Wednesday, March 26, 2008

High Blood Pressure, Salt And Prescription Drugs

Red Pill Reich

Red Pill Reich

High Blood Pressure, Salt And Prescription Drugs - Ask Nurse Olivia

Posted: 23 Mar 2008 03:57 PM CDT

Hi Everyone,

This is a great question that concerns a lot of people. Even if you don't have high blood pressure, you may want to read below about what prescription drugs do to the body rather than healing it. I also discuss the harmful effects of table salt, yet because salt is essential to our health, it's important to get a sufficient amount of the right kind (most sea salt is not healthy).

Here is this week's "Ask Nurse Olivia" question:

"I have high blood pressure and take two drugs for it, are those medications bad too? Is there an alternative?"

High Blood Pressure

High blood pressure medications, like all pharmaceutical drugs, cause harmful effects to the body. According to the New England Journal of Medicine and John Hopkins University, those blood pressure medications classified as beta blockers, which decrease the heart rate and output of blood by the heart, increase the risk of diabetes by 28%.

Blood pressure is considered high if the top number (systolic) is above 140, and the bottom number (diastolic) is above 90. The bottom number is considered the most important, because it shows the relaxation of the heart.

High blood pressure is the body's way of dealing with a pollution crisis. A person with high blood pressure has so many toxins (poisons) that the body attempts to get rid of them by constricting the blood vessels, causing the toxins to circulate and leave the body sooner.

Blood pressure medication relaxes the muscular walls of the blood vessels, causing them to dilate. The body has innate intelligence and should not be forced artificially, using medication, to lower the blood pressure. If it was healthier for such a person's blood pressure to remain normal, then the body would not have raised it. To the body, the high blood pressure is less of a threat than the toxins.

All medications work in a similar fashion, by suppressing the body's natural response to toxins, and therefore not only is the patient left with a high level of disease producing toxins because the body is stopped from dealing with them, he most likely will develop more "symptoms" from the side effects of suppressing the body's natural abilities, and will be diagnosed with further "diseases," such as diabetes. This is why it's very common for one drug to lead to another.

These are considered "side effects," but honestly, I don't consider them side effects anymore - they should really be called "expected effects." It should be expected that when the body is so full of toxins it begins to exhibit signs of toxicity, and then is suppressed from reacting to those toxins by medications, that the disease process will progress. The entire problem stems from toxicity, and therefore drugging the body into being even more toxic is dangerous to our health.

Blood Pressure Remedies

There are a number of natural remedies for high blood pressure, but I would encourage you if you use one to make sure you get good nutrition as well, for longterm health.

One of the most popular remedies for high blood pressure is drinking apple cider vinegar. Apple cider vinegar is full of nutrients and highly effective at lowering high blood pressure, with no side effects (it is not dangerous for people with normal blood pressure levels).

Drink 1 Tablespoon three times daily, and you should see results within a week. You can mix it in a glass of water if you prefer. It's best to use an organic, unpasteurized brand from a health food store, preferably with the mother at the bottom, which contains enzymes. A preferred brand in the US which is certified USDA Organic is made by Braggs.

If you find drinking the apple cider vinegar causes a burning sensation or is turning your teeth yellow, try adding a teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda). You may want to try drinking this mixture about 20 minutes before meals, because there is research that suggests this could help keep blood sugar levels from spiking.

If you're taking blood pressure medication, it's very important to monitor your pressure as you do this, because as it comes down you will need to stop taking the medicine and visit your doctor to have it discontinued. The apple cider vinegar does not pose a danger, but artificially lowering your blood pressure with medication once it has reached normal levels could be. Once your blood pressure reaches a healthy level, call your doctor's office.

The Water Cure For Blood Pressure

I used to teach my patients with high blood pressure to avoid salt, which is what we're taught to do, so imagine my reaction when I read from an MD that patients with high blood pressure need more salt. It might be similar to whatever you're thinking right now.

Sodium and chloride are essential to our survival. According to Dr. Batmanghelidj, salt intake is required in order for the body to regulate fluid balance. He calls this balancing the ocean inside the cells and the ocean outside the cells.

Sodium and chloride are responsible for osmosis, which regulates fluid pressure within cells and protects the body against excessive water loss (as in diarrhea or on heavy sweating). If you think about it, hospitals give patients normal saline intravenously which is basically salt water.

Our bodies also make sodium bicarbonate from salt, and iron for the production of hemoglobin.

Dr. B states that many health conditions, including high blood pressure, are the result of chronic dehydration, which is the reason I frequently mention that we should all be drinking 1/2 our weight in ounces of water each day. (If you use kilos rather than pounds, multiply your weight by 2.2, then divide by 2.) I recommend that anyone with high blood pressure, whose kidneys are operating well, try Dr. B's Water Cure, which incorporates water with salt, but I highly recommend you drink non-fluoridated water and use a salt that's healthy for you.

The refining process of commercially produced salt changes the chemical structure of the salt, making it harmful to the body and unable to provide us with the sodium and chloride we require.

Processed salt does not dissolve in water and therefore cannot dissolve in the body, so it becomes a foreign substance that collects in the organs and tissues, resulting in heart disease, arthritis, hardening of tissues and arteries, calcium deposits in the joints and more. Heart disease and arthritis are actually rare in countries that dry their salt in the sun, so it's not salt that is harmful, it's the processing.

Natural organic salt will not cause calcification in your body, and real sea salt can dissolve damaging calcium deposits in the body.

Fish that are accustomed to living in saltwater die in a solution of processed salt. Just as refined salt is unhealthy for fish, it is to us as well. Unrefined salt, however, is healthy for us, and you can't overdo it. Healthy, unprocessed salt will not cause high blood pressure.

Processed salt also contains aluminum, so it contributes to Alzheimer's.

Finding A Healthy Salt

When salt is processed, the minerals are actually stripped from it and sold. The whiter the salt, the more it has been processed.

This includes the majority of sea salts out there. Many of them are just as bright white as processed salts, because they are processed, but they have the label "sea salt" so people think they're healthy.

Look for a salt that is raw, unprocessed, not bright white, and has a high mineral content. The brand I use is Himalayan Crystal Salt, containing 84 ionized minerals. It is actually light pink and delicious.

If you'd like to try Dr. Batmanghelidj's Water Cure, calculate the amount of water you need to drink as stated above add 1/8 teaspoon for every 16 ounces of water you drink. You can add it to the water, but it's best to put it on your tongue just before drinking. Dr. B suggests adding salt liberally to your food as well.

To read more about Dr. B's research, click here to visit his website. Dr. B is no longer with us, but his friends have a site dedicated to making his work known - To read testimonials on how his protocol has helped people overcome multiple illnesses, click here. If you'd like to try reversing a serious health condition using The Water Cure, make sure you follow the schedule.

Please note that if you are going to try The Water Cure, it's very important to get good nutrition as well, because otherwise you will be diluting and excreting the nutrients that you do have. Either follow Dr. B's nutritional recommendations below the schedule, or try a high quality whole food product, such as NuPlus or Modifilan.


A person who wants to actually resolve high blood pressure by addressing the cause of the problem can easily do so. I've seen blood pressure return to normal within weeks, or even days, when high quality nutrition is introduced. Be sure to see my suggestions on nutritional products and nutritional foods, because without high quality supplements, it's not possible to get good nutrition today.

Also, the less toxins introduced to the body through processed foods, the less the body will be burdened by them. According to Dr. Joseph Mercola, grains and sugars increase the risk of both high blood pressure and diabetes, so eliminating these from the diet will also help.

* About "Ask Nurse Olivia"

Ask Nurse Olivia is a feature of my blog, Red Pill Reich, as well as Truth Brigade Radio.

One question is picked each week and posted on both sites. Names and email addresses are removed, and you will be notified if your question is chosen.

Questions should be submitted to with "Ask Nurse Olivia" in the subject line. If your question isn't picked, I will do my best to answer it anyway, but so many people are writing to me that I have to prioritize, so I apologize if you don't get an answer. Please visit the websites below if you can't find the info you're looking for at my blog:

- General Health Sites

Dr. Joseph Mercola
Natural News featuring Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

- Cancer Sites

Cancer Tutor
Gerson Therapy
Dr. Lorraine Day

If it's an urgent situation and you don't have time to do cancer research, try getting a consult from Ralph Moss, PhD.

I appreciate your support and applaud your efforts in educating yourself about your health.

Remember, no one will ever care more about your health than you!

Olivia L. Worthy

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Happy Equinox!


