Information on Effective Alternative Treatments for Cancer

I don’t know about you, but I’m really tired of hearing the phrase, ‘died from cancer’ or ‘lost the battle against cancer’. The incidence of cancer is so high now that there aren’t many people who don’t personally know, or know of, someone who has, or who has died from cancer.

Due to the way statistics are collected and processed, cancer incidence and mortality data lag three to four years behind the current year. Based on that data though The American Cancer Society, Inc Facts & Figures publications, which present the most current trends in cancer occurrence, estimated that in 2014 there would be 1,665,540 new cancer cases diagnosed in the US, within which an estimated 10,450 new cases were expected to occur among children. Cancer remains the second most common cause of death in the US, accounting for nearly 1 of every 4 deaths. In the UK, the Macmillan Cancer Support organisation estimated that in the same year 42% of Britons would get cancer, that’s 4 out of 10 people. A statement by Macmillian chief executive Clare Devane in the UK media informed that in 2011 there were 2 million people in the UK that had cancer and that figure was expected to double over the next few years.

Official causative factors remain smoking and lifestyle (bad diet, lack of exercise) with no mention whatsoever of the massive list of known carcinogens, cancer-causing substances, that are allowed to be released into the environment and the human food supply, (such as those discussed in previous articles on this site).

Each year billions are raised by charities around the world and spent on cancer research, which goes to developing early detection methods and new treatments.

What most people don’t know is that there are non-toxic, holistic methods for treating cancer that have a proven record of success, several of them in clinical settings. Without fail, all these methods are suppressed and demonised and any health practitioners that use them hounded, prosecuted and/or struck off the medical register. Two classic examples of this are Rene Caisse and Dr Tullio Simoncini.

Rene Caisse was a Canadian nurse who ran a clinic in Bracebridge, Ontario from 1934-1942. During that time she helped hundreds of people using a simple herbal mixture. The initial use of Essiac was so encouraging that a group of doctors assisted her in setting up a test lab and clinic, even going so far as to petition to the Department of National Health and Welfare in Ottawa, asking that she be given facilities to do independent research on the treatment. (For more information

Italian Dr Simoncini, an oncologist, successfully treated cancers and tumours using Sodium Bicarbonate (NaHCO3), and for that was struck off the medical register (

Both of the above therapies are labeled, as are all non-pharmaceutical therapies, ‘pseudomedicine’ or quackery by the mainstream medical profession and the mainstream press, despite the mountain of evidence that shows them to be effective. The same agencies however, continue to promote mammograms, despite the fact that mammograms cause cancer, and other cancer-causing pharmaceutical treatments for cancer.

This post could go on and run into pages and pages of data on real causes of cancer and the dangers of conventional cancer treatments. I leave that for reader’s own research. The purpose of this post is to provide, in one package, a significant amount of data on effective non-toxic treatments for cancer. Included in the data are information sources to aid that research.

The following is from the Read Me First notice within the package:

This data has been collected over a period of years and used successfully by others and myself. Unless you’ve looked into this sort of thing already, what you’ll read will potentially challenge your views. The fact is, cancer is not a “terminal disease” and doctor doesn’t necessarily know best. The human body is an amazing thing and can do amazing things if given what it needs. In most cases what it needs is found in nature.

For a start I would suggest that you get informed about the cancer industry. You will discover that things are not as they, the industry generally, oncologists, consultants, etc, would have you believe. The articles in the Professional Advice and Info file will get you started. There are videos online (YouTube, for instance) that deal with proven cancer cures that have been suppressed by the cancer industry, The Rene Caisse Story is one such, and is about Essiac, a herbal treatment developed by Caisse and used to successfully treat numerous people until she was effectively shut down, which as you’ll see is the reaction to medical professionals who successfully treat cancer with natural non-pharmaceutical means.

Obviously there are well-meaning medical practitioners out there, but in situations such as these even they can be handicapped by the allopathic approach to the body that sees it as a collection of bits rather than a whole. Few have gained a perspective outside of the box of medical school training, and most have succumbed to the prevailing bias and dogma.

I’ve included information on substances that have a proven track record and are easy to obtain. Again, when you look into it, you’ll likely be amazed at how many fairly household items can be used against cancer. I say ‘used against cancer’, but I don’t want to give the impression that these alternative approaches are some kind of ‘just take this three times a day’, magic silver bullet kind of treatment. Although these treatments all have a proven record of effectiveness, most within clinical settings and/or resulting from rigorous scientific research, what is usually needed here is a complete reassessment of personal health management, medicine in general, and the medical industry. The information in this file is provided with that in mind, as well as with providing data on specific treatments.

Lots more information can be found online about the substances mentioned and other natural, non-toxic, holistic ways of regaining health. The links in the headers of many of these articles are good starting points for your own research.

I’ll say it again, cancer is not a terminal disease. It is serious, chronic even, but it’s not unbeatable. Information is your best tool, and fortunately there’s a load out there. Look into it for yourself. Don’t expect doctors to give you all the information you need, especially when it comes to the statistical dangers of their treatments (see the booklet Natural Cures ‘They’ Don’t Want You To Know About).

The package, a PDF folder entitled Information on Alternative Treatments for Cancer, can be freely downloaded from Dropbox using the following link:

Please download and share, the file and/or the link, 
as widely as possible.

With well wishes.

Dropbox ( is a free cloud storage facility. Sign up and usage is quick and easy.

Artificial Sweeteners – A Sweet and Deadly Deception

This post sort of follows on from the two-part

Staring Down the Double Barrels of BPAs & HFCS

The second part of the article focused on the health effects of refined sugars, particularly fructose. On reading that post, a reaction of going ‘sugar-free’ would seem like a move in the right direction. Unfortunately, the opposite is true, and would be, in fact, stepping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

aspartameBut it’s not only people who turn to sugar-free or ‘diet’ products who are being harmed. Artificial sweeteners appear in many more foodstuffs than those classified as sugar-free.

This article focuses on the two most widely used, Aspatame and Sucralose.

As mentioned, artificial sweeteners appear in many more foodstuffs than those classified as sugar-free.

Aspartame can be found in over 6,000 foods including:

– instant breakfasts
– breath mints
– cereals
– sugar-free chewing gum
– cocoa mixes
– coffee beverages
– frozen desserts
– gelatin desserts
– juice beverages
– laxatives
– multivitamins (inc children’s multivitamins)
– milk drinks
– pharmaceuticals and supplements (including junior vitamins)
– shake mixes
– soft drinks
– tabletop sweeteners
– tea beverages
– instant teas and coffees
– topping mixes
– wine coolers
– yogurt

The above list from the Aspartame (Nutrasweet) Toxicity Info Center is by no means complete, but gives an idea of the widespread application of this chemical. For a fuller list see here

Aspartame chemistry

Aspartame is combination of chemicals, namely aspartic acid (an amino acid with excitatory effects on brain cells), methanol and phenylalanine.

When broken down by the body the phenylalanine in aspartame dissociates from the ester bond. While these amino acids are natural, they were never designed to be ingested as isolated amino acids in massive quantities, which in and of itself will cause complications.

Additionally this will also increase dopamine levels in your brain. This can lead to symptoms of depression and addiction because it distorts your serotonin/dopamine balance. Aspartame greatly lowers serotonin levels, and decreased brain serotonin has been associated with depression, anxiety, panic attacks, suicide attempts, hostility and psychopathic states, as well as hallucinations and insomnia. It can also lead to migraine headaches and brain tumors through a similar mechanism.

The aspartic acid in aspartame is a well-documented excitotoxin. Excitotoxins are usually amino acids, such as glutamate and aspartate. These special amino acids cause particular brain cells to become excessively excited, to the point that they die. Aspartic acid alters the manner of brain formation in newborn infants, permanently resulting in hyperactivity and behavioral changes in children.

Excitotoxins can also cause a loss of brain synapses and connecting fibers leading to general lead to neurodegeneration. Reported physical effects after long exposure to excitatory amino acid include Parkinson’s disease, brain lesions, neuroendocrine disorders and hypoglycemia to mention a few.

According to Professor Emeritus of Food Science and Nutrition at Arizona State University Dr. Woodrow C. Monte, every molecule of aspartame converts into a molecule of methanol when consumed. And in its dry form, aspartame is 11 percent methanol by weight.

“When humans consume low doses of methanol it is metabolized directly into formaldehyde which is a cancer producing agent of the same level of danger as asbestos and plutonium. Once methanol runs the gauntlet of first-pass metabolism, its detoxification is no longer exclusive to the liver. Methanol transports its potential to become formaldehyde past normal biological barriers in the brain and elsewhere that environmental formaldehyde itself cannot usually penetrate … [formaldehyde] can then be produced within the arteries and veins, heart, brain, lungs, breast, bone, and skin.”

This means that people who regularly consume “diet” foods and beverages laced with aspartame are taking in high amounts of a formaldehyde-producing, chemical poison that is drastically increasing their risk of developing chronic illnesses.

And if that wasn’t bad enough,

aspartame_excrement_gmoAspartame is manufactured from the excrement of genetically modified microorganisms.

