- A CURE FOR ALL DISEASE
- Suppose for a moment you are in
the kitchen preparing for the evening meal for your parents who are visiting from out of
town. You have begun to experiment with various recipes and have decided to try to
make a soup that incorporates what you believe to be some healthy ingredients. As a
part of the broth you juice some spinach and carrots, and add spirulina and kelp.
- You have become concerned about
the health of your family as a result of various news releases linking diet to serious
diseases such as arthritis, cancer, and heart disease, and you are fed up with the fast
food lifestyle. Youve decided to take more control over your own eating and
- Your enthusiasm for this has
grown as you have learned more and more and as your skill in preparing tasty meals has
increased. In communicating with your Mom and Dad who have retired in Arizona, you
try to encourage them to do some of the things you are doing. Your Mom has advancing
osteoporosis, and your Dad, once an avid golfer, is now almost incapacitated with the pain
of arthritis. So tonight youre going to show them how good a healthful meal
can taste. You feel very good about returning to them some of the loving care and
nurturing they have given to you.
- Your parents have been on a
whirlwind tour, trying to make sure they make all the visits to friends, relatives and
siblings. They remark how enjoyable the meal is and then have to rush out to catch
- The next day you receive an
excited call from your Mother. She exclaims, I dont know what is going
on, but your Dad is out on the driving range this morning, pain free for the first time in
three years! Could it be something you put in the food? You say, Well,
no, its unlikely that it could have that dramatic an effect. Maybe its
just the excitement of the trip home, the plane ride, or something like that.
Your Mother asks you to share the recipe for the soup you fed them. You read her
the recipe over the phone and tell her where she can get the ingredients.
- Before she is able to make the
soup, your Dads arthritis returns and his golfing stops. She makes the soup,
your Dad eats it, and he is again pain free. Over the course of many months of being
on and off the soup, the evidence is incontrovertible the soup cures the pain of
- Excited about this, you suggest
the recipe to some others, and to make a long story short, the soup recipe ends up curing
not only arthritis, but heart disease and people are even seeing remissions
of cancer. This is more than a little bit exciting for you.
Absolutely bubbling over with enthusiasm and excitement,
you attempt to write articles for newspapers and magazines, and contact television hosts
to describe your amazing cure-all. Youre not peddling a specially patented
medicine or drug, or a device that people can only buy from you, but a recipe, the
ingredients of which can be purchased at any grocery store.
- Your enthusiasm is met with
skepticism in spite of innumerable accounts of individuals who will testify to cures.
Understanding skepticism, you simply offer the recipe as something people can try
to prove it to themselves. Absolutely astounding to you, however, is the fact that
you cannot seem to break beyond the barrier of skepticism. Physicians and other
scientists simply pass it off as quackery, and discourage patients from even trying it.
- You write a book about your
experiences with it, and develop a dried blend of the ingredients which people can easily
add to soups or drinks. Business begins to pick up and you increasingly get reports
of amazing cures.
- The FDA gets wind of what you
are doing and orders you to stop making any claims about your product. They also
order you to stop recommending your book to anyone wishing to purchase your product.
The FDA says that in order to make any claims regarding cure or mitigation of
disease, you must make the appropriate filings and double-blind testings according to
their protocols, which you understand can cost in excess of 50 million dollars. You,
of course, cannot do this as there is no conceivable way you could recoup your costs.
Without the studies and the FDA imprimatur, your newfound cure is quickly relegated
into the natural medicine quackery arena. Your initial excitement has changed to
bitter disappointment, knowing full well that you have the cure for some of the most
dreaded diseases known to modern society, and yet you cannot effectively tell people about
- This is, of course, simply a
fable. . . I suppose. That there is some kind of natural food out there which can
cure disease may or may not be true. Who knows? How could we know? Since
the only way we have of knowing is to somehow be able to spend 50-plus million
dollars to prove such information, how will we know whether or not such cures exist?
- Think about how our system is
actually designed to stifle, if not eliminate, such a cure. The medical industrial
complex is a trillion dollars strong. If such a cure existed, which could wipe out
3/4 or 1/2 or 1/4 of that industry, do you think those in the industry would sit idly by
and just let it happen? What if there could be a cure for essentially all disease,
other than trauma? This would virtually eliminate almost all hospitals, all doctors,
all nurses, and much of the technological equipment used in treating disease. How
many doctors are anxiously going to want to reeducate themselves into a new field because
of your cure? How many hospital administrators are going to want to relinquish their
positions? How many billion dollar drug companies are going to simply lock their
doors and go back to school to learn another craft or trade?
