I put together a 10 DVD set of the Dr. Ann Wigmore Raw Living Foods lifestyle for a very, very special price.
Learn more: http://wigmorediet.com/
Enjoy!
Jim
Dear Dr. Carey,
We just received your package yesterday in the mail. Everything seems to be in good condition.
The boys had fun helping me sort everything and check it off against the checklist online.
We felt like children in a candy store, God's "candy" that is! Not only were we able to check off everything, but found even more extras!
I told a friend of mine that this will be our Health and Nutrition curriculum for the next 10 years!
The Super Quick Start Guide is extremely helpful! Like you said, this is A LOT of information and it looks very overwhelming at first.
It is hard to stick to the schedule you laid out, I want to look at and read everything at once, but I know it will be worth it! :-)
Right now, I am starting to read Why Suffer? How I Overcame Illness & Pain Naturally.
Thank you, once again, Dr. Carey, for the program!
God bless,
Lisa Dams
[ see chiDiet.com for more information ]
From a speech by Dr. John McDougall to a group of M.D.s. These are Dr. Flora van Orden's notes...
Why is diet and lifestyle medicine so unpopular?
The main problem is its low profit. If we could change the profitability of lifestyle 'medicine', it would change overnight. But there is also the excuse that it takes some patient 'compliance'/effort. But, of course, that's taught to us, isn't it?
We are taught that patients aren't very smart, right? And, they're not going to do this. That's what I was taught when I was in medical school.. that patients were barely smart enough to sign the check at the end of the office visit and take our drugs. They're stupid and disinterested, and that's part of the education that goes on still today.
I believe that patients are very willing, if we give them half a chance, to make these changes. I see it every day in my practice, and they are very grateful. It's not high-tech.
I had an experience one time. I read an article by Dr. Pannish about how to cure rheumatoid arthritis in the Annals of Internal Medicine. I was doing a radio show at that time and I wanted him as a guest on my radio show. So I tracked him down at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Originally, that's where I looked for him, but he wasn't there anymore - he was at a big university of the East Coast and had become the Department of Internal Medicine head.
I called him up to invite him to be a guest, "Oh, Dr. Pannish, I'm so excited to talk to you. here you are, a man who's really stood up and said you can cure rheumatoid arthritis with diet."
And he said "Wait a minute, I don't want to talk about that."
I said, "What do you mean?"
"I don't do that anymore," he said.
"Well, what do you do?" I asked him.
He said, "I'm at this big university. Real doctors don't talk about diet and disease."
"So, what do real doctors talk about?"
"Well, you know, things like genetics and viruses and biochemistry and things like that. You see, it's not sexy. The person you saw at the front desk can teach you about diet and lifestyle. You don't have to be a doctor or a dietitian. I mean, anyone can teach you. It's not really sexy, is it? So, it's not very popular. And then, when you give patient control, then you as a doctor lose control and this is an ego-centered business, isn't it?"
Yeah, it is an ego-centered business. That's why we have operating theaters.
Then Dr. McDougall showed a pie chart of chronic illnesses.
"OK, let's get down to the treatment of disease. I'd give us medical doctors a report card. I'd give us an A for treating acute illnesses and I'd give us, at best, a D- for treating chronic illnesses. So, we've made great contributions in terms of people's health in several areas such as sanitation... Antibiotics, of course, are really wonderful; trauma care, and immunizations. They have made a huge difference in the welfare of people throughout the world. But, these are acute illnesses that we are dealing with primarily.
When it comes to chronic illness, seven of the leading causes of death are due to chronic illness. They are the diseases you see up there like heart disease, cancer, strokes, lung disease, diabetes, liver disease and atherosclerosis. And it represents 3/4ths of the health care dollars spent in this country - chronic diseases. The treatment of chronic illness with drugs, with medication, can't possibly work. Just the fact that it's called chronic, and continues to be called chronic, is an admission of failure.
Americans are sick, they're sicker than ever, and most Americans over the age of 55 have at least one risk factor for diseases. For example, 1/3rd have elevated cholesterol, most are inactive, 1/3rd have high blood pressure, 30% are obese, more than 65% are overweight, and 10% are diabetic. I mean, those are the facts and we treat those patients primarily with drugs. What we treat, of course, is not the patient or the disease, but we treat the risk factors, the signs and symptoms of the disease."
He introduced us to a term called 'disease mongering.' A monger is a derogatory term for a dealer, like a used-car dealer. Dr. Ray Moynihan defines disease mongering:
"It's the selling of sickness that widens the boundaries of illness and grows the market for those who sell and deliver treatments. It's exemplified most explicitly by the many pharmaceutical industry funded disease-awareness campaigns. Disease mongering turns healthy people into patients."
The most common way in which we disease monger is to treat risk factors and not diseases. In fact, it's not just risk factors we are treating anymore - it's risk factors for risk factors: pre-hypertension, pre-diabetes, pre-osteoporosis (osteopenia), etc.
