Dr. R. L. Wysong
September 1996

    Here’s my election year political two cents' worth.
    Government’s function should be to protect freedoms and opportunity.  Unfortunately it can become meddling, oppressive, and Draconian, virtually eliminating human happiness and health in many instances.
    If government were innocuous I wouldn’t talk about it, but since it can affect our happiness and health in profound ways, it must be given serious scrutiny.
    A unique feature of American constitutional government as it was originally designed is that it is extremely suspicious.  The Founding Fathers concluded that all government would eventually become corrupt if unchecked.  (The constitutional right to bear arms was devised   so citizens could protect themselves against government - not to insure hunting rights or just to permit self-defense against criminals.)  The English government from which they were escaping had overstepped its bounds of protecting individual life and freedom, and moved to excessively controlling, manipulating and taxing citizens.   (Our present level of taxation is greater than what it was when we revolted against England.)
    Thus the Constitution sets forth that humans have inherent unalienable freedoms and rights that government is to protect as a servant.  The Constitution made sure they were kept on track through a series of checks and balances.
    When any of us speaks of patriotism, we should be thinking of patriotism to the Constitution, the document that defines and protects our rights.  Blind sentimental patriotism to “country” or to "America" or to "Americans" or to the "flag," etc., without understanding that these must symbolize adherence to the Constitution, is patriotism that is naive and dangerous.  If we simply love the "country," how are our freedoms protected, since we could find ourselves easily following the mandates of a government that could be slowly consolidating its power and control over us until we reach the point where we are only servants to government?  (When government takes more than half our earnings, who is a servant of whom?)
    Never have I been able to see a true, clear distinction between political views as I have during the last couple of years.   At last there seems to be substantive debate on a more basic philosophic level.
    Up to now, political races seemed more like personality competitions.  There were also crises distractions such as a depression, wars, racial injustice and the Soviet Union.  Such crises also seemed like justification for increasing governmental power and taxation. 
    But now there are no big crisis distractions.  People can now look more clearly at what government is and what it should be doing.  Like removing blinders, many are awakening to the fact that a wolf (Marxism) in sheep’s clothing ("democracy") for some 50 years has taken over our country.  ( I know this sounds like McCarthyism, but although the "commies" are not getting us, their ideas do now pervade our politics.)
    The movement away from a constitutional government has been insidious.  By creating a huge dependent class of citizens who could care less if all the "rich" people (those who work hard and take great risks in business to achieve the American Dream) are taxed 40-50% and more by an (unconstitutional) income tax, America has become more and more Marxist.
    As I see it, the primary debate is whether government should expand its control and services in an attempt to aid supposed "victims" in our society, or whether government should be reduced in size and power and people should take responsibility for their own lives.
    It seems to me that Communistic and Socialistic governments have provided an experiment in which we can all observe results.  It is a basic tenet of Communism, for example, that government is to distribute wealth so that there are no economic classes and everyone works according to their ability and receives according to their needs.  There is to be (theoretically) no wealth, no poverty, no haves and have nots.
    When I was first in college, and idealistic/optimistic, this sounded like a very appealing system of government.   After all, why shouldn’t everyone work according to their ability and receive no more than they needed?
    The experiment has failed, as evidenced by the fall of the Communist block countries.  Individual freedoms were not protected, so the ability of an individual to excel and the spirit of entrepreneurship and creativity were destroyed.  It treats people as identical members of a herd, and they are not.
    The present arguments by some that we need large government and expanded taxation of the productive individuals in society in order to distribute wealth to those who earn less, via welfare and other social aid programs, appears to me blatantly Communistic and Socialistic.  This distorted practice of democracy (We are not really a Democracy where 51% of the people could vote to kill the other 49%, but a Constitutional Republic - a land of constitutional law, not voter whim.) which has been going on for several decades has twisted the perception of a large number of Americans as to what America is even all about.       Now people think in terms of what is "owed" to them by their employer, family, or state.  If things don’t go quite right they are led to believe that they are victims deserving of redress through suit, government handout or other form of complaint with the prospect of making a financial windfall.   This has become the new "American Dream."
