Dr. R. L. Wysong
July 1992
    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.  You’ve decided to take more control over your own eating and health destiny.
    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 you’re 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 their plane.
    The next day you receive an excited call from your Mother.  She exclaims, “I don’t 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, it’s unlikely that it could have that dramatic an effect.  Maybe it’s 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 Dad’s 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 arthritis. 
    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.  You’re 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 it.
    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 establishment.
    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.
    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 reader’s 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 reader’s 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.  I’m 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 “plant”—“animal” 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. D’Adamo.  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 raw state.
    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 production methods.
    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 large.
    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 the opposite.
    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.”
    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. Wright’s 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 cortisone/steroid products. 
    Well, if it doesn’t 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 halted. 
    Dr. Wright now feels that this spring’s 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 Washington’s 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. Wright’s 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 FDA’s actions. 
    We have followed Dr. Wright’s 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) 224-3121.
    While you’re 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 a difference.
        The Wysong Book Store Catalog is available from Wysong at 1880 N. Eastman Rd., Midland, MI   48642
    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 world’s 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 city’s 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. (Can’t 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.  Copenhagen’s 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 store.
    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.
    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 to cats.
    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 diet.
    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 animal’s 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.”
        Journal of the American  Veterinary Medical Association, July 15, 1992: 267-274
    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, there’s 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 benefits.
    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 — that’s 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-
    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.
        The Lancet, July 4, 1992: 13-17
    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
    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.
        The Annals of Ophthalmology, 1989: 420-423
        Cancer, June 15, 1992
        The Wysong Book Store Catalog is available from Wysong at 1880 N. Eastman Rd., Midland, MI   48642