Dr. Joe's Recommended Health Products

How to Grow a Cancer Cell (by Changing Your Body’s pH)

2006-09-27T03:39:00.002-07:00

Oh, don’t worry, it’s not that hard to do.
However, you’ll not be able to grow a cancer without first establishing the right chemical climate so it can flourish in your body. Back in 1900, only one person out of twenty-five did it. But today, like I said, growing a cancer cell is easy. So easy, in fact, that every other male in this country and every third female will do it during their lifetime.

The chemical climate of the average American is perfect for growing cancer because our bodies have become acid, and cancer loves low pH readings that indicate high acidity. Consider, the national soft drink consumption per person is in excess of 38 gallons per year! It has been estimated that it would take 30 glasses of water with a pH of 10 to neutralize one can of soda. See why it’s so easy?

And we’re not even taking into account all the acid-producing foods served by fast food restaurants, all the packaged, canned, and processed foods found in your local grocery store, or the air pollution caused by too many cars, trucks, and buses. And I’m not even including the harmful positive ions found in the average home. Let alone the acid rock music that seems to be blaring away everywhere you go!

I’m simply talking about the stored acid wastes that you’ve accumulated in your organs, your glands, and even in the layers of your skin. And as they accumulate, your pH continues to change. When you understand pH, you’ll have a powerful tool that you can use to prevent a cancer climate.

The term pH stands for the hydrogen ion concentration of a solution. An ion is an atom or group of atoms that carries a positive or negative electrical charge. pH is simply the electrochemical effect we get when negative ions (alkaline-forming) and positive ions (acid-forming) interact with each other. Basically, this determines your life force energy.

When you experience an alkaline reaction, your body has more energy and you’ll discover an alkaline residue in your urine if you test for it. Remember, any substances you put into your body will leave an alkaline or acid ash residue in the urine. If your urine is consistently giving you an acid reading, you’ll find it easy to grow cancer.

Additionally, if at times you find yourself hyperventilating, it’s because of acidosis. Your body is attempting to remove carbon dioxide and carbonic acid. That’s what’s left from metabolizing food. As the amount of carbonic acid decreases, the pH increases. That means more energy and an alkaline pH reading from your urine. If your urine reads 7.0 or higher on the pH scale, you’re alkaline. Below that indicates an acid condition in which viruses thrive and cancer grows.

People who are heavy meat eaters show higher acid readings. However, this doesn’t mean that vegetarians fare much better by filling themselves with cooked foods.

A healthy inclusion of plenty of organic, raw veggies and fruits will help shift your body over to alkaline. However, bear in mind that your emotional swings also determine your pH balance.

How do you test your pH? Simply by using litmus paper or nitrazine paper, found at your local drugstore. Take samples of your urine in a jar for a 24-hour period, then dip the strip of paper and compare the color against the chart. The reason for all the samples over a 24-hour period is to get an average reading rather than a random reading that may or may not be accurate. You can also record a series of random tests and average out the readings.

Bear in mind, if you’re on an intense cleansing regime, the reactivated stores of acid will recirculate and be picked up by the kidneys to be excreted into the urine. So, you’ll get acid readings while the body is laboring to make itself more alkaline.

Remember, what you eat and drink, as well as your lifestyle, plays a critical role in the pH balance of your body. The bottom line is, if you know how to avoid creating a climate for cancer, you’ll never grow a tumor.

Yours in Luminous Health and Natural Cures,
Peter Ragnar

How to Grow a Cancer Cell (by Changing Your Body’s pH)

2006-09-27T03:39:00.001-07:00

How to Grow a Cancer Cell (by Changing Your Body’s pH)

2006-09-27T03:39:00.000-07:00

Vitamin C: a Cancer Cure?

2006-09-26T05:58:00.001-07:00

Vitamin C: Cancer cure?By Marie McCullough
Inquirer Staff Writer
Is mainstream medical science ignoring an inexpensive, painless, readily available cure for cancer?

Mark Levine mulls this loaded question.

The government nutrition researcher has published new evidence that suggests vitamin C can work like chemotherapy - only better. But so far, he hasn't been able to interest cancer experts in conducting the kind of conclusive studies that, one way or the other, would advance treatment.

"If vitamin C is useful in cancer treatment, that's wonderful. If it's not, or if it's harmful, that's fine, too," said Levine, a Harvard-educated physician at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. "The goal is: Find what's true. Either way, the public wins, clinicians win, and patients win."

If Linus Pauling, the two-time Nobel laureate turned vitamin C zealot, had taken an equally dispassionate stance 30 years ago, who knows where the vitamin would be in oncology today. Surely not where it is: a dubious alternative on the fringes of medicine, despite its continuing links to remissions and cures.

This is not about popping supplements. It's about putting high-dose vitamin C, or ascorbic acid, into a vein, which requires needles and trained professionals.

The distinction between oral and intravenous is crucial. The body automatically gets rid of extra C through urine. Levine's lab has shown that, at high concentrations, the vitamin is toxic to many types of cancer cells in lab dishes. But to get that much C into the body before it's eliminated, it must be put directly into the blood.

This may explain the defining setback of Pauling's crusade. He and his collaborator, Scottish surgeon Ewan Cameron, gave C intravenously and orally, and claimed many of their cancer patients lived surprisingly long and well. In the 1970s, two rigorous government studies intended to test their claims gave only pills - and found no benefits.

How could so many smart people, including Pauling, ignore a variable as basic as the body's ability to absorb and clear a drug?

"I don't want to impugn anyone," Levine said. "It's one of these things where somebody didn't ask the right questions."

So Levine keeps on, driven by the still-open question:

Can intravenous C do what even the costliest, most targeted, most effective therapies cannot: kill cancer cells without harming healthy ones?

500 oranges

Loretta Hill, 42, of Pittsgrove, Salem County, sits at a faux granite table, facing a TV, chatting with two other cancer patients in the Marlton office suite of family physician Vivienne Matalon.

Each patient is tethered to an intravenous bag of C and other nutrients hung above the table that will take 40 minutes to drip into them. The fee, not usually covered by insurance, is $110.

Hill can't prove that C saved her from colon cancer, but she fervently believes it has.

She was diagnosed in 2001, at age 38, after a sudden bout of rectal bleeding. She had surgery, radiation, two courses of chemo. Six months later, the cancer was back - but had spread to both lungs.

After those tumors were cut out, her oncologist offered irinotecan, which costs about $9,500 a week. But, she says, he held out little hope. He declined to be interviewed.

By then, Hill could barely function, much to the anguish of her husband and 9-year-old daughter.

When she heard about Matalon's ascorbate infusions, she figured, "If this doesn't work, at least I'll be in a better position for more chemo."

Today, almost four years later, Hill is in college part time, plays soccer, and has no signs of cancer. Her weekly C dosage has been cut to 30 grams - about 500 oranges' worth - but she has no plans to quit because her only side effects are "fabulous hair and skin."

Bill Nath, 69, a Wichita, Kan., businessman, is an even more provocative case.

In 1996, blood in his urine led to a diagnosis of bladder cancer. Tumors were invading the organ and surrounding muscle.

Nath consulted experts at four major cancer centers from Wichita to New York. All recommended chemo, radiation, and removal of all or part of the bladder. Total removal would include the prostate, adding risks of incontinence and impotence.

One specialist "said if I didn't remove the whole bladder, I would die," said Nath. "It was pretty traumatic."

Nath ultimately made a choice that seemed suicidal to his wife, friends, and doctors: to keep part of his bladder and forgo chemo and radiation.

Instead, he got 30 grams of C twice a week for three months, then every month or two for four years at the Center for the Improvement of Human Functioning in Wichita. It was founded by Hugh Riordan, a physician and friend of Pauling's, now deceased.

Today, a decade after his diagnosis, Nath is cancer-free.

Levine, in collaboration with National Cancer Institute pathologists, reexamined, then published Nath's case and two others from Riordan's center. While such "case reports" prove nothing, Levine hoped they would stir interest in reexamining ascorbate in oncology.

But as Nath has discovered, when it comes to C, people who hear hoofbeats look for zebras.

"Everybody thought I was crazy," he said. "Now they probably think... it's a miracle or something."

Not a miracle

Vitamin C is not miraculous, proponents say. Just as some people die despite standard treatment, some die despite ascorbate drips.

"We may not be able to affect the ultimate outcome," said Matalon, who sees about 15 ascorbate patients a week. "But I think we see a dramatic improvement in quality of life."

The problem is, anecdotes and impressions don't count. Skeptics ask: Where's the data on dosing and regimens, on tumor responses, on survival?

"As far as I know, that kind of registry just doesn't exist now, and it's a huge weakness of the movement," acknowledged Ron Hunninghake, chief medical officer at Riordan's center, which is starting a database.

In any case, as consumers clamor for alternative therapies, intravenous C is gaining fans. Reports of side effects are rare, and risky patients - with kidney problems or blood disorders - are easily screened out.

"Interest is definitely growing," said Kenneth Bock, physician and president of the American College for Advancement in Medicine, an alternative-medicine society that teaches ascorbate infusion protocols.

Interest is not growing, however, among mainstream oncologists, judging from conferences, publications, and interviews with some of them.

The National Cancer Institute, with a $5 billion budget, is not sponsoring studies of intravenous C. Neither is the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine - although it is paying for cancer studies of the noni extract herbal supplement and Reiki energy healing. The American Cancer Society and the American Association of Clinical Oncologists warn patients against high-dose C, as do leading cancer centers such as the University of Pennsylvania's and Memorial Sloan-Kettering in new York.

Jeffrey White, director of the National Cancer Institute's office of cancer complementary and alternative medicine, said that he's tried to "generate awareness" of Levine's research, and believes it justifies more studies in humans. But White acknowledged that the NCI has rejected "a few" proposals for such studies.

At the prestigious Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., oncologist Edward Creagan said the idea that intravenous, but not oral, levels are toxic to cancer is "an intriguing concept."

"However, my own belief is that the vitamin C story is really ancient history," he said. "It would be very difficult for patients and clinicians to mount a lot of enthusiasm for another vitamin C study."

It was Creagan and his Mayo colleague, Charles Moertel, since deceased, who in the 1970s conducted the two NCI-funded "clinical trials" that showed vitamin C pills were no better than placebo pills for cancer patients.

A clinical trial is considered ultra-reliable because it is designed to keep beliefs and hopes from slanting findings.

Pauling lobbied for a trial, then later contended that the Mayo researchers enrolled unsuitable patients. A second trial in response to Pauling's criticism also bombed. Again he faulted the Mayo oncologists. He also threatened a libel suit against a Rochester newspaper for the headline "Pauling Wrong on Vitamin C for Cancer," and accused the New England Journal of Medicine and the NCI of accepting a "fraudulent" study, according to Australian medical historian Evelleen Richards.

By then, Pauling advocated treating everything from the common cold to mental illness with vitamins and other substances he dubbed "orthomolecular," meaning "right molecule." To many colleagues, this genius and visionary, winner of the 1954 Nobel in chemistry and the 1962 Nobel Peace Prize for his antiwar work, had become a kook - "The Old Man and the C".

Decades later, both skeptics and fans of C are gun-shy about more trials.

"There's tremendous resistance to even test this," Levine said. "It's very hard to revisit something like this without data. Information is diamonds."

As the chief of the molecular and clinical nutrition section at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases - hardly a hotbed of federal cancer research - Levine discovered some diamonds "by accident."

In the early 1990s, his lab began looking at how the concentration of a nutrient affects its function, and how the body gets the proper concentration.

"As part of those studies, we looked at how vitamin C is absorbed in the intestine," Levine said.

By 2000, when that work led to an increase in the U.S. recommended daily allowance of vitamin C, Levine had become an expert on ascorbate's "pharmacokinetics" - what the body does to the drug.

Consumers and scientists already knew that ascorbate was an "antioxidant," meaning it protects cells from reactive oxygen molecules - the same marauders that turn peeled apples brown and wet metal rusty.

