Sign up for Your Health & Wellness

Your Health & Wellness will present articles concerning all aspects of weight management: nutrition, exercise/active lifestyle, and dietary supplements. You will learn how to work with your body and not against it. This email magazine is free of charge and there is NO obligation on your part.




Don't worry -- your e-mail address is totally secure.
I promise to use it only to send you Your Health & Wellness.

living a healthy lifestyle

Living A God-Glorifying Life Through Good Health.
(Featured on CNN)

When I was growing up in the '50s and '60s, there was no obesity epidemic, and children were not developing old-age maladies such as heart disease. Cancer, Alzheimer's, and autism were virtually unheard of. Living a healthy lifestyle was a lot easier. More...

Living A Healthy Lifestyle is powered by Site Build It!

SBI! Monthly Billing Option

Health Editorial For Those Concerned About A Healthy Lifestyle

What's Happened to America's Food Supply?
America's 'Pill For An Ill' Mentality
Maintaining a Healthy Weight Takes DISCIPLINE
The Recession and Its Effect On Our Eating Habits
Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Money at Your Expense
Cancer in America-Follow the Money Trail
The LOVE of Money is the Root of All Evil
Osteoporosis Drugs--The Danger Behind the Glitter
Genuine Organic Food is Better For You
Taking on Conventional Cancer Therapy: The Courage of Suzanne Somers
Do Things Really Go Better With Coke?
Should Pregnant Women Be Concerned About the Swine Flu Vaccine?
Why I Switched From Drinking Soy Milk to Drinking Almond Milk
Is A Calorie Restricted Diet A Viable Option to Living Longer?
America Is Becoming the World's Fattest Country--Yikes!
Nutrients Found in Nature Are Foods Not Drugs!
What Madness Is This?

Page 2 Page 3

What's Happened to America's Food Supply?

Webster's dictionary defines food as: "any substance taken into and assimilated by a plant or an animal to keep it alive and enable it to grow and repair tissue; nourishment; nutriment."

So that there can be no doubt as to what Webster had in mind when he defined 'food', here is his brief biography. Noah Webster, who is the author of the dictionary which bears his name, lived from 1758 to 1843. He is known as the "Father of American Scholarship and Education."

Back in Noah Webster's era there were no genetically modified organisms (GMOs), high fructose corn syrup, trans fats, monosodium glutamate (MSG), artificial colors, artificial preservatives, artificial flavors, artificial sweeteners, pesticides, herbicides, and cloned animals...yikeesss!

Food scientists who developed the chemicals listed above consider many of them to be food. Many of these substances have been given the status of generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the Federal Drug Administration.

However, unbiased studies have pointed out the outright dangers of some of these laboratory concoctions, and the potential health problems of others.

But despite the questionable safety and dangers of these chemicals, with the exception of trans fats, they continue to be used in America's food supply.

Though food manufacturers swear by the safety of these so-called 'foods', and produce more and more products containing them, America's health crisis continues to grow. Heart disease, cancer, autism, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, high blood pressure, Alzheimer's disease and other chronic ailments continues to affect ever-growing members of our population.

Unfortunately, Americans buy more synthetic 'food' than the real food available in Noah Webster's day. Synthetic 'food', better known as fast food, snack food, junk food, and processed food, is available at your local supermarket, restaurant, school and workplace cafeteria, and vending machine. You can even find foods with synthetic ingredients in stores catering to health-minded individuals.

Note the following statistics:

  • the average American eats 142 pounds of sugar a year (includes regular table sugar and artificial sweeteners)

  • Americans get almost one-third of their calories from junk foods (soft drinks, sweets, desserts, alcoholic beverages, salty snacks)

  • 98% of the wheat eaten in the United States is in the form of white (processed) flour

  • Americans spent $6 billion on fast foods in 1970 while in 2000 they spent over $110 billion
  • One of the most evil, insidious, and harmful synthetic ingredient to come along is the genetically modified organism. Also known as frankenfood, the genetically modified organism is everywhere.

    The United States grows over 50% of the world's soybeans. Fully 85% of its soybeans are genetically modified! One fourth of America's farmland has been converted to raise genetically modified crops. If you buy processed food (and who doesn't?), there is a 75% chance that it contains genetically modified ingredients.

    "...If you recently ate soy sauce in a Chinese restaurant, munched popcorn in a movie theater, or indulged in an occasional candy bar--you've undoubtedly ingested this new type of food. You may have, at the time, known exactly how much salt, fat, and carbohydrates were in each of these foods because regulations mandate their labeling for dietary purposes. But you would not know if the bulk of these foods, and literally every cell had been genetically altered!" (Nathan Batalion, 50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods)

    Although GMOs have been granted generally recognized as safe status, there has been no long-term and rigorous testing performed on them. Remember Dr. Frankenstein and his monster? He too thought that his creation was safe and harmless. In the end the monster proved dangerous and killed his creator.

    This is why GMOs have been aptly called Frankenfood. There are unmistakable indications that this synthetic 'food' is not living up to its hype. Like Dr. Frankenstein, genetic food engineers are fooling with Mother Nature-God's perfect creation.

    In essence, Americans, and third-world nations where GMOs are being fed to the populace, are guinea pigs-laboratory rats. And this is all without our knowledge and permission. Food manufacturers are NOT required by law to label that their products contain genetically modified ingredients.

    America's food supply has become adulterated. The great majority of its food is contaminated with synthetic ingredients, and poisoned with pesticides, hormones, and antibiotics. No wonder we are progressively becoming sicker and fatter.

    I can't in good conscience call what can be purchased in our food stores 'food.' It doesn't meet the definition given to it by Noah Webster. And why doesn't it? Because the synthetic ingredients do not nourish the body for growth and repair. As a matter of fact, they are doing the exact opposite. The synthetics are breaking the body down, and making us sicker and sicker.

    Even nutrients necessary for a healthy body have been made dangerous by food scientists. Omega-6 fatty acid is one of the essential fatty acids (EFAs)-together with omega-3. But in order to be beneficial, they must be balanced.

    It has been estimated that 100 years ago Americans consumed 60 percent omega-6 and 40 percent omega 3 oil, a perfect ratio of 1.5:1. Today Americans consume a ratio anywhere from 25:1 to 50:1! You know the old saying, 'too much of a good thing...?' Well, our consumption of omega-6 to omega-3 goes way beyond 'too much.'

    Why are we getting so much omega-6, and not nearly enough omega-3? Blame your vegetable oils, meats, fish, and snack foods. All of America's snack foods have ingredients based on grain derived vegetable oils-soybean, corn, safflower, sunflower, canola, and peanut.

    Go into your food pantry and look at the ingredients of your favorite breakfast cereal or cracker or even your honest to goodness 'health' bar. They all contain one of more of the vegetable oils-not to mention the excessive sugar, sodium, and preservatives, colors, and flavors. And remember, if your snack food is not 100% organic, it contains GMOs.

    You also consume excessive omega-6 from your meats and fish. The vast majority of America's meat and fish is factory-farmed. This means that they are raised contrary to God's plan. Our beef, lamb, pork, and fish are confined and fed grain. Grain is composed of omega-6 fatty acid. It doesn't matter that these animals and fish are not designed to eat grain.

    Unless you take an omega-3 supplement such as fish oil, omega-3, or krill oil capsules, your diet doesn't supply nearly enough omega-3. The standard American diet (SAD) which sadly too many Americans eat daily, has plenty of snack foods, burgers, French fries, meat, fish, and poultry which is weak in any meaningful amount of omega-3, but saturated with omega-6.

    Even when I was growing up in the '50s and early '60s, America's food supply was not this bad. At least back then we did not have frankenfoods like GMOs and cloned animals. Factory-farming didn't gain a foothold in America until the mid '70s. Those days also didn't have trans fats or high fructose corn syrup. Although we did have MSG (that came in the 1940s), it was nowhere near the quantities that exist today.

    How many times have you gone out to eat, and complimented the chef (whether personally, or more often than not, to your dinner partner) on the meal. The superb taste of your meat or sauce is due to monosodium glutamate.

    Todays food processing renders food tasteless and colorless (unless you consider a dull gray colorful.) So preservatives like sodium nitrite has to be added to give your meat a healthy-looking color, and MSG to give it a mouth-watering taste.

    America's food supply has gone south. The food industry, the multi-national pharmaceutical giants, and health care system are literally raking in untold profits from America's synthetic foods.

    Let me explain. Our synthetic food is making us very sick. This sickness even trickles down to our children and babies. Children are experiencing exploding rates of autism, cancer, diabetes, obesity, fatty liver disease, high blood pressure, heart disease, attention deficit disorder (ADD), and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and destructive behavior.