    Now everyone wants guarantees.   But that’s not life.  Life is all about risk.  People don’t want to take personal responsibility and initiative.  The Marxist mentality that has crept into our government has blighted personal initiative and pride and put in its place a huge voting block of dependents who want guarantees and handouts that have kept those in government willing to expand such services for decades.
    The American Dream was not meant to be a handout or a guarantee.  It was simply an open, unfettered opportunity to become the best you can be.
    Continued sapping of resources through taxation and regulation of the productive element of our society in order to redistribute their gain to those who are not willing to pay the price to create their own success, will eventually destroy incentive and business in this country.  It is already doing this, as evidenced by down-sizing and many companies moving their activities off-shore where other countries treat production and initiative for what it is - the very lifeblood of society.
    To be personally successful people do not need government.  In fact government has proven to be an impediment rather than a promoter of achieving these goals.
    Those receiving government benefits and handouts are going to be hesitant to change the present order.  Little do they realize they are simply digging their own graves since the funds and benefits they receive must come from somebody.  They come from those who are taking initiative, shouldering risk, and doing the hard work that is necessary to try to achieve their personal happiness.  To have the fruits of these labors siphoned off to those who do less is immoral and dead-ended since the productive element will only allow themselves to be fleeced so long.
    As for those supposedly needing help, let the local community decide who is truly needy and exercise their own conscience and judgement.
    There is, I think, a new spirit in political debate in this country.  The Libertarian party, the Republicans (of late), the Reform party, U.S. Taxpayer party, Natural Law party and other upstart organizations all sense that we are adrift from the original American Constitutional ideals.  We would all do well to  become educated and aware that to the degree we are able we can help affect the changes needed to restore Constitutional "small" government to its rightful incidental position in American society.
    It's time for another revolution.  We need liberty from taxation and a government attempting to make us all dependents.  Election years should be a wake-up call for true constitutional Americans.
    Progesterone is a hormone produced within the body from precursors derived from the diet.  In women, the balance between estrogen and progesterone is critical to monthly reproductive cycling and to the maintenance of the embryo once impregnation occurs.  It is the relative balance between estrogen and progesterone throughout the menstrual and reproductive cycle of women that can make the difference between health and disease.
    Because most modern women do not follow their natural reproductive cycle by bearing children regularly and nursing them for prolonged periods of time, this balance can be disrupted.  Additionally, estrogenic substances as contaminants in our modern environment and the lack of progesterone precursors from a natural diet can tip the scale such that most women’s bodies are under the control of estrogen dominance.  (See Vol. 8, No. 3 of the Wysong Health Letter.)
    This can lead to a host of problems including PMS, menopausal symptoms, fibroids, erratic heavy and painful menstruations, breast and uterine cancer, polycystic disease of the breasts, blood sugar abnormalities, weight gain, fluid retention, endometriosis and immune suppression. 
    There is a remarkable, natural, safe treatment for all of these conditions.  It is to increase the intake of progesterone precursors.  By increasing the production of progesterone in the body, the estrogen dominance is overcome and health is restored.  Progesterone can be increased by increasing the consumption of clean (organic if possible), whole, natural plant foods.  It can also be increased by eating concentrated forms of the specific precursors in plants that yield progesterone.  Additionally, progesterone can also be isolated from plant sources, rubbed on the skin and absorbed.  This latter method is actually the most efficient way of increasing progesterone levels since by rubbing it on the skin progesterone escapes the digestive process and loss to the liver and bile, and is thus delivered directly to tissue.
    Although some prescription hormone replacement therapies, such as Provera, contain progesterone-like synthetic compounds, these are not true, natural progesterones.  They are called progestins and have been synthesized by pharmaceutical companies in order to have a patentable product.   Pharmaceutical companies are not going to market natural products such as progesterone which are not patentable.         But as a result, these synthetic compounds which are foreign to tissue, have a host of negative side effects and do not bring the benefits of natural progesterone.  If you ask your physician about using progesterone he will usually indicate that it is present in modern hormone replacement therapy pharmaceuticals or may mention a variety of side effects.  Physicians also are under misinformed understanding that synthetic progestins are the same as natural progesterone.
    Natural progesterone cream is rubbed on the skin according to a schedule, depending upon where women are in their reproductive cycle.
