chairman of the NAS Subcommittee investigating monosodium glutamate (MSG) had recently taken part in research partially funded by the MSG manufacturer. Another member of the Subcommittee became a spokesperson for the MSG industry. (Science 1972) Other members of the Subcommittee had ties to the MSG industry.Since that time numerous governmental committees have been corrupted by the placement of food industry-funded consultants on these committees."2,3
The revolving door
A recent report by the Edmonds Institute lists names of the possible hundreds of men and women who move in and out of "revolving doors" as Federal regulators and directors, commissioners and scientists at the companies they are supposed to regulate.4 Close relationships between regulators and those they regulate are always a cause of concern because the conflict of interest inevitably results in the quality of regulation and oversight of a technology being compromised … which inevitably results in the promotion of foods and drugs that are frequently unsafe.
The Edmonds Institute has been researching these relationships for some time. Here are some examples:
Margaret Miller … former chemical laboratory supervisor for Monsanto, … now Deputy Director of Human Food Safety and Consultative Services, New Animal Drug Evaluation Office, Center for Veterinary Medicine in the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).5,6
Michael Taylor, former legal advisor to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Bureau of Medical Devices and Bureau of Foods, later executive assistant to the Commissioner of the FDA,…still later a partner at the law firm of King & Spaulding where he supervised a nine-lawyer group whose clients included Monsanto Agricultural Company, … still later Deputy Commissioner for Policy at the United States Food and Drug Administration, … and later with the law firm of King & Spaulding … now head of the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation.5,6
Margaret Miller, Michael Taylor, and Suzanne Sechen (an FDA "primary reviewer for all rbST and other dairy drug production applications") were the subjects of a U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation in 1994 for their role in the FDA's approval of Posilac, Monsanto Corporation's formulation of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbST or rBGH). The GAO Office found "no conflicting financial interests with respect to the drug's approval" and only "one minor deviation from now superseded FDA regulations". (Quotations are from the 1994 GAO report).
The FDA and Monsanto: Strange bedfellows
Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on rBGH to the FDA so the agency could determine the growth hormone's safety. Margaret Miller put the report together, and in 1989 shortly before she submitted the report, Miller left Monsanto to work for the FDA. Guess what her first job was? Strangely enough, to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto! The bottom line is that Monsanto approved its own report. Miller was assisted by another former Monsanto researcher, Susan Sechen.
And as though the FDA didn't already exhibit enough audacity it handed Michael Taylor the responsibility to make the decision as to whether or not rBGH-derived milk should be labeled. (At the time, Michael Taylor, who had previously worked as a lawyer for Monsanto, was executive assistant to the Commissioner of the FDA.)
In 1994, Taylor ended up writing the rBGH labeling guidelines that prohibit the dairy industry from stating that their products either contain or are free from rBGH. Even worse, to keep rBGH-milk from being "stigmatized" in the marketplace, the FDA ruled that the labels of non-rBGH products must state that there is no difference between rBGH and the natural hormone.8
According to journalist Jennifer Ferraro, "while working for Monsanto,Taylor had prepared a memo for the company as to whether or not it would be constitutional for states to erect labeling laws concerning rBGH dairy products. In other words, Taylor helped Monsanto figure out whether or not the corporation could sue states or companies that wanted to tell the public that their products were free of Monsanto's drug."9
The current situation
Monsanto is suing Maine-based Oakhurst Dairy for labeling their milk "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones." According to Monsanto, Oakhurst Dairy does not have the right to let its customers know whether its milk contains genetically engineered hormones. What hogwash! Oakhurst says they've been labeling their products like this for four years, in response to consumer demand.
Although rBGH has been banned in every industrialized nation in the world except for the United States, Monsanto continues to claim that rBGH-derived milk is no different from the natural stuff, despite documentation that rBGH milk contains substantially higher levels of a potent cancer tumor promoter called IGF-1.
This poses a serious risk to the entire U.S. population, which is now exposed to high levels of IGF-1 in dairy products, since elevated blood levels of IGF-1 are among the leading known risk factors for breast cancer, and are also associated with other major cancers, particularly colon and prostate.10
In 1994, Monsanto sued two dairies and threatened several thousand retailers for labeling or advertising milk and dairy products as "rBGH-free." Despite Monsanto's intimidation tactics, more than 10% of U.S. milk is currently labeled as "rBGH-free," while sales of organic milk and dairy products (which prohibit rBGH) are booming.