    Big Pharma is only too glad to step in to 'help' with their drugs. These drugs, rather than cure the problem, merely 'treat' the symptom. Of course the cause remains unresolved and thus those on these medications have to take them for life.

    And that doesn't even address the harmful side effects of these synthetic drugs. Of course other drugs have to be prescribed in order to treat the symptoms brought about by drug number one. And on and on you go-the domino effect.

    Its the health care community which diagnoses the symptoms initially brought about by the synthetic foods we overeat. What with the battery of tests they give, hospital stay, and maybe an operation or two-America's health care system isn't doing too bad either. It never lacks for patients.

    Do I sound angry? I am angry. The food, pharmaceutical, and health care conglomerates don't care about you or your family-only as far as you continue to line their pockets. Look at Merck and their drug Vioxx. They knew about the dangers of their drug before they marketed it. Yet the lure of profits was too great. It didn't matter that thousands had to die, and many more suffer because of it.

    Nothing has changed. Money is still God, and the almighty buck still rules.

    There is something you can do about America's synthetic (read poisoned) food supply. What? Refuse to buy. Don't buy any more processed food. Eat organic fruits and vegetables, and free-range, organic meats. You can buy locally-grown produce at your local farmer's market.

    You will have to pay more for organic, free-range meat, but it's worth it. Not only is conventional meat full of pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, and omega-6, but it may contain Mad Cow disease. Factory-farmed animals are not only fed grain and garbage (I mean literal garbage such as newspaper and sawdust), but animal by-products.

    The feeding of rendered slaughtered waste to livestock and dairy calves weaned on cattle blood protein in calf milk formula are what support the mechanism for Mad Cow disease. Of course the government reassures us that this can never happen. But don't you believe it.

    Money talks and the meat, food, and pharmaceutical industries have powerful lobbyists in Washington, and very deep pockets. Only you can protect yourself and your family. Don't depend on the government to do it.

    Share your opinion about this topic here.

    Return to Top

    America's 'Pill For An Ill' Mentality

    The multi-national pharmaceutical industry (A.K.A. Big Pharma) is successfully selling Americans, and its global neighbors, the idea that no matter what ails ya', they have a pill for your ill. The unfortunate part of this overwhelmingly lucrative (for Big Pharma that is) strategy is that we are buying into it.

    It is not the American public's fault that they are brainwashed because the United States along with New Zealand allow direct-to-consumer drug advertising in mass media outlets. What with all the satellite and cable television programming that we consume daily, drugs as a viable alternative have become firmly entrenched in our subconscious.

    Up until the early 1980s, drug advertising was limited to medical journals and health care trade publications. From the 1950s to 1984, television was essentially drug free.

    Alas, those days are long gone-never to return again.

    It seems that every other advertisement on the commercial channels is by a pharmaceutical company. I watch CNN (Cable Network News) a lot and I am inundated with commercials about drugs for erectile dysfunction, insomnia, restless leg syndrome, high cholesterol, osteoporosis, overactive bladder, Alzheimer's disease, arthritis, ad infinitum...Egaaddds!

    No wonder we are under the impression that it's the American way to simply ask our doctors for these pharmaceutical drugs. They are thrown at us so often and so fast that it's all we know.

    How bad is America's addiction to drugs? A doctor who trains at Diamond Gym told me that he once tried to convince a woman to lose weight for her health by making lifestyle changes such as better nutrition, and exercise. Her response was 'can't I take a pill for that?' How sad.

  • the average American 65 years old and up takes 15 prescription and over-the-counter medications a day!

  • 50% of all Americans have been told that they have a health problem which requires a prescription drug every week!

  • the number of American children taking prescription drugs for heartburn and other digestive problems grew by almost 56% in the last few years!
  • Pharmaceutical drugs cater to the health care system's medical paradigm of treatment rather than cure/prevention-and that pharmaceuticals are our first line of defense.

    I am not blaming doctors-it's not their fault. Unfortunately all prospective doctors are taught in medical school, other than caring for injuries, is how to treat disease symptoms with prescription drugs.

    However, I do blame the multi-national, multi-billion dollar profit making pharmaceutical industry. It is they who control medical schools and doctors (through drug company sales reps.) As a matter of fact, Big Pharma is their biggest supporter (Source:

    I have three issues with Big Pharma and their drugs: (1) they merely treat a symptom and do not cure the underlying cause (2) the testing period is too short (if a particular drug was to cause cancer, that won't be known in the 5 years a drug is being tested; the incubation period for cancer can be 20 to 25 years) and (3) these synthetic drugs have negative side effects which sometimes can be worse than the 'symptom' it was designed to 'treat.'

    Issue #1

    As I mentioned earlier, America's health care (and I use that term lightly) system is geared to treat not cure or prevent disease. Notice that none of the direct-to-consumer drug ads tell you what causes that particular symptom, and what can be done to cure or prevent its underlying cause.

    Oh they might mention in passing that a healthy lifestyle will help. But their clever advertisement leads the consumer to believe that a healthy lifestyle is not enough, and their drugs must be used in conjunction.

    The consumer is cleverly 'hoodwinked' into believing that he has no hope except through Big Pharma's expensive drug. He is therefore convinced that his health is dependent on being a lifetime user of prescription and over-the-counter medications.

    The drug advertisements used by Big Pharma are concocted by the brilliant minds on Madison Avenue. And no expense is spared in having the ads appear friendly, and to have your best interests at heart. Who can resist Sally Field in Big Pharma's ad about an osteoporosis drug? heart-warming!

    Merck had the same 'touching' ads about its osteoarthritis drug Vioxx too. When reality set in, thousands died from heart attacks and strokes, and others had their lives devastated. Merck knew the dangers all along but the profits were just too great to pass up.

    Where billions of dollars are at stake, death and disablement by drugs have become the rule rather than the exception.

    In order for Big Pharma to continue to have lifetime customers, they must keep them on their drugs. What better way to do that than to just 'mask' the symptom. By masking or treating the symptom, the underlying cause remains in place. In other words, the pharmaceuticals will relieve the pain or discomfort, but will leave the reason for the symptom intact.

    Heavens forbid Big Pharma finds and cures the cause of disease; that's profit lost. Can you imagine Big Pharma being so interested in suffering humanity that they would actually seek to cure disease? How could they continue to earn their obscene profits from a shrinking costumer base?

    Issue #2

    Drugs are often rushed to market without being adequately tested. At the time Merck was developing its osteoarthritis drug Vioxx, Pfizer was developing its version, popularly known as Celebrex. There was a race between Merck and Pfizer to get their respective drug marketed first. Remember, billions (that's millions with a 'b') were at stake.

    It's unfortunate but the reality is that the consumer runs a distant second when Big Pharma's choice comes between them or profit.

    Issue #3

    Even though pharmaceuticals only treat symptoms, even that comes at a price. The price? Side effects the customer many times is not aware of.

    The June 5, 2008 edition of the New York Times ran an article about pharmaceuticals increasing the risk of cancer in children. It seems that rheumatoid arthritis drugs Enbrel (sold by Amgen & Wyeth), Remicade (sold by Johnson & Johnson and Schering-Plough), Humira (sold by Abbott Laboratories) and Cimzia (sold by the Belgian company UCB) are suspect in the development of cancer in some 30 children and young adults who were treated with the drugs.

    These drugs have previously been linked to lymphoma, tuberculosis, and pneumonia. Other than the side effects which are known, and listed on the label, how many others, potentially more dangerous, may there be?

    Innocent Americans are literally playing Russian roulette with prescription medication. Also recall that thousands upon thousands of innocent Americans seeking relief from arthritis pain paid the ultimate price from the side effects of heart attack and stroke. Merck knew about the dangers but simply chose to ignore them in blindly going after profits.

    We have become too complacent about medication. I don't mean to imply that they are all bad, but that alternate, natural remedies should be considered first. No one wants to suffer needlessly for the rest of his life. That will happen when you only treat symptoms.

    Taking high blood pressure medication will only treat the symptom of high blood pressure. Meanwhile the cause of the high blood pressure remains untreated. It may be chronic stress, obesity, or any number of other factors. Find the cause and fix the cause. Do that and you will no longer need to take high blood pressure medication.

    Talk to your doctor about the possible causes of the symptoms for which you have been prescribed drugs. In many cases a simple lifestyle change will in time cure those symptoms. Once that happens, you can be taken off your medication(s) with your doctor's blessings.