I’m afraid so, and not just any bacteria either, genetically modified E Coli! I’ll say that again; Aspartame is manufactured from the excrement of genetically modified E Coli.

The following is a 1981 patent for aspartame production,

Process for producing aspartame (Bahl, Rose, White)

1.) ‘Cloned microorganisms’ (genetically modified E. coli) are cultivated in tanks whose environments are tailored to help them thrive.
2.) The well-fed
E. coli cultures defecate the proteins that contain the aspartic acid-phenylalanine amino acid segment needed to make aspartame.
3.) The proteins containing the Asp-Phe segments are ‘harvested’ (i.e. lab assistants collect the bacteria’s faeces).
4.) The faeces are then treated. This includes a process of methylation (adding an excess of the toxic alcohol, methanol, to the protected dipeptide).

It’s hard to believe such a chemical would be allowed into the food supply, but it was, and it has been wreaking silent havoc with people’s health for the past 30 years.The truth is, it should never have been released onto the market, and allowing it to remain in the food chain is seriously hurting people — no matter how many times it’s rebranded with new names. Aspartame is one product that has possibly harmed more people around the world than any other, from babies in the womb to the elderly in nursing homes.

Toxicity Effects of Aspartame Use

Selection of adverse effects from short-term and/or long-term use:

  • seizures and convulsions

  • dizziness

  • tremors

  • migraines and severe headaches (trigger or tause from chronic intake)

  • memory loss (common toxicity effects)

  • slurring of speech

  • confusion

  • numbness or tingling of extremities

  • chronic fatigue

  • depression

  • insomnia

  • irritability

  • panic attacks (common aspartame toxicity reaction)

  • marked personality changes

  • phobias

  • rapid heart beat, tachycardia (another frequent reaction)

  • asthma

  • chest pains

  • hypertension (high blood pressure)

  • nausea or vomitting

  • diarrhea

  • abdominal pain

  • swallowing pain

  • itching

  • hives / urticaria

  • other allergic reactions

  • blood sugar control problems (e.g., hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia)

  • menstrual cramps and other menstraul problems or changes

  • impotency and sexual problems

  • food cravings

  • weight gain

  • hair loss / baldness or thinning of hair

  • burning urination & other urination problems

  • excessive thirst or excessive hunger

  • bloating, edema (fluid retention)

  • infection susceptibility

  • joint pain

  • brain cancer

  • death

Aspartame Disease Mimmicks Symptoms or Worsens the Following Diseases

  • fibromyalgia

  • arthritis

  • multiple sclerosis (MS)

  • parkinson’s disease

  • lupus

  • multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS)

  • diabetes and diabetic Complications

  • epilepsy

  • alzheimer’s disease

  • birth defects

  • chronic fatigue syndrome

  • lymphoma (including primary lymphoma of the brain)

  • lyme disease

  • attention deficit disorder (ADD and ADHD)

  • panic disorder

  • depression and other psychological disorders

Over 90 different symptoms, which many physicians refer to as “aspartame disease”, have been documented by the US FDA’s Adverse Reaction Monitoring System (ARMS) as a result of Aspartame consumption, over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives, with Inflammatory Bowel Disease being recently added to the list. It is banned by health-conscious countries all over the world, especially where there is a national healthcare system in place.


According to a study done in the United States in 2008 on a sample of 18,000 people consuming one or more artificially sweetened, “diet” drinks per day increased their risk of acquiring metabolic disorders by 30 to 40 percent.

A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology in San Diego found that adult women who drink at least two diet sodas a day experience a 30 percent drop in kidney function over the course of a decade. Findings indicate that artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose are the culprits in the rapid degeneration of glomerular filtration rates in the kidneys of those consuming excessive amounts of artificially-sweetened diet sodas.

Researchers from the University of Texas Health Center San Antonio reported in a study that, as a group, 70 percent of those who drank diet soft drinks gained weight as opposed to those who did not. Moreover, those who drank 2 or more diet sodas regularly experienced an increase in their waist circumference by 500 percent more than those who did not drink them.

Yet another experiment indicated aspartame is a multipotential carcinogenic agent, even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg b.w. (milligrams per kilograms per body weight), much less than the current ADI (Average Daily Intake) for humans in Europe (40 mg/kg b.w.) and in the United States (50 mg/kg b.w.).

According to Dr. Betty Martini, aspartame is an “addictive, exitoneurotic, carcinogenic, genetically engineered drug and adjuvant that damages the mitochondria.”

Dr. Janet Hall, another famous advocate against aspartame, states that all artificial sweeteners create an artificial need for more sweetness. She goes on to add that forced sweetness, being a class of altered food, is a trap that cause people to become addicted to sweeter tasting food with no nutritional value.

This article (linked to for brevity) describes in clear detail the effect that deceiving the body with artificial sweeteners has on the body’s self-regulating mechanisms, which can lead to food cravings and overeating.

With all the above, which is at best a brief overview, why, one might ask, do regulatory bodies allow it into the foods supply of their countries?

The European Food Safety Authority concludes that the artificial sweetener is safe for human consumption at current acceptable daily intake levels. The Acceptable Daily Intake, or ADI, is an estimate of the amount of an additive that could be routinely consumed every day over a lifetime with no appreciable health risk. In the case of aspartame, the ADI is set at 40 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. This is equivalent to 2800 milligrams for an average British adult. For an average 3-year-old child the amount is of the order of 600 milligrams.

Following their review of the evidence in animal and human studies, the EFSA’s ANS Panel concluded that the current Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 40 mg/kg of body weight per day is “protective for the general population,” with the exception of people suffering from PKU, who have to avoid phenylalanine.

Regarding evidence that aspartame causes cancer by damaging genes – for instance the study published in 2005 that found that aspartame causes cancer in rats at levels approved for humans – the panel ruled out this risk. It also concluded that the food additive does not harm the brain or nervous system, or affect behaviour or mental function in adults and children.

With the mountain of peer reviewed research that proves beyond doubt the harmful nature of aspartame, why the EFSA would approve it is open to speculation. A closer look at another regulatory body, the US Food & Drug Agency, might provide some idea.

The bottom line is that the FDA totally ignores the toxicity, carcinogenicity and neurodegenerative disabilities caused by aspartame, primarily because it has been co-opted by the very corporations it was set up to regulate.

The history of Aspartame.

How Aspartame was approved is a lesson in how chemical and pharmaceutical companies can manipulate government agencies such as the FDA, “bribe” organizations such as the American Dietetic Association, and flood the scientific community with flawed and fraudulent industry-sponsored studies funded by the makers of Aspartame.

Original approval of aspartame by the FDA involved questionable studies that were later investigated by the drug enforcement division of the Bureau of Foods. Prior to the approval of aspartame, the FDA sent two specialised teams to G.D. Searle and found a 95% level of misdirected testing; concealed tests, collusion between corporate and their company-funded research; inappropriate antemortum issues; withholding of material facts; alterations of records: lying to investigators, lost records, no records; falsification of reports, bribery, poor test methodology or design…et al. The FDA ignored both these reports and the slew of adverse event data that surfaced following aspartame’s approval.

In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame’s clouded past, including the report of a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it “might induce brain tumors.” The FDA had previously banned aspartame based on this finding.

191px-Donald_Rumsfeld_DefenselinkIn January 1981 then-Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld told a sales meeting, according to one attendee, that he would call in his chips and get aspartame approved by the end of the year.

Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president January 21, 1981. Rumsfeld, while still CEO at Searle, was part of Reagan’s transition team. This team hand-picked Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. to be the new FDA commissioner. Dr. Hayes, a pharmacologist, had no previous experience with food additives before being appointed director of the FDA.

On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Reagan issued an executive order eliminating the FDA commissioners’ authority to take action and Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener. Hayes, Reagan’s new FDA commissioner, appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision. So Hayes installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame’s favour.

One of Hayes’ first official acts as FDA chief was to approve the use of aspartame as an artificial sweetener in dry goods on July 18, 1981. In order to accomplish this feat, Hayes had to overlook the scuttled grand jury investigation of Searle, overcome the Bressler Report, ignore the PBOI’s recommendations and pretend aspartame did not chronically sicken and kill thousands of lab animals. Hayes left his post at the FDA in November, 1983, amid accusations that he was accepting corporate gifts for political favours. Just before leaving office in scandal, Hayes approved the use of aspartame in beverages. After Hayes left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, he served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position as a high-paid senior medical advisor with Burson-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame.

When Searle was absorbed by Monsanto in 1985, Donald Rumsfeld reportedly received a $12 million bonus. Also, while at Searle, Rumsfeld was awarded Outstanding CEO in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981).Former White House Chief of Staff Rumsfeld owed a debt of gratitude to former White House confidante and friend Donald Kendal, Pepsi’s chairman. The Pepsi announcement and aggressive marketing (millions of gumballs, a red and white swirl, tough contracts) made NutraSweet known in every home.

