[Note: This is a book I was working on with the hopes of actually getting it published. Due to a change in jobs, however, I just don't have the time to devote to it, so I'm going to make what I have done available for free...although please note that I am keeping it copyrighted, at least for the present. Topics that have no information under them just aren't completed yet, and even some completed work might need some minor changes. -- Jay Banks]
Get On The roadtowellsville.com
The Wellsville Diet
by Jay Banks
|The Wellsville Diet An Overview|
|Enzymes are the key|
|The Road To Nowhere
Three Legs of Metabolic
The Road To Wellsville
The Trophoblast Thesis of
|Christianity Or The Cults?|
|About The Author|
* * * * *
THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED,
To my wife and children
* * * * *
I got a little lost down along the way
But I'm just around the corner till the light of day
* * * * *
The Wellsville Diet
Healthy Living / Nutritional Healing. The Wellsville Diet emphasizes providing the body with its natural foods, in as natural a state as possible, to maintain abundant health. Just like bugs don't attack truly healthy plants or trees, a truly healthy person will not provide "germs" an atmosphere in which they can thrive and wreck havoc on the body. To the extent a person is already afflicted with disease or sickness before they go on the Wellsville Diet, it should be noted that the body is self-healing and that healing takes place either by removing the cause of the disease so that the body can heal itself, or, in the case of a deficiency problem, by providing the body with proper nutrition so that it meets its nutritional requirements. With years of mainstream and alternative medicine pushing "magic bullets" and miracle drugs, most people believe their problems come from outside of them and the solution to their problem lies in some substance that is going to make their problems vanish. The Wellsville Diet emphasizes that healing comes from within and there are no magic substances outside of the body that will provide a "cure" for anything.
Raw vegetable and fruit juices. The Wellsville Diet recognizes certain deficiencies in our modern produce that can be overcome by drinking the juice of fresh vegetables and fruit. Since much of our farm lands are depleted of minerals, the produce growing on this land is lacking in minerals. By juicing organic vegetables and fruit, it is possible to not only increase the volume of vegetables or fruit eaten at one sitting, thus increasing the intake of vitamins and minerals, but to put these vitamins and minerals into a more readily digestible form. It should be emphasized that the benefits of raw vegetable and fruit juices come only when taken in their fresh, raw state. All canned or bottled vegetable and fruit juices have been pasteurized and are devoid of life and should be strictly avoided on the Wellsville Diet.
Water. The Wellsville Diet places a strong emphasis on drinking either pure, distilled water or a high quality bottled water. While chloride added to public water may have helped eliminate certain diseases in times past, it is a culprit in the mire of degenerative diseases we have fallen into today. Furthermore, the addition of fluoride, an industrial-waste byproduct, to our water supply has only added to our problems. The dead, inorganic chemicals added to water to kill germs continue to kill life after they enter the human body. Not only are these chemicals not useable by the human body, but they force the body to waste vital energy in their elimination, diverting energy in the process that could be better utilized in bodily repair and normal maintenance.
Regular exercise. The Wellsville Diet takes into account that there are more factors than diet that influence health. Outside of diet, nothing is more important than daily exercise to achieve radiant health. Ideally, the exercise portion of the program should alternate strength training with cardio training, and include a stretching regime, as well. Working from the principle that any exercise is better than none, however, at the very minimum a daily walk or a simple stretching routine will be a step in the right direction. Exercise lifts the spirits and helps deal with stress better than any man-made drug.
Weight Control. It has been proven that being overweight is just as much a detriment to health as smoking. Extra weight burdens the body and leads to high blood pressure, clogged arteries, and a host of other health problems. In addition, weight carried around the waist can push on the intestinal tract and actually hamper proper digestion of food. In an age where our foods contain less vitamins and minerals than in times past, getting the most nutrition out of the food we do eat is critical to good health. With the diet and exercise portion of the Wellsville Diet, weight control should come naturally. Weight control falls only below diet and exercise as a critical step toward radiant health.
The elimination of unhealthy products. Since the body is self-healing, disease is eliminated by removing the cause of disease. The majority of our modern degenerative diseases are unknown in third world countries where diets do not contain the processed, devitalized foods and sugars, unhealthy fats, high amounts of animal protein and dairy that we consume on a daily basis in America. The Wellsville Diet maintains that if one eliminates these foods and other unhealthy products, reduces exposure to environmental toxins, and gets plenty of exercise, fresh air and sunshine, the body will heal itself of disease.
Alcohol and tobacco is also to be eliminated if sickness and disease are to be avoided. While most people know of the dangers of smoking, many people underestimate the toll the continued inhalation of multiple toxins directly into the body takes on the body both physically and mentally. To compound matters, while eating unhealthy only effects the person eating unhealthy, smoking is a danger to family and friends in close contact with the smoker.