Indeed, the reason the American Cancer Society and others discourage ascorbate megadoses is that a few studies of cells in dishes suggest C might protect cancer from oxidant damage. Chemotherapy and radiation work partly by intentionally unleashing this damage.

But Levine's lab-dish studies showed that ascorbate transforms from an antioxidant into just the opposite - an oxidant promoter - when it reaches high concentrations. At these levels, which are achievable in the body only intravenously, C acts like a toxic drug by generating hydrogen peroxide, a powerful oxidant used as a bleaching agent, an antiseptic, and even a World War II rocket fuel.

Still, the biochemistry was puzzling. Putting pure peroxide in the bloodstream can be fatal, so why did patients feel fine when the vitamin that produces it was dripped into their veins?

Levine's experiments offered possible answers. Vitamin C did not generate peroxide in blood, only in liquid such as that found in body cavities. Thus, in the body, intravenous C must seep out of the blood to work.

Five out of nine types of cancer cells that were put in simulated body-cavity fluid died when concentrated ascorbate or peroxide was added to the dish. And the best part: This same lethal marinade had no effect on healthy cells.

For some reason, cancer cells were like the Wicked Witch of the West splashed with water - powerful villains vanquished by a mundane substance that is harmless to good guys.

Previously, Riordan had speculated that this was partly because an enzyme that neutralizes peroxide is abundant inside normal cells, and scarce inside cancerous ones. But by inducing cells to take in C, Levine proved that the internal concentration doesn't matter; malignant cells withered only when C surrounded them.

Armed with this new evidence, a coterie of researchers - all associated with Pauling or his disciples - have recently obtained private funding for small trials of intravenous C.

University of Kansas Medical Center physician Jeanne Drisko has $375,000 for a trial of 30 ovarian cancer patients. In Montreal, McGill University oncologist Wilson Miller has $300,000 to find the maximum safe doses for treating various cancers.

Meanwhile, Levine is forging ahead with animal studies, trying to decipher the molecular magic of C's selective toxicity.

Does that mean he believes C is an unsung cancer weapon?

"I think that question is akin to 'Do you still beat your wife?' " he said. "The question I would ask is: Shouldn't we investigate the potential of ascorbate as a drug?... Let's not guess anymore. Let's be motivated by the truth."

Web Sites and Information

For more information on the pros and cons of intravenous vitamin C use, and where you might find the treatment:

• The Center for the Improvement of Human Functioning in Wichita, Kan., specializes in certain alternative medical approaches, including intravenous vitamin C: http://www.brightspot.org/

Its intravenous C treatment protocol can be found at: http://www.canceraction.org.gg/recnac.htm

• The American College for Advancement of Medicine is a medical society that educates health-care professionals about alternative therapies. It teaches vitamin C infusion protocols as part of training in chelation therapy. It has a physician referral phone line (1-888-439-6891) and a searchable online physician directory:

http://www.acam.org/dr_search/index.php

• The American Cancer Society is a national research, education, advocacy, and service organization. It offers information on alternative therapies. A Web page on vitamin C is at: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Vitamin_C.asp?sitearea=ETO

• The National Cancer Institute's Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine has information about treatments, research, and clinical trials:

http://www.cancer.gov/cam/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact staff writer Marie McCullough at 215-854-2720 or

Vitamin C: a Cancer Cure?

2006-09-26T05:58:00.000-07:00

Grapefruit

2006-07-28T02:37:00.000-07:00

The Citrus Fruit Every Diabetic Should Eat

Most doctors tell diabetics to avoid citrus fruit because it causes blood sugar problems. But there’s one citrus fruit I think all diabetics should include in their diet. Not only does it reduce your blood sugar, it can also help you lose weight.

A recent study proves this. Researchers at the prestigious Scripps Institute in Lajolla, CA divided 91 obese volunteers into several groups. Each group ingested either one-half raw grapefruit, eight ounces grapefruit juice, grapefruit capsules, or a placebo. They took the capsules and the placebo with apple juice – a non-citrus fruit juice.

Each group took their treatment three times daily before each meal. After 123 weeks, all of the volunteers in the grapefruit groups experienced weight loss. The most weight loss was in fresh grapefruit use, followed by grapefruit juice, and then capsules. The placebo group had insignificant weight loss.
But most importantly, subjects in the fresh grapefruit group had lower glucose and insulin levels. Insulin resistance, a serious marker for future disease, also improved.

The researchers didn’t give an explanation for why the grapefruit works, other than it’s ability to help lower blood sugar and insulin levels. But I suspect there’s a lot more to it than that.

We know that vinegar helps with glucose intolerance and metabolic syndrome. Well, grapefruit is similar to vinegar in that both contain organic acids. These acids act as tiny fatty acids that are very easy for your body to burn. When they enter your stomach, they slow your body’s digestion of sugars and other carbs. The result is lower blood sugar.

This is great news because I like grapefruit a lot more than vinegar. I’m sure you do too. Eating grapefruit to lose weight was considered an old wive’s tale. But now we see that it’s really an effective folk remedy. This study confirms two things I have repeatedly stressed: (1) Fresh living foods are best, and (2) natural remedies, especially food, should be your first choice in healing. Fresh grapefruit and grapefruit juice are a living food, bursting with vitamin C, bioflavonoids and other nutrients. I recommend you eat or drink it whenever you can.

Yours for better health and medical freedom, Robert Jay Rowen, MD

Ref: Fujioka K, F. Greenway, et al. “The effects of grapefruit on weight and insulin resistance: relationship to the metabolic syndrome,” J Med Food, 2006; 9(1): 49-54.

Cut Anger Problems by 40%--without Drugs

2006-07-24T02:18:00.000-07:00

In our last health alert, you saw how psychiatry and the drug companies are out to solve our nation’s anger problems. Their solution, of course, is prescription drugs – usually tranquilizers.

While they like to blame TV and bad parenting for the rise in anger mismanagement, there’s something else to blame. And fixing this one simple problem can reduce anger problems by 40% or more.

Some innovative researchers went into violent juvenile detention centers and cleaned out violence. How? By simply improving the teens’ diets. Yes, just replacing soft drinks with juice, and swapping refined sugar with fruit caused an immediate 40% reduction in violence.

Think that’s just coincidence? Think again. God designed your body to survive. The survival instinct is called the “fight or flight’ response, and is mediated by adrenaline. Pump adrenaline into a tranquil person, and you can get a crazed and uncontrollable behavior.

Now if your brain can’t respond properly response to a situation, this “fight or flight” response will naturally come out. What might prevent your brain from working normally? A lack of nutrients! Researchers have repeatedly shown that a mineral imbalance can dramatically alter your brains biochemistry, energy production, neurological response, and subsequent behavior.

So if you improve your diet with nutrient-rich foods and it causes an immediate drop in violence, is IED a real disease? Or is it simply the visible symptom of a more insidious problem – a brain starving for minerals? You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure this one out.

Action to take: If you or a loved one struggles with rage, don’t let a shrink label you with this new diagnosis. And definitely don’t let the shrink spoon-feed drugs to “solve” the problem.
You’ll be stuck with the label and the drugs for the rest of your life.

Instead, head to your integrative physician. Have your minerals, amino acids, and other nutritional deficiencies evaluated and fixed. The brain you save and the anger you avoid might be your own.

Yours for better health and medical freedom, Robert Jay Rowen, MD

Electrical Fields

2006-06-26T03:37:00.000-07:00

Harold Saxon Burr, Professor at Yale School of Medicine in 1929, initiated a study of the role of electricity in development and disease. Burr's work on energy fields from 1932 to 1956 was way out of step with the mainstream medicine and biology of the time. This was a period of explosive growth in pharmaceutical medicine and in the use of X-rays for diagnosis. Antibiotics were winning the war against disease and the thrust of medical research and public policy was towards a pill for every problem.

See James Oschman,Energy Medicine

While Burr discovered the theory of the influence of electricity on optimal performance, inventors like the Russian George Lakhovsky, the American Royal Rife or the Italian Antoine Priore and Gianni Dotto developed the corresponding technical devices. Lakhovsky (1869-1942) postulated the theory that a state of health or disease of a cell was dependant on whether the oscillations from healthy cells were maintained or were overtaken by the oscillations of the disease-causing cells. In the 1930ís, he developed an electro-therapeutic system called the Multi-Wave Oscillator (MWO). The MWO produced a broad-spectrum electromagnetic field specifically aimed at restoring cellular function to its normal state. (see George Lakhovsky, The Secret of Life)

Harold Saxon Burr, the Yale physiologist who was one of the first great pioneers in the scientific (or third-person) study of energy fields, often used diagrams of ever expanding energy fields around the body, much like an aura, which represent experimentally detected energy fields.

Such diagrams include a " P-field," or any gross physical energies associated with this body; as well as an " L-field" (or "life-field") and a " T-field" (or "thought-field"). Note that none of these energy fields are merely local, or confined simply to a physical and localized space. The local aspects of these energy fields are simply the areas of highest density of the fields (or, alternatively, the areas of greatest probability of finding the signature energy). But many of these local aspects can indeed be physically detected with various instruments (e.g., Burr, Motoyama, Tiller). Also, well-known and highly respected psychics (e.g., Michal Levin) often perceive these energy shells in essentially the way Burr depicted them—fields within fields within fields.

The visionary scientist, Harold Saxon Burr, commented in the 1930s on the electromagnetic determinants of life. He recognized the need to introduce a coordinating factor for the rapidly changing biochemical reactions constituting metabolism. Burr's research laid a solid experimental foundation behind the idea that every living system possesses an electric field that can be measured accurately. Life was an electro-dynamic event. This field has the properties, he said, to "control the movement and position of all charged particles within the living system...needed for control of growth and development". Burr and his colleagues left an enormous legacy in their papers and publications. His contributions to the developing science of bioeletronics was extremely important

Assumptions

2006-06-09T05:01:00.000-07:00

5 False Assumptions About Natural Living
by Frederic Patenaude

It seems like every time you turn your head, you hear confusing and misleading information from every corner of the natural health movement. First, you have mainstream “experts” who rely on outdated and inaccurate data to advise us on the subject. And then there's the raw food or natural health movement itself, within which most people seem to disagree on what constitutes the healthiest diet.

In this article, I will review 5 wrong assumptions about natural living, spread by conventional “experts.” In the second part of this article, I will expose 5 false assumptions being spread by various raw-food advocates and naturopaths.

From the mainstream, we hear the following...

You have to make sure you eat enough protein

Without a doubt, the issue of “getting enough protein” is the number one concern of anyone switching to any kind of diet for any reason. Even though decades of vegetarian and vegan traditions and extensive research have proven that our actual protein requirements are fairly low and easy to meet - as long as we eat enough food - most people who will advise you about diet will likely make a much bigger deal about protein than it actually is.

Bodybuilders go beyond all extremes known to humankind by consuming upwards to 350 grams of protein per day, an amount that is completely off the charts and only possible through the consumption of refined protein powders.

At the same time, most people on the planet get by on less than 60 grams of protein a day, and many people in these cultures possess wiry and explosive strength that would put most gym goers to shame.

In the end, the evidence is still conclusive: as long as you eat enough calories to meet your needs, you will at the same time consume enough protein, even if all you eat are fruits and vegetables.

There is no reason to make protein more important than it actually is.

You need to eat a balanced diet

According to our nutritionists, a “balanced” meal is composed of carbohydrates, protein and fat in the right proportions.

A meal of bread (carbohydrate), with cheese (protein), and a salad containing a dressing of olive oil (fat) and a desert (carbohydrate) would be, in their opinion, a balanced meal.

That meal might be a digestive disaster for most people, but that aside, we don't find any evidence that our bodies need to receive nutrition in such a manner.

If we look all around the world, we see different cultures that have enjoyed excellent health eating far from “balanced” meals. In China, rice with vegetables is a meal. In the Great North, the Eskimos have lived on almost nothing but meat. The Hunzas regularly ate meals composed of vegetables and some chapati bread.