It is important to realise that this type of revolving-door activity has been going on for decades. The Townsend Letter for Doctors (11/92) reported on a study revealing that 37 of 49 top FDA officials who left the FDA took positions with companies they had regulated. They also reported that over 150 FDA officials owned stock in drug companies they were assigned to manage.

In addition to the FDA Commissioner and two US Attorneys leaving to take positions with companies connected with G.D. Searle, four other FDA officials connected with the approval of Aspartame took positions connected with the NutraSweet industry between 1979 and 1982 including the Deputy FDA Commissioner, the Special Assistant to the FDA Commissioner, the Associate Director of the Bureau of Foods and Toxicology and the Attorney involved with the Public Board of Inquiry.

Many organisations and universities receive large sums of money from companies connected to the NutraSweet Association, a group of companies promoting the use of Aspartame . In January 1993, the American Dietetic Association received a US$75,000 grant from the NutraSweet Company. The American Dietetic Association has stated that the NutraSweet Company writes their “Facts” sheets.

Many other “independent” organisations and researchers receive large sums of money from the manufacturers of Aspartame . The American Diabetes Association has received a large amount of money from Nutrasweet, including money to run a cooking school in Chicago (presumably to teach diabetics how to use Nutrasweet in their cooking).

There’s a mountain of data available, some of it linked to below, but I’m sure you get the gist.

Perhaps Dr Betty Martin’s comment sums it up most succinctly, “Aspartame is a Pandora’s box of chameleon-like toxins and tumor agents that have 92 FDA acknowledged ways to ruin your life, death being one of them.”

Moving on then…


If you were told to ingest a biologically alien synthetic chemical whose presence on this planet did not predate 1976, and whose structure is only a few atoms away from the deadly pesticide DDT, and you knew that not only were there no long term human safety studies performed on it, but that it had been already proven in tests to have following adverse health effects:

  • · Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage)

  • · Enlarged liver and kidneys.

  • · Abnormal histopathological changes in spleen and thymus

  • · Increased cecal weight

  • · Reduced growth rate

  • · DNA Damage

  • · Adverse changes to gastrointestinal bacteria

  • · Abnormal Pelvic Mineralisation

  • · Decreased red blood cell count

  • · Hyperplasia of the pelvis

  • · Aborted pregnancy (Maternal & Fetal Toxicity)

  • · Decreased fetal body weights and placental weights

  • · Bowel inflammation/Crohn’s Disease

  • · Migraine

  • · Increase glycosylation of hemoglobin (HbA1c) for diabetics

…would you still consume it? Of course not! And yet, millions of Americans (including children!) are doing exactly that by consuming Splenda. (Links to abstracts for studies that have shown some of the above can be found here)

splendaDespite the intended insinuation, sucralose is not a form of sucrose (cane sugar). Sucralose/Splenda is produced through artificially substituting three hydroxyl groups (hydrogen + oxygen) with three chlorine atoms in the sugar (sucrose) molecule. Natural sugar is a hydrocarbon built around 12 carbon atoms. When transformed into Splenda it becomes a chlorocarbon, in the same family as deadly pesticides like DDT, insecticides, biocides, disinfectants like Chlorox Bleach, and WWI poison gas like dichlorourea.

The makers of sucralose/Splenda argue that this “remarkably stable” chemical passes unchanged into the urine and feces, when in fact, up to 11% to 27% is absorbed into the body. In fact, the varying degrees to which sucralose is absorbed is used as a marker for gut and intestinal permeability to determine certain disease states. Once absorbed, some portion of this chlorocarbon accumulates in the body (between 1.6% to 12.2%). What effects will these accumulated chemicals have? According to James Bowen, M.D:

“Any chlorocarbons not directly excreted from the body intact can cause immense damage to the processes of human metabolism and, eventually, our internal organs. The liver is a detoxification organ which deals with ingested poisons. Chlorocarbons damage the hepatocytes, the liver’s metabolic cells, and destroy them. In test animals Splenda produced swollen livers, as do all chlorocarbon poisons, and also calcified the kidneys of test animals in toxicity studies.”

Two articles citing the most compelling research are The Bitter Truth about Splenda and Splenda (Sucralose) Found to have Diabetes Promoting Effects. The former refers to its xenobiotic nature, i.e. its metabolically foreign chemical properties, and provides evidence that when the sensation of sweetness is disassociated from ‘food,’ i.e. a source of calories or nutrition, it is either unrecognizable by the body, or disrupts the body neuroendocrine system in an adverse manner.

The latter article focuses on the potential sucralose has to promote diabetic and /or pre-diabetic disease processes within the human body. The results delineated in the study point to just a single dose of sucralose resulting in increases in blood sugar concentration, increases in insulin levels and decreases in insulin sensitivity, all of which are possible pre-cursors to diabetes.

There is also the issue of sucrose producing cancer-causing dioxins and dioxin-like compounds when heated as in cooking, which its manufacturer actively encourages it to be used for. A number of reports from independent laboratories show that sucralose undergoes thermal degradation when heated and produces highly toxic chlorinated compounds.

Hopefully I don’t need to spend anymore time explaining how it is that such a toxic chemical with documented adverse effects could be approved for public consumption.

Links have been provided throughout and below to additional and supplementary data. These are provided as stand-alone data and as starting points for individual research.

It’s a oft-used axiom here in the Centre of the Psyclone, but time and again, it’s shown to be true:

Knowledge is Power –

Your Ignorance is Their Bliss

References and additional data

Aspartame – Rumsfeld’s Bioweapon Legacy


Sucralose, A Synthetic Organochlorine Sweetener: Overview Of Biological Issues

The Lethal Science of Splenda, a Poisonous Chlorocarbon

Sucralose (Splenda) Toxicity Information Center

Staring Down the Double Barrels of Bisphenols and High Fructose Corn Syrup – Part 2

This is the second in a two-part article written with the aim of providing a much-needed perspective on the increasing worldwide epidemics of diabetes, liver disease and obesity.

A common ingredient in numerous foods that make up the standard American diet (SAD) is high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). HFCS was invented in the 1970s when scientists discovered a way to convert corn glucose into fructose, causing it to be substantially sweeter. Interestingly around the same time, the US government began imposing tariffs on imported sugar and implementing sugar quotas on the amount of domestic sugar that could be grown. As a result, producers were able to obtain this new corn sweetener much more cheaply than they could sugar and they began to use it to sweeten their products. Currently, HFCS is actually cheaper to make than regular sugar from beets or sugar canes. It’s also very easy to transport, meaning lower costs and higher profits for food producers.

walmart-chemtrails-cell-towers-obesity-david-deesIntake of HFCS increased from 0.6 pounds per person per year in the 1970s to 73.5 pounds per person in 2007, and has continued to increase as food manufacturers have replaced the use of glucose with HFCS and have added it to more and more processed foodstuffs, even non-sweet foods, for reasons that will be explained. The introduction of HFCS coincided with a marked rise in obesity in the US.

Obesity levels are higher now than ever before. One-third of Americans are obese and another third are overweight. Due to the international reach of US food multinationals in both advertising and supply, aspects and versions of the standard American diet (SAD) are replicated around the world. Probably the best example of this is Coca Cola, which is marketed and available virtually everywhere on the planet that there are people. A direct result of this reach and influence is that more and more societies are experiencing obesity epidemics.

HFCSFructose is not naturally present in corn syrup. High fructose corn syrup is made from corn starch, a glucose polymer. First, enzymatic starch breakdown yields corn syrup which is essentially free glucose. The glucose is then further enzymatically converted to fructose. After various purification steps, a mixture of 90% fructose and 10% glucose (HFCS-90) is obtained. HFCS-90 is mixed with appropriate amounts of corn syrup to make either HFCS-55 or HFCS-42, mixtures with 55% and 42% fructose, respectively. HFCS-55 is mainly used for soft drinks, whereas HFCS-42 is primarily used to sweeten baked goods. HFCS is found in all kinds of processed foods,even non-sweet ones. Besides being an addictive sweetener, it’s an effective preservative.

Many traditional foods do not normally have sugar (much less a chemical preservative and sweetener) added as part of the recipe in the first place. An example is bread. The basic recipe is very simple: flour, water, salt, and yeast. Compare that to many of the standard breads available in supermarkets, which typically contain a fair amount of HFCS to keep them “fresh” for days or weeks. If you eat this bread, not only are you getting the sugars that result from a breakdown in carbohydrates (which the healthy human body can handle), but you are getting an additional shot of fructose from the HFCS as a preservative delivered directly to the liver to become triglycerides. A potential side benefit (unanticipated of course) for processed food-and-drink manufacturers that use HFCS as a preservative is that humans are genetically hardwired to prefer sweet tastes, a DNA-driven tendency that can lead to sweet cravings and addictions.