So that's what we treat as risk factors: symptoms. I've been in practice for 40 years and I've never seen a patient die of high cholesterol! I've never seen a patient die of high blood pressure and I have never seen a patient die of high blood sugar, ever. These people who have these risk factors die of real diseases, don't they? I mean, they really are sick.
Unfortunately, we don't treat the underlying sickness that kills them, and we see tragedies in people's lives. 1.2 million people have heart attacks every year. 700,000 have strokes.
What would happen if instead of dealing with the risk factors, which we treat very effectively with drugs, we instead dealt with the underlying diseases? We might have to do something drastic, like change people's diets! Or, make them exercise! Or, cause them to quit smoking! But the problem is, how do we charge for that? How do you make a living doing that?
OK, lifestyle is what it's all about, correcting the cause through a change in lifestyle. Most of you understand that it's a plant-based diet, it's modern exercise and it's clean habits that work. Let me give you an example of disease mongering just so you all get up to speed on this and see how it works:
Treatment of hypertension. The end points for treating high blood pressure, how do we succeed? Do blood pressure lowering medications lower blood pressure. Definitely, no question about it. In fact, when you read the scientific studies on high blood pressure, what do you find?
Yes, Drug A lowers blood pressure as well as Drug B.
Do they reduce the risk of dying of heart disease? No.
Do they reduce the risk of stroke? A little bit.
Do they have side effects and complications? A LOT!
We are taught by the provocatively dressed drug representatives and by the drug companies that high blood pressure medicine is very effective, it cuts the risk of stroke in half. And you think that there's a practitioner who thinks, "I would be foolish if I didn't treat my patients with high blood pressure pills," because they cut the risk of stroke nearly in half... Well, if you look at scientific research, this is what you find:
The risk of stroke for 5 years: People who have mild hypertension between 90 and 110 mm of mercury, if you don't treat them they have 15 chances of having a stroke out of every 1,000 people untreated. But, if you treat them, their risk is now 9 chances out of every 1,000 patients. So, what do we have here? We have a risk reduction over five years. That's 15 minus 9, which is 6, divided by 15 we have a relative risk reduction of 40%. That's a relative risk reduction, but that's not the way we should look at things, is it?
The risk of stroke for five years, in terms of absolute reduction is six strokes per 1,000 people. That's one less stroke per year by treating 1,000 people with medication. It looks a little bit different now. So what we do is talk in terms of relative and absolute risk reduction which means no sense at all. It makes a profitable sense but no sense in the terms of the welfare of our patients.
Disease mongering expands the definition of sickness. When Walter Kempner was taking care of high blood pressure patients, his blood pressure patients came in with blood pressures of 200/140. He got 60% of them down to normal blood pressures. When I started in medicine, it was called mild high blood pressure when it was 160/100. Soon, it became 140/90. Then there was a report, the first came out about 18 years ago, but another one came out a couple of years ago that said that if your blood pressure was 120/80 or greater, that you had twice the risk of dying of heart disease. It made national headlines. I'm sure the PR people, the spin doctors, at the drug stores. It made national headlines.
I'm sure the PR spin doctors, at the drug companies made sure that everybody learned about that. Now that is true, if your blood pressure is elevated, it is an indication that you have higher risk of having diseases associated with a western diet. It's a sign that says you're sick. But does treating signs necessarily solve the problem? Well, the drug companies think we should do that even though the results of those treatments don't show those benefits. So we have doctors out there treating people with blood pressures of 120/80 or higher or maybe 110/70 or higher. Remember, that's pre-hypertension. So, you expand the market greatly by expanding the definition of sickness.
Now, this is the guideline that I use and the one I would encourage you to use, from the British literature. It's the most current guideline on treating high blood pressure. And that is why I don't feel uncomfortable at all taking patients off blood pressure lowering medications. That is why I don't feel uncomfortable having my patients blood pressures at 140/90 or 150/95 without medication, because of the British guidelines, which have looked carefully at the scientific literature and have made some profound statements that should dictate our practice.
In these guidelines, there are summary points that all people with high blood pressure, borderline or high normal blood pressure should be advised on lifestyle modifications.
Now how many doctors do you think do that? I mean do you think a patient goes into a doctor's office and when the blood pressure is detected, the first thing the doctor does is say, "You're going to take a 10-week diet and lifestyle course before I put you on drugs."
You think that ever happens? Or do you think maybe, more likely what happens is, when the patient comes into the doctor's office, the first reading of elevated blood pressure dictates a life-long treatment for high blood pressure. Do you think that's possible? I think so.
Then they go on and say that you should initiate drug therapy if there is a sustained, as in not 15 minutes, but months, 160 systolic and 100 or greater diastolic. That's what the British guidelines say. Now, if you feel uncomfortable about not initiating high blood pressure therapy, for what you know is less than mild hypertension, or if you feel uncomfortable about taking people off high blood pressure medication, just use the British guidelines. It's the most current recommendations out there, and I believe much less biased because I believe the British literature is much less influenced than the U.S. literature.
More on disease mongering. Here's another way to do it. You exaggerate the goals of treatment. The goal, I can't think of a patient who has come in with anything but the goal of making the blood pressure normal with drugs. 110-78 or less, that's the goal.
Well, using medication, reaching that goal results in more death and disability, more heart attacks. What happens is when the diastolic is high and you treat, say it's 120, the blood pressure, the risk of heart attacks and death decreases until you hit a level of about 95 mm of mercury in diastolic. Certainly, no lower than 85 mm of mercury. Then, the risk of death increases. It's called the "J" or "U" phenomenon of mortality. It's been written about for over 30 years. It makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
Here you have a patient whose blood vessel system is all clogged up, it's full of sludge from what they ate, their arteries are in spasm.
The heart and the body perceive these problems: "We are not delivering the nutrients to the tissues because of all this peripheral resistance. So, what do we need to do?"
The body says to itself. "Well, we need to increase the pressure in the system," so the pressure goes up. So, what do we do as agents of medical care, agents of the pharmaceutical industry? We poison the system at various levels. We poison the heart with beta blockers, we poison the arteries with calcium channel blockers, we poison the kidneys with diuretics. And the blood pressure comes down, as expected.
But what happens to all that effort the body is making to deliver nutrients to the tissues? What happens is, that effort is stopped.
The consequence is you decrease pressure to the tissues and the patient dies. But, at least he died with a normal blood pressure, right?
[Emphasis added.]
Peace and Love Be With You,
Dr. Flora van Orden III
PhD, Nutrition
[Please post your questions as Comments, below:]
Dr. John McDougall’s Diet and Lifestyle Benefits, from his lecture to MDs. Notes by Dr. Flora van Orden III, PhD.
Well, we reduce major risk factors, those risk factors for hormone related cancers like breast, prostate or obesity, IGF-1, cholesterols, estrogen, and prolactin.
A study published in JAMA (Journal of the American medical Association) in 2005, showcasing physical activity: walking 3-5 hours a week (casual walking) reduced the absolute death for women with breast cancer by 6% over 10 years. That’s as good as any chemo!
We had a big failure a couple of months ago; we had the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial. It made national headlines. Everyone liked that trial because it gave them good news about their bad habits! Low – fat diets don’t work. I think that’s what happened – that‘s why it got so much publicity. You no longer had to follow a low-fat diet because the Trial showed that a low-fat diet doesn’t work. Of course, the average weight loss was only one pound greater than those on the low-fat diet, compared to those on the control group, after eight years. They didn’t GO on a low-fat diet.
Roman Shablowski, who is here in Los Angeles and Ernst Winter, who is head of the American Health Foundation, were associates of mine many years ago. I had them on my radio and TV shows on a couple of occasions. Every time, I would say, “Why are you doing this? Why are you feeding these people a high-fat diet?”
Well, they said they didn’t believe that anybody would really truly follow a low-fat diet. Of course, I said, “You’re wrong. When the day comes that you publish your studies, it will be a failure.” And, of course the day came, just a couple of months ago, and they published their studies and it was a failure. As a result, they did terrible harm to the movement to a healthy diet and preventive and lifestyle medicines. They didn’t actually feed them a low-fat diet and the women didn’t follow a low-fat diet. What they did, it’s kind of interesting, on average, 9.8% of women on the so-called ‘low-fat’ diet had recurrences at five years, compared to those on the standard diet, which was 12.4%. Again, results comparable to chemo. So, even with the little that they did change, as far as preventing breast cancer: one more serving of fruits and vegetables daily, which is what they accomplished, resulted in 9% reduction in breast cancer observed in the ‘low-fat’ group. So, the little change they did make showed some results. But, it’s a shame because people who are contrary to a healthy diet use this as ammunition to show it doesn’t work.
So, to summarize what we’ve talked about: to better currently recommended treatments, drug therapies, surgeries for heart disease, surgeries and various treatments for cancer, you don’t have to do much. Lifestyle medicine has to do almost nothing. Especially since what we recommend causes no harm and costs nothing. You see, I think that’s the point of view that we have to take. If we’re going to make a difference in people’s lives, we can’t say “We’ve got something as good as…”, We’ve got something better than…” They have spent billions of dollars proving that what they do does not work, the research is there and you need to know it.
The TRUTH – Deal with the Cause - I want to talk to you about a general concept here. I told you, acute illness. We do really well and we should be proud as doctors to take care of acute care problems. I know I generally sound condescending about the medical business, and about some of my colleagues. I mean to. But, it’s not fair to generalize because there are some exceptions for sure. There is a reason we do well with acute care problems and that’s because of it’s nature: Acute: single injuries to the body. Like, a bacteria that attacks the body and we intervene with an antibiotic and we disrupt the process and tip the balance in favor of the patients. Everybody is thrilled. The patient loves the doctor, the doctor loves his or herself because a good job was done, and they helped the patient.
A bone’s broken, another acute care problem. We go in, straighten out that bone, everybody is thrilled.
A laceration. We sew up the wound, the patient is thrilled because you are such a great doctor.
What do all of these problems have in common? They are due to single injuries to the body. That’s the difference.
Chronic disease is due to repeated injury to the body. Say I had a nervous habit where I scratched myself every day for 10 minutes. I developed a sore on my hand. I could put the most expensive antibiotic cream that a company makes on that sore and I would continue to have a sore until I did what? Stop the repeated injury, right?
I used to have a terrible disease 35 years ago. I used to cough and wheeze and I couldn’t walk up hills and I was very sick. And the reason I was sick was because I repeatedly injured myself 40 times a day with Marlboro cigarettes. Within a week of quitting, I no longer coughed and wheezed, and I can run up hills today that I couldn’t walk up when I was 25 years old. See, I identified the source of repeated injury and I stopped that behavior. That’s what lifestyle medicine is about. It’s about identifying the source of repeated injury, that’s easy. Then, we stop that behavior, that’s the hard part. That’s really what our skill, or art as doctors, is about. Helping people make these changes and stop this behavior.
So, what is the source of repeated injury for people in our society? What is causing all of this disease? What’s causing it is this: four and more feasts a day. For every American, they start out with Easter for Breakfast, they go on to Christmas and Thanksgiving for lunch and dinner, and every night after dinner they have a birthday party. That’s it. Period. What we need to do is get our patients to feast on occasion, not four times a day, seven days a week. That’s why they’re sick.
The Surgeon General of the United States has come to a similar conclusion. He has told us that our diseases are because of our diet and lifestyle. He’s told us that the five leading causes of disease, cancer, stroke, heart attacks and other forms of atherosclerosis, are due to our diet. Then, he went on and said that three or four of the other thing are due to alcohol. This is lifestyle medicine. We can correct these. It’s the only thing that will work.
Causes of Death in the U.S.: 36% heart disease, 22% cancer, 7% strokes, Diabetes, Atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries), liver, suicide, pneumonia, lung, accidents.
All right. Let’s talk about some basic principles of medicine. You’re a doctor; a patient walks into your office with a chronic cough, with wheezing, very sick. What is your response? Do you put them on smokers’ vitamins? Is your initial response cough syrups? Antibiotics? No, your primary efforts for any good doctor would be this: get the patient to quit. Obvious.
The drunk walks into your office. What do you do? What is your effort? Diuretics? Extra vitamins? Your goal is simple; it’s to stop that behavior isn’t it?
OK, now this obese man walks into your office. What is the treatment, and I’m talking about the treatment that is administered by 99% of the doctors in this country? To fill their medicine cabinet full of drugs. That’s bad medicine. Thank you very much.”
Dr. Flora: Lifestyle MEDICINE?
You can imagine the shock of the doctors hearing that, and how silent the auditorium was as they filed out, embarrassed and yet hopeful. They’ve heard a better way. Can they make a living from it, though?
Medicine? You know what medicine is. It comes in little bottles, boxes, iv’s, jars. What a misnomer. What does medicine have to do with health? Nothing. It just buries symptoms and does nothing to cure the problem. There is nothing in a bottle, a box, a jar or a can that is going to cure someone.
Dear Dr. McDougall has to change the NAME of that style. Medical doctors are not allowed, by congressional law, to even talk about food as a cure. Only nutritionists, medical doctors who have gone on to become nutritionists, or naturopathic physicians are legally allowed to prescribe food as a cure. And now, the word CURE is scientifically correct, thanks to brave doctors like T. Colin Campbell, Caldwell Esselstyn, and Neal Barnard. Dr. Barnard has given MDs a way out: he has a site called NutritionMD, where he can give the doctors lessons on nutrition in their offices, read a lecture or study, take a test, get a certificate, all on-line. He is giving prescription pads to MDs who deal with diabetics which have books to read and websites to go to, not medicines to take.
Cure. As long as we no longer repeat the behavior that caused the disease, that’s a cure, right? Don’t repeat the behavior. Don’t eat more than 10% fat and 10% protein, eat plant-based foods only. Especially no moldy grains or peanuts or dairy. No cholesterol foods. Nothing with a face. No hydrogenated oils or other vegetable oils, not even virgin, virgin olive oil.
Don’t repeat those killing behaviors that dissolve our arteries, our stomach lining, our tooth enamel and clog up our inner pipes and tubes with casein sludge and mucus foods like flour, albumen from eggs. No more acid foods that cause us to bleed internally or dissolve our bones, teeth and enamels, like citrus (including tomatoes), vinegars, and all of the above. No more nightshade foods that cause inflammation, like potatoes, eggplants and peppers, including tobacco.
Whole foods like watermelons cannot be patented. There are a lot of expensive diuretics with horrible side effects that are not as helpful as watermelon. The raw food lifestyle is just that. We don’t have to call it medicine.
Peace and Love Be With You,
Flora
[Dr. Flora van Orden III was Dr. Ann Wigmore's personal assistant for over 20 years, and we consider her a prime source for advice on Dr. Ann's teachings. The following letters are dialogs between Dr. Flora and newsletter readers. There's a lot of good info here for everyone. Reprinted with permission. - James.]
Hi Jim,
Wonderful newsletter and information. I hope to visit you next summer.
I am Diabetic and have been diagnosed with Fibromyalgia recently. I am scheduled to go to a local Pain Clinic tomorrow for injections.
I have been eating well and exercising, but am still in a lot of physical pain. Is there anything you know of that will work more directly on my pain? I will keep researching, but just thought I would ask.
Thanks,
Doug
---------------------------------
I'm passing your query on to Dr. Flora, who's more qualified to respond to it.
I can tell you this - diabetes and fibromyalgia respond wonderfully to raw living foods.
James
---------------------------------
Fibromyalgia is considered by Dr. Hulda Clark in her book "The Cure for All Diseases". Please read it.
Here is a small part of the teleconference tonight.
Dr. T. Colin Campbell: 7/18/07: Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University, who has published The China Study concerning the Chinese lack of cancers because they don't use dairy in many places. "I started out wanting to learn more about how to get higher levels of protein from animals. Then, I saw children under the age of 4 coming up with liver cancer and wanted to know why. In India, rats being experimented on for the same kind of cancers, came up with that cancer with increased intake of animal protein. Then I went to VA tech for 27 years to find the answer to the question “Was it really true that extra protein intake would turn on this type of cancer?” The animals were exposed to chemical carcinogens. Could it have been that? When fed an amount of protein in excess than what is needed for good nutrition, cancer followed. Nutrition had a dramatic effect on cancer. When higher levels of protein were fed, cancers were turned on.
Principles - The major discovery was that we could turn on cancer by feeding milk protein. The effect of cow's milk protein on initiating cancer was greater than any other kind of protein's effect, even though there were multiple mechanisms that turned it on. It was a question of plant-based protein turning cancer off. Animal protein turning cancer on.
We were involved in a large nationwide survey in the People's Republic of China. For about a dozen different kinds of cancers, the people were consuming too much protein. Lower protein intake, less cancer. We explored all manner of diseases. We explored dietary introduction of relatively small amounts of animal protein and found that it would increase heart disease, cancer and other diseases. Plant based diets - vegetables, fruits, whole grain foods - really reversed heart disease. I can't overemphasize how important a plant based diet is. For our health, use whole vegetables. Don't add salt, sugar, and fat. The closer we get to a plant based diet, the healthier we get. Health care calls are rising, mental health costs are rising. We need to promote the use of a plant based diet.
The Chinese caloric intake is high, but many generally don't eat any animal protein.
There was a question about the chemistry of animal protein. Its sulfate makes the ph of the body too acid. John MacDougall knows about this more than I. We don't need fish. Comment of listener: Dr. Mercola indicated that “EPA/DHA conversion is only made with fish oil, not with plants.” Fish have no antioxidants. No fiber. It's better to use flax seed, walnuts.
What about controlling gene expression? “I am not in support of individual nutrient supplements. I think they are a bit of a hoax”. [email protected]
Peace and Love,
Dr. Flora van Orden III
[email protected]
[Purchasing anything through links on this page may generate a commission to the website. Thank you!]
Flora: Millions of people are going to die of cancer, diabetes and heart disease if this travesty is not exposed. It should be illegal for medical and governmental agencies and publications to not publish negative peer-reviews, especially when world famous doctors realize that the Atkins diet is dangerous and deadly for so many.
This is a must read for everyone who has children - 1 of every child will get diabetes and heart disease, and if the diet contains the aflatoxins from peanuts or grains, they'll get cancer.
People need to know about this. This is immoral and takes away our freedom of speech.
----------
Dr. T.
Colin Campbell's Principals in Practice: Development
and Promotion of Diet and Health Policy
1982 NAS (National Academy of Science Report on Diet, Nutrition and
Cancer
The first example I want you to consider is the so-called Diet and Nutrition and Cancer Report that came out from NAS which was the first important connection between diet, nutrition and cancer. I was one of the 13 members of that report, That was said to be the most sought after report that was ever published by the NAS. It really created quite a stir. Prior to that, you may recall my saying that in the 1970s, Senator McGovern's committee concluded that diet had something to do with heart disease and claimed that we should be reducing our fat intake and increasing our fruit and vegetable intake and decreasing meat intake.
Those kind of statements were made in the 70s created an uproar too. But then, about 5 or 6 years later that question came up and people thought, "Well, that may be true for heart disease, but what about cancer?" So this 1982 report was the first report on cancer. The thought was that if in fact it was the same diet that prevented cancer as alleged to prevent heart disease, then we really had something major. In any case, let me just list for you the three key recommendations of the report and then tell you some things about the consequences in the subsequent years after the report to show you how these statements, these scientific evaluations of the evidence, in many ways in my view were quite seriously distorted.
Recommendation 1 - We basically said that we should be reducing the intake of dietary fat from around 38-40%, which was in existence that time on average, to 30% of calories. And we furthermore went on to say in the executive summary that "the scientific data do not provide a strong basis for established fat intake at precisely 30% of total calories. Indeed, the data could be used to justify and even greater reduction."
That was an interesting exercise because prior to that no one had come up with any specific numbers and we were debating quite a lot as to what kind of numbers do we come up with here, what is the level of dietary inteke that is low enough to ensure some benefit to reduce cancer risk. You may recall in some of the previous lectures that we talked about the association with dietary fat with breast cancer that had been demonstrated by comparing different countries. So we said: "OK, let's get down to 30%," and that was fairly widely published! In fact, it was the first recommendation that was actually listed among six.
Recommendation 2 - We emphasized the importance of including fruits, vegetables and whole grain cereal products in the daily diet. More or less a first again, but there was some consensus on that at that point in time, but we, in our 500 page report, concluded that was important; to increase fruits, vegetables and whole grain cereal products. We did also say, however, that these recommendations applied only to foods as sources of nutrients, NOT to dietary supplements of individual nutrients.
In other words, that we had concluded that of the studies and reports that we surveyed and evaluated, that there was a strong link in many cases between food and cancer, for some cancers at least, and the link was tied to the nutrients that these foods contained. So, we discussed in the body of the report a lot of information regarding nutrients and cancer. At the end of the day, when we sat back and looked to determine what we should really be saying, when the basis of the nutrient profiles are different foods, we concluded that clearly we should be recommending fruits and vegetables and whole grain products. In the executive summary, we cautioned against the idea of using nutrients as dietary supplements, as single chemicals (isolated nutrients), if you will.
Recommendation 3 - On another point, this was not in the executive summary so it was not in one of the six referred to before, but it was a fairly bold statement and an important one because there was so much discussed at that time. What I mean is that at that time, there was a lot of interest in the idea that dietary fiber could reduce large bowel cancer, and this was work that had gone on some 10 to 20 years before. And the public sort of knew something about that. But we found that when we looked carefully at the scientific reports that were available at that time, we really concluded that it wasn't a particular fiber fraction that we knew of, or the scientific evidence supported the idea of, that was associated with the reduction in large bowel cancer.
(Dr. Flora - Dr. Linus Pauling had published erroneous reports about vitamin C protecting against cancer. The American Cancer Society gave him $5 million to do a 5 year report on the effectiveness of C against cancer, but only 1 million could be spent on the C report; other items needed to be also tested: among those were laetrile, bran and chlorophyll. Dr. Arthur Robinson, who was Vice President of the Linus Pauling Institute and who later, as Director of the Oregon Institute for Research and Development gave Dr. Ann Wigmore the final report of the 5 year report:
1. Vitamin C did not cure cancer; in fact it caused irreparable damage to a number of womens' intestines similar to aspirin only worse; and it was found that Pauling had falsified documents to prove his case;
2. Bran, which was researched in Canada, was seen to cause intestinal bleeding when it was used as an isolated nutrient instead of as an integral part of the unfractionated (unseparated) whole grain;
3. Chlorophyll juice was the only real food (the other two were single nutrients) that killed the cancer cells. Pauling was ruined. Arthur sued him and won the suit to disclose his 'irregularities'.)
So you have it; these three. Let me say them again.
#1. We were suggesting to reduce fat intake down to 30% (OR LESS) of calories from the usual 38-40%.
#2. We said increase fruits, vegetables, and whole grain cereal products because of the evidence concerning their nutrient contents but we cautioned against taking this information out of context and putting these nutrients into pills and assuming we're gong to get something good out of them.
#3. We also did NOT want dietary fiber, especially in particular types of dietary fiber, associated with a lower risk of colon cancer. (Dr. Flora: Ummm. Bran muffins, oat bran flakes, bran, etc.) Not to say that it didn't exist, but we didn't find evidence that was sufficiently persuasive to make a comment.
OK, so those were our recommendations. Obviously these were in agreement with the McGovern committee in the prevention of heart disease; they were virtually almost identical. So it really raised the level of debate substantially in the public. It also raised the level of interest in the scientific community to start doing more research in this area. In fact, this report was not only the most sought after report in the history of the academy at that time, it really was a watershed report in many ways, because it substantially increased the amount of research funding over the next two decades, in the area of diet and cancer.
I should point out that much of that increase was a large increase but still just a pittance compared to the total budget that NAS had. Furthermore, of the money that was being spent by NAS for diet and cancer work, it was primarily directed to the testing of individual nutrient chemicals; SOMETHING WE CAUTIONED AGAINST.
Consequences of those 3 recommendations? They tell us something. And the first one, where we suggested reducing dietary fat (a single nutrient) intake, I certainly had some trouble with that. I think there were a couple of us on the panel who raised some questions about focusing too much on one single nutrient, but nonetheless, we all bought into it and thought that it was a fair recommendation.
And as a result of that report, with all that emphasis on fat, that's when the Harvard Nurses' Study got started. In fact, the Harvard Nurses' Health Study, now more well known than the study I referred to before - the Harvard Nurses' Study - at least the dietary part of it, was largely started on the hypothesis that the reduction in dietary fat was related to lower breast cancer risk.
So, at Harvard, with their 80-90,000 nurses at the time, wanted to follow to see if these women, who work consuming a lower fat intake, did, in fact, have lower breast cancer risk. So that's what that first recommendation led to, I think. It led to a greater consumption of skim milk, which had no added fat. It led to consumption of low fat animal foods.
Second, it led to health claims about nutrient supplements, IN SPITE OF our caution against that and in spite of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) hearings and admissions against such claims. In fact, I was the principle witness for the FTC and for the NAS at that time, dealing with these issues and claims.
In any case, from that point onward, there was an explosion in the nutrient health supplement industry and of course now today we see it as a multimillion dollar industry. So our caution against the use of dietary supplements went no place and even as a follow-up with the FTC coming up with some regulations saying: "Hey, you can't make these kinds of claims you want to make, it just doesn't work that way."
I should point out that on the nutrient supplement question, there was so much marketing pressure to get those things out there and to make some money on them, that some of the bigger industries at the time took out a whole page ad in some of the leading magazines, like Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report to advertise the value of these nutrients in terms of preventing cancer, but those ads were really directed toward the use of nutrient supplements, not whole foods. Unfortunately, they also claimed that our report supported their claims and of course it was that misstatement and misrepresentation on their part that caused the hearing with the FTC to be held for the next 3 years.
So, like the dietary fat thing, we focus specifically on fat, the Nurses' Health Study started and as we pointed out before, basically, that taking fat out of the diet just by itself is the main thing to do in regards to diet. It turned out that reducing fat content alone had little to no effect on breast cancer risk.
Incidentally, that finding on dietary fat in the Nurses' Health Study because there was so much interst in the question concerning fat and breast cancer, that finding really put the skids on the idea for some time, on the whole idea that diet had to do with cancer at all.
In fact, that residue is still with us in some of the discussions in the present day. So our recommendation of fat really was misplaced, it wasn't appropriately represented in the public sector. That was our fault for putting so much emphasis on fat in the first place.
Secondly, when we cautioned against the use of nutrient supplements, it didn't seem to work; in fact, what it did do was lead to an explosion in the nutrient supplement industry in spite of what we said and in spite of what the FTC said. As a matter of fact, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and particularly the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the NIH, obviously took care of the research efforts in regards to diet and cancer, and incidentally was the specific agency that funded our study at NAS.
So, the NCI, after they got our report (that was the official agency that we gave the report to and we obviously had in there this caution about nutrient supplements), decided to really escalate their expenditures, really testing whether or not nutrient supplements might work to prevent cancer. In fact, it led to hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 20 years or so, really struggling to find some evidence that these nutrient supplements can in fact prevent cancer.
As I mentioned before, we now know that after all this work that nutrients don't really work in that way, though in the short run they might produce some bio-chemical effects that would look promising. Nutrient supplements really don't work, and that supports what we said in the beginning. Nonetheless, hundreds of millions of dollars, if not over $1 billion, have been spent in nutrient supplement randomized clinical trials to see if in fact they could be shown to work. (Dr. Flora: "And they all failed.")
Finally, the question concerning dietary fiber. What became of that recommendation? We said we didn't really have evidence to support the dietary fiber connection. Nonetheless, the director of the diet and cancer program at the NCI, who was chiefly responsible for funding our report, he went to the Kellogg company and allowed them (I have to be careful about my words here because there is some dispute on how it happened), with some encouragement from his office, the opportunity of advertising that they had a product to which they had added dietary fiber to reduce colon cancer risk, even though we didn't find any evidence to that!
So Kellogg announced it and they made a big play about their product having dietary fiber in it and it could prevent colon cancer and they were in fact citing our report as evidence. That was really disquieting and quite annoying to many of us who were in the scientific community. It was successful, though, from Kellogg's point-of-view because within the first two weeks of them making that announcement, they increased their market share by 20%. That's worth a lot of money.
So what did we learn from this? We learned that one of the main things is that there's a lot of focus in the marketplace on single nutrient effects, whether its taking out fat alone and hoping to reduce cancer risk on the one hand, or adding back a single nutrient here or there in the form of supplements, or adding back some fiber fraction for which we don't know anything about. All of this focus since our report has largely been concerned with the role of single nutrients as opposed to whole foods and whole food diets...
[Emphasis added.]
To be continued...
Peace and Love Be
With You,
Dr. Flora van Orden III
PhD, Nutrition
The Main Goals of Meditation
Meditation
is a way in which you can get acquainted with virtue in your mind so
that you can have a calmer and more peaceful feeling. Having a peaceful
mind is beneficial in helping you become free of your worries.
This is not to say that you won’t worry about things, but you develop a more effective way of dealing with stressful situations in your daily life. You will be able to understand them in a different light and be able to see them for what they really are. When your mind is not at peace, it is hard to be happy even under pleasant circumstances.In some forms of meditation, you can analyze the thought processes that pass through your mind. When you concentrate deeply on the thoughts and situations of your life, you can reach the point at which you find your own answers to your problems.
Today many types of meditation are recommended by health care professionals as a way of cleansing the mind and emotions of negative thoughts. By meditating, you can benefit from improved concentration and memory. It also helps to help you develop a greater understanding of stressful situations in your daily life so that you can have a greater understanding of the real cause of the problem. This helps you approach your problems with less stress because you do not impulsively become angry. This, in turn, helps you get along with others much better.
Your body also benefits from meditation. When your mind is clear, you are better able to bring healing to the parts of your body that are ill. Meditating helps to improve the overall functioning of your immune system so that your body can fight off disease. As your body becomes more relaxed, your blood pressure lowers and your heart can pump the blood to the organs of the body.
The aim of meditation is to give you a sense of inner peace that you will use throughout your day in all your dealings. This is why it is recommended that you meditate in the morning as soon as you awake. The positive feelings that you bring into your mind and body will then help you cope with your day.
Best Regards,
Wild Divine Team
WildDivine.com
Steven Gibb shares this link with us: http://renegadehealth.com/blog/how_to_read_food_labels_safely/.
From the article: "Here’s a perfect example of how not to 'judge a package' by its cover and how you can read food labels safely and with confidence. It’s also an opportunity for you to do something to help others who don’t know as much as you do about food additives and safety!"
[click on the image at the left for an animation]
Are you a right- or left-brained person? This test purports to show you: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22556281-661,00.html
A must-see documentary about the cozy financial relationships that exist between lawmakers, lobbyists, medical schools and the FDA.
This film documents the problems with a health care system that supports the many and frequent scams evil marketing geniuses employed by drug companies foist on an unknowing public every day: http://www.mercola.com/2007/mar/8/prescription-for-disaster. (92 min)
You are part of the most conditioned, programmed culture the world has ever known. Not only are your thoughts and attitudes continually being shaped and molded, but your very awareness of the whole design seems like it is being subtly and inexorably erased.
The doors of your perception are carefully and precisely regulated. Who cares, right?
It is an exhausting and endless task to keep explaining to people how most issues of conventional wisdom are scientifically implanted in the public consciousness by a thousand media clips per day.
This four-part documentary does an excellent job of explaining how Freud's theories have been used by politicians and companies far and wide. Over the past century they have mastered the ability to engineer your consent and grow mass consumerism throughout the free world.
And, you certainly can't trust the mass media to learn the truth, as they do nothing more than confuse you with misinformation, all in the pursuit of the corporate bottom line.
We have just seen too many examples where people are sacrificed for money. This isn't right and one of the primary purposes of this site is to help expose their fraud and awaken the consciousness of our culture.
- Dr. Mercola
Part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151&q=The+Century+Of+The+Self
Part 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-678466363224520614&q=The+Century+Of+The+Self
Part 3: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7009899812873111112&q=The+Century+Of+The+Self
Part 4: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6884155963216756796&q=The+Century+Of+The+Self
Beekeepers in 24 states are reporting record losses of honeybees. The exact
cause of this problem has not yet been determined, but bee colonies across the
U.S. are disappearing, with some states reporting a 70% drop in bee populations.
"I have never seen anything like it," said California beekeeper David Bradshaw. "Box after box after box are just empty. There's nobody home."
A Cornell University study has estimated that honeybees annually pollinate more than $14 billion worth of seeds and crops in the United States, mostly fruits, vegetables and nuts.
"Every third bite we consume in our diet is dependent on a honeybee to pollinate that food," said Zac Browning, vice president of the American Beekeeping Federation. The Organic Consumers Association is closely monitoring the situation with efforts to determine if the problem of disappearing bees is related to genetically engineered pollen or pesticide toxicity.
Read more: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_4404.cfm.
(USA Today) With oil prices rising, interest in ethanol, a plant-based
gasoline additive, has skyrocketed. But the rising demand for ethanol
has a downside: it takes about 300 million gallons of water to make 100
million gallons of ethanol each year, says the Renewable Fuels
Association: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-06-19-ethanol-water_x.htm.
