THE INFANT FORMULA LESSON
Canned and powdered milk
formulas for babies were considered a wonderful technological achievement. The
breast became a cosmetic ornament, an inferior replacement for manufactured products in
cans and bottles. Propaganda by manufacturers, professionals, and academia argued
Over the last twenty years, it
has become clear that baby formulas are the granddaddy of all junk foods. This is well
documented in the literature. There is a much higher morbidity in babies who are fed
canned or bottle foods. There is almost a thousand times more lead in many baby formulas
than in breast milk. Long chain fatty acids are compromised as are zinc and copper. Toxic
trans-fats are added. The pantothenic acid to thiamin ratio is distorted. Unlike
mothers milk, formulas contain no active enzymes, including bile activated lipase and/or
biotinidase which increases biotin utilization in the breast fed infant. Formulas
are absent of lactoferrin and probiotics which inhibit gut pathogens.
This only begins the list of
disparity between infant milk formulas and breast milk. Clinical research has shown that
breast feeding babies increases immunological competence, decreases childhood cancer and
decreases the risk of breast disease in the mother. Not to be discounted is the fact that
there is a difference in bond between the mother and child when one is fed a bottle and
propped up in a baby crib, while the other is snuggled, held and nurtured at the breast of
the mother. The damage from bottle-fed formulas through the decades has yet to be fully
calculated. In spite of the evidence, over a million babies per year in the USA are fed
bottled formula exclusively during their first six months of life. Convenience is king.
It was not too long ago that
bottled baby formulas were introduced in third world countries free of charge to get them
hooked. Companies did this until it was no longer economically feasible. Exactly how that
was determined is hard to say, but when they withdrew the free program and required that
the products be paid for, the mother's milk had dried up. Many were financially incapable
of buying formulas and as a result disease and malnutrition resulted.
The merit of a raw, live,
natural food over the processed counterpart is undeniable. It doesnt matter what is
in a package -- if it is not raw, live, natural and whole it cannot be equal or superior
to the real thing.
In a study of cancer therapy
for nasal malignancies, cytoreductive surgery in combination with various doses of
radiation were compared. What caught my attention was the fact that there were no
controls. One form of cancer therapy is measured against another form of cancer
therapy, or various doses of chemotherapeutic agents or radiation or types of surgery are
compared. They are all rated against one another. But where is the control? Specifically,
what would happen if the patient did not experience any treatment whatsoever. Or what
would happen if the patient did not have traditional treatments, but instead received
supportive care and better nutrition?
Society's approach to cancer
reflects the prevailing attitude toward health care in general. It argued that it would be
unethical to not treat a control group of people who had cancer. This parallels the
attitude toward disease treatment in the distant prescientific past. For example, blood
letting was used for centuries. It was only in the early 19th century that studies were
designed to test the validity of blood letting with controls. The only testing done prior
was to vary the technique. Never were tests performed to determine whether blood letting,
in any form, was equal to or superior to not blood letting at all. When economic interests
are at stake it is easy for the establishment to fall into the habit of just testing a
practice against itself without any baseline control.
In today's approach to cancer,
causes are usually not addressed. Rather the disease is attached once a person has already
succumbed. Cancer therapy deserves re-examination. Statistical studies, done at Harvard
indicate that we are losing the war on cancer. The chance that you, someone in your
family, or a close friend will not be struck with cancer during your lifetime is now
statistically zero. Three out of four families will have to deal with the disease. Since
President Nixon's "war on cancer" in 1971, over twenty billion dollars have been
spent for research, and over forty-five billion dollars a year are spent on cancer
treatments. In spite of all these dollars, the death-rate increased 10% from 1962 to 1982.
This means that during the period of time that money was being increasingly spent on the
disease, the death-rate continued to escalate. The most optimistic appraisal of modern
cancer therapies would be that there may be a 2% to 3% relative success rate. But that
would only be in terms of five year survivability, not cure or eradication.
There are tremendous vested
interests at stake in the fifty-billion dollar a year industry of care and maintenance of
cancer patients. Change will not occur readily with such stakes. The National Cancer
Institute (NCI) plays with statistics and continues to argue that there is success, that
early diagnosis and aggressive therapy are the key. This is argued using a five-year
survival rate. Such complimentary figures are window dressed to the public as winning the
war. But serious examination shows that we are not. The National Cancer Institute depends
upon monies from the government to continue its existence. Therefore, it must present
figures that look optimistic, as if something significant is being accomplished.
Methods used to diagnose cancer
histologically are now also in question. Many of the cytologic features examined to
determine whether a biopsy is malignant or benign are in question. If basic methods used
to determine whether a cancer is malignant are in question, many may be subject to
unnecessary treatments. But this will help success figures.
Let's go through an example.
Very early cellular changes in the prostate are supposedly indicative of malignancy. When
these patients are treated at this very early non-symptomatic stage, they are reported to
survive longer. This gives the illusion of an improved five year survival rate. Upon
re-examination, many diagnosed in these early stages would never have developed
symptomatic disease. Cancer therapy therefore takes credit for curing people who
would never be symptomatic.
A diagnosis of cancer is
horrifying. It can devastate the family emotionally and financially. The treatment can be
worse than the disease. The present approach is not resulting in an increasing cure rate.