    It is alternately put on different areas of the body so that tissue will not become over saturated.  It can be applied to the inner thighs, the belly, the buttocks, the sides under the arms, breasts, the inside of the arms and so forth.  Some women who have used the product consider it to be the most important remedy they have ever used.  Indeed, women have experienced complete remission of menstrual and reproductive untoward symptoms, loss of weight, enlarged breasts (without risk of cancer in them), increased energy, elevated mood, increase in bone density, increase in libido, dissipation of liver spots on the back of the hands and when applied to the face, a decrease in skin wrinkles and an overall enhanced feeling of health and a decrease in susceptibility to disease.
    Men also produce progesterone in their bodies and reportedly can also benefit from the use of the compound to enhance immunity, libido, energy, bone density, decrease weight, elevate mood, and reverse prostatic disease.
    Women who are taking estrogen therapy not only should take progesterone, but if it is not being recommended it should be considered malpractice.  The reason is estrogen is carcinogenic, and its further isolated use only adds to  the existing estrogen dominance, to compound female problems.  Although estrogen may help somewhat with osteoporosis for a time, after the age of 75 there is no benefit in this regard with estrogen used alone.  A gradual decrease of estrogen therapy can be done by skipping a day of estrogen with increasing frequency, while beginning natural progesterone therapy. 
    According to physicians who have been using natural progesterone therapy for years, there are virtually no dangers.
        Human Anatomy and Physiology:  A Cellular Approach, Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, Inc., 1974: 515
        Wysong Health Letter, 10:8
    In 1971 President Nixon declared “War on Cancer.”  During the next quarter of a century billions of dollars were spent on cancer research and attempts at cure.  Discoveries have been made about oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes, peptide growth factors (cytokines), regulation of gene expression and cell function, and the steroid receptor super family.
    How are we doing?  For ages less than 65, 21% of deaths were caused by cancer in 1973, and in 1992 cancers constituted 26% of deaths.  For those over 65, 16% of deaths were attributable to cancer in 1973, and in 1992, 23% of deaths were caused by cancer.
    This is a classic example of being wrong and insisting on continuing to be that way.  The reductionistic approach to cancer - the disassembling of organisms to look at bits and pieces to try to find cures - and the marshalling of technology toward attempts at cure once the disease is already advanced - simply do not work. 
    Slowly, some in the medical community are recognizing the problem.  In a recent issue of the Lancet  (a British medical journal) it was stated that cancer is a disease of the whole organism and that therapy must be changed toward prevention, rather than cure.  The present aggressive chemotherapeutic, surgical and radiation approach to cancer as a fundamentally proliferative disease causes more harm than benefit.  Although some childhood leukemias have been somewhat successfully treated, childhood leukemia is not really the same as the cancers of adult life, most of which have a 10-20 year or more latent period before they begin invading tissue and metastasizing.
    The use of various cytotoxic drugs designed to kill cancer cells is also toxic to normal cells.   The heart, lungs, kidney, brain, gastrointestinal tract and bone marrow may all be severely damaged by the use of “dose intensification.”  Additionally, such chemotherapeutic dosing can result in the emergence of new clones of drug-resistant cells and new cancers in other tissues.  Most cancer drugs are in themselves mutagenic and cancer-causing.
    Some time ago I wrote an extensive article on the fundamental cause of cancer.  There I discuss that cancer is a contextual problem.  Cells proliferating as cancer have simply lost their bearings and have regressed to embryonic form without control, dividing and dividing, until invasive tumors result. 
    Now notice what is being recognized by some in the medical community.  The author of the article mentioned earlier states that cancer is an “aberrancy in normal cell differentiation and survival... Epithelium ended stroma are in constant reciprocation with each other throughout life and cancer is the end result of a defect in the communication which is required to maintain normal differentiation... Carcinoma is ultimately a more complex failure in homeostasis, a chronic maladaptive tissue and organismic response to injury.   Carcinogenesis is a contextual process in which epithelium and mesenchyme fail to communicate properly with each other, resulting eventually in invasion and metastasis.”
    The problem with our context today is all of the things I hammer at continually in the Health Letter.  Our air, water, food, light, sound, all the chemicals we bathe ourselves in, radiation we subject ourselves to, and sedentary lifestyle we have aspired to, have put our organism out of its proper genetic context.  This is the “injury” that the above author speaks of, although he does not directly state it like I do, nor perhaps even recognize it as I suggest.