If we look at wild animals, we also see that they do not eat “balanced” meals. A meal for an orangutan might consist of nothing more than rambutan (a tropical fruit) or durian (another tropical fruit).

There is absolutely no need to worry about eating a very simple diet where most of our meals are composed of a few foods only. As long as we eat a large variety of food from week to week, it doesn't matter if our meals are not composed of “carbohydrates, protein and fat”.

You can't sustain yourself on just raw foods

Most nutritionists look at the raw food diet and claim that it's “impossible” to sustain ourselves from only fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds. Letting alone the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are doing just that and are still alive to tell about it, there is no scientific reason to believe that we can't live on raw foods.

Nutritionists will claim that it would be “very difficult” to eat enough fruits and vegetables to consume enough calories.

The problem is that they are still stuck with the view of cooked nutrition and its “balanced view” and can't think outside the box and realize that it is actually possible to consume enough fruits and vegetables and get the calories you need. It just is a lot of food!

The truth is, eating a raw food diet will mean that you'll be consuming more fruits and vegetables in a day than some people may consume in a week or even in a month. But as you learn to eat this way, you'll find that this “huge” amount of fruits and vegetables is actually the “right” amount.

You should never expose your skin to the sun.

Although we know that too much sun isn't good for us, the advice we get from dermatologists these days defy all reason. Apparently, we should never expose our skin to the sun unless we are fully protected by chemical lotions.

Did you forget the important fact that sunlight is essential to our well-being, and that regular sun exposure at safe periods of the day are actually beneficial to your health, even in 2006?

You need the sun. The question is just how much!

If it's natural it's good for you.

The word “natural” has been abused more than any other term in the food industry. We now have “natural potato chips”, “natural coffee” and “natural beer.”

The fact that these foods come from a factory should make it obvious that they are definitely not natural, nor healthy.

The truth is, even if a food were natural, it wouldn't automatically make it healthy. There are plenty of plants and mushrooms that grow in the wild that are not only “perfectly natural,” but also deadly!

Let's be clear: for a food to be healthy, it has to be a lot more than “natural.”

Flaky?

2006-06-04T02:43:00.000-07:00

There is a language connection between mind, body, and emotions. Recent research has shown that much illness is self-created largely through this language. Words are often the trigger (catalyst) that lead to the symtoms of disease. You are what you believe about you. A "seedthought" is a significant catalyst for a physical or emotional response. For years I was involved in presenting new ideas such as women's liberation, holistic health and spiritual healing. At one point I was plalgued by a persistent case of dandruff. Months of aggressive treatment failed to eliminate the ugly white flakes. I wondered if there was a language connection. I soon had the anser. Frequently while presenting new ideas I would think "They think I'm flaky," a perfect catalyst for the dandruff. I began to tell myself the real truth "I am not flaky. I am serious, thoughtfyul, fun, loving and committed!" Within two weeks of my initial recognition of the flaky seedthought, and without further treatment, the dlandruff disappeared. When I knew I wasn't flaky, I stopped flaking.

Barbara Levine
Your Body Believes Every Word You Say

Healing Energy and Water

2006-06-03T03:38:00.000-07:00

Many of us today appreciate we are composed of energy to some degree. We measure the electrical activity of the brain with an Electroencephalogram (EEG), the heart with an Electrocardiogram (ECG). We can stimulate a muscle to contract and relax by reproducing the electrical potential it needs to carry out this task. But it is only when we look deep into the physical body that we can begin to comprehend the immense energy that we all are and the potential we all have.

If we cut open the human body and pull the skin and fatty tissue aside, we see that the body is jam-packed with body parts. However, if we magnify through these organs, tissues, compounds and molecules we come to:

ATOMS – the building blocks of life. We are, as are all living things, made up of atoms and an atom is composed of 99.999% SPACE or ENERGY/LIGHT.
This means that we humans are composed of 99.999% energy or light too! Only it doesn’t appear that way because we have been conditioned over the years to become intellectual rather than spiritual and so now, we only perceive reality through our limited five physical senses. This in effect allows us to see only the illusory reality, the 0.001% of who and what we are and so today we focus our attention on the 0.001% – the physical part - which is of course totally disproportionate to what we are composed of.

If we begin to move out of, or expand from the atom – the energy that we are – and towards the biochemical aspect of ourselves, we discover that even our DNA is composed of light (energy) and it emits photons or information/instructions in the form of light-particles to our cells on how they should behave, replicate and so on.1 The wavelength at which DNA emits these photons corresponds exactly to the narrow band of visible light: ‘Its spectral distribution ranges at least from infrared to ultraviolet.’2 The light/energy in our DNA is a highly coherent source of light2, which means it is balanced. The light of our DNA is fed from the 99.999% light that all living things and we are composed of. This is why we find DNA in all living organisms. This expansion of energy from within the atom continues through our DNA, through our cells and out of the physical body to form what is commonly referred to as the Auric or Biophysical Energy Field.

Everything in the physical universe is composed of light or energy and today we can photograph these energy fields around our cells, plants and the human body. Today, more people are able to see these energy fields or sense or feel them – hence we have many energy or healing modalities. Young children in particular can see these energies and this is evidenced in their drawings of humans which generally have the eyes, nose etc., in the right place but the hair is almost always standing on end and depicted in bright colours. Many young children also have what we conditioned adults believe to be purely imaginary friends, when with hindsight, they may actually be seeing part of the greater reality of what is - the 99.999% of what we are.

We know from many scientific experiments and our own personal experiences with plants that they respond positively to the emotion of love and negatively to the emotion of fear and there have been numerous experiments which confirm that all living things are able to communicate with each other and share information. Just how do all living things interact and communicate with each other? We need to examine the properties of water to discover the answer to this enigma.

WATER

The majority of people consider water to be no more than a liquid for quenching the thirst, bathing in and for putting out fires. In reality water is one of THE most important substances in the physical reality and has some very profound properties indeed. The other is light energy as we have just discussed.
A water molecule has a north and a south pole and is separated by a dipole length. Similar if you like to a magnet. Therefore, water has memory and the ability to store information in the same way as a magnetic cassette tape or videotape records information.3 The science of biophysics has shown that even when they dilute a solution to D200, which is 1:10200 they can not only measure the electromagnetic frequency of the original substance introduced at this dilution, but they can also photograph the energy field of this substance too.4

This, to me, is unequivocal proof that water stores information on an energy level. This is exactly how homeopathy works. Water can also store information for long periods of time and share this information with humans and other living organisms.

When we examine some of our most distant history we find records of our ancestors referring to water as the ‘emotion of the Earth’ and ‘the consciousness of the Earth’, and this is very true. What is the Earth and a human primarily composed of? We are both composed of 70 - 80% WATER. Water in this physical reality is Consciousness; it is a memory bank of stored information and our physical means of identity. As emotions are a powerful energy, water stores emotions very easily, which is why we humans are emotional beings.

So how do these two important elements of life – ENERGY/LIGHT and WATER - work together in this physical reality?

If we look at our cellular environment we find that DNA lies in the centre of every living cell coiled like a snake or a serpent and surrounded by water or intracellular fluid. As we know, our DNA is composed of light and emits photons – particles of light that contain information or instructions – and this information is transmitted through the watery environment of the cell on how it should perform and replicate. This inner energy (light) is expanded outwards through our watery environment and extends outside of the physical body forming the Auric or Biophysical Field, courtesy of the water molecules in the air around us. In addition, part of this inner light is utilised in our biochemical environment to provide a different form of energy: Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) which governs our biological processes. ATP is a nucleotide molecule found in all cells. It is used to drive the thousands of biological processes needed to sustain life, growth, movement and reproduction. ATP is the Universal energy-carrying molecule and is indispensable to the life of a cell.

All our cells are surrounded by extra or intercellular fluid too, and water is the medium through which all our cells remain in constant communication with each other on an energy level. This is how, for example, the Autonomic Nervous System and its two branches work meticulously to maintain equilibrium in the body and how the immune system monitors the body for invaders or imbalances and how it knows where to send it troops when the body is under threat; all without us having any conscious awareness of, or input into, what is going on.

We can see here that the mind or the intellect has no idea or comprehension of what is actually going on in the body to maintain equilibrium and health. Yet the mind still insists that it knows all the answers and we tend to live our lives by the thoughts and directions of the minds influences and beliefs.
The science of biophysics has been able to determine that when a cell association dies, it dies as a complete entity and not cell by cell, which shows that some form of cellular communication is indeed going on.5

We can see here the importance of light – the 99.999% of what we are – and the importance of water in this physical reality. Both are required for life to exist. In effect what we have is the following equation;

NON-MATTER DNA CODE + LIGHT WATER = MATTER/PHYSICAL LIFE

(99.999% Light/Energy)

We can clearly see that creation works from in, to out, from the light within into the water without, or from the centre – from the light within the atom - continually expanding outwards like a droplet in a pond. In effect the physical reality is the ripple that reaches the edge of the pond, it is the end result of creation. The physical reality is merely a reflection of the inner reality and our DNA is the axis point of the reflection of the light within into the water without. This is how we animate (energise) and feed the physical body.

Water is the medium by which all life stores and shares information and through which all things interact. When we can truly appreciate the immense properties of water we can begin to understand many of the so-called anomalies of life today. Such as how ESP works or how psychics can walk into a room or building and ‘sense’ or ‘pick up’ events that happened many years ago, simply because the information and the emotion of the event is stored in the water molecules in the air, the floor, the ceiling, the walls, the furniture and so on. The properties of water explain past life experiences because the Earth’s consciousness holds the memory of what has transpired before, it is one huge memory bank of information and emotional energies of the past and present. As emotion is a very powerful energy then emotional energies are more readily stored and retained in the Earth’s consciousness and as we know, past life experiences are generally very emotional indeed.
T
he properties of water also explain how Healing and Distant Healing works. Remote Viewing, Remote Sensing and Remote Influencing - popular methods used by the military and intelligence agencies – also work through the medium of water. The properties of water explain how we can meet somebody for the first time and have an instant like or dislike for the person before anything is said, simply because we are communicating with them through the ability of the water molecules (consciousness) to share information, and we do this sub-consciously. We can also understand how telepathy works and so much more.

We can understand how man-made unnatural energies such as EMF’s or microwaves – even other peoples negative energies - can share their unbalanced information with us and the potential these energies have to change or damage the information or memory stored within our cellular environment, simply because our body, through our watery environment can take on board and store this unbalanced energy in its memory banks. This is exactly how a diseased cell replicates itself. The replacement cell is reproduced in the likeness and from the memory of its diseased host cell. This is how, for example, a tumour replicates itself and can continue to grow. (See Shopping
For Spirit articles on www.equilibrauk.com for more information).

In effect, when water stores energies or incoherent light from man-made toxic chemicals, additives, pesticides, EMF’s, mobile phones and their towers, for example, these unbalanced energies then begin to distort or scramble the coherent light emitted from our DNA and the information carried by this coherent light and the corresponding instructions to our cells on how to replicate and behave, is altered. This process alters our energy fields in a detrimental way and this corresponding imbalance is then reflected in the physical as our cells begin to replicate in accordance with the ‘instructions’ carried by the distorted or scrambled light/energy. This is the onset of what we call physical illness and disease.

We can see that we need coherent light in water for health and balance in this physical reality, for it is this light that purifies the water – our consciousness and energy fields – and enables us to maintain equilibrium and therefore physical health. Also, the light in water determines the strength and vitality of our energy fields and its ability to deal with negative energies. We can also see that this light – this purifying energy - comes from within us and not from outside of us.

However, we do interact with beneficial energy/frequencies from the Earth and Nature, though sadly today these beneficial energies have become compromised by what we humans have created over time. Nature and all living things work in this simple way, humans included. We all strive to maintain equilibrium through a process known as implosion and explosion. This is how our chakras work. Our chakras are vortices of energy which spin both ways and implode and explode at the same time. In effect, they implode negative energies back into the light within where they are purified and then they explode the purified and balanced energies back out into the physical reality. This is how we keep our consciousness and energy fields balanced and how we contribute to balancing the Earth’s consciousness. We work in exactly the same way as Nature works.