- Do you see that the pressure to
suppress and prevent a cure other than within the present medical industrial complex would
be so extraordinarily heavy that it would in effect eliminate the possibility of bringing
such an advance to the ailing population?
- As a society matures, vested
interests become ingrained, and change becomes ever more difficult. The IRS,
bookkeepers, tax accountants, and attorneys are going to resist a change in the tax law,
such as a flat tax which requires no more than three blanks filled out on a single sheet
of paper by each taxpayer yearly. Oil companies are not going to welcome alternate
fuel vehicles, solar, wind, or ocean power. Neither is a trillion-dollar medical
industrial complex going to welcome a vegetable which can cure diseases and which can be
purchased by anyone off the street.
- Certainly something to think
about. It is reason to be skeptical about the choices and options that are
considered approved by groups in power/money positions within the
- In the biological world
adaptation is critical to survival. Those organisms most capable, most quickly able
to adapt, are those most likely to survive, given changing environmental circumstances.
Society is not unlike an organism, which, in order to survive, must be dynamic and
capable of adapting. A medico-economic system which stultifies innovation,
creativity and change, makes that society most vulnerable. If it is to survive
society must support and promote individual freedom and self determination, not
entrenchment of fashionable ideas, regulation and protection of vested interests.
- VEGETARIANISM - NOT BLACK OR WHITE
- We received a thoughtful
response to the Volume 6, Number 5 Health Letter
article entitled Osteoporosis, wherein it was discussed that it has been found
that some individuals cannot fare well on a strictly fruitarian or vegetarian diet. This
reader, who is a concerned vegetarian, felt that the article did not sufficiently
encourage people to go vegetarian. The reader cited evidence that a
meatless diet was more environmentally friendly, and that humans are biologically
vegetarians. Additionally, an article was enclosed with the readers letter
summarizing the results of a Chinese study demonstrating the health benefits of vegetarian
diets. [For a more thorough discussion of Food Ethics see Health Letter issues Vol. 4, No. 3; Vol. 4, No.
7; and Vol. 5, No. 4.] My reply to this readers concerns is reprinted here for
a more complete look at the issue.
- Thank you for your
letter and the enclosure.
- You have addressed a very
complex, as well as significant, issue. Im not sure I can answer it properly
in this short space, but at least I would like to let you know the basis for my thinking
as it has evolved up to this point in time.
- Let me first of all say,
personally, that vegetarianism is very attractive philosophically. The taking of
another life in order to eat is repugnant. But being more concerned about the life
of an animal than a plant is probably not logically valid. How does one truly
distinguish between plant and animal at the cellular level or at the microscopic organism
level? The plantanimal border exists only in human
nomenclature. Sharp distinction in nature becomes fuzzy with fuller knowledge.
- I, too, am quite concerned
about the environmental toll that modern food agriculture takes, and I agree that the
health merits of a plant-based diet are pretty much unchallenged now with data coming in
from many sources as evidenced, for example, by the enclosure you sent.
- In a teaching forum such as the
Health Letter, I try to make sure our
subscribers understand the health ramifications of various styles of eating. I find
it difficult, however, to advocate one and only one viewpoint because I do not believe at
this point that the logical or factual data can support any one view without equivocation.
To advocate one idea because it is most attractive to me emotionally does not
necessarily serve the cause of truth, balanced thinking, or the goal of health.
- It is very important to gain a
broad historical and genetic perspective before making any definitive conclusions
regarding what is or is not proper to eat. Going back in time far enough, it is
likely that humans indeed ate plant-based materials as they were available to them by
foraging and gathering. But all evidence indicates that humans were, as well,
opportunists and would make kills as well as scavenge animal remains. I know of no
ancient civilization which has been studied that did not have animal-based products as a
part of the diet. Even the Chinese, as the article you enclosed noted, have a part
of their diet consisting of animal-based products albeit small. Exclusion of
meat products, other than in affluent cultures such as ours, is usually due to necessity
(scarcity), not choice. Interestingly, even primates, which were formerly believed
to be strictly vegetarian, now have been found to occasionally be carnivorous.