Fructose in fruits and vegetables comes as part of a digestible whole food package that contains much less fructose than soft drinks and other processed foods. The fructose found in nature is bound to glucose which undergoes a breaking down process in the stomach before the fructose moves on to the liver. This process allows the liver time to efficiently handle the fructose over time instead of being flushed with fructose within a few minutes. Fructose in HFCS is unbound meaning it is not attached to any other molecule. Unbound fructose is immediately taken up by the liver for metabolising when HFCS is consumed. This initiates a metabolic nightmare. The liver is forced to work hard at metabolising the instantly present fructose. Often times the liver has to ignore or inefficiently handle other metabolic duties such as the breaking down of fatty acids.

The digestive system is not familiar with high amounts of isolated fructose such as HFCS. Our cells use glucose for energy by metabolising carbohydrates. Out of 120 calories from glucose, one calorie gets stored as fat. Cells throughout the body metabolise glucose rapidly. With glucose from cane or beet sugar, 20% is passed onto the liver to be metabolised. But the gut doesn’t know what to do with isolated high fructose. So it passes 100% of the isolated fructose into the liver. The liver’s attempt to metabolise HFCS produces uric acid. Uric acid can ramp up blood pressure, cause gout, and lead to liver damage.

hfcs-consumptionIf sugar is not immediately used up by the muscles via some kind of exercise it is converted into fat and stored in the body. This is another way that HFCS can contribute to obesity, heart disease and even Alzheimer’s and memory loss. This increase in fat and cholesterol slows the micro circulation of blood through the brain accelerating cell death through lack of oxygen and nutrients.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is surging throughout the Western industrial world to become the most common liver disease. In the USA alone, over 30 million are afflicted with NAFLD. It can lead to cirrhosis, liver cancer, and even liver failure. Fatty liver occurs when fatty lipids occupy liver cells enough to exceed five percent of the liver’s weight. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is linked to metabolic syndrome or diabetes types 1 and 2, implying NAFLD has more to do with excessive sugar intake than saturated fats. Increased triglyceride levels resulting from a sluggish and inefficient fatty liver have also been linked to increased incidence of cardiovascular disease. Fatty infiltration of the liver was correlated with amount of abdominal fat and visceral fat, which was more strongly associated with fatty liver than subcutaneous fat.

liver_disease_teensAnd then there are the shocking findings of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) recorded on 10,359 teenagers aged 12-18 from 1988-2008. Researchers found that one in ten had NAFLD.

Even more ominously, researchers stated that NAFLD “seems to be increasing faster than the prevalence of obesity.” Previously, the disease has been very closely associated with obesity. Now, though, it’s clear that there’s more than excess weight driving the increase in liver disease.

During a study conducted at Princeton, subjects consuming foods laced with high fructose corn syrup experienced weight gain, high increases in triglyceride levels, and fat deposits in the abdominal area. This study, however, does not stand alone in its implication of high fructose corn syrup and its health damaging effects.

HFCS creates even more metabolic damage because it has no effect on ghrelin, which stimulates appetite, and interferes with the brain’s leptin communication, which lets you know you’ve had enough to eat. This leads to overeating. Glucose suppresses ghrelin and doesn’t interfere with leptin. So hunger cravings are satisfied easily with glucose from even regular sugar.

And if all the above isn’t disturbing enough, there’s the issue of genetically modified ingredients. When HFCS and genetic modification (GM) are discussed, the tendency is to think of the corn component. After all, it may seem that corn is the only ingredient of HFCS production but there are two other ingredients to consider. Three enzymes are required to make HFCS, and two of them, alpha-amylase and glucose isomerase, have been genetically modified. Alpha-amylase is used to make shorter chains of sugar called polysaccharides. Isomerase is used to convert glucose into a glucose/fructose mix. These enzymes are genetically manipulated to withstand the high heat needed to make HFCS without them breaking down and becoming unusable.


Staring Down the Double Barrel

HFCS is now the sweetener used in sodas and soft drinks. Another wide-ranging study in California questioned the soda consumption habits of 43,000 adults and 4,000 adolescents and concluded this: drinking one or more sodas a day increases your chances of obesity by 27 percent. A whopping 62% of adults who drink at least one soda each day are overweight or obese.

The study also found that Californians are gulping down sodas at an unprecedented rate: At least one soda is consumed daily by 41 percent of children, 62 percent of adolescents and 24 percent of adults. Through the study, another shocking statistic was revealed: The average California teen consumes 39 pounds of liquid sugar a year solely from soda consumption.

sugary_soda_obesityOne of the most important factors to be considered between children and teenagers is the consumption of sugary sodas. Sodas provide the most popular vehicle for BPA consumption – from soda cans to plastic bottles of cola and other drinks.

The findings of this combination of research is what you might call a double-whammy: A sugary HFCS soda in a container made with BPA that disrupts hormones and stimulates fat cell growth. This double-whammy is what children are being fed on. It is also what many young adults are hooked on, a sugary sweet HFCS caffeine buzz in contaminated containers compounded by overeating and less activity. This combination is quickly creating nations of overweight and diseased people.


Some Solutions

The most immediate thing anyone can do to protect themselves and their families is to reduce the amount of processed foods consumed.

HFCS can be found in soft drinks/sodas, sports drinks, flavored waters, and even so called health beverages, French fries, cottage cheese, bottled sauces , canned soup, cough syrup, breakfast cereal, yogurt, bread, pastries, jelly and jam (by no means a complete list, but gives an idea on the range of products).

Manufacturers have cleverly replaced the name “HFCS” with the names Inulin, Glucose-Fructose Syrup, Iso Glucose, Chicory, Fruit Fructose, Corn Sugar and Corn Syrup, so it’s necessary to check labels, but a sensible rule-of-thumb would be to avoid processed and fast food wherever possible.

Considering what you’ve just read, one might be inclined to view going ‘sugar-free’ and eating ‘diet’ products as a good idea. As it is though the opposite is true. Doing so would be, in fact, stepping out of the frying pan and into the fire, as revealed in Artificial Sweeteners – A Sweet and Deadly Deception.

Do your own research, taking care to check financial ties and corporate/ideological allegiances of your sources, especially those who maintain that HFCS is benign or even good for health.

I would suggest that those already affected by HFCS poisoning concentrate on restoring the liver. Below are a few methods, but again, do your own homework. Self-education on health is key to long-term health.


A fermented brew made using a specific culture, called by some a mushroom that is in fact a combination of fungus, yeast and algae. Detoxification agent par excellence. Also supports healthy liver functioning through the provision of gluconic and glucuronic acids and folic acid. Has applications in numerous conditions (see link below)


The agent that gives turmeric its bright yellow color contains a powerful phytochemical component known as curcumin. Curcumin stimulates production of bile by the gallbladder. The liver uses bile to eliminate toxins; bile also rejuvenates liver cells that breakdown harmful compounds and metabolise fat.  It is anti-inflammatory and an antioxidant.

Milk Thistle

Milk thistle is now regularly employed in cases related to alcoholic hepatitis, alcoholic fatty liver, cirrhosis, liver poisoning or viral hepatitis. The active ingredient, silymarin, helps repair liver cell damage from alcohol, or any other toxins for that matter, by increasing protein synthesis. In at least five of the studies reported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, tests showed it was possible to greatly improve liver functions in patients suffering from milder forms of alcoholic liver diseases.


A study concluded that a controlled aerobic exercise program, without weight loss, reduced hepatic and visceral fat accumulation, and decreased insulin resistance in obese adolescents.


Recent research suggests that Chlorella extract might be a promising hepatoprotective supplement for patients with NAFLD.


In tests Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus improved liver aminotransferases levels in patients with NAFLD.

Olive Oil

An olive oil-rich diet decreases accumulation of triglyceride in the liver.


Patients infected with hepatitis C virus treated with Spirulina and Silimarin both showed reduced levels of liver enzymes (an indicator of liver dysfunction). Liver enzymes – particularly AST – were significantly lower in the Spirulina group. The Spirulina group also had other HCV symptom improvement.


Reference sources can be found through accessing volumes of data at and NaturalNews, two of the best public-access databases of research studies on medical conditions and alternative/complimentary, holistic, non-toxic medicines


Staring Down the Double Barrels of Bisphenols and High Fructose Corn Syrup – Part 1

This two-part article was written with the aim of providing a much-needed perspective on the increasing worldwide epidemics of diabetes, liver disease and obesity.

walmart-chemtrails-cell-towers-obesity-david-deesUnless you’ve just arrived on this planet, you’ll be aware of the increasing incidence of obesity in society. Main causative factors put forward in the mainstream media are overeating and lack of exercise. Whilst that may sound like logical thinking, it distracts and diverts blame onto allegedly greedy and sedentary people and away from the real culprits. It also distracts from the extent of the problem, of which obesity is often, but not always, one highly visual symptom.

Who or what then are the real culprits? Two factors that, if listed with other potentials, would rank first and second are Bisphenols and High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS).