The science of biophysics discovered that the physical body is not designed to become ill. Only when the defence mechanism of the body – its consciousness or energy fields (Aura) – becomes weakened do we actually become ill.6 Therefore, something somewhere must be interfering with our natural process of implosion and explosion. Toxic chemicals in the air, our farmland, our water and our food contribute to this interference, as do certain medicines and vaccinations. Chemicals used to treat our water remain in the water in an energy form and can share this imbalance with our bodies. However, the biggest interference in this natural process comes from the MIND or more correctly the EGO and through the emotion of fear.
There are only two emotions – unconditional love, which is balanced – and fear, which is unbalanced. Collectively, what has been the overall emotion of human beings over the last few thousand years or so? Would FEAR be a fair answer? I feel it would. Humans, in the main have lived and continue to live in fear. We are becoming more aware today of how our emotions can affect our health and how unbalanced emotions can cause blockages on an energy level, which consequently can cause physical disharmony, or illness and disease. Can we imagine what the cumulative effect the unbalanced emotions of our collective consciousness – some six billion people today – can have upon the Earth’s energy fields and overall health? As water stores emotions very well, can we appreciate what has happened to the Earth’s consciousness - its energy fields - over the last few thousand years and what is happening to them today?
E
very thought, belief, fear and emotion – all being energy - is stored in the Earth’s energy fields which surround and interact with all living things. So, over time, we humans have created an imbalance within the consciousness of the Earth through our fear-based emotions and actions and we are merely intensifying the imbalance today. We have literally created a disease outside of us and this disease is being fed back into our own energy fields affecting our own consciousness and consequently our own physical health. We take in this unbalanced emotional energy with every breath we take, with every drink we consume and with every meal that we eat – all being replete with water molecules – consciousness/memory. We are also interacting with these external energies through our own energy fields every minute of every day. There are other ways too where we innocently ause imbalances within our energy fields to an even greater extent. One way is through our mind, which can be influenced by the ego and beliefs of other people.

Steve Gamble

Two Medical Reports

2006-05-27T03:51:00.000-07:00

The science of me
Scientists say they can map out your medical destiny: what diseases you’ll get and how you’ll die. But would knowing the future improve your life? Two of our writers bared all for the truth

TIM RAYMENT FILE

HABITS: Solitary, impulsive
APPETITES: Food, work, sex
EXERCISE: None
ATTITUDE: Optimistic

We think science can tell us almost anything: we live in an age when experts can say how a mummy died 4,000 years ago, or name the Yorkshire Ripper hoaxer in hours by taking DNA from an envelope licked in 1979. We have MRI scans, genetic and hormonal testing, and tiny cameras that can explore inside us. What can science reveal to us? And how much would you really want to know?

Tucked away in an up-market shopping mall in Scottsdale, Arizona, is a research institute where you can walk in off the street and get yourself tested to the extreme. This is the Kronos Optimal Health Centre, which asks its clients for seven tubes of blood before a two-day programme of physical testing. Then, in Britain, there are experts in psychological testing who will describe your personality with frightening accuracy; people who can divine what you eat and where you live, from a strand of hair; a professor of eye surgery who was able to study my tears and see what I’d had for lunch the previous day. How much do these people know?

This is the exercise, then. Take one Adam, one Eve. Each outwardly healthy, each old enough to harbour hidden killers. Ariel Leve is 38; I turned 46 this month. She is a vegetarian New Yorker who is anxious about her health; I’m a careless Englishman who knows every dietary pronouncement and follows none. We invited scientists on two continents to tell us whatever they can, with life-changing results.

In Britain, we have a simple model of health care: we wait for disease to show, then we treat it. What doctors do not find, they do not have to deal with until there are symptoms. Take eye examinations. The eye is the only place in the body where nerves and blood vessels are on display, which means it has a story to tell about health. In Britain, eye tests are done mainly on the high street and the motive is to sell spectacles, not detect disease. In middle age, I still have good vision; “super-vision”, in fact. Thus I have never had a proper eye examination. That’s Britain, and it’s why our elderly have higher rates of eye disease than in other developed nations.

Private health screening tends to give broad advice on diet and lifestyle. Yet scientific advances in the last decade have introduced real precision, allowing the purchase of knowledge that was once the property of fate. Women can find out how many eggs are left in their ovaries in the comfort of their bathroom, while men can test their sperm count without stepping out of the house. The new era raises the exciting prospect of individual care – of preventive treatment tailored to your actual make-up, with health resources used efficiently for the first time.

“There is little doubt that in 50 years’ time a genetic profile will be part of your health check,” says Kay Davies, an Oxford professor of anatomy. “It may not tell you how long you will live, because of the large environmental component, but it will say how to minimise any risks for heart disease, Alzheimer’s and so on.”

In half a century? We want this now. And guess what – you can have a version of it immediately.

Unlike Ariel, who approached this exercise with respect for the tests and dread of the results, I was cheerfully sceptical. So what if I turned out to have the genetic markers for cancer or heart disease? We’re such complex beings that genes are just part of the story. Intimate flirting with science holds no fear. Friends asked if we were going to receive counselling with the findings.

I don’t need counselling, I thought: I would rely instead on a study of 678 nuns in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, who were asked in the 1980s to write self-portraits. The women who were positive about themselves tended to live significantly longer. I am an optimist, and how is science going to factor in that?

At Kronos, medicine is based on risk assessment: it tries to do now what our Oxford professor sees as the future. At the frontier of commercial science, the tests are familiar but more sophisticated. When you run on a treadmill for a health insurer in Britain, electrodes monitor how the heart performs under stress. At Kronos, you also wear a face mask to measure how efficiently you process oxygen. In Britain, the body mass index is indicative of the content of fat in your body; in Arizona a full body scan shows where this fat is. The work yields more statistics than a person needs: the report on my screening runs to 257 pages.

I now know my left arm is 20.7% fat, and so is my right. I can see not only the levels of “good” cholesterol and bad in my blood, but the precise make-up of these fats, and the fact that my level of coenzyme Q10, “a terrific antioxidant” that is made in the body and can be found in a variety of foods, is barely acceptable at 0.591. My bones are so dense they are almost off the scale, but feeble habits mean my upper-body muscular strength is poor. My biological age is 53, seven years older than my chronological age. I know from a brain scan that I have mild diffuse cortical atrophy. This means my brain has shrunk. It is common with age and moderate drinking. So what?

I made no effort to improve the results. The day before testing, this was my diet: breakfast, none; lunch, a chip butty (white bap, butter, chips); supper, a big meal at the wrong time of day. Life is a lottery, and it turns out that I am blessed with what Kronos called awesome blood chemistry, which is better than expected for my age, while Ariel, for all her dietary excellence and gym membership, is a heart attack waiting to happen. The results were not all good news; we’ll get to the alarming findings later. For now, science has delivered the same as a medical, but in blazing colour. How would we use the extra detail? And do we have the mental strength to take action?

Dr Almuth McDowell, of the Psychometrics Centre at City University in London, conducts psychological assessments with questions that are repeated in different ways to trap anybody who tries to manipulate the results. She assesses prudence (how careful and sensible you are), fortitude (your degree of comfort with hard work), temperance (the ability to control aggression), justice (fairness in decision-making), faith (including how likely you are to conform), charity (honesty and openness) and hope (a sense of purpose and your attitude to change). Another test assesses traits such as whether you get your energy from working alone or in a team, and how far you feel the need to consult others before making a difficult choice. With no understanding of these tests, I guessed every one of my scores correctly. This tells us two things. One is, I know myself. The other is, the tests are accurate. From this area of science, there is nowhere to hide.

For the record, I have a high score for justice, suggesting I am balanced and impartial, and a low one for faith, showing reluctance to conform to rules. I am found to be careless with mundane tasks, which is true. Ariel’s scores revealed a suspicion of others’ motives, and an even lower score than mine for faith, indicating that she ignores advice. (She does.) Her strengths include a commitment to hard work, and she also has the top score for nervousness and sensitivity to others, reflecting how she gets flustered under stress and absorbs other people’s emotions.

Later came an 86-page genetic report, entitled Cellf: The Science of You, offering informational riches in return for a ludicrously simple act. To get a genetic analysis, all you do is rub inside a cheek and send off the swab to America, with some forms to report on your diet and exercise. Back comes an assessment of whether genes and lifestyle put you at risk. I have three genes that threaten the bones; this is interesting, as I also have a parent with osteoporosis and bone-marrow cancer. Critics will say that you could get to the same place with family history alone, which is true. But I have two parents, and it takes a genetic profile to corner the British male. No longer can I pretend, with a gambler’s optimism, that I have my mother’s genes for building bone tissue: it seems I have my father’s, which means that this simple test offers me a chance to take action that my dad, in an earlier age for science, was denied. With these genes, I “need to pay urgent attention” by increasing my intake of calcium, omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin D.

Turn the page. Next comes my cancer moment. I have genes that imply an impaired ability to deal with free radicals, which attack DNA – triggering cancer – and are linked to heart disease. What’s more, I have variations in the genes that direct how we deal with toxins, presenting an added risk for the same threats to life. These are “lifestyle” genetic tests, from the new science of nutrigenetics; they are not the life-saving genetic tests that are given by the NHS if you have a family history of breast cancer, for example. Even so, the tone of the report, from a company called Sciona, is beautifully judged.

I am starting to take this seriously.

The advice to those testing positive will be the same as that given to all: eat sensibly and take more exercise. If that’s the case, why buy a test? Well, from the client end of this, there is a reason. Even sceptics sometimes listen to people in white coats. If the genetic report prompts changes in lifestyle, it will be priceless.

One day we will embrace the preventive approach that comes from scientific testing – it will be cheaply available over the counter and we will find it ridiculous to wait for symptoms. I can feel a change as a result of this project: the wealth of information from Kronos included facts such as my low level of selenium, a mineral that can help cut the risk of prostate cancer by 60%. By instinct, I bought selenium supplements a few years ago, but never opened the packet. Now I’m taking them.

The future can be seen in Germany, where a researcher has developed a device that uses the window of the eye to look at the state of the arteries as they respond to your heartbeat. Imagine a machine in every GP’s surgery to look into your eye and predict those two great killers, heart disease and stroke, from the flexibility of your blood vessels. It is not far away.

Nobody could have such a comprehensive going-over without finding cause for alarm, and in Arizona there was bad news for both of us. William Fulton, the medical director at Kronos, was tasked with explaining the mass of information revealed by the screenings there. At first it was a matter of this level being a bit high, that one low. Then we arrived at the microscopic quantities of blood in Ariel’s urine. Among the possible causes was cancer. Ariel was so shocked that she barely noticed the next bad news, which was that each of us showed signs of heart disease. The treadmill test had revealed isolated premature heartbeats. After all my cheerfulness, here was a reckoning. This was real.

The next day a cardiologist who had examined our heart charts said the premature beats were not a cause for concern. This was consistent with the results of a heart scan, using technology so new that its value is controversial. If you put yourself through this process, be prepared for the emotional arc. I went from a state of nonchalance, or denial, to a sudden confrontation with mortality. Then a heart specialist brought liberation, and denial could be renewed. I was free to be British again.

The tests raised an interesting possibility. Fertility tests revealed that Ariel has a healthy supply of eggs. Could science say if we might be compatible? I contact Almuth McDowell, the London psychologist. Would Ariel and I be suited to working together on an intimate project? Well, she says, there are marked differences. Ariel is more likely to be anxious, but my glass is always half-full. “If you remain sensitive to each other,” she says, “this contrast can actually become a strength,” adding in a written report that “Ariel is likely to be more careful and sensible in operations, which may complement Tim’s tendency to go on to the next task before due diligence has been exercised on the present one… Neither of you is terribly interested in working with mundane detail.” I’ll take that as a yes, then.