- Given the imperative to
survive, any animal, including a human, under wild circumstances will consume whatever is
necessary, assuming the food is palatable and compatible with their digestive system.
Animal-based products are quite easily digested by humans, are highly concentrated
food sources, and thus were likely sought by early humans and have continued to be a part
of most civilizations diets up to the present. The conversion to
vegetable-based foods occurred in societies when animal foods were exhausted or
impractical to raise. Strictly vegan diets have occurred since the Agriculture Age
and are a result of the convenience (luxury) of being able to make a choice, as opposed to
simply having to get what was available in the wild.
- When you consider that, by many
estimates regarding the time life has been around, our present Industrial Age represents
one inch compared to 276 miles, you see that we are indeed displaced genetically (see Health Letter Vol. 3, No. 7). Genetically, we
are meant to live in the wild, outdoors, in the fresh air, exposed to sunshine and eating
raw natural foods, exactly as found in nature. It is only with the burgeoning human
population and its decimation of natural food sources that the Agricultural Age began.
It is modern agriculture that has made sufficient quantities of vegetable-based
products available to make survival solely by them even feasible. Prior to gardens
and farms and supermarkets, edible vegetation would have been primarily in the form of
fruits. Grains and legumes are not digestible, and in fact are toxic in their raw
natural state, requiring them to undergo various methods of heat processing (an unnatural
and unhealthy process).
- Thus it could be argued that
the original diet of humans was that which they could eat and digest and not suffer
toxic effects from in a raw state. This would include pretty much only fruits
and animal prey. If this is true, which I believe it to be, in the absence of any
contrary logical or credible evidence, then those foods would likely be our best diets
today. Our genetics are adapted to the 276 miles, not the one inch. This is
not to say that various forms of vegetable products are not nutritious, only to say that
many are not likely what we are best adapted to.
- The genetic inclination toward
certain types of foods (referred to in the Health
Letter Vol. 6, No. 5), is an argument derived from a study of variations in human
blood typing. This work has been described by Dr. DAdamo. His and others
arguments are that we are genetically linked to certain geographic locations and to the
food types indigenous to those areas. This is demonstrated by differences and
similarities in blood type antigens (beyond just A, B, and O) and clinical response to
dietary regimens. This is a more recent genetic argument than the 276 mile - 1 inch
argument I am making.
- With a family to feed, and with
the energy demands of a wild existence, humans would likely not focus on lettuce, a few
seeds of scattered grain, or rare finds of fruit, and simply ignore rabbits or deer
competing with them for these foods. With survival at stake, we would soon lose the
luxury of principle, and eat whatever we could find (or catch), particularly
that which was energy-dense and digestible.
- I have followed the debate as
to whether humans are better designed as carnivores or vegetarians. The evidence
does not seem clear in either direction. Arguments about stomach size, length of the
intestinal tract, construction of dental arcade, transit time, the ability or inability to
synthesize various vitamins are all interesting arguments, but do not establish a firm
case in either direction. I believe the best case for what we are best adapted to
eat is the case I have presented above . . . our genetic archetypal context.
- Please also understand that
every point which can be used to argue against the value of meat products in the diet in
relationship to health has to do with the way animals are raised in the modern farm
setting, how meat is processed, or overconsumption. Our research here has, for
example, discovered that it is not the cholesterol found in nature that is detrimental to
health, but rather the processed oxidized form of cholesterol that can reek havoc in the
biological system. This damage is done by causing free-radical pathology to various
tissues. The result is cancer and atherosclerosis, among others.
Interestingly, cholesterol is not oxidized as it is found in fresh, raw foods.
- A very strong argument that can
be made that humans are adapted to eating meat would be to compare what is necessary for
meat to be properly and healthfully digested by humans as opposed to what is required for
legumes and grains, for example. Meats can be consumed raw with no untoward effect
that is known (other than the possibility of contagion from modern food processing
plants), whereas grains and legumes are indigestible and often toxic if consumed in their
- From an environmental
standpoint I believe there is significant evidence that a meat-emphasized diet is
inappropriate. But this is not to say that any meat product is detrimental to the
environment since animals, which live off lands which cannot be agriculturalized, are able
to convert plant materials that are not able to be utilized by humans into animal tissue
which can then be utilized as food by humans. Taking crops, however, that could be
directly used by humans and converting them to animal flesh simply to satisfy the
perverted taste buds of a population that has become gluttonously carnivorous, is another
matter entirely and is not only anti-health, but anti-environmental.