Alcohol is a concentrated sugar that is very hard for the body to metabolize. In excess amounts it damages the liver, contributes to degeneration of the kidneys and causes bladder problems. Even in moderation, the toll it takes in bodily energy to metabolize it should not be underestimated. Because of the soil conditions of our farm lands, staying mineralized in today's world is harder than ever. Do you really want to waste vital energy, enzymes and minerals to metabolize something that your body had no nutritional need for to begin with?
Spiritual and emotional health. The Wellsville Diet acknowledges that we were created and did not evolve. And while we may have been created in the image of our Creator, we are, until redeemed, in a fallen state of sin, which effects us not only physically but mentally as well. In addition, our bodies are only temporary and no amount of health is worth spending an eternity away from our Creator. In this regards, nothing should be considered less important than a personal relationship and saving faith in Jesus Christ, because it is only through His redemption that true happiness is possible.
The cornerstone of the Wellsville Diet is based on God's original diet, Genesis 1:29: Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you."
The Wellsville Diet, while being vegan-leaning in practice, acknowledges that God does permit the eating of animal products and is designed to be more flexible than other popular raw-food diets or natural hygiene programs.
The specific disease doctrine is the grand refuge of weak, uncultured, unstable minds, such as now rule in the medical profession.
-- Florence Nightingale
The Two Paths
Many in the raw-food or alternative medicine communities would divide medicine into two main categories. Down one path, you could trace what has developed into our modern medical system back to Louis Pasteur, who helped propagate the Germ Theory of disease. Down the other path, you would find those that teach the way to avoid sickness is to have a healthy body.
While it is pretty obvious which direction the world has taken, it should be noted that several books have been written showing credible evidence that the alternate theory of Pasteur's time period was actually the correct theory. One book, The Curse of Louis Pasteur, by Nancy Appleton, PhD, is worth reading. It shows in detail the differences between Pasteur and those who repudiated his Germ Theory of disease. Chief among these people were Antoine Bιchamp, who was an occasional assistant to Pasteur.
What Pasteur taught, basically, was that blood is sterile and that invading germs from outside our bodies are responsible for human sickness and disease. What this theory lacked in scientific proof was more than made up for in the fact that people were absolved of any responsibility for their illness, and this was popular both with doctors, their patients, and drug companies. This fact, combined with Pasteur's apparent success with vaccines and Alexander Fleming's discovery of antibiotics, launched a multi-billion dollar industry the equivalent of a house built on sand.
What Bιchamp and others taught, in general, was that the human body is full of bacteria, and that this bacteria was neither good nor bad, but able to adjust and change according to the conditions it was growing in the human body. If the body was not properly maintained, bacteria could change into fungus or other destructive forms. To this effect, Bιchamp proclaimed, "disease is born of us and in us."
This theory would later be proven when science developed the tools to do so. In 1913, Royal Rife (1888-1971) developed the Universal Microscope, which was tremendously more powerful than the microscopes of the day, and allowed the viewing of live material, unlike traditional microscopes at the time. Through his invention Rife demonstrated that by altering the food supply and environment, normal intestinal bacteria could be converted into typhoid germs, and that it was possible to reverse the process and convert them back into normal intestinal bacteria.
Incidentally, while definitely anecdotal, Florence Nightingale (1820-1910) also noted that disease was a factor of the condition of the host, not the result of invading germs. In her book, Notes on Nursing, Florence Nightingale wrote:
Is it not living in a continual mistake, to look upon diseases, as we do now, as separate entities, which must exist, like cats and dogs, instead of looking upon them as conditions like a dirty or clean condition, and just as much under our own control; or rather as the reactions . . . against the conditions in which we have placed ourselves? I was brought up by scientific men and ignorant women distinctly to believe that smallpox was a thing of which there was once a specimen in the world, which went on propagating itself in a perpetual chain of descent, just as much as that there was a first dog (or a first pair of dogs) and that smallpox would not begin itself any more than a new dog would begin without there having been a parent dog. Since then I have seen with my eyes and smelt with my nose smallpox growing up in the first specimens, either in close rooms or in overcrowded wards, where it would not by any possibility have been 'caught' but must have begun. Nay, more, I have seen diseases begin, grow up and pass into one another. New dogs do not pass into cats. I have seen, for instance, with a little overcrowding, continued fever grow up, and with a little more, typhoid fever, and with a little more, typhus, and all in the same ward or hut. For diseases, as all experience shows, are adjectives, not noun substantives. . . The specific disease doctrine is the grand refuge of weak, uncultured, unstable minds, such as now rule in the medical profession. There are no specific diseases; there are specific disease conditions."
If Florence Nightingale is right, and it is a continual mistake to look upon disease as a separate entity, then how much more so is it to not view conventional medicine in the same light? Change in this area will be difficult, however, because from everyone's earliest moment until his dying day, he are inundated with the message that sickness is out of his control; that for every ailment, there is something in a pill, a bottle, or an injection to remedy it; that if there is no magic substance to remedy the situation, a surgeon can remove the problem from our body, with the result that almost everyone now feels that the solution to any problem they face lies outside of their body. Want to lose weight? Take a pill. Want to wake up? Drink a beverage. Can't sleep? Take a pill. Feeling blue? Take a pill.