Happy Equinox!
by Acharya S

It is a fascinating "coincidence" that this year "Easter" - purportedly the day of the resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ, the "only begotten Son of God" - falls precisely on the last day of the three-day vernal equinox period.

In reality, this development is no "coincidence," because the vernal equinox is the real "reason for the season," and "Christ" is in reality the personification of the SUN of God, revered around the globe for millennia.

The vernal equinox marks the arrival of Spring, when for three days the SUN is "hung on a cross," whereby the days and the nights are the same length. At the end of the three days - during which time the sun is said to be in a "tomb," as it showed no movement - the day begins to become longer than the night, and the sun is said to have been "resurrected." In ancient times, the sun's resurrection at the end of the vernal equinox was accompanied by great celebrations during which it was shouted, "He is risen!"

In early Christian times, both Christ's resurrection and his birthday were placed on March 24th - midnight of the 23rd - for this very reason of the end of the vernal equinox, which begins on the 21st/22nd. Christ's birthday was also set at several other times of the year, most if not all of these dates possessing astrotheological meaning.

For more on the true meaning of "Easter" - a name in itself that comes from the ancient Goddess, also called "Ishtar" and "Astarte," among many other divine epithets - please see my article, "Easter: Pagan or Christian?" There is also a video on the same subject at this page:

Enjoy - and have a Happy Equinox!

Acharya S

Friday, March 21, 2008

The Amazing Healing Powers of Vinegar - For PETS too!




WWW.BRAGG.COM (We are not affiliated with Bragg - we don't profit even if you do.)
We use and love ALL the Bragg products, btw.

What is Natural Apple Cider Vinegar?
Different from the refined and distilled vinegars usually found in supermarkets, Natural Apple Cider Vinegar is made from fresh, crushed, organically grown apples and allowed to mature in wooden barrels, which boosts its natural fermentation qualities. When mature, it contains a web-like substance, called "mother", which becomes visible when the rich brownish liquid is held to the light. The mother can be used to add to other vinegar to hasten maturity for more Apple Cider Vinegar.

What is the nature of the Mother?

The mother is the dark, cloudy substance in the ACV formed from naturally occurring pectin and apple residues - it appears as molecules of protein connected in strand-like chains. The presence of the mother shows that the best part of the apple has not been destroyed. Vinegars containing the mother contain enzymes and minerals that other vinegars may not contain due to over processing, filtration and overheating.

Why is ACV not pasteurized?

Apple Cider Vinegar fights Arterial Plaque and helps reduce your chances of suffering a heart attack or stroke
...Plaque buildup is a leading cause of Heart Attacks and strokes by blocking bloodflowto the heart and brain. Apple Cider Vinegar not only shows signs of fighting plaque buildup but may actually reverse some of the damage by helping to dissolve plaque. Use the Bragg's ACV Drink regularly to enjoy all the health benefits of ACV (consult your physician or healthcare giver for your specific suitability and use).

Pasteurization is the heating process intended to remove potential problem bacteria from consumable liquids such as milk, juices etc. However, this process will also remove delicate nutrients and enzymes that may constitute a major portion of the food value of that consumable. In the case of Bragg’s Raw Organic Apple Cider Vinegar, pasteurization would eliminate the "mother", a major health giving factor of our vinegar.

Is it okay to eat/drink the Mother?
The mother is the most nutritious part of the Apple Cider Vinegar and is very beneficial to digest. Often the ‘mother’ settles to the bottom of the bottle. We recommend shaking the bottle lightly to distribute the ‘mother’ before dispensing.

Since Apple Cider Vinegar is unpasteurized, is it protected from E.Coli bacteria?
Bragg Apple Cider Vinegar does not carry the E.Coli bacteria as the acidity in the vinegar is effective in killing the 0-157 strain of E.Coli bacteria.

What type of barrels are used during production?
Douglas Fir/Redwood barrels as well as stainless steel barrels are used during the production of our Apple Cider Vinegar.

Does Bragg Apple Cider Vinegar need to be refrigerated?
Bragg Apple Cider Vinegar does not need to be refrigerated. We only recommend that you keep the product out of direct sunlight in a relatively cool location.

What is the shelf life of Apple Cider Vinegar?
ACV has an FDA required "official" shelf life of three to five years after the bottling date (found on the bottle), however, experience has shown that the product is safe, usable and effective for an indefinite period if kept out of direct sunlight.

Where is the expiration date printed?
The Bragg Apple Cider Vinegar expiration date is printed on the upper portion of the bottle, at the shoulder and neck taper area, see photo below. The lower line of the 2 contains the expiration date. The upper line contains the 'lot' number for the manufaturer reference and the time, in 24 hour format, that it was bottled. Bragg's Organic Apple Cider Vinegar has a shelf life of 5 years, although due to its nature, Bragg ACV can be safetly used for many years after the expiration date.

ACV Expiration Date

Is Apple Cider Vinegar safe to take during pregnancy?
Bragg Apple Cider Vinegar is safe to take during and after pregnancy. It helps to rid the body of toxins and may even help with any complications that may arise or have arisen with the pregnancy. It supports regularity and promotes digestion.

Is it possible to take too much Apple Cider Vinegar?
There is no clear limit as to how much Apple Cider Vinegar an individual can or should ingest. However, one should remember that, as with anything in life, one can have "too much of a good thing". It is recommended that an individual take the ACV cocktail three times a day for maximum results. The cocktail consists of 1 to 2 tsps. organic raw ACV mixed with 1 to 2 tsps. raw honey in a glass of distilled water.

Is it necessary to add honey to ACV?
It is not imperative to add honey to the Bragg Apple Cider Vinegar cocktail; just use ACV and distilled water instead. We receive many letters from people who tell us about the many health benefits that they attribute to taking the Bragg ACV without adding honey. Honey is recommended because it has proven bioactive properties and contains the vitamins and enzymes necessary for the proper digestion and metabolism. It does add health benefits to the ACV cocktail, but fortunately the ACV has plenty of health uses and benefits without the honey.

Is it okay to take the Apple Cider Vinegar by itself?
It is recommended that you take the Apple Cider Vinegar diluted with water or juice. Because Apple Cider Vinegar acts like a sponge, drawing toxins from the body tissues, it may cause you discomfort if you choose to digest the vinegar using spoonfuls only.

What, exactly, are the internal and external benefits attributed to ACV?
Following the old cliché, "An apple a day keeps the doctor away," apples are one of the oldest, most nutritious foods on earth. They are rich in potassium, a mineral many of us are deficient in, and a deficiency that causes old age to creep upon us sooner. Calcium maintains our hard tissues such as bones, and potassium is the equivalent to the body’s soft tissues, keeping the body’s flesh and arteries soft and resilient. Fresh, organic apples are used to make Apple Cider Vinegar, which contains necessary ingredients, such as enzymes, and life-stimulating minerals, mainly potassium, in a natural state. Besides being a natural stimulant for vitality, Apple Cider Vinegar cleanses and restores nutrients to the body so that the body can heal itself.


Helps Remove Body Toxins * Helps Promote a Youthful Body *Helps support a healthy immune system * Helps Maintain Healthy Skin * Helps Control Weight * Improves Digestion and Assimilation * Soothes Tight and Aching Joints and Sore Muscles from exercise * Soothes irritated skin.

For storage, we recommend that you keep the product out of direct sunlight, in a relatively cool location.

The following is excerpted from an article by Dr. Alicia McWatters, Ph.D., C.N.C.:

"Many vitamins, minerals and other nutrients and substances are available in ACV to improve the health of your dog. ACV can provide them with enzymes and important minerals, such as potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulfur, chlorine, phosphorus, iron, silicon and other trace minerals. The vitamins contained in ACV are bioflavonoids (vitamin P), beta-carotene (precursor to vitamin A), vitamin C, E, B1, B2, and B6. Tannins from the crushed cell walls of fresh apples as well as malic acid, tartaric acid, propionic acid, acetic acid and pectin (fiber) are also contained in ACV. Be sure to purchase organic unfiltered, unpasteurized, naturally fermented ACV for its medicinal features. ACV ranges in color from a light golden to orange. You’ll know you’ve found the right stuff if you see sediment, referred to as the "mother of vinegar" on the bottom of the bottle. Do NOT buy white distilled vinegar, as it has none of the beneficial elements listed above.

I began using ACV as a supplement for my dogs in 1994. Some holistic health practitioners recommend that ACV be placed in a dog’s drinking water. I recommend placing it in fresh food because I believe that a dog’s drinking water should be free of additives, with the exception of an electrolyte solution or a medicinal product that is used on a short-term basis. The dosage I use is 1 tsp. for small dogs and 1 tbs. for medium-large dogs. It can also be given orally diluted in water under the guidance of a vet or holistic health practitioner.