- I should also mention that many
people do have difficulty attempting to convert to a strictly vegetarian-based diet.
Some individuals who have attempted to make the conversion over a period of many
months and have been careful to eat appropriate balances of the various vegetable groups,
have lost a considerable amount of weight, (muscle mass) and suffered from chronic
bloating and indigestion. After converting back to a more moderate amount of
vegetation with meats in the diet periodically, they rebounded. In this situation I
would much rather see this individual not give up on the merits of a vegetation-based
diet, but rather simply change the emphasis of their diet to as much vegetation as they
can possibly eat, and to animal-based products (humanely and organically raised or wild)
as necessary. To insist that they will do just fine on a strictly vegetation-based
diet, when they know they do not, may discourage them completely and make them turn away
from making any effort in these directions at all.
- This is the reason that I have
argued as I have in the Health Letter that not
everyone can necessarily convert to a purely vegetation-based diet. Each one must
make that decision themselves. At the same time I make every effort to make our
readers fully aware of the merits of a vegetation-based diet and argue that, if animal
products are to be eaten, much should be done to change the present food animal
- I hope that this has helped you
to understand my thinking on these issues. I wish this question were more simple and
easily answered. Unfortunately, the more research I perform in this area, the more
complex it becomes, and the less easy a simple answer becomes. My goal is to arm
individuals with broad perspectives and open minds, then hopefully they will be able to
make decisions which will advance not only their personal health but that of the world at
- Eating choices are not black or
white, right or wrong, good or bad, but rather measured on a scale of better to worse.
- My arguments in behalf of meat
eating were only emphasized in this letter because of the concerns you expressed in yours.
When given the opportunity, I would much rather argue
- Thank you very much, again, for
taking the time to write your thoughtful letter. I hope if you are a subscriber to
the Health Letter and that you find our efforts
helpful. I would always welcome any thoughts you might have.
- AN INCREDIBLE RAID
- A dozen federal agents, acting
as a hit squad for the FDA a few months ago, reportedly sledgehammered and kicked
their way into the offices of Dr. Jonathan Wright of Kent, Washington. Fully
armed, with guns drawn, they entered to raid, ransack and finally close down Dr. Wrights
offices. Nurses and staff members were in the office, but the doors had not
yet been unlocked for patients. Seeing the federal agents and at least ten other
local and state support officers, the building landlord offered to open a door with his
pass key, but rather than take up this offer, or knock to see if the staff members inside
would open the door, they preferred to commandeer their way in.
- Dr. Wright was charged, among
other things, with using an injectable form of vitamins from Germany which is free of
additives, unlike those available in the United States. He chooses this form as a
safer treatment for many of his allergic patients. Another
problem the FDA has with Dr. Wright is that he uses a product called ACE, a pure adrenal
cortical extract which was sold by the Eli Lilly drug company for over 30 years. ACE
is believed very effective in the treatment of stress, immune disorders, and adrenal
insufficiency. Dr. Wright was using it to treat chronic fatigue syndrome and other
immune disorders, as it was intended. However, Eli Lilly has stopped promoting it,
and even dropped the product from their sales line in spite of objections from wholistic
physicians around the country. This natural extract of the adrenal gland, in spite
of being very effective, has been replaced with cheaper and more profitable synthetic
- Well, if it doesnt sound
as if Dr. Wright is really all that dangerous, one might wonder why this Terminator-type
raid? If we look back just a year, we can see that Dr. Wright is suing the
federal government for a 1991 seizure of his supplies of L-tryptophan, a harmless amino
acid. A batch of L-tryptophan from Japan had been contaminated, and instead of
isolating this one batch, his whole stock was seized and the use of L-tryptophan
- Dr. Wright now feels that this
springs raid on his office is intended to put him out of practice so that he can no
longer pursue his suit against the government. He filed his suit against the FDA in
August, 1991, and they started their
investigation of his clinic one month later. For six months, they searched the trash
dumpsters behind his building looking for any evidence to justify a raid.