And to complicate matters almost to the point of despair, the medical Establishment has teamed up with government to use the force of coercion to ensure that the Germ Theory is advanced and drug company profit maintained by the establishment of a medical monopoly. It is sad that in America, a country that prides itself on being free, that many people are forced to leave the country to undergo alternative treatments for diseases.
The Symptoms Are The Cure
Since it has been demonstrated that disease is the reflection of the state of health of the body, or lack thereof, and not that of invading germs, it should be noted that what most people consider to be sickness or disease, is in fact the body attempting to heal itself. God created our bodies to be self healing. It is no small irony that what meets today's definition of sickness or disease, is actually the body attempting to do what it was designed by God to do.
If a person has not been taking care of his or her body and has the conditions favorable for normal bacteria to turn into "bad" germs and flourish, at some point the body will raise its temperature to a point that kills off the problem germs and brings the situation back under its control. But how many people see fever as the sickness and feel that they have solved the problem if they take a pill that stops the fever? Almost everyone. And the sad part is that by overriding the body's defense mechanisms, people leave themselves open to more severe sickness in the future.
At every point, if something is wrong with the body, what people see as sickness is actually the body's cure. And some of these symptoms are critical to proper healing. The beginning of healing for any wound is swelling. Swelling is a must for healing, yet the first thing a doctor will do for an injury is to prescribe something to keep the swelling down. If something hurts, pain medication is prescribed to cover up the pain, but pain is the body's way to let you know something is wrong.
If the problem is bacterial in nature, antibiotics are prescribed. But once again, the problem was part of the cure. When given the conditions that let normal bacteria turn into "bad" bacteria or germs, what is actually happening is the body attempting to heal and repair itself. Bacteria, or what we consider "bad" bacteria, is scavenger-like in nature, which means that, like scavenger birds only feed off of dead animals, this bacteria only feeds off of dead or decaying matter in the body. It is there to clean out the body, just like scavenger birds are there to clean up the environment. Once the bacteria accomplish the clean up of the dead or decaying matter in the body, it will die off, because this bacteria cannot live in an environment of health and life. If antibiotics are used to kill off the bacteria, it leaves the body with the waste material it was trying to get rid of, and without removing this condition, a recurrence of the problem, or worse, in the future is almost certain. (It should be noted that a bacterial overgrowth does give off toxins, and that, given the condition of the individual, under certain extreme circumstances, it may be appropriate to stop the overgrowth.)
Dr. Robert Mendelsohn noted this in his book, How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite of Your Doctor, that the unnecessary use of antibiotics may actually work to stop an infection, but will then leave the person susceptible to multiple infections until the body develops its own resistance to the bacteria (or more correctly, the conditions that allowed the bad bacteria to thrive in the first place are removed):
Your Doctor almost certainly won't tell you that, although the use of penicillin may shorten the course of the strep symptoms by three or four days, it may also cause recurrences of the infection all winter long. Antibiotics, while knocking out the strep bacilli, also prevent the development of the antibodies that are the body's natural defense against the disease. If the strep infection is not treated, but allowed to run its course, the body will produce antibodies to fight it that can continue to protect the child against reinfection during the remainder of the winter season.
What Mendelsohn like so many medical doctors failed to note, however, is that bacteria in the body is completely normal, and antibiotics indiscriminately kill off all bacteria, whether normal or "bad." A person with a poor diet and poor health and in need of antibiotics for one reason or another is already set up for having yeast and fungal problems, because yeast and fungus are what normal bacteria degenerate into as health deteriorates. Having the conditions for disease in your body and then indiscriminately killing off all bacteria is a recipe for disaster.
Antibiotics were developed to be used in situations of life and death, which is certainly not the way they are being used at this time. When antibiotics are used for non-life threatening illnesses, it may very well appear that they solve the problem, but in reality, all they do is buy someone some time; any appearance of health in these instances is illusionary at best.
If disease and illness is seen in its true state, a lack of health and not the consequences of "invading" germs, then how are contagious diseases possible? Everybody knows of outbreaks of certain illnesses like flu and how it seems to go in cycles or "make the rounds." Everybody has heard of outbreaks of certain illnesses on a cruise ship or in an office building, and, if asked, would probably respond that germs or viruses were the culprits involved in causing the illness.
There are some in the raw-food communities that claim there are no such things as contagious disease and that all sickness is the result of poor health and not that of invading germs. Since it is rather hard to deny certain patterns of illness, it should be noted that there are circumstances where sickness does come from outside the body, but sickness from these sources still relies more on the state of your body when it comes into contact with it than it does from being "invaded." Nancy Appleton, PhD, wrote of the two main ways to contract an infectious disease in The Curse of Louis Pasteur:
It is possible to get an infectious disease in one of either two ways. The first is through a toxic terrain, where the body's own cells have [changed] from healthy to unhealthy bacteria. The second is through exposure to someone else who is ill. If a sickness lingers for days with sneezes, a cough and runny nose, or if it develops into something more serious, you know you have a compromised immune system.