    Don't be like the woman who didn't want to change her lifestyle, but rather was willing to settle for a pill for her ill.

    Look at the benefits of reduced drug dependence: (1) economic: drugs are expensive; you could put that money to better use-especially in these economically-challenged times (2) health: why possibly suffer from the side effects Big Pharma lists on their labels? And there is always the possibility that there is a chronic disease like cancer down the road no one knows about. Pharmaceutical drugs are synthetic compounds which are alien to your body.

    Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads accomplish their mission of getting Americans to see drugs as the only answer to their health problems. This practice needs to be banned. But it is not going to happen because Big Pharma has powerful lobbyists in Washington making certain that it doesn't happen.

    It is entirely up to you as an individual to make a change. Big Pharma sees you as a means to lining their pockets with your hard-earned money without the slightest regard for you as a person. Don't be taken in by the 'sincerity' of their drug ads.

    I am 56 years old and have have never been, am not currently, and will never be on prescription medication. Without boasting, I can truthfully tell you that I don't even take aspirin because I don't get headaches. And I don't buy into that baloney about an aspirin a day reducing the risk of heart attack.

    I don't suffer from tummy aches, fatigue, diabetes, high blood pressure, arthritis or any other medical condition. I am not ridiculing those who do suffer from those conditions, but merely wish to point out that a healthy lifestyle will reduce your risk to negligible levels.

    Also, contrary to what the medical community and Big Pharma spins, you don't have to settle for these medical conditions just because you are aging.

    Never forget-Big Pharma is a part of the problem- not the cure!

    Share your opinion about this topic here.

    The Recession and Its Effect On Our Eating Habits

    The severe recession that we are currently experiencing is forcing many Americans to change their lifestyles. One lifestyle change which is impacting almost all of us is the way we eat.

    My generation, I am a bona-fide baby-boomer, ate at home most of the time while growing up. The only exception was the occasional meal with grandma or some other relative. In any event, all meals were home-cooked. But with the great proliferation of eating establishments across the country, Americans chucked home-cooked meals and ate out frequently. Of course this was before the recession.

    Up until the late 60s and maybe early 70s, most meals were eaten at home. Meals eaten outside of the home grew from 5 percent in 1960 to 50 percent in 1980 (God Wants You To Be Rich; Paul Zane Pilzer.)

    But then the landscape became dotted with more and more fast food restaurants, ethnic cuisine eateries, and buffet restaurants. Coupled with both parents in the work force to make ends meet, and kids with their seemingly endless after-school activities, there was no time for home-cooked meals.

    With the shift to 'take-outs' and restaurant eating, our waists and weight suffered. They both grew. The nutritional quality of our daily meals suffered too. They came loaded with sugar, salt, and fat. This was in addition to the artificial flavors, colors, and preservatives.

    Eating outside the home provided other harmful ingredients such as monosodium glutamate, high fructose corn syrup, and trans fatty acids. These chemicals are not found in home meals prepared from scratch . Portion sizes also grew from relatively 'lilliputian' levels to monstrous proportions.

    We owe our current obesity crisis to the shift away from home-cooked meals as well as the growth in portion sizes, obesity-promoting chemicals, and sugary soft drinks.

    The recession is changing all of that. Families are returning to home-cooked meals. A good thing is happening for all the wrong reasons. Finances, rather than the desire for quality meals, is driving the return to home-cooked meals. But hey, at least it's happening.

    It is more economical to prepare and eat meals at home than to eat out. Eating out for a family of four can set you back a small fortune if you multiply that by three or four nights a week.

    Share your opinion about this topic here.

    Return to Top

    Sandra BarrettBig Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Money at Your Expense

    I am both sad and angry as I write this editorial. I am experiencing both of these emotions because my sister, as well as many other families in the United States, are being victimized by Big Tobacco and Big Pharma.

    My baby sister Sandra (Sandy) is representative of all who have fallen victim to, are now victims of, or who will in the future fall victim to cigarette smoking, courtesy of Big Tobacco, and chemotherapy, courtesy of Big Pharma.

    You see, Sandy developed lung cancer from smoking cigarettes (I have always referred to them as death sticks) for well over twenty years. Although I used to put most of the blame squarely on the shoulders of all who continued to smoke despite knowing the dangers, I don't anymore. I now understand the extreme addictiveness of nicotine. Potential smokers and current smokers don't stand a chance. Why not? Because the 'addictiveness' is by design!

    The campaign by upper management of Big Tobacco to discover a fool-proof method of delivering nicotine to the smoker included hiring brilliant scientists. One of these scientists was Dr. Jeffrey Wigand. He worked tirelessly until he decided to blow the whistle on the inner workings of Big Tobacco.

    "In the early 1990s, Dr. Jeffrey Wigand exposed the hidden secrets of the tobacco industry. Back then it was a $50 billion a year business. Dr. Wigand had been hired by the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company to find a safer cigarette. Brown & Williamson was the third largest cigarette company behind Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds.

    Dr. Wigand's testimony revealed that the CEOs of the major tobacco companies lied to Congress when they testified that they did not know of the addictive nature of nicotine. As a matter of fact, addictiveness was their objective..." (Living A God-Glorifying Life Through Good Health; pg. 63.)

    If you have never experienced addictiveness to anything (drugs, sweets, etc,) it is hard to imagine. Once a person becomes addicted to anything, even to products that endanger his life, he is powerless to break its iron grip. Since I have never been addicted to anything, I could not understand what Sandy was up against.

    Although diagnosed with very aggressive small cell lung cancer, and undergoing chemotherapy, and later, radiation treatments, Sandy continued to smoke. She couldn't help herself. Cigarette addiction is similar to drug addiction. It is very hard to break free of even if there is a desire to do so.

    I finally understood Sandy's helplessness when I spoke to my brother James. All he said was that 'Sandy can't help herself.' After that conversation, it dawned on me-I experienced a great awakening. I had gotten angry with Sandy because she continued to smoke. I hadn't realized that she couldn't help herself. She was under the influence of a chemical that was calculated and devised to be 'break-free.'

    Big Tobacco had succeeded in perfecting their product to be a delivery device for nicotine. They even conducted in-house studies which not only revealed the addictiveness of cigarettes, but their dangers too. Cigarette smoking is directly responsible for small cell lung cancer. It is very rare for a person to develop small cell lung cancer if he has never smoked. Smoking also leads to PAD (peripheral artery disease) and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.)

    But as far as Big Tobacco was concerned, small cell lung cancer, PAD, COPD, and a laundry list of other chronic illnesses caused by smoking, health be damned. There was just too much money to be made through selling cigarettes. Big money as a matter of fact.

    Big Tobacco was making huge profits at Sandy's expense. But that didn't [doesn't] concern them. Where greed is concerned, the suffering of millions was a small price for Big Tobacco to pay in exchange for billions of dollars in profits.

    After the diagnosis of lung cancer, the baton was placed in the hands of another money 'grubber', Big Pharma. If you think Big Tobacco reaped humungous profits, they pale when compared to the profits earned by Big Pharma.

    You can get a rough idea of the enormous profits being generated by Big Pharma by having an idea of what they budget on advertisements and lobbyists.

    "Annually, drug companies spend billions on TV commercials and print media. They spend over $12 billion a year handing out drug samples and employing sales forces to influence doctors to promote specifically branded drugs. The drug industry employs over 1,200 lobbyists, including 40 former members of Congress. Drug companies have spent close to a billion dollars since 1998 on lobbying. In 2004, drug companies and their officials contributed at least $17 million to federal election campaigns..." (Secrets of the FDA Revealed By Top Insider Doctor)

    Drugs for osteoporosis, sleeplessness, and cholesterol have taken the lion's share of media attention of late. But this doesn't mean that other drugs are not making money. When you realize that cancer is the leading killer of Americans under the age of 85, surpassing even heart disease, you can appreciate the market there must be for chemotherapy drugs. These drugs, as well as all the other drugs, are a huge cash cow for Big Pharma.

    The only thing that chemotherapy drugs do is treat the cancer. Watching Sandy go through a battery of these drugs, including radiation treatment, I came to the realization that chemotherapy drugs cause more misery than anything else. Sandy lost her hair and her appetite. I didn't see any benefit from her having been given them.

    I am against conventional medicine's big three arsenal for cancer (chemo, radiation, and surgery, also known as poison, burn, and cut) because there exist natural cures as opposed to unnatural treatments. However, replacing Big Pharma's solution with cures would bankrupt them. That is why Big Pharma spends so much on Washington lobbyists. They are determined to protect their interests.