- Some months previously, in an
enlightened move, the Washington state legislature passed a bill by an overwhelming
majority which specifically protected Washington doctors who wanted to practice non-toxic,
more natural therapies like Dr. Wright was using. Their bill basically states that
as long as a doctor does not harm the patient, the state should stay out of the picture.
The doctor-patient relationship is thought by many to need little policing, since
the patient always has choice and also has the remedy of the court system, which many
thousands of patients show no reluctance to use when they believe a doctor should be held
accountable for some wrong. Clearly, the FDA chose to ignore the decision made by
the State of Washingtons voters when it ignored this bill. The federal
government evidently is not as inclined to leave the doctor-patient relationship alone.
- The fallout from this raid has
been tremendous. The FDA is being investigated concerning the use of such force,
specifically why they literally broke into Dr. Wrights offices with guns drawn.
Local police which were used as back-ups are being forced to publicly apologize for
use of unnecessary force. A hearing in the county where Dr. Wright practiced
produced over 60 witnesses testifying on behalf of Dr. Wright and against the FDAs
- We have followed Dr. Wrights
work for some time and even offer some of his books in the Wysong Book Store Catalog.
Our impression is that he is an exceptionally competent,
progressive, alert and conscientious physician who should be supported and encouraged, not
treated as a criminal.
- If you object to such
regulatory and state sponsored Gestapo-type actions, write your state senators and
congressional representatives. To get their names and addresses, call (202)
- While youre at it,
express your support for Senate Bill 2835, the Nutritional Freedom Bill of 1992.
Sponsored by Senator Hatch, this bill will put an end to government intervention
into citizens rights to harmless supplements. It will stop the FDA from
treating nutrients as drugs. (Incredible nonsense when you think of it: deaths
from supplements = 0, deaths from FDA approved drugs = thousands.)
It will also permit manufacturers to tell consumers of evidence of the health value
of their products (if truthful) without having to go through a 50+ million dollar FDA drug
trial. Make some calls, write some letters, tell friends to do the same. Make
Wysong Book Store Catalog is available from Wysong at 1880 N. Eastman Rd., Midland, MI
- BAN THE CAR?
- Around the world, large
municipalities recognizing the automobile as a guilty thing are restricting
the times during which, and places where, motorists may drive. Mexico City, perhaps
the worlds worst in terms of smog, has a fifty square-block central zone now, from
which they have banned cars. Additionally, they had a recent No Driving Day
which kept one-fifth of the citys cars off the roads on certain weekdays during the
peak pollution season, and they were able to reduce air pollution in the area by an
estimated 10 percent.
- Bologna, Italy has reorganized
its city center around a generously sized bicycle- and pedestrian-only zone, and has
managed in this area to reduce motor vehicle volume more than four-fold. There are
only specified areas for delivery vehicles. Shopkeepers and businessmen are
permitted to drive only one day per week. (Cant you just hear us American
counterparts clamoring about our rights?) Residents are denied ownership of more
than one vehicle per household. Other cities similarly adopting a large pedestrian
center as hub of the city include Copenhagen, Munich, Hannover, and Stockholm.
- How did Tokyo enforce reduction
in automobile pollution? Parking spaces have been all but eliminated in central
Tokyo, and residents can own a car only if they have proof of a leased parking space.
Similarly, Paris eliminated 100,000 on-the-street parking spaces in 1989 alone.
Surely this caused temporary chaos, but it can be done! If you deny people
the use of cars, they can figure something else out. Copenhagens parking
spaces have been converted to bicycle parking, bike lanes, and landscape areas.
- Recognizing that cars are not
only polluters but also unsafe in residential areas, many European cities have introduced
traffic calming methods. Street space has been reduced to make way for
pedestrian traffic and bike lanes, and although cars are not banned completely, they
are permitted on the terms of the area residents when driven slowly, and without
the assumption of right-of-way. Some steps include narrowing the entranceways to
residential neighborhoods, installing speed bumps, and using trees, planters and other
such obstacles to actually shorten motorists sightlines so they slow down.
- In many European countries, fully 30 percent of
residents trips are made by bike. What is being done here at home,
predictably enough, is much less. Nevertheless, Southern California air
pollution officials are now mandating that bike-parking spaces, as well as showers and
lockers for bike riders, must be a part of all businesses with 100 or more workers by the
year 1993. Los Angeles passed this ordinance in 1991 and Pasadena adopted a
comprehensive bicycle policy that same year. Palo Alto, California requires new
parking facilities for bicycles - one for every ten cars. And, here in Midland at
our offices, we encourage employee walking, biking and car-pooling, and the Wysong store
offers an additional discount on any purchase if the shopper walked or biked in to the
- Environmental damage by cars
can be decreased by buying fuel efficient non-polluting models, grouping our trips, not
taking frivolous ones, car-pooling, and supporting and initiating government actions which
encourage self-mobilization. Walking and bike riding can enrich our minds and our
health. Robert Frost would never have written Stopping By The Woods On A Snowy
Evening if he had been motoring by the woods at 60 mph.
- MORE TAURINE DEFICIENCY IN CAT FOODS
- Taurine is a sulfur-bearing
amino acid which was recently found to be deficient in the diets of cats who were
suffering from various diseases, including retinal degeneration and dilated
cardiomyopathy. This created considerable commotion in the veterinary community and
in the pet food industry. The diets found deficient were not simply low-priced,
so-called generic pet foods, but were instead premium varieties and even special clinical
diets prescribed by veterinarians country wide. The solution to this was
to simply add synthetic taurine to commercial cat foods or to directly supplement taurine
- Two new studies recently
reported in the veterinary literature substantiate the findings made earlier, between 1986
and 1988, that taurine was indeed deficient in these diets. The authors also argued,
retrospectively, that many illnesses diagnosed during that period were actually
symptoms of taurine deficiency. Some now argue that thousands of cats have been
maimed and killed as a result of this deficiency.
- At the time the original
discovery was made (1986), we suggested that the cause was not the lack of synthetic
taurine in the diet, but rather the effects of food processing on the taurine that was
innately present in the ingredients used in the pet foods. (See Health Letter, Vol. 1, No. 8.) Heating,
boiling and extruding can all take their toll not only on taurine but on a variety of
other nutrients. We argued that this deficiency would not have occurred had fresh,
raw food products purchased from the grocery store been simply added periodically to the
- The new reports concur with
this recommendation as well. Researchers are strongly arguing that to feed a
singular commercial processed diet, day in and day out throughout an animals life,
puts that animal at great risk. The principles of food variety and freshness and
wholeness and naturalness apply to animals (perhaps even more so since they are less
removed from the wild) and to us as well.
- When we recommend to pet owners
that they not only cycle among different dietary formulations but also add fresh whole
foods to the diet, this is done using the principle that food variety not only helps
ensure nutritional adequacy but helps prevent the possibility of chronic toxic excess.
As obvious as this is, the advice is often dismissed as obscure by animal owners
and veterinary professionals who have been brainwashed by the 100% complete and
balanced processed pet food myth.
- We are, however, no longer
alone in our warnings. A quote by Dr. Paul Pion, who originally reported dilated
cardiomyopathy in cats from taurine deficiency, should be soberly heeded by all animal
owners who trustingly feed a commercial product day in and day out:
The conclusion that cats fed a single commercial food exclusively
were at greater risk for developing taurine deficiency and DCM than cats fed a variety of
foods is not unexpected. This and other examples of diet-induced disease should
serve as a warning to veterinarians who prescribe or endorse the feeding of 1 food
exclusively to any animal, especially for maintenance.
of the American Veterinary Medical Association, July 15, 1992: 267-274
- ANTIOXIDANTS AND EXERCISE
- The if a little bit is
good, more is better thinking can get us into trouble when embarking on an exercise
program. Although we need to sufficiently challenge ourselves to stimulate strength,
endurance, better circulation, greater energy, and so forth, the body has only so much
resiliency and it is possible to push it beyond its ability to properly adapt. We can do
this in a personal exercise program, and it is done to the extreme in certain competitive
sports such as biking marathons where individuals are exercising as much as 22 hours a day
and burning over 12,000 calories.
- Marathoners training at 97
kilometers per week are approximately twice as likely to become ill as those who train 32
kilometers a week. Actually running the marathon increases the odds of becoming sick
with an infection by a factor of six. On the other hand, moderate exercise has been
shown to protect against infection. People embarking on 45-minute daily walks, for
example, cut the duration of infections in half. (If you live within a couple of
miles of work, theres your 45-minutes of health-enhancing exercise per day.)