What did this whole venture show? That as yet, science has little to say that on some level we do not know, and it cannot tell us when we are going to die. But it does offer precision and a greater motive to change. Science gives us detail, too. There was a glimpse of the future in a session with Susan Ayersman, a Kronos nutritionist. She had studied my metabolism and other Kronos statistics, and knew exactly how much protein I need to maintain my 157.18-lb of lean muscle, and how many calories leave my weight the same. The nutritionist also rose to a challenge. I tested her by telling the truth, which is that although I love to eat, I also love to work, and the maximum time I am prepared to give to food preparation is one minute. She thought about this overnight, and came up with an excellent diet that matched my habits. One day, medicine will respond to us with this precision. For now, skilled human beings can tell us as much.

Strands of our hair were fed into a mass spectrometer at Queen Mary, University of London, to measure the “stable isotope signatures” of carbon and nitrogen. This revealed that I am a meat-eater and Ariel a vegetarian. It also identified her as American; US cattle eat maize and ours eat grass, leading to different carbon signatures. Yet the single most impressive moment of the project was when Professor Dan Reinstein, an eye surgeon at the London Vision Clinic, took one look at the fluid covering my eyes and diagnosed a diet higher in saturated fat than fish oil – one day after the chip butty.

For me, this has been a life-changing exercise. Like many optimists, I also have the capacity, in my private life, to deny inconvenient facts. But in the end, there was no hiding from all the measures of risk for disease. I have been given plenty of them, and I reformed my diet and exercise levels the day after the genetic report arrived. I don’t want to be dramatic about this, but I think I might have saved my life.

ARIEL LEVE FILE

HABITS: Health-conscious, germophobic
APPETITES: Caffeine addict
EXERCISE: Reluctantly
ATTITUDE: Pessimistic

Can you handle the truth? I can’t. I have always expected the worst but have never prepared for it. It is in my nature to worry about illness, but would it be in my nature to cope with it? As Woody Allen said, “I’m not afraid to die, I just don’t want to be there when it happens.”

My first instinct was to deny: I didn’t want to know the bad news. Despite being filled with dread, I couldn’t say no to the medical testing for one reason — what self-respecting hypochondriac would turn down the chance to prove: I really am as sick as I think I am?

The only thing that could highlight my Jewish neurotic anxiety more would be to go through this epic journey with a perpetually cheerful, nonchalant British male — Tim Rayment. We would be united on this quest, partners in x-rays and Dexa scans, and there would be someone to pick me up off the floor when I received the ominous results.

Tim’s positive attitude was perplexing. Could he really be that blithe about what dangers lurked inside his body? Most men I spoke to expressed an eagerness to know their expiration date. The collective sentiment seemed to be a carefree shrug. Women seemed less inclined to want to have this information, unless they had children.

There are those for whom illness is merely a challenge to overcome. I am not one of those people. I created a mental abacus and began to calculate degrees of tolerance. On the upper deck were autoimmune diseases: multiple sclerosis, lupus, etc, diseases that frighten me the most because they are incurable, and I could not imagine having the strength to persevere mentally or physically should I find out I was afflicted by one. With lupus, for instance, some of the symptoms are poor circulation in the hands and feet, joint pain, and a butterfly rash on the face. A blood test is given to discover if they are related and add up to the disease.

I know this because I have two out of the three symptoms. Six months ago, independent of this article, I was tested. Back then, I did not have lupus. But six months have passed. Just because I was healthy then doesn’t mean I am now.

On the lower deck of the abacus: terminal illnesses which, if caught early, could be overcome. Cancer, tumours and the like; these had chances for survival and so I would give it a shot. On the bottom deck, too, were viral infections such as hepatitis and everything else from diabetes to glaucoma.

As I sat on the Tube, wedged between the man in a grey suit doing sudoku and the woman with a tattoo of a leprechaun on her wrist, this divvying up of diseases in categories of despair was my private way of preparing. It was, perversely, reassuring.

At the London Vision Clinic, Professor Dan Reinstein detailed the extraordinary amount of information that can be gleaned from the eye. He could check the optic nerve for transmission of signal. Was the brain working properly? Cranial nerves and brainstem function could be examined through eye movements. There were arteries that could signal vascular disease, and inflammation of cells could gauge the immune status of the body. The eye can even reveal dietary aberrations.

Of course, mine are damaged. All my life I have been seriously short-sighted. Without glasses, I am unable to cross the street. But to my great relief, there were no optical defects. My poor vision is, as Dr Reinstein told me, akin to having bad-quality film in the camera. It could be the retina, or the way the brain interprets the retina. In my case it was neither. It was “not normal and we don’t know why”.

There are some questions that will remain unanswered. So I wondered: will the rest of this journey confirm my worst fears? By the end I’d have been scanned, poked, drained, injected, investigated, measured, sampled and analysed. I’d be bombarded with magnetic resonances, electrical impulses and have found out I had things called sex hormone binding globulin levels, ageing biomarkers, and hormones labelled TSH. I’d learn my resting energy expenditure was 1,329 calories a day, which indicates a normal metabolism, but my phenotype interpretation, which is how my DNA reacts to drugs, labelled me an intermediate metaboliser. But was I dying?

At the Kronos Centre in Arizona we were handed our patient itineraries — a travelogue of vitals, scans and assessments. I was apprehensive: it would be rare for an exam as all-inclusive as this not to find something wrong. The cardiopulmonary metabolic test seemed to go well. During the treadmill test I was able to exercise for 11 minutes, 1 second. (Before my test I asked how long Tim had lasted. His time?11 minutes.) A spirometry test was performed to show lung function, an H-scan for biological age, a Dexa scan that measured bone mineral density and body fat percentage on the lumbar spine and hip areas.

When I saw the resulting image, I was in shock. My overall body-fat percentage was 20% but the scan made it look more like 80%. I had the scan of a Nordic speed skater on steroids. No one tells you, when you’re lying down on a metal tray in a tube, that everything flattens out and spreads. If I’d known that, I would have worn a corset. Suddenly I didn’t feel well. I knew the image would be presented standing upright. While these tests and scans were being carried out, vials of our blood and urine were being tested for hormones, trace metals, cholesterol, etc. Soon, it would all be revealed.

But not all tests could be done on site. The waiting room at the imaging centre was eerily quiet. A pimpled teenager in his soccer strip was rubbing his knee, a woman in a cherry-coloured jump suit flipped through a magazine and chewed gum, and an elderly couple whispered questions to each other. Soon we would all be stripped of our rings and clothing, lying still and silent while having mammograms, heart scans, MRIs, or, in my case, all three. It was a room full of vulnerable people who would prefer to be somewhere else.

A brain MRI is loud and claustrophobic but I found it relaxing. I lay back and listened to a ferocious clicking sound that confirmed my brain was being probed from the inside out. This new machine was only in its second week of use; the Ferrari of MRIs. The images would be clearer; the resolution higher.

Unable to wait, I jumped up and charmed my way into the technician’s room for a preview. He allowed me to look at an image of my brain on the computer screen. As he explained what some of it meant, I stared, thinking about how every word, every thought, every moral choice and the ability to decide, came from that image.

Dr Antonio Damasio, professor of neuroscience and neurology at the University of Southern California, explained:?“Science is progressing very fast in certain domains, but not so fast in others. So there is a mismatch between what we can diagnose and what we can provide for treatment.” For instance, an early diagnosis of a disease such as Alzheimer’s, where the treatment has not caught up to the science, would be incredibly damaging psychologically.

A few days passed. Tim and I were called to see Dr William Fulton at Kronos to go over the results. The doctor sat calmly behind his desk, wearing his white lab coat. Our enormous individual binders waited, like the Torah of Wellbeing, to be interpreted. It was our moment of truth. For me, the two areas that mattered most were the areas that yielded abnormal results. There were traces of blood in the urine. This was unusual. Dr Fulton was only doing his job when he answered my next question with frank sincerity. “Tell me,” I stammered. “What’s the worst-case scenario?”

Nobody likes to hear the word “cancer”. Even Tim looked worried. In an effort to make me feel better, Dr Fulton emphasised that my potential for heart disease was far more likely to be a problem than cancer, because my cholesterol levels were very high. This surprised me, since I am a vegetarian who exercises regularly, and for a second I couldn’t figure out which was more disturbing: cancer, or a life without cheese and milk.

Dr Fulton explained that it was probably genetic, but I had a hard time focusing on what he was saying because once you hear the word “cancer”, it’s a long way back to cholesterol. It didn’t help that Tim, who eats something called a chip butty, was fine. But then he was presented with a potential heart problem. With both of us now dying, one worry had to take precedence.

I called my GP in New York. In my “I-might-have-cancer” stupor, I left a message, and as I waited for him to call back, phoned my father to share the bad news. But owing to a long history of hearing about my fatal diseases, I had to put Tim on the phone to vouch for the gravity of Dr Fulton’s tone. Tim, who had never spoken to my father before in his life, was now conversing with him in a dire manner about bladder cancer, heart disease, and blood in my urine. When the phone was passed back, my father told me a story. He was once informed he might have tuberculosis only to find out later that it was a fingerprint on the x-ray. There are mistakes, he said: medicine is an art. This sentiment was echoed by my doctor, who dismissed that this was anything serious. As soon as I spoke to him, I felt better. The familiar voice of authority protected me from obsessive thoughts. Though they didn’t cease entirely, they eased up just enough for me to function.

A week later, I was retested and the results were normal. My doctor, a New York City internist, Dr Robert Samuelson, explained: “The issue is not whether science can tell us things that we don’t know, but whether this knowledge can actually prevent disease or prolong the quality of life. For example, while a CAT scan might disclose a tiny nodule or shadow somewhere in the body, the overwhelming majority of these nodules are benign. But once found, they cannot be ignored; they have to be followed up and possibly biopsied and removed. It takes a lot of unnecessary worrying and invasive procedures to learn that your spot was benign! Additionally, it’s never been proven that removing tiny early cancers in the lung, for example, actually saves lives. The cancers that kill are probably not these tiny cancers that we can detect early.”

Moreover, a lot of tests, he said, are interpreted out of context of the whole being. An isolated lab value may appear abnormal, but when it’s evaluated along with everything else we know about someone’s health and lifestyle, the value is no longer abnormal. His perspective was in contrast to the Kronos philosophy, in that tests are worthwhile if they are highly specific for diagnosing a disorder, and if there is a safe, effective way for treating the disorder. But in some cases, such as mine, they merely provoke a lot of needless anxiety.

According to a 1998 report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, over 100,000 Americans die every year from adverse drug reactions — a higher figure than those who die in car accidents. Genelex, a Seattle-based company, offers DNA tests, one of which can determine how the liver metabolises and processes prescribed medications. When given to a physician, this profile can prevent future catastrophes by lowering the incidence of an adverse reaction.

Each person falls into one of the four categories for each of the pathways tested. There are ultra-extensive, extensive, intermediate and poor metabolisers. I am intermediate. I metabolise medicine slowly and will need a lower dosage, as they build up in my system. Had it turned out I was an ultra-extensive metaboliser, I would be in terrible pain after surgery because the painkillers would have little or no effect.

One area of testing where I had no anxiety was the psychometrics. Maybe because there is nothing about my mental health and ability to function that could astonish me. At the Psychometrics Centre we were given a set of tests to determine our ability to function in the workplace. What stood out were my strengths: creative, insightful, careful and sensible when carrying out tasks, effective and confident when it comes to hard work. It also determined my weaknesses: no discipline, suspicious of the intentions of others, may ignore the advice of those who know better. Of course, I’m not sure I agree with the experts on that.

Nearing the end of this journey, I was forced to overcome my trepidation at tackling a psychological, rather than physiological, reality. At 38, was I ready to take responsibility for having procrastinated procreation? The Fertell female fertility test measures the ovarian reserve. It is an easy test with immediate results and has proven to be over 95% accurate. As it turns out, my ovarian reserve was normal. Great. I was fertile with no one to share my fertility with.