    If I had the finances, I would not have permitted Sandy to undergo the useless conventional cancer treatment. I would have taken her out of this country to undergo a curative cancer protocol.

    Ever since Sandy was diagnosed with cancer, I took her to her various doctors and medical appointments. I was with her as she received chemotherapy and radiation treatments. I did that knowing that these treatments were completely useless. I also realized that Big Pharma was making out like a 'fat cat' with their poisons.

    Germany has several cancer clinics which employ protocols to cure, and not merely treat, cancer. One of these clinics cured former president Ronald Reagan when he held the presidency. But the FDA (Food and Drug Administration,) under whose jurisdiction Big Pharma falls, protects them against alternative methods.

    The Food and Drug Administration fights against legitimate natural alternatives to Big Pharma's toxic chemotherapy drugs. They are able to get away with such tactics because there is a clear conflict of interest: "More than half of the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies that will be helped or hurt by their decisions, a USA TODAY study found. These experts are hired to advise the Food and Drug Administration on which medicines should be approved for sale, what the warning labels should say and how studies of drugs should be designed. The experts are supposed to be independent, but USA TODAY found that 54% of the time, they have a direct financial interest in the drug or topic they are asked to evaluate. These conflicts include helping a pharmaceutical company develop a medicine, then serving on an FDA advisory committee that judges the drug. The conflicts typically include stock ownership, consulting fees or research grants..." (

    Big Money is a very powerful influence. The Bible tells us that "...the love of money is the root of all evil..." That is so true. Look at the Madoff's and their 'ponzi' schemes and the sub-prime mortgage mess which precipitated America's and the world's financial ruin as examples. And the innocent, like Sandy, suffer.

    Most oncologists (cancer specialists) are hard-working individuals. They are not aware of natural, alternative cancer cures. And if Big Pharma has its way, they never will. A few doctors are becoming aware of alternative medicine and leaving conventional medicine. Kudos to them. They are bucking the trend and losing Big Pharma's financial favors (trips, dinners, money.)

    In the meantime Sandy is in a hospice. This is the only place, besides her home, where care is given when doctors have exhausted their knowledge. There is no more that can be done for her. The facility where Sandy now resides can shelter up to thirty residents. They are all treated humanely, with plenty of care and love, and with dignity.

    As far as Sandy is concerned, this didn't have to happen. But as long as there continue to be people who worship money at humanity's expense, it will! I mourn for Sandy-she is now in God's care. Unlike Big Tobacco and Big Pharma, He cares for her.

    Share your opinion about this topic here.

    Cancer in America-Follow the Money Trail

    October will be Breast Cancer Awareness Month. According to the American Cancer Society's web site, over 178,000 women in 2007 will learn they have breast cancer and of that number, more than 40,000 will die. Breast cancer kills more women than any other type of cancer.

    The American Cancer Society web site also states plainly that fully one-third of all cancers can be prevented by lifestyle changes, i.e., diet and exercise. I'll come back to that later.

    Women in China are 4 to 5 times less likely to develop breast cancer than women in America. While over 100 out of every 100,000 American women develop breast cancer, only 19 out of every 100,000 Chinese woman develops it!

    Why is there such a large disparity between breast cancer rates of American women and Chinese women? Do the Chinese have a top-secret medical advantage over Americans? Have they developed a pharmaceutical drug that combats breast cancer, and refuse to disclose it to anyone? The answer to both questions is no.

    You see, the large pharmaceutical companies are multinational. The drugs that the Chinese have are the same drugs that America and every other nation has.

    Not only does America lead the world in positives such as technology and democratic freedoms, it also seems to be among the leaders in immoral personal and corporate greed! The number of CEOs and other corporate executives who have bled their companies dry over the past few years is unbelievable.

    The ponzi scheme of Bernard Madoff has brought to light many others who have defrauded investors out of millions of dollars. National Public Radio web site (NPR) carried an article entitled Ponzi Schemes Proliferate Beyond Madoff. It says in part, "...The times may be bad for many of us, but the recession has been good for the legacy of Charles Ponzi. Ponzi didn't invent the scam that bears his name, but he took it to new heights. In 1920, he defrauded investors of some $7 million before he was arrested.

    Since Bernard Madoff's arrest in December for allegedly bilking investors out of $50 billion, authorities have continued to uncover one suspected Ponzi scheme after another.

    In New York, authorities recently arrested fund manager Nicholas Cosmo for running a suspected $380 million Ponzi scheme. A few weeks earlier, the Securities and Exchange Commission accused an investment fund manager in Philadelphia, Joseph Forte, with running a $50 million scam. In Atlanta, fund manager James Ossie is charged with a $25 million fraud. "

    But there is another kind of fraud which is just as immoral. If I have two options with which to fight cancer, but ignore the one which prevents cancer because it will not generate a profit- that is fraud. The option which I focus on only treats the cancer and merely extends life by a month or two. But it generates windfall profits. That is the epitome of immorality.

    The reason why Chinese women have such low breast cancer rates is that they eat plenty of mushrooms and drink lots of green tea. This is a natural breast cancer prevention measure which cannot make any pharmaceutical company rich.

    Natural foods and nutrients cannot be patented. What cannot be patented can be bottled and sold by anyone. The reason pharmaceutical companies are able to make unbelievably large profits is that they synthesize drugs in the laboratory (proprietary), apply to the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) to get them approved, and then market them.

    These drugs cannot prevent or cure, only treat the cancer. Treatment is another financial mechanism used to generate profits. The patient needs to restock his supply monthly. After all, you cannot make any money from a cured cancer patient.

    How much money are we talking about for a cancer drug? A couple of years ago the New York Times ran an article which disclosed that the cost to a colon cancer patient was about $100,000 annually for the drug Avastin, manufactured by Genentech. That's twice the expense of the next most expensive cancer drug. And now Avastin has been approved to treat breast and lung cancer. Ouila! Genentech has dramatically increased its drug profit.

    Genentech's profit from Avastin alone is over $3.5 billion. The amount of money which flows into the coffers of Big Pharma from cancer drugs is second only to the money generated by statins (cholesterol-lowering drugs!) Studies show that Avastin lengthens a cancer patient's life by only a few months. Hardly worth the expense of $100,000 a year when you can buy green tea and ordinary mushrooms in your local supermarket for considerably less.

    The American Cancer Society (ACS) is at the forefront in the fight to defeat cancer-or so they say. The top of the ACS web site gives this heart-stirring speech: "The world is not just a dream. Eleven million cancer survivors will celebrate birthdays this year. That's a sign of progress, proof that a world with more birthdays is possible. Together we'll stay well, get well, find cures and fight back [emphasis mine."]

    If it is the ACS's intention to find cures, why do they focus so strongly on treatment? On their web site's home page (in the left column) is a list of menu items entitled 'Find It Fast.' The seventh menu choice reads Treatment Decision Tools. Treatment is neither a cure nor is it prevention. There is nothing in this menu that even hints at the possibility of prevention or cure.

    This is not to say that ACS doesn't ever mention cancer prevention because it does-albeit buried deep within sub-menus. The cancer prevention is through lifestyle changes I mentioned earlier.

    In light of the low breast cancer rate in China, why doesn't the ACS feature that statistic on their home page? Because they are overwhelmingly pro-treatment. Drug treatment is the thrust of the pharmaceutical industry. There is big money in treating cancer and this is where the money trail obviously leads.

    Share your opinion about this topic here.

    Return to Top

    Maintaining A Healthy Weight Takes DISCIPLINE I know from experience that the maintenance of a certain weight requires discipline. Having been a competitive bodybuilder taught me that. I should add that when I did compete on the amateur level, I was a lot younger than I am now. Why is that important? I had youth on my side with its associated higher metabolism and hormone activity. It is a lot easier to maintain a certain weight while being somewhat lax in the diet when you are south of 35 (I began bodybuilding when I was 26 years old,) than it is when you are north of 40, or 50. Of course bodybuilders and other athletes have no problems with working out or exercising on a regular basis. The discipline is required in the area of nutrition.

    Share your opinion about this topic here.

    The LOVE of Money is the Root of All Evil Today's society proves over and over again the infallibility of Holy Scripture and its eternal truth. Though often misquoted, the Bible says that "For the love of money is the root of all evil."

    Greed is the motivating force behind not only America's, but the nations of the world financial downturn. The Bernie Madoffs are global and are not confined to America.

    There is however one industry which epitomizes greed, and makes all other industries pale in comparison. That industry is the pharmaceutical industry. This is literally a multi-billion dollar industry consisting of several key players. With money to buy and influence politicians along with the power of its lobbyists, and an impeccable public persona, there is seemingly no limit to the power the pharmaceutical industry wields.

    Former president Richard Nixon declared war on cancer in the early 1970s. This war is yet ongoing in the 21st century. As a matter of fact, growing numbers of people are being diagnosed with cancer, and dying from it. The latest casualty is the actress Farah Fawcett who died recently (June 25, 2009) from anal cancer.

    What if I were to tell you that cancer and other dreaded chronic diseases such as AIDS and heart disease could be prevented, and if contracted, cured? It's true. The remedy is as close to the fabled panacea (cure all) than anything else so far that has come over the horizon.

    I paid $39.95 to find out about this amazing discovery. After reading about it, I was convinced. I was so convinced that I ordered the liquid described for myself. That is why I am sharing it with you, the reader. This alternative cure is simple and very inexpensive. And best of all, it prevents and cures chronic disease.

    The medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry are focused solely on treatment as opposed to prevention or cures. Don't get me wrong. If I am in pain I would want the symptom of pain to be relieved or 'treated.' But at the same time I would want the cause of that pain to be found and eliminated. Having to be on prescription or OTC (over the counter) pain medication the rest of my life would not be an option.

    Here is where the love of money aspect comes into play. Health care and the pharmaceutical industry takes in countless billions of dollars by merely treating symptoms. Money is not allocated for research into natural cures and remedies for chronic diseases.

    The pharmaceutical industry however will spend millions upon millions of dollars to synthesize a chemical to mimic substances found in nature known to kill cancer cells for instance. The reason is that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) does not allow natural substances to be patented. Anybody can use it. The pharmaceutical industry therefore has no financial incentive to market it.

    It has been known for at least 170 years that bacteria, viruses, and pathogens, the culprits which can lead to AIDS, cancer, and heart disease, cannot live in an oxygen-rich environment.

    Why isn't that bit of news being broadcast throughout the media? Why isn't CNN or other major news networks reporting on and devoting time to the fact that cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, AIDS, and other chronic illnesses can be wiped out once and for all?

    I'll tell you why. The medical profession would find its workload, and hence revenue, drop dramatically. The pharmaceutical industry would not be able to financially rape its global customers in order to satisfy its insatiable greed for wealth.

    As long as treatment is the primary option for AIDS and cancer victims, Big Pharma (the pharmaceutical industry) and the medical profession will continue to bleed suffering humanity until it dies of its malady, or from something else.

    Why isn't the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) which has jurisdiction over the pharmaceutical industry doing something about this rampant drug for everything that ails you approach? The FDA is in bed with the powerful but legal prescription drug cartel. And also, the drug industry has very deep pockets. The money in these pockets is used to pay for legislative influence. This influence leads to laws which favor Big Pharma. (Cholesterol-lowering drugs is a good example of the power of Big Pharma.)

    Concerning disease, medical schools teach their students how to diagnose an illness, and then to prescribe the proper drug (medication) for it. They are not taught to look for underlying causes or to prescribe natural remedies or alternative therapies.

    Oncologists have only three options for cancer victims - surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation (cut, poison, or burn.) Even if a doctor was enlightened about alternative therapies, he could lose his license to practice if he prescribes anything other than conventional treatments.

    As a case in point, my family watched helplessly while my sister Sandy was being treated by chemotherapy and radiation for deadly small-cell lung cancer. The health professionals knew that the treatment would not cure Sandy, but only potentially prolong her life and ease her suffering. I would like to think that the treatments eased her suffering, though I doubt it, but they did not prolong her life.

    I am not blaming Sandy's doctors for her death. But I do hold responsible the system which allows knowledge of alternative and natural cures to remain hidden. Sandy's doctors are ignorant of oxygen therapy and other alternate natural methods which would have saved her life.

    Chemotherapy drugs bring in billions of dollar to Big Pharma. The oxygen therapy which doesn't allow cancer cells to live is dirt cheap but effective. Health care and Big Pharma would be cutting off a major part of their profits if they allowed an alternative cure such as this to become public knowledge. Hence it is veiled in secrecy!

    But I am going to do my best demolish this veil of secrecy. Millions are dying needlessly because of greed and the love of money.

    Share your opinion about this topic here.

    Return to Top

    Osteoporosis Drugs--The Danger Behind the Glitter

    Unfortunately, diseases such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's, osteoporosis, and many more are on the rise. Osteoporosis is one of many medical issues already attacking the baby boomer population (those born between 1946 and 1964.)

    Because many more people are falling victim to this devastating bone-weakening affliction, the pharmaceutical industry is cashing in on what has turned out to be a gold mine.

    It is no secret that I am vehemently opposed to pharmaceutical drugs being used as a panacea for disease. But unfortunately America is programmed to expect a quick cure in a pill. People in general expect a 'quick fix' and Big Pharma (the pharmaceutical industry) is only too happy to supply one.

    As far as addressing osteoporosis, Big Pharma has concocted a class of drugs known as biphosphonates. As I have written about many times, drugs do not act on the cause of chronic disease. They merely 'treat' the symptoms.

    Biphosphonates do not address the underlying cause of osteoporosis. They only mask the symptoms, providing temporary relief. That means that you must take these drugs for the rest of your life.

    One of the most widely used osteoporosis drugs is Fosamax. Others in this class include Actonel, Reclast, and Boniva.

    Says Dr. David Williams of drugs such as Fosamax, "...My advice is generally to avoid these drugs like the plague. Nobody knows the long-term effects of taking them, but from what we've seen so far, it's a no-brainer that it won't be good. It's another case where the known adverse effects outweigh any possible benefits" (Alternatives for the Health-Conscious. Exercise, Not Drugs, for Bones; August 2009, Volume 13, No. 2.)

    Testing the drug Fosamax was only for a period of three to five years. And according to published reports, it only reduces the risk of hip fractures by 1 to 2 percent!

    Biophosphonates have a half-life of more than ten years. That means that it will take at least ten years for half of the drug to clear your body.

    In 2008 the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) reported that biophosphonates increased the risk of developing extreme and often debilitating musculoskeletal pain. Studies independent of the FDA report an increase in breaks of the femur bone (the thigh bone) and heart irregularities.

    Additional negative side effects of Fosamax were released by the University of Southern California School of Dentistry. The side effect is known as osteonecrosis, or bone death. This is defined in dentistry as "the presence of exposed bone in the mouth, which fails to heal after appropriate intervention over a period of six to eight weeks."

    The School of Dentistry found that osteonecrosis occurs in at least 4 percent of people taking Fosamax. The study used 208 people who took this drug. They were all women with an average age of 73 who were on the drug for a year or more. It found that one person in 23 developed osteonecrosis. This problem was not discovered in a group of 4,384 patients who were not taking the medication.

    A study from New Zealand which involved cancer patients and who were prescribed Fosamax for bone, prostate, or breast cancer revealed that osteonecrosis appears in approximately 5 percent of them.

    Share your opinion about this topic here.

    Genuine Organic Food is Better For You

    There was a recent study which reached the conclusion that organic produce isn't any more nutritious than conventional produce.

    One of the study's authors, Alan Dangour, said the following, "...A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority. Research in this area would benefit from greater scientific rigour and a better understanding of the various factors that determine the nutrient content of foodstuffs".

    The study was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine reviewed over 50,000 existing studies and focused on nutrient content only. These studies were performed over a 50 year period. Only 55 papers met the team's standard of high quality.

    First and foremost let me point out that the researchers considered nutrient content only. They focused on levels and quantities of vitamins and minerals. However, produce contains nutrients other than your typical vitamins and minerals.

    Besides vitamins and minerals, fruit and vegetables contain phytonutrients such as carotenoids, flavonoids, and anthocyanins. Science has not been able to fully unlock how these phytonutrients work together and benefit the body.

    If the nutrient content report is to be taken at face value, Americans can save money by not having to choose between organic and nonorganic produce. But that would be a big mistake. There is another factor to consider besides nutrient content--the application of deadly chemicals.

    Share your opinion about this topic here.

    Return to Top

    Taking on Conventional Cancer Therapy: The Courage of Suzanne Somers

    Kudos to former actress Suzanne Somers (remember the U.S. hit comedy Three's Company?) She has written another book named Knockout, Interviews with Doctors Who Are Curing Cancer--And How to Prevent Getting It In the First Place

    Suzanne was a guest on Larry King Live last night (10/23/2009) along with alternative cancer doctor Stanislaus Burzynski, Dr Otis Brawley of the American Cancer Society, Dr. Keith Black a scientist, and Dr. Nicolas Gonzales. For those of you reading this editorial who don't know, Suzanne is a breast cancer survivor and wholeheartedly believes in alternative medicine.

    Her new book is driving the cancer industry crazy. I saw only a portion of Larry King, but what I did catch brought out the largely negative feelings conventional medicine has against alternative treatmenst.

    Doctors Brawley and Black were by and large steeped in conventional cancer treatments, and in my opinion paid only lip service to Dr. Burzynski and his work in alternative cancer therapy. Dr. Gonzales however had an open mind and acknowledged alternative treatment. He stated that chemotherapy worked in some cases, but at the end of the day, is not curative.

    The cancer industry is a multi-billion dollar industry with the pharmaceutical cartel and hospitals profiting big time. The majority of oncologists (cancer specialists) utilize conventional therapies against cancer (chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery.) This is all that is taught in medical schools.

    My baby sister Sandy died from small cell lung cancer in April, 2009. Not once did her oncologist suggest a nutritional or other alternative approach. She was immediately given chemotherapy. She was later given radiation treatments.

    These radical approaches, especially chemotherapy and radiation, are destructive to the body. Chemotherapy poisons the body and destroys an already compromised immune system. And it is a strong immune system which is needed to fight the destructive effects of cancer.

    Radiation is no better than chemotherapy. Although they try, doctors cannot precisely target the radiation to cancerous cells only. Healthy cells are also destroyed in the process.

    I can't even say with assurance that Sandy's treatments prolonged her life. She was diagnosed with cancer in November, 2008 and passed away five months later.

    Chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery are all radical approaches, and should be considered only when all other methodologies have been tried. Conventional medicine's treatments merely treat existing cancer and cannot cure it.

    The conventional cancer doctors on Larry King's program, as well as my sister's oncologist and most other oncologists do not see the validity of alternative methods. It is their belief that alternative treatments are not proven and backed by scientific studies.

    But as Dr. Burzynski and many others have proven in their work, natural and alternative methods do not only cure existing cancer, but they can prevent cancer in the first place.

    The government itself does not recognize anything other than conventional treatment for cancer or any other illness. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent a threatening letter to well-known alternative medicine doctor Andrew Weil. It took exception to Dr. Weil's approval of the herb astragalus for relief from the flu.

    The FDA and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) are wed to the pharmaceutical cartel and conventional medicine. There is a prominent conflict of interest among some members of both government agencies. Naturally, money is involved. All on has to do is to follow the money trail.

    Suzanne Somers, Dr. Burzynski, and the thousands of other alternative practitioners are constantly being threatened by government agencies who want to maintain the status quo. The helplessness I felt when my sister underwent the harsh conventional cancer treatments just solidifies my disdain for them.

    And after researching the global work being done with alternative and integrative cures and treatments, I am a firm believer in alternative methods. If I were diagnosed with cancer, I would never consent to conventional medical treatment.

    Do you know why they are called 'treatments' and not cures? Because all they do is treat the disease. They certainly cannot cure or prevent it.

    Cancer treatments as well as conventional treatments for other diseases ensures a constant flow of money into the coffers of Big Pharma and the medical establishment. There is no money in curing disease.

    Share your opinion about this topic here.

    Return to Top

    Do Thing Really Go Better With Coke?

    AOL News published an online article today which saddened but didn't really surprise me. The American Academy of Family Physicians reached a six-figure deal with Coca Cola. Coca Cola will fund educational materials for the academy's wellness website

    I guess I shouldn't have been stunned. After all, doctors are human too. They are subject to corruption and compromise by big corporations dangling dollar bills in front of them just like anyone else.

    There is though a ray of sunshine in this buy-out. Twenty one doctors quit the organization because of that blatant compromise. It is heartening to know that some doctors cannot be bought. It is these doctors who believe that they have a responsibility to the public.

    And what is this responsibility? To provide treatment and information which is in the public's best interest to the best of their ability. This information should be upfront, truthful, and uncompromising. That is impossible when the American Academy of Family Physicians has been bought.

    And what about the Hippocratic oath? The classic Hippocratic does describe a promise to try not to harm anyone, and to prescribe medicines to the best of one’s abilities.

    It will be kind of difficult to honor the promise to not harm anyone when you are gagged by a company who can influence your tongue. It is well known that the global obesity epidemic, and certainly America's, is fueled in part by soft drinks.

    "Coca-Cola, like other sodas, causes enormous suffering and premature death by increasing the risks of obesity, diabetes, heart attacks, gout and cavities...[the academy] should be a loud critic of these products and practices, but by signing with Coke, their voice has almost surely been muzzled," says Harvard University nutrition expert Dr. Walter Willett.

    Dr. Henry Blackburn, a University of Minnesota public health specialist, added, "... [the deal] will inevitably have a chilling effect on the focus of their message in regards to sweet drinks."

    This blatant compromise of the American public's health again proves the truthfulness to the old saying, 'money talks.' It is unfortunate that many public figures and health professionals have a price. Once that price is met, they become puppets-mere dupes-of the purchaser.

    This latest collaboration of doctors with companies marketing health destroying products is not new. Remember decades ago when doctors were so firmly convinced that cigarettes were harmless that they casually recommended them to their patients, and smoked openly? Nothing's changed.

    Doctors are some of the most respected professionals in the world. The general public values their advice and for the most part are heavily influenced by them.

    It is bad enough that many people are just as addicted to soft drinks as they are to cigarettes, but to have doctors silenced regarding the danger is unconscionable.

    Make no mistake about it, Coca Cola is in business to expand their markets to make money. They are not going to say that the public should limit their consumption of their products.

    Any doctor who thinks that the American Academy of Family Physicians will not be influenced by Coca Cola's propaganda is a fool. This move is not in the public's best interest, and there should be thundering outcry against it.

    There is no health benefit whatsoever from coke or any other soft drink. In addition to the obesity promoting syrupy and sugary mixture, soft drinks are saturated with dangerous sweeteners like aspartame and high fructose corn syrup.

    Look at these appalling statistics and facts:

  • the phosphoric acid in soda leaches minerals from bones and suppresses the body's ability to absorb manganese
  • soft drinks contribute 10 percent of the calories in the average American's diet
  • the average teenager in America drinks 65 gallons of Coca Cola a year
  • soft drink consumption has increased by over five times in the last fifty years
  • Contrary to the once popular jingle, things don't go better with coke. Drinking it and all other soft drinks will slowly destroy your health, and ultimately lead to chronic disease.

    Return to Top

    Should Pregnant Women Be Concerned About the Swine Flu Vaccine?

    Remember the old saying 'there's two sides to every story?' Well that adage has survived the test of time. When it comes to the swine flu vaccine, the public is only getting one side of the story. The government and vested interests (those who are profiting from the vaccine, such as the vaccine manufacturers and Dr. Mehmet Oz) are painting a dismal picture to the media. And the media are mindlessly regurgitating that very same picture to the public.

    In prioritizing groups to be given the swine flu vaccine, pregnant women are among the top. The federal government is strongly advising pregnant women to get the shot.

    The website says: "... but many women are less than thrilled about the idea of getting the shot, reporting concerns about the safety of the vaccine and possible effects for the unborn baby."

    Stories are now leaking out that pregnant women are suffering miscarriages after having submitted to the swine flu vaccine. Following are a few of the comments women have submitted to concerning their article entitled Some Pregnant Women Fearful of H1N1 Vaccine:

  • "I got the flu vaccine (regular not H1N1) at 8 weeks pregnant. Three days later I miscarried. I am not going to get the H1N1."
  • "I got both vaccines on Thursday. I was 9 weeks pregnant. I miscarried on Sunday. I was told by several doctors to get these vaccines. Now I wish I followed my gut feeling and not get them at ALL!"
  • "i work in a hospital like setting and was told ‘the benefits outweigh the risks” 1am i got the vaccine, 3am i started bleeding and craming, 3pm miscarried. you decide"
  • "I had the H1N1 vaccination and 24 hours later had a miscarriage."
  • "My daughter in law was 10 weeks pregnant and had the H1N1 vaccine on Friday that night she miscarried."
  • "I also agree something needs to be done and looked more into with this vaccination because most women are being advised it’s just something that happens, but I also had two healthy children normal pregnancies and when I received this vaccination with my third pregnancy, my baby is gone. Contact me at
  • These are only a few of the hundreds of responses received. The organic health advisor website ( posted an article with this headline Shocking H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine Miscarriage Stories From Pregnant Women – Tell Your Doctors That Vaccines And Pregnancy Do Not Mix!