Of the all Bisphenols, Bisphenol-A (BPA)is the one being discussed here. BPA is one 640px-Plastic_bottlesof the most widely produced chemicals in the world. BPA is an industrial chemical used to make clear, rigid, shatter-resistant plastic used in food and drink containers like the epoxy coatings lining most food and beverage cans (aluminum and steel). Other BPA sources include PVC piping, plastic dinnerware, compact disks, mobile phone and computer casings, toys, dental sealants, and medical devices. It’s found in all currency throughout the world as well as cash register receipts issued on thermal paper, pizza boxes, conventional napkins, paper towels, and toilet paper. It can also be found in wines fermented in plastic vats. . 2011 study that showed that 90% of the 73 popular canned foods in the US tested contained BPA, (18 out of 20 top-selling canned food products in the UK). A study in the same year conducted by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health determined that volunteers who ate a single serving of canned soup a day for five days had ten times the amount of BPA in their bodies as when they ate fresh soup daily.

Canada’s national health regulatory agency, Health Canada turned up detectable levels of the hormone-disrupting compound  in 96 percent of canned soft drinks. The agency tested 72 different undisclosed brands of energy drinks, diet and non-diet soda, fruit-flavored beverages and other soft drinks and found that all but three tested positive for BPA. The 72 brands tested represent 84 percent of all soft drinks sold in Canada.

The European Food Safety Authority states that at least 15 percent of BPA exposure could be coming from things other than canned foods, including thermal paper.

The incidence of BPA in the environment is so widespread that it is virtually impossible to avoid daily contact in some form. The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that over 90% of people in the US are chronically exposed to BPA at over 3000 times the daily level that the FDA reports. According to research by the Environmental Working Group, 9 out of 10 infants tested had BPA in their blood at birth. It having also been detected in amniotic fluid and placentas means fetuses are exposed before birth.

The researchers also found that BPA in concentrations permitted by US and European health authorities is harmful to fetuses, once again showing us that government toxicity levels allow us to be harmed. They found that BPA reduces the number of cells, which develop into ova, and therefore negatively affects a woman’s fertility and doubles the risk of chromosome damage during the cell division process.

“According to our results, BPA does not directly affect the fertility of pregnant women, but that of their daughters and granddaughters. It is a multigenerational effect,” explains Barcelona professor Montserrat Garcia Caldes and the director of research.

ceramic-water-dispenserDrinking water from plastic bottles made with (BPA) increases urinary levels of the chemical by nearly 70 percent, according to a study conducted by researchers from Harvard University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who also reported that BPA has appeared in the urine of over 90% tested.

To make things worse, if the bottles or cans have been sitting on the shelf for months, the toxic levels of BPA are higher. Also, if the plastic gets heated up, like in a car or in transit in hot countries where more bottled water is often consumed, more toxins are released into the drink. Plus, canned goods are sterilised at up to 265F/130C, so the level of BPA released in those foods is massively increased.

BPA was originally developed in the 1930’s as a synthetic version of the female hormone estrogen. BPA is an endocrine disruptor, meaning it is a chemical that interferes with the hormone system. Women are not the only one who suffer from its endocrine-disrupting action, though. A 2011 study of male factory workers suggests a correlation between exposure to BPA and erectile dysfunction, while an experimental study in rats showed a reduction in serum testosterone following BPA exposure.

Exposure to even a low BPA dose over time has been associated with a wide range of negative health effects including, but not limited to, abnormal male reproductive development, early sexual maturation in females, neurobehavioral problems, an increase in type 2 diabetes and obesity, endocrine disruption, autism spectrum disorders and hormonally mediated cancers such as breast cancer.

Wondering why kids are more hyperactive these days and the doctors suggest prescribing ADHD pharmaceuticals? BPA mimics estrogenic activity and enhances mesolimbic dopamine activity, which results in hyperactivity and attention deficits.

imagesThe endocrine-disrupting, estrogen-mimicking substance has been named ‘obesogenic’ by some researchers, meaning it can contribute to obesity. Studies in the lab find that BPA has the ability to accelerate fat-cell differentiation, disrupt pancreatic functioning, and cause insulin resistance, leading to obesity problems. A recent study published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism found adults with the highest level of BPA were 50 percent more likely to be fatter, with a body mass index in the overweight or obese category. Study participants with high BPA levels were also 28 percent more likely to harbor dangerous abdominal fat. BPA expert Laura N. Vandenberg, PhD, postdoctoral fellow of regenerative and developmental biology at Tufts University, observed that “This human study, together with the previous studies that show relationships between BPA exposures and obesity or other metabolic endpoints, are concerning because they suggest that there are no ‘safe’ populations—even adults may be affected by low level exposures to this chemical,”

The researchers called BPA a potential new environmental “obesogen,” a chemical compound that can disrupt the normal development and balance of fat metabolism and lead to obesity. They suggested that “worldwide exposure to BPA in the human population may be contributing to the worldwide obesity epidemic.” They further stated that ‘Our findings suggest that developmental exposure to environmentally relevant levels of BPA during gestation and lactation induces mammary gland neoplasms in the absence of any additional carcinogenic treatment,” conclude the researchers. “Thus, BPA may act as a complete mammary gland carcinogen.”

dv1554020Other theories arising from the study were that BPA could both accelerate girls’ pubertal development and weight gain during their pre-puberty years. Also noted that exposure to BPA suppresses the release of adiponectin, a hormone that increases insulin sensitivity, which could lead to insulin resistance and increased susceptibility to obesity and metabolic syndromes.

Despite having been shown in hundreds of published studies over the last decade to cause serious conditions including, but not limited to those mentioned above, most national regulatory bodies (US/UK/EU etc) continue to downplay and/or contradict the research, and minimise the effect of BPA . When one looks at the historic record of these bodies, the Federal Drug Agency (FDA) being a classic example and certain individuals within them, it becomes obvious that they are not working in the public’s best interest. It is now clear to most independent observers that the FDA, for instance, is operating a criminal protection racket that seeks to multiply the profits of drug companies and chemical companies while betraying the health and safety of the people it is supposed to be protecting. FDA decision boards are routinely stacked with “experts” who are on the take from the corporations impacted by their decisions.

A poorly designed study with one obvious goal — to cover up the health effects of exposure to BPA is currently circulating the mainstream media with corresponding claims that BPA is completely safe for humans at current exposure levels, despite copious contradicting science. But a University of Massachusetts Amherst (UMA) assistant professor and several others have since come out publicly to decry this flawed study, the construct of which ignores the basic confines of legitimate science.

Also missing from the FDA’s assessment was any consideration of BPA’s affects on human hormones, mainly its ability to activate estrogen receptors in the brain. Previous studies have confirmed that even low-dose exposure to BPA can alter hormone levels, especially over long periods of time — the new FDA study on BPA, it should be noted, only evaluated the effects of BPA on rats for 90 days, which is far too short a duration to make any reasonable or logical conclusions about its safety.

“Other recent animal studies conducted at universities have linked low-dose BPA exposure to an array of health impacts, including some of the effects that the new study did not find,” writes Bienkowski for EHN. “These other experiments found mammary gland abnormalities, altered male and female sexual development, changes in metabolism, insulin and glucose, impaired learning and memory, stress and obesity.”

Late last year, hundreds of independent scientists, who have no financial ties to chemical industries, were cheering the resignation of EU Commission panel member Wolfgang Dekant. Dekant is a blatant sellout for the chemical industry, an all-out advocate for endocrine disruptors like BPA, pesticides and phthalates. Earlier in 2013, Dekant teamed up with seventeen other sellout scientists to sign an editorial that mocked new EU evidence of endocrine disrupters in consumer products. Published in fourteen journals, Dekant’s scathing editorial deemed the new EU endocrine disruptor regulations as “scientifically unfounded, defying common sense and well established science risk assessment principles.”

BPA Free?

The first studies proving the dangers of BPA forced manufacturers to launch a new generation of plastics. The label “BPA-free” has now become a household name and something many consumers seek out, and will pay more for, to ensure safety.

Unfortunately, now, the peace of mind that this BPA-free labeling brought is being questioned. A new study suggests that the “BPA-free” label doesn’t necessarily guarantee that a product is harmless.

In a recent study in which scientists conducted lab tests on multiple top-brand baby and toddler bottles, it was found that many leached chemicals that reacted like the hormone estrogen, even though most were BPA-free. According to this same research, some of those products that were tested actually released synthetic estrogens that were more potent than BPA.

An even bigger issue than BPA is its replacement, BPS, a chemical that was found in a recent study to have a significantly higher uptake in skin compared to BPA. Published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, the first ever study on BPS’ toxicity verified not only that the chemical is widely used, even in BPA-free products, but that it is also significantly more toxic because of its incredible absorption rate.

“Compared with when BPA was more widely used, people may now be absorbing 19 times more BPS through their skin, and people who handle thermal cash-register paper in their jobs may be absorbing even more BPS,” says a recent U.S. News and World Report piece on BPS, quoting the words of a research scientist at the New York State Department of Health who led a study on BPS.

Some Solutions

The above should make it clear that, as with anything to do with our health, we need to7_jpg develop ways of informing and looking after ourselves. In the case of BPA, reducing our exposure should be the first step. Food and drink packaging is our number one source of BPA exposure. (BPA) is mainly found in polycarbonate plastic, which is labeled with the number 7.

It cannot be stressed enough: Consume a fresh food diet and avoid packaged foods as much as possible.