It is not only the intensity of the exercise that takes an immunological toll, but
the failure to adequately recover from the exercise before beginning it again. This
is the reason many exercise physiologists argue that every other day or three times per
week aerobic combined with weight training exercise is sufficient to derive large
- During exercise, particularly
during high-intensity exercise, the ratio of testosterone, the male hormone, in relation
to cortisol, an adrenal hormone, is decreased. This can result in a net catabolism,
or breakdown, of tissue with resultant high levels of oxidant damage. The
supplementation to the diet of antioxidant nutrients, such as vitamin E
(D-alpha-tocopherol, not the synthetic version), vitamin C and beta carotene can do much
to help prevent such oxidant damage. It is likely that this oxidant damage lies at
the root of the suppression of immunity, as described above.
- Do exercise. Make the
program sufficiently vigorous to challenge you and to drive your body to advance in
strength and fitness, but allow plenty of time for rest and recovery, be sure that the
diet is moving ever toward more fresh and whole foods, get adequate sleep, and consider
supplementation, particularly with the antioxidant vitamins such as E and C. These
supplements are virtually non-toxic in spite of the almost hysterical claims of some
conventional nutritionists and physicians who are not properly informed but see
individuals taking supplements as a threat to their position. Linus Pauling, the
Nobel laureate, who has done significant amounts of research relevant to the value of
vitamin C in the human diet takes 18 grams thats 18,000 milligrams of vitamin
C per day and he is still vigorous and creative at over 90 years of age.
Canadian Journal of Sport and Science, Volume
16, 1991: 163-
- CHINESE HERBS AND SKIN DISEASE
- A rigorous, controlled trial
reported in the British medical journal The Lancet, demonstrated
that a decoction of Chinese herbs was effective in patients with atopic dermatitis.
Atopic dermatitis is a common affliction of humans and animals and is characterized
by redness, itching, scaling, and secondary infections. Its etiology is often
difficult to determine and its treatment frustrating, often requiring drugs that are
fraught with a variety of harmful side effects.
- In this study, 40 adult
patients were randomized into two groups and treated for two months with an oral decoction
of an active formulation of a Chinese herb or a placebo, and then the trial was crossed
over so that placebo patients received the herbs and the herb patients received placebos.
All scores for evaluating the condition favored the Chinese herbal remedy with a
high degree of statistical surety. No side effects were reported.
- It is unusual to see
documentation on the value of herbs in the treatment of any disease in the conventional
scientific literature. There is, however, a wide array of
literature dating back decades, even centuries, substantiating the value of alternate
therapies, including herbs, for a variety of afflictions. Conventional belief
that unless a medicine is produced by a pharmaceutical company and has undergone toxicity
testing on animals in controlled trials according to FDA protocols it must be worthless
is, of course, nonsense.
Lancet, July 4, 1992: 13-17
- CALCIUM SUPPLEMENTS IN CHILDREN
- A three year double-blind,
placebo-controlled trial on the effect of calcium supplementation to 70 pairs of identical
twins demonstrated that calcium supplements in prepubertal children increased bone mineral
density. The controls who received no supplement did receive levels of calcium
approximating the Recommended Daily Allowance. The calcium supplement was calcium
citrate malate, given at 1000 mg. per day and the children were aged six to 14 years.
- Researchers believe the
benefits of such increased bone mineral density in prepubertal children will persist
throughout life and decrease the risk of fracture and the development of osteoporosis in
later years. This is another evidence of the inadequacy of nutrient minimums, such
as the RDA.
- The New
England Journal of Medicine, July 9, 1992: 82
- TAMOXIFEN CAUTION
- A trial by the National Cancer
Institute to test the value of tamoxifen in preventing breast cancer will involve some
16,000 healthy women. Tamoxifen is currently being used in the treatment of breast
cancer as an adjunct to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.
- Now concerns have been raised
about the potential of this drug inducing secondary cancer of the liver and bowel, as well
as toxicity to the cornea, retina, and optic nerve, resulting in permanent eye damage.
These untoward effects have occurred at the conventional 20 milligrams per day of
tamoxifen. Healthy women who are participating in this trial in the hope that the
drug may prevent the occurrence of breast cancer should be aware that the potential
consequences may be greater than the potential benefits.
Annals of Ophthalmology, 1989: 420-423
June 15, 1992
Wysong Book Store Catalog is available from Wysong at 1880 N. Eastman Rd., Midland, MI