    Thank God for the internet. It is nearly impossible, if not impossible, to police and patrol. The worldwide web is the only place where you will both sides concerning the swine flu vaccine.

    Unfortunately congress is controlled by pharmaceutical company lobbyists with deep pockets. They also control the radio and television media.

    Remember, the majority of the commercials shown on public television networks are sponsored by Big Pharma. Even if a newscaster wanted to broadcast the other side of the coin, he couldn't and still keep his job.

    As the organic health adviser website points out, most swine flu vaccines contain mercury, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (associated with infertility), triton X100 (a strong detergent), phenoxyethanol (antifreeze) and other toxic substances.

    Whatever substances a mother puts into her body, be it food, drug, or toxic chemical, will be absorbed by her unborn baby. I recommend that all pregnant women weigh the benefit to risk ratio by carefully reading and considering both sides of the swine flu vaccine debate.

    I strongly advise that you also read the following related articles: The truth about vaccinations
    The flu vaccine and Alzheimer's disease

    Return to Top

    Why I Switched From Drinking Soy Milk to Drinking Almond Milk

    When I finally decided to stop drinking pasteurized cow's milk, I substituted soy milk. You can read that story here.

    Later on I discovered that although soy milk didn't cause any stomach distress like cow's milk did, it was yet in the process of causing harm. Soy milk is so highly promoted in the media by the soy growers and soy product manufacturers, and christened by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration,) that I thought it was the perfect solution.

    And I knew others who were drinking soy milk, including my brother. He had left a container of the then mysterious elixir at my house when he stayed while visiting.
    (On the right is a picture of an almond leaf.)

    Although I was a huge cow's milk drinker in my early years, when I began bodybuilding I used it only to mix my protein powder in. That's all I used soy milk for when I made the switch. I never drank it straight.

    Likewise almond milk. I only use it to mix my protein powder in.

    What I am about to discuss about the soybean is something that soybean growers and products manufacturers don't want you to know. The origin of soybeans is the Orient.

    Originally the Chinese did not use soybeans as food. It found its use in crop rotation to introduce nitrogen into the soil.

    The reason soybeans were not eaten in their natural state will become readily apparent as you read on. The soybean is a pulse or legume like lentils. However unlike lentils, they are highly toxic.

    The soybean has enzyme blockers which interfere with trypsin and other enzymes which are needed for protein digestion. Large quantities of trypsin blockers cause enlargement of the pancreas, and cancer.

    Unfortunately, cooking does not kill or deactivate trypsin blockers. When eaten, these soybeans can produce incomplete protein absorption and chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake.

    Soybeans also have a substance called hemagglutinin. Hemagglutinin promotes the clumping together of red blood cells. Both trypsin blockers and hemagglutinin are neutralized during the fermentation process.

    Present in the hull or bran of all grains and seeds, including soybeans, is the organic acid phytic acid or phytates. However soybeans have a greater quantity of phytates than any other seed or legume which has been studied.

    Phytates prevents the minerals magnesium, calcium, iron, and zinc from being absorbed into the body. And unfortunately, the phytates in soybeans resists many phytate reducing measures such as long, slow cooking. It will only yield to a long fermentation process.

    Bottom line is that unless a soy product is fermented, it is unhealthy. Soy products like miso, natto and tempeh are fermented and therefore beneficial for human consumption.

    Soy products manufactured in the West like soy milk and infant formula are dangerous to the health because they are not fermented.

    That is the reason I switched from drinking soy milk to drinking almond milk. The almond is high in the antioxidant vitamin E. Following is almond's nutritional profile for a 1 ounce serving:

  • calories- 163
  • protein- 6g
  • carbohydrate- 6g
  • saturated fat- 1.1g
  • monounsaturated fat- 8.8g
  • polyunsaturated fat- 3.4g
  • fiber- 3.5g
  • calcium- 75mg
  • iron- 1.1mg
  • magnesium- 76mg
  • phosphorous- 137mg
  • potassium- 200mg
  • zinc- 1mg
  • copper- 0.3mg
  • manganese- 0.6mg
  • selenium- 1mg
  • alpha-tocopherol- 7.4mg
  • phytosterols- 31mg
  • California produces over 70 percent of the global almond crop.

    Return to Top

    James BarrettIs A Calorie Restricted Diet A Viable Option to Living Longer?

    Anti-aging or the desire to live extraordinarily long lives is not just relegated to science fiction or wishful thinking. For centuries man has searched for the proverbial fountain of youth, or some other elixir to prolong lifespan. The search has now reached the science of nutrition.

    The latest research has used Rhesus monkeys as guinea pigs in applying calorie restriction. Medical researchers used 76 Rhesus monkeys in their study. One-half was fed standard laboratory food and the other half was fed 30 percent fewer calories but with concentrated vitamins and minerals.

    After following the monkeys for 20 years, the ones who were fed standard laboratory food were three times more likely to die from age-related diseases like cancer, heart disease, or diabetes. They were also twice as likely to develop heart disease or pre-cancerous tumors. Eleven monkeys of this group became pre-diabetic and five developed diabetes.

    The monkeys who were given a calorie restricted diet did not develop blood sugar problems. Brain scans revealed less atrophy in the gray matter of calorie restricted monkeys. Researchers concluded that these monkeys were biologically younger than non-calorie restricted monkeys.

    Previous calorie restricted studies were performed on worms, flies, spiders, fish, mice, and rats. All had a tendency to live longer. One study on humans found that their heart functioned like that of a 16-year old.

    Members of the Calorie Restriction Society consume 1,800 calories per day. They have been following this diet for an average of six years.

    Their diet includes a 100 percent of the recommended daily amount (RDA) of protein and micro nutrients. The average standard American diet contains about 2,700 calories a day.

    It's one thing to force a calorie restricted on a helpless laboratory animal, and quite another to sell that idea to the general public. Certainly you will always have a small percentage of committed enthusiasts, but it will not be embraced by the average health enthusiast if I am any indication.

    I love to eat. Although the bulk of my meals are healthy (based on my metabolic type and organic and raw,) I don't count calories. I am not that desperate to live longer that I'll sacrifice the quantity of food that I eat.

    Many studies have shown that consistent exercise provides a measure of anti-aging. That coupled with genetically modified, artificial coloring, artificial preservative, artificial sweetener, excessive omega-6, trans fat, MSG, and high fructose corn syrup freed food slows down the aging process.

    Even if someone does choose to apply calorie restriction to lengthen his lifespan, care has to be exercised to make sure essential vitamins and minerals and phytonutrients are not lacking. In other words, one can't just 'willy-nilly' cut calories to 1,800 by eliminating any food that comes to mind from the diet.

    Personally I am against this artificial means of lengthening life. If you eat according to your metabolic type, and consume plenty of fresh water and organic fruit and vegetable, and get regular exercise, you will live longer. And this life will not only have quantity, but quality too.

    Returning to a natural diet will reset insulin, ghrelin, and leptin levels. A study of centenarians showed that they all had one thing in common, low insulin levels for their age.

    Leptin is produced by your body's fat cells. It signals the brain when you've eaten enough. It therefore reduces hunger. Ghrelin is a hormone that stimulates your appetite. The standard American diet (SAD) has thrown insulin, leptin, and ghrelin totally out of whack.

    Return to Top

    fat manAmerica Is Becoming the World's Fattest Country--Yikes!

    (Photo left: Lucas Jackson/Reuters)

    In February, 2007 Forbes magazine published an article of the ten fattest nations in the world. The statistics included overweight individuals 15 years old and over. The United States ranked number 9 with a population 74.1 percent overweight.

    In the latest compilation of the rankings of overweight and obese nations, the United States is number 3. These rankings were compiled by the World Health Organization based on studies from 2000 through 2008.

    Health experts have coined a new term to describe the ever expanding global obesity crisis--globesity. And, sad to say, there is no end in sight. Waistlines are getting larger and larger.

    Globesity is paralleling technological innovations and the growing manufacture of processed foods. Americans are working harder and longer, and can no longer budget time to prepare home-cooked, healthy meals or to exercise.

    Earlier this year I happened to catch a re-run of the '70s dance hit Soul Train. I was completely amazed. You see, I was a fan of Soul Train back in the day, and watched it every week.

    What was it that amazed me, you ask? Well, the dancers on the show were all 'slim and trim.' There was not one overweight individual on the show.

    Well, some thirty years later it's a different story. You'll be hard put to find a handful of people--young as well as old--who are of normal weight.