So in the end, what did it all add up to? I am healthy. And when I thought I might not be, my reaction surprised me. Because, after the initial shock, my immediate impulse was to want to know more. I did not fall into a sinkhole of inertia; denial was no longer an option. Science has told me something unscientific. That panic is about helplessness, and with information comes a sense of control. I’m grateful there is nothing wrong, but aware that this respite is fragile and temporary. Despite all this I remain, where health is concerned, as vigilant as ever. Only now, when I have dry eyes or bleeding gums and assume that it’s indicative of something fatal, instead of avoiding it, I’ll want to know.

From the U.K. Sunday Times Magazine, April 30, 2006

Two Physicians?

2006-05-27T03:38:00.000-07:00

The greatest mistake in the treatment of diseases is that there are physicians for the body and physicians for the soul, although the two cannot be separated.

Plato

Eating Locally for Health

2006-05-18T06:11:00.000-07:00

Why Eat Local?

When the average North American sits down to eat, each ingredient has typically travelled at least 1,500 miles ... thereby increasing the use of petroleum products and carbon emission by more than 17 times! On the first day of spring, 2005, Alisa and James chose to confront this unsettling statistic with a simple experiment. For one year, they would buy or gather their food and drink from within 100 miles of their apartment in Vancouver, British Columbia. Why not try the 100 mile diet?

1. Taste the difference.
At a farmers’ market, most local produce has been picked inside of 24 hours. It comes to you ripe, fresh, and with its full flavor, unlike supermarket food that may have been picked weeks or months before. Close-to-home foods can also be bred for taste, rather than withstanding the abuse of shipping or industrial harvesting. Many of the foods we ate on the 100-Mile Diet were the best we’d ever had.

2. Know what you’re eating.
Buying food today is complicated. What pesticides were used? Is that corn genetically modified? Was that chicken free range or did it grow up in a box? People who eat locally find it easier to get answers. Many build relationships with farmers whom they trust. And when in doubt, they can drive out to the farms and see for themselves.

3. Meet your neighbors.
Local eating is social. Studies show that people shopping at farmers’ markets have 10 times more conversations than their counterparts at the supermarket. Join a community garden and you’ll actually meet the people you pass on the street. Sign up with the 100-Mile Diet Society; we’ll be working to connect people in your area who care about the same things you do.

4. Get in touch with the seasons.
When you eat locally, you eat what’s in season. You’ll remember that cherries are the taste of summer. Even in winter, comfort foods like squash soup and pancakes just make sense–a lot more sense than flavorless cherries from the other side of the world.

5. Discover new flavors.
Ever tried sunchokes? How about purslane, quail eggs, yerba mora, or tayberries? These are just a few of the new (to us) flavors we sampled over a year of local eating. Our local spot prawns, we learned, are tastier than popular tiger prawns. Even familiar foods were more interesting. Count the types of pear on offer at your supermarket. Maybe three? Small farms are keeping alive nearly 300 other varieties–while more than 2,000 more have been lost in our rush to sameness .

6. Explore your home.
Visiting local farms is a way to be a tourist on your own home turf, with plenty of stops for snacks.

7. Save the world.
A study in Iowa found that a regional diet consumed 17 times less oil and gas than a typical diet based on food shipped across the country. The ingredients for a typical British meal, sourced locally, traveled 66 times fewer “food miles.” Or we can just keep burning those fossil fuels and learn to live with global climate change, the fiercest hurricane seasons in history, wars over resources…

8. Support small farms.
We discovered that many people from all walks of life dream of working the land–maybe you do too. In areas with strong local markets, the family farm is reviving. That’s a whole lot better than the jobs at Wal-Mart and fast-food outlets that the globalized economy offers in North American towns.

9. Give back to the local economy.
A British study tracked how much of the money spent at a local food business stayed in the local economy, and how many times it was reinvested. The total value was almost twice the contribution of a dollar spent at a supermarket chain .

10. Be healthy.
Everyone wants to know whether the 100-Mile Diet worked as a weight-loss program. Well, yes, we lost a few pounds apiece. More importantly, though, we felt better than ever. We ate more vegetables and fewer processed products, sampled a wider variety of foods, and ate more fresh food at its nutritional peak. Eating from farmers’ markets and cooking from scratch, we never felt a need to count calories.

11. Create memories.
A friend of ours has a theory that a night spent making jam–or in his case, perogies–with friends will always be better a time than the latest Hollywood blockbuster. We’re convinced.

12. Have more fun while traveling.
Once you’re addicted to local eating, you’ll want to explore it wherever you go. On a recent trip to Mexico, earth-baked corn and hot-spiced sour oranges led us away from the resorts and into the small towns. Somewhere along the line, a mute magician gave us a free show over bowls of lime soup in a little cantina.

13. And always remember:
Everything about food and cooking is a metaphor for sex.

Alisa Smith and J.B. McKinnon

Why the Healthiest Don't Get Sick

2006-05-17T03:26:00.000-07:00

The assumption that healthy people are just lucky, have good genes, or practice preventive medicine is actually no more than a half-truth. The healthiest people in our society--meaning those who avoid catastrophic disease and live to old age without major illness--fall into a different profile. With good genes you can expect to add roughly 3 years to your life span, but no one who has lived to 100 ever had a child who lived that long. Likewise, the British aristocracy, who were exposed to the best diet and living conditions in their society for centuries, didn't produce anyone who lived to be 100 until around World War II.

We have a general image, in addition, that a positive outlook on life enhances longevity, but this has never been confirmed. You can be a pessimist and still outlive all the optimists you know. In earlier posts I gave a profile of who gets sick. So far as medicine knows, here is the profile for who doesn't.

--Emotional adaptability is the most important single factor in keeping a person well and living long. Everyone undergoes crises, but people who can bounce back, who look toward the future instead of dwelling on the past, and who demonstrate emotional resilience are the ones who survive best.

--Good coping mechanisms are the key to adaptability. Long-term studies of college students, for example, show that dealing with your psychological issues early on, i.e., in your twenties, is the best preventive of heart attacks, ahead of lowering your cholesterol or even reducing stress.

--Taking control of your life is important. People who feel victimized or out of control are at higher risk for disease.

--Stress reduction: It used to be we thought that stress was a simple matter of "less is better, more is worse." Now we know that individuals react to stress very differently from one another. If you subjectively feel over-stressed, it doesn't matter that the person next to you enjoys the same level and asks for more. Stress levels are too high when you suffer from irregular appetite, sleeplessness, irritability and short temper, fatigue, loss of energy, lack of enthusiasm, chronic headaches, increased cold and flu, back ache, etc. The healthiest people pay attention to these symptoms and correct them, using whatever it takes.

--Feeling loved, wanted, and useful. All three are necessary for optimal health. The healthiest people don't ignore things that deprive them of these positive qualities. In fact, they guide their lives to maximize all three.

This list is short, but there are many things that are significant by their absence.

What the healthiest people don't do is:

--Diet and worry about their weight obsessively.
--Compare their bodies to a false ideal of beauty
--Exercise obsessively.
--Let depression and anxiety go untreated
--Compulsively worry about food, chemicals, toxins, germ exposure, etc.
--Worry about growing old.
--Visit the doctor all the time.
--Allow dysfunctional or abusive relationships to continue.
--Become dependent on prescription medications.

If someone were to come to me for a physical, I'd certainly comply, but before they left I would do everything possible to put them on the right track to optimal health, which has little to do with doctors and everything to do with self-awareness and balance.

Deepak Chopra

Laughter and Diabetes

2006-05-16T03:18:00.000-07:00

Fight Diabetes with Sweet Laughter

By: Colin Allen
Summary: A chuckle may help the body process blood sugar, according to new research from Japan. A study of type 2 diabetes--the most common form of the disease--found that laughter was linked to lower blood sugar levels after a meal.

A chuckle may help the body process blood sugar, according to new research from Japan. A study of type 2 diabetes--the most common form of the disease--found that laughter was linked to lower blood sugar levels after a meal.

Over two days, participants were given identical meals. On one day, they watched a humorless lecture, and on the next they watched a Japanese comedy show. The group of 19 people with diabetes and five without had their blood sugar monitored during the experiment.

Afterward both diabetics and non-diabetics alike had lower glucose levels after laughing through the comedy show than they did when they listened to the monotonous 40-minute lecture. The study was published recently in Diabetes Care.

Keiko Hayashi, Ph.D., of the University of Tsukuba, Japan, who led the study says that he cannot yet explain the laughter-glucose connection. It could be that laughter affects the neuroendocrine system, which monitors the body's glucose levels. Or it may be an effect of energy used by the stomach muscles.

Increased blood sugar can cause major complications for diabetics. If glucose is not kept in check, diabetics are more at risk for heart disease, kidney disease and blindness. Type 2 diabetes occurs when the body fails to produce enough insulin to control the body's glucose levels

Prozac

2006-05-13T02:54:00.000-07:00

A Dangerous Physiology By: Ann Blake Tracy

Our latest search for bliss in a bottle: Prozac. How does it work and just what does it do? How many additional problems does Prozac, as a possible solution to depression, create for society and for the individual patient and his family?

Let's dispel a widely spread myth here in the beginning, which is that "Prozac 'stimulates' the body's own production of serotonin", thereby helping to balance the brain chemistry. Although this is the understanding of many patients and some practitioners even suffer from this mistaken perception, the fact is that Prozac ABSOLUTELY does not stimulate the production of serotonin!

Serotonin is the neurotransmitter that is believed to affect depression. Serotonin does affect the mood center of the brain.

If you ask a professional, preferably one who has done clinical trials involving Prozac, just how the drug does work and what the theory is behind what Prozac was designed to do, they will attempt an explanation, but always end with, "Actually we really don't know what Prozac does or how it works within the brain."

Their explanation generally goes like this: Prozac is "designed" to prevent the re-uptake of serotonin into the brain by binding to the cell receptors and the pre-synaptic cell membranes that serotonin passes through within the brain, thereby blocking the serotonin so that it cannot pass through into the blood stream where it is quickly inactivated or metabolized.

The theory is that this binding effect of Prozac will raise the level of serotonin by holding it in the brain and not allowing it to be expelled by the body. Yet we know from animal studies that in the initial administration Prozac causes the brain to shut down it's own production of serotonin, thereby lowering the level of serotonin and low levels have been detected in those committing violent or aggressive acts. (We have no research to verify just how long this shutting down of serotonin production continues. It appears to be at least the first two to three weeks.)

This would indicate the necessity for extreme caution, specifically in the initial stages of Prozac use. Dr. Peter Breggin, one of the top psychiatrists in the country whose practice is in Bethesda, Maryland, stated that, "This (shutting down of the serotonin production) should have set off red flags at Eli Lilly."

One can deduct from this information that we do not know at any one given moment during the patient's use of Prozac if it is causing an increase or decrease in the serotonin level of the patient. A blood test can be taken to determine the blood serotonin levels, but what indication that is of the level of serotonin within the brain itself, we cannot be sure.

A brain biopsy is the most accurate test for measurement of brain serotonin levels, but it is hardly convenient, comfortable, inexpensive, or advisable!

Another important fact to consider is that nobody knows just how Prozac works in the brain or how any anti-depressant works within the brain itself.

Although brain wave patterns give us a direct indication of what is happening with the neurotransmitter action within the brain and Prozac is designed to directly affect the neurotransmitter, serotonin, it is not even common practice to check brain wave patterns through EEG's to see what might be happening to the brain.

Wouldn't a patient want to know that? The author would STRONGLY encourage any patient using Prozac or any antidepressant to have EEG's taken to see how the drug is affecting the neurotransmitters within the brain.

One giant flaw in this theory of raising serotonin levels is that apparently depression can be caused by either high serotonin levels or low serotonin levels.

Since Prozac is designed only to raise the serotonin level (if, in fact, it is actually raising, rather than lowering serotonin) and does not have the capability to actually balance the serotonin level, what might that do to someone who is suffering depression because of high levels of this neurotransmitter? Autistic children generally have either abnormally high or low serotonin levels.

