One Woman's Astonishing Experiment With Aspartame

ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS CAUSE CANCER.


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.

Sources:

• My Aspartame Experiment

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.

Obesity

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

Sugar and Cancer

Originally printed by The Alternative Research Foundation

It puzzles me why the simple concept "sugar feeds cancer" can be so dramatically overlooked as part of a comprehensive cancer treatment plan.

Of the 4 million cancer patients being treated in America today, hardly any are offered any scientifically guided nutrition therapy beyond being told to "just eat good foods." Most patients I work with arrive with a complete lack of nutritional advice.

I believe many cancer patients would have a major improvement in their outcome if they controlled the supply of cancer's preferred fuel, glucose.

By slowing the cancer's growth, patients allow their immune systems and medical debulking therapies -- chemotherapy, radiation and surgery to reduce the bulk of the tumor mass -- to catch up to the disease.

Controlling one's blood-glucose levels through diet, supplements, exercise, meditation and prescription drugs when necessary can be one of the most crucial components to a cancer recovery program. The sound bite -- sugar feeds cancer -- is simple. The explanation is a little more complex.

The 1931 Nobel laureate in medicine, German Otto Warburg, Ph.D., first discovered that cancer cells have a fundamentally different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells.

The crux of his Nobel thesis was that malignant tumors frequently exhibit an increase in anaerobic glycolysis -- a process whereby glucose is used as a fuel by cancer cells with lactic acid as an anaerobic byproduct -- compared to normal tissues.

The large amount of lactic acid produced by this fermentation of glucose from cancer cells is then transported to the liver. This conversion of glucose to lactate generates a lower, more acidic pH in cancerous tissues as well as overall physical fatigue from lactic acid buildup. Thus, larger tumors tend to exhibit a more acidic pH.

This inefficient pathway for energy metabolism yields only 2 moles of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) energy per mole of glucose, compared to 38 moles of ATP in the complete aerobic oxidation of glucose.

By extracting only about 5 percent (2 vs. 38 moles of ATP) of the available energy in the food supply and the body's calorie stores, the cancer is "wasting" energy, and the patient becomes tired and undernourished. This vicious cycle increases body wasting.

It is one reason why 40 percent of cancer patients die from malnutrition, or cachexia. Hence, cancer therapies should encompass regulating blood-glucose levels via diet, supplements, non-oral solutions for cachectic patients who lose their appetite, medication, exercise, gradual weight loss and stress reduction. Professional guidance and patient self-discipline are crucial at this point in the cancer process. The quest is not to eliminate sugars or carbohydrates from the diet but rather to control blood glucose within a narrow range to help starve the cancer and bolster immune function.

The glycemic index is a measure of how a given food affects blood-glucose levels, with each food assigned a numbered rating. The lower the rating, the slower the digestion and absorption process, which provides a healthier, more gradual infusion of sugars into the bloodstream.

Conversely, a high rating means blood-glucose levels are increased quickly, which stimulates the pancreas to secrete insulin to drop blood-sugar levels. This rapid fluctuation of blood-sugar levels is unhealthy because of the stress it places on the body

Sugar in the Body and Diet

Sugar is a generic term used to identify simple carbohydrates, which includes monosaccharides such as fructose, glucose and galactose; and disaccharides such as maltose and sucrose (white table sugar). Think of these sugars as different-shaped bricks in a wall.

When fructose is the primary monosaccharide brick in the wall, the glycemic index registers as healthier, since this simple sugar is slowly absorbed in the gut, then converted to glucose in the liver. This makes for "time-release foods," which offer a more gradual rise and fall in blood-glucose levels.

If glucose is the primary monosaccharide brick in the wall, the glycemic index will be higher and less healthy for the individual. As the brick wall is torn apart in digestion, the glucose is pumped across the intestinal wall directly into the bloodstream, rapidly raising blood-glucose levels.

In other words, there is a "window of efficacy" for glucose in the blood: levels too low make one feel lethargic and can create clinical hypoglycemia; levels too high start creating the rippling effect of diabetic health problems.

The 1997 American Diabetes Association blood-glucose standards consider 126 mg glucose/dL blood or greater to be diabetic; 111 to 125 mg/dL is impaired glucose tolerance and less than 110 mg/dL is considered normal.

Meanwhile, the Paleolithic diet of our ancestors, which consisted of lean meats, vegetables and small amounts of whole grains, nuts, seeds and fruits, is estimated to have generated blood glucose levels between 60 and 90 mg/dL.

Obviously, today's high-sugar diets are having unhealthy effects as far as blood-sugar is concerned. Excess blood glucose may initiate yeast overgrowth, blood vessel deterioration, heart disease and other health conditions.

Understanding and using the glycemic index is an important aspect of diet modification for cancer patients. However, there is also evidence that sugars may feed cancer more efficiently than starches (comprised of long chains of simple sugars), making the index slightly misleading. A study of rats fed diets with equal calories from sugars and starches, for example, found the animals on the high-sugar diet developed more cases of breast cancer.

The glycemic index is a useful tool in guiding the cancer patient toward a healthier diet, but it is not infallible. By using the glycemic index alone, one could be led to thinking a cup of white sugar is healthier than a baked potato.

This is because the glycemic index rating of a sugary food may be lower than that of a starchy food. To be safe, I recommend less fruit, more vegetables, and little to no refined sugars in the diet of cancer patients.

What the Literature Says

A mouse model of human breast cancer demonstrated that tumors are sensitive to blood-glucose levels. Sixty-eight mice were injected with an aggressive strain of breast cancer, then fed diets to induce either high blood-sugar (hyperglycemia), normoglycemia or low blood-sugar (hypoglycemia).

There was a dose-dependent response in which the lower the blood glucose, the greater the survival rate. After 70 days, 8 of 24 hyperglycemic mice survived compared to 16 of 24 normoglycemic and 19 of 20 hypoglycemic.

This suggests that regulating sugar intake is key to slowing breast tumor growth.

In a human study, 10 healthy people were assessed for fasting blood-glucose levels and the phagocytic index of neutrophils, which measures immune-cell ability to envelop and destroy invaders such as cancer. Eating 100 g carbohydrates from glucose, sucrose, honey and orange juice all significantly decreased the capacity of neutrophils to engulf bacteria. Starch did not have this effect.

A four-year study at the National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection in the Netherlands compared 111 biliary tract cancer patients with 480 controls. Cancer risk associated with the intake of sugars, independent of other energy sources, more than doubled for the cancer patients.

Furthermore, an epidemiological study in 21 modern countries that keep track of morbidity and mortality (Europe, North America, Japan and others) revealed that sugar intake is a strong risk factor that contributes to higher breast cancer rates, particularly in older women.

Limiting sugar consumption may not be the only line of defense. In fact, an interesting botanical extract from the avocado plant (Persea americana) is showing promise as a new cancer adjunct.

When a purified avocado extract called mannoheptulose was added to a number of tumor cell lines tested in vitro by researchers in the Department of Biochemistry at Oxford University in Britain, they found it inhibited tumor cell glucose uptake by 25 to 75 percent, and it inhibited the enzyme glucokinase responsible for glycolysis. It also inhibited the growth rate of the cultured tumor cell lines.

The same researchers gave lab animals a 1.7 mg/g body weight dose of mannoheptulose for five days; it reduced tumors by 65 to 79 percent. Based on these studies, there is good reason to believe that avocado extract could help cancer patients by limiting glucose to the tumor cells.

Since cancer cells derive most of their energy from anaerobic glycolysis, Joseph Gold, M.D., director of the Syracuse (N.Y.) Cancer Research Institute and former U.S. Air Force research physician, surmised that a chemical called hydrazine sulfate, used in rocket fuel, could inhibit the excessive gluconeogenesis (making sugar from amino acids) that occurs in cachectic cancer patients.

Gold's work demonstrated hydrazine sulfate's ability to slow and reverse cachexia in advanced cancer patients. A placebo-controlled trial followed 101 cancer patients taking either 6 mg hydrazine sulfate three times/day or placebo. After one month, 83 percent of hydrazine sulfate patients increased their weight, compared to 53 percent on placebo.

A similar study by the same principal researchers, partly funded by the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., followed 65 patients. Those who took hydrazine sulfate and were in good physical condition before the study began lived an average of 17 weeks longer.

The medical establishment may be missing the connection between sugar and its role in tumorigenesis. Consider the million-dollar positive emission tomography device, or PET scan, regarded as one of the ultimate cancer-detection tools. PET scans use radioactively labeled glucose to detect sugar-hungry tumor cells. PET scans are used to plot the progress of cancer patients and to assess whether present protocols are effective.

In Europe, the "sugar feeds cancer" concept is so well accepted that oncologists, or cancer doctors, use the Systemic Cancer Multistep Therapy (SCMT) protocol. Conceived by Manfred von Ardenne in Germany in 1965, SCMT entails injecting patients with glucose to increase blood-glucose concentrations.

This lowers pH values in cancer tissues via lactic acid formation. In turn, this intensifies the thermal sensitivity of the malignant tumors and also induces rapid growth of the cancer. Patients are then given whole-body hyperthermia (42 C core temperature) to further stress the cancer cells, followed by chemotherapy or radiation.

SCMT was tested on 103 patients with metastasized cancer or recurrent primary tumors in a clinical phase-I study at the Von Ardenne Institute of Applied Medical Research in Dresden, Germany. Five-year survival rates in SCMT-treated patients increased by 25 to 50 percent, and the complete rate of tumor regression increased by 30 to 50 percent.

The protocol induces rapid growth of the cancer, then treats the tumor with toxic therapies for a dramatic improvement in outcome.

The irrefutable role of glucose in the growth and metastasis of cancer cells can enhance many therapies. Some of these include diets designed with the glycemic index in mind to regulate increases in blood glucose, hence selectively starving the cancer cells; low-glucose TPN solutions; avocado extract to inhibit glucose uptake in cancer cells; hydrazine sulfate to inhibit gluconeogenesis in cancer cells; and SCMT.

A female patient in her 50s, with lung cancer, came to our clinic, having been given a death sentence by her Florida oncologist. She was cooperative and understood the connection between nutrition and cancer. She changed her diet considerably, leaving out 90 percent of the sugar she used to eat.

She found that wheat bread and oat cereal now had their own wild sweetness, even without added sugar.

With appropriately restrained medical therapy -- including high-dose radiation targeted to tumor sites and fractionated chemotherapy, a technique that distributes the normal one large weekly chemo dose into a 60-hour infusion lasting days -- a good attitude and an optimal nutrition program which included Sam's formula nine times/day, she beat her terminal lung cancer.

I saw her last month, five years later and still disease-free, probably looking better than the doctor who told her there was no hope.

Pepsi's "Aquafina" Bottled Water, is Tap Water

Drink ONLY high quality DISTILLED WATER.  Everything else creates or feeds cancer. Sugar water (soda), diet or regular, will kill you.  Stop poisoning your body.


PepsiCo Inc. has agreed to add the words “public water source” to their Aquafina water labels.

Pepsi’s Aquafina, and Coca-Cola Co.’s Dasani bottled waters, are both made of purified water from public reservoirs. Coca-Cola will post online consumer information about the quality control testing that goes into their bottled water, sometime near the end of summer, or early fall 2007.

Critics against the bottled water industry point out that they add plastic to landfills, use enormous amounts of energy and gas by producing and shipping bottles across the globe, and undermine public confidence in the safety of public water supplies.

Some cities have already taken proactive steps in trying to curb bottled water consumption. The mayor of San Francisco has banned city employees from using city funds to buy bottled water if tap water is available, and Ann Arbor, Michigan has passed a resolution banning commercially bottled water at city events.

Sun Sentinel July 27, 2007

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

The United States sold 2.6 billion cases of bottled water in 2006, according to Beverage Digest, which equates to U.S. consumers spending about $15 billion on bottled water in one year. Worldwide sales top out at more than $35 billion. That’s not chump change!  Drinking pure water is one of the most important things you can do for your health, particularly when you drink it instead of sugary drinks like soda or juice. However, relying on bottled water to keep you hydrated is not the best answer. You may be paying premium prices for bottled water, thinking it’s more pure than your local water supply. But the toll this takes on the environment, not to mention your pocketbook, is enormous. The Questionable Safety of Bottled Water The fact that water is bottled is NOT an assurance of purity. In fact, about 40 percent of bottled water is regular tap water, which may or may not have received any additional treatment. The metal antimony (a silvery white metal of medium hardness) has been found in many commercially bottled water brands, for example. The amount of antimony leeching into the water you're drinking depends on the manufacturer, and can vary greatly. One study that looked at 63 brands of bottled water produced in Europe and Canada, found concentrations of antimony that were more than 100 times the typical level found in clean groundwater (2 parts per trillion). It also found that the longer a bottle of water sits on a shelf -- in a grocery store or your refrigerator – the greater the dose of antimony present. After letting bottled water samples sit for six months on a shelf at normal room temperatures, the concentration of antimony exploded by 90 percent among European brands, and 19 percent in Canadian brands. The common denominator? The biggest offenders were packaged in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) containers. It is believed that the amount of antimony leeching from these PET bottles differs based on exposure to sunlight, higher temperatures, and varying pH levels. Most municipal tap water -- though generally far from pure -- must also adhere to stricter purity standards than the bottled water industry. In one study, a third of more than 100 bottled water brands tested for contaminants were found to contain chemicals like arsenic and carcinogenic compounds, at levels exceeding state or industry standards. Additionally, fluoride (a highly toxic bone poison that should be avoided at all costs) is usually present in both tap water AND filtered bottled water. Even MORE Important Reasons to Avoid Bottled Water The burden of all these plastic bottles on the environment cannot be ignored. They mount up in landfills, litter the streets and highways, and collect in huge sludge-like stews in seas, rivers and oceans worldwide, killing wildlife wherever it is found. And if it kills wildlife you can be rest assured there will be potential future problems for you and your descendants. Plastic pollution has even entered the food chain, and it's not just marine animals that are being affected. You, too, are ingesting minute levels of plastics every day, which means you're exposed to a potentially deadly mix of plastic chemicals and additives, including: Cancer-causing PFOAs PBDEs, which cause reproductive problems The reproductive toxins, phthalates BPA, which disrupts the endocrine system by mimicking the female hormone estrogen What is the result of breathing, eating, drinking and absorbing all of this plastic? Obesity, declining fertility rates and other reproductive problems, cancer and more. Children are particularly vulnerable, as they are exposed to plastics in the hospital, and through baby bottles and toys, from the moment they’re born. Your Healthiest Options Your best bet for ensuring good health, and protecting the environment, is to filter your own water at home using a reverse osmosis filter. Avoid drinking unfiltered tap water, as chlorine and fluoride (which are added to most municipal water supplies) are toxic chemicals that should not be consumed in large quantities. Do not make the mistake of thinking you can tell if your water is safe or not by the way it looks, tastes, or smells. Some contaminants in water are so harmful they’re measured in “parts per million,” or “parts per billion.” This means that just a drop of these poisons added to several gallons of water can be harmful to your health. Keep in mind also that installing a filter to purify your drinking water alone may not be enough. Since your skin absorbs both water and chemicals, you could still be exposing yourself to contaminations when you: Shower or bathe Wash your hands Wash laundry Rinse fruits and vegetables Wash dishes, glasses, and other utensils You can further limit your exposure to these dangerous plastic (and other) chemicals by filtering all of the water you and your family use on a daily basis. I have been working on coming up with some solid recommendations for specific filtration systems for the past seven years. I continue to do research. There are many great options out there but I am looking for the best value, and highest quality, which provides an enormous challenge. I honestly believe I am getting closer, as I finally located a major element of the equation last week and I am hopeful to provide a GREAT solution by year's end. In the meantime, PLEASE avoid bottled water for all the reasons described above. Clearly the best long term option for you and the planet is to effectively filter your water.

Question Your Reality - pass along to everyone!

http://www.myspace.com/rebelsofamericaofficial


Question Your Reality

Whether you love him or hate him, no one can deny Alex Jones' tireless passion for finding the truth and getting that truth out to the people. This short video is an edited version of Alex's 60-minute TV show from February 11th 2008 (his birthday!). Alex urges us to question our reality and do our own research instead of allowing our minds to be spoon-fed by the corporate mainstream media.



I like the way Alex is able to express his sheer outrage towards what the elite are doing, and yet he still manages to inject some humour and zany-ness into what he's saying. I think this helps to lighten the tone and take some of the edge off the subject matter... which, let's face it, is quite disturbing.

In this vid, Alex discusses the dangers of fluoride in our drinking water, and how it is responsible for a host of different medical problems - including cancer, brittle bone disease, immune deficiency, mental sedation, and even reduced IQ. This has all been known to the powers-that-be since the 1920's.

Despite the fact that fluoride has been shown to have no effect whatsoever in reducing dental problems, the powers-that-be insist on putting it in our tap water. Fluoride is a toxic industrial bi-product from the aluminium industry. It is classified as hazardous waste. Consumption of fluoride - even in tiny amounts - is extremely harmful to the body. This is established medical fact. One of the first uses for fluoride was in the 1930's and 1940's when fluoridated water was given to prisoners of Nazi concentration camps to cloud their thinking ability and weaken their mental resolve. This very same tactic is now being used on us, by our very own leaders, to the extent where many people are incapable of thinking outside the box.

All of the studies in every state and every country show that fluoride does NOT improve the state of your teeth or gums. And even if it did help in any way, why does this highly toxic substance have to be put in our drinking water? Think about it. There's only one logical reason to put it in our water -- the elite are using fluoride as one of their many tools to assault our body and mind for their own gain. We are nothing more than battery cells to them.

We are just programmable, income-generating, tax-paying consumers. They extract money from our labour, our sweat-equity, and they use that money to build the prison walls around us so they can control us even more. If they had their way, we'd all be nothing more than robots who do as we're told and never complain. The last thing they want is an informed, active and closely-knit society of people who have the brains, the heart, the courage, and the will to change the status quo. Therefore they use every tool at their disposal to keep us all in a perpetual dumbed-down, distracted and submissive state. The elite are the only ones who gain from this, not us! We should all stop squabbling amongst ourselves and instead focus our attention on the puppets and their masters who profit from all the things that make us angry.

Stop getting all your info from the mainstream media - do your own news gathering from many independent sources. Only then can you confidently say that you know what's going on in the world. It is time to break out of your conditioning and express your true individuality.

The information in this video is plain fact. It contains no swear words, no profanities, no racial hatred or religious intolerance, and no porn. So if YouTube removes this video, they will only be proving that they are part of the oligarchy that wants to keep us all dumbed down. Over the last few months, a lot of truth-seekers have had their channels suspended for no apparent reason, and I am sure that this channel is next on their list. I thought we had got rid of fascism when Hitler was ousted from power. Well, it just proves how wrong you can be!

Anyway, over the last few weeks I've been really busy working on my new website, plus I've been working on Part 20 of 9/11 Coincidences. I'm planning to upload all of my vids to my new site so that you can download them and share them around.

Rebels of America Blogspot
http://www.myspace.com/rebelsofamericaofficial

Red Pill Reich: What Chemtrails Really Are And Their Impact On Health

Red Pill Reich

What Chemtrails Really Are And Their Impact On Health

Posted: 01 Mar 2008 12:56 PM CST

This is a very informative article on chemtrails, which weaken the immune system, leading to a variety of health problems discussed below.

I am taking Modifilan to help get the heavy metals out. You also may want to look into chemtrail tower busters to help clear the skies over your home.

Go here to see videos of chemtrails. If you're not sure how to distinguish between chemtrails and normal jet contrails, watch this video.

What Chemtrails Really Are
By Carolyn Williams Palit

"The United States does not torture." --President George W. Bush

We are dealing with Star Wars. It involves the combination of chemtrails for creating an atmosphere that will support electromagnetic waves, ground-based, electromagnetic field oscillators called gyrotrons, and ionospheric heaters. Particulates make directed energy weapons work better. It has to do with "steady state" and particle density for plasma beam propagation.

They spray barium powders and let it photo-ionize from the ultraviolet light of the sun. Then, they make an aluminum-plasma generated by "zapping" the metal cations that are in the spray with either electromagnetics from HAARP, the gyrotron system on the ground [Ground Wave Emergency Network], or space-based lasers. The barium makes the aluminum-plasma more particulate dense. This means they can make a denser plasma than they normally could from just ionizing the atmosphere or the air.

More density [more particles] means that these particles which are colliding into each other will become more charged because there are more of them present to collide. What are they ultimately trying to do up there -- is create charged-particle, plasma beam weapons.
Chemtrails are the medium - GWEN pulse radars, the various HAARPs, and space-based lasers are the method, or more simply:

Chemtrails are the medium -- directed energy is the method.

Spray and Zap.

This system appears to be in Russia, Canada, the United States, and all of Europe. Exotic weapons can be mobile, stationary, land-based, aerial, or satellite.

It is an offensive and defensive system against EM attacks and missiles. It uses ionospheric particle shells as defense mechanisms [like a bug-zapper shell]* against missiles and EM attacks. That means they spray and then pump up the spray with electromagnetics. When these shells are created using the oscillating, electromagnetic, gyrotron stations, it "excludes" and displaces the background magnetic field. These shells can be layered one above another in a canopy fashion for extra protection from missiles. The chemtrail sprays have various elements in them like carbon which can used to absorb microwaves. Some of these sprays have metal flakes in them that make aerial craft invisible to radar. Spoofer sprays. Sprays like these can be used to create colorful, magnetized plasmas to cloak fighter jets.

There are satellite weapons involved. Activists are using meters and are getting readings of microwaves, x-rays, and some other kind of emission that they are not sure of, maybe a low-intensity laser.

They are also photographing gas plasma generation due to the heating of chemtrails by electromagnetics. The technical names for vertical and horizontal plasma columns are columnar focal lenses and horizontal drift plasma antennas. Various size of gas plasma orbs are associated with this technology. These orbs can be used as transmitters and receivers because they have great, refractory and optical properties. They also are capable of transmitting digital or analog sound. Barium, in fact, is very refractive -- more refractive than glass.

What does that mean? Someone or someones are very involved in unconstitutional, domestic spying and the entrained plasma orbs carried on electromagnetic beams can be used for mind control programming. The satellites can be programmed to track and monitor various frequencies on different parts of your body. These electromagnetic beams carrying the gas plasma orbs stick due to magnetic polarity and frequency mapping and tracking to people's eyes, ears, temples, and private parts. A beam with entrained orbs carries pictures in each orb just like the different frames in a movie. It is a particle beam that is also a frequency weapon.

The satellites download holographic mind control movies, pictures, sounds, and sensations to people through this technology. The Air Force has stated in "Air Force 2025" that their goal is to develop virtual and augmented reality mind control. Depending on the how the computer is programmed or depending on the mood or intent of the person interfacing with the technology, you can be probed, bothered, gaslighted, frightened, manipulated, electronically raped, or tortured. It scans your brain frequencies and deciphers your thoughts. The satellites track you by mapping your bioenergetic signature [body biometrics] and constantly scanning an area to find you.

We are the lab rats for this technology and something is very wrong in the military or intelligence branches somewhere. Because developmental projects in government and military are often so compartmentalized, I suppose someone could be using and developing this technology secretly and without authorization. Then again, behavioral and mind control programs were an authorized policy under MKULTRA. Our country has a history of experimenting on its citizens. We are talking about satellite charged-particle frequency weapons attacking a person 24 hours a day. Psychotronic weapons are considered weapons of mass destruction by the U.N.

"HAARPs" can create earthquakes and can also x-ray the earth to find underground military bases, gold, or oil reserves. These ionospheric heaters can also operate as an over-the-horizon or under-the-ocean communications system. This system can control the weather or create disasters. Taken together with the aurora keyhole through-your- roof satellite surveillance system, Echelon electronic computer/phone sweeps, plasma-cloaked DOD Drug War helicopters and stealths, implants, and cameras on the street, it constitutes one, big global and space control grid.

These weapons involve beams. Two beams overlapped will couple into a particle-ion beam that will bounce off of a remote target and send a holographic image back to the satellite for remote spying operations. When you cross two strong beams, you can supposedly* create scalar energies. These energies can be used as untraceable weapons for nuclear size explosions or for defense. These crossed-energies can be used to cause a person's physical electrical system to fail or with a lower frequency, administer a kind of remote electro-shock. Visualize touching a positive and negative electric cable to each other on top of your head. Scalar energies can be utilized in hand-held military guns and on tanks. They can dud-out electronics or cause large, electrical blackouts. Scalar energies are practically impossible to shield against. You need lead, ceramics, and a deep underground facility to not be affected by these weapons. Or, you need to be up and above the field of battle.

People who are working on these issues hear tones and hums. If you hear persistent tones and static; have body vibrations, burning sensations, "bangs" to the head, neurological damage, or immune system damage; are hearing electronic voices or hearing the sound of a plasma; suffering from pains deep in your organs or constant headaches; or experiencing other anomalous activity then you may be being targeted by directed energy, mind control weapons. These weapons could be on helicopters, jets, stealth fighters, or on satellites. Directed energy beams and electromagnetic waves can be sent to you via hand-held devices or piggy-backed in on cell phone and satellite towers.

Is it possible that someone(s) are very afraid of coming famines and riots due to the ongoing, man-induced failure of the ecological system, and they are saturating the earth with chemtrails for large- scale, gas plasma mind control? Is this the last grasp for the world's resources? Or, are they just control freaks and money mongers? Someone would like to get to that oil under the melting [due to chemtrail-trapped EM heat] Artic. And, I guess the Third World is not a part of this system. I don't think that the developed nations are going to let them in on this either.

Any country that joins this NATO system will become mind-controlled and diseased due to the associated, intense, oscillating, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic soup, and the poisonous, toxic chemtrails. Our DNA will break. We risk the earth's spin and tilt becoming messed up due to mucking around with the magnetic fields through this military technology. Maybe, it is already messed up.

It constitutes U.S. global domination via NATO and the erosion of civil rights. According to Charlotte Iserbyt and Al Martin, there are ex-KGB and ex-STASI advising our new Office of Total Information Awareness. They are the ones creating our new internal passports [national ID]. And under "The Treaty on Open Skies," we have overflights by Russian and German military. Who exactly is flying those plasma-cloaked craft that are seen all over this country and mistaken for UFOs by people who do not know about this aerial deception technology? Obviously, we have another "Project Paperclip" in the making. We can add the new thugs to the 2,000 Iraqi brought into country by Daddy Bush who are now living in Nebraska.

The elitist corporate government is going to hold the rest of us hostage with directed energy weapons in space, if the Policy for a New American Century group - PNAC - Bush and cronie think tank has their way, along with directed energy attacks against any country or citizen that they decide they do not like. These weapons can create climate war, weather war, mind war, cyber war, disease war, disaster war, and undetectable war. Taken together they can create economic war.

If this system is not stopped, it will kill billions due to aluminum and barium poisoning. It will kill billions due to crop failures and world-wide famine. It will cause heart attacks, strokes, and cancers. It will cause stillbirths, miscarriages, and infertility. The chemtrail sprays often have fungi, bacteria, viruses, dessicated red blood cells, crystalline substances, carbon, metal cations, lithium, other chemicals, heavy metals, and God knows what - probably smart dust, or nanocrap. Years of biowarfare testing on the American public is no big secret anymore. Spraying germs in the sky where they mutate due to the ultra-violet light -- brillant plan, my man. Are we acceptable losses or is this by design?

I know that many of the major players have big investments in pharmaceutical companies, GM seeds [seeds that can grow in an electromagnetic soup], weapons and directed energy development contracts, oil contracts, genetic research, and mind control research. Some of these people have had a familial history of financial and policy support for population control, eugenics, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Pinochet, Hussein, and various other dictators. Some of the major players were the masterminds of the death squads in Central and South America. They stand to make a big profit on our death and disease. Just take a look at Rumsfield and Tamiflu.

I assume that they know the dangers of this system and that they take care to stay in their shielded, air-filtered offices, homes, bases, and cars. I assume they take chelating substances to remove the barium and aluminum from their bodies and minds. If not, then they really do not understand the far-ranging implications of this destructive system. Congress may not understand just what a terrible weapons system and control grid they are funding.

As I understand it, Tesla towers attached to deep-earth, free-energy taps are to be created over the 10-12 magnetic poles and the GWEN system phased-out. Has this already been done? This should allow total control of the earth through giant, Tesla death ray-guns. This natural, electromagnetic earth was not meant to be an un-natural dynamo to power man's weapons or his utility companies.

Over-unity systems [Tesla devices]* are as of yet, another unexplored and probably not understood man-made energy. We should be very suspect of free energy. As we can see, the forms of man-made energy that have been created and used in the past have not been good for this planet. Maybe it is time to reconsider the options available to us through the development of crops for fuel, wind, solar, and water power. We need world-wide, different, more holistic, renewable, energy programs.

Is there any good news? Yes. There has been tons of particulate dumping through the spray operations for 8 years over the Americas, Europe, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, and from what I can find out, over Russia. And, what goes around blows around, right? So, these substances are probably actually global. It sure makes a ton of sense to spray poisonous elements in 24 NATO countries and let the substances be carried around the earth on the jet streams to poison yourself, your enemies, and all neutral and non-combatent countries. Talk about making more enemies.

The water, air, and soil of all of these countries is so saturated with metal cations that these weapons freaks should be able to zap and mind f--k each other quite well now and as often as they wish. Once they have clobbered each other with light-saber beams for a few years and razed and scorched sections of the earth, they may start to realize that this foreign policy will lead to a defective human race and a rotten economy.

Do you think they will have knocked some sense into each other by then and will decide that non-proliferation and arms reduction is the more civilized and mature direction to take in world affairs? I doubt it, cause only idiots would have developed horrific, planet-killer weapons like these. But, I'll bet the rest of the planet will finally rise up and tell these juvenile delinquents to quit playing with those rayguns right this second.

After further thought on Bearden + -- a big over-unity and free energy proponent of Tesla technology that makes energy off of boiling the ionosphere or stealing electricity from the mis-named "vacumn" called Life, I have decided that Bearden is telling us some, if not most, of the truth. Same for Eastlund.

http://www.rense.com/general79/chem.htm

Olivia L. Worthy

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

We Can't Make It Here Anymore