The Breast Cancer Fund and Silent Spring Institute conducted a study which showed a dramatic drop in BPA levels when certain guidelines were followed. During the week-long investigation, families were given freshly prepared organic meals which did not come in contact with any form of BPA. After three days, the participants BPA levels dropped an average of 60 percent with some as high as 75 percent.

To reduce exposure, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families offers the following suggestions:

  • Switch to stainless steel and glass food storage and beverage containers.

  • Move foods to ceramic or glass food containers.

  • Consider a French press for coffee – home coffee makers may have polycarbonate-based water tanks and phthalate-based tubing.

  • Eat out less, especially at restaurants that do not use fresh ingredients.

  • Limit canned food consumption.

  • Choose fresh fruits and vegetables when possible.

  • Soak dried beans for cooking (you can make extra and freeze them).

Also, avoid plastic cookware and utensils.

As far as avoiding contamination through non-food vectors:

  • Say no to receipts when possible

  • Keep receipts in an envelope.

  • Never give a child a receipt to hold or play with.

  • Wash your hands before preparing and eating food after handling receipts.

  • Do not recycle receipts and other thermal paper. BPA residues will contaminate recycled paper.

Which goes someway to reducing exposure, but how can we remove BPA from our bodies?


* Bifidobacterium 3
* Bifidobacterium Breve
* Lactobacillus casei
* Bacillus pumilus

These have been discovered or confirmed by at least one in vitro (lab glass) study or in vivo (animal/human) study. A few have been covered by more than one study. Bifidobacterium breve and Lactobacillus casei were found to extract BPA from the blood of mammals and were excreted out through the bowels.

The most commonly tested items are specific probiotic strains, such as the first four listed, or probiotics in general and fermented foods. So obviously whatever supplies probiotics in high numbers is critical. If you buy probiotic supplements, you can see which bacteria strains are available on the labels.

There are ways to create fermented foods and milk kefir (raw milk is ideal) or water kefir (with purified water). You’ll have to search the internet for those sources. Or if you are in or near a network that cooperates with providing kefir starter grains, look into that. It’s the least expensive route for consuming lots of probiotics.

Other fermented foods like kimchi, natural sauerkraut.

Beneficial bacteria strengthen the gut and break down chemicals like BPA so they can be cleared out. As an added bonus, they also break down pesticides, another major endocrine-disruptor!

Black Tea

Black tea is found to reduce BPA toxicity. Drink loose leaf – black tea has many, many other health benefits besides reducing BPA.

Sweat it out

When researchers started testing different ways that BPA bioaccumulates in the body, they discovered that BPA was detected in sweat and thought that method should be considered in newer research projects as a way to track accumulation, like when urine is tested.

They found that: “Induced sweating appears to be a potential method for elimination of BPA.” Many wellness centers now have steamless saunas to help with sweat detox.


This is a flavonoid found in fruits, vegetables, leaves, tea and whole grains. Like black tea, it ameliorates toxicity from BPA. It is also available in supplement form. It should probably come as no surprise that quercetin is also great for allergies!


A fermented brew made using a specific culture, called by some a mushroom that is in fact a combination of fungus, yeast and algae.  Detoxification agent par excellence. Alsosupports healthy liver functioning through the provision of gluconic and glucuronic acids and folic acid. Has applications in numerous conditions (see link below)


The agent that gives turmeric its bright yellow color contains a powerful phytochemical component known as curcumin. Curcumin stimulates production of bile by the gallbladder. The liver uses bile to eliminate toxins; bile also rejuvenates liver cells that breakdown harmful compounds and metabolise fat.  It is anti-inflammatory and an antioxidant.

Foods like beets and cabbage also contain glutathione that breaks down and removes plastics in our bodies, so it’s a good idea to consume them regularly. Better yet, juice them so that you can consume more.

Knowledge Is Power. Your Ignorance Is Their Bliss

References (These link to source articles and to two of the best public access health information databases)


Measles is Good For You!

A brief note: A well-meaning SEO-oriented friend advised me recently that the length of this post overshot the ideal word count target of 500 words,  (by around 4000 as it happens!) which put me in danger of losing my audience. My reply was that the purpose of the blog itself was to provide a wide spectrum of relevant and balanced information for people looking to protect and support themselves, family and friends, and anyone that couldn’t concentrate longer than the time it took to read 500 words was reading the wrong material anyway.

This blog, though informal, is meant for the serious out-of-the-box researcher, not someone surfing for byte-sized entertainment. Information presented through this blog is collated from as many sources as possible to streamline user’s access to data, of the kind not normally found floating in the mainstream. Similarly, this and subsequent posts won’t contain images except those that contain additional or supporting information. Data-sharing is the objective here, and I balk at patronising with images such as, in the case of this post, a syringe held in latexed hands with an out-of-focus child on a parent’s knee in the background, or a pharma company logo, or, or…

As well as throughout, links to valuable data outlets are provided at the end of most posts.


Before I get on to showing you how measles is good for you, I’d like to examine various aspects of this latest scare show.

I’ve come to it a little late and The Measles Scare is in full swing. The media are keeping people poised with up to date information about the epidemic. A national immunisation catch-up program is running smoothly. If we’re careful and do as we’re told, we may avoid a catastrophe.

We’re not out of the woods yet though. The Independent recently predicted that a ‘very large outbreak’ of measles could hit London.’

Some vectors identified as virus-carrying have been ‘subsections’ of society known to have decided against vaccinating their children. According to experts these parents are putting others at risk from their potentially infected children. Interestingly, the pupils of private schools have been identified as one of the subsections because of the number of middle-class parents who decided against the vaccination programs in the 1990s.

Middle class, that’ll be the same income bracket that has the means to choose organic food for its higher nutritional content and absence of agrochemical poisons and genetically modified aspects. A social segment whose academic and media parameters are generally wider than the parameters set by the birdseed papers and TV media looked to for information by what Huxley would have called the Epsilons, and by Orwell, the proles.

Gypsies and travellers have also been identified as ‘reservoirs of the disease’.

That phrase, ‘reservoirs of the disease’, along with numerous others has at times made the researching for this post quite frustrating. In the last couple of days I’ve read around 200 current articles, papers and posts concerning measles and vaccinations. Prior to that has been an over two-decade interest in and study of human health, particularly in relation to the health industry (note the phrase).

Reading through government health industry statements and press releases, and media reports has angered me several times, even to the point of cursing the sly, manipulative deceiving and outright lying of various outlets and individuals, who very often appear to be working together to promote the pro-vaccination party line and denigrate any opposition. A gaggle of ‘experts’, ‘specialists’, ministers, coordinators, et cetera, ad nauseum have been trotted out to bleat the doctrine, measles is potentially fatal, vaccinate now. Parents, those who it is hinted at are responsible, along with Dr Wakefield who instigated the MMR mistrust, for this ‘epidemic’, are reassured that nobody judges them for the decision they made back then, they had just based their decision on a, as the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Mark Walport called it, ‘piece of extremely bad science’, but now they had to vaccinate for everybody’s benefit.

Now even before the BBC reported the collapse of Building Seven of the World Trade Centre before it fell down, I’ve known not to trust anything that comes out of its mouth.

One of the experts trotted out by the BBC was Dr Paul Offit, variously described as a US-based measles expert, vaccine specialist and director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr Offit is a fairly well known and frequent commentator in favour of vaccinations who dismisses many vaccine risks and promotes vaccine mandates. He is currently advocating American-style mandatory vaccinations in Britain.

Vaccine entrepreneur is another way Paul Offit has been described. In fact, he’s also known as Dr Paul “For Proft” Offit. What the BBC doesn’t tell us is that their measles expert Offit has already made millions of dollars profit from his ties to vaccines and the measles MMR vaccine maker Merck. Counting Offit’s Millions: More on How Merck’s Rotateq Vaccine Made Paul Offit Wealthy is an update to an earlier investigative research piece that revealed details of Offit’s ‘conflicts of interest’, a cliché too moderate to describe the shady goings-on.

In 2009 it was reported:

“Offit, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, earned millions of dollars as part of a $182m sale by the hospital of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck RotaTeq vaccine. The amount of income distributed to Offit could be as high as $46 million. Offit has refused to say how much he made from the vaccine.

The high price placed on the patents raises concerns over Offit’s use of his former position on the American CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to help create the “market” for rotavirus vaccine – effectively, to vote himself rich.”

Coincidentally, the Department of Health has just successfully created a £25m market for a rotavirus vaccine in Britain, to be used on babies within weeks of them being born. It was reported last November that the government hopes to roll out GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) new Rotarix vaccine program. Rotovirus is not known to cause deaths in British infants but to cause sickness and diarrhoea. From this September GSK’s Rotarix vaccine is to be given to 840,000 babies every year in Britain, which will cost around £25m. The Department of Health claim they “believe” it will save the NHS £20million.