ACV can be useful to your dog’s health in conjunction with feeding it a wide variety of foods, but should never be looked upon as a panacea. Fresh food ingredients, such as raw meat and bones, fruits, vegetables, grains and dairy products make up the wholeness that will effectively help your dog to achieve optimum health.

Often times one looks for the magic ingredient that will miraculously make their dog well. Whether it is an antibiotic, grapefruit seed extract, Aloe vera or milk thistle... there will always be a single popular or trendy supplement of the moment and this supplement will be promoted as the great healing agent. But, if we focus on the part rather than the whole we are not taking a holistic approach to our dog’s health."


Excerpt from the About Frugal Living website:

Vinegar for Pets and Animals, Part Two
From Pat Veretto,
Your Guide to Frugal Living.

Fleas, fish and tear stains

We add apple cider vinegar to our goats water all year around. It seems to repel flies in the summer and causes the water not to freeze as fast in the winter. We only add about an eigth of a cup to each 5 gallon bucket. Some people told us that this would give the milk an "off" flavor, but we have yet to find that. Maybe it would if we were giving them white vinegar. Anyhow, the bonus is that our goats LOVE it!

For reducing swelling on a horse (or any animal), wrap the leg in a rag soaked in apple cider vinegar. Wrap in plastic and then bandage to hold it in place - leave on for 4 or more hours.

I got a new puppy just covered in fleas. The store bought flea killers were for older puppies. We used apple vinegar to dip him in and rinsed him off with water. It did the trick.

I had a completely white bulldog with black spotted skin. He had dark tear stains running from his tear duct area down. I tried a few of the tear bleaching products sold for dogs but none worked (besides being expensive). I also tried some suggested home remedies (e.g. hydrogen peroxide, etc.) and those were not effective either. A vet told me the tear stains were caused by the acidity in the dogs system and if I neutralized his system, the stains would go away.

His suggestion was to put vinegar in the dogs drinking water! He suggested putting just a "tiny" bit of vinegar in the drinking water for a few days (I interpreted that as about 1/4 of a vinegar bottles cap full) and then increase the amount of vinegar added until I was adding about a teaspoon to the drinking water each day (I would estimate his drinking water bowl to contain about 5 cups of water.) Each time I changed or added water to his bowl, I also added the vinegar. Within a few weeks, the tear stains were gone for good!

Years ago, I put vinegar in my two dogs drinking water. I had never seen a flea. Start with only a little, so they will get used to the taste. I am now doing it to my Siamese cats. No fleas.

Put a tablespoon of vinegar in your dog's drinking water every day and you will no longer have those brown spots in your lawn from the dog's urine. You can mix 1/3 Vinegar (any type but Apple Cider smells better), 1/3 water, and 1/3 Pine Sol (and scent but I like Orange).

Mix in a spray bottle and it makes the greatest fly spray for horses (and other animals(dogs, goats, etc)) as well as barn spray to keep flies down. I live in Texas where the flies are monsters and this REALLY truly works!!! The three vets I have talked about it with said it was 100% safe and the Pine Sol contains less powerful and harmful chemicals than actual fly spray! The 1,000's of horse owners that have used it (I got the recipe off a very popular horse website) have used it with no ill effects what so ever for years now. This will save you a ton of money and less yucky chemicals!

David & Patrick

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Treating Cancer -- With Herbs


Many of the chemotherapies used to fight cancer in modern medicine were developed from natural substances.

For instance:

  • Taxanes used to treat prostate and breast cancer came from yew trees.
  • Vinca alkaloids, which are used to treat malignant lymphomas, are made from periwinkle plants.
  • The anti-cancer drugs topotecan and irinotecan come from a component of the Chinese Happy Tree.
Scientists are increasingly focusing on plants used in traditional medicine in their search for new compounds. About three-quarters of the pharmaceutical compounds used today came from plants used in traditional medicine.

Professor Dr. Thomas Efferth from Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum in Heidelberg, for example, has begun analyzing 76 Chinese medicinal plants that are believed to treat malignant tumors and other growths. Extracts from 18 of the plants were found to significantly suppress the growth of cancer cells.

“With this success rate of about 24 percent, we are way above the results that could be expected from searching through large chemical substance libraries,” Efferth said.
Krill Oil

Dr. Mercola Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Most pharmaceuticals that are derived from plants are typically from one “active” component of the plant that is then isolated and synthetically replicated. In contrast, most traditional medicine remedies use whole plants in their natural state, which is a far cry from the lab-produced cancer treatments used in modern medicine.

While herbal remedies can indeed be powerful, they are typically far safer than most medications. Still, I do not widely support using them as your primary healing approach as they rarely address the primary cause. Like drugs, herbs and other plants are frequently used as band-aids that fail to address the root cause.

However, when used wisely by someone trained in this science they can be enormously beneficial adjuncts to the healing process, and I believe that it is wise to use them. Just be careful to continue to search for the reasons that you initially acquired the health challenge.
Cancer Treatments: Chemo or Natural?

While I don’t normally focus on the details of cancer treatments, it’s worth pointing out that it is very rare for cancer to only have one cause. Rather than simply being caused by a malfunction in your DNA, or a faulty gene you “inherited” from your grandmother, cancer is more typically triggered by a combination of the following:
  • Nutritional deficiencies
  • Toxins in your environment
  • Emotional conflicts
  • Hormonal imbalances
Often, cancer can actually be treated, and reversed, by addressing these variables through dietary changes, purifying your environment, and addressing your emotional state.

Chemotherapy is rarely the best option for cancer treatment, as it usually doesn't cure cancer or extend life, and it really does not improve the quality of your life either. Dr. Ralph Moss, who is the author of eight books on cancer treatment, has reviewed thousands of studies as part of the research for his books -- and he has not found one single good study that shows chemo cures cancer or extends life.

What chemo does do, however, is expose your body to toxins that kill all cells that multiply and divide rapidly. This includes not only cancer cells, but also other rapidly multiplying and dividing cells, such as bone marrow, reproductive system cells and hair follicles.

These are powerful drugs that present an assault on your system -- one that your body must then overcome along with the cancer. And the effects do not end right after the treatment. One UCLA study found that chemotherapy can actually change the blood flow and metabolism of your brain in ways that can linger for 10 years or more after treatment.

Preventing Cancer: 12 Tips to Live By

No one wants to battle cancer, and there is good news because I believe you can VIRTUALLY ELIMINATE your risk of cancer and chronic disease, and radically improve your chances of recovering from cancer if you currently have it, by following these relatively simple risk reduction strategies.
1. Reduce or eliminate your processed food, sugar and grain carbohydrate intake. Yes, this is even true for whole unprocessed organic grains, as they tend to rapidly break down and drive your insulin and leptin levels up, which is the last thing you need to have happening if you are seeking to resolve a cancer.

2. Control your fasting insulin and leptin levels. This is the end result, and can be easily monitored with the use of simple and relatively inexpensive blood tests.
3. Normalize your ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fats by taking a high-quality krill oil and reducing your intake of most processed vegetable oils.

4. Get regular exercise. One of the primary reasons exercise works is that it drives your insulin levels down. Controlling insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risks.

5. Normalize your vitamin D levels by getting plenty of sunlight exposure and consider careful supplementation when this is not possible. If you take oral vitamin D and have a cancer, it would be very prudent to monitor your vitamin D blood levels regularly.

6. Get regular, good sleep.

7. Eat according to your nutritional type. The potent anti-cancer effects of this principle are very much underappreciated. When we treat cancer patients in our clinic this is one of the most powerful anti-cancer strategies we have.

8. Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, household chemical cleaners, synthetic air fresheners and air pollution.

9. Limit your exposure and provide protection for yourself from information-carrying radio waves produced by cell phone towers, base stations, phones and WiFi stations.

10. Avoid frying or charbroiling your food. Boil, poach or steam your foods instead.

11. Have a tool to permanently reprogram the neurological short-circuiting that can activate cancer genes. Even the CDC states that 85 percent of disease is caused by emotions. It is likely that this factor may be more important than all the other physical ones listed here, so make sure this is addressed. Energy psychology seems to be one of the best approaches and my particular favorite tool, as you may know, is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT). German New Medicine is another powerful tool.
12. Eat at least one-third of your food raw.

