Jun 5, 2009

CHAPTER 15-The "Dirty Dozen"

The last couple of chapters have dealt with which foods and
supplements you should consume. Now for the items you should
avoid. I have labeled this chapter “The Dirty Dozen” because it
details 12 foods/toxins which can pose serious health problems if
consumed or ingested regularly. Actually, a few of them can cause
serious problems if only consumed/ingested even occasionally. Is it
possible to eliminate these substances completely? Probably not, but
at least you will be aware of which ones are the worst, since food
and toxins are integral components of the cancer equation. As a
matter of fact, a recent report by the Columbia University School of
Public Health estimated that 95% of cancer is caused by diet and
environmental toxicity. These statistics are staggering, if you really
think about them!
Here are a few more startling statistics:
􀂾 There are over 80,000 chemicals produced in North America
􀂾 There are over 3,000 chemicals added to our food supply
􀂾 There are over 10,000 chemical solvents, emulsifiers, and
preservatives used in food processing
􀂾 There are over 1,000 new chemicals introduced each year
“When you see the golden arches, you are probably on
your way to the pearly gates.” Dr. William Castelli
Chapter 15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
This chapter is a veritable “buffet” of foods, toxins, and poisons to
avoid like the plague if you have cancer! The first section is entitled
“Franken-Foods” and the last section is entitled “Terrible Toxins.”
This section is entitled “Franken-Foods” because, if you will notice,
all of the foods have been altered from their natural state or they
contain ingredients which have been altered. The 5 foods/food
ingredients in this section not only have little nutritional value, but
they also give your body a healthy (or is it “unhealthy”) dose of
carcinogenic toxins, which should make the idea of eating them
really “hard to swallow.”
“Fake-Fats” (Trans-fats & Hydrogenated Oils)
“Trans-fats” are manufactured fats, produced by pushing hydrogen
into vegetable oils to produce a solid fat, hence they are also called
“hydrogenated” or “partially hydrogenated” oils. Trans-fats are in
fried foods, margarines, and baked goods, packaged snacks, cookies,
pie crusts, and donuts. Even “healthy” low-fat muffins and cereals
may contain trans-fats. Trouble is, trans-fats are bad for us even in
tiny quantities. Research has shown that they are implicated in
increased cardiac disease, cholesterol levels, and yes, cancer.
According to Dr. Brian Olshansky, M.D., University of Iowa Health
Care Professor of Internal Medicine, “the problem with trans fatty
acids is that your body doesn’t know what to do with them. Trans
fatty acids may help preserve food so that it tastes good, but your
body can’t break them down and use them correctly. Normal fats are
very supple and pliable, but the trans fatty acid is a stiff fat that can
build up in the body and create havoc. The chemical recipe for a
trans fatty acid involves putting hydrogen atoms in the wrong place.
It’s like making a plastic.” www.altmedicine.com/Article.asp?ID=3576
Chapter 15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
In order to mass produce and distribute foods high in oils, food
manufacturers deliberately alter the chemical composition of the
oils, which gives them longer “shelf lives.” In the 1950s, Dr. Johanna
Budwig proved that these chemically-altered, hydrogenated fats
(which she called “pseudo” fats) destroy cell membranes. She
demonstrated that these hydrogenated, processed fats and oils shut
down the electrical field of the cells and make us susceptible to
chronic and terminal diseases.
In healthy fats there is a vital electron cloud which enables the fat to
bind with oxygen. Healthy, oxygenated fats are capable of binding
with protein and in the process become water-soluble. This water
solubility is vital to all growth processes, cell damage restoration,
cell renewal, brain and nerve functions, sensory nerve functions,
and energy development. In fact, the entire basis of our energy
production is based on lipid metabolism. Hydrogenation destroys the
vital electron cloud, and as a result, these “pseudo” fats can no longer
bind with oxygen or with protein. These fats end up blocking
circulation, damaging the heart, inhibiting cell renewal, and
impeding the free flow of blood and lymph.
Three of the most popular foods which contain trans-fats are donuts,
french fries, and chips. Donuts are nothing but big balls of sugar,
trans-fats, and white flour. They have no nutritional value. Most
french fries and chips have been soaked in trans-fats to such extent
that there in virtually no nutrition left in them. Some companies
have tried to make them more “healthy” by eliminating the transfats,
but all donuts and chips and fries that are cooked in oil
(regardless of what type oil) have cancer-causing acrylamides. The
chemical, acrylamide, which is used industrially in the manufacture
of some plastics, is also formed by the heating of starches. And guess
what…three foods with especially high levels of acrylamides are
donuts, french fries, and potato chips. Acrylamides are only allowed
in your drinking water at a level of 0.12 micrograms per serving by
the EPA. Check this out: a 6 ounce helping of french fries at your
local fast food joint will contain anywhere from 50 to 70 micrograms
of acrylamides. That’s between 400 and 600 times the EPA limit! I
Chapter 15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
have heard it said by numerous doctors that a french fry is worse for
your health than a cigarette. I agree.
In light of the fact that they have been shown to cause so many
health problems, why do food manufacturers continue to use transfats?
The answer is plain and simple: money. Trans-fats greatly
prolong the shelf life of processed foods.
High Fructose Corn Syrup / Sugar / Sodas
I decided to combine these 3 items since they typically go “hand in
hand” in our “Big Gulp” society, despite what you hear from the
sugar industry and its efforts to prevent the distribution of
information that accurately links refined sugars to chronic disease.
Cancer cells grow by anaerobic respiration; they ferment sugar. If
you’ve ever made wine, you’ll know that fermentation requires
sugar. There are many nutritional cancer therapies, but not a single
one allows foods high in carbohydrates and not a single one allows
sugars, because sugar feeds cancer.
But isn’t “high fructose corn syrup” a healthy alternative? Well, in a
word, “no.” But why didn’t my doctor warn me about it?
Remember, it wasn’t too long ago when doctors were being paid by
cigarette companies to actually endorse cigarettes. So it’s really no
surprise that there are some doctors who are clueless on the dangers
of high fructose corn syrup, despite the fact that it’s basically
common sense to anyone who has half a brain and has spent more
than a few minutes studying the issue. When you understand how
blood sugar is regulated in the human body, how the pancreas
works, and how the digestive system converts dietary sugars into
blood glucose, it is obvious that candy bars and soft drinks promote
obesity, diabetes, and chronic disease by suppressing the immune
system and inhibiting mineral absorption.
Let’s think about this for a moment. What do farmers feed cows
when they want to “fatten them up” for market? Corn, of course! So,
if you want to look like a cow, all you have to do is eat lots of corn
Chapter 15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
and corn by-products, including high-fructose corn syrup.
Amazingly, a 12 ounce can of soda has as much as 13 teaspoons of
sugar in the form of high fructose corn syrup. Another reason to
avoid carbonated sodas is that they have a pH of around 2.0, which
will contribute to a highly acidic terrain. According to Dr. James
Howenstine, M.D., “In an interesting experiment the sugar from one
soft drink was able to damage the white blood cells’ ability to ingest
and kill gonococcal bacteria for seven hours…soft drinks also
contain large quantities of phosphorus, which when excreted pulls
calcium out of the bones. Heavy users of soft drinks will have
osteoporosis along with their damaged arteries” (J. Howenstine, A
Physician’s Guide to Natural Health Products That Work).
In 1951, Dr. Clive McCay, a Navy nutritionist at the Naval Medical
Research Institute, found that human teeth softened and started to
dissolve in a short period of time after sitting in a cup of Coca Cola.
He stated the acidity of cola beverages is about the same as vinegar,
only it is masked by the sugar content. Maybe this is why soda pops
are also referred to as “soft drinks” – because they soften your teeth
and bones!!
And if you think diet sodas are better, think again. Diet sodas
typically have a lower pH than normal soda, and they also contain
harmful artificial sweeteners like aspartame. If you want to sweeten
foods, I recommend stevia, which is an herb 300 times sweeter than
sugar. Its medicinal uses include regulating blood sugar, preventing
hypertension, treatment of skin disorders, and prevention of tooth
decay. Other studies show that it is a natural anti-bacterial and antiviral
agent as well. So, while it will make your food tasty, stevia is
also actually good for you!
For the cancer patient, sugar is a definite “no-no.” If you hate your
cancer, then starve it. If you regularly drink sodas, try drinking
water instead. Eliminating sodas from your diet is one of the easiest
ways to immediately improve your health.
Chapter 15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
Excitotoxins (MSG & Aspartame)
What is an excitotoxin? These are substances, usually amino acids,
that react with specialized receptors (neurons) in the brain in such a
way as to lead to destruction of certain types of brain cells. Humans
lack a blood-brain barrier in the hypothalamus, which allows
excitotoxins to enter the brain and cause damage. Simply put, as
described in Dr. Russell Blaylock‘s book, Excitotoxins: The Taste
That Kills, they are exactly what they sound like: toxins that excite
your brain cells to death!
MSG. No strain of rat or mice is naturally obese, so the scientists
have to create them. They make these morbidly obese creatures by
injecting them with MSG when they are first born. The MSG triples
the amount of insulin the pancreas creates, causing rats to become
obese. MSG creates a lesion in the hypothalamus that correlates
with abnormal development, including obesity, short stature and
sexual reproduction problems. MSG has also been shown to kill
brain cells as well as to cause nausea, vomiting, migraine headaches,
depression, and heart problems. Unfortunately, MSG is often
disguised under other names, thus you may not be able to detect it
in a list of ingredients.
Some synonyms for MSG are “Glutamate Textured Protein” or
“Glutamic Acid Yeast Extract” or “Gelatin Yeats Nutrient” or
“Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein.” They hide MSG under many
different names in order to fool those who catch on. Food companies
learned that MSG could increase the flavor and aroma and enhance
acceptability of commercial food products, so it is doubtful that they
will ever quit using this brain killing additive to our food supply.
Take a quick trip to your kitchen and check the pantry and the
fridge. You will realize that MSG is in everything! The soups, the
chips, the ramen, the hamburger helper, the gravy, the salad
dressings, the corn oil, the broth, and so on.
Aspartame (commonly called NutraSweet or Equal) is also an
excitotoxin, and it has been shown to erode intelligence and affect
Chapter 15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
short-term memory. Believe it or not, aspartame was once on a
Pentagon list of biowarfare chemicals submitted to Congress! It is
made from two amino acids and methanol (wood alcohol).
Although test studies showed that it is extremely toxic to the brain,
the government suppressed this fact and it was officially approved as
a food additive for use in soft drinks in 1983. The FDA ignored
complaints of headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, seizures,
convulsions, blurred vision, and a multitude of other negative
reactions to aspartame. We recently watched a documentary on
aspartame called Sweet Misery. It was amazing. You can see the
trailer for the DVD and also see the first 5 minutes of the movie
here: http://aspartamekills.com. I will cover Aspartame in more
detail in Chapter 17.
rBGH / Sodium Nitrate
In 1994, Monsanto and the FDA introduced rBGH (recombinant
bovine growth hormone) into the market. This is a powerful
genetically engineered drug which, when injected into dairy cows,
will force them to produce up to 25% more milk. However, when a
cow is injected with rBGH, its milk production is stimulated, but not
directly. The presence of rBGH in the cow’s blood stimulates
production of another hormone, called Insulin-Like Growth Factor
(IGF). It is IGF that stimulates milk production.
IGF is a naturally occurring hormone-protein in both cows and
humans. Numerous studies have shown that the IGF in cows is
chemically identical to the IGF in humans. The use of rBGH
increases the levels of IGF in the cow’s milk, and the IGF is not
destroyed by pasteurization. Since IGF is active in humans (it causes
cells to divide), an increase in IGF in milk raises obvious questions as
to whether it will cause inappropriate cell division and growth,
leading to growth of tumors.
Since its emergence on the market in 1994, every industrialized
country in the world (except for the U.S.) has banned rBGH. The
fact of the matter is that rBGH was never adequately tested before
Chapter 15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
the FDA allowed it on the market. A standard test of new
biochemically produced products and animal drugs requires 24
months of testing with several hundred rats. But rBGH was tested
for only 90 days on 30 rats. This short term rat study was submitted
to the FDA but never published. The FDA refused to allow anyone
outside that agency to review the raw data from this truncated
study, saying it would “irreparably harm” Monsanto.
In February of 1997, two veteran news reporters for Fox TV in
Tampa, Florida, were fired for refusing to water down an
investigation reporting that rBGH may promote cancer in humans
who drink milk from rBGH treated cows. Monsanto pressured Fox
TV to water down the series, offering to pay the two reporters if
they would leave the station and keep silent about their report, but
they refused and were fired. On April 2, 1998, they filed their own
lawsuit against the TV station. After a 5 week trial and 6 hours of
deliberation which ended August 18, 2000, a Florida state court jury
unanimously determined that Fox “acted intentionally and
deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiffs’ news reporting on
rBGH.” The jury awarded $425,000 in damages. Why was Monsanto
so determined to keep the reporters quiet?
Here’s why. In 1998, Canadian scientists managed to acquire the full
Monsanto studies for the first time. They were stunned to find out
that the FDA never even looked at Monsanto’s original data on
which the agency’s approval had been based. In reviewing the data,
the scientists learned that Monsanto’s “secret” studies showed that
rBGH was linked to prostate cancer and thyroid cancer in laboratory
rats! Sadly, despite clear evidence that Monsanto and the FDA have
suppressed and manipulated information on genetically modified
milk since the early 1990s, most milk in your local supermarkets has
been produced from cows injected with rBGH.
Sodium nitrate (NaNO3) and its close relative sodium nitrite
(NaNO2) are preservatives that you find in lots of processed meats.
Stuff like salami, hot dogs, pepperoni, bologna, ham, bacon (even
turkey bacon), livestock feed (yet another reason to only eat grassChapter
15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
fed beef), and SPAM all normally contain sodium nitrate as one of
the ingredients. It’s the ingredient that gives these meats that pretty
“reddish-pink” color rather than their natural rotten grey. It makes
meats appear “fresh” even if they’ve been on the shelves for months.
Almost all processed meats are made with sodium nitrite, despite the
fact that it is a precursor to cancer causing chemicals called
nitrosamines. An enormous amount of evidence indicates that
nitrosamines are human carcinogens. For instance, tobacco-specific
nitrosamines are one of the major groups of chemical carcinogens in
tobacco products. Just remember, when you eat bologna or
pepperoni or bacon, you are also eating sodium nitrite, which forms
nitrosamines, which promotes the growth of cancer cells. Back in
the 1970s, the USDA attempted to ban sodium nitrite but failed due
to lobbying efforts of meat processing industry.
Want some statistics? The University of Hawaii conducted a study
on almost 200,000 people and lasted seven years. The results of the
research indicated that people who consumed processed meats (such
as hot dogs and sausage) had a 6700% increased risk of pancreatic
cancer over those who consumed little or no meat products.
(www.newstarget.com/007024.html) Now, I’m not saying that meat
products are bad, as we will look at grass-fed beef later in the book.
But processed meats and meats from rBGH cows…they’re terrible!
One of the reasons is sodium nitrite. And this is just the tip of the
According to most health professionals, soy beans are the most
versatile, natural, heart-friendly, health-improving foods on earth.
Soy is the largest cash crop in the United States, and it is being
touted as having a myriad of health benefits. But according to Dr.
William Wong, “Soy is poison, period!” In his article entitled “Soy:
The Poison Seed” (www.totalityofbeing.com/ArchivedSoyPoison.html),
Dr. Wong describes several reasons why soy is poison. Soy contains
two isoflavones (estrogen like substances) which are basically built
Chapter 15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
in insecticides for the soybean. He asks, “If they kill bugs, are they
good for humans?” Hmmmmm…… Good point.
According to lipid (fat) specialist and nutritionist Mary Enig, PhD,
“The reason there’s so much soy in America is because they [the soy
industry] started to plant soy to extract the oil from it and soy oil
became a very large industry. Once they had as much oil as they did
in the food supply they had a lot of soy protein residue left over, and
since they can’t feed it to animals, except in small amounts, they had
to find another market.”
And another market was what they found: the unsuspecting
American public. To put it simply, after millions and millions of
dollars spent on advertising, a propaganda campaign that makes
Hitler look like a rank amateur, and intense lobbying to the FDA,
approximately 74% of American consumers now believe soy
products are healthy. www.mercola.com/2004/jan/21/soy.htm
If you’re thinking the health claims surrounding soy sound too good
to be true you just may be right. Soy contains phytin, which
removes essential minerals such as iron, zinc, and magnesium before
they can be absorbed. Soy also contains trypsin inhibitors –
remember trypsin is essential in the recognition and digestion of
both proteins and cancer cells. Beyond these, soybeans also contain
hemagglutinin, a clot promoting substance that causes red blood
cells to clump together. These clustered blood cells are unable to
properly absorb oxygen for distribution to the body’s tissues.
According to Dr. Tim O’Shea, “Yet another toxin found in some
processed soy products is aluminum, which is said to be 10 times
higher in infant soy formulas than in milk-based formulas--and 100
times higher than in unprocessed milk. Levels are even higher when
soy products are hydrogenated. Aluminum, a cause of Alzheimer’s,
can also damage the newly forming kidneys of an infant who drinks
soy formula. Worse yet, aluminum can directly damage the infant
brain because the blood-brain barrier has not formed yet. Processed
soy can also contain a known carcinogen called lysinoalanine. It is a
Chapter 15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
by-product of a processing step called alkaline soaking, which is
done to attempt to eliminate enzyme inhibitors. Even though the
beans are thoroughly rinsed, the lysinoalanine by-product can
remain from the interaction of the soybeans with the alkaline
solution.” www.camaweb.org/library/nutrition/soy_con.php
The bottom line on soy is this: Soybeans are not a complete protein,
are not a natural food, contain several harmful and even
carcinogenic substances, and most soybeans in the United States are
genetically modified. According to Dr. Wong, “any opinions to
contradict the facts noted above have been paid for by the
agribusiness giants Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland. Once
public knowledge of their manipulation of public opinion and of the
FDA becomes widely known, expect monster class action lawsuits
against these folks. They’ll deserve it in spades!” You can read
much, much more about soy in Chapter 22.
“Terrible Toxins”
The toxins listed in this section are everywhere, so watch out! In all
actuality, an entire book could be devoted to environmental and
food toxins, but I have chosen just to mention a few of the most
common toxins. A study in the February 21, 2004 British Medical
Journal estimated that 75% of most cancers are caused by
environmental and lifestyle factors, including exposure to chemicals.
More than 30 million tons of asbestos in its various forms have been
mined in the past century. Asbestos is one of the most pervasive
environmental hazards in the world, present in more than 3,000
manufactured products. It was widely used from the 1950s to 1970s.
Asbestos is actually a family of minerals that can be spun into fibers
and then woven into cloth. Due to this fact, it will not burn, thus it
Chapter 15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
has been used heavily in the insulation industry as a fire retardant.
Problems arise when the material becomes old and crumbly,
releasing fibers into the air and then inhaled into our lungs.
Asbestos won’t burn, neither will it dissolve once inside the body.
So, the fibers get caught in the lungs and other organs and irritate
the tissues and cause lesions and eventually scarring.
There are three diseases that are triggered by inhaling asbestos
fibers: asbestosis, mesothelioma, and lung cancer. Asbestosis is
caused when asbestos fibers are inhaled and become trapped in the
lungs. In response, the body tries to dissolve the fibers by producing
an acid. While not destroying the fibers, the acid serves to scar the
lung tissue. Eventually the scarring can become so severe that the
lungs become unable to function. The time from exposure to the
manifestation of asbestosis in most patients is between 25 and 40
years. Mesothelioma is a cancer of the outside tissue of the lungs.
This cancer is solely linked to asbestos. The time from exposure to
manifestation of mesothelioma is from 15 to 35 years. Cancer of the
lungs can also be caused by exposure to asbestos. The exposure to
manifestation period for lung cancer from asbestos exposure is also
from 15 to 35 years.
The major sources of asbestos are insulation on floors, ceilings,
heating ducts, and water pipes from the 1950s to the 1970s. Even
though the use of asbestos in office buildings ceased over 30 years,
millions of office workers are still working in older buildings which
contain asbestos insulation. I have heard estimates that over 50% of
the skyscrapers in America still contain asbestos! If September 11th
wasn’t a bad enough disaster, there have been concerns about a
possible asbestos cover up by the EPA and the government during
the cleanup of the World Trade Center in New York. In fact, the
U.S. is one of the few nations that have not yet placed a ban on
asbestos – it is still an ingredient in thousands of U.S. products.
That’s right, amazingly, despite the known health risks, asbestos has
not been banned in the U.S.
Chapter 15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) abandoned its
attempts to ban asbestos products in 1979, passing the responsibility
to the EPA. In 1989, the EPA attempted a ban of its own, but in
1991, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned it. Insidious
and deadly, asbestos has worked its way through the “cracks” of the
consumer protection system for almost 30 years. As a result,
asbestos is still lodged deep in the tissue of American commerce, and
almost no one is paying attention. Despite the fact that health
experts expect the asbestos to claim another 250,000 lives in the U.S.
during the next several decades, asbestos is still being an ingredient
in a multitude of everyday products ranging from brake pads to
ceiling tiles. Imports of products containing asbestos are also on the
rise. The bottom line is that virtually every man, woman, and child
has been exposed to asbestos, due to its pervasiveness. Only time will
tell the deleterious health effects which result from this dangerous
Fluoride is added to the water supply of most American cities for the
ostensible purpose of dental hygiene. Contrary to popular opinion,
fluoride doesn’t stop tooth decay at all, but actually causes teeth to
rot and crumble. It is actually a neurotoxic industrial waste that
causes birth defects, cancer, and osteoporosis. It damages the
immune, digestive, and respiratory systems as well as the kidneys,
liver, brain, and thyroid.
Science shows fluoride is more toxic than lead (Clinical Toxicology
of Commercial Products, 1984). There are more than 500 peer
reviewed studies documenting adverse effects of fluoride ranging
from cancer to brain damage. And yet, municipalities throughout
the United States actually purchase this product and then drip it into
the public water supply. According to Dr. Charles G. Heyd, former
President of the AMA, “I am appalled at the prospect of using water
as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will
produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use
water this way is deplorable.” www.apfn.org/apfn/poison.htm
Chapter 15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
There is no scientific evidence that fluoride is a beneficial additive to
water, and in fact that there is overwhelming scientific evidence
that proves, without a doubt, that fluoride is harmful! The bottom
line is that all federal health agencies have known these facts for
years, but have been controlled by the political interests of the
nuclear arms, aluminum, and phosphate manufacturers to keep it a
secret. I suggest that you read “50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation“
at www.fluoridealert.org/50reasons.htm. It is an eye opener. I didn’t
spend much time elaborating on the dangers of fluoride in this
section, since I devote several pages to fluoride in Chapter 18.
Mercury (and other heavy metals)
Did you know that most of the fish we eat contains mercury? Why?
Thousands of tons of mercury are released into the air each year
through pollution and waste. Eventually, it accumulates in steams,
oceans, water and soil. It also accumulates in the food chain, so each
fish absorbs the mercury in other fish and organisms it eats. The
bigger the fish, the more mercury it absorbs. Shark, swordfish,
tilefish, mackerel, sea bass, marlin, halibut, oysters, salmon, and tuna
contain the highest levels of methylmercury.
According to Dr. Joseph Mercola, “Methylmercury toxicity can
result in paraesthesia, depression, and blurred vision. In fetuses and
developing infants it can also have negative effects on attention
span, language, visual-spatial skills, memory and coordination. It is
estimated that nearly 60,000 children each year are born at risk for
neurological problems due to methylmercury exposure in the
womb.” www.mercola.com/2003/jun/28/mercury_fish.htm
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued health
advisories about consuming fish due to mercury contamination. The
“Got Mercury? Calculator” at www.gotmercury.org can help you
decide how much, and what type, of seafood is safe for you and your
family. Just enter your weight, the seafood type and quantity, and
hit the calculator button. The online calculator will tell you whether
your consumption exceeds the EPA’s safe limit for mercury.
Chapter 15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
What about those mercury fillings in your mouth? Mercury
amalgam “silver” dental fillings, contain approximately 50%
mercury. Initially, the American Dental Association (ADA) denied
that mercury from these fillings leaked vapor, which is then
absorbed into our bodies. But, in recent years, facing numerous
studies to the contrary, the ADA has conceded that mercury fillings
do leak mercury vapor, one of the most toxic substances known to
man. Did you know that the metallic mercury used by dentists to
manufacture dental amalgam is shipped as a hazardous material to
the dental office? Did you know that when mercury fillings are
removed, they are treated as hazardous waste and are required to be
disposed of in accordance with federal OSHA regulations? Charlene
and I are in the process of getting all of our mercury fillings
removed. I recommend that you do the same. I will spend more time
on mercury in Chapter 20.
Like mercury, other heavy metals like arsenic, lead, aluminum, and
cadmium, which are prevalent in many areas of our environment,
can accumulate in soft tissues of the body and can cause a multitude
of degenerative diseases, including cancer. These heavy metals are
found in our drinking water, in fish, vaccinations, pesticides,
antiperspirants, building materials, and dental amalgams, just to
name a few sources.
Mycotoxins (fungal toxins)
Corn and Peanuts both contain mycotoxins, which are poisonous
substances produced by certain molds found primarily in grain and
nut crops. They are basically “fungus poisons” which cause a wide
range of health problems in humans. Corn is commonly
contaminated with fumonisin and other fungal toxins such as
aflatoxin and fumonisin (both known for their cancer-causing
effects). A 1993 study demonstrated 24 different types of fungi
found in peanuts, including aflatoxin, the most carcinogenic
substance known to man. (Costantini, A. “Etiology and Prevention
of Atherosclerosis” Fungalbionics Series 1998/99).
Chapter 15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
Mushrooms not only contain mycotoxins, they basically are
mycotoxins. Mushrooms are not vegetables, but rather the fruiting
body of a fungus. According to Dr. Robert Young, “Don’t eat them,
don’t drink them, don’t sniff them. Mushrooms contain varying
amounts of amanitin, the mycotoxin in all mushrooms. Eating in
small amounts it will kill you slowly. In larger amounts, it will kill
you almost instantly.” (Sick and Tired, page 91)
After the terrorist attacks of 9-11, we began to study bioterrorism
agents (such as the fungal-derived toxin “Yellow Rain”). In January
of 2002, a simple article entitled “Mycotoxins“ by Dr. Ruth Etzel was
published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. This
article did more than educate us about chemical warfare. It took the
topic of mycotoxins a step further, saying that these harmful
chemicals are not just found on the front lines of battle grounds, but
are just as easily found on our playgrounds.
And even more alarmingly, they are in foods that we eat every day.
In her January 2002 JAMA article, Dr. Etzel states that “the primary
concern in developed countries is the long-term effects of ingesting
food contaminated with low levels of mycotoxins.” She also states
that carcinogenic toxins like aflatoxin are a “common contaminant
of peanuts, soybeans, grains and cassava.” According to the National
Health Institute (1/4/2004), “From the beginning of organized crop
production through present-day agriculture, mycotoxins (toxic
secondary metabolites of fungi) have presented health risks to both
human and animal populations, including pain, convulsions,
hallucinations, respiratory effects, and death.”
Organochlorines (chlorine byproducts)
Chlorine gas was a weapon used in both world wars and is a
neurotoxin so poisonous that it was outlawed by international war
codes. It cannot be screened out by our lungs, goes in faster than
oxygen, is immediately absorbed into the bloodstream when it is
inhaled, and if the concentration is adequate, death is instantaneous.
As molecular biologist Joe Thornton explains, “There are no uses of
Chapter 15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
chlorine which we regard as safe.” Yet chlorination, considered one
of the greatest advances ever in public health and hygiene, is almost
universally accepted as the method of choice for purifying water
Most drinking water in the U.S. comes from a surface water source,
that is, a lake or river. These lakes and rivers are typically rich in
invisible organic matter produced by decaying leaves and algae.
During disinfection, chlorine randomly attaches to this organic
matter to form thousands of new chemicals called “organochlorines.”
Organochlorine compounds are not found naturally anywhere in the
world, but once they are formed by combining chlorine with
organic materials, they are extremely toxic and very stable. Most of
them don’t break down for hundreds of years.
Organochlorines are easily absorbed into our bodies and are
lipophilic (stored in our fat cells) where they accumulate. According
to molecular biologist Joe Thornton, “chlorination virtually always
increases toxicity.” A growing number of studies have linked
chlorinated drinking water to cancer in humans. The most esteemed
cancer study is a compilation of 10 separate epidemiological studies
on chlorinated drinking water and cancer known at the Morris
study. It found disinfection by-products in chlorinated water to be
responsible for 9% of all bladder cancers and 15% of rectal cancers
in the U.S. This translates into 10,000 additional deaths per year for
just these two organs. According to the U.S. Council of
Environmental Quality, “Cancer risk among people drinking
chlorinated water is 93% higher than among those whose water does
not contain chlorine.” Prolonged exposure has also been shown to
produce birth defects, immune system problems, and reproductive
Although water disinfection accounts for only a small percentage of
total global organochlorine production, the effect on human health
is proportionately greater because exposure to chlorinated drinking
water is large and continuous. It is piped right into our homes. But
organochlorines in our drinking water are just the tip of the iceberg!
Chapter 15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
The most toxic organochorine is dioxin, which is the most
carcinogenic chemical known to man! The EPA considers dioxin to
be 300,000 times more carcinogenic than DDT. No level of dioxin is
considered safe.
A draft report released for public comment in September 1994 by
the U.S. EPA clearly describes dioxin as a serious public health
threat. Dioxin is formed as a result of combustion processes such as
commercial or municipal waste incineration, from burning fuels
(like wood, coal or oil), and from the paper and plastic production
industries. In 1997, the International Agency for Research on
Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization, announced
that the most potent dioxin is a now considered a Group 1
carcinogen, meaning a “known human carcinogen.”
In addition to cancer, dioxins can cause reproductive and
developmental disorders, liver damage, chloracne, skin rashes, skin
discoloration, etc. The major sources of dioxins are animal fats. Since
dioxins are fat-soluble, they bioaccumulate, climbing up the food
chain. A typical American will receive 93% of his/her dioxin
exposure from meat and dairy products. In fish, these toxins
bioaccumulate up the food chain so that dioxin levels in fish are
100,000 times that of the surrounding environment. The main
sources of dioxin are the paper production industry, the plastic
production industry, and incinerators than burn chlorinated waste.
Recent scientific research has clearly demonstrated an association
between organochlorines and breast cancer. Analyses of the breast
fat of women with breast cancer found that DDT, its derivative
DDE, PCBs, and other organochlorine pollutants actually
concentrate in the cancer tissue itself, in contrast with surrounding
non-cancerous tissue. Organochlorines are not only often overtly
toxic, but they also possess estrogenic activity. In other words, they
mimic estrogen. Chemicals that function like estrogen are called
xenoestrogens (literally “foreign estrogens”) and wreck havoc in a
number of ways. A woman’s earliest and most dangerous contact
with them may be in the womb. Xenoestrogens have been linked to
Chapter 15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
breast cancer as well as an increase in reproductive abnormalities in
males, including prostate cancer and testicular cancer.
Pesticides (herbicides, fungicides, & insecticides)
Do you still think that the fruit you are eating is safe? Think again. A
recent study from the U.K. indicates that pesticide residues on some
common fruits are unusually high. Some apples, pears, raspberries,
and grapes contained pesticide residues that exceeded the legal
limits. Cherries, lettuce, and pumpkins all contained potentially
dangerous levels of toxic pesticide residues as well. And the produce
wasn’t just from one area – it originated from all over the world
from Brazil to Spain to Canada. www.pesticides.gov.uk/prc.asp?id=1223
So remember that when you reach for that luscious fruit at the
grocery you may be inadvertently feeding your kiddos pesticides as
well. Fruits and vegetables that are heavily sprayed include
strawberries, cantaloupe, bell peppers, peaches, nectarines, celery,
potatoes, carrots, and imported grapes. What commercially grown
fruits are relatively safe? Blueberries, grapefruit, bananas, broccoli,
mangos, cauliflower, avocados, asparagus, onions, California grapes
(in season), citrus, pineapple, and melons.
According to the EPA, 60% of herbicides, 90% of fungicides and
30% of insecticides are known to be carcinogenic. Alarmingly,
pesticide residues have been detected in over half of U.S. foods.
Most pesticides contain multiple toxins, and there is no class of
pesticide which is free of cancer causing potential. The most
convincing evidence that pesticides are carcinogens comes from
epidemiological studies. The common lawn pesticide 2,4-D (“Weed-
B-Gone“) has been shown to increase the risk of lymphatic cancer in
farmers 6 times the normal rate, according to a National Cancer
Institute report (Sinclair, W. 18 “Studies Show Why Pesticides Are
More Dangerous than Previously Realized”). Scientists believe that
the use of lawn chemicals such as 2,4-D has been a significant factor
in the 50% rise in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma over the past 20 years
in the American population. (World Health Org., 2,4-D
Chapter 15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
Environmental Aspects. Geneva, Switzerland, 1989.) The pesticide
2,4-D has also been linked to malignant lymphoma in dogs. Pets are
exposed to higher doses of pesticides because they are closer to the
ground where concentrations are the highest. Studies show that the
risk of lymphomas doubled in dogs whose owners treated lawns 4
times per year.
In 1983 the National Cancer Institute studied 3,827 Florida pesticide
applicators who had been spraying for more than 20 years. They
found that these pesticide applicators had nearly 3 times the risk of
developing lung cancer and 2 times the risk of developing brain
cancer. There was no increased risk for pesticide applicators who
had been spraying for only 5 years. (Journal of the NCI, July 1983.)
Beginning in the late 1970s, there have been multiple reports linking
pesticides to leukemia (blood cancer) in children. A 1987 study by
the NCI showed that children living in pesticide-treated homes had
nearly a 4 times greater risk of developing leukemia. If the children
lived in homes where pesticide was sprayed on lawns and gardens,
the risk of developing leukemia was 6.5 times greater. (Dr. John
Peters, USC, Journal of the NCI, July 1987.)
Ever heard of Atrazine? Atrazine is a powerful herbicide applied to
over 70% of America’s cornfields. Traces of the chemical routinely
turn up in American streams and wells and even in the rain, and
residues of Atrazine are frequently found in our food supply. So
what? Well, this toxic chemical, which was recently banned by the
European Union, is a suspected carcinogen and endocrine disruptor
that has been linked to low sperm counts among farmers. As a
matter of fact, Tyrone Hayes, a herpetologist at UC Berkeley, while
doing research on behalf of Syngenta (Atrazine’s manufacturer),
found that even at concentrations as low as 0.1 part per billion,
Atrazine will chemically emasculate a male frog, causing its gonads
to produce eggs, in effect, turning males into hermaphrodites.
In an article entitled “The Way We Live Now” (published in the
6/4/06 NY Times), author Michael Pollen comments, “Atrazine is
Chapter 15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
often present in American waterways at much higher concentrations
than 0.1 part per billion. But American regulators generally won’t
ban a pesticide until the bodies, or cancer cases, begin to pile up -
until, that is, scientists can prove the link between the suspect
molecule and illness in humans or ecological catastrophe. So
Atrazine is, at least in the American food system, deemed innocent
until proved guilty – a standard of proof extremely difficult to
achieve, since it awaits the results of chemical testing on humans
that we, rightly, don’t perform. I don’t know about you, but as the
father of an adolescent boy, I sort of like the idea of keeping such a
molecule out of my son’s diet…”
Contrary to popular belief, industrial chemicals in consumer
products are essentially unregulated in the U.S. Except for
chemicals added directly to food, there is no legal requirement for
health and safety testing or human exposure monitoring for any
chemical in commerce. The same chemicals, ironically, are often
tightly regulated as pollutants.
For example, phthalates are a class of widely used industrial
compounds that have crept into widespread use over the last several
decades because of their many beneficial chemical properties. These
chemicals are used to lengthen the life of fragrances and soften
plastics. About 4 million tons of phthalates are produced worldwide
each year. Phthalates are recognized as toxic substances under
environmental law, but companies are free to use unlimited amounts
in cosmetics.
Some common phthalates and the products which contain them:
􀂾 Di-ethyl phthalate (DEP): Toothbrushes, auto parts, tools,
toys, food packaging, insecticides, mosquito repellents,
aspirin, nail polish, perfumes, hair sprays.
Chapter 15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
􀂾 Di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP): Cellulose plastics, solvents for
dyes, solvents for cosmetics, nail polish, food wrap,
perfumes, skin emollients, hair spray, insect repellents.
􀂾 Benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP): Plasticizers in adhesives, PVC
flooring, wood finishes, biodegradable tampon ejectors
That new car smell, which is especially strong after the car has been
sitting in the sun for a few hours, is the odor of phthalates
precipitating from a hot plastic dashboard. Then, when it cools
down in the evening, the phthalates condense to form an oily
coating on the inside of the windshield. Interestingly, an
environmental release of just 10 pounds of DBP must be reported to
environmental authorities under the Superfund law. However, the
cosmetics industry puts thousands of tons of DBP into nail polish
each year, with no requirements for safety testing or reporting to
But “why?” you may ask. Many pivotal court decisions
implementing the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) have
basically “hamstrung” the EPA. You see, the EPA must prove an
“unreasonable risk of injury” to human health before it can remove a
chemical from the market. However, they cannot prove
unreasonable risk of injury without first conducting safety studies,
which are expressly prohibited until “substantial” or “significant”
exposure is proved to be occurring. So, it’s an endless loop, since the
FDA can almost never prove that substantial or significant exposures
are occurring because exposure data is extremely difficult to obtain.
To put it simply, the EPA cannot regulate a chemical until it makes a
finding of risk based on data which the law virtually prohibits it
from collecting. This is absurd, isn’t it? The law also allows industry
to manufacture and sell new chemicals without conducting any
toxicity studies to determine if the chemicals are safe. After a
chemical enters the marketplace, there is no requirement for human
monitoring, even for those compounds to which people are
routinely exposed.
Chapter 15 – “The Dirty Dozen” Cancer – Step Outside the Box
Women who are pregnant, nursing or thinking about getting
pregnant should look for and avoid all personal care products with
the word phthalate on the label. The major sources of phthalates are
plastic wrap, plastic bottles, plastic food storage containers, nail
polish, and cosmetics. Phthalates have been shown to have
estrogenic qualities, have toxic effects on the testicles, and to cause
birth defects. They can also cause cancer, damage the endocrine
system, and are particularly dangerous to children.

Jun 4, 2009

Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I competed in and won
numerous bodybuilding contests. At competition, my normal contest
weight was around 220 pounds and my body fat measured around
3%. I “looked” like the picture of health. However, as the saying
goes, “looks can be deceiving.” The reality was that due to years of
steroid use, my liver and kidneys were on their “last legs.”
I recall visiting my doctor when I was about 25 years old and he said
that if I didn’t get “off the juice” (i.e. steroids), that I wouldn’t make
it to age 30. Well, that was certainly a wake up call for me. Thank
God that He saved me and I became a Christian a couple of years
later. I now lift weights as part of an exercise program aimed at
overall health.
I include this information about my experience as a competitive
bodybuilder for a couple of reasons. First, I want emphasize that
“looking healthy” is not necessarily equivalent to actually “being
healthy.” Our society puts far too much emphasis on the external
(how we look) and not enough emphasis on the internal (how we
feel) or the spiritual (where we are going when we die).
“Exercise has been shown to reduce the risk of many
types of cancer” Dr. Joseph Mercola
Chapter 16 – Exercise Essentials Cancer – Step Outside the Box
You can see from my
picture to the left that I
looked like I was very
healthy. In 2007, many
people will do what ever
it takes to have a “killer
body,” but the truth is
that many of them are
awfully unhealthy people
and don’t feel very good.
For example, one of my
bodybuilder friends died
at age 34 from a stroke
caused by years of steroid
use. He “looked” like he
was as healthy as a horse.
But as I said, looks can be
deceiving. Now, don’t get
me wrong. Appearance is
important. That’s why I
take a shower every day,
make sure my clothes
match, and check that I
don’t have anything
green stuck in my teeth.
But I worry that we’ve gotten so obsessed with how we look that we
no longer care about how we feel.
Secondly, since I am very familiar with the concepts of weight
training and cardiovascular (aerobic) training, I have some valuable
insights into how to incorporate these activities into a “healthy”
exercise regimen. Regular exercise also has been shown to increase
quality of life and improve the maximal oxygen uptake during
exertion, sleep patterns, and cognition. For a cancer patient, a
healthy exercise regimen is a vital part of your “get well and stay
well lifestyle.” It is not just good for you. It is essential.
Chapter 16 – Exercise Essentials Cancer – Step Outside the Box
What is aerobic exercise? Remember, the term aerobic means “with
oxygen.” During an aerobic workout, the cardiovascular system,
which includes the heart, lungs and blood vessels, responds to
physical activity by increasing the oxygen that is available to the
body’s working muscles. This sounds like a good thing for a cancer
patient, doesn’t it? The goal of aerobic exercise is to increase your
heart’s capacity to pump blood, thus increasing oxygen delivery to
the tissues. The American College of Sports Medicine recommends
aerobic exercise done for a minimum of 20 minutes, 3 times a week
at 60% of the maximum heart rate.
Many activities can give you an aerobic workout. Some examples
include biking, running, walking briskly, swimming, playing
basketball, jumping rope, roller skating, and dancing. In addition to
these activities, you can get an aerobic workout through stationary
exercise machines such as cycles, treadmills, stair steppers, and
rowing machines. These can be found at a local gym or health club.
Most of these machines can also be used at home.
A “warm up” and a “cool down” period, both of which should
incorporate stretching exercises, are essential parts of aerobic
exercise. Warming up helps your body prepare for exercise by
slowly raising your heart rate and muscle temperature. This also
decreases the likelihood of injury. Cooling down allows your heart
rate to slowly return to normal and to get the blood circulating
freely back to the heart.
General Guidelines for Aerobic Exercise:
􀂾 Keep it simple. If you’re confused about what to do, start
with the basics. You need at least 20 minutes per workout to
get your heart pumping, so start there. Get out your
calendar, find 20 minutes of time on 3 different days and do
Chapter 16 – Exercise Essentials Cancer – Step Outside the Box
something, whether it be walking, jogging, going to the gym,
working in the yard, swimming, playing basketball, etc.
􀂾 Mix It Up. The nice thing about aerobic exercise is that you
can choose any activity that raises your heart rate. You don’t
have to do the same workout all the time. If you are bored
with your workout, change it up.
􀂾 Drink plenty of water before, during, and after your
The key to aerobic workouts is the “aerobic” part, i.e. the part that
deals with oxygen. Oxygen nourishes cells, creates energy, combats
fatigue, breaks down waste products and toxins, provides energy
needed to metabolize carbohydrates, regulates body pH balance,
strengthens immune system defense, and fights off invading hostile
organisms. The importance of oxygen therapy through regular
aerobic exercise cannot be stressed enough. It’s a matter of health or
disease and sometimes (as in the medical studies of cancer) life or
death. Remember, cancer cannot live in the presence of oxygen.
What is rebounding? One excellent choice of exercise is rebounding
(jumping) on the mini-trampoline. You can rebound several times a
day while listening to the radio or watching TV.
Research has led many scientists to conclude that jumping on a
mini-trampoline is possibly the most effective exercise yet devised
by man, especially because of the effect rebounding has on the
lymph system. The human body needs to move. The lymph system
bathes every cell and carries nutrients to the cell while removing
toxins such as dead and cancerous cells, heavy metals, infectious
viruses, and other assorted wastes. But unlike the blood (which is
pumped by the heart), the lymph is totally dependent on physical
exercise to move.
Without adequate movement, the cells are left stewing in their own
waste products and starving for nutrients, a situation which
Chapter 16 – Exercise Essentials Cancer – Step Outside the Box
contributes to cancer and other degenerative diseases, as well as
premature aging. Rebounding has been shown to increase lymph
flow by up to 30 times! Also, all of the body’s cells become stronger
in response to the increased “G forces” during rebounding, and this
cellular exercise results in the self-propelled immune cells being up
to 5 times more active! These immune cells are responsible for
eating viruses, bacteria and even cancer cells, so this is an awesome
benefit from rebounding.
Rebounding on a mini-trampoline directly strengthens the immune
system, increases lymph flow, and oxygenates the blood. Unlike
jogging on hard surfaces which puts extreme stress on certain joints
such as the ankles and knees eventually damaging them, rebounding
affects every joint and cell in the body equally. Plus, there are no
cars, dogs, and bad weather to worry about.
Circuit Weights
I recommend doing “circuit weight training.” Typically, in a gym,
there are several weight machines strategically placed in a certain
order which makes up what is called a “circuit.” In the gym where I
work out, the machines are color coded. So, you just do the red
machines, then the blue machines, then the green machines, etc.
They have made it very easy for a novice to learn how train with
weights. Circuit weight training will help you to tone your muscles,
strengthen your tendons and ligaments, and if done at a fast pace,
can also have an aerobic effect.
General Guidelines for Circuit Weight Training:
􀂾 Keep it light. Don’t try to show off. Lift light weights for at
least 20 repetitions per set. And if you feel pain of any kind
(other than a “burn” in your muscles), then STOP. The pain
is warning you that you are overdoing whatever you are
doing. Decrease the weight until you can achieve 20
Chapter 16 – Exercise Essentials Cancer – Step Outside the Box
􀂾 Exercise slowly. Specific exercises should be performed very
slowly, with emphasis on the “negative” portion of the
􀂾 Keep in quick. Your entire workout should not last more
than 45 minutes. Rest only enough time between sets to
walk from one machine to the next. This will allow you to
get both a muscle building workout and an aerobic workout
at the same time.
􀂾 Breathe properly. Don’t hold your breath when lifting
weights. Be sure to intake plenty of oxygen, inhaling and
exhaling regularly.
I won’t go into details about the specifics of weight training in this
book. Any good personal trainer will be able to assist you with a
personalized weight lifting program.
BEWARE: From the viewpoint of immune function, the optimal
exercise regimen is one of low volume, reports Dr. Roy Shephard
and colleagues at the University of Toronto in Canada. Their
findings are published in a recent issue of the Journal of Sports
Medicine and Physical Fitness. Previous studies have shown that
while exercise enhances the immune system, an excess of exercise
can actually depress immune function. During intense exercise, free
radical production is greatly increased which is associated with
oxidative damage to the muscles, liver, blood, and other tissues.
One of the world’s leading authorities on antioxidants and free
radical research, Dr. Ken Cooper, states in his book titled,
Antioxidant Revolution, “When you exercise intensely, the blood
flow in your body is shunted away from the organs that are not
actively involved in the exercise process, such as the liver, kidneys,
stomach, and intestines. Instead, the blood is diverted to the
working muscles, including the heart and legs. During the shifting of
blood flow, a part or all of the body regions or organs not involved
in exercise will experience an acute lack of oxygen (known as

Jun 3, 2009

AspartameCHAPTER 17

How about a diet soda? Diet sodas are harmless, right? Diet sodas
will help you lose weight, right? Wrong. A worldwide epidemic is
raging. The cause is a poisonous chemical sweetener called
aspartame (marketed as NutraSweet and Equal), which is the most
controversial food additive ever approved. This additive, which we
have been led to believe is completely safe, is in reality a drug which
interacts with other drugs and changes brain chemistry and causes
multiple types of chronic illness, including cancer.
The truth of the matter is that the FDA has always known aspartame
is a carcinogen and the FDA’s own toxicologist, the late Dr. Adrian
Gross told Congress without a shadow of a doubt aspartame can
trigger brain tumors and brain cancers and violated the Delaney
Amendment which forbids putting anything in food you know will
cause cancer. As Dr. James Bowen told the FDA, the manufacturers
Aspartame helps you lose weight & has no side effects.
Aspartame is a neurotoxin, has been linked to brain
cancer, grand mal seizures, and several other central
nervous system disorders.
Chapter 17 – Aspartame Cancer – Step Outside the Box
of aspartame have damaged a generation of children and should be
criminally prosecuted for genocide for the mass poisoning of the U.S.
and 100 countries of the world.
I briefly mentioned aspartame a couple of times earlier in the book,
but due to the fact that it is extremely toxic, the fact that it is an
ingredient in so many foods and drinks, and the sordid history of
how it obtained FDA approval, I have devoted an entire chapter of
the book. As I mentioned, aspartame is an excitotoxin, which simply
means that it excites your brain cells to death. Dr. Russell Blaylock
states that “the ingredients (in aspartame) stimulate the neurons of
the brain to death causing brain damage of varying degrees.”
Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills, 1994.
So what’s in aspartame? Aspartame is made of 3 components, 50%
phenylalanine, 40% aspartic acid, and 10% methanol (wood
alcohol). The methanol is widely distributed throughout the body
including brain, muscle, fat and nervous tissue. This is important:
when the temperature of aspartame exceeds 86°, the methanol
coverts to formaldehyde (embalming fluid) and formic acid. What is
the normal body temperature again? If I remember correctly, it’s
98.6° isn’t it? So, when you ingest aspartame, it heats up above 86°
and the methanol turns to formaldehyde (a known carcinogen),
which then enters the cells and binds to the proteins and DNA.
Methanol is toxic! Chronic, low-level exposure to methanol has
been seen to cause headaches, dizziness, nausea, ear buzzing, GI
disturbances, weakness, vertigo, chills, memory lapses, numbness &
shooting pains, behavioral disturbances, neuritis, misty vision, vision
tunneling, blurring of vision, conjunctivitis, insomnia, vision loss,
depression, heart problems (including disease of the heart muscle),
and pancreatic inflammation. (Kavet, Robert, Kathleen M. Nauss,
1990. “The Toxicity of Inhaled Methanol Vapors,” Critical Reviews
in Toxicology, Volume 21, Issue 1, pages 21-50)
But don’t many fruits and vegetables contain some methanol? Yes,
they do, but they also contain a large amount of ethanol, which acts
Chapter 17 – Aspartame Cancer – Step Outside the Box
as a buffer and neutralizes methanol, thus preventing the conversion
of methanol to formaldehyde. In aspartame, there is no such buffer.
The maximum “safe” level of methanol per day, as determined by
the EPA, is 7.8 mg. One liter of “diet” soda contains 56 mg! And if
that’s not enough, remember that aspartame is 50% phenylalanine, a
substance that up to 20 million people cannot metabolize, and this
inability is genetically inherited by children. The inability to
metabolize phenylalanine can lead to mental retardation in children.
This means that aspartame causes an increased risk of mental
retardation for millions of children.
Aspartame was accidentally discovered in 1965 by James Schlatter, a
chemist at G.D. Searle, who licked some of a new ulcer drug from
his fingers and discovered the sweet taste of aspartame. Eureka!
Selling this chemical as a food additive to hundreds of millions of
healthy people every day would mean many more dollars than
limited sales to the much smaller group of ulcer sufferers. So, in
1967, Searle began the safety tests on aspartame which were
necessary for applying for FDA approval of food additives. Its early
tests of the substance showed it produced microscopic holes and
tumors in the brains of experimental mice, epileptic seizures in
monkeys, and was converted by animals into dangerous substances,
including formaldehyde.
In 1969, Searle hired Dr. Harold Waisman, a biochemist at the
University of Wisconsin, to conduct aspartame safety tests on seven
infant monkeys, who were fed aspartame mixed with milk. After
300 days, five of the monkeys had grand mal seizures and one died.
Dr. Waisman died before all of his studies were completed. In the
spring of 1971, Dr. John Olney (a neuroscientist) informed Searle
that his studies show that aspartame caused holes in the brains of
infant mice. Later that year, one of Searle’s own researchers
confirmed Dr. Olney’s findings in a similar study. But Searle didn’t
care…they were after their cash cow!
In 1973, the G.D. Searle Company applied for FDA approval and
submitted over 100 studies they claimed supported the safety of
Chapter 17 – Aspartame Cancer – Step Outside the Box
aspartame. One of the first FDA scientists to review the aspartame
safety data stated that “the information provided (by Searle) is
inadequate to permit an evaluation of the potential toxicity of
aspartame”. According to FDA toxicologist, Dr. Andrian Gross,
Searle “…took great pains to camouflage these shortcomings of the
study. As I say filter and just present to the FDA what they wished
the FDA to know and they did other terrible things for instance
animals would develop tumors while they were under study. Well
they would remove these tumors from the animals.” Nevertheless,
on July 26, 1974, the FDA approved aspartame for limited use in dry
foods, making available to the public for the first time the data
supporting their decision. This data was subsequently reviewed by
renowned brain researcher John Olney from Washington University
in St. Louis, who filed the first objection against aspartame’s
Two years later in 1976, triggered by Olney’s objection, the FDA
began an investigation of the laboratory practices of G.D. Searle. The
investigation found Searle’s testing procedures shoddy, full of
inaccuracies, and “manipulated” test data. The investigators reported
that they “had never seen anything as bad as Searle’s testing.” Then
in 1977, a governmental task force uncovered that Searle had
falsified data by submitting inaccurate blood tests. In another study,
a closer look revealed that uterine tumors had developed in many of
the test animals, and Searle admitted that these tumors were related
to the ingestion of aspartame. The FDA formally requested that the
U.S. Attorney’s office begin grand jury proceedings to investigate
whether indictments should be filed against Searle for knowingly
misrepresenting findings and “concealing material facts and making
false statements” in aspartame safety tests.
While the grand jury probe was underway, Sidley & Austin, the law
firm representing Searle, begins job negotiations with the U.S.
Attorney in charge of the investigation, Samuel Skinner. In July
1977, Skinner resigned and took a job with Searle’s law firm. The
resignation of Skinner stalled the grand jury investigation for so long
Chapter 17 – Aspartame Cancer – Step Outside the Box
that the statue of limitations lapsed. Eventually, the grand jury
investigation was dropped.
In 1979, the FDA established a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) to
rule on safety issues surrounding aspartame. A year later, the PBOI
concluded that aspartame should not be approved pending further
investigations of brain tumors in animals, and based on its limited
review, the PBOI blocked aspartame marketing until the tumor
studies could be explained. Unless the FDA commissioner overruled
the board, the matter was closed. But in 1980, Ronald Reagan was
elected President of the United States, and his transition team
included Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of G. D. Searle. According to a
former G.D. Searle salesperson, Patty Wood-Allott, Rumsfeld told
his sales force that, if necessary, “he would call in all his markers and
that no matter what, he would see to it that aspartame would be
approved that year.” (Gordon 1987, page 499 of U.S. Senate 1987).
Not surprisingly, the transition team picked Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes
Jr. to be the new FDA Commissioner. Hayes was widely profiled as
a man who believed that approval for new drugs and additives was
too slow because “the FDA demanded too much information.”
In May of 1981, three of six in-house FDA scientists who were
responsible for reviewing the brain tumor issues advised against
approval of aspartame, stating on the record that the Searle tests
were unreliable and not adequate to determine the safety of
aspartame. However, in July of that same year, in one of his first
official acts, Dr. Hayes, the new FDA commissioner, overruled the
PBOI and officially approved aspartame for dry all products. In
1982, Searle filed a petition that aspartame be approved as a
sweetener in carbonated beverages and other liquids.
Almost immediately, the National Soft Drink Association (NSDA)
urges the FDA to delay approval of aspartame for carbonated
beverages pending further testing because aspartame is very unstable
in liquid form. When liquid aspartame is stored in temperatures
above 85 degrees Fahrenheit, it breaks down into DKP and
formaldehyde, both of which are known toxins. Despite the public
outcry, in 1983, the FDA approved aspartame for soft drinks and the
Chapter 17 – Aspartame Cancer – Step Outside the Box
first carbonated beverages containing aspartame were sold for public
consumption. (Much of the previous section on the history of
aspartame was taken from: www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm)
Shortly after aspartame was approved for beverages, complaints
began to arrive at the FDA. Reactions such as dizziness, blurred
vision, memory loss, slurred speech, headaches, and seizures were
common with consumption of drinks containing aspartame. The
complaints were more serious than the agency had ever received on
any food additive. In just the first several years after aspartame was
approved for beverages, the FDA received over 10,000 complaints
about aspartame. In February of 1994, the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services released the listing of adverse reactions
reported to the FDA. Amazingly, aspartame accounted for more
than 75% of all adverse reactions reported to the FDA’s Adverse
Reaction Monitoring System. By the FDA’s own admission, fewer
than 1% of consumers who have adverse reactions to products ever
report it to the FDA. This balloons the 10,000 complaints to around
a million!
In 1985, an FDA toxicologist who tried to stop the approval of
aspartame, the late Dr. Adrian Gross, told Congress that because
aspartame was capable of producing brain tumors and brain cancer,
FDA should not have been able to set an allowable daily intake of
the substance at any level. He said without a shadow of a doubt that
aspartame can cause brain tumors and brain cancer, and violated the
Delaney Amendment which forbid putting anything in food you
know will cause cancer. His last words to Congress were “And if the
FDA violates its own law, who is left to protect the public?”
[Congressional Record SID835:131 (August 1, l985)]
From 1985 to 1995, researchers did about 400 aspartame studies. Dr.
Ralph G. Walton, M.D., reviewed all the studies on aspartame and
found 166 with relevance for human safety. Of those 166 studies, 74
were funded by G.D. Searle, 85 were independent, and 7 were
funded by the FDA. The results will amaze you, but probably won’t
surprise you. Of the 74 studies funded by Searle, 100% of them gave
Chapter 17 – Aspartame Cancer – Step Outside the Box
aspartame a clean bill of health. However, of the 85 studies that
were not funded by Big Pharma or the FDA, 84 of them (99%) found
aspartame to be dangerous to one’s health.
So, when the FDA tells us that aspartame has been proven to be safe,
rest assured that it is basing its findings on the fraudulent Searle
studies. Then, when the JAMA, examining the FDA findings (which
are based on the fraudulent Searle studies), announces that “the
consumption of aspartame poses no health risk for most people.”
Don’t believe it! We recently watched a documentary on aspartame
called Sweet Misery. It was amazing. You can see the trailer for the
DVD and also see the first 5 minutes here: http://aspartamekills.com
The toxic effects of aspartame are documented by the FDA’s own
data. In 1995, the FDA was forced, under the Freedom of
Information Act, to release a list of 92 aspartame symptoms reported
by thousands of victims. It appears this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Dr. H. J. Roberts, M.D., published the medical text “Aspartame
Disease: An Ignored Epidemic” which contains over 1,000 pages of
symptoms and diseases triggered by this excitotoxin, including the
sordid history of its approval. Got a sweet tooth? I recommend
stevia, an herbal sweetener, as a healthy alternative.

Jun 2, 2009

Fluoride-CHAPTER 18

There’s nothing like a glass of cool, clear water to quench your
thirst. But the next time you turn on the tap, you might want to
question whether that water is in fact, too toxic to drink. If your
water is fluoridated, the answer is likely “yes.” For decades, we have
been told a lie, a lie that has led to the deaths of hundreds of
thousands of Americans and the weakening of the immune systems
of tens of millions more. This lie is called fluoridation. A process we
were led to believe was a safe and effective method of protecting
teeth from decay is in fact a fraud. “I am appalled at the prospect of
using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that
will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use
water this way is deplorable.” - Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, former
President of the AMA.
Fluoride is a harmless additive found in toothpaste and
our water supply. It prevents cavities, helps maintain
healthy teeth, and is an essential mineral.
Fluoride is a cumulative toxic waste, banned in at least
13 countries. Fluoride can cause birth defects, cancer,
osteoporosis, and multiple other health problems.
Chapter 18 – Fluoride Cancer – Step Outside the Box
What if you found out that fluoride is a neurotoxic industrial waste?
What if you found out that it damages the immune, digestive, and
respiratory systems as well as the kidneys, liver, brain, and thyroid?
What if you discovered that there is no scientific evidence that
fluoride is a beneficial additive to water, and in fact that there is
overwhelming scientific evidence that proves, without a doubt, that
fluoride is harmful? What if you found out that all federal health
agencies have known these facts for years, but have been controlled
by the political interests of the nuclear arms, aluminum, and
phosphate manufacturers to keep it a secret? Would you believe it?
The fluoridation of our public water is something that has been
highly debated for decades, yet the practice continues today, despite
strong evidence which indicates that fluoridation causes human
suffering and disease. The history of water fluoridation goes back
almost 80 years. In the 1920s, aluminum manufacturing, due largely
to the flourishing canning industry, was booming. But it was also a
big producer of toxic fluoride waste. The biggest dilemma was the
cost to safely dispose of this hazardous waste, since it was extremely
expensive. A company in Pittsburgh, ALCOA, had some
“revolutionary” ideas of how to cut the costs of disposal.
At that time, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) was under the
jurisdiction of Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon, who just
happened to be the founder and major stockholder of ALCOA. In
1931, a PHS dentist named H. Trendley Dean was dispatched to over
300 small towns in Texas where water wells contained high
concentrations of organic, natural fluoride. His mission was to
determine how much fluoride people could tolerate without
sustaining obvious damage to their teeth. What he found was
startling: teeth in these high-fluoride towns were often discolored
and eroded, but he also reported that they “appeared to have fewer
cavities” than average.
So, he used a strategy called “selective use of data” to try to prove
that fluoride at one part per million (1 PPM) reduced cavities. He
chose to use the data from only 21 communities to “back into his
Chapter 18 – Fluoride Cancer – Step Outside the Box
number.” That’s what we call it in the accounting world when you
know the desired answer, then use only numbers which will support
your desired answer, and reach your predetermined conclusion.
Dean totally disregarded the other 270+ localities that showed no
correlation between fluoride and tooth decay. ALCOA-funded
scientist Gerald J. Cox learned of Dean’s findings, and devised a way
for ALCOA to actually profit from fluoride. He proposed that this
“apparently worthless by-product” might reduce cavities in children
(despite no real evidence). He declared that fluoride was good for
your teeth, and in 1939, he proposed that the U.S. should fluoridate
its water supplies. That’s right, not by a doctor, not by a dentist, but
by a scientist who was working for the largest producer of fluoride
in the entire U.S.
Now ALCOA needed a “boost” to throw their “fluoride football” for
a touchdown. The aluminum industry had already been marketing
their toxic fluoride waste as an insecticide and rat poison, but they
wanted a much larger market. But they had a minor roadblock: the
Journal of the American Dental Association, in 1944, warned that
“the potentialities for harm (from fluoridation) far outweigh those
for the good.” In 1945, two Michigan cities were selected for an
official “15-year” comparison study to determine if fluoride could
safely reduce cavities in children, and fluoride was pumped into the
drinking water of Grand Rapids. In 1946, despite the fact that the
official 15-year experiment in Michigan had barely begun, six more
U.S. cities were allowed to fluoridate their water. The 2 city
Michigan experiment was abandoned before it was half over, with
the results “inconclusive.” This is the only scientifically objective
test of fluoridation’s safety and benefits that was ever performed.
But ALCOA wasn’t going to let the facts get in the way of their idea!
In 1947, Oscar R. Ewing, a long-time ALCOA lawyer, was appointed
head of the Federal Security Agency, a position that placed him in
charge of the Public Health Service. Under Ewing, a national water
fluoridation campaign began. The PR strategist for the water
fluoridation campaign was none other than Sigmund Freud’s
nephew Edwin L. Bernays, known as the “Father of Spin.” Bernays
Chapter 18 – Fluoride Cancer – Step Outside the Box
pioneered the application of his Freud’s theories to advertising and
government “half truths.” In his book Propaganda, Bernays argued
that scientific manipulation of public opinion is they key. He stated,
“A relatively small number of persons pull the wires which control
the public mind.” The government’s fluoridation campaign was one
of his most enduring successes.
How did he do it? His techniques were simple: Pretend there is some
favorable research by using phrases like “Numerous studies have
shown...” or “Research has proven...” or “Scientific investigators
have found...” but then never really cite anything. Say it long
enough and loud enough, and eventually people will believe it. If
anyone doubts you, attack their character and/or their intellect. On
a side note, a few years later, Bernays helped popularize the notion
of women smoking cigarettes. Not being one to turn down a
challenge, Bernays set up the advertising format which lasted for
almost 50 years “proving” that cigarettes are beneficial to health.
Bernays never strayed from his fundamental axiom to “control the
masses without their knowing it.” He believed that the best PR takes
places when the people are unaware that they are being
manipulated. So, under Bernays’ spell, the popular image of fluoride
- which at the time was being sold as bug and rat poison - became
that of a beneficial provider of gleaming smiles, absolutely safe, and
good for children. This was a brilliant marketing move by ALCOA!
Rather than having to pay extremely high costs to safely dispose of
this toxic waste, ALCOA (and other aluminum manufacturers) could
now sell it to municipalities for a huge profit! Any opponents were
quickly and permanently engraved on the public mind as crackpots,
quacks, and lunatics. In 1950, the government officially endorsed
fluoridation. Since then, 2/3 of the nation’s reservoirs have been
fluoridated and almost 150,000 tons of toxic fluoride are pumped in
annually to keep them that way.
But, don’t studies show that a little fluoride is good for your teeth?
Absolutely! But this is a classic example of a “bait and switch.” You
see, the fluoride which is good for your teeth is calcium fluoride,
Chapter 18 – Fluoride Cancer – Step Outside the Box
which is found naturally in plants and water. However, the fluoride
which was being added to the water supply and toothpaste was not
calcium fluoride. It was either sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid, or
silicofluorides, all 3 of which are toxic wastes. In 2006, the “toxin of
choice” for over 90% of municipalities in the U.S. is fluorosilicic
acid. Have you ever read the labels on your toothpaste? I suggest
that you do so. The warning says to keep away from children. I
wonder why. Perhaps it is because if an entire tube of toothpaste
were ingested by a small child, the dosage would likely be fatal!
Fluorosilicic acid is an EPA regulated toxic waste produced in the
smokestacks of various industrial chemical producers. Let me
reiterate. Fluorosilicic acid is a toxic waste byproduct that is
produced in the United States by various chemical companies. It
represents such a health hazard that it is regulated by the EPA, and
must be disposed of as a toxic waste.
So, let me get this straight. It is illegal to take this fluorosilicic acid
and bury it in the ground or dump it in rivers or streams in this
country, but it is perfectly legal (even mandated) to sell it to
municipalities that drip it into the water supply so that people will
drink it. Of course, what goes in must come out, so we eventually
pass the fluoride (at least some of it) through our bodies and directly
into the rivers and streams. Thus, it brings us to this bizarre reality
of fluoridation: this environmentally hazardous, toxic substance is
illegal to dump into rivers and streams, unless it passes through the
bodies of human beings first, in which case it’s not only perfectly
legal, but it’s actually mandated by dentists. Pretty weird, huh? Of
course, these are the same people who are still putting mercury in
our mouths, so what do you expect?
Fluoride is more toxic than lead, and there are more than 500 peerreviewed
studies documenting adverse effects of fluoride ranging
from cancer to brain damage. Yet municipalities throughout the
United States actually purchase this product and then drip it into the
public water supply. According to Dr. Charles G. Heyd (past
President of the AMA), “I am appalled at the prospect of using water
Chapter 18 – Fluoride Cancer – Step Outside the Box
as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will
produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use
water this way is deplorable.”
Not only does fluoride not protect our teeth, but it has also been
shown to cause dental fluorosis, lowered IQ, and even cancer.
Numerous studies have shown that fluoride causes genetic damage at
concentrations as low as one part per million (1 PPM). Can you
guess what the average level of fluoridation is in our water supply?
That’s right...1 PPM!
The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water was found in
Germany’s concentration camps. The Gestapo had little concern
about fluoride’s supposed effect on children’s teeth. Their alleged
reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to
sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps
into calm submission. (Joseph Borkin, The Crime and Punishment of
I.G. Farben). Charles Elliot Perkins, research scientist sent by the
U.S. government to take charge of the I.G. Farben drug/chemical
plants in Germany, confirmed this fact when he discovered that “the
real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of
the masses to domination, control and loss of liberty.” In his report
to the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research in October of 1954,
he said, “repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in
time reduce an individual’s power to resist domination, by slowly
poisoning and narcotizing a certain area of the brain, thus making
him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him.”
One of the most harmful attributes of fluoride is that inhibits
enzyme activity, paralyzes white blood cells, and causes collagen to
break down. Enzymes, the immune system’s leukocytes, and
collagen are all fundamental in fighting cancer. And all three are
adversely affected by fluoride. Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, a biochemist
and president of the Safe Water Foundation, was one of two
researchers who first determined the fluoride-cancer link. In 1977,
epidemiological studies by Dr. Dean Burk, former head of the U.S.
National Cancer Institute’s cell chemistry section, and
Chapter 18 – Fluoride Cancer – Step Outside the Box
Yiamouyiannis showed that fluoridation is linked to about 10,000
cancer deaths yearly. According to Dr. Burk, “Fluoride causes more
human cancer, and causes it faster, than any other chemical.”
Fluoride, The Aging Factor, 1986.
Fluoride has also been linked to Alzheimer’s disease, since the
aluminum binds with fluoride to form aluminum fluoride, which is
able to pass the blood-brain barrier. In January 1987, experiments
performed at the Medical Research Endocrinology Dept., Newcastle
upon Tyne, England, and the Physics Dept of the University of
Ruhana, Sri Lanka, showed that fluoridated water at 1 PPM (when
used in cooking in aluminum cookware) concentrated the aluminum
up to 600 PPM, whereas water without fluoride did not. (Science
News 131:73). Researchers examined the water in Antigo,
Wisconsin which has been fluoridated for almost 40 years. The
water was examined by a certified Wisconsin laboratory, and
showed that when it was used in cooking in aluminum cookware, it
concentrated the aluminum by 833 times and increased the fluoride
content by 100%. www.whale.to/a/alz.html
One of the other things I find so interesting about this debate on
fluoride is that dentists and doctors will leap to defend this practice
at every opportunity. Why? Is it because there’s good scientific
evidence that fluoridation is somehow beneficial to the public? NO.
It’s because they’ve been told to support it by Big Medicine
(specifically the AMA and ADA). All of this is so bizarre that a
reasonable person can only conclude these doctors and dentists are
operating on auto-pilot. They are parroting whatever “talking
points” that Big Medicine gives them.
And to top it off, they are typically extremely arrogant about the
whole thing. They act like because they are dentists, they are
qualified to talk about this one single nutritional deficiency and its
effects on the entire human body. In fact, dentists have no
qualifications to talk about the effects of fluoride on the human
nervous system, the blood supply, chronic disease, behavioral
disorders, or other physiological effects. Dentists are really only
Chapter 18 – Fluoride Cancer – Step Outside the Box
qualified to talk about what’s happening with your teeth – not drugs
or chemicals that you ingest and that have a systemic effect.
And doctors are not much better. They are not qualified to talk
about nutrition. As I’ve already mentioned, at best they have a few
hours of education on nutrition and are largely illiterate about the
relationship between nutritional deficiencies and chronic disease.
The bottom line is that you have a whole group of so-called
“experts” that know nothing about the subject they are talking
about, but yet who grandstand and claim to be the authorities on it.
In the mid 1980s, the largest study ever conducted on fluoridation
and tooth decay was performed, using data from 39,000 school
children in 84 areas around the country. The results showed no
statistically significant difference in rates of tooth decay between
fluoridated and non-fluoridated cities. Surprised? I’m not. But that’s
not all. A 1989 study by the National Institute for Dental Research
concluded that 12% of children living in areas artificially fluoridated
at just 1 PPM to 4 PPM developed dental fluorosis, a permanent
discoloration and brittling of the teeth. Yep, fluoride’s really great
for your pearly whites!
What should you do to protect yourself from fluoride? First off, you
should never use products that contain fluoride. That is, don’t use
toothpaste or mouthwashes that contain fluoride. Also, don’t
purchase bottled water that has added fluoride in it. I think that’s a
ridiculous product to have on the shelves. And don’t drink from the
public water supply. I highly recommend Christopher Bryson’s
book entitled The Fluoride Deception. You can purchase it at this
website: www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-deception.htm. I also
suggest you read this article called “50 Reasons to Appose
Fluoridation“ at www.fluoridealert.org/50reasons.htm.
Trivia Time: What do Sweden, Norway, Germany, Ireland, Italy,
Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Denmark, and Holland have in
common? Answer: They have all banned fluoridation of their water

Jun 1, 2009

Vaccinations-Chapter 19

Don’t vaccinations prevent disease? Aren’t they safe and effective?
Health authorities credit vaccines for disease declines, and assure us
of their safety and effectiveness. Yet these assumptions are directly
contradicted by government statistics, published medical studies,
FDA and CDC reports, and the opinions of credible research
scientists from around the world. There are hundreds of published
medical studies documenting vaccine failure and adverse effects, and
dozens of books written by doctors, researchers, and independent
investigators that reveal serious flaws in immunization theory and
Vaccinations are safe, effective, and are based on sound
scientific studies and evidence, are responsible for the
decrease in many infectious diseases.
Vaccinations are based on flawed science and
fraudulent data. They cause disease, disability, and even
death. Hygiene and sanitation, not vaccinations, have
resulted in the decrease of nearly every infectious
disease over the past century.
Chapter 19 – Vaccinations Cancer – Step Outside the Box
practice. Ironically, most pediatricians and parents are completely
unaware of these findings.
I am well aware that vaccinations are considered “sacred” to most
conventional doctors. As a matter of fact, questioning them is
tantamount to blasphemy. I can assure you that I would not
challenge the efficacy and safety of something as “holy” as
vaccinations unless I were certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that
I am accurate when I state that vaccinations are not safe and they
are not effective in preventing the spread of disease.
Over the past century, as the cornerstone of public health policy,
vaccinations have caused, not prevented the spread of disease. If
you are able to look at this subject with “objective spectacles,” you
will easily be able to see that mass vaccinations are linked to global
epidemics of neurological and behavioral problems as well as worldwide
proliferation of autoimmune diseases. However, chances are
that you will likely dismiss me as a “quack” or “idiot,” put your head
back into the sand, and take your kiddos back to the doctor for more
poison injections.
Most of the people in the U.S. will do whatever they are told. We
are encouraged not to think for ourselves. We are programmed to
place blind faith in our physician and the Medical Establishment.
We are taught not to ask questions. The sad fact is that most
Americans simply believe in vaccinations, although it is likely that
they have no idea what is in them. Decades of studies published in
the world’s leading medical journals have documented serious
adverse effects from vaccinations, including death. Dozens of books
written by doctors and researchers have revealed serious flaws in
immunization practice and theory. Yet, incredibly, most
pediatricians and parents are unaware of these findings. Believe it or
not, most pediatricians don’t even know what’s in the vaccinations
they are administering. Don’t believe me? Just ask them…and be
prepared to see a perplexed look on their face…right before they get
mad at you for daring to ask questions or threaten you if you don’t
submit to their policy of mandatory vaccinations!
Chapter 19 – Vaccinations Cancer – Step Outside the Box
For example, when our daughter, Brianna, was about 18 months old,
we took her to the doctor’s office for a checkup. The doctor told us
that it was time for her vaccinations, among them the MMR
vaccination. We had been doing a little research on vaccinations and
were a bit concerned that they may not be quite as safe as they are
reported to be. So, we told the doctor that we were concerned and
did not want Brianna to be vaccinated, thinking that he would
honor our wishes. His response was staggering. “If you choose not to
have her vaccinated, then she can no longer be a part of our practice
here. You will have to go elsewhere. We are not buying into or
promoting all that hype (on autism). Vaccinations do not cause
autism. Eating kids’ fish sticks is more of a risk at causing autism
than these vaccinations.” What arrogance! Well, we should have
walked out of his office immediately, but like thousands of other
parents, we caved to the pressure and allowed that doctor to inject
our little girl with poison.
That’s right…poison! I have heard vaccinations described as “toxic
cocktails“ of the most toxic substances on earth. They are combined
with live and dead animal viruses that have been cultured in
monkey kidney tissue, cow tissue, goat tissue, pig tissue, and even
aborted human fetuses. They contain any combination of the
following: thimerosal (ethyl mercury), aluminum, formaldehyde
(carcinogenic embalming fluid), phenol, ethylene glycol (antifreeze),
live viruses, bacteria, and acetone, among other things. According to
Professor Boyd Haley, University of Kentucky Chair & Head of
Chemistry, “You couldn’t even construct a study that shows
thimerosal is safe. It’s just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal
into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue,
the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies.
Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could
inject it into an infant without causing damage.”
What if I were to take some mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum,
antifreeze, and live viruses cultured in dead animal tissue, then mix
them together with some peanut butter and spread it on a piece of
Chapter 19 – Vaccinations Cancer – Step Outside the Box
bread for my kiddos to eat for a snack? Would you think I was a
good parent? What if I were to state, “This will keep them from
getting sick”? Would you question my sanity? The odds are that I
would likely be arrested for child abuse. However, when doctors
inject our kiddos with the same ingredients (less the peanut butter)
and tell us “This will keep them from getting sick,” most of us don’t
even give it a second thought.
What if you call your physician and tell him that you are going to
inject your baby with mercury, aluminum, and formaldehyde, and
that you are wondering what the “safe dosage” was for these
ingredients? Well, right after he calls Child Protective Services, he
will probably call the police! You see, there is no safe dosage because
these are all potentially carcinogenic substances. But mercury
derivatives, aluminum, and formaldehyde are ingredients in most
vaccinations. How is it possible that they are safe? The answer
depends upon who is injecting them. If you or I inject our child with
mercury or formaldehyde, we are going to jail. But if a drug
company and a doctor inject the same toxic poisons, then they are
perfectly safe. What’s wrong with this picture? Unfortunately, most
Americans follow the masses, believe what we’re told, don’t ask
questions, and place blind faith in our doctors. But where do doctors
get their medical training? That’s right…in medical school.
Medical schools, which are largely subsidized by Big Pharma,
brainwash students into believing that vaccinations are safe and
prevent the spread of infectious diseases. Not surprisingly, there is a
huge financial incentive for Big Pharma to “peddle” vaccinations, as
they make a fortune on the sale of these toxic cocktails. Once these
medical students graduate and become physicians, they are offered
large “commissions” to sell more vaccinations to patients and
continue their blind faith in the necessity of these poisons. Then,
most people acquiesce to the poisoning of their kiddos because they
simply cannot believe…they refuse to believe…that their
“omniscient” physician could possibly be wrong. The no way factor
takes over. So, what we have is blind faith in doctors, who have
blind faith in what they learned in medical school, which are
Chapter 19 – Vaccinations Cancer – Step Outside the Box
governed by the AMA, which is “in bed” with Big Pharma, which is
interested in shareholder profits, not in the safety of our children.
England’s Edward Jenner, born in 1749, is credited with being the
“Father of Vaccines.” He believed the superstition among the
dairymaids that a person who had suffered cowpox could not
contract smallpox. In 1786, for his initial “human guinea pig” test,
Jenner scraped pus from the lesions from a dairymaid and injected
this pus into James Phipps, an 8 year old boy. A short time
afterwards, he inoculated the boy with small-pox, and the small-pox
did not take. Jenner believed that he had found the cure to
smallpox. Over the next 12 years, Phipps was inoculated about 20
times and eventually died of tuberculosis at the age of 20. Jenner’s
own son also served as one of his guinea pigs and also died of
tuberculosis at the age of 21. Since that time, researchers have
linked tuberculosis to the smallpox vaccine. (Eleanor McBean, The
Poisoned Needle).
Over the next few years, Jenner gathered the “proof” that his
smallpox vaccine worked, and then he presented it to Parliament.
He was sure to report only the data which supported his theory, and
to never mention the multitudes of people who would disprove his
theory (i.e. those people who contracted cowpox and then
contracted smallpox afterwards). He was careful to mention only the
cases of a dozen old men who had cowpox and did not contract
smallpox afterwards, while conveniently omitting the hundreds of
cases who had had both. Eventually, after years of manipulating data
and “tweaking” his smallpox vaccination formula, he “sold” his
theory of vaccinations to the intellectual elite and governmental
officials alike.
Despite Jenner’s efforts, widespread vaccination did not really catch
on. As of 1807, only 1.5% of the Brits had been vaccinated. Up until
1823, the year that Jenner died, there were only regional outbreaks
of smallpox in England, nothing that would be considered an
epidemic. For the next 30 years, smallpox was under control.
However, vaccinations became mandatory in England in 1853, and
Chapter 19 – Vaccinations Cancer – Step Outside the Box
by 1857, fines and imprisonment awaited people who refused to be
vaccinated against smallpox.
Once smallpox vaccination became mandatory in England, massive
epidemics began to occur. Between 1857 and 1859, there were over
14,000 deaths from smallpox. Then, between 1863 and 1865, there
were over 20,000 smallpox deaths. A few years later, there were
almost 45,000 smallpox deaths between 1870 and 1872. According to
official estimates, 97% of the population had been vaccinated (Anne
Riley Hale, The Medical VooDoo). Japan introduced compulsory
vaccinations in 1872. In 1892 there were 165,774 cases of smallpox
with 29,979 deaths despite the vaccination program. Bottom line:
the smallpox vaccine does not work.
What about polio? Didn’t the polio vaccine save millions? The
population of New York in 1950 was 15 million, and at that time,
there were 13 polio cases and 1 polio death per 100,000 population.
Hardly an epidemic! But based solely on the scant evidence of a
polio “epidemic,” Dr. Jonas Salk convinced the federal government
to inoculate 97% of the American population with a culture grown
in dead green monkeys. As the Salk vaccine program expanded,
cases of paralytic polio began to increase. In 1959, more than 5,000
paralytic polio cases occurred-50% more than in 1958, and 100%
more than in 1957. This trend developed in spite of 300,000,000
doses of Salk vaccine administered in the U.S. by the end of 1959.
Six New England states reported increases in polio one year after the
Salk vaccine was introduced, ranging from Vermont’s 100% increase
to Massachusetts’ astounding increase of 642%. During 1962, U.S.
Congressional hearings, Dr. Bernard Greenberg, head of the
Department of Biostatistics for the University of North Carolina
School of Public Health, testified that not only did the cases of polio
increase substantially after mandatory vaccinations, but that the
statistics were manipulated by the Public Health Service to give the
opposite impression. [Hearings before the Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 87th Congress,
Second Session on H.R. 10541, May 1962, p.94].
Chapter 19 – Vaccinations Cancer – Step Outside the Box
Almost 20 years after the first polio inoculations, in 1977, Salk
testified before a Senate subcommittee that all polio outbreaks since
1961 were caused by the oral polio vaccine. In 1985, the CDC
reported that 87% of the cases of polio in the U.S. between 1973 and
1983 were caused by the vaccine and most of the reported cases
occurred in fully immunized individuals. Alarmingly, the CDC has
admitted that the polio vaccine is the only known cause of polio in
the U.S. today.
Remember I mentioned that the polio vaccine was initially cultured
in dead green monkeys and was contaminated with SV-40 (from
1959 to 1965)? It turns out that SV-40 can be passed horizontally
(i.e. between father and mother) and vertically (i.e. between mother
and child). In fact, SV-40 is often associated with medulloblastoma,
the most prevalent pediatric brain tumor. When scientists injected
young hamsters with SV-40, over 80% developed brain cancers.
Traces of this virus are commonly found in brain cancers among the
millions of people who received polio vaccines contaminated with
SV-40. In 1979, Doctors J. Farwell, G. Dohrmann, L. Marrett, and J.
W. Meigs wrote a paper entitled: “Effect of SV40 Virus-
Contaminated Polio Vaccine on the Incidence and Type of CNS
Neoplasms in Children: A Population-Based Study,” in which they
found a substantial increase in childhood brain tumors, especially
medulloblastoma, when the mothers had been inoculated with
vaccines containing SV-40.
Vaccinations and Autism. Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana
began holding hearings on the relationship between childhood
vaccines and autism in the fall of 2001. His grandson became autistic
after receiving 49 times the amount of mercury considered safe by
the EPA during a visit to his pediatrician who gave him nine
vaccines at once. During these hearings, parent after parent told
very similar stories. They told of how their normally developing
babies had suddenly reversed their development soon after the
MMR vaccination or the DPT vaccination. The children spiraled
downward into the “vegetable-like” existence of autistic behavior, in
Chapter 19 – Vaccinations Cancer – Step Outside the Box
which previously happy, bright children suddenly can no longer
learn or communicate, or recognize their parents.
Astonishing testimony was given by experts in the field of autism.
For instance, Dr. Michael Goldberg, M.D., explained how it was
impossible to have an epidemic based solely on genetics. That’s the
standard excuse the CDC and the NIH have been using to explain
how autism has literally exploded in just over 2 decades. Dr. Mary
Megson, M.D., explained how autism has gone from being an
unknown in 1978 (with an incidence of 1 in 10,000) to an epidemic
in 2000 (with an incidence of 1 in 166). Her research has shown
total deficiency of vitamin A in almost all autistic children. Can you
guess what depletes the body of vitamin A? You got it…the MMR
vaccination. Amazingly, Big Medicine still insists that there is no
connection between toxic mercury preservatives in mandated
childhood vaccinations and the astounding increase in autism,
despite ample scientific evidence to the contrary.
Dr. John O’Leary, PhD, a world class researcher and molecular
biologist from Ireland, using state of the art sequencing technology,
showed how he had found measles virus in the gut of 96% of autistic
children, compared to 6.6% of normal children. Interestingly, this
virus did not come from the natural disease; it came from the
measles vaccine. Finally, Dr. V. Singh, M.D., an autism specialist
from Utah, found that in over 400 cases of autism, the children had
experienced an autoimmune episode, in which their own body has
been made to attack the lining of the nervous system. He stated that
55% of the families said that autism appeared soon after the MMR
vaccination and that 33% of families said it appeared soon after the
DPT vaccination. Such neurologic damage is a well-established side
effect of the mercury, aluminum, and formaldehyde used in these
Interestingly, on November 26, 2005, the President George W. Bush
administration asked a federal claims court to seal documents
relating to hundreds of cases of autism allegedly caused by
thimerosal, one of the toxic ingredients used in many childhood
Chapter 19 – Vaccinations Cancer – Step Outside the Box
vaccines. The government’s legal action comes on the heels of an
insertion into the Homeland Security bill that protects Eli Lilly, the
drug company giant that developed thimerosal, from lawsuits
involving the additive. The bill removes all liability from the
pharmaceutical industry and health officials for the injuries and
death resulting from the preservative. This is sickening! Yet another
instance of Big Pharma and governmental corruption.
More on Vaccinations. Dr. Archie Kalokerinos was a physician who
began routinely vaccinating aboriginal children in Australia during
the late 1960s. Shortly after he began vaccinations, he noticed that
extremely high numbers of these children became very ill or died.
He also noticed that children who were sick at the time of
vaccination were more likely to experience adverse reactions. In his
book Every Second Child, Dr. Kalokerinos also noted that children
experiencing adverse reactions would recover after receiving large
doses of vitamin C and the numbers of children who suffered
adverse reactions declined dramatically when only healthy children
who had taken large doses of vitamin C received vaccinations.
“One would have expected, of course, that the authorities would
take an interest in these observations that resulted in a dramatic
drop in the death rate of infants in the area under my control. But
instead of taking an interest, their reaction was one of extreme
hostility. This forced me to look into the question of vaccination
further and the further I looked the more shocked I became. I found
that the whole vaccine business was a hoax. Most doctors are
convinced that they are useful, but if you look at the proper statistics
and study the instance of these diseases you will realize that this is
not so.” - Interview of Dr. Archie Kalokerinos in The International
Vaccination Newsletter, June 1995.
One study found that 3,000 children die within 4 days of vaccination
each year in America. Another researcher’s studies concluded that
half of American SIDS cases (between 2,500 and 5,000 infant deaths
annually) are caused by vaccinations. (Viera Scheibner, Ph.D.,
Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research Shows that Vaccines
Chapter 19 – Vaccinations Cancer – Step Outside the Box
Represent a Medical Assault on the Immune System). It is amazing
how much medical literature that exists which documents the
failure of vaccinations. In 1989, the Center for Disease Control
(CDC) reported, “Among school-aged children, [measles] outbreaks
have occurred in schools with vaccination levels of greater than 98
percent. [Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), 38 (8-
9), 12/29/89] The CDC even reported a measles outbreak in a
documented 100% vaccinated population. [MMWR, 33(24),
Vaccinations and Chemotherapy. The parallels between childhood
vaccines and chemotherapy are astonishing but not surprising given
that it’s the same industry and the same manufacturers who are
responsible for both.
􀂾 Both vaccines and chemotherapy are shown to be “effective”
by scientists whom the manufacturer is paying.
􀂾 Both have resulted in injury and death.
􀂾 Both are extremely profitable.
􀂾 Both are considered sacred and won’t be seriously
􀂾 Both represent a paradigm that the body can only be healed
or made whole by the use of dangerous extrinsic chemicals.
I know we are all brought up to blindly trust our doctors. But the
fact is that they no longer deserve that kind of blind trust.
Physicians take an oath to “First, do no harm,” but today, what gets
injected into your child is being decided not by physicians but by
Big Pharma which has a financial incentive to inject as many
vaccinations as possible. Only by keeping people in the dark can Big
Pharma continue its absurd profiteering from the vaccination
industry. We assume that because vaccinations are mandated by U.S.
law that the government is verifying to their safety and
effectiveness. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Every day, millions of children are lined up and injected with toxic,
putrid substances called vaccinations. Before they begin first grade,
children can get as many as 36 vaccinations! There are about 200
Chapter 19 – Vaccinations Cancer – Step Outside the Box
more vaccinations in the pipeline. Scenarios for the future even
include consuming vaccines in nose sprays, ointments and fruits and
vegetables. This “Vaccination Obsession” has gone beyond what
anyone can possibly defend on scientific grounds. Pumping more
vaccinations into our precious kiddos borders on the criminal.
With every child on the planet a potential “required recipient” of
multiple vaccinations, and with every healthcare system and
government a potential buyer, it is little wonder that billions of
dollars are spent nurturing the vaccination industry. Without public
outcry, we will see more and more new vaccines required of us and
our children. And while profits are readily calculable, the real
human costs are being ignored. According to Dr. James R. Shannon,
former director of the National Institute of Health reported in
December, 2003 that “the only safe vaccine is one that is never
Remember, vaccinations are mandated but the are not mandatory!
There are three exemption possibilities in the United States:
􀂾 Medical Exemption – all 50 states allow for a medical
􀂾 Religious Exemption – nearly all states allow for a religious
􀂾 Philosophical or Personal Exemption – an increasing number
of states allow this exemption.
In the December 1994 Medical Post, Canadian author of the bestseller
Medical Mafia, Dr. Guylaine Lanctot, M.D. stated, “The
medical authorities keep lying. Vaccination has been a disaster on
the immune system. It actually causes a lot of illnesses. We are
actually changing our genetic code through vaccination...10 years
from now we will know that the biggest crime against humanity was
Well, it is now 2007, over 13 years since Dr. Lanctot made this
statement, and I will let you decide if she was correct…
Chapter 19 – Vaccinations Cancer – Step Outside the Box
Email Exchange with a Pediatrician
After I published the first edition of this book in August 2006, I had
an interesting email discussion with a pediatrician regarding
vaccinations, specifically the DPT. He accused me of being
“irresponsible” for claiming that vaccinations are poison to our
children. Below is the entire email thread…
Pediatrician: On an emotional level, I just have to add that it only
takes seeing one unimmunized child die of pertussis (whooping
cough) to make one question those who decry immunizations and
claim we are “poisoning our children with vaccinations.”
My response: Over 11,000 annual cases of adverse reactions to
vaccinations are reported to the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Effects
Reporting System), a branch of the FDA, of which 1% result in
death. (National Technical Information Service - Springfield, VA -
703.487.4650). The lion’s share (over 100 per year) of deaths are
attributed to reactions to the pertussis vaccine (the “P” in DPT).
It is unknown exactly how many deaths have occurred from the
pertussis vaccine, because doctors underreport all vaccine adverse
events. In New York state, for example, the National Vaccine
Information Center (NVIC) recently found that only one out of 40
doctor’s offices (2.5%) confirmed that they report a death or injury
following vaccination. (National Vaccine Information Center
(NVIC), 512 Maple Ave. W. #206, Vienna, VA 22180, 703-938-0342;
"Investigative Report on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting
The truth is that the number of vaccine-related deaths dwarfs the
number of deaths caused by the disease, which have averaged
around 10 annually for the past 2 decades, according to the CDC. As
the FDA estimates that only approximately 10% of adverse reactions
are reported, we can estimate that the chances of dying from the
pertussis vaccine are 100 times greater than the chances of dying
from pertussis itself.
Chapter 19 – Vaccinations Cancer – Step Outside the Box
Simply put, the vaccine is 100 times more deadly than the disease.
Given the many instances in which highly vaccinated populations
have contracted pertussis and the fact that the disease was on the
decline well before mandatory vaccinations (pertussis deaths
declined 79% prior to vaccines), the enormous number of vaccine
casualties can hardly be considered a necessary sacrifice for the
benefit of a disease-free society.
In the U.S. in 1986, 90% of 1300 pertussis cases in Kansas were
“adequately vaccinated.” (Neil Miller, Vaccines: Are They Safe and
Effective? p 33.) In 1993, 72% of pertussis cases in the Chicago
outbreak were fully up to date with their vaccinations. (Chicago
Dept. of Health).
Sadly, the vaccine-related-deaths story doesn’t end here. Both
national and international studies have shown vaccination to be a
cause of SIDS (Viera Scheibner, Ph.D., “Vaccination: 100 Years of
Orthodox Research Shows that Vaccines Represent a Medical
Assault on the Immune System” and W.C. Torch, "Diptheriapertussis-
tetanus (DPT) immunization: A potential cause of the
sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS),” (Amer. Adacemy of
Neurology, 34th Annual Meeting, Apr 25 - May 1, 1982), Neurology
32(4), pt. 2). The Torch study found the peak incidence of SIDS
occurred at the ages of 2 and 4 months in the United States, precisely
when the first two routine immunizations are given. It also found
that 3,000 children die within 4 days of vaccination each year, and
concluded that half of SIDS cases (approximately 2,500 to 5,000
infant deaths in the United States per year) are caused by vaccines.
Interestingly, on November 26, 2005, the Bush administration asked
a federal claims court to seal documents relating to hundreds of cases
of autism allegedly caused by thimerosal, one of the toxic
ingredients used in many childhood vaccines. The government’s
legal action comes on the heels of an insertion into the Homeland
Security bill that protects Eli Lilly, the drug company giant that
developed thimerosal, from lawsuits involving the additive. The bill
Chapter 19 – Vaccinations Cancer – Step Outside the Box
removes all liability from the pharmaceutical industry and health
officials for the injuries and death resulting from the preservative.
This is sickening! Yet another instance of Big Pharma and
governmental corruption.
Pediatrician: You point out that there are only 10 deaths from
pertussis each year. I wonder why that is. In 1934 there were around
8000 deaths attributed to pertussis in the US. The pertussis vaccine
was developed around that time and became used wide-spread about
20 years later. So the 10 deaths each year from pertussis is actually a
vaccine success story.
My response: It is common knowledge that whooping cough, like
measles, scarlet fever and diphtheria, is a very much less severe
disease than in times past, and it is the generally accepted idea in the
medical community that vaccination has been mainly responsible
for this. In fact nothing could he further from the truth. Scarlet
fever declined dramatically in both morbidity and mortality without
vaccination and for the most part prior to the advent of antibiotics.
Measles declined in a similar fashion prior to the introduction of
vaccination and, since it is a “viral disease,” it is not affected by
antibiotics. Diphtheria also declined prior to the advent of
immunization. As I mentioned in an earlier email, whooping cough
also had declined by 79% BEFORE immunizations.
The evidence indicates that the decline in severity in these diseases
was due to improved sanitation, better nutrition, better housing, and
improved hygiene rather than to any specific immunizations. The
truth be told, England actually saw a drop in pertussis deaths when
vaccination rates dropped from 80% to 30% in the mid 1970s.
Swedish epidemiologist B. Trollfors’ study of pertussis vaccine
efficacy and toxicity around the world found that “..pertussisassociated
mortality is currently very low in industrialized countries
and no difference can be discerned when countries with high, low
and zero immunization rates were compared.” He also found that
England, Wales, and West Germany had more pertussis fatalities in
1970 when the immunization rate was high, than during the last
Chapter 19 – Vaccinations Cancer – Step Outside the Box
half of 1980 when rates had fallen. I know you don’t like statistics
from 20 or 30 years ago, but facts do not change. The truth does not
change. The laws of physics do not change.
Pediatrician: Just for full disclosure, you might want to point out
that the National Vaccine Information Center, the group that put
out the paper you quote, is an anti-vaccination organization.
They’ve got a nice link to “lawyer referral" on their website.
My response: What difference does that make? Should I ask you to
point out that the groups that you cite are pro-vaccination groups?
C’mon, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Let’s just be
realisitic and admit that much of the literature which I cite is from
groups that oppose vaccinations, while much of the studies which
you will cite are from pro-vaccination groups. The trick is to find
out who (if anyone) is manipulating the data, and why….$$$...
Pediatrician: Why are the papers you're quoting from the early 80s?
I've not read them, but that's an eternity in medical literature.
Surely you have some newer data (last 5 years) to support these
claims. Right?
My response: As I mentioned earlier, the truth does not change.
Have the laws of physics changed over the past 2 decades? If so, I
wasn’t aware of it. And the papers I quoted were just examples of
pertussis epedimics that broke out in vaccinated populations, thus
demonstrating that the DPT is not near as effective as Big Medicine
would have us to believe. The dates are what they are…
If I wanted to demonstrate that the Nazi party committed genocide,
then I would refer you to the German death camps of the 1940s. I
doubt that you would ask for newer data, rejecting the fact that
millions of Jews were murdered by Nazis, since, after all, it did
happen over 60 years ago….an “eternity in medical literature”….
But since you asked…the New England Journal of Medicine
documents that the pertussis epidemic in Cincinnatti (1993) was in a
Chapter 19 – Vaccinations Cancer – Step Outside the Box
fully vaccinated population. The authors assert that that the
proportion of cases in fully vaccinated children provides evidence of
“the failure of the whole-cell pertussis vaccine.” (NEJM, Volume
331:1455-1456, 11/24/94, No. 21) The CDC’s own website indicates
that a sudden increase in cases reflecting a pertussis outbreak in the
Netherlands in 1996 could not be explained by a decrease in
vaccination coverage, which remained stable at 96% for at least
three vaccinations in the first year of life.
I could list many more studies conducted within the last decade, but
you get my point…Right?
Pediatrician: The autism question: The Cochrane database did a
systematic review (very statistically- powerful paper that combines
the results of many studies over a long period of time) this year
looking at MMR and autism. They reviewed 139 studies and found
no link.
My response: The Cochrane Study is oftentimes cited in an effort to
support vaccinations (specifically the MMR), show that there is no
link to autism, demonstate that the anti-vaccination wackos’ fears
are unfounded, and give the MMR the “all’s clear ahead.” But this is
a load of balogna. Most of these people should start by reading the
actual study rather than regurgitating the press release. The study
didn’t say anything like this at all. The press release said: “There was
no credible evidence behind claims of harm from the MMR
vaccination.” But the study did not say that. What the stucy did say
(but was not mentioned in the press release) was: “The design and
reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies … are largely
inadequate .” The study also stated: “We found only limited evidence
of the safety of MMR compared to its single component vaccines.”
In other words, far from saying MMR was safe, the study said
explicitly that the evidence for its safety was not good enough. Now,
I’m not saying that the study didn’t say that the evidence it looked at
did not support any association between MMR and autism. It did say
Chapter 19 – Vaccinations Cancer – Step Outside the Box
that. But that does not equate to stating that the MMR is safe. It
means that the study did not find anything to suggest that it was not
safe. Kind of like in a trial when you find a person “not
guilty”…rather than “innocent.”
What was the reason that they said the evidence didn't support a
link between the MMR and autism? Well, you know that
epidemiological studies are intrinsically unlikely to reveal the truth
about the effects of MMR. Here’s why: they rely on medical records.
But the fact is that most doctors quickly dismiss parents’ concerns
about autism (I know first hand about this), thus they never enter
anything out of the ordinary on their medical records.
And the authors of the Cochrane Study were far from
“independent.” Did you know that Dr. Tom Jefferson, MD, one of
the Cochrane study’s authors, acknowledged that in 1999, he acted
as a consultant for a legal team advising the MMR vaccine
manufacturers? Can anyone say “Conflict of Interest”? And this is
not the only instance of the “incest factor.” A number of
epidemiological studies which the FDA has used to state that MMR
is safe have been written by researchers with links to Big Pharma
Remarkably, the Cochran Study concluded that the safety studies
into MMR were so poor that “the safety record of MMR is probably
best attested by almost universal use.” In other words, because the
vaccine is so widely used, it must be safe. Talk about circular
reasoning!! This is a dangerous and extremely unscientific
Pediatrician: The most damning piece of evidence for the autism-
MMR question is the fact that the vaccine companies completely
removed the traces of mercury from the vaccine in 1999, yet the
rates of autism continue to rise. Why autism is increasing is an
interesting question, but the answer is not in vaccines.
Chapter 19 – Vaccinations Cancer – Step Outside the Box
My response: This is not true. In 2004, after much public
controversy surrounding the mercury content of childhood
vaccinations, Health Advocacy in the Public Interest (HAPI) tested 4
vaccines for heavy metal content. The vials were sent to Doctor’s
Data, an independent lab which specializes in heavy metal testing.
Many manufacturers voluntarily began producing supposed
“mercury free” vaccines in 1999. Some product inserts currently
claim that a “trace” amount of mercury still exists in the final
product but that the amount has been greatly reduced. Others claim
to be producing completely mercury free products.
During an investigation into the mercury issue, HAPI learned that
Thimerosal, a 50% mercury compound, is still being used to produce
most vaccines and that the manufacturers are simply “filtering it
out” of the final product. However, according to Boyd Haley, PhD,
Chemistry Department Chair, University of Kentucky, mercury
binds to the antigenic protein in the vaccine and cannot be
completely, 100% filtered out.
All 4 vaccine vials tested contained mercury despite manufacturer
claims that two of the vials were completely mercury free. All four
vials also contained aluminum (one had 9 times more than the other
3), which tremendously enhances the toxicity of mercury causing
neuronal death in the brain. www.whale.to/a/mercury7.html