But what the BBC did not report in their current measles stories is that Dr Offit, in his position of authority on the American Advisory Commitee on Immunization Practices, voted in 1998 for drug manufacturer Wyeth’s ‘Rotashield’ rotavirus vaccine to be approved to be given to babies. Just a year after the approval of Rotashield, the vaccine was linked to an increased risk of a serious bowel complication called intussusception. It was quickly taken off the market.

Dr Paul “For Profit” Offit was one of the members who voted yes three times to introduce this Rotashield vaccine (despite it not having FDA approval) and then abstained from the vote to suspend the use of the Rotashield vaccine despite the links to serious complications for babies.

An American government report, “Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making”, was critical of the decision to introduce this vaccine in the first place “as it had not even been approved by the FDA” and noted that “It is clear that the VRBPAC and the ACIP (the American body that approves vaccines) are dominated by individuals with close working relationships with the manufacturers of vaccines”. It went on to say, “The end result was that a product was placed on the market that had to be withdrawn within one year because it was injuring the children it was meant to protect.”

Because of Offit’s and others’ votes to introduce Rotashield, this helped other rotavirus vaccines to be approved for use in America, one of which was GSK’s Rotarix.  This was suspended from the market when it was found to be contaminated with pig virus DNA. The American Food and Drug Agency found Merck’s RotaTeq vaccine, from which Offit had made considerable profit, was also contaminated.

The FDA stated when they announced the reinstatement of the Rotarix vaccine that they would continue to monitor both vaccines for continued problems with contamination”

Did MPs or the BBC do their homework on the rotavirus vaccines being monitored by the FDA in America?  Did the Department of Health read the latest update on Glaxo’s Rotarix announced by the FDA on 12Th September 2012, issued not long before the DoH announced the rollout of the Rotarix vaccine in Britain from this September? Because the FDA concluded from a GlaxoSmithKline Rotarix study in Mexico that, “as expected, because of the routine use of Rotarix in Mexico, most (698) of the 750 babies studied who developed intussusception had been vaccinated with 1 or 2 doses of Rotarix.” Intussusception is a serious and potentially life-threatening condition that occurs when the intestine gets blocked or twisted.

Despite the possible link to babies developing serious health problems and contamination of the major rotavirus vaccines the Department of Health has just approved Rotarix to be given to 840,000 British babies every year in Britain, with the vaccination programme due to be promoted by doctors in Britain within the next few months.

What do the FDA now recommend regarding GSK’s Rotarix vaccine on the back of the results of the Mexican study?

“Parents should closely watch their infants for signs of intussusception, especially within the first 7 days after vaccination with Rotarix. These include, stomach pain, vomiting, diarrhoea, blood in the stool or change in bowel movements. It is important to contact the child’s healthcare provider if the child has any of these signs at any time after vaccination, even if it has been several weeks since the last dose of vaccine.”

With the addition of Rotarix vaccine from this September, babies and children in Britain will now subjected to ten jabs and two oral doses of vaccine drops before the age of five with Department of Health claims that this is to protect them against 11 different diseases.

Should we consider this man, widely known as Dr. Paul “For Profit” Offit, to be an “expert” in vaccine safety when he champions contaminated vaccines and abstains from voting to remove a vaccine linked to a life threatening condition?

Should we trust Offit’s claims on the BBC that MMR vaccines should be made compulsory, especially when he has consulted for the MMR vaccine manufacturer Merck and has personally made considerable profit from Merck and vaccines? In fact, in light of the facts around Dr Offit’s  ‘conflict of interest’, shouldn’t the financial connections of other ‘experts’, ‘leading doctors’, ‘specialists’ and ministers be taken into account when reviewing what they say on the issue?

But what of Dr Wakefield, author of the paper said to have been responsible for parents in the 90s deciding against the vaccines?

Contrary to the impression cultivated by the media, Dr Wakefield is a vaccine advocate, not a critic. The conclusion of his research, which included a study of a number of autistic children, was that there was sufficient evidence to show that the triple vaccine played a causative role in the development of autism of those studied, and recommended that the shots be administered singly with 12 month intervals between.

One country that has eliminated the MMR vaccine in favour of three separate doses is Japan.

A slightly less obvious impression given by the media in their targeting of Dr Wakefield is that his was and is the only research to show a link between vaccines and autism. Well, happily for those of you that really are seeking to make an informed choice, I can tell you the Wakefield research isn’t the only research. Not by a long shot. Numerous scientists from around the globe have presented credible peer-reviewed research studies that indicate a direct link between the exposure to adjuvants and additives like aluminium and mercury, both widely known neurotoxins that have damaging effects on the brain and nervous system. Links are provided below for data sources

Despite the extent of the scientific research that proves a link between vaccines and a long list of induced damage, Department of Health mouthpieces still come out and make statements such as, ‘Every time there’s a health scare, parents withdraw their children from vaccination. But there is no evidence to show that the MMR jab is linked to autism and bowel disorders.’

However, thousands of families (between 2,000 and 5,000, the numbers vary between sources) have had enough evidence to have taken legal action claiming their children have been damaged by the MMR jab. About half believe it has triggered autism in their toddlers even though the Government has ruled out any link. Back in 2008, the US Court of Federal Claims also admitted that vaccines can cause autism. A young girl, whose identity was sealed for the family’s protection, was awarded compensation after a series of vaccines caused her to develop severe autism symptoms, including loss of language skills, no response to verbal direction, and no eye contact, among other things.

A year prior, a young boy named Bailey was also awarded compensation after suffering a seizure and developing Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM) following vaccination with MMR. Bailey’s family was eventually awarded compensation for the boy’s injuries, which the court reluctantly admitted were caused by the vaccine.

Did you know the UK government has a Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme? I didn’t until I read the accounts of the parents of teenagers who died just days after receiving a combined Measles and Rubella vaccination as part of a government campaign.

Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme? A curiously named scheme if, as we’re supposed to believe, vaccines are safe.

In 2008 an Italian court found that “there was a reasonable scientific probability that the MMR jab had triggered in Valantino Bocca an autistic disorder associated with medium cognitive delay”, and awarded Valentino’s parents compensation, to be paid by the Italian ministry of health. Valentino, developing normally, was given the shot at 14 months and started to suffer from diarrhoea, lost interest in food and within a few days lost the ability to use his spoon. Worse was soon to come when he began to be restless at night, screaming in pain for hours. It was later found that he was suffering from a painful bowel condition that is common in autistic children. With an adjusted diet of no wheat or milk, he was able to sleep but the autism symptoms continued, and even at the age of nine, he still does not speak.

Other recent court rulings against the MMR include a £90,000 payout for brain damage to a boy called Robert Fletcher, and a $1.5 million payout for Hannah Poling who received MMR and six other vaccinations in one day and then developed autism.

So, a large number of scientists and doctors have produced peer-reviewed research that demonstrates links between vaccines and a list of induced damages, courts are awarding compensation to the victims based on evidence that proves a link, but still the media promotes the mantra, ‘measles are deadly, vaccines are safe’.

Doing the research this time round, I was struck with the similarity to another piece I’d written that was evident even in the research stage. The same pattern, the same Modus Operandi, the same players, only back then the bogeyman was Swine Flu. I think the fact that I wrote an article on it, but also the fact that it wasn’t that long ago has made the parallels easier to see.

More often than not the criminal events conducted today copy a template of criminal events of the past, following an ‘if it worked before, it’ll work again’ mentality. An aspect of criminal investigations is the search for a modus operandi (MO), a particular way of working, which can act as a signature and reveal, if not specific agencies, a particular method that points to specific agency.

Everything You Wanted To Know About Swine Flu, But Didn’t Know You Should Ask was going to be called Those Who Forget History II, The Swine Flu Hullabaloo. Among other things it discusses the parallels between the ‘epidemic’ in the 1970s and the hype at the time, and clearly shows the recurring MOs and patterns mentioned. The article also links to one of the most comprehensive books on the subject of Swine Flu and the vaccination industry. The 1997 book Swine Flu Exposé by Eleanora McBean. Ph.D..N.D. (readable online) needs to be read by everyone. As McBean says, it’s about time a large and comprehensive book of the long concealed facts about vaccination is brought forth. This is the largest and most informative book on the subject ever written in America. It contains data collected from medical records, army reports, and startling findings from researchers all over the world. The book is intended to help combat the disastrous effects of vaccine promoters and their deceptive propaganda.

Another excellent insider’s view on how the health industry really functions in relation to immoral marketing, corruption and bribery, is Natural Cures “They” Don’t Want You To Know About. Kevin Trudeau, an industry insider takes the lid off the American health service to expose very dodgy dealings that are replicated internationally. Fundamentally, it’s all about the money.

Humans are intrinsically healthy and tend to remain so if they are given nutritious, non-GMO foods, fresh air, and clean water. We have extremely effective protective barriers against infectious diseases, including our skin and immune system.

Knowing that these facts are true for all members of the human species, how did we come to embrace the idea that injecting solutions of chemically-treated, inactivated viruses, parts of bacteria, traces of animal tissue and heavy metals was a reasonable strategy for keeping human beings, babies, children and adults healthy?