    And, sad to say, we have grown so accustomed to globesity that a person of normal weight is looked upon as being skinny or underweight.

    I experienced that reaction firsthand. I was called 'skinny.' Now you must realize that I am a bodybuilder who is 5 feet, 10 inches tall and currently weigh 180 pounds. And just because I don't have a gut, I was looked upon as being underweight.

    I was amused by how that individual viewed me. But globesity is no laughing matter. It is placing many people at risk for chronic disease, including various cancers, diabetes, and heart disease.

    I wrote earlier that technological innovations are partly to blame for the obesity crisis. In this 21st century, outdoor playing and exercise have to compete against video games, 24/7 cable and satellite television, cell phones, the internet, and high-definition surround sound.

    Playtime and exercise don't stand a chance.

    When I was growing up in the '50s and '60s, there were no video games, cable and satellite TV, cell phones, internet, or surround sound. What we did have though was mandatory physical education in the schools, and parents who made us go outside and play--not that we had to be forced to go outside.

    Unfortunately, today's youth, toddlers and pre-teens too, are couch potatoes. You see, obesity is not confined to just adults.

    From the mid-1970s to 2003-2004, obesity in America increased from 15 to 33 percent for ages 20 through 74. The rate more than doubled in a little more than 30 years. Here is an obesity rate breakdown for children in that same period--for ages:

  • 2 thru 5 obesity increased from 5 to 14%
  • 6 thru 11 obesity increased from 7 to 19%
  • 12 thru 19 obesity increased from 5 to 17%.
  • The other component that is fueling globesity is the glut of processed food. The American government indirectly subsidizes food manufacturers who use cheap ingredients. Farmers are given subsidies to grow crops like corn. And much of the corn is genetically modified because of the huge incentives given.

    Corn now sells for far below the cost it takes to produce it. Food manufacturers love that because it is dirt cheap. Corn is used extensively in the production of high fructose corn syrup, a dangerous manufactured chemical.

    Many studies have shown that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is instrumental in the global obesity epidemic. Invented in the 1970s, the growing waistlines of our global population parallels the rise in consumption of HFCS.

    Because it is so cheap, much cheaper than sugar, food producers include it as an ingredient in everything from soft drinks to snack foods to low-fat products. HFCS is very, very difficult to avoid.

    There is no quick fix for America's obesity epidemic or globesity. What is needed is for the American government to invest huge amounts of money in health education and prevention rather than only care.

    Neither side of America's health care debate gets at the root of the obesity crisis. Care will just perpetuate the system. The existing system needs to be uprooted and destroyed. In its place should be a free market of all alternatives of health care, prevention, and education.

    In actuality, America's 'health care' system is a misnomer. It should more accurately be called 'sick care.' Disease and sickness is perpetuated by the system because it merely treats symptoms. The cause of these symptoms is allowed to continue.

    You have to take control of your own health. There is so much corruption, i.e. money, in the health care system that nothing short of public indignation will root it out.

    This corruption has infiltrated federal agencies too. You see, the federal agencies which are supposed to be watchdogs are sleeping with the health care system, pharmaceutical giants, and food manufacturers.

    Return to Top

    Nutrients Found in Nature Are Food Not Drugs!

    I knew there was a reason I didn't vote for the McCain/Palin ticket besides the fact that McCain would have been like re-electing George Bush and Sarah Palin is undoubtably too unqualified to be the leader of a bunch of girl scouts, let alone the United States.

    Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota have put aside party differences and collaborated on a bill that would jeopardize your access to nutritional supplements. The proposed bill --the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010--would effectively reclassify nutrients we now purchase freely and without prescription at supermarkets and health food stores as drugs.

    The creation of the bill seems to have come about because of two baseball players being flagged when given a drug test for having taken steroids. The players denied having taken any illegal substances. They instead claimed that all they took were nutritional supplements.

    Steven Joyal, M.D., Vice President of Science and Medical Affairs of Life Extension, says of bill S.3002, "This bill is clear, undeniable evidence of the strong ties between our elected legislators and the pharmaceutical industry, and it is also an attack on innovation...This bill aims to further pharmaceutical profits by creating wide-ranging, unprecedented FDA power to reclassify natural nutritional products as drugs..."

    If this proposed bill is passed, it will create an enormous profit earning potential for pharmaceutical companies. As if these global cartels are struggling financially, and need a bailout. Reclassifying natural supplements as drugs means that they could be patented and only taken by prescription. It would be a win-lose proposition--drug companies win and you lose.

    Once a harmless supplement such as fish oil capsules or CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) becomes a drug, they will become many times more expensive. They will be placed in the same category as over-priced and harmful drugs like cholesterol-lowering drugs, osteoporosis drugs, and male enhancement drugs.

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has already classified a naturally-occuring nutrient which could help diabetics as an investigative new drug. This nutrient pyridoxamine is a form of vitamin B6. It is found in brewer's yeast, fish, and poultry. Because of the reclassification which took place on January 12, 2009, pyridoxamine is no longer a nutrient, but an expensive drug.

    On its decision, the FDA made the following comment, "To allow such an article to be marketed as a dietary supplement would not be fair to the pharmaceutical company that brought, or intends to bring, the drug to market."

    The pharmaceutical cartel is a multi-billion dollar a year enterprise. They spend millions of dollars on lobbying to protect their interests. The FDA is making Big Pharma out to be a powerless entity who needs to be protected by big government. Don't make me laugh! They deserve America's contempt, not their pity, for lining their already bulging pockets at our expense!

    But for the FDA to protect and side with Big Pharma is natural. They are consummate bed partners.

    America already has an act that protects its citizens against potentially dangerous supplement manufacturing. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994 is very strict. DSHEA is designed to prevent adulterated or contaminated foods and dietary supplements from being placed on the market. It includes detailed and complex Good Manufacturing Practices and requirements for all dietary supplements.

    Again, the government is seeking to mandate what we as Americans are entitled to freely buy and consume. Their jurisdiction ends with making certain that companies marketing natural supplements adhere to safe manufacturing practices and fair prices. They don't have the right to arbitrarily designate a certain nutrient a drug.

    Natural supplements are needed now more than ever before. With our nutrient depleted soil, and pesticide-soaked fruits and vegetables, we need supplements to bolster our nutritional intake. (Fruits and vegetables no longer have the amount of nutrients they had 30 years ago!)

    Contact your senator(s) here to let them know that you don't want him/her (them) to co-sponsor this attack on your personal freedom.

    Return to Top

    What Madness Is This?

    I think you will agree with the appropriateness of this title when you have read the facts.

    An Old Bridge, New Jersey mom is consciously putting on weight in order to weigh a whopping 1,000 pounds! Yes, you read that right. Her objective is to weight 1,000 pounds!

    Donna Simpson is 42 years old and currently weighs in at 600 pounds. She has already been entered into the Guinness Book of World Records for being the largest mother. When she weighed about 530 pounds in 2007, she gave birth to a daughter. The daughter was delivered through a high-risk cesarean proedure.

    Donna eats 12,000 calories a day. She spends about $750 per week for food. In order to help pay for her food, Donna runs a website where men pay to watch her eat fast food.

    Besides eating a tremendous amount of fast and junk food, Donna conserves energy by minimizing her movements. This allows for a very small calorie burn. She uses a mobility scooter to get around. Her husband who weighs 150 pounds encourages Donna in her goal.

    With our global obesity epidemic showing no signs of slowing down, Donna Simpson is an enigma. For beginners, she is sending a highly inappropriate and dangerous message to her children.

    A child's role models are their parents. Although Donna's husband is of a normal weight, or maybe even a tad underweight, the fact that he cheers his wife on reenforces her bad image in front of their children.

    This story is so bizarre and contrary to living a healthy lifestyle, even CNN reported it. It reached Rick Sanchez's most wanted list to avoid. I don't think anyone besides her husband think Donna is playing with a full deck.

    Children now are at risk for living shorter lives than their parents because of obesity. Donna's kids don't stand a chance. With mom not playing with a full deck, I can imagine the foods they eat. If there's any food left over for them.

    Chances are great that Donna will not live to see her children grow into adulthood. And chances are great that they will be obese themselves, and having a mindset that eating fast and junk food is the norm and not the exception.

    This is a form of child abuse. Though not physical, it is nevertheless just as bad if not more so. This woman's children will grow up to have children of their own with the same lack of concern for life and health that their mother exhibited.

    Neither are fit parents. I believe that the children should be taken away and perhaps placed with grandparents. The atmosphere in that Old Bridge, New Jersey home is far from healthy.

    Return to Top

    > Editorial (page 1)