Dr. R. L. Wysong
April 1998 *

     Recently while strolling a beach I came upon a tops-optional area (by accident of course).  After regaining my composure and wiping the sand off my tongue, I noticed a young lady that probably did not weigh more than 115 lbs.  She had almost no body fat, but had breasts which appeared to weigh 5-10 lbs. each.  They also looked as though they had been blown up by a tire pump - a sure indication that she had silicone implants.
     This was not very attractive, but I also couldn’t help but reflect on what lies before her.  Within about 20 years 95% of implants can be expected to break down.  The escaped silicone can move to the rib cage., abdominal walls, the liver, and groin areas requiring extensive surgical dissection to remove the gel.
     Of the women who have had silicone breast implants, only about 20% are those who have the procedure following mastectomy, while the remaining 80% choose to do so for cosmetic reasons.
     Although I can understand that someone may want to improve their appearance, I1m not sure that breast im­plants in those who have healthy breasts achieves this goal.
     It just doesn’t seem like a very smart trade-off. When you are very young and you think that looks are everything, (and of course you feel immortal) the notion of something happening to you (even if it’s a 95% chance) 25 years away just doesn’t seem like a reason to say no.
     Such intrusion and artificial manipulation of the body, I believe, is never without consequence.  I am also convinced that thi5 - combined with more indirect artifi­cial manipulation by way of our personal home, and plan­etary environmental changes - is responsible for the vast majority of illness, disease and shortened life today.
     No disease has ever been healed by something that is not a part of our biological experience.  On the other hand, there is much disease that has been created by the introduction of elements that are not a part of our bio­logical experience.
    When we take synthetic drugs, have surgeries per-formed, get irradiated, insert toxic metal fillings in our mouths, or even wear eyeglasses, ultimately no ben­efit is derived, but rather a weakening of the body, or complete deterioration and disease, results.
    Treatments we subject ourselves to, artificial foods we attempt to survive on, synthetic compounds we slather on our skin and hair, fumes and vapors from synthetic construction materials in our homes, chemical treatments of our water or contamination of ground water by vari­ous synthetics, and pollution of our air and electro­magnetic environment are the ultimate causes of dis­ease.
    The first solution is to be aware that any artifi­cial manipulation of our bodies or our environment is a threat to health.  We may not suffer immediate con­sequences and may even derive some temporary benefit such as with cosmetic surgery, but ultimately there will be an accounting.
    The degree to which we have shown respect for na­ture by living within its order and balance will be directly proportional to the health and vitality we will ultimately achieve.
        The Lancet, 1997;350:1531-37
    Wireless communication has great potential for uniting the world and speeding technological development.
    But wireless voice, fax and data transmission requires that radiation be present everywhere. We are now being bombarded with an unprec­edented wave of low-level radiation.
    For example, in San Francisco 120 transmitters were installed on rooftops throughout the city; including on church steeples. As one author put it, “Es­sentially it’s as if hundreds of thou­sands of microwave ovens are being placed on rooftops and towers - and are being turned on with their doors open.”
    Those who are advancing this technology, of course, assert that there is no danger. But other research raises questions. For example, a study near a radio station in Latvia showed school children suffered from impaired mo­tor functions, reaction time and memory, and cattle have demonstrated genetic damage. The levels of radia­tion were not much higher than those transmitted by telecommunication sat­ellites. Another Australian study found that cancer-prone mice subjected to radiation similar to that emitted from cell phones developed twice as much cancer as a group of equally prone mice not so exposed. (It would be more fair if the scientists tested the technology on themselves.)
    Most electrical devices also emit magnetic fields. Some research has demonstrated that those who have a high level of exposure to such fields can have a three times greater risk of leukemia. if you are exposed at work you have about a 70% higher risk. if exposed at home there is about a 30% increased risk. Those who have ex­posure both at home and work have almost a 4 times greater risk of de­veloping leukemia as those not so ex­posed.