    Nevertheless, science now knows that cancer is a maladaptation, a contextual problem of tissue.  When we subject our body to an environmental situation it is not accustomed to, it will attempt to adapt for a period of time and may perhaps successfully do so for awhile.  But for some who do not have as strong adaptive capabilities, or if the environmental insult is great enough, tissues within the organism simply lose their bearings and regress to their embryonic undifferentiated form and proliferate as uncontrolled cancer.
    The answer is the same.   Put yourself back in your natural context  and give your tissues a chance to heal and to function in an environment for which they are genetically programmed.
    Most of us have cancer in one form or another growing within us right now.  Some of us will reverse that cancer as a matter of course, others will succumb.  If we do all we can at this point before cancer is manifest, we give ourselves all the advantages.      We have health and we have options.
    Resolve to do all you can every day to return your life to its normal balances.  That means fresh, whole, natural, raw food as much as possible.  Clean, pure water, daily exercise, fresh air, daily sunlight, peaceful coexistence, the removal of chronic stress from your life, and the incorporation of dietary supplements I describe throughout the pages of the Health Letter to help you get a jump start on reversing the cumulative damage of a lifetime.
        Lancet, May 18, 1996: 1377
        Acta Oncol, 1995; 34: 3
        Important Advances in Oncology 1995, Lippincott; 1995: 201
    After years of denial and disbelief that nutrients dramatically affect health, including even outright persecution of nutritionally-oriented physicians who advocate nutrient therapy for disease, the FDA has now mandated that folic acid, a B vitamin, be added to foods to help prevent spina bifida birth defects.  I have discussed this in previous issues of the Health Letter (Vol. 10, No. 8).  The inclusion of this nutrient, which has been stripped from food supplies as a result of processing, could save untold thousands of children’s lives and genetic disabilities.
    Now it is being “discovered” by the medical establishment that folic acid has an impact on heart disease.  I say “discovered” because this information has been known for decades, but simply ignored by the pharmaceutically-biased conventional medical establishment and their FDA enforcement arm.  Folic acid has the ability to convert homocysteine, a toxic biochemical that can cause proliferation of the arterial wall smooth muscle cells, into the nontoxic amino acid methionine.  Even small elevations of homocysteine greatly increase the risk of a person developing coronary heart disease or cerebrovascular disease. 
    In a recent issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, it is stated in fact that “findings of the benefit of folic acid through   'observational data' provide ample support for immediately initiating randomized trials of homocysteine reduction.”      The writers also go on to admit that since there is not sufficient commercial interest to fund such trials since folic acid is not a patentable chemical,  that the National Institutes of Health should step in to see to it that such studies are accomplished immediately.
    My criticism of the medical community is not done with a broad brush stroke.  Evidence of the value of nutrients in preventing and reversing disease and of the nutrient diminishing effects of food processing have been reported in even mainline medical and scientific publications for decades.  It's just that this information does not get out into practice, nor is it taught in medical school.      That’s my gripe.   Coaching people on how to eat properly with an emphasis on nonprocessed foods and recommending vitamin/mineral and other nutritional supplementation is just not as glamorous as angioplasty and bypass surgery.
        Journal of the American Medical Association, June 26, 1996: 1893
        Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995; 271: 1049
    Although Olympic athletes are portrayed as “national heroes” and poignant stories are detailed about their difficult lives, this may not be what our children should aspire to.
    Consider that most top-level athletes begin their careers as adolescents.  It's not just a matter of who sacrifices the most and who works the hardest.  Problems associated with high-level sport include delay in growth, a variety of musculoskeletal injuries, side effects of performance enhancing drugs and psychological damage.  Many children become victims of parental ambitions, the demands of trainers and the totalitarian control of their sport organizations.  Such training can indeed damage an adolescent’s social life, psychosocial development and their physical health.  Consider that young children are really unable to knowledgeably consent to rigorous training programs, time consuming exercise and other abnormal life patterns and thus their psychological development can become distorted.
    As I repeatedly mention in the Health Letter, anything in excess can be toxic.   This applies to sport exercise and training as well.  Regular exercise and the challenge of sport mixed with a full social and vocational life can indeed be healthy.   But a singular emphasis on any one aspect of life, sacrificing all else for its sake, can be damaging and one would question the right of any parent or adult organization to force it on children.
        Medicine et Hygiene, 1996; 54: 1393
        Lancet, August 10, 1996: 400
    In a case-controlled study of over 5,000 women divided into breast cancer patients and controls, it was found that the risk of breast cancer decreased with the amount of essential fatty acids consumed and increased with the amount of starches in the diet.
    Higher levels of vegetables supply a range of healthy fatty acids, whereas starches provide satiety and energy needs and displace the consumption of fresh vegetables, thus leading to a relative essential fatty acid deficiency in women on high starch diets.
    The correlation between the higher fatty acid diets and lower incidence of cancer may also be related to the additional nutritional benefits of consumption of higher levels of vegetables which contain a rich array of vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, carotenoids and so forth.
        Lancet, May 18, 1996: 1351
    Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects as many as 5% of the school-age population.  The problem is characterized by inattentiveness, compulsiveness and hyperactivity.  Ritalin, a drug with a whole host of serious side effects, is now being prescribed like aspirin for these children.
    It is characteristic in these children that they have increased thirst and this is an indication of essential fatty acid deficiency.  Additionally, many of these children with ADHD have eczema, asthma, food intolerances and a variety of other allergies that are improved through essential fatty acid supplementation.
    In a study of essential fatty acid levels in the plasma and red blood cell levels of ADHD children and controls, it was found that ADHD children indeed do have lower levels of a broad range of essentially fatty acids.
    As I mention in my book, Lipid Nutrition - Understanding Fats and Oils in Health and Disease, essential fatty acid deficiency is rampant in our population.  Some children are more tolerant to this deficiency and may not show the same symptoms as others who are less tolerant such as ADHD children.
    Little wonder.  Kids today are fed a diet primarily consisting of processed foods with the essential fatty acids either stripped from the food, oxidized or replaced with trans fatty acids. 
    Essential fatty acids come from fresh, whole, clean, natural foods.  Nuts, vegetables, whole grains and animal products are the natural sources of these essential fatty acids so desperately needed by children who are attempting to build a healthy physiological foundation for the rest of their life.  Essential fatty acid supplementation in addition is probably a good idea for all children considering how impoverished the modern diet is.
        American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, October 1995: 761
    In spite of serious doubts about the risks and benefits of prostate surgery, the procedure is rapidly increasing.   In Ontario, Canada, for example, since 1990 there has been a four-fold rise in radical prostatectomy.
    As I discussed in a previous issue (see Vol. 10, No. 6) watching and waiting is as good and likely even better than surgical intervention.  Nevertheless, there is this bias not only among the public, but within the medical profession as well that if you have cancer, you have got to “get it out of there.”  Surgical excision seems to be a logical choice. 
    Everyone seems to forget that cancer often has a 10-20 year latency period.  This means that cancer cells have been incubating in the body for that length of time before cancer symptoms arise.  Hardly then does it all of a sudden become an emergency to start carving tissue.   Additionally, it is virtually impossible to remove all cancerous tissue by surgical procedure since cancer is at the cellular level and can infiltrate tissues beyond the ability of a surgeon to discern.  Also remember cancer was caused by something (see Vol. 8; 9, 1; 9, 9; and 9, 10) and until one's lifestyle, eating patterns and environment are returned to that which people are genetically adapted to - the pre-industrial natural setting - true health and healing will never occur.
        The Lancet, July 6, 1996: 48
    The serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test is routinely used for prostate screening.  There are dangers in any test and particularly with those used to diagnose cancer.  A false positive is probably more dangerous than a false negative, since there is usually little modern medicine can do to cure cancer and subjecting patients who do not have the disease to dangerous treatment regimens should be of great concern. 
    PSA levels can increase significantly in men for 48 hours after ejaculation.  Thus, tests performed on men during this time can yield a false positive and lead to unnecessary prostate biopsies and other medical manipulations (not to mention the unnecessary terror and stress in those who are told that they may have cancer).
        Lancet, May 4, 1996: 1250