I’ll tell you how. Marketing. But don’t take my word for it.  The publications linked to above and the links below to sources of information provide the data you need if you want to know the truth about the health industry and/or the pharmaceutical industry. Industries both, one being effectively a subsidiary of the other, or its retail outlet. In fact, Big Pharma has potentially the biggest sales department in the world, using as it does international medical bodies like the World Health Organisation, national bodies like the Centre for Disease Control,  the Federal Drug Agency, their counterpart health and drug authorities in most other countries, doctors, etc as marketing and promotion departments and sales personnel.

Seeing the collusion, corruption and bare-faced manipulation by so many supposedly independent entities, more than one observer has described this latest scare as a Psychological Operation or PsyOp. Using such language in a context like this invariably opens one up to the charge of conspiracy theorist. A PsyOp then, for those of you that missed that class, has been described by an ex-military veteran in the field as,

‘the planned use of communications to influence human attitudes and behaviour … to create in target groups behaviour, emotions, and attitudes that support the attainment of national objectives… disseminated by face-to-face communication, television, radio or loudspeaker, newspapers, books, magazines and/or posters’.

The hype and behaviour I’m witnessing certainly fit that bill. As does the details of the Natural News article UK Children Brainwashed into MMR Vaccine Support Through Manipulation of Academic Exam

The General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) test is the most widely taken academic qualification exam among 14- to 16-year-olds in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The test questions are designed by the United Kingdom’s Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA).

Question 5 on the Science portion of the January 2008 test concerned the 1998 study that first raised concerns between the MMR vaccine and autism. In that study, published in the The Lancet, Andrew Wakefield and colleagues examined

12 autistic children after their parents raised concern that their conditions might have been caused by the MMR shot. Although the study did not find any causal relationship between the vaccine and autism, the authors concluded there was enough concern to recommend that parents instead give their children individual vaccines for each of the three diseases, spaced a year apart.

The GCSE test question was split into two parts. In the first part, students were asked to explain how the MMR vaccine functions to protect children from the three diseases. The second part briefly described Wakefield’s study, concluding by saying, “Dr Wakefield’s research was being funded through solicitors for the twelve children. The lawyers wanted evidence to use against vaccine manufacturers.”

The students were then asked, “(i) Was Dr Wakefield’s report based on reliable scientific evidence? … (ii) Might Dr Wakefield’s report have been biased?”

Students were given points for part (i) only if they criticized the study for having a small sample size and for relying on parents’ anecdotal reports as evidence. They were given points for part (ii) only if they agreed that Wakefield might have been biased by being paid by parents/lawyers.

Wakefield accused the test writers of making false claims about him and his research.

Back to vaccines. Vaccines have several components:

  1. Micro-organisms, either bacteria or viruses, thought to be causing certain infectious diseases and which the vaccine is supposed to prevent. These are whole-cell proteins or just the broken-cell protein envelopes, and are called antigens.
  2. Chemical substances which are supposed to enhance the immune response to the vaccine, called adjuvants
  3. Chemical substances which act as preservatives and tissue fixatives, which are supposed to halt any further chemical reactions and putrefaction (decomposition or multiplication) of the live or attenuated (or killed) biological constituents of the vaccine.

Vaccine ingredients include mercury, formaldehyde, aluminium hydroxide, ammonium sulphate, monkey kidney tissue, canine kidney tissue, fetal bovine serum albumen, human aborted fetal cells, human diploid lung fibroblast cells, squalene, phenol, Tween 80, MSG, hydrolysed porcine gelatin, peanut oil, alcohols, etc, etc, etc.

If a “dirty bomb” exposed a large segment of US citizens simultaneously to Hepatitis B, Hepatitis A, tetanus, pertussis, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenza B, three strains of polio viruses, 3 strains of influenza viruses, measles, mumps, and rubella viruses, the chickenpox virus, and 7 strains of Streptococcus bacteria, we would declare a national emergency. We would call it an “extreme act of BIOTERRORISM”. The public outcry would be immense and our government would act accordingly.

And yet, those are the very organisms that we inject through vaccines into our babies and our small children, with immature, underdeveloped immune systems. Many are given all at the same time. But instead of bioterrorism, we call it “protection.” Reflect a moment on that irony. (Sherri J. Tenpenny)

Do an Internet search on the chemicals listed above, if you want to shock yourself and really test your faith in the medical industry. Tween 80, for instance, is a chemical compound used in formulating the pesticide DDT.

Tween 80  can:

* Be used in pharmaceuticals to deliver nano-particles to the brain because they cross or disrupt the Blood Brain Barrier – which protects the brain.

* Suppress the immune system

* Promote epileptic seizures in rats

* Accelerate the development of female organs in rats

* Trigger cell death or ‘suicide’ called apoptosis

* Cause cancer in rats at the injection site

* Damage and promote intestinal damage in rats

* Cause bleeding disorders, kidney failure, liver failure, and death in infants who received a vitamin E product combined with Tween 80

* Possibly promote viral or bacterial infections

* Break down Red Blood Cells

* Cause damage to the heart when injected into rats

Tween 80 can be found in

* DtaP (Infanrix, Tripedia)

* DtaP-HebB-IPV (Pediarix)

* DtaP-Hib (TriHIBit)

* Human Papillomavirus (Gardasil)

* Influenza (Fluarix)

* Rotavirus (RotaTeq)

* Tdap (Adacel, Boostrix)

And then there’s the vaccination concept itself. The Government’s chief scientific adviser would have shown more medical understanding and professional integrity had he more fittingly described the concept itself as the ‘piece of extremely bad science. The subject can’t be summarised or paraphrased, so those who want to further their understanding of the concept and history of vaccinations will find links below that are good places to begin your own research, and there’s plenty of it to trawl through.

For now, I leave you with the wisdom of one Dr Richard Moskowitz who explains in plain terms Genuine Immunity vs Vaccine Immunity, an extract from his book Dissent in Medicine. He says,

Childhood illnesses like measles, mumps and chicken pox produce symptoms which reflect the efforts of the immune system to clear the virus from the blood, which it does by sending it out exactly the same way it came in. When a child recovers from measles, you have true immunity. That child will never, never again get the measles no matter how many epidemics he is exposed to. Furthermore, he will respond vigorously and dramatically to whatever infectious agents he is exposed to. The side benefit of that disease is a nonspecific immunity that charges or primes his immune system so that it can better respond to the subsequent challenges that it is going to meet in the future.

Now, by contrast, when you take an artificially attenuated measles vaccine and introduce it directly into the blood and bypass the portal of entry, there is no period of sensitization of the portal of entry tissues. There is no silent period of incubation in the lymph nodes. Furthermore, the virus itself has been artificially weakened in such a way that there is no generalized inflammatory response. By tricking the body in this way, we have done what the entire evolution of the immune system seems to be designed to prevent. We have placed the virus directly and immediately into the blood and given it free and immediate access to the major immune organs and tissues without any obvious way of getting rid of it.

The result of this, indeed, is the production of circulating antibodies, which can be measured in the blood. But that antibody response occurs purely as an isolated technical feat, without any generalized inflammatory response or any noticeable improvement in the general health of the organism. Quite the contrary, in fact. I believe that the price we pay for those antibodies is the persistence of virus elements in the blood for long periods of time, perhaps permanently, which in turn presupposes a systematic weakening of our ability to mount an effective response not only to measles but also to other infections. So far from producing a genuine immunity, the vaccine may act by interfering with or suppressing the immune response as a whole in much the same way as radiation and chemotherapy, corticosteroids and other anti-inflammatory drugs do.

Chronic long-term persistence of viruses and other proteins within cells of the immune system produce chronic disease. We know that live viruses are capable of surviving or remaining latent within host cells for years without continually provoking acute disease. They do this by attaching their own genetic material to the cell, and replicate along with the cell. That allows the host cell to continue its normal functioning but continuing to synthesize the viral protein.

Latent viruses produce various kinds of diseases. Because the virus is now permanently incorporated within the genetic material of the cell, the only appropriate immunological response is to make antibodies against the cell, no longer against the virus. So, immunizations promote certain types of chronic diseases. And far from providing a genuine immunity, the vaccines are actually a form of immunosuppression.

Knowledge is Power. Your ignorance is their bliss.

The Flawed Theory Behind Vaccinations, and Why MMR Jabs Endanger Your Child’s Health

Important Information regarding Cervical Cancer, HPV, and Vaccines

Scientists Sue Merck: allege fraud, mislabeling, and false certification of MMR vaccine

What are the consequences of injecting aluminium?

International Medical Council on Vaccinations

Dr. James Howenstine — Why You Should Avoid Taking Vaccines

Transcript: Statement from Andrew Wakefield

Genuine Immunity vs Vaccine Immunity

Vaccine-autism studies quotes

MMR vaccine information

Vaccine Ingredients

The Vaccine Website

Vaccine Liberation

Safe Minds

The following sites provide information and links that can be utilised by anyone to protect and maintain their own health and that of their family and friends.

Natural News

What Doctors Don’t Tell You

Off The Radar (New Zealand-based information “one stop shop”)