While there are no guarantees with life, a person who changes his diet and lifestyle to a Wellsville Diet-type of program or other raw food program that provides at least 75% of its food in a raw, uncooked state and includes getting plenty of fresh air, exercise, sunshine, etc. will find he gets sick about 90% less than when on the SAD diet (Standard American Diet). And if sickness does occur, as Nancy Appleton pointed out, it will be very mild and short lived. A person who has made the correct diet and lifestyle changes may find that an illness that incapacitates a SAD-diet eating family member or friend for days or more, may only cause a little extra fatigue or other very mild symptoms that last about a day, if it does anything at all. There are numerous testimonies from those on raw-food diets who say they have gone many years without any illness whatsoever.
Dr. Edward Howell wrote in, Enzyme Nutrition, "An African watering hole supplies drinking water to hundreds of animals, and although it is dirty and carries dozens of questionable and possibly carcinogenic chemicals, none of them become ill from it. The animals are protected by their superb body chemistry and maintained by a raw diet from which no enzyme nutrients have been removed."
The reason that the animals do not become sick from drinking questionable water is because they are so healthy from eating their normal diets that their bodies do not provide an environment for the bad germs to live and flourish in. The mere fact that so many people on Wellsville Diet-type programs report a major decrease in routine illnesses and even the reversal of chronic disease should be an indication that it is much closer to the proper diet for humans than either the SAD diet or other fad diets, especially those diets very high in cooked animal products.
A Special Word About Colds
Dr. Norman Walker, considered to be the Father of Juicing, and who lived to be between 110 and 118 years old (sources vary) following a predominantly raw-food diet, wrote of the common cold in, Fresh Vegetables and Fruit Juices:
Think this over when you "catch a cold."
The waste matter in the system, if not eliminated, builds up fermentation and heat in the body in the natural course of events. When such fermentation has reached a sufficiently toxic state, Nature becomes worried about our neglect to keep the body clean within, and gives us a warning in the form of mucous elimination which has been labeled "a cold." It is just as simple as that, and we have seen it demonstrated over and over and over again, that if the warning is ignored and disregarded, more serious conditions develop, conditions which are so well-known that a list of them covers a medical encyclopedia.
Never curse a cold which has caught up with you. Rather be thankful for the timely warning, and do something about it. No drug was ever known to cure a cold without the development of eventual afflictions of a more serious nature, rarely attributed to such drugs.
To put it briefly, a cold is the result of the secretion of too much accumulated waste, and insufficient and improper elimination. The Colon is the recipient of all this corruption. Toxins spread throughout the body generating unhealthy mucus in the sinus cavities. Excessive waste matter is the contributing factor in the generation of mucus. The result A COLD
True to form, our bodies were created by God to be self-healing. And once again, we have the cure to a problem being seen as sickness.
When eating an improper diet, the body tries to eliminate the many toxins generated by such a diet as quickly as possible. But doing so requires a lot energy, which is already taxed from an improper diet to begin with. Eventually the body becomes overwhelmed, allowing a buildup of waste and toxins in the body. At some point, the body rallies to clean itself out, with the result being, as Dr. Walker pointed out, what we label a cold.
In times past, "catching" a cold meant getting lots of fluids and bed rest. Now there are countless medications designed to cover up the symptoms of the cold and allow a person to carry out his normal daily routine. And the symptoms that are seen as illness are nothing more than the body's attempt to heal itself. The principle here is the same as with taking antibiotics to rid the body of a bacterial overgrowth, the symptoms may be stopped, but doing so allows the conditions to remain that caused the problem to begin with. A person who has stopped his symptoms may feel that he is now "well," but just as with antibiotics, this appearance is illusionary at best.
Once again, a person who covers up his symptoms with man-made drugs sets himself up for the same problem, or worse, in the future. And there are always risks from taking the drugs themselves, as all drugs have side effects.
Several years ago many cold and flue medicines containing the drug phenylpropanolamine were pulled from the shelf by the FDA because the drug can cause the heart to race and lead to a stroke. But just because phenylpropanolamine has been removed from these chemical concoctions does not mean that they are safe now, because there are many other questionable ingredients in them, whose harmful effects will not be known for years. Keep taking them and you could aid the FDA in finding the next drug to pull from the shelf after you have a stroke or worse.
Catching a cold should not be seen as a bad experience, but rather, as a cleaning experience that will leave you better off health wise. If colds are coming frequently, it is a sure indication that diet and lifestyle change are needed.
The Three Theories of Healing
There are only three basic theories for true healing: 1) The problem was caused by an environmental problem toxins, radiation, smoking, etc. and the environmental problem is removed, allowing the body to heal. 2) The problem is caused by a nutritional deficiency scurvy or pellagra, for example and the diet is improved to the point where all the body's nutritional requirements are met, allowing the body to heal. 3) The problem is repaired by the body using its metabolic enzymes.
The body has two types of enzymes: metabolic and digestive. Metabolic enzymes are used by the body to help repair normal wear and tear in the body. Approximately 80% of the body's energy is used up in the digestion of food, however. An overworked, stressed body or an improper diet one high in cooked animal products, overly cooked and devitalized, processed foods, excess sugar, etc. can interfere with the body's ability to create metabolic enzymes, reducing the body's ability to heal itself. Fasting, caloric restriction, or a change in diet can allow the body to divert the energy normally used in digesting food into energy used to produce the metabolic enzymes used in bodily maintenance and repair.
These three methods are the body's only course for true healing, and ultimately, any healing is going to be done by the body with metabolic enzymes. Dr. Edward Howell, in his book on enzymes, Enzyme Nutrition, wrote, "The old saying that nature will cure really refers to metabolic enzyme activity, because there is no other mechanism in the body to cure anything." It is for this reason that it is no accident that fasting is one of the oldest healing techniques known to man, or that caloric restriction is one of the only scientifically proven methods of increasing longevity.
It should be emphasized, however, that even though ultimately healing will done through the body's metabolic enzyme process, that a proper diet is still a requirement to give the body the materials it needs to repair and heal itself. While it is wrong to look outside the body for healing substances, ensuring that the body meets all its nutritional requirements is still an essential part of both the healing process and in the normal everyday maintenance of a healthy body. The Fifth Century BC physician Hippocrates considered by many to be the father of modern medicine correctly said, "Your food shall be your medicine" and "Your medicine shall be your food."
Of course, there are other factors in health and healing, such as getting the proper amount of sleep, getting plenty of exercise, fresh air and sunshine, and clean water, among others. But it should be kept in mind that ultimately it is the body that is healing itself and not some magic substance from outside the body.
With a proper understanding of this, it should make the error of man-made drugs abundantly clear. No drug especially a petroleum-based one, which most drugs are will cure any disease, it will only cover up the symptoms. In fact, one of the reasons chemicals work to cover up symptoms is because the body has to devote resources into handling the chemical that has been ingested, taking resources away from the body's healing attempt that caused the symptoms the drug was taken for! It may be an oversimplification, but this actually works in a manner similar to the cartoons where a person has a headache and someone takes a hammer and smashes the person's toe in order to take his mind off of his headache.
It is crucial to note that almost all drugs are toxic to some degree, even drugs as simple as aspirin. In masking the symptoms that the drug was taken for, the toxic substances cause problems in other parts of the body. Read a physicians desk reference every drug has a list of side effects. Many doctors will prescribe one drug for one symptom and another drug for the side effects of the first drug. And when the patient becomes depressed from all of the man-made toxins in his or her system, the doctor will prescribe an anti-depressant!
Is it any wonder the Germ Theory of disease was pushed instead of the correct theory? A doctor makes his or her money from seeing patients repeatedly, not from healing patients. How convenient to set up a system which depends on a drug for each symptom, which not only doesn't solve the problem but creates new ones, requiring more office visits. It is a scam that would be criminal in any other industry, but the god-like status of doctors here in America keeps anyone from asking too many questions!
The Road To Nowhere
Well we know where we're goin'
But we don't know where we've been
-- The Talking Heads
The Road To Nowhere
Three Legs of Metabolic Activity
"The greatest threat of childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them through mass immunization." That statement was not made by an unknown person posting on an Internet message forum or written by a so-called "quack" involved with alternative medicine, but by the award-winning Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D., who was a practicing pediatrician for nearly thirty years, who also held positions such as director of Project Head Start's Medical Consultation Service, chairman of the Medical Licensing Committee for the State of Illinois, and associate professor of Preventive Medicine and Community Health in the School of Medicine of the University of Illinois.
In his book How To Raise A Healthy Child In Spite of Your Doctor, Dr. Mendelsohn asked that readers keep an open mind as he "attacked the 'bread and butter' of pediatric practice," the equivalent, according to Dr. Mendelsohn, of a priest's denying the infallibility of the pope. He then went on to outline his core arguments against vaccination:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease.
It is commonly believed that the Salk vaccine was responsible for halting the polio epidemics that plagued American children in the 1940s and 1950s. If so, why did the epidemics also end in Europe, where polio vaccine was not so extensively used?
There are significant risks associated with every immunization and numerous contraindications that may make it dangerous for the shots to be given to children.
While the myriad short-term hazards of most immunizations are known (but rarely explained), no one knows the long-term consequences of injecting foreign proteins into the body of your child.
There is a growing suspicion that immunization against relatively harmless childhood diseases may be responsible for the dramatic increase in autoimmune diseases since mass inoculations were introduced.
As Dr. Mendelsohn pointed out, routine vaccinations are the bread and butter of a pediatric practice, and because of that, doctors continue to defend them to the death; "the question parents should be asking," he wrote, "is: Whose Death?"
At the end of the year 2000, there were approximately 40 vaccines mandated in the AMA's (American Pediatric Association) schedule, some of which are scheduled to be administered shortly after the baby is pulled from the womb (and some of these are for diseases only a sexually promiscuous adult or an intravenous drug user should have to worry about). The production of the most common vaccines involves many things that would make most adults recoil in horror if they knew more about it, yet we regularly inject these concoctions straight into the veins of babies and children totally bypassing the normal route germs or viruses would use to enter the human body.
Some of the ingredients in vaccines include: neomycin, sorbitol, hydrolyzed gelatin, aluminum phosphate, formaldehyde, ammonium sulfate, washed sheep red blood cells, glycerol, sodium chloride, gentamicin sulfate, polymyxin, betapropiolactone, aluminum hydroxide, phenoxyethanol (antifreeze), polysorbate 20, streptomycin, polymyxin B, calf serum, and thimerosal (supposedly to be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure, since thimerosal contains mercury). And the mediums used to culture the germs or viruses include human diploid cells from human aborted fetal tissue, porcine (pig) pancreatic hydrolysate of casein, chick embryos, embryonic fluid from chicken eggs, cells cultivated from monkey kidney cells, and fetal rhesus monkey lung cells.
Considering what exactly is in them, it is not hard to understand why vaccines have been linked to SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome), which causes an estimated 8,000 to 10,500 deaths each year, and autism, which has increased three-fold over an twenty-five year period. Vaccines have also been linked to the ever-increasing rise of autoimmune diseases in children such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, asthma, and even to cancer and leukemia.
Interestingly, a recent study concluded that there was no link between autism and vaccines. In writing a reply to this study, Dr. Randall Neustaedter, author of the Vaccine Guide, commented that autism did not exist before vaccines and further noted that many parents had seen their children develop autism days, even hours, after they receive a vaccine.
These comments are supported by research from the Pfeiffer Treatment Center in Naperville, Illinois, a nonprofit research and treatment organization that focuses on the nutritional and toxic metal components of behavioral disorders. The Pfeiffer Treatment Center, which has treated over 12,000 patients, recently discovered that most autism-spectrum patients exhibit evidence of abnormal functioning of the metallothionein protein (MT), and many of the classic features of autism can be explained by this dysfunction. The Center believes that autism results from a genetic defect in MT functioning followed by an environmental insult. Clare Kron, explained the connection between the MT defect and vaccines in a letter to Alternative Medicine magazine:
Many classic symptoms of autism may be explained by an MT defect in infancy, including GI tract problems, heightened sensitivity to toxic metals, and abnormal behaviors. A total of 499 of the 503 autism patients surveyed exhibited evidence of this metal-metabolism disorder, with blood samples indicating severely elevated copper/zinc ratios.
The study concluded that two elements were necessary for the onset of autism: first, the defective MT, and second, an "environmental insult," such as exposure to toxic metals or another toxic substance.
Since MT is directly involved in neuronal development and maturation of the brain and GI tract, the timing of exposure to environmental insults is critical. By age three, these systems may have sufficiently matured so that such toxins can no longer provoke autism. Pfeiffer therefore recommends delaying immunization, with or without thimerosal, until three years of age.
Ironically, some doctors feel that normal childhood illnesses are part of the way in which the immune system becomes fully developed. Commenting on an article from the Lancet, Michael Dye, author of Vaccinations, Deceptions & Tragedy wrote:
The fact that the normal progression of measles was halted by the vaccination appears to have prevented the body from destroying the measles virus. This destruction of the virus takes place in the "spots" for which measles is known, but when the vaccine prevents the spots and fever from occurring, the measles virus is not destroyed, and stays in the body through adulthood.
The Lancet article in question, titled "Measles Virus Infection Without Rash in Childhood Is Related to Disease in Adult Life," found that of those who tested positive for the measles virus but had the rash suppressed by vaccines, a good portion went on to develop such autoimmune diseases as sebacious skin disease, degenerative disease of the bone and cartridge, cancer, skin cancers, and cases of multiple sclerosis.
Vaccines represent the pinnacle of arrogance in our medical, scientific, and political communities. God created our bodies with immune systems that work if given the right environment in which to do so. Every attempt man makes to improve upon God falls short. That vaccines do not work should come as no surprise to anyone. What is extremely painful here is that so many children have died in some cases more so than would have died from the diseases certain vaccines were supposed to prevent from what is the modern day medical equivalent of the Tower of Babel.
Dr. Mendelsohn, M.D., asked the question, "Have we traded mumps and measles for cancer and leukemia?" Sadly, it appears the answer is yes.
For all the uncertainties surrounding the human diet, that babies are supposed to drink milk is one of the few things almost everyone can agree on. That this milk should be breast milk should also be a given, but unfortunately it isn't. Although most literature put out by formula manufacturers starts out by saying that breast milk is best, up to seventy percent of American babies receive baby formula. And of those that are breastfed, the duration for doing so is often much shorter now than at any point in history.
Most commercial baby formulas are either cow milk or soy based. While improvements in manufacturing have made formula more closely resemble breast milk, the end result is still a far inferior product. The oils used usually a blend of oils often contain some heavily processed oils, such as soy oil.
Beth Montgomery wrote in, Introducing Living Foods to Your Child: Guidebook for Babies through Two Years:
Have you ever looked at the ingredients on the back of a formula can? The ingredients of a major name brand, lacto-free formula, are: #1 Corn Syrup #2 Oils (several different types). Ingredients are listed by order of quantity. The highest quantity ingredient in the formula is corn syrup, only to be followed by oil!
Now you know those vitamins and minerals we parents buy the formula for? We buy the promise that our babies are being given balanced nutrition. The label lists them directly after the corn syrup and oil, but only after the statement: "contains less than 2% of the following."
Do you realize this means that 98% of the infant formula that costs $10 a can is SUGAR and OIL??? Less than 2% of the formula is vitamins and minerals. These vitamins aren't even in their natural form. They are synthetic and sprayed into powder. We pay dearly with both our pocketbooks and our children's health.
When children are weaned off of formula and they are eating only one or two different foods, pediatricians will usually tell you not to worry about supplements. although your child is not getting a balanced diet, supplements for babies less than one year old are not advised. I was told there is actually no dosing information for children under a year old. Now, I ask you this, if there is no dosing information available, how do the formula manufacturers know the right amounts of minerals and vitamins to add to the formula?
Also, how can I be doing damage if I give my baby living, whole foods rather than processed sugar and oil sprayed with vitamins? I have confronted my doctor's office with these questions and when I stated that formula can't be good for my child because of the ingredients, they could only tell me that my baby was healthy because he was in the top percentage for his weight. Hereby my "ding-dong" argument was formed. If 95% of what I ate was Hostess Ding-Dongs sprayed with vitamins, I too would at least be in the top percentile for weight, but would it mean I was healthy? Take your children's health into your own hands. Feed them living-foods.
It must be understood that the sugar and oils in breast milk come in an living, organic form, which also includes living enzymes, vitamins, hormones, and antibodies tailored to meet the needs of a human baby. The sugar and oils in baby formula are heavily processed and devitalized, and if the formula is cow milk based, any hormones that manage to survive the processing are hormones meant for a baby calf. Furthermore, if the baby formula is soy based, soy is one of the most heavily processed foods in the human diet, often containing traces of harsh chemicals used to make soy which is not suitable as food for humans in its unprocessed form edible and which also has naturally occurring, powerful phyto-estrogens, which can impair thyroid function and even affect sexual development.
It has been known for years that bottle fed babies are sick more often than breastfed babies and have a higher mortality rate. In addition, more recently, it has been demonstrated that due to the human body's developing antibodies to foreign proteins in cow's milk, the risk of diabetes in children increases greatly, especially in children who may be predisposed to diabetes. The reason this happens is not totally clear yet, but scientists speculate that the baby's immune system creates antibodies when exposed to foreign insulin in cow's milk, and these antibodies play a role in an autoimmune response that turns the baby's immune system against the cells in the pancreas gland which produce insulin leading to Type 1 diabetes.
Cow's milk may also contribute to diabetes because it is also a factor in obesity a known risk factor for diabetes. Recent studies at the University of Glasgow and Glasgow Caledonian University, in which 32,200 Scottish children were monitored, found that those breastfed during infancy were thirty percent less likely to become obese as children. While again, the reasons for this are not yet fully known, one reason may be that many baby formulas contain corn syrup or sugar for the carbohydrate, which may lead the child to favor sugary foods. Another reason may be that cow's milk contains a growth hormone identical to a human's growth hormone only the hormone in cow's milk is designed to turn a baby calf into a 700-pound-plus cow.
Humans are the only species that drinks the milk of another species and the only species that continues to drink milk after weaning. Given that many of the reasons people drink milk calcium for instance are actually negated by the pasteurization process, which renders many of the nutrients in milk much less absorbable by the human body, the problems that make cow's milk unsuitable for adults, such as lactose intolerance, also holds true for children. Even if somehow cow's milk could be demonstrated to be the good food it is portrayed to be by those who profit from selling it, there are still the issues of the way the cows that produce much of our milk are raised: the improper foods they are fed, the antibiotics they are given because their living conditions and food make them sick, and the hormones they are given to increase milk production all of which effect the quality of or actually show up in the cow's milk.
Many mothers are just not given all the facts on this issue. And of those that are presented the true facts, many will reason that bottle feeding "just can't be that bad," because, after all, either they or other family members were bottle fed, and they "turned out just fine." It must be kept in mind that bottle feeding, on the scale it is happening here in America, is a relatively new development in human history and all the consequences may not be known for many more years. As it stands now, the federal government is issuing warnings that adult-onset diabetes is reaching epidemic proportions in increasingly younger Americans, and it could be years before the role, if any, bottle feeding is playing in that epidemic is firmly established.