A new approach is in order.
The medical care system is
called health care. It is disease care. Very little effort is spent on building,
fortifying, and enhancing health. It is after-the-fact medicine. The medical community is
at the bottom of the cliff repairing people after they have fallen off they should
be at the top of the cliff building fences or telling people how they can walk along the
cliff without falling off in the first place.
Societies which are not touched
by Western civilization, and for which cancer is essentially non-existent, give us an
important lead. Both historical as well as present-day societies untouched by Western
industrialized society are largely free of cancer. Increasing evidence is also
surfacing proving that most cancers are directly related to the modern environment,
whether that is pollution of the air, what is put on and into our foods (our food is an
intimate environment), the ways the foods are processed, the water we drink, and so forth.
We are far removed from the natural, more pristine existence which nurtured all life
throughout its millennia of existence prior to Westernized, industrialized society. We are
subject to a wide array of substances foreign to biological experience (toxins), which
have been shown in the laboratory and through prospective as well as retrospective studies
to be direct contributory factors in the induction of cancer. This is not to say that
there are not genetic pre-dispositions, and that there may not be micro-biological agents
or background natural carcinogens ubiquitous in nature that can elicit cancer, but these
appear to be minor factors. Cancer is the result of a scenario of factors stemming from
the disruption and alteration of our environment in a major multifaceted way.
Although we are led to believe
that the report we get back from a modern medical lab is done with sophisticated
technology and accurate, many laboratory results are highly suspect. There is often a
margin of error as great as 50%. Such early diagnosis can present its own set
of hazards: if an early diagnosis of cancer is invalid, it still throws the family into
extreme stress and subject one to treatments that are highly hazardous unnecessarily.
Early treatment of cancer is
suspect because according to the Rhen Hypothesis, cancer is a gross manifestation of what
has been incubating for at least 15 years. If cancer has been present for 15 years,
treating it early in year 15 when it is early diagnosed is not
Cancer deaths in 1900 took one
in thirty lives. Now 100 years later the disease takes one in five. Cardiovascular disease
took one in seven lives and now it takes one out of two. We indeed have a problem in
approach to degenerative diseases. Such diseases are linked to the increasing entrenchment
and advance of the industrialized technological environment. That provides the key
to a more salutary approach.
Therapies should be sought that
are less likely to do harm. Both chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer and
thus do not fit with the first do no harm motto of medicine.
There are many non-toxic
prospects. Even the NCI is engaging in a significant research to show the link between
diet and the incidence of cancer. This is welcomed and applauded, but is almost too
little, too late.
Researcher have discovered
immune suppressor fractions in blood important during two conditions in mammals in which
foreign tissue is tolerated, during pregnancy and during neoplasia. In effect they prevent
the rejection of foreign tissue. An embryo is a foreign object to the mother since it is
genetically dissimilar. This foreign genetic material should by all rights be rejected by
her immune system, but it is not and this is a result of these immune suppressing
fractions. These same immune suppressing fractions have also been found to be high in the
blood levels of cancer patients, and efforts are being made with some success to filter
these immune suppressing fractions from blood. The result is that the immune system
attacks the cancer and destroys it.
Work being done in Europe
demonstrates plant extracts can stimulate DNA repair mechanisms. DNA repair mechanisms are
responsible for repairing genetic material. This occurs on an ongoing basis in normal
tissue, since all of our cells are subject to mutations from both chemicals and radiation
from various sources such as cosmic rays coming from outer space. Mutations
unchecked can lead to cancer. Their repair can prevent it.
A researcher in Germany works
with an oil/protein combination in cancer therapy. The oil is a fresh, raw form of
essential fatty acids, linoleic and linolenic, in combination with protein. She has
reported a great deal of success in cancer treatment.
Healing-from-within therapy is
not common, because there is a mega-industrial healthcare complex that has a profit cash
cow working with technology and patented drugs. Modern conventional treatment does not
stimulate healing from within, rather it is the seek-and-destroy type. We even
have laws against the use of anything else. Anyone trying to use natural healing methods
-- laetrile, the Budwig protein/oil combination, nutritional therapy or any others out of
the mainstream -- could be subject to scrutiny from peers, revocation of license, and
perhaps even criminally charged. Health care is a monopoly not only condoned but supported
and enforced by government.
It's interesting that when
cancer strikes, the question, what is the cause?, doesn't even come to mind
-- or it may come to mind and be quickly dismissed. But cause is the preeminently
important thing to be addressed. We have to get at causes in order to effect solutions and
the return to health. The patient usually first assumes, or is instructed, that cancer is
just one of those things, and then the mind is turned to modern therapy.
Therapies should be undertaken
that are designed not only to prevent the disease, but to treat it in a way that is more
humane, safe, and stimulating to the ultimate repair mechanism itself -- the body.
Diets shown as preventive for
cancer, all have one thing in common. They increase the intake of raw, fresh,
natural foods. Natural foods contain unaltered nutrients that either have antioxidant,
free-radical-fighting or immune-stimulating effects.
The answers to the cancer
dilemma takes us back to some very simple basics. Prevention is key. Exercise, daily
sunlight, clean water, cleaning the environment and eating natural foods are starting
Journal, August 1987