And just to add insult to injury, in recent months a Monsanto-funded front group, the Center for Consumer Freedom, has launched a smear campaign against organic dairies, including Organic Valley, claiming they are defrauding consumers.11
How Monsanto's policies have become U.S. policy
Prior to being the Supreme Court Judge who put G.W. in office, Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Anne Veneman) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation. The Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals. The U.S. Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor. The two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the last election were Larry Combest (Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee) and Attorney General John Ashcroft. (Source: Dairy Education Board)
What can you do?
Contact your state representatives and let them know your views.
Educate yourself about what is really in our food. Three recommended books: Eric Schlosser, "Fast Food Nation" New York: Harper Collins, 2002. Marion Nestle, Food Politics: "How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health." University of California Press, March 2002. Marion Nestle, "Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism." University of California Press, March 2003.
Eat only organically grown and produced food. Sadly and unfortunately, we cannot trust the FDA or USDA to ensure the safety of our food.
Samuels, A. 1999. "The Toxicity/Safety of Processed Free Glutamic Acid (MSG): A Study in Suppression of Information," Accountability in Research, Volume 6, Pages 259-310. Available at: http://www.truthinlabeling.org/l-manuscript.htm
Collins, R., 2000. "Science Conflicted: Restoring Trust in the National Academy of Sciences," Integrity in Science Project, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Also in the Baltimore Sun on August 29, 2000, Full text available at: http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/baltsun_article.html
Samuels, A. 1999. "The Toxicity/Safety of Processed Free Glutamic Acid (MSG): A Study in Suppression of Information," Accountability in Research, Volume 6, Pages 259-310. Available at: http://www.truthinlabeling.org/l-manuscript.htm
Collins, R., 2000. "Science Conflicted: Restoring Trust in the National Academy of Sciences," Integrity in Science Project, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Also in the Baltimore Sun on August 29, 2000, Full text available at: http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/baltsun_article.html
Monsanto's Hormonal Milk Poses Serious Risks of Breast Cancer, Besides Other Cancers, Warns Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health. Cancer Prevention Coalition, http://www.preventcancer.com/
There's a new artificial sweetener on the block and it is already in a wide range of products (CLICK HERE to see list), some even sold in health food stores and manufactured by nutritionally-oriented companies. But is it proven safe? Does it provide any benefit to the public? Does it help with weight loss? Are there any long term human studies? Has it been shown to be safe for the environment? The answer to all of these questions is unfortunately a resounding NO.
The artificial sweetener sucralose, which is sold under the name Splenda, is one of the up-and-coming "next generation" of high-intensity sugar substitutes. It is non-caloric and about 600 times sweeter than sucrose (white table sugar), although it can vary from 320 tp 1,000 times sweeter, depending on the food application. The white crystalline powder tastes like a lot like sugar, but is more intense in its sweetness.
How it is Manufactured
Sucralose is produced by chlorinating sugar (sucrose). This involves chemically changing the structure of the sugar molecules by substituting three chlorine atoms for three hydroxyl groups.
History
Sucralose was discovered in 1976 by researchers working under the auspices of Tate & Lyle Ltd., a large British sugar refiner. In 1980, Tate & Lyle arranged with Johnson & Johnson, the world's largest health care company, to develop sucralose. Johnson & Johnson formed McNeil Speciality Products Company in 1980 to commercialize sucralose.
In 1991, Canada became the first nation to approve the use of sucralose.
In April, 1998 the US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for sucralose to be used in a variety of food products (CLICK HERE for complete list of products using sucralose). Diet RC cola was the first US product with sucralose, introduced in May 1998.
Sucralose is not yet approved for use in most European countries, where it is still under review.
Safety Concerns
Few human studies of safety have been published on sucralose. One small study of diabetic patients using the sweetener showed a statistically significant increase in glycosylated hemoglobin (Hba1C), which is a marker of long-term blood glucose levels and is used to assess glycemic control in diabetic patients. According to the FDA, "increases in glycosolation in hemoglobin imply lessening of control of diabetes.
Research in animals has shown that sucralose can cause many problems in rats, mice, and rabbits, such as:
Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage)
Enlarged liver and kidneys.
Atrophy of lymph follicles in the spleen and thymus
Increased cecal weight
Reduced growth rate
Decreased red blood cell count
Hyperplasia of the pelvis
Extension of the pregnancy period
Aborted pregnancy
Decreased fetal body weights and placental weights
Diarrhea
According to one source (Sucralose Toxicity Information Center), concerning the significant reduction in size of the thymus gland, "the manufacturer claimed that the sucralose was unpleasant for the rodents to eat in large doses and that starvation caused the shruken thymus glands.
[Toxicologist Judith] Bellin reviewed studies on rats starved under experimental conditions, and concluded that their growth rate could be reduced by as much as a third without the thymus losing a significant amount of weight (less than 7 percent). The changes were much more marked in rats fed on sucralose. While the animals' growth rate was reduced by between 7 and 20 percent, their thymuses shrank by as much as 40 percent. (New Scientist 23 Nov 1991, pg 13)"
A compound chemically related to sucrose, 6-chloro-deoxyglucose, is known to have anti-fertility and neurotoxic effects, although animal studies of sucralose have not shown these effects.
According to the FDA's "Final Rule" report, "Sucralose was weakly mutagenic in a mouse lymphoma mutation assay". The FDA aslo reported many other tests as having "inconclusive" results.
Just how few studies currently exist on sucralose is an issue. Endurance News provides the following table illustrating this fact:
In terms of safety, it is not just the original substance (sucralose) that one needs to worry about. As the FDA notes, "Because sucralose may hydrolyze in some food products...the resulting hydrolysis products may also be ingested by the consumer".
Is There Any Long-Term Human Research?
None.
According to the Medical Letter on Drugs & Therapeutics, "Its long-term safety is unknown". According to the Sucralose Toxicity Information Center, the "Manufacturer's '100's of studies' (some of which show hazards) were clearly inadequate and do not demonstrate safety in long-term use".
Is Sucralose Absorbed or Metabolized?
Despite the manufacturer's claims to the contrary, sucralose is significantly absorbed and metabolized by the body. According to the FDA's "Final Rule" report, 11% to 27% of sucralose is absorbed in humans, and the rest is excreted unchanged in feces. According to the Japanese Food Sanitation Council, as much as 40% of ingested sucralose is absorbed.
Plasma sucralose has been reported to have a half-life of anywhere from 2 to 5 hours in most studies, although the half-life in rabbits was found to be much longer at about 36 hours.
About 20% to 30% of absorbed sucralose is metabolized. Both the metabolites and unchanged absorbed sucralose are excreted in urine. The absorbed sucralose has been found to concentrate in the liver, kidney, and gastrointestinal tract. According to The Sucralose Toxicity Information Center, sucralose is broken down "into small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, a chemical which has not been adequtely tested in humans".
Chlorinated Pesticides
According to Consumers Research Magazine "Some concern was raised about sucralose being a chlorinated molecule. Some chlorinated molecules serve as the basis for pesticides such as D.D.T., and accumulate in body fat. However, Johnson & Johnson emphasized that sucralose passes through the body unabsorbed".
Of course, this assertion about not being absorbed is complete nonsense. As shown above, a substantial amount of sucralose is absorbed, so the argument is not valid.
According to the HAD, "The manufacturer claims that the chlorine added to sucralose is similar to the chlorine atom in the salt (NaCl) molecule. That is not the case. Sucralose may be more like ingesting tiny amounts of chlorinated pesticides, but we will never know without long-term, independent human research".
Contaminants
The FDA acknowledges that sucralose "is produced at an approximate purity of 98%". While that may sound pretty pure, just what is in that other 2%? It turns out that the final sucralose product contains small amounts of potentially dangerous substances such as:
Heavy Metals (e.g., Lead)
Arsenic
Triphenilphosphine Oxide
Methanol
Chlorinated Disaccharides
Chlorinated Monosaccharide
Although manufacturing guidelines do specify limits on these substances there is no guarantee that such limits will always be met.
Environmental Concerns
Despite the fact that a portion of sucralose is metabolized into some chemicals of questionable safety, a majory of the consumed sucralose is excreted unchanged in the feces and urine. While that may be good for the person using the product, it may not be so great for the environment.
Although sucralose is being flushed down toilets wherever sucralose is approved for sale, what happens to it next is simply a matter for speculation. I know of no studies showing what happens to the chemical when the raw sewage is treated and then released back into the environment.
Does it remain stabile or react with other substances to form new compounds?
Is the sucralose or any resulting chemicals safe for the environment?
How will this chemical affect aquatic life such as fish, as well as other animals?
Will sucralose begin to appear in our water supplies, just as some drugs are beginning to be found.
Of course, we will likely not know the answers to these questions for many years, if at all. One of the main reasons for this is that the FDA did not require an Environmental Impact Statement for sucralose, because in their words, "the action will not have a significant impact on the human environment".
One study did find that sucralose is metabolized by microrganisms in both the water and soil (Labare 94). However, the ecological impact of this new chemical being introduced into the environment is unknown.
Is There a Benefit for Consumers?
According to Consumers' Research Magazine, sucralose provides some benefits for the corporations making and using it, but not for consumers. They state:
But are such foods truly beneficial and desirable? Diabetics, weight watchers, and the general public might make better food choices by selecting basic, rather than highly processed foods; for example, apples, rather than turnovers; or plain, rather than sweetened, dairy foods.
They note that non-caloric artificial sweeteners are not replacing, but rather supplementing conventional sweeteners. They note that as of 1990 Americans were consuming an average of 20 pounds (sugar sweetness equivalency) of artificial sweeteners, and as consumption of sugar-substitutes has risen so too has consumption of sugar.
Does Sucralose Help with Weight Loss?
According to Consumers' Research Magazine "There is no clear-cut evidence that sugar substitutes are useful in weight reduction. On the contrary, there is some evidence that these substances may stimulate appetite".
Where is Sucralose Found?
In the United States, the FDA has granted approval for the use of sucralose in 15 food and beverage categories: (For a complete list of products containing sucralose CLICK HERE)
Baked goods and baking mixes
Chewing gum
Confections and frostings
Fats and oils (salad dressings)
Fruit and water ices
Jams and jellies
Processed fruits and fruit juices
Sweet sauces, toppings and syrups
Beverages and beverage bases
Coffee and tea
Dairy product analogs
Frozen dairy desserts and mixes
Gelatins, puddings and fillings
Milk products
Sugar substitutes
For a complete list of products containing sucralose CLICK HERE
Comparison to Other Sweeteners
Its promoters cite several benefits over other sweeteners, such as:
Unlike saccharin, sucralose leaves no bitter aftertaste.
Unlike other artificial sweeteners, it remains stable at high temperatures.
Unlike sugar, it does not raise blood glucose levels
As a comparison to sucralose's 600-fold sweetness increase over sugar, consider the other artificial sweeteners on the market:
Saccharin (Sweet-and -Low) - 300 to 500 times sweeter
Aspartame (NutraSweet and Equal) - 150 to 200 times sweeter
Acesulfame K (Sunette) - 200 times sweeter.
Big Business
A 1998 report in Chemical Week states that the high-intensity sweetener market is about $1.5-billion/year. About 70%-80% of that market is made up of soft drink sweeteners, of which aspartame has a near monopoly. They note that although sucralose is 50% sweeter than aspartame, it will be difficult to persuade many soft drink producers to give up NutraSweet (aspartame) since it is widely accepted by consumers.
Is Anyone Monitoring Post-Approval Reactions?
Apparently not.
With no established system for monitoring and tracking post-approval adverse effects, how can it ever be established whether large-scale and long-term consumption of sucralose is safe?
Technical Information
Sucralose is made from sucrose by substituting three chlorine atoms for three hydroxyl groups to yield 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-BETA-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside. This is accomplished in a five-step process.
Prolonged storage, particularly at high temperatures and low pH, causes the sucralose to break down into 4-chloro-4-deoxy-galactose (4CG) and 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxyfructose (1,6 DCF), The Chemical Abstracts Service Registry number (CAS Reg. No.) for sucralose is 56038-13-2.
Science Behind Sucralose Toxicity
Here are some of the specific biochemical reasons why you will want to give serious consideration to consuming sucralose.
Much of the concern is related to the fact that the manufacturer of sucralose claims that it is derived from sugar that contains the monosaccharide sucrose.
Look at the chemical name of sucralose: 1,6-Dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D galactopyranoside. One would have expected that a product "made form sugar" as they say on the box, would be called: 1,6-Dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-glucopyranoside.
Why does this molecule contain a chlorinated galactose moiety rather than a chlorinated glucose moiety if it is made from sucrose? When the molecule is hydrolyzed, chlorinated monosaccharides are produced from the product. Could it be that sucrose is not used due to the toxicity of chlorinated glucose?
Should Sucralose be Avoided?
The Holistic Medicine Web Page cites the following reasons to avoid sucralose:
Pre-approval tests indicated potential toxicity of sucralose.
There are no *independent* controlled human studies on sucralose (similar to 15 years ago for aspartame).
There are no long-term (12-24 months) human studies of sucralose's effects.
There is no monitoring of health effects. It took government agencies decades to agree that there were countless thousands of deaths from tobacco. Why? Simply because there had been no monitoring or epidemiological studies. Without such monitoring and studies, huge effects can easily go unnoticed.
Do Products with Sucralose Carry Any Warning Labels Or Information Statements?
No.
The regulatory agencies and scientific review bodies that have endorsed the safety of sucralose have not required any warning information to be placed on the labels of products sweetened with sucralose.
While it is unlikely that sucralose is as toxic as the poisoning people are experiencing from Monsanato's aspartame, it is clear from the hazards seen in pre-approval research and from its chemical structure that years or decades of use may contribute to serious chronic immunological or neurological disorders.
The Consumer's Research Magazine concludes that:
As Americans continue to choose ever-increasing amounts of such foods and beverages, sweeteners may soar to higher consumption levels. The long-range health effects from such escalation need careful evaluation. Do additional approved sweetening agents truly contribute to good health? Do they really meet special dietary needs? Or, do they merely further encourage poor dietary choices?
My passion is to help equip people so they can live healthier lives.
Most 'main stream' health information is not helpful at all. Why else is there such an increase in cancer, obesity, diabetes, high cholesterol, heart diseases, strokes, migraines, multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia, lupus, ALS, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, autism, ADHD, ADD, asthma, epilepsy, depressions, osteoporosis, arthritis, chronic fatigue, indigestion, allergies, etc?
The main causes of disease are:
A high fat, animal-based diet.
Artificial sweeteners (aspartame, Splenda, etc).
Flavor enhancers (such as MSG).
Transfats or (partially) hydrogenated oils.
Other health dangers include:-
Fluoride (in toothpaste, drinking water).-
Mercury (in vaccines, flu shots, amalgam fillings).-
Aluminium (in vaccines, sunscreens, deodorants).-
Cholesterol-lowering drugs (statins).-
Antidepressant (SSRI) medication.-
Stimulant (ADHD) medication.-
Food additives (E-numbers).
Genetically Modified foods.-
High Fructose Corn Syrup.-
Bisphenol A (in plastics).-
Synthetic air fresheners.-
Teflon (in cookware).-
Soybean products.-
Mobile phones.-
Microwaves.
Doctors usually ignore this information. All they are trained to do is treat your symptoms with medication.
Instead of treating symptoms, doctors should focus on the causes of disease. A high fat, animal-based diet consisting of mostly meat and dairy products clogs arteries and restricts blood flow throughout the body. A restricted blood flow combined with the many neurological toxins in our food results in an impaired immune system. This causes most of our diseases.
In contrast, healthy, plant-based foods will enhance the immune system. With a healthy immune system, the body is able to fight off diseases and heal itself.
150 years ago, most people ate a plant-based diet as animal-based foods were too expensive. Most of the diseases we suffer from today were practically non-existent back then.
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.
"Hosea 4:6 (KJV)"With all thy getting, get understanding.
"Proverbs 4:7 (KJV)Hippocrates, the founder of medicine said: "Let thy food be thy medicine and thy medicine be thy food.
"Nearly all diseases can be completely reversed and cured through the use of a healthy plant-based diet!
----------------------------------------
Please click on the grey text box next to the videos for additional information.
Do you find it difficult to lose weight and life healthy?
The solution is actually quite simple. Avoid all artificial sweeteners, flavor enhancers and (partially) hydrogenated oils/fats (trans fats) as they are the main causes of obesity and disease. Read the book 'Fit for Life' by Harvey Diamond. This book will transform your life, in fact you'll never have to get on a diet again for the rest of your life!
---------------------------------------------
Have you been diagnosed with cancer?
Cancer is really a reduced immune system disease. Many toxins in our food and environment weaken the immune system, which in turn leads to cancer. This link has been proven by many independent studies, but is being dismissed by 'main stream' medicine.
The conventional cancer treatments chemotherapy, radiation and surgery try to remove the symptoms of cancer but they don't deal with the underlying causes of the disease. In fact, chemotherapy and radiation just reduce the immune system even further! That is the reason why most people do not get healed from cancer with conventional cancer treatments.
Before making a decision about cancer treatments, please visit these websites:
Does your child have autism or display autistic-like symptoms?
A likely cause for the huge increase in autism cases is thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative, used in many vaccines and flu shots. Mercury is the second most toxic substance known to man after plutonium! Because of public concerns has Thimerosal been replaced in most childhood vaccines by increasing amounts of aluminium, which is also highly toxic!
A detoxification process called chelation can safely remove toxic metals such as mercury from the body. Chelation, in combination with a healthy plant-based diet has cured many children from autism.
Chelation is being dismissed by the 'main stream' medical community because of the huge financial ramifications. If they were to accept chelation as a legitimate cure for autism, they would in effect admit that vaccines have caused autism!
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."~ Arthur Schopenhauer, philosopher (1788 - 1860)~~
1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size. 