And it is interesting to note that many of the adverse emotional side effects reported by ex-Prozac users are very similar to behavior noted in autistic patients. Recent studies have been done on the possibilities of serotonin levels being directly related to those behaviors considered classically autistic.

Prozac is a highly protein binding drug (94%) thus blocking primarily serotonin in the brain for extended periods. We should question whether or not this binding aspect also inhibits the brain from utilizing the serotonin which is blocked in this manner.
Yet Prozac binds also to other proteins or toxins in the blood, making them too large to be broken down and expelled readily by the body. This protein binding aspect of Prozac is the reason why mixing the drug with other anti-depressants can be so dangerous.

It holds them in the blood stream for a longer period of time and increases the dosage of those drugs within the blood. Prozac can raise the level of tricyclic anti-depressants and MAOs (Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors) to toxic levels quickly.
All of this binding to body proteins would cause excess stress to be placed on the organs involved in metabolizing and elimination, the liver, pancreas, etc. Those patients having the extremely adverse effects right away tend to be those with pancreatic and liver weaknesses or a past history of diseases affecting those organs, including a past history of excessive alcohol usage.

Eli Lilly states in their clinical pharmacology warnings on the product that "Fluoxetine (Prozac) is extensively metabolized in the liver. As might be predicted from it's primary source of metabolism, liver impairment can affect the elimination of fluoxetine.

This suggests that the use of fluoxetine in patients with liver disease must be approached with caution. If fluoxetine is administered to patients with liver disease, a lower or less frequent dose should be used."

A frightening observation is that one of the more frequent complaints of adverse reactions made to the FDA about Prozac is impaired liver function. If a patient is taking a drug that impairs the organ that is essential in controlling the amount of medication the body retains in the blood, how safe can the drug be? Once the liver function is impaired, Prozac will rapidly accumulate within the body to toxic levels.
With the combination of fluoxetine (Prozac) and alcohol or other drugs or excessive intake of processed sugars or the inability of the body to maintain balanced blood sugar levels the liver would go into overload and not be able to function normally.
This would create much higher levels of Prozac in the blood, thus producing the "nightmarish" results we are witnessing from this drug. It would give us an explanation of why patients and families report that the suicidal or homicidal impulses came on suddenly, without warning.

Who knows how long their liver will be able to control the level of Prozac in their blood? Patients should be aware of this aspect of Prozac and realize that they are playing Russian Roulette with not only their own lives but the lives of those with whom they associate.

The most recent pharmaceutical product warnings on Prozac (May 1990) mention the possibility of the use of this drug causing diabetes, hypoglycemia and pancreatitis. The harm caused to the pancreas may be causing an imbalance in the blood sugar levels which in turn causes a compulsive desire for excesses in alcohol (See information on Prozac - alcohol connection in the next chapter.), processed sugars and other stimulants - all of which impair liver function.

The impaired liver function then raises the level of Prozac in the system to dangerous heights and the vicious cycle of this drug becomes self-propelling!

Because of the undue stress placed upon the pancreas, even to the point of pushing the once healthy pancreas into malfunction, causing the excessive craving for stimulants that would then impair liver function, and because of the high incidence reports to the FDA of liver impairment as a reaction to Prozac, we should question anyone's ability, no matter how healthy, to withstand the effects of this drug over a prolonged period of usage.

The length of time involved before the adverse side effects begin to appear would only demonstrate the strength of the patient's constitution to withstand those effects.

The PDR (Physicians' Desk Reference) states, "The effectiveness of Prozac in long-term use, that is for more than 5 to 6 weeks, has not been systematically evaluated in controlled trials. Therefore, the physician who elects to use Prozac for extended periods should periodically re-evaluate the long-term usefulness of the drug for the individual patient."

The wide majority of patients on Prozac have been on the drug for far more than 5 or 6 weeks and few have been "periodically re-evaluated", as most doctors see no need because of the sales pitch never mentioning details such as side effects. And apparently the importance of consistent re-evaluation has not been stressed to the prescribing physician because close monitoring of Prozac is rare.

Unfortunately the attitude of the majority of the medical community, after being persuaded by pharmaceutical reps that Prozac has few side effects, is "This is a wonderful new drug with no side effects. Here, try it. You will feel great." The patient rarely even gets the "call me in the morning" on this one! The doctor often says, "Here is your prescription for the next year.

Unless YOU notice any problems, we will see you then." In this way he puts the responsibility on the patient and removes it from himself. If the drug did not alter the mind and impair one's judgement, that might be a rational statement to make, but few ex-Prozac patients will claim to have been capable of judging whether or not they were having problems with this drug.

Eli Lilly has been working on obtaining FDA approval for use of Prozac, with a brand name change to Lovan, as a treatment for obesity, which is often caused by blood sugar imbalances, as demonstrated through obsessive appetite cravings.
Therefore, if Prozac is approved as a weight loss remedy we may see a nightmare beyond our wildest imaginations! Another contributing factor to that nightmare would be the extremely high dosage (generally three to four capsules per day) that must be used to affect a loss in weight. (Perhaps Eli Lilly will sponsor a national contest which would award two grand prizes: one to the "thinnest corpse" and the other to the "thinnest murder suspect".)

The people who reach the high levels of concentration of Prozac in their systems are now dead, due to violent acts to themselves or they are being prosecuted for violent actions they have taken against others or they have survived with mental or physical incapacities.

Those who have suffered suicide or violent actions toward others are now in a position to understand what has happened to them, as they are now either dead or no longer using the drug that was impairing their judgement. Those who continue to live in this "Prozac Hell" are the saddest victims of all.

These people describe themselves are extremely irritable, having violent suicidal or homicidal thoughts, having no feelings of guilt or sense of conscience, "possessed", having panic and anxiety attacks, having extreme difficulty with concentration, having no ability to love, having impaired judgement (forming a thought sequence to arrive at a decision becomes a monumental task), they feel completely out of control and often develop an overwhelming fear of being controlled by others (See how patients are describing their experience in chapter entitled "Patient Reports".).

All these things bring on such feelings of inadequacy and humiliation that the patient becomes even more depressed about his situation in life and continues to take the medication or even allows an increase in dosage, thinking that he must REALLY NEED this anti-depressant!

This most heart-rending side of Prozac is that the patient, who is uninformed of the side effects really believes all these feelings and events are indications of flaws in his own character, not reactions to the drug!!! As Michael O'Brien stated, "Prozac is a boon to psychiatrists. It brings in business! A person with a simple problem now becomes a mental patient with serious problems."

Attorneys are asking what they should do with the flood of people coming to them. They say the patients are afraid to go back to their doctors because the doctor will either raise their dose, thinking they need more of the drug in their systems in order for it to be effective or the doctor will label them "crazy or suicidal".

Although the major lack of awareness tends to center around the emotional back lash of Prozac, there are also very real physical side-effects as well. Generally these physical side-effects are more easily recognized as reactions to Prozac than are the emotional. But patients are continuing to report more and more problem areas that need to be evaluated.

The latest being that after using Prozac their white blood counts are continuing to test low. Does this mean that Prozac is attacking the immune system? And if it is attacking the immune system, what could that mean to someone who is taking Prozac for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or AIDS or any other of our newer diseases which we are discovering to be problems with the immune system? (It is popular among some physicians to prescribe Prozac for these diseases because of its energizing effects.).

Besides the concern this should generate for the general public, what might this mean for the gay community or other high risk groups, not to mention the general public who are all rightfully concerned about protecting their immune systems?

Ann Blake Tracy is author of PROZAC - Panacea or Pandora, a 400 page tome on this antidepressant drug. It is available from Cassia Publications P.O.B. 1044 W. Jordan, UT 84088; 800-280-0730

Replies to Deepak article on Why People Get Sick

2006-05-12T03:42:00.000-07:00

Some replies to "Why People Get Sick"

--Some people get sick because they expect to. –God knows what is in their hearts. God answers their prayers and fulfills their expectations.

--Some people get sick, or sicker, after they are diagnosed with a disease. –Well if they were NOT diagnosed, they will NOT get sick and sicker! It is the diagnosis, people. Do not go to your doctor for any tests. Only go to some Ayurveda medic.

--Disease brings certain benefits, known as "secondary gain," that make it positive. The classic example is a child who pretends to be sick in order to get more love and attention, but adults find secondary gains of their own, such as not having to take responsibility for their lives or finding an escape from a situation they can't cope with. – Is this not well known and well accepted already?

--Some people get sick because they want to give up, or even die. – Does depression not lower immune response? Is this also not well known and well accepted already?

--Some people have nothing better to do than to get sick. So they choose to be sick! Again God listens to their prayers!

SO ARE ALL MYSTERIES OF GETTING SICK SOLVED. NO? Or do we still need to look into some “subtle factors that few experts have adequately examined.”? Subtle factors, indeed!

Craig

I want to thank Deepak and the person who wrote in last time this was posted and said that staying healthy is a mentality. I had been getting sick (colds, etc.) a lot for past two years or so due to stress. After reading Deepak's article and then what the other person said about health being a mentality I have not gotten sick anymore since then. I just changed my thinking where now I assume that I WON'T get sick rather than assuming that I WILL. It sounds simple but it works for me. NOthing fancy I just assume that I won't get sick so I don't. Thanks

Onegirlmanyideas

Why People Get Sick

2006-05-09T02:23:00.000-07:00

Most people assume that germs and genes cause disease. The germ theory has brought us a long way, and genetic theory promises to take us even further. But there is still a mystery surrounding why certain people get sick while others don't. For example, studies show that if cold virus is placed directly into a person's nose, the chance of getting a cold is about 1 in 8; being exposed to chill, damp, or a draft doesn't increase these odds.

Also, when the Black Death wiped out a third of Europe's population in the 14th century, no one knows why the other two-thirds, who were certainly exposed, didn't die.

Every day each of us inhales or ingests enough germs to cause a variety of diseases we never contract. Some sort of "control by the host" seems to be at work. This refers to the body's ability to live with disease-causing agents without getting sick. Germs aren't the only factor. Statistics show that severely ill people often wait until a significant date has passed, such as Christmas or their birthday, before suddenly dying. Studies going back to the Korean War showed that young soldiers in their early twenties had serious blockage of their coronary arteries, yet the disease doesn't show up until middle age. Not everyone exposed to HIV contracts the virus, and in a few rare instances, those with AIDS have reversed their viral status form positive to negative.

Why, then, would you or I get sick when someone else equally at risk doesn't?

The best way to get sick is to suffer from as many of the following conditions as possible:

--Unsanitary conditions: massive exposure to germs remains a major factor
--Being poor: poverty degrades life on all fronts, including health.
--High stress: physical and psychological stress damage the immune system.
--Depression and anxiety: untreated psychological disorders weaken resistance to a wide range of diseases, perhaps even cancer
--Lack of coping mechanisms: stress by itself is a negative factor, but the inability to bounce back form it is more important.
--Lack of control, victimization: all stresses become much worse if you feel that you have no control over your own life.
--Inertia, sedentary lifestyle: if you are inactive and have no outside interests, you chance of getting sick rises sharply
--Feeling alone and unloved: emotional deprivation is as unhealthy as deprivation of good food.
--Sudden loss: the sudden loss of a job or spouse, a reversal in finances, or finding yourself in the midst of a war or natural disaster all constitute a state of loss and lead to higher risk of getting sick.
--Growing old: once considered a major cause of illness, aging is now known not to be a direct cause. Being healthy into your eighties should be your expectation, but if you neglect yourself in old age, the body becomes vastly more susceptible to disease.

None of these factors comes as a huge surprise, since public health officials have drummed into us that most illness in modern society is a "lifestyle disease" born of stress, lack of exercise, and other factors external to germs. But I think most people still assume that being fat, for example, is worse for you than stress, which certainly isn't the case. Outside of diabetes and joint problems, it's hard to find a serious link between moderate overweight and any disorder, while stress and its offshoots are major risks. they exaggerate the effect of aging. Yet in the absence of high blood pressure and artery disease, most people will live a very long time, probably in good health until they contract their final illness. (I've covered a dozen other common beliefs, both true and false, in earlier posts recently.)