    The full danger of the types of electromagnetic radiation we are be­ing subjected to has not been deter­mined. What is particularly scary is that there will soon be no place to hide.
    What is the solution? We should always be extremely cautious of any­thing that departs from that to which we are genetically adapted. True, we may sit in front of computers all day, drive in our cars with our cell phones plugged into our ears, work in offices surrounded by fax machines, copiers and electrical and telephone circuitry, but no one really knows what the long-term effects are - not only on us, but on our progeny. Just because we can­not see, feel or taste something does not mean it cannot bring harm.
    This reminds me of the introduc­tion of radiography in medicine. When x-rays first began to be used in medicine, doctors’ and nurses’ hands were everywhere in films, holding parts in place while radiation was used. Only years later did the medical pro­fession, and patients who were unpro­tected from repeated x-rays, suffer the catastrophic consequences of cancer induced by the accumulation of such radiation.
    Better to be safe than sorry and use all such radiating technology, re­gardless of the band of electromag­netic spectrum that is radiating, with extreme caution.
        UTNE Reader, 3anuary 1998:10-13
        Earth Island 3ournal, Summer 1997
        Radiation Research, May 1997
        Epidemiology, 1997;8:384-389
    In a recent study, 15 men de­creased their daily sugar intake from 5.3 oz to 2 oz. After three weeks, their estradiol (a form of female es­trogen) blood levels fell 25%.
    Although low levels of estrogen are normally found in men, it may be that the high sugar intake in modern life may tip the scales resulting in a variety of problems normally not linked to diet. High female hormone levels in men can result in feminine charac­teristics including breast enlargement, abnormal fat distribution, wider hips, prostate problems, and perhaps even a change in sexual preferences. In women, estrogens can also be in­creased by sugar intake resulting in heavy menstrual flow, short menstrual cycles, fluid retention, headaches, breast soreness and painful menstruation.
    Other research has shown that high sugar diets among pregnant ado­lescents are associated with two fold increased risk for delivering a small-­for-gestational-age (SGA) infant and a decrease in gestational duration. These changes in pregnancy are re­flective of those characterized by mal­nutrition, poor nutrition or other forms of stress. In this case, the stress is the refined carbohydrate sugar and its displacement of nutritionally important foods as well as its direct effect on metabolic and physiological processes.
    This is not to mention the many other dangers of high levels of sugar in the diet, including competition with vitamin C resulting in cardiovascular disease and heart attacks, obesity and abnormalities in sugar metabolism such as adult-onset diabetes.
    Recent USDA food consumption data has shown that sugar and other refined sweeteners have increased from about 120 lbs. per person per year in 1970 to about 150 lbs. per per­son per year in 1985. This calculates to about a half a pound of sugar per day per person. Most of this is in pro­cessed foods such as sodas, snacks, candies, and cereals. Adding to the sugar glut is the current fad of attempt­ing to consume fat-free products which often coincidentally are high in sugar to make them palatable.
    The solution is not to switch to “Diet Coke.” Synthetic sweeteners have their own set of problems. The solution is to convert the diet to its natural, whole, raw, complex form as much as it is possible to do so.
    (Pet owners note: Fertility prob­lems, cancer and diabetes in pets may also be linked to sugar and excess car­bohydrates in the processed foods they are consuming.)
        Journal of Nutrition, 1997; 127:1113-
        Annals   of Nutrition and Metabolism, 1988;32:53-55
    Most of us think it’s our good looks and magnetic personality that woos true love.
    New research has demonstrated that it may be things much more subtle over which we have no cognitive awareness. For example, one doctor studying the relationship of smell to male/female attraction concocted a synthetic mixture of fatty acids found in female sexual organs. He then showed men pictures of women they would normally not be attracted to while exposed to the odor. The result was that the men had a change of heart and became attracted to the women.
    Each of us emits pheromones, which are subliminal scents that our organism may sense but we may not actually smell or be aware of Phero­mones help determine whether we are genetically compatible with a particu­lar mate. For example, mice avoid other mice close to them genetically, which is nature’s way to avoid in­breeding. In a similar experiment vol­unteers smelled t-shirts of members of the opposite sex and it was found that the most desirable t-shirts were from those who had the most differ­ences in leukocyte antigen genes. (I do wonder what they were paid to participate in that experiment?)
    New products containing bottled pheromones designed to attract the opposite sex may, therefore, unwit­tingly lure us in to a genetically incom­patible relationship.
    It seems like every time technol­ogy comes up with a quick, sure-fix for one of our problems, e.g. attract­ing that special person, it brings with it unanticipated potential problems.
        UTNE Reader, January 1998:12
        The Economist, August 30, 1997
        MidLife Woman, February 1997
    Chest pain upon exercise is often thought to be angina, a referred pain that radiates from the coronary ves­sels to the chest, shoulder and arm. if the pain is true angina related to coronary artery disease, research has demonstrated that regular exercise can greatly increase the efficiency of the heart. In fact, it has been demon­strated that short, daily exercise such as calisthenics, done over a period of a year, can be as effective at lower­ing the demands on the heart as phar­macological beta blockers. It has this effect without the potential side ef­fects of these drugs.
    The best exercise is a weight bearing program combined with aero­bics such as cycling, stair climbing and walking. Jumping rope is another ex­cellent aerobic trainer as are some of the competitive sports that keep you moving such as basketball, badminton, tennis and volleyball.
    Not all chest pain, however, is coronary disease or angina. Stress can cause spasms of the smooth muscles that surround coronary vessels, caus­ing restriction and referred pain. Ob­viously do what is necessary to de­crease the nonproductive stress in your life. Additionally, diaphragmatic breathing - breathing using the stom­ach rather than lifting the chest wall -is an excellent relaxation method that decreases the “fight or flight” sympa­thetic stress reaction on heart blood vessels.
    Much chest pain that occurs with exercise is really a result of reflux of stomach contents into the esophagus. Exercise decreases gastric emptying and can relax the esophageal sphinc­ter leading into the stomach, allowing stomach contents to move up into the esophagus causing pain that feels similar to angina.
    Gastroesophageal reflux is com­mon enough and overlooked enough that it would be wise to rule it out be­fore extensive and dangerous cardiac testing is done. A relatively simple test is to have esophageal pH mea­sured during exercise with an intraesophageal pH electrode. if the pH is 4 or below, gastroesophageal re­flux is likely the cause of the pain.
        Circ, 1977;162:56
        British Heart Journal, 1990;64:14
        American Journal of Cardiology, 1995;76:771
        Journal of Psychosomatic Re-search, 1 994;38:409
        Sports Medicine, 1995;20:109
    When athletes reach a tense part of competition, tension can mount within muscles and the competitive edge can be lost. Let’s say it’s match or game point, and you know if you make the shot you win and if you don’t you lose. If there is a lot of money riding on it, or a career, or just plain pride, it is extremely difficult to relax and permit yourself to do well what you have practiced perhaps thousands of times and done easily.
    A method of easing this tension is belly breathing. By taking deep breaths using only the belly and not the chest, the autonomic (fight-flight) nervous system is relaxed. No one knows for sure why it works, but per­haps by focusing on pulling the dia­phragm down and pushing the belly out in order to pull air in there is tempo­rary distraction from the stress, or there is some spill-over effect from taking voluntary control over a process (breathing) that is normally done au­tomatically. Nevertheless, many ath­letes swear by the technique, and use it during crucial competitive times with great effectiveness.
    This form of breathing is also a part of some yoga exercises and is called Pranayama. Diaphragmatic breathing has also been found to be highly effective for asthmatics. That this debilitating and even life-threat­ening condition could be controlled by such a simple process is too astonish­ing to believe, but, nevertheless, has proven to be life-saving for those who regularly practice it and make it a part of everyday breathing.
        Asthma: An Alternative Approach, by Ron Roberts, Keats Publishing, 1997
    Although daily intake of good clean water is important, there are se­rious questions about force feeding water to adults and certainly to infants. A good policy is to quench thirst with water and satisfy hunger with food. Unfortunately with the boatloads of soft drinks consumed, neither thirst nor hunger is properly satisfied. Soft drinks are not a source of clean, pure water, nor are they nutritious food. But by drinking them we displace our desire for both clean water and proper food.
    On the other hand, there are those who would suggest we should be drinking 8,10,12 or even more glasses of water every day and running to the John every half hour. Although I be­lieve large doses of water can be ex­tremely effective during illness, it is questionable whether this practice should be a routine. In a non-exercis­ing adult, three to four glasses of wa­ter a day should be adequate.
    In babies, force feeding water is of even more concern. In one study of 16,000 mothers, it was found that almost 25% of them were supplement­ing water to their newborn’s diet. This would not even be possible without the invention of the rubber nippled bottle and is certainly not a part of a baby’s natu­ral genetic food context. Mothers of­ten do it to pacify a child, with some going even further by adding sugar. (if you can keep something in their mouth maybe they’ll shut up for awhile.)
    But for nursing babies the water they receive in breast milk is entirely adequate to replace all normal fluid losses. Babies who are in effect force fed water in a bottle are at risk of oral water intoxication which results from the dilution of electrolytes, such as so­dium, in the blood. The consequence may be lapses of consciousness, bloat­ing, colic, abnormally low body tem­peratures and even seizures.
    Again, as I have repeatedly shown by citing copious research through the years in the Health Letter, the breast rules.
        Archives of Pediatrics and Adoles­cent Medicine, 1997;1541:830-
    Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC’s) 123 and 124 are being used as replacements for chlorofluorocar­bons (CFC’s) which were believed to be causing damage to the ozone layer of the atmosphere. A study has now shown that repeated contact with HCFC’s results in serious liver dam­age in a high proportion of those ex­posed. Nothing like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Obviously bet­ter, safer alternatives should be devel­oped.
        Lancet, 1997;350:556-
    The high carbohydrate diet is en vogue as a healthy alternative to high proteins and fat. The fad fits right in with cholesterol-phobia since eliminat­ing animal-based products in the diet leaves little alternative but to consume increased carbohydrates.
    So pizzas, pastas, breads, and ce­reals are being eaten with a zesty abandon by health conscious people. But does it make sense?
    Humans are genetically adapted to eat those foods which can be found in nature and consumed raw with ben­efit without toxicity. This would in­clude fruits, vegetables, eggs, dairy, meats and nuts. This is not to say we cannot survive by eating processed grain products, but that is not the is­sue. The question is: how is the diet we eat moving us toward optimal health?
    Research now confirms that high carbohydrate diets in the 60-70% range have adverse effects in insulin­ resistant individuals with resultant el­evation of triglycerides and a lower­ing of HDL cholesterol. These changes in blood lipid profiles are in­dicative of increased risk of heart dis­ease and adult-onset diabetes. A meta-analysis of 27 scientific studies has now confirmed these adverse ef­fects. Other problems with a high car­bohydrate diet include increased food cravings, yeast overgrowth, food al­lergies, adrenal exhaustion, mood dis­orders, PMS and obesity.
    Follow the Optimal Health Pro-gram outlined on page 8 and don’t get caught up in endless dietary fads which always (not by accident) attempt to make us dependent on modern pro­cessed foods.
        Arterioscler. Thromb., 1992;12:911-
        American Journal of Clinical Nutri­tion, 1997;65: 1027-
        Medical Hypotheses, 1994; 42:307-
    A study at the Mayo Clinic has shown that 24 healthy women who took fenfluramine and phentermine (Fen-Phen) all had valvular heart dis­ease develop. Eight of the women also developed pulmonary hypertension. When it is considered that prescrip­tions of this diet pill now exceed 18 million in the U.S., the magnitude of potential problems becomes alarming.
    The cause of excess weight is departure from our genetic roots. I describe this in full in my book, The Synorgon Diet - Achieving Healthy Weight In a World of Excess. Until we restore these genetic roots no healthful solution to excess weight will occur.
        Journal of the American Medical As­sociation, I 997;278:666-
        New England Journal of Medicine, August28, 1997:581-
    Steroid drugs are often given to asthmatics. But these injectable ste­roids have been linked to an increased risk of cataracts.     Now research has shown that even those who inhale ste­roid drugs have a 50% greater chance of getting central (nuclear) cataracts and a 90% greater chance of getting posterior cataracts, the most visually disabling form of cataract.
    Topical eye, oral and injectable medications containing steroids are commonly given to animals for a vari­ety of conditions including allergies. Cataracts are also relatively common in pets and such medication may be linked to the problem.
    Wysong Spectrox™ (antioxidants) and Opthid™ (eye nutrients) are spe­cifically designed to provide optimal nutrition for eye health.
        New England Journal of Medicine, 1997;337:8-
    Grape seed extract is one of the antioxidant nutrients found in Wysong Spectrox™, a broad spectrum antioxi­dant supplement. Recent studies have demonstrated that resveratrol and emodin, natural substances found in grapes and other plants, have the ability to inhibit the three stages of carcinogenesis: initiation, promotion and pro­gression.
    Oral pharyngeal cancers are the seventh most common of all cancers. In a recent study, grape seed proanthocyanidins were assessed against tobacco induced oxidative stress and apoptopic (the series of cell changes that occur during pro­grammed or physiological cell death) cell death.
    This study was performed on cul­tured oral keratinocytes which are surface mucosal cells. (No unneces­sary animal experimentation here, thank you.) Cells were then subjected to a smokeless tobacco extract and treated with various antioxidants such as vitamins E, C and the grape seed extract and various combinations of them. Lipid peroxidation, DNA frag­mentation and apoptopic cell death were measured. The results demon­strated that all of the antioxidants gave protection, but the most protection was afforded by the grape seed extract.
    This is an impressive study since vitamins C and B already have amassed substantial proof of their an­tioxidant effects. It is one of the rea­sons that Spectrox™ has been de­signed to incorporate a variety, a spec­trum, of antioxidants that work in syn­ergy throughout body tissues and even within immune cells.
        Oxygen ‘97, the annual meeting of The Oxygen Society, November 22, 1997
    Flavonoids such as luteolin, quer­cetin and apigenin are found in edible fruits and vegetables. Recent re­search has demonstrated that fla­vonoids can induce programmed cell death in immortal cells.
    Most of this evidence is in labora­tory tissue culture experiments, but nevertheless offers exciting prospects. Tumor cells are in effect immortal. They have somehow developed the ability to bypass the normal intrinsic timing mechanism within cells that re­sults in their aging and death. Reversing this immortal mechanism has been the focus of cancer research for years and some anticancer drugs attempt to destroy cancer cells by inducing apoptosis (cell degeneration and de­struction).
    The ability of flavonoids to inhibit cell division, affect signaling pathways, and even inhibit the activity of certain oncogenes (genes that cause cancer) is an exciting prospect since flavonoids are a safe, natural food substance.
    This is one of the reasons that highly concentrated sources of fla­vonoids have been formulated into various Wysong antioxidant products such as Spectrox™.
        Oncogene, 1996;13:1605-
        Life Sciences, 1997;60:2157-
WYSONG WORKS - (Excerpts from Wysong customer letters.)
    "Only your newsletter provides the proper balance of factual health information, prevention measures, and self-help guidelines. These elements are absolutely necessary to sustain and improve the individual environments we each live in. Thank you for your societal contribution, and do continue to maintain the superb quality of your newsletter."
    •    Las Vegas, NV
    “ At the recommendation of my vet I started using your products, food, EFA, and C-Biotic on my dogs two months ago. The difference in their health is visible. Katy is my large mutt. Her nose ran constantly from allergies. This has almost completely stopped. Schotzee, my miniature pinscher, was diag­nosed with ‘two highly suspicious mammary tumors’ in November One tumor is gone and the other is half its size. I am now a loyal and grateful customer. Thank you so.”
    •     taken from the Internet
    Let me begin this topic again with a disclaimer. I’m an amateur at investing. You are even likely to be most successful by doing the opposite of what I suggest.
    But I still want to throw some things out to you that may help pro­vide some perspective and balance anyway. It is said that money is like a sixth sense, without which you. cannot use the other five. Money is funda­mental to health -not because of the medical care it can buy (actually the more money you spend on modern medical care, the more likely you are to lose more of your health), but be­cause of the stability and freedom it can create in life, and the room to re­flect on what is healthy liv­ing. if every moment is con­sumed with concern about making ends meet, future health will seem immaterial.
    In previous issues I warned that bandwagoning on the stock market eupho­ria could be very dangerous. This is not just my concern but that of many skilled fi­nancial advisors.
    On the other hand, there are good arguments that the market run is real and if you don’t get on board you will lose an opportunity. There is probably far more money lost at­tempting to avoid a crash than invest­ing and holding. Additionally, trying to play the market by getting in and out is no different than throwing dice. About the time you guess right and figure you’re now a market guru, and then invest further, you lose all and more than you’ve gained. For the vast majority, they buy high and sell low. Such is the fate of most.
    There is also the argument that the coming of age of the baby boomers will shore up the market for a long time. They have reached the age of maximum spending power and the sheer inertia of their presence in the market will stabilize it out to 2010 or so. Sounds reasonable.. kind of.
    I have also seen studies that show long term investing earns more money than about any other opportunity open to the average person. On the other hand, since about 1900 there have been three twenty-year periods in which there has been a net loss in the market. Buying and holding during these periods would not be a winner. Problem is, no one really knows when we are in such a period.
    Just following the market by in­vesting and holding, say in mutual funds, is not the only option. Many are successful by finding competent advisors or brokers who can pick win­ners regardless of the turns in the market. How to find such help I’m not sure, since a bull market can make many appear to be expert when they are not. When the market falls, most everyone will look like an amateur.
    It can indeed fall. In a boom this is hard to believe because it is human nature to think linearly (things will con­tinue as they are) rather than cycli­cally (things inevitably go up and down). In 1929 the Dow was at 381. Who would have believed that in less than three years it would fall to 41, an 89% drop? “Buying and holding” was no salvation in 1929. The average portfolio included Auburn, Cord, Mis­souri Pacific, New York Central, Pierce-Arrow and Stutz that went out of business and mutual funds (invest­ment trusts) that went to zero.
    Economics turns on human events and these take dramatic swings. World War I, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the rise and fall of Commu­nism, and the present information age and globalization are huge changes that can dramatically affect economics.
    There is wisdom in business that warns it is not what you earn that makes you success­ful, but what you keep. That can provide a sound principle for anyone trying to secure his or her future. A few unsuc­cessful investment. adventures will make it clear that keeping what you have, not attempting to grow it, should be the pri­mary objective.
    For most people, working hard at what they know and do best is the best way to make money. The objective then should be to not amateurishly gamble with it, but do what is necessary to secure it as best you can and then focus on cre­ating a healthy future.
    Remember, in the end health is everything. With it, all things are possible. Without it, nothing is.
        Strategic Investment, April 1998
        Harry Schultz Letter, April 13, 1998
        At The Crest’ Of The Tidal Wave, by Robert R. Prechter, New Classics Li­brary, 1995
        The Wall Street Underground News­letter