Related Articles:

How Exercise Protects You From Cancer

More Cancer-Fighting Chemicals Found in Grapes

Organic Vegetables are Better for Fighting Cancer

Friday, March 14, 2008


By Valendar Turner

Department of Emergency Medicine, Royal Perth
Hospital, Perth, Western Australia

The real purpose of scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn't misled you into thinking something you don't actually know... One logical slip and an entire scientific edifice comes tumbling down. One false deduction about the machine and you can get hung up indefinitely.

Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Does the currently available evidence prove beyond reasonable doubt that a unique, exogenously acquired retrovirus has been isolated from the tissues of AIDS patients? Perhaps. Perhaps not. This is what I invite you to judge. And in case you are inclined to be assaulted by the opinions of overwhelming majorities, you may take comfort from a most venerated, international scientist who said, "In Science the authority embodied in the opinion of thousands is not worth a spark of reason in one man." I shall reward you with his identity at the end of this talk.

A virus is two things. Number one: It's a microscopic particle of certain size and form. Number two, such particles generate identical progeny by parasitising chemical constituents and energy from a living cell. This is what is actually meant by the term infectious. It is this attribute which justifies a particle being called a virus. This is the property which prevents our calling every particle we see a virus. By definition, a retroviral particle is spherical in shape and has a diameter of 100-120 Nm. On the outside is a shell studded with outwardly projecting knobs, knobs obligatory to latch on to and infect new cells. On the inside there is a core containing RNA as well as some proteins, one of which is an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. The latter gives retroviruses their name and its function is to catalyse the transcription of viral RNA into DNA, that is, to copy information contained in RNA in a direction opposite the customary direction, DNA to RNA. According to virologists, it is the DNA copy of the RNA blueprint, not the original RNA, which hibernates inside the cell nucleus awaiting an opportune time to orchestrate the production of new viruses.

To analyse their constituents and to prove they are truly viruses, retroviral-like particles must first be purified. This is done by a process called density gradient ultracentrifugation, something that may sound complicated but which isn't. A test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, is prepared light at the top, but gradually becoming heavier towards the bottom. A drop of fluid from a cell culture is gently placed on top and the test-tube is centrifuged for several hours at extremely high speeds. This generates forces many thousands of times that of gravity and any tiny particles present are gradually forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them penetrating further. For retroviral particles, this occurs where the density reaches 1.16 gm/ml, the point where the particles concentrate or, to use virological jargon, band. The 1.16 band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope. So, to prove the existence of a retrovirus one is obliged to:

1. Culture putatively infected cells.

2. Purify a sample in a sucrose density gradient.

3. Photograph the 1.16 band proving there are particles of the right size and form, and there is no other material.

4. Extract and analyse the constituents of the particles and prove they contain reverse transcriptase by showing they can make DNA from RNA.

5. Culture purified particles with virgin cells demonstrating that a new set of particles appears with the same morphology and constituents as the originals.

Now I am going to discuss some of the data from four papers published in Science in May 1984 by Dr. Robert Gallo and his colleagues from the US National Cancer Institute. These papers do not describe the original discovery of what the overwhelming majority regard as HIV, that distinction falls a year earlier to Professor Luc Montagnier and his colleagues from the Pasteur Institute from where, it is important to say, samples were sent to the Gallo laboratory and which later caused Gallo and his colleagues, as well as the US government, quite a number of problems. Neither are the Gallo papers the last word on HIV isolation but there is no doubt they are most important because it was they that led to the famous Washington press conference of April the 23rd 1984, two weeks prior to publication, at which an anxious, waiting world was told that the cause of AIDS had been identified. In fact, as one scrutinises the vast AIDS literature, it is fair to say that of all the papers published on HIV isolation, including the very latest, the Gallo papers are the most rigorous by far. The problem is, are they rigorous enough?

The first paper begins with cultures made of T-lymphocyte cells from AIDS patients. These cells were chosen because, included amongst their numbers, are the putatively infected cells, a subgroup known as T4 lymphocytes. It is these that are often diminished in AIDS, the hypothesis being that the yet to be discovered retrovirus was infecting and killing them. After an unspecified time, concentrated fluids from these T-cell cultures were subcultured with cells of a stock, leukaemic T-cell line known as HT. In these secondary cultures the Gallo team reported particles in electron microscopic examination of gross, unrefined culture fluids and measured reverse transcriptase activity in both these and banded specimens but without evidence that retroviral- like particles or indeed any particles were present at 1.16 gm/ml. They also reported reactions were seen between culture proteins and some antibodies present in human and animal sera. From these data, the Gallo team claimed to have isolated a new retrovirus, HIV, as well as inducing it to grow in the HT cell line in large enough quantities for use in analysis and diagnosis. In a subsequent third paper, from banded culture fluids obtained from a disrupted HT cell clone, two proteins, and for no other reason than they reacted with antibodies present in human AIDS sera, were deemed to be the HIV proteins. Subsequent papers, published after the Gallo four, using the same logic, increased the number of such proteins to about ten.

Reading these data it is obvious that Gallo and his colleagues had abandoned the traditional method of retrovirus isolation. This is enigmatic when one realises that, in 1976, Gallo himself had stressed that the detection of particles and reverse transcriptase, even reverse transcriptase inside particles, are not proof of the existence of retrovirus because, no matter how remarkably such particles may resemble retrovirus, many such particles are not viruses because they totally lack the ability to replicate (Gallo et al., 1976). You must appreciate the magnitude of the particle problem. Cell cultures contain many and many kinds of particles, some viral-like and some not. The viral-like include retroviral-like. In the 1970s, retroviral-like particles were frequently observed in human leukaemia tissues (Gallo et al., 1976), cultures of embryonic tissues, and "in the majority, if not all, human placentas." (Panem, 1979) One genus of retroviral-like particles, the type-C particle and the one into which Gallo classified his newly discovered retrovirus HIV, is found in "fish, snakes, worms, pheasant, quail, partridge, turkey, tree mouse and agouti" (Grafe, 1991) as well as in "tapeworms, insects...and mammals." (Frank, 1987) This being the case, there seems to be no way of avoiding the rules developed over the decades of research into animal retroviruses, rules that enabled a scientists to sort out this clutter. And there are two more complicating factors. The first is that reverse transcription is not only a property of retroviruses. Normal cells contain enzymes which reverse transcribe RNA and so does hepatitis B virus, a virus that infects T-cells as well as liver cells and is present in a considerable number of AIDS patients. The second is the choice of the HT cell line. It was long known that leukaemic cells theselves can reverse transcribe and, strange as it may seem, although Dr. Gallo was about to look for reverse transcription as a sign of a new retrovirus, the HT cell line originated from a patient who, according to Dr. Gallo, had a disease caused by a retrovirus he discovered called HTLV-I. In fact, in 1983, Gallo reported that the HT parental cell line contained HTLV-I genetic sequences. On this basis alone one would expect to find evidence of reverse transcription in the HT cell line. Given all these data, one would imagine it was impossible for the Gallo team to abandon the need to follow the traditional method and isolate and characterise infectious particles, but abandon it they did. By what reasoning then did the Gallo team claim to have proven the existence of a new retrovirus from AIDS patients?

For their 1984 papers, they reiterated the limitations of particles and reverse transcriptase and made three assumptions which, taken together, constitute a precept known as specific reactivity. (Gallo et al., 1986) The first assumption was that AIDS patients are infected with a replicating retroviral particle, a virus which could be grown in cell cultures to yield unique, virus-specific proteins. Second, being foreign, the virus would stimulate the production of a number of distinctive antibodies directed against the viral proteins. Third, the proteins and the antibodies react specifically, that is, only with each other and with no other agent. Let us take a very careful look at this paradigm. First, when the Gallo team began their experiments, the existence of specific viral proteins as constituents of a replicating viral particle which could infect humans was entirely hypothesis, not fact. Second, antibodies and proteins are not monogamous, even the purest of each take on other partners. Third, even if they were monogamous, we know that AIDS patients contain antibodies to many different agents, many with which they are infected, for example hepatitis B and cytomegalic inclusion viruses, mycoplasma, fungi and mycobacteria. Unless Gallo further hypothesised that all these agents or parts of them, or their respective antibodies, disappear from cultures or sera, when blood from an AIDS patient is mixed with cell cultures of the same or another AIDS patient, how can anyone tell what is reacting with what, let alone define precisely where each of the reactants originated? As far as the reactions are concerned, it's no different from mixing up milk from six species of animals, adding a mixture of a dozen different acids and claiming to know which acid is curdling which milk. So, although the term specific HIV proteins conjures up visions of proteins being extracted from retroviral-like particles proven to be a unique virus, this is not how it was done. It was done by breaking up cells of the HT cell line, not a virus particle, and observing unknown proteins reacting with unknown antibodies. From these data both the proteins and the antibodies were deemed viral, and not just any virus, but HIV. That's all. Logic or magic? And as an aside, similar to the proteins, the origin of what is called the HIV genome, the HIV RNA, is also based on circumstance, not on purification and dissection of particles proven to be infectious. The Gallo team may have claimed isolation of a new retrovirus but what they actually did was weave a nexus between reverse transcriptase, particles, and certain proteins under the dubious imprimatur of specific reactivity. Is this virus isolation? Is this even virus detection?

There are also a number of unsolved mysteries in the Gallo papers.

Mystery number one:

Reading the first paper one gets the impression that the HT cell line was cultured with individual AIDS patient cultures. However, the National Institutes of Health enquiry instigated after allegations of misappropriation of the French specimens found that the HT cell line was cultured with concentrated fluids pooled initially from individual cultures of three patients and ultimately from the individual cultures of ten patients. (Maddox, 1992) In evidence given to the enquiry, the reason given was because none of the individual cultures "was producing high concentrations of reverse transcriptase." That means not enough to convince the Gallo team of scientists or anybody else there actually was a virus in any of the individual specimens in the first place. The fact that pooled specimens produced reverse transcription is not proof of a retrovirus. The conditions may have merely changed in favour of the action of one of the cellular enzymes that performs the same trick. Or it could have been due to the HT cell line, unaided or at the behest of its HTLV-I retrovirus. The Gallo investigation found the pooling of specimens "of dubious scientific rigor." One scientist described the procedure as "really crazy." In essence, it is no different from investigating an outbreak of pneumonia by having all patients spit in separate pots and, when nothing turns up, getting them all to spit in the same pot.

Mystery number two:

The method of specific reactivity required a source of antibodies to the putative viral proteins. The logical place to obtain these was from AIDS patients -- after all, that is what the hypothesis required. The antibodies reported in the first paper appeared from two sources, a haemophiliac patient known as E.T. who had pre-AIDS and rabbits. Yes, rabbits. What precisely constituted E.T's pre-AIDS we are not told, but pre-AIDS is often generalised enlargement of the lymph nodes, a condition not invariably followed by AIDS and which is not AIDS. Thus, according to the paradigm of specific reactivity, we cannot be sure that E.T. actually had the right kind of antibodies. Rabbits do not develop AIDS and if specific antibodies to a retrovirus were to exist, they could only be produced by immunising rabbits with pure virus or, as the first Gallo group paper reported, from rabbits infected repeatedly with disrupted HIV. I hope you are beginning to see the problem. To make antibodies just to HIV, one has to inject rabbits with pure HIV. Pure virus means isolated virus and if rabbits were injected with pure virus, why should it be necessary to produce antibodies to define the isolation of virus that had already been isolated?

Mystery number three:

In the second paper, the Gallo team attempted what they called HIV isolation from 72 AIDS patients. Again, they cultured cells and detected particles and reverse transcriptase in unrefined culture fluids, and observed some protein/antibody reactions, but also added a fourth category, transmission, by which was meant finding particles or reverse transcriptase in bone marrow and other cells cultured with fluids, but not purified banded, photographed fluids, from one of the 72 starting cultures. What is enigmatic about the second paper is that HIV isolation was defined merely as detecting at least two of any of these four phenomena. The same criticism applies as in the first paper. Nothing was isolated and detection of unspecific phenomena is not surrogate isolation of a retrovirus. Even it were, this peculiar definition leads to some rather bizarre possibilities, for example, instances of virus isolation without the need to see particles or measure reverse transcriptase, for a retrovirus about as convincing as trying to sell a car without a body and an engine. Even so, loose as these criteria were, isolation was successful in only 26 of the 72 patients, that is, in only 36%. And, in case you think things have improved, there is a recent, international cooperative study reported by the World Health Organisation. In this study, by HIV isolation was meant detection of a single protein, p24, in culture fluids using a single antibody. Not only is p24 not specific for HIV (Agbalika et al., 1992; Mortimer et al., 1992), but from 224 HIV positive individuals, the success rate was a mere 37%, not significantly better than Gallo's figures a decade earlier. (WHO, 1994)

Even if the Gallo team had proved the existence of a new retrovirus, on what basis did they claim it was the cause of AIDS? Even if virus had been isolated from all patients and all patients had antibodies, which they didn't because in the fourth paper, the data showed only 88% of AIDS patients had antibodies (and on a single ELISA test which no one now regards as specific), is this sufficient proof that HIV causes AIDS? If the bank manager and his constant, faithful offsider are present at the bank robbery, is this proof that the manager robbed the bank? The Gallo papers provide no evidence whatsoever that HIV kills T4-cells or that low numbers of T4-cells is necessary and sufficient for the development of the AIDS infections and cancers and, I might add, there is still no such evidence. (Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1994)

Let me finish by summarising the problem. The method of retrovirus isolation presented at the beginning flows logically from the definition of a virus. It is model of intelligibility, it is the only method, and was used for decades of research into animal retroviruses. (Sinoussi et al., 1973; Toplin, 1973) The problem is that, to date, nobody in the world has reported use of this method in AIDS patients. Without it, for example, how can one resolve the dilemma imposed by the numerous particles of stunning morphological variability present in cell cultures of AIDS patients? Even so, although some particles are the right diameter, there are no particles with the right diameter AND the projecting knobs, both integral to the definition of a retroviral particle and the latter essential to infect new cells. (Gelderblom et al., 1988; Layne et al., 1992; Levy, 1996) Yet, as I speak, there is still not even one published electron micrograph from a density gradient to tell us which, if any constituents of this zoo of particles, presents itself to be proved an infectious retrovirus. Perhaps, if someone were to look, there might not be any. Reading the literature, it is obvious that scientists everywhere have abandoned the traditional method of isolation and, under the assumed aegis of specific reactivity, claimed that two unknowns, antibodies and proteins, interact in specific pairs simultaneously betraying each other's genesis from a virus. In other words, what is the guts of what is called HIV isolation is actually no more than a chemical reaction, an antibody test, and from an antibody test, one cannot claim proof of isolation of anything. If an antibody test is isolation of a virus then the pregnancy test, which uses an antibody to detect the placental hormone beta HCG, must be regarded as placental isolation. Of course, there may be instances of specific reactivity involving viral proteins and antibodies, but the only way to prove this is to compare reactions in the test-tube with the virus of interest. Nature would then reveal specific reactivity by the fact that reactions, the virological equivalent of curdling milk, show up only when there is virus and never if there is no virus. This is crux of the matter and where the evidence for the existence of HIV begins to fall apart. To prove specific reactivity, one must first isolate the virus for use as a gold standard for comparison. One cannot adopt specific reactivity as a premise to prove the existence of a virus if one must first isolate the virus to prove the premise upon which isolation is contingent. Try as you will but the cart does not go before the horse and the Gallo argument is reductio ad absurdum.

This leaves us in a perilous quandary. What are these unknown antibodies to unknown proteins which we call being HIV positive? They could represent a virus, but that remains to be proven by isolating a retroviral-like particle and proving it is a retrovirus. It is certainly not cogent to argue that the conjunction of a number of unspecific phenomena makes one possibility a definite outcome any more than claiming that ten men, all dressed in white, hitting a ball around a paddock, must be playing cricket. They might just as well be Ku Klux Klaners playing baseball. If not a virus, then what? If someone tests positive, is this proof that a virus has been transmitted? Or is it something altogether different? Whatever these reactions mean, they do seem to be a marker for AIDS in the high risk groups, but are they just as significant in those at low or at no risk? Does just knowing you're HIV positive affect your health? Does your doctor knowing you're positive lead to treatments for a virus you may not have? Could such treatments themselves cause harm? We now know that antibodies to the germs that cause the diseases present in 90% of AIDS patients also react with the so called HIV proteins. (Muller et al., 1991; Kashala et al., 1994) Are we being fooled by antibodies that have nothing to do with a retrovirus? Are we seeing curdle from a different milk? Why, in one study, did 10% of 1300 individuals at low risk for AIDS including blood donors have antibodies to a sufficient number of HIV proteins to deem them HIV infected by the most stringent United States criteria? (Lundberg, 1988) Why do 30% of individuals transfused with HIV negative blood develop antibodies to the same p24 protein nearly every HIV researcher uses to "isolate" HIV? (Genesca et al., 1989) Why do 50% of dogs have antibodies to one or more of these same proteins? (Strandstrom et al., 1990) How come healthy, non-HIV-infected mice injected with blood from similar mice, or mice injected with extracts of a common human bowel bacterium, develop some of the same antibodies? Why does transfusion of one's own, irradiated blood produce the same antibodies? (Kozhemiakin & Bondarenko, 1992) If these data do not mean that HIV antibodies are non-specific, then there must be some completely unknown as well as very peculiar ways for men, dogs, and mice to acquire HIV infection. On the other hand, if some humans, injected with their own or someone else's blood, or mice injected with foreign cells and foreign proteins develop "HIV antibodies" but are not infected with HIV, why should gay men, IV drug users, and haemophiliacs, who are all exposed to foreign cells and/or foreign proteins, not also develop "HIV antibodies" and not be infected with HIV? Is it possible that we been misled by non-retroviral phenomena altogether? This would not be the first time. Over the mid- to late-1970s, Gallo and his colleagues claimed to have isolated the first human retrovirus, HL23V, from patients with various types of leukaemia and their evidence included a picture from a density gradient. (Gallagher & Gallo, 1975; Gallo et al., 1976) Soon enough antibodies to the HL23V proteins were found to be widespread, even amongst normal people and there was great excitement that a cause of leukaemic was at last in the offing. However, two groups of researchers then found that the antibodies were in reality directed against a wide range of naturally occurring substances, thus destroying that particular notion of specific reactivity. (Barbacid et al., 1980; Snyder & Fleissner, 1980) Overnight, HL23V vanished from the scientific literature, so much so that Gallo now never mentions it. Does a similar fate await HIV? Neville Hodgkinson (Hodgkinson, 1996), the former science and medical correspondent for the London Sunday Times, has suggested that HIV is the greatest scientific blunder of the twentieth century. If so, there are alternative theories and therapies for AIDS we would do well to consider.

Now, are you ready for that scientist? His name is Galileo Galilei, a man no stranger to heresy. Perhaps we should heed his counsel and begin to trust our own sparks. I say the sooner the better. *


Agbalika, F., Ferchal, F., Garnier, J. P., Eugene, M., Bedrossian, J. & Lagrange, P. H., 1992. False-positive HIV antigens related to emergence of a 25-30kD proteins detected in organ recipients. AIDS 6:959-962.

Barbacid, M., Bolognesi, D. & Aaronson, S. A., 1980. Humans have antibodies capable of recognizing oncoviral glycoproteins: Demonstration that these antibodies are formed in response to cellular modification of glycoproteins rather than as consequence of exposure to virus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 77:1617-1621.

Frank, H. 1987. Retroviridae. pp. 253-256, in Animal Virus and Structure, edited by M. V. Nermut and A. C. Steven, Elsevier, Oxford.

Gallagher, R. E. & Gallo, R. C., 1975. Type C RNA Tumor Virus Isolated from Cultured Human Acute Myelogenous Leukemia Cells. Science 187:350-353.

Gallo, R. C., Sarin, P. S., Kramarsky, B., Salahuddin, Z., Markham, P. & Popovic, M., 1986. First isolation of HTLV-III. Nature 321:119.

Gallo, R. C., Wong-Staal, F., Reitz, M., Gallagher, R. E., Miller, N. & Gillepsie, D. H. 1976. Some evidence for infectious type-C virus in humans. pp. 385-405, in Animal Virology, edited by D. Balimore, A. S. Huang and C. F. Fox, Academic Press Inc., New York.

Gelderblom, H. R., Bozel, M., Hausmann, E. H. S., Winkel, T., Pauli, G. & Koch, M. A., 1988. Fine Structure of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Immunolocalization of Structural Proteins and Virus-Cell Relation. Micron Microscopica 19:41-60.

Genesca, J., Jett, B. W., Epstein, J. S. & Bloggs, 1989. What do Western Blot indeterminate patterns for Human Immunodeficiency Virus mean in EIA-negative blood donors? Lancet ii:1023-1025.

Grafe, A., 1991. A History of Experimental Virology. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.

Hodgkinson, N., 1996. AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science. Fourth Estate, London.

Kashala, O., Marlink, R., Ilunga, M., Diese, M., Gormus, B., Xu, K., Mukeba, P., Kasongo, K. & Essex, M., 1994. Infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and human T cell lymphotropic viruses among leprosy patients and contacts: correlation between HIV-1 cross-reactivity and antibodies to lipoarabinomannan. J. Infect. Dis. 169:296-304.

Kozhemiakin, L. A. & Bondarenko, I. G., 1992. Genomic instability and AIDS. Biochimiia 57:1417-1426.

Layne, S. P., Merges, M. J., Dembo, M., Spouge, J. L., Conley, S. R., Moore, J. P., Raina, J. L., Renz, H., Gelderblom, H. R. & Nara, P. L., 1992. Factors underlying spontaneous inactivation and susceptibility to neutralization of human immunodeficiency virus. Virol. 189:695-714.

Levy, J. A., 1996. Infection by human immunodeficiency virus-CD4 is not enough. NEJM 335:1528-1530.

Lundberg, G. D., 1988. Serological Diagnosis of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection by Western Blot Testing. JAMA 260:674-679.

Maddox, J., 1992. More on Gallo and Popovic. Nature 357:107-109.

Mortimer, P., Codd, A., Connolly, J., Craske, J., Desselberger, U., Eglin, R., Follett, E., Hawkins, J., Kurtz, J., Parry, J., Roome, A., Samuel, D., Skidmore, S. & Tedder, R., 1992. Towards error free HIV diagnosis: notes on laboratory practice. Pub. Health Lab. Service Micrbiol. Digest 9:61-64.

Muller, W. E. G., Bachmann, M., Weiler, B. E., Schroder, H. C., Uhlenbruck, G. U., Shinoda, T., Shimizu, H. & Ushijima, H., 1991. Antibodies against defined carbohydrate structures of Candida albicans protect H9 cells against infection with human immunodeficiency virus-1 in vitro. J. Acquir. Immun. Defic. Syndr. 4:694-703.

Panem, S., 1979. C Type Virus Expression in the Placenta. Current Topics in Pathology 66:175-189.

Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E., Turner, V. F., Papdimitriou, J. M., Causer, D., Hedland-Thomas, B. & Page, B., 1994. A critical analysis of the HIV-T4-cell-AIDS hypothesis. Genetica 95:5-24.

Sinoussi, F., Mendiola, L. & Chermann, J. C., 1973. Purification and partial differentiation of the particles of murine sarcoma virus (M. MSV) according to their sedimentation rates in sucrose density gradients. Spectra 4:237-243.

Snyder, H. W. & Fleissner, E., 1980. Specificity of human antibodies to oncovirus glycoproteins: Recognition of antigen by natural antibodies directed against carbohydrate structures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 77:1622-1626.

Strandstrom, H. V., Higgins, J. R., Mossie, K. & Theilen, G. H., 1990. Studies with canine sera that contain antibodies which recognize human immunodeficiency virus structural proteins. Cancer Res. 50:5628s-5630s.

Toplin, I., 1973. Tumor Virus Purification using Zonal Rotors. Spectra No. 4:225-235.

WHO, 1994. HIV type 1 variation in World Health Organization-sponsored vaccine evaluation sites: genetic screening, sequence analysis, and preliminary biological characterization of selected viral strains. AIDS Res. Hum. Retroviruses 10:1327-134.


Thursday, March 13, 2008

One Woman's Astonishing Experiment With Aspartame


One Woman's Astonishing Experiment With Aspartame

Victoria Inness-Brown’s family wasaddicted to diet soda. After researching the effects of aspartame, she strongly believed the artificial sweetener might one day lead to their illness or even their early deaths.

So she decided to perform her own aspartame experiment -- with 108 rats for 2 years and 8 months. Daily, she fed some of the rats the equivalent, for their body weight, of two-thirds the aspartame contained in 8-oz of diet soda.

Eleven of the females who took aspartame -- 37 percent -- developed tumors, some of massive size.

For details of Inness-Brown’s amazing experiment, click the link below.

Dr. Mercola

A picture is worth a thousand words, they say, and the photos taken by Mrs. Inness-Brown of her diseased and genetically deformed test rats truly speak for themselves.

The fact that aspartame is endorsed by the U.S. FDA as a safe product, and is recommended by many doctors as a good alternative sweetener in lieu of sugar is enough to make you go speechless with rage.

But I’m not known for being chocked and dismayed into silence. Instead I wrote the book Sweet Deception. If you or your loved ones drink diet beverages or eat diet foods, this book will explain how you've been deceived about the truth behind artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose -- for greed, for profits ... and at the expense of your own health.

The book took several years to write and I had five physicians work on it full time. It is the most comprehensive book on the market addressing this issue. I had to be very careful as the makers of Splenda had their NY law firm write me a 30-page long threatening letter telling me they would sue me if I published the book. It has been two years since the book was published and no lawsuits yet. I guess they realized when you tell the truth it is difficult to prevail in any litigation.

There is so much evidence showing aspartame to be a potentially deadly agent that several prominent, well-educated doctors and even judges have written books on the subject. H.J. Roberts three-pound tome Aspartame Disease -- An Ignored Epidemic is another must-read if you’re anywhere near the fence on this issue. Dr. Roberts' excellent article Aspartame Disease -- An FDA Approved Epidemic is also posted on my site.

Biochemical Warfare Agent in Your Food Supply

Does it make sense that what was once listed by the Pentagon as a biochemical warfare agent is now an integral part of your modern diet?

That’s exactly what happened with aspartame – it’s the poster child for unconscionable greed coupled with political power that may run as deep as the CIA.

That aspartame is a profitable business should be no surprise. As an example, the Maryland-based biotech company Genex Corporation went from reporting $14.3 million in revenues in 1985, to a paltry $2.8 million in 1986 after they lost their aspartame business. Genex had been one of the main suppliers of aspartame up until October 1985, at which time the NutraSweet Company began manufacturing the chemical themselves.

Sold commercially under names like NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Equal-Measure and Canderel, aspartame can be found in more than 6,000 products, including:

  • Diet sodas, juice drinks, and flavored waters
  • Chewing gum
  • Table-top sweeteners
  • Diet and diabetic foods
  • Breakfast cereals, such as Fiber One
  • Fiber supplements, such as orange flavored Metamucil
  • Jams
  • Sweets

It’s even found in vitamins, as well as prescription and over the-counter drugs such as Alka Seltzer Plus, and some Tylenol medications.

Food For Thought

One 12 ounce diet soda contains about 180 mg of aspartame, or 15 mg of aspartame per ounce, which equals approximately 4.5 packets of NutraSweet.

According to the industry-run Aspartame Information Center website – a propaganda masterpiece, if I ever saw one -- the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), as set by the FDA, is 50 mg/kg. That equates to about 20 cans of 12-ounce diet soda if you’re a 150 lb. adult, or six 12-ounce cans for a 50-pound child.

The ADI for tabletop sweeteners is 97 packets for adults, and 32 packets for children.

Based on the photos from Mrs. Inness-Brown’s experiment, using the equivalent of two-thirds of the aspartame contained in one 8 ounce can of soda per day, these ADI’s do not appear to be anywhere near “safe” limits.

The Aspartame Information Center’s “myth” section goes on to make this statement:

“Despite the overwhelming documentation of aspartame’s safety, unfounded allegations that aspartame is associated with a myriad of ailments, including multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and lupus, have continued to be spread via the Internet and the media by a few individuals who have no documented scientific or medical expertise.

Recently, several governments and expert scientific committees (including the Scientific Committee on Food of the European Commission, the United Kingdom’s Food Standards Agency, the French Food Safety Agency and Health Canada) carefully evaluated the Internet allegations and found them to be false, reconfirming the safety of aspartame.”

Really, now…

Well, certain parts are partially true. For example, the Scientific Committee on Food of the European Commission did come out with a report named Update on the Safety of Aspartame in December of 2002, concluding aspartame was safe.

Whether or not the Committee could get an A for accuracy, attention and impartiality is debatable, however. This Independent Analysis of the EU report in question states:

“This response will demonstrate that:

1. Members of the European Commission Scientific Committee on Food have ethical and financial conflicts of interest with the food industry that should have disqualified them from participation on the Committee.

2. Members of the Scientific Committee on Food did not read some or most of the research papers they cited.

3. The report ignored independent research related to aspartame and instead relied heavily on and frequently cited articles in books and reviews put together by employees or consultants of the aspartame manufacturers (Monsanto and Ajinomoto).

4. Persons ingesting aspartame are being exposed to significant amounts of formaldehyde that has been shown by independent research to accumulate throughout the body.

5. Aspartame manufacturer-sponsored studies are designed in a way as to avoid the possibility of finding adverse effects, yet the Committee accepted these studies without any question. In contrast, nearly all independent research on aspartame in humans and animals has found that it can cause problems.

6. Human studies and clinical reports published in the medical literature linking aspartame use to fibromyalgia, seizures, panic attacks, mania, brain cancer, migraines / headaches, vertigo, symptoms related to depression, memory loss, hives, irregular heart beats, and numerous other symptoms were largely ignored by the Committee.”

The Aspartame Danger is NO MYTH!

Contrary to what the PR machine says, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that aspartame is exactly as dangerous as we say it is, and whenever you root around to see who gave aspartame its latest “clean bill of health,” invariably you will find ties to the industry.

By the Aspartame Information Center’s statement above, you’d be led to believe that Dr. Morando Soffritti of the European Foundation of Oncology in Bologna, Italy is a home schooled scientist with “no documented scientific or medical expertise” either.

But as Mrs. Inness-Brown details in her article, Dr. Soffritti’s 8-year mega-experiment with 1,800 rats, completed in 2005, is perhaps one of the most telling studies performed to date.

The results of his experiment also showed a dose-related increase of lymphomas and leukemias in female rats, observable at the dose level of 20 mg/Kg of body weight – just 40 percent of the accepted daily intake permitted by current regulations.

And what about the photos? Do they lie?

They show the visual manifestation of many of the common symptoms associated with aspartame, according to FDA’s own records, including:

  • Tumors
  • Eye problems, including: protruding eyes, retinal detachment, blindness and bleeding eyes
  • Partial paralysis
  • Spasmodic Torticollis (involuntary spasms in head and neck)
  • Unsteady gait
  • Skin problems and lesions
  • Obesity
  • Genetic damage and birth defects

I have a large assortment of information about aspartame -- its chemical makeup and biological impact – posted on my site. A good place to start is by reading the Related Articles listed below, or simply enter “aspartame” in the search box on my home page for more information.

How to Kick the Artificial Sweetener Habit

If you consume a lot of diet foods and beverages, it’s likely because you have sweet cravings (yet you think you are making a healthy choice by avoiding sugar).

Your body, however, is craving sweets because you are not giving it the fuel it needs. Finding out your nutritional type will tell you exactly which foods you need to eat to feel full and satisfied. It may sound hard to believe right now, but once you start eating right for your nutritional type, your sweet cravings will disappear.

Additionally, don’t underestimate the power of the emotional component of your food cravings. I recommend using an energy psychology tool such as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT). More than any traditional or alternative method I have used or researched, EFT works to overcome food cravings and helps you reach dietary success.

And, if diet soda is the culprit for you, be sure to check out Turbo Tapping, which is an extremely effective and simple tool to get rid of your soda addiction in a short period of time.

Last, but not least, neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D. also has a great web page describing what to do if you have used aspartame, with tips and directions for detoxing safely.

Related Articles:

Aspartame: Killing You By Degrees

Aspartame: What You Don't Know Can Hurt You

Articles on Aspartame

The Amazing Statistics and Dangers of Soda Pop

By Sally Squires

Americans drink more soda pop than ever before:

  • These popular beverages account for more than a quarter of all drinks consumed in the United States.

  • More than 15 billion gallons were sold in 2000.

  • That works out to at least one 12-ounce can per day for every man, woman and child.

Kids are heavy consumers of soft drinks, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and they are guzzling soda pop at unprecedented rates.

Carbonated soda pop provides more added sugar in a typical 2-year-old toddler's diet than cookies, candies and ice cream combined.

Fifty-six percent of 8-year-olds down soft drinks daily, and a third of teenage boys drink at least three cans of soda pop per day.

Not only are soft drinks widely available everywhere, from fast food restaurants to video stores, they're now sold in 60 percent of all public and private middle schools and high schools nationwide, according to the National Soft Drink Association. A few schools are even giving away soft drinks to students who buy school lunches.

As soda pop becomes the beverage of choice among the nation's young -- and as soda marketers focus on brand-building among younger and younger consumers -- public health officials, school boards, parents, consumer groups and even the soft drink industry are faced with nagging questions:

  • How healthful are these beverages, which provide a lot calories, sugars and caffeine but no significant nutritional value?

  • And what happens if you drink a lot of them at a very young age?

Last week, representatives of the soft drink industry, concerned that public opinion and public policy may turn against them, will staged a three-day "fly-in" to lobby Congress to maintain soft drinks sales in schools; and to educate lawmakers on the "proper perspective" on soft drink use.

The industry plans to counter a US Department of Agriculture proposal, announced in January, that would require all foods sold in schools to meet federal nutrition standards. That would mean that snack foods and soft drinks would have to meet the same standards as school lunches.

Nearly everyone by now has heard the litany on the presumed health effects of soft drinks:

  • Obesity
  • Tooth decay
  • Caffeine dependence
  • Weakened bones

But does drinking soda pop really cause those things?

To help separate fact from fiction, the Health section reviewed the latest scientific findings and asked an array of experts on both sides of the debate to weigh in on the topic. Be forewarned, however: Compared with the data available on tobacco and even dietary fat, the scientific evidence on soft drinks is less developed. The results can be a lot like soft drinks themselves, both sweet and sticky.


One very recent, independent, peer-reviewed study demonstrates a strong link between soda consumption and childhood obesity.

One previous industry-supported, unpublished study showed no link. Explanations of the mechanism by which soda may lead to obesity have not yet been proved, though the evidence for them is strong.

Many people have long assumed that soda -- high in calories and sugar, low in nutrients -- can make kids fat. But until this month there was no solid, scientific evidence demonstrating this.

Reporting in The Lancet, a British medical journal, a team of Harvard researchers presented the first evidence linking soft drink consumption to childhood obesity. They found that 12-year-olds who drank soft drinks regularly were more likely to be overweight than those who didn't.

For each additional daily serving of sugar-sweetened soft drink consumed during the nearly two-year study, the risk of obesity increased 1.6 times.

Obesity experts called the Harvard findings important and praised the study for being prospective. In other words, the Harvard researchers spent 19 months following the children, rather than capturing a snapshot of data from just one day. It's considered statistically more valuable to conduct a study over a long period of time.

Researchers found that schoolchildren who drank soft drinks consumed almost 200 more calories per day than their counterparts who didn't down soft drinks. That finding helps support the notion that we don't compensate well for calories in liquid form.

Tooth Decay

Here's one health effect that even the soft drink industry admits, grudgingly, has merit. In a carefully worded statement, the NSDA says that "there's no scientific evidence that consumption of sugars per se has any negative effect other than dental caries." But the association also correctly notes that soft drinks aren't the sole cause of tooth decay.

In fact, a lot of sugary foods, from fruit juices to candy and even raisins and other dried fruit, have what dentists refer to as "cariogenic properties," which is to say they can cause tooth decay.

Okay, so how many more cavities are soft drink consumers likely to get compared with people who don't drink soda? This is where it gets complicated.

A federally funded study of nearly 3,200 Americans 9 to 29 years old conducted between 1971 and 1974 showed a direct link between tooth decay and soft drinks. Numerous other studies have shown the same link throughout the world, from Sweden to Iraq.

But sugar isn't the only ingredient in soft drinks that causes tooth problems. The acids in soda pop are also notorious for etching tooth enamel in ways that can lead to cavities. "Acid begins to dissolve tooth enamel in only 20 minutes," notes the Ohio Dental Association in a release issued earlier this month.

Caffeine Dependence

The stimulant properties and dependence potential of caffeine in soda are well documented, as are their effects on children.

Ever tried going without your usual cup of java on the weekend? If so, you may have experienced a splitting headache, a slight rise in blood pressure, irritability and maybe even some stomach problems.

These well-documented symptoms describe the typical withdrawal process suffered by about half of regular caffeine consumers who go without their usual dose.

The soft drink industry agrees that caffeine causes the same effects in children as adults, but officials also note that there is wide variation in how people respond to caffeine. The simple solution, the industry says, is to choose a soda pop that is caffeine-free. All big soda makers offer products with either low or no caffeine.

That may be a good idea, though it raises the question of whether soda machines in schools should be permitted to offer caffeinated beverages or at least be obligated to offer a significant proportion of caffeine-free products.

It also raises the question of how one determines a product's caffeine content. Nutrition labels are not required to divulge that information. If a beverage contains caffeine, it must be included in the ingredient list, but there's no way to tell how much a beverage has, and there's little logic or predictability to the way caffeine is deployed throughout a product line.

Okay, so most enlightened consumers already know that colas contain a fair amount of caffeine. It turns out to be 35 to 38 milligrams per 12-ounce can, or roughly 28 percent of the amount found in an 8-ounce cup of coffee. But few know that diet colas -- usually chosen by those who are trying to dodge calories and/or sugar -- often pack a lot more caffeine.

A 12-ounce can of Diet Coke, for example, has about 42 milligrams of caffeine -- seven more than the same amount of Coke Classic. A can of Pepsi One has about 56 milligrams of caffeine -- 18 milligrams more than both regular Pepsi and Diet Pepsi.

Even harder to figure out is the caffeine distribution in other flavors of soda pop. Many brands of root beer contain no caffeine. An exception is Barq's, made by the Coca-Cola Co., which has has 23 milligrams per 12-ounce can. Sprite, 7-Up and ginger ale are caffeine-free. But Mountain Dew, the curiously named Mello Yellow, Sun Drop Regular, Jolt and diet as well as regular Sunkist orange soda all pack caffeine.

Caffeine occurs naturally in kola nuts, an ingredient of cola soft drinks. But why is this drug, which is known to create physical dependence, added to other soft drinks?

The industry line is that small amounts are added for taste, not for the drug's power to sustain demand for the products that contain it. Caffeine's bitter taste, they say, enhances other flavors. "It has been a part of almost every cola -- and pepper-type beverage -- since they were first formulated more than 100 years ago," according to the National Soft Drink Association.

But recent blind taste tests conducted by Roland Griffiths at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions in Baltimore found that only 8 percent of regular soft drink consumers could identify the difference between regular and caffeine-free soft drinks.

The study included only subjects who reported that they drank soft drinks mainly for their caffeine content. In other words, more than 90 percent of the self-diagnosed caffeine cravers in this small sample could not detect the presence of caffeine.

That's why the great popularity of caffeinated soft drinks is driven not so much by subtle taste effects as by the mood-altering and physical dependence of caffeine that drives the daily self-administration.

And the unknown could be especially troublesome for the developing brains of children and adolescents. Logic dictates that when you are dependent on a drug, you are really upsetting the normal balances of neurochemistry in the brain. The fact that kids have withdrawal signs and symptoms when the caffeine is stopped is a good indication that something has been profoundly disturbed in the brain.

Exactly where that leads is anybody's guess -- which is to say there is little good research on the effects of caffeine on kids' developing brains.

Bone Weakening

Animal studies demonstrate that phosphorus, a common ingredient in soda, can deplete bones of calcium.

And two recent human studies suggest that girls who drink more soda are more prone to broken bones. The industry denies that soda plays a role in bone weakening.

Animal studies -- mostly involving rats -- point to clear and consistent bone loss with the use of cola beverages. But as scientists like to point out, humans and rats are not exactly the same.

Even so, there's been concern among the research community, public health officials and government agencies over the high phosphorus content in the US diet. Phosphorus -- which occurs naturally in some foods and is used as an additive in many others -- appears to weaken bones by promoting the loss of calcium. With less calcium available, the bones become more porous and prone to fracture.

The soft drink industry argues that the phosphoric acid in soda pop contributes only about 2 percent of the phosphorus in the typical US diet, with a 12-ounce can of soda pop averaging about 30 milligrams.

There's growing concern that even a few cans of soda today can be damaging when they are consumed during the peak bone-building years of childhood and adolescence. A 1996 study published in the Journal of Nutrition by the FDA's Office of Special Nutritionals noted that a pattern of high phosphorus/low calcium consumption, common in the American diet, is not conducive to optimizing peak bone mass in young women.

A 1994 Harvard study of bone fractures in teenage athletes found a strong association between cola beverage consumption and bone fractures in 14-year-old girls. The girls who drank cola were about five times more likely to suffer bone fractures than girls who didn't consume soda pop.

Besides, to many researchers, the combination of rising obesity and bone weakening has the potential to synergistically undermine future health. Adolescents and kids don't think long-term. But what happens when these soft-drinking people become young or middle-aged adults and they have osteoporosis, sedentary living and obesity?

By that time, switching to water, milk or fruit juice may be too little, too late.

Washington Post February 27, 2001; Page HE10