But the mystery of who specifically gets sick remains unsolved, in part because there are subtle factors that few experts have adequately examined.

--Some people get sick because they expect to.
--Some people get sick, or sicker, after they are diagnosed with a disease.
--Disease brings certain benefits, known as "secondary gain," that make it positive. The classic example is a child who pretends to be sick in order to get more love and attention, but adults find secondary gains of their own, such as not having to take responsibility for their lives or finding an escape from a situation they can't cope with.
--Some people get sick because they want to give up, or even die.
--Some people have nothing better to do than to get sick.

Deepak Chopra, M.D.
www.intentblog.com

The Honey Bee Pollen Love Shake

2006-05-08T02:40:00.000-07:00

INGREDIENTS
1 cup milk
The contents of 4 NatureBee™ pollen capsules
1 large banana
1 cup of flavoured yoghurt
6 Strawberries (or Kiwifruit)

METHOD
In a blender, combine the milk, pollen (just open the capsules and sprinkle the contents) and banana; process for 20 seconds. Add the flavoured yoghurt and strawberries and process for another 20 seconds.
Makes 2 cups.

Childhood Obesity

2006-05-06T03:30:00.000-07:00

Childhood obesity in America is a national epidemic, affecting nearly 9 million kids.
The largest beverage distributors in the United States have agreed to halt nearly all soda sales to public schools. Under the agreement, the companies have agreed to sell only water, unsweetened juice and low-fat milks to elementary and middle schools. "This is really the beginning of a major effort to modify childhood obesity at the level of the school systems," said Robert H. Eckel, president of the American Heart Association.

http://qad.charityfocus.org

7 Things You Can do to Double Your Energy

2006-05-05T02:42:00.000-07:00

Admit it, there are times when you wish you could just feel more energetic and get more done. Don't you just hate it when you feel like hiding under your bedsheets, and yet more and more things come up that you have to deal with?

Though mastering the energy game is a complex topic, I'd like to give you 7 things you can do anytime you need an extra boost.

1. Breathe

Breathing is one of the best ways not only to calm yourself but also to energize your body. Whenever you start feeling overwhelmed, take one minute to do a simple deep-breathing exercise.

Here goes: Sit in a comfortable position, then breathe in for 5 counts, hold your breath for 5 counts, and breathe out for 5 counts.

Repeat for approximately 1-2 minutes, or longer.

2. Yoga

One of the best ways to feel more energetic is to combine stretching, movement and breathing with yoga. It works like a charm every time, but you probably think you have to spend an hour doing it.

Not so! Just 15 minutes of yoga give tremendous benefits. Practicing a few “sun salutations,” along with a back bend and a few more postures will really make a difference in your day.

Another possibility, which is just as powerful or even more so, is to spend ten minutes practicing the five Tibetans, a simple series of exercises that anyone can do and that give tremendous benefits. (For more information, go to this link).

3. Wait for True Hunger ... Or Eat!

Depending on how you feel, you can either eat to gain more energy, or wait.

Why the two diverse options? The reason is that tiredness can either be caused by your body trying to “detox” the previous meal, or simply due to the fact that you haven't eaten enough.

If you're in “detox,” you might feel a little depressed or irritable. Your stomach might make all sorts of noises.

In that case, I find that when I fast a few hours until I feel “truly hungry” - I will gradually feel more energetic as my body is restored to homeostasis.

But if you have eaten well lately, then try the following drink for quick energy. The water, the electrolytes (like sodium in the celery) and the natural sugar will help recharge your batteries.

- 1-3 bananas
- 1 cup of blueberries (fresh or frozen)
- 2-3 stalks of celery
- 1 to 2 cups of water

Blend and enjoy!

4. Drink

One of the main reasons people feel tired is that they are dehydrated. It happens very often in hot weather. You can easily forget to drink. If you feel tired for no apparent reason, it's warm outside and you haven't been to the bathroom in the last 2 hours, then you should drink a liter of water and watch what happens.

If you were dehydrated, you will immediately feel more energetic.

5. Dump Your Brain

Often you may feel overwhelmed by everything on your schedule, especially if you don't know exactly where to start to get things done. This is a major energy-drainer.

Trying to keep things in our brain becomes extremely draining when there are more things than we can keep in mind at one time.

Here's one quick solution: Take out a bunch of sticky notes. Write down as many things as you know you have to do. Write one item per sticky note.

Literally dump out your brain. Then organize the stickies by category, and identify your top 3 priorities.

For each of those 3 priorities, identify the very next action you have to take to get it done. Then schedule a time to do this.

When you do this, you will immediately feel yourself coming back to life, and your energy will instantly double.

6. Clean Up Your Space

Untidy or messy surroundings are a major drain of energy. Especially when getting through the mess seems overwhelming.

My suggesting is to spend 15 minutes to clean up, and see what happens.

What I recommend is actually timing yourself. I personally use a countdown timer. I set it to 15 minutes and then get as much done as possible in those 15 minutes, like a race!

Try this and you'll find that so much can be done to clean up your environment in just 15 minutes. You'll feel your mood instantly change and your energy double.

7. Find a Program That Works

The best thing you can do to keep your energy up is to pay attention to the factors that influence your health.

Those factors include: eating a good diet based on fruits and vegetables, getting sufficient nutrients, training your body in the 5 areas of fitness, mastering your sleep, and more (there are more than 21 in total).

Your health program should focus on mastering these different factors of health - not just diet - and show you how to become a high-energy person!

Frederic Patenaude
http://www.fredericpatenaude.com

Breakfast Formula

2006-05-04T02:37:00.000-07:00

I've been messing around in the lab I have in my kitchen for a lot of years now, jury-rigging a breakfast shake that almost all of my friends and clients use - tailored according to the nutrient requirements of optimal concentration. I'd like to share the formula with you:

- 1 whole banana, peeled
- 1 cup of non-fat yogurt (with no gelatin and no ingredients other than non-fat milk, pectin, and natural yogurt cultures)
- 1 cup of heavy-pulp Orand Juice
- ¾ cup of frozen fruit, any flavor of your choice (no sugar added; the only ingredient should be the fruit)
- 1 scoop of natural (unflavored) Designer Protein (made by Next Nutrition)
- 1 tablespoon of EFA oil (with Omega 3, 6, and 9; ask a rep at any natural food store for a bottle, and make sure it stays refrigerated)

John Elliot

An Important Health Letter

2006-05-03T02:19:00.000-07:00

Dear Dr. Wright,

I was in New York City yesterday at a conference for health care practitioners on Nutrition and Health put on by Columbia University and the University of Arizona.

Andrew Weil started this conference highlighting that we need to address the nutritional illiteracy of physicians. I couldn't agree more.

I think that nutrition is the most powerful tool I have in my medical tool kit to reverse and treat disease - and it was something I learned nothing about in medical school.

Dr. Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University, and author of Food Politics painted a very concerned picture of our food culture, and the dangers of our food environment.

What bothers me the most is the widespread belief that personal responsibility is the answer to our obesity and health problems. If people just didn't eat badly and exercised a little more, we all hear, then our chronic health problems would go away. We are getting so much mis-information about food. Physicians must address the peril of our current food situation.

We live in a culture that makes it nearly impossible to make healthy food choices. A number of food industry and political factors keep us sick and fat. There are now 3900 calories a day available to every person in America - an increase of 700 calories since 1980. In supermarkets 25% of the square footage is devoted to selling sugar. The Center for Consumer Freedom, a front group for the food industry put $600,000 ads in major newspapers trying to convince us that the obesity epidemic is hype.
Political advice focuses personal responsibility, not the effects of a toxic food environment, it focuses on individual choices instead of public health initiatives, and treats all calories as equal, and ignores the science on differences in food quality.

And it makes things way too complex (like the new food pyramid) instead of focusing on simple principles, like eating whole, organic foods, with lots of fiber and or consuming a diet plentiful in fruits and vegetables and omega 3 fats, and low in sugar and junk food.

The consumer is not protected from advertising and marketing of poor quality foods that are calorie dense with little to no nutritional value. Kellogg spent $32 million dollars in 2004 alone on marketing Cheez It to children. And their heart healthy Smart Start cereal has the American Heart Association's seal of approval yet has 11 different types of sugar on the ingredient list.
Frosted Cheerios are now a health food because they have some whole oats, but also have 5 different types of sugar. And our kids are brainwashed that they should eat special 'kids' food.

The Institute of Medicine authored a report on marketing of junk food to children and how effective it is in increasing product sales, and on kids requests and preferences, and how bad it is for children's health. There is now a special alliance of food manufacturers to protect their first amendment rights to advertise to children. I think the framers of the constitution had other things in mind than allowing companies to market toxic foods to children.

I suggest a few simple things to help guide you to shopping in supermarkets and protect yourself (at least a little bit) from a toxic food environment:

- Buy around the perimeter of the store (that's where the healthy stuff is)
- Don't go down aisles (that's where most of the junk food is)
- Don't buy food in a box
- Or with more than 5 ingredients
- Or with ingredients you can't pronounce
- Or with a cartoon on package

Just remember every time you order in a restaurant or in the supermarket you vote with your fork. Choose foods that improve our health, our social structure and that helps us eat healthfully.

My goal is to empower people to make the good choices - and recognize that it takes extra effort because of the powerful forces working against us.

Sincerely,

Dr. Mark Hyman

PS - I am also posting this article on my blog at http://www.ultrametabolism.com/blog -- if you have any comments or feedback on this, I'd love to hear what you think!

Dr. Joe's Perfect Breakfast

2006-05-01T04:07:00.000-07:00

My Perfect Breakfast: delicious, nutritious, quick, cost-effective, no clean-up. One person serving

My experience with the perfect breakfast: After many years of experimentation, I finally crafted the perfect breakfast. This meal is low cholesterol, high fiber, simple to fix, tasty, satisfying. It gives you a full feeling with no milk or sugar. It is energy-generating, time-efficient, no clean up of pots and pans, you don’t get tired of it, no waste. Once you get set up, you can do it and love it for years.

Equipment and supplies: Krups coffee-grinder ($29.95), available at your health food story orwww.krupsonline.com , to grind nuts, flax, sesame seeds, and oats.
Braun Multiquick Handblender ($19.95), available at www.cyebye.com or your local health food store, to blend the entire fruit and nut mix, with the hot water and oats.

Canadian flaxseed (about $8 for a two pound bag). Call 1-800-804-6433 or see www.pizzeys.com or call Mountain Home Products at 1-800-211-8562 for a grinder, recipe book, and 3 two-pound bags of Pizzey’s Canadian glaxseed for $59.95, or buy regular flaxseed at your local health food store.

The whole meal that I eat:

A. One one-inch wide slice of honeydew melon or cantaloupe.

B. Oatmeal treat: (1). Grind up in your coffee grinder 2 teaspoons of flaxseed , 3-4 almonds or walnuts, 6 heaping teaspoons of one minute oatmeal, one teaspoon of sesame seed. (2). In a cereal bowl, pour eight ounces of boiling water over your ground up flaxseed, sesame seed, oats and nuts, plus ½ to ¾ apple sliced, ½ to ¾ banana, optional ½ pear or papaya slice, strawberries or blueberries in season. (3). Blend the entire mix if you wish with your handblender. You can even add some vitamins/minerals or other supplements in the mix if you wish. This recipe is for one serving.

C. A slice of wholewheat or multi-grain bread with butter.

Take notice that in the Perfect Breakfast, there is no sugar, milk, citrus, coffee, or sweet-roll types of food, and so all of these food items mix well and give very little gastrointestinal reaction. Notice that the oatmeal is not cooked in a separate pot and that no pot-and-pan clean-up is necessary. Do the same thing for each additional serving. Notice that only one-minute oatmeal is used. Notice that one bowl is one serving.