If the known facts are not enough to deter someone from bottle feeding, then the unknown should also be considered. The fact is that God created the perfect food for babies, and it is human folly to think we can duplicate it. Fifty years-plus after bottle feeding came in vogue, with all of our technology and know-how, scientist are still discovering vital components of breast milk that are missing from baby formula, and it will be many more years before some of them will be approved to be incorporated into baby formula, if at all, and other elements the living components are irreproducible by science. And with each new discovery, little is mentioned of all the children who were deprived of those vital elements during one of the most critical developmental phases of their lives.
Coffee, Tea, Colas and Soft Drinks
Start asking around and you will find that many people will admit to drinking very little plain old water. You will even find people that will admit to never drinking any water whatsoever. We are so used to drinking coffee, tea, colas and soft drinks that it is very common to hear people say they don't even like the way water tastes.
Americans, in general, are a nation of people who feel they "need something" in order to keep them going. Many start the day with coffee, or worse, a soft drink. Breaks and meals throughout the day are usually always accompanied by tea or soft drinks. By the end of the day, people are so hyped-up on sugar and caffeine that many turn to alcohol to "relax," and it is not uncommon for these people to take over-the-counter sleep aids or Tylenol PM just so they are able to go to sleep at night. Before long a vicious cycle of chemically induced ups and downs is started that takes a huge toll on physical and mental health.
While you will run across a study here or there that suggests caffeine is beneficial to the human body, caffeine is something a person wants to avoid. In fact, any substance that causes withdrawal symptoms when a person stops ingesting it, should be crossed off the list of items you want to allow into your body. Caffeine combined with sugar is an especially noxious combination.
Very few adults would eat seven teaspoons of sugar at one sitting; however, that is just what they are doing with each can of Coke or Pepsi and many other canned drinks.
A can of Coke has 39 grams of sugar and a can of Pepsi has 41 grams of sugar. That is about seven teaspoons (or 13 lumps) of sugar per can! And that is just the amount found in a 12-ounce can of cola. Soft drink manufactures are moving to plastic bottles that come in 16 - 20-ounce bottles or more. Keep in mind, this is just taking into account the large amount of sugar, usually in the form of corn syrup, as soft drinks also contain a host of other ingredients that should be avoided such as, caramel, citric acid, corn starch, potassium chloride, potassium phosphate, and salt; not to mention artificial sweeteners such as saccharin or Aspartame, which are actually worse for you than the sugar.
As the nation moves into an epidemic of obesity and diabetes, the real winners are the soft drink companies, who enrich themselves at our children's expense; the doctors, who line their pockets with the money of those who have made themselves sick on these unnatural, devitalized foods; and the drug companies, who manufacture drugs to keep our children, hopped-up on sugar, caffeine and other processed foods, under control.
Grains and Flours
With the exception of vegetable oils, few items in the American diet embody such idyllic notion of health as grains. For the average person who makes a conscious effort to start eating "healthy," invariably this means cutting down on meat and animal products and to increase the amount of grains consumed, usually in the form of cereals, pastas, flours and rice. For those who become vegetarian, this often means eating large quantities of grains, rice and other heavily processed foods, such as soy, but there is a problem with grains..
The problem with grains is multifaceted. It isn't just that these foods are often heavily processed because if that were the case, a person could just purchase a grain mill and organic whole grains to overcome these problems. To understand the real problems with grains, it must be approached from a "paleo" or hunter-gather point of view.
"Paleo diets," sometimes described as "caveman diets," approach diet from a pre-technology point of view. They eliminate anything from the diet that would have to be farmed, opting instead for foods that a person could gather in the wild, gather using a minimum of tools, and eat with a minimum of cooking or processing. With few exceptions, paleo diets usually adopt a godless worldview which is based on evolution. However, if a person envisioned the foods eaten by an explorer as he traveled across an untamed wilderness, he would have a basic understanding of paleo diets without having to adopt its worldview.
Those who advocate so-called paleo diets maintain that the shift to an agricultural-based society brought with it the beginnings of modern disease. Ray Audette, the author of Neanderthin, noted, "The skeletons of Neolithic farmers show the effects of poor nutrition. They died much younger, were shorter, and had many more cavities, as well as fewer teeth, than their immediate hunter-gatherer ancestors. These same remains also show the first evidence of obesity in humans." Speaking of the same early farmers, Loren Cordain, Ph.D., wrote in The Paleo Diet, "They also had more osteoporoses, rickets, and other bone mineral disorders, thanks to cereal-based diets. For the first time, humans were plagued with vitamin- and mineral-deficiency diseases scurvy, beriberi, pellagra, vitamin A and zinc deficiencies, and iron-deficiency anemia."
The important thing to note is that these diseases developed in early agriculture-based societies in which the grains being eaten were minimally processed whole grains which had seen very little if any crