Friday, May 16, 2014

What Are the Sources of Your Daily Calories?

REMINDER: In The Archive is all of the articles that I
have posted since I started this blog. There is TONS OF
INFORMATION there for you to learn from. It's the type
of information that not only saved my life...It also has
given me a better quality of life.

I know I should NOT post negative information because it
turns people off. SORRY...Part of life is negative and I
DON'T run from it.




      Start Your NINJA Journey...NOW...FREE

     World's #1 Publisher of Information About 
     Alternative Cancer Treatments

      The Solution For Disease FREE Health. 

By Dr. Mercola

    According to the 2010 Report by the Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the top 10 sources of calories in the American diet are:

    1. Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and
        granola bars)  139 calories a day

    2. Yeast breads, 129 calories a day
    3. Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes, 121 calories a day
    4. Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks, 114 calories a day
    5. Pizza, 98 calories a day    

    6. Alcoholic beverages

    7. Pasta and pasta dishes

    8. Mexican mixed dishes

    9. Beef and beef-mixed dishes

    10. Dairy desserts

    As you can see, on the whole it’s easy to see that the dietary roots of the American weight problem is linked to carbs sugars (primarily fructose) and grains in the form of processed foods and sweet drinks. You’ve often heard me state that soda is the number one source of calories in the US diet, which it was, based on the 1999-2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The updated NHANES survey above covers nutritional data from 2005-2006, placing grain-based foods in the top two slots.

    Still, soda comes in at number four, and I still believe many people, particularly teenagers, probably still get a majority of their calories from fructose-rich drinks like soda.

    I strongly recommend ditching all sodas as a first step to clean up your diet and help normalize your insulin levels. I believe it’s one of the most powerful actions you can take to improve your health and lower your risk of disease and long-term chronic health conditions. Especially when you consider that just one can of soda per day can add as much as 15 pounds to your weight over the course of a single year, and increases your risk of diabetes by 85 percent! If you struggle with an addiction to soda and other sweets, I strongly recommend you consider Turbo Tapping. It's a simple and clever use of the Emotional Freedom Technique, designed to resolve many aspects of an issue in a concentrated period of time.

My Recommended Fructose Allowance

    As a standard recommendation, I advise keeping your TOTAL fructose consumption below 25 grams per day. For most people it would also be wise to limit your fructose from fruit to 15 grams or less, as you're virtually guaranteed to consume "hidden" sources of fructose through processed food and condiments.

    There certainly are exceptions to this rule. People who are aggressively exercising can consume far more, especially if consuming the calories around the time of exercise, but generally, to optimize health, most will benefit from restricting their fructose input.

    Fifteen grams of fructose is not much -- it represents two bananas, one-third cup of raisins, or two Medjool dates. Remember, the average 12-ounce can of soda contains 40 grams of sugar, at least half of which is fructose, so one can of soda alone would exceed your daily allotment. If your insulin and leptin signaling is fine and you have normal body weight and don’t suffer from diabetes, high blood pressure or high cholesterol, then consuming more fruit is reasonable.

    In his book, The Sugar Fix, Dr. Richard Johnson includes detailed tables showing the content of fructose in different foods -- an information base that isn't readily available when you're trying to find out exactly how much fructose is in various foods. You can also find an abbreviated listing of the fructose content of common fruits in this previous article.

Key Point: Replace Carbs with Healthful Fats!

    Keep in mind that when we're talking about harmful carbs, we're only referring to grains and sugars, NOT vegetable carbs. When you cut grain/sugar carbs, you then need to radically increase:

        The amount of vegetables you eat since, by volume, the grains you need to trade out are denser than vegetables, and
        Healthful fats such as avocados, coconut oil, organic pastured egg yolks, raw grass fed organic butter, olives, and nuts such as almonds and pecans.

    Avoid highly processed and genetically engineered omega-6 oils like corn, canola and soy as they will upset your omega-6/3 ratio. Of course you want to avoid all trans fats, but contrary to popular advice, saturated fats are a key component of a healthy diet that will promote weight loss.

    A reasonable goal will be to have as much as 50-70 percent of your diet as healthy fat, which will radically reduce your carbohydrate intake. It can be helpful to remember that fat is far more satiating than carbs, so if you have cut down on carbs and feel ravenous, this is a sign that you have not replaced them with sufficient amounts of healthy fat.

    Most people will likely notice massive improvement in their health by following this approach as they are presently consuming FAR more grain and bean carbohydrates in their diet, and any reduction will be a step in the right direction. To help you get started on the right track, review my Nutritional Plan, which guides you through these dietary changes one step at a time.

You Can Avoid Becoming a Statistic

    Perhaps one of the most powerful scientific discoveries to emerge in the past several years is that the old adage a calorie is a calorie is patently false. Furthermore, the idea that in order to lose weight all you have to do is expend more calories than you consume is equally false. The research clearly demonstrates that even if you control the number of calories you eat, if those calories come from fructose, you are at increased risk of obesity and pre-diabetes, which includes insulin and leptin resistance, fatty liver, high blood pressure and high triglycerides.

    Conventional advice tells us that obesity is simply the result of eating too many calories and not exercising enough. However, Dr. Johnson’s research, discussed above, shows that a high fructose diet is one of the keys to trapping excess fat and developing metabolic disorders, and that as soon as you throw fructose into the mix, calories in versus calories out is no longer a functional equation.

    In short, limiting fructose in all its forms, along with other sugars, is imperative in order to avoid flipping the fat switch that can trigger your body to accumulate excess fat. And replacing sugar and grain carbs with vegetables and healthful fats is the key to normalizing your weight, metabolic function, and overall health.

    Intermittent fasting is another powerful tool that will help you transition your body from obtaining the majority of its fuel from glucose stored as glycogen in your muscles and liver, to the fat stored in your tissues. This is one of the most effective ways to burn your excess body fat, become lean, and eliminate sugar cravings.

Thank You  Dr. Mercola      

 God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513

Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Killer at Large...

REMINDER: In The Archive is all of the articles that I
have posted since I started this blog. There is TONS OF
INFORMATION there for you to learn from. It's the type
of information that not only saved my life...It also has
given me a better quality of life.

I know I should NOT post negative information because it
turns people off. SORRY...Part of life is negative and I
DON'T run from it.




      Start Your NINJA Journey...NOW...FREE

     World's #1 Publisher of Information About 
     Alternative Cancer Treatments

      The Solution For Disease FREE Health. 

By Dr. Mercola

    Killer at Large, a documentary film by Steven
Greenstreet, tackles the topic of obesity, a problem of truly
epic proportions where misinformation is a major driver.

According to former Surgeon General, Richard Carmona,
quoted in the film:

    Obesity is a terror [threat] within; it's destroying our
society from within and unless we do something about it, the
magnitude of the dilemma will dwarf 9/11 or any other
terrorist event that you can point out.

    Presently, a full two-thirds of Americans are overweight
or obese. Childhood obesity has also skyrocketed, tripling
over the past 30 years. One in three children between the
ages of 10 and 17 is now overweight or obese, and 27 percent
of young adults, 17 to 24, are too heavy to join the

    As a result, today’s children may be the first generation
whose life expectancy is shorter than that of their

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), an estimated 110,000 Americans die as
a result of obesity each year, and about one-third of all
cancers are directly related to it.

    Data collected from over 60,000 Canadians also shows that
obesity now leads to more doctor visits than smoking. One in
four Americans is also pre-diabetic or diabetic, and heart
disease and cancer, both of which are associated with
obesity, top the mortality charts.

    Clearly, the issue of how to achieve good health has
never been more pertinent to more people. Yet despite the
enormity of this problem, very little is being done to
effectively combat obesity.

    The film examines the causes of obesity and suggests ways
to reverse this deadly trend. Below, I sum up my own
recommendations as well.

    It’s quite clear that conventional diet and health
recommendations are off the mark... Obesity and related
health problems are directly attributable to flawed diet a
diet too high in carbs and poor-quality proteins, and too low
in healthy fats.

    Yet multinational food corporations and biotech companies
have successfully manipulated the system to encourage an
increase in the use of cheap foods that contribute to the
obesity epidemic.

    A recent report exposing the deep conflicts of interest
between the processed food industry and the trade
organization for food and nutrition professionals in the US
also shatters any illusion you may have had that registered
dieticians will provide you with well-researched, science-
based nutrition advice that will improve your health...

Skyrocketing Obesity Is Related to Misleading You on Health

    Obesity is the result of inappropriate lifestyle choices,
and unfortunately, our government has done an abysmal job at
disseminating accurate information about diet and health.

It’s one thing for corporations to put out misleading ads
honesty is not in the self-interest of the processed food and
beverage industry. It’s another when the government falls in
line with for-profit deception and becomes a propagator of
corporate propaganda. And this is exactly what has
happened... For example, conventional advice that is driving
public health in the wrong direction includes:

        Cutting calories: Not all calories are created equal,
and counting calories will not help you lose weight if you're
consuming the wrong kind of calories

Choosing diet foods will help you lose weight:

Substances like Splenda (sucralose) and Equal or Nutrasweet
(aspartame) may have zero calories, but your body isn't
fooled. When it gets a "sweet" taste, it expects calories to
follow, and when this doesn't occur it leads to distortions
in your biochemistry that may actually lead to weight gain

        Avoiding saturated fat: The myth that saturated fat
causes heart disease has undoubtedly harmed an incalculable
number of lives over the past several decades, even though it
all began as little more than a scientifically unsupported
marketing strategy for Crisco cooking oil. Most people
(myself included) actually need at least 50 to 70 percent of
their diet as healthful fats such as organic, pastured eggs,
avocados, coconut oil, real butter and grass-fed beef in
order to optimize their health

Reducing your cholesterol to extremely low levels:

Cholesterol is actually NOT the major culprit in heart
disease or any disease, and the guidelines that dictate what
number your cholesterol levels should be to keep you
"healthy" are fraught with conflict of interest -- and have
never been proven to be good for your health

    This is just a tiny sampling of the pervasive misleading
information on weight and obesity disseminated by our
government agencies. A more complete list of conventional
health myths could easily fill several books. The reason
behind this sad state of affairs is the fact that the very
industries that profit from these lies are the ones funding
most of the research; infiltrating our regulatory agencies;
and bribing our political officials to support their
financially-driven agenda through any number of legal, and at
times not so legal, means.

Why Eating Fructose Is More Dangerous than Other Sugars

    Part of what makesfructose so unhealthy is that it is
metabolized by your liver to fat far more rapidly than any
other sugar. The entire burden of metabolizing fructose falls
on your liver, and it promotes visceral fat. This is the
type of fat that collects around your organs and in your
abdominal region and is associated with a greater risk of
heart disease.

    Dr. Robert Lustig, Professor of Pediatrics in the
Division of Endocrinology at the University of California,
has been a pioneer in decoding sugar metabolism, and his work
reveals there are major differences in how different sugars
are broken down and used. For example:

        After eating fructose, virtually all of the metabolic
burden rests on your liver. With glucose or most other
sugars, your liver has to break down only 20 percent. The
metabolism of fructose by your liver creates a long list of
waste products and toxins, including a large amount of uric
acid, which drives up blood pressure and causes gout.

        Every cell in your body, including your brain,
utilizes glucose. Therefore, much of it is "burned up"
immediately after you consume it. By contrast, fructose is
turned into free fatty acids (FFAs), VLDL (the damaging form
of cholesterol), and triglycerides, which get stored as fat.

        The fatty acids created during fructose metabolism
accumulate as fat droplets in your liver and skeletal muscle
tissues, causing insulin resistance and non-alcoholic fatty
liver disease (NAFLD). Insulin resistance progresses to
metabolic syndrome and type II diabetes.

        Fructose is the most lipophilic carbohydrate. In
other words, fructose converts to glycerol-3-phosphate (g-3-
p), which is directly used to turn FFAs into triglycerides.

The more g-3-p you have, the more fat you store. Glucose
does not do this.

        When you eat 120 calories of glucose, less than one
calorie is stored as fat. 120 calories of fructose results in
40 calories being stored as fat.

        Glucose suppresses your hunger hormone ghrelin and
stimulates leptin, which suppresses your appetite. Fructose
has no effect on ghrelin and interferes with your brain's
communication with leptin, resulting in overeating. That
fructose triggers changes in your brain that may lead to
overeating and weight gain has also been confirmed through
functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) tests.

The Evolutionary Link Between Fructose Consumption and Fat

    No doubt you’ve heard that consuming more calories than
you burn off is the root of your weight problem. Alas, this
conventional wisdom has been firmly debunked by modern
science. The fact is this: Not all calories count equally. It
is in fact FAR more important to look at the source of the
calories than counting them.

    In short, you do not get fat because you eat too many
calories and don't exercise enough. You get fat because you
eat the wrong kind of calories.

    As explained by Dr. Robert Lustig, fructose is
"isocaloric but not isometabolic." This means you can have
the same amount of calories from fructose or glucose,
fructose and protein, or fructose and fat, but the metabolic
effect will be entirely different despite the identical
calorie count. This is a crucial point that must be

    The bottom line is that your consumption of
carbohydrates, whether in the form of grains and sugars
(especially fructose), will determine whether or not you're
able to manage your weight and maintain optimal health.
This is because these types of carbs (fructose and grains)
affect the hormone insulin, which is a very potent fat regulator.

Fats and proteins affect insulin to a far lesser degree.

    As long as you keep eating fructose and grains, you're
programming your body to create and store fat...

    Research by another expert in this field, Dr. Richard
Johnson, chief of the Division of Renal Diseases and
Hypertension at the University of Colorado and author of The
Sugar Fix and The Fat Switch, further confirms this. His work
demonstrates that fructose-containing sugars cause obesity,
again not by calories, but by turning on your fat switch a
powerful biological adaptation that causes cells to
accumulate fat in anticipation of scarcity (or hibernation).

His most recent book, The Fat Switch, is of major importance
to anyone who has ever struggled with their weight and/or
persistent health issues. Five basic truths detailed in his
book include:

        Large portions of food and too little exercise are
NOT solely responsible for why you are gaining weight.

        Metabolic Syndrome is actually a healthy adaptive
condition that animals undergo to store fat to help them
survive periods of famine. The problem is that most of us
are always feasting and rarely undergo fasting. As a result,
this beneficial switch actually causes damage to contemporary

        Uric acid is increased by specific foods and causally
contributes to obesity and insulin resistance.

        Fructose-containing sugars cause obesity not by
calories but by turning on the fat switch.

        Effective treatment of obesity requires turning off
your fat switch and improving the function of your cells

    I highly recommend picking up a copy of this book, which
is a useful tool for those struggling with their weight.

Dietary sugar, and fructose in particular, is a significant
tripper of your fat switch, so understanding how sugars of
all kinds affect your weight and health is imperative.

Thank You  Dr. Mercola

                  Continued on 5/16/14

 God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513

Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.

Monday, May 12, 2014

Suppressing Truth...About Cancer.

REMINDER: In The Archive is all of the articles that I
have posted since I started this blog. There is TONS OF
INFORMATION there for you to learn from. It's the type
of information that not only saved my life...It also has
given me a better quality of life.

I know I should NOT post negative information because it
turns people off. SORRY...Part of life is negative and I
DON'T run from it.




      Start Your NINJA Journey...NOW...FREE

     World's #1 Publisher of Information About 
     Alternative Cancer Treatments

      The Solution For Disease FREE Health. 

How the Cancer Industry Suppresses The Truth

In prior sections I have discussed how the Cancer Industry (i.e. Big Pharma, the FDA, NIH, NCI, ACS, AMA, ad nauseum) uses statistics to lie about the lack of effectiveness of orthodox cancer treatments.

This section will deal specifically with how they suppress the existence of the charts mentioned in the prior chapter. However, before understanding how the Cancer Industry does its thing, we must first talk about how the tobacco industry was able to suppress the truth about the relationship between tobacco and cancer, emphysema, etc. for over 65 years.

If someone were to do a study on the relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, it would be a very easy thing to do:

    Determine the percentage of non-smokers who get lung cancer,
    Determine the percentage of smokers who get lung cancer,
    Run the statistics

A class of high school students with a phone book could do a study that found a highly, statistically significant relationship between tobacco products and lung cancer. It is easy to find non-smokers, it is easy to find smokers, thus this type of study would always be an easy thing to do. Of course there are more ways to ascertain the relationship between tobacco and lung cancer than this, but this is the technique I want to emphasize.

The first scientific study finding the relationship between tobacco and lung cancer was done in the early 1930s. There had been many informal observations before that first scientific study, but we will start with the early 1930s.

As time passed there were more and more scientific studies that related tobacco products and lung cancer. By the 1950s there was simply an overwhelming amount of scientific information that linked tobacco products to lung cancer.

So why was it that the flood of lawsuits against tobacco companies had to wait until the 1990s?

The tobacco industry did a lot of things to suppress the truth. By far the most effective of these tactics was to use bribery to control the politicians (bribery is a term I use to encompass a wide variety of influence tactics) and advertising money to control the media. That was as easy as stealing candy from a baby. As always it worked to perfection.

Furthermore, it is easy to bribe executives of organizations. The AMA was easy to control and at no time offered a threat to the tobacco industry. It is the scientists they had to control. But how do you use bribery to control the scientific establishment? Aren’t they people of impeccable integrity? It turns out that the answer is "no".

The scientific community was more than eager to take a share of the tobacco industry money pie and do numerous bogus scientific studies that did not find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. Now the reader might wonder how a scientist can do a scientific study and not find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. It is easy to do just design a study that doesn’t look for a relationship!

The tobacco industry set up numerous front companies to do certain tasks, one of which was to fund scientific studies that did not look for a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. They spent scores of millions of dollars funding these studies.

    Since 1954, one of CTR’s [Council for Tobacco Research - U.S.A., Inc.] principal activities has been to fund scientific research by independent scientists through its grant-in-aid program, under the supervision of its Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) supplemented on occasion by research contracts. CTR itself has not conducted any scientific research. Through this research program, from 1954 through 1996 CTR has provided approximately $282 million to fund over 1,500 research projects by approximately 1,100 independent scientists.

    The researchers who have received CTR grant funding have been affiliated with approximately 300 medical schools, universities, hospitals and other research institutions, including such prestigious institutions as Harvard Medical School, Yale School of Medicine, Stanford University, numerous institutions in the University of California system, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, the University of Chicago Medical Center, the Scripps Research Institute, the Mayo Clinic and the Salk Institute. The researchers who have received this funding have not been employees of the tobacco companies or CTR. CTR’s grantees have included many distinguished scientists, three of whom have won Nobel Prizes.

Now explain something to me. If a group of high school students with a phone book can scientifically prove there is a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, emphysema, etc. How is it possible that 1,500 research projects, done over a period of 42 years, by researchers at 300 prestigious medical schools, etc. had not been able to find a relationship between tobacco products and lung cancer, emphysema, etc.!

The answer is that in order to obtain funding, they knew they had better not find a relationship! The rules of getting research money are very simple. You ascertain who you are getting paid by, you ascertain what they what you to publish, then you accept their money and do a study which does not double-cross them. Otherwise, your research money dries up real fast.

In other words, these researchers weren’t looking for a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, they were looking for research money. They weren’t looking for useful, scientific truth, they were looking for a source of long-term funding.

Here is an interesting quote:

    Far from being independent, the activities of the CTR [Council for Tobacco Research] and SAB [Scientific Advisory Board] activities were monitored and controlled by industry representatives, including tobacco company lawyers and public relations consultants. Indeed, the lawyers stopped central nervous system research proposals, screen out ‘dangerous project proposals’, and funded ‘special projects’ designed for litigation purposes.

  Although the industry funded a number of other ‘outside’ research projects, it did so only when it received clear advance assurances of a ‘favorable’ outcome. For example, Dr. Gary Huber, then of Harvard, solicited industry funds with his view that ‘the number of people at potential risk from tobacco consumption is extremely small relative to the very large number of people who now smoke.  (Page 20 of the report, or Bates Page 681879286)

The researchers who, year after year, dipped into this money pot had to know what was going on. It seems that a person who picks a career as a doctor or scientist is not much different than a person who picks a career as a politician. They are both looking for the same thing  money.

The result of this funding scam was that there were numerous scientific studies that found a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer in scientific journals (which were not funded by the tobacco industry), and there were numerous scientific studies, just mentioned, that did not find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer (those that were funded by the tobacco industry).

Because of the confusion caused by these different studies there was not a consensus among scientists whether tobacco and lung cancer were related.

And here is the critical key: without a consensus there was not scientific evidence that there was a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, etc. There must be a consensus for scientific evidence. At least that is what the media would like you to believe.

However, when there is a consensus of opinion by researchers who do not have a conflict of interest (i.e. they aren’t funded by the group being investigated), then it should be considered that THERE IS A CONSENSUS and there is SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!

The statement above is absolutely essential to understand. ANY study done under the control of the industry being investigated should be IGNORED by scientific circles. However, the money is too good for them to be ignored by the scientific establishment!

Let me give you a more recent example of why industry sponsored studies should NEVER be published or even be considered. Aspartame, known also as NutraSweet, Equal, etc., was very controversial during the time it was being studied. It caused holes in the brains of rats! Some scientists didn’t want it approved for human consumption. Even some scientists in the FDA didn’t want it approved.

Dr. Ralph G. Walton, M.D., did a study of 166 published studies on the safety of aspartame. The funding of these studies were from the following sources:

    The pharmaceutical industry funded 74 of the studies
    The FDA funded 7 studies
    There were 85 studies that were not funded by Big Pharma or the FDA

Now stop and think real hard which of the three groups of studies didn’t find anything wrong with aspartame?

Of the 74 Big Pharma funded studies, not a single one of them found any health problems caused by aspartame. Of the 85 studies that were not funded by Big Pharma or the FDA, 84 of them did find health problems caused by aspartame. Do you see a pattern here?

Where do you think the 7 FDA studies landed? 6 of the 7 found no health problems caused by aspartame.


By the way, Walton put the research funded by the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI  a noble sounding name) in with the group of industry sponsored studies. It seems that Big Pharma, and others, funded a group similar to the CTR of the tobacco industry.

This kind of science sounds strangely like what happened with the tobacco industry. Because of this dilution, when I tell someone that aspartame causes brain cancer, birth defects, etc. (actually over 90 different documented health problems), people just look at me and laugh. They will say there is no scientific evidence that aspartame causes any health problems. Or they will say you have to drink 800 Diet Cokes every day for it to affect your health. That is exactly what the food industry wants you to think.

But the truth is far different than the nonsense. My point is that scientists still seem quite willing to give people who fund their studies whatever they want.

    When morality comes up against profit, it is seldom that profit loses.
    Shirley Chisholm

Now let’s turn our attention to the Cancer Industry. Let us suppose that someone wanted to test Vitamin C versus chemotherapy in a scientific study. They would simply do the following:

    With one group of patients, determine the total life of people who were given chemotherapy, but who did not take Vitamin C.

    With one group of patients, similar in age, type of cancer, etc., Determine the total life of people who took Vitamin C therapy, and who did not take chemotherapy, Run the statistics

It sounds so simple. But there is a problem, our corrupt government can stop anyone who wants to do a study for item #2. In fact they can stop a study on live patients for any type of alternative treatment for cancer.

The FDA will not allow anyone to do a scientific study to find the total life of people who use Vitamin C therapy and who do not take chemotherapy. Their lie to justify this absurd policy is to protect the public. The truth is that they don’t want the truth to come out about how bad orthodox cancer treatments are relative to alternative treatments.

(Note: The FDA cannot stop scientists from doing studies using cancer cells in cultures, using mice, rats, or doing statistical studies with public data, etc. Thousands of such studies have been done. However, they can stop clinical trials involving humans in the United States. They will not acknowledge human studies unless they are done by pharmaceutical companies. For example, they do not acknowledge foreign studies on humans, such as have been done with MGN-3 and Vitamin C.)

Could a study comparing chemotherapy to Vitamin C be ethically justified? Of course, just find patients who refuse all orthodox treatments and ask them to volunteer for an alternative medicine study. Or pick cancer patients who have been declared terminal. How can building their immune system and safely and selectively killing their cancer cells do them any harm? But ethics is a dirty word in Washington. If high ranking government employees had ethics, it would massively affect their retirement program from Big Pharma.

The Linus Pauling/Ewan Cameron study had to be done in Scotland and it was done on terminal patients.

Because of the FDA it is not possible to obtain the [approved] statistical information necessary to prove that alternative treatments are far better than chemotherapy. That is one of the many reasons the FDA was created. The FDA only accepts studies done by pharmaceutical companies and government agencies that are controlled by Big Pharma. Everyone else is ignored.

Copyright (c) 2003, 2004, 2006 R. Webster Kehr, all rights reserved.

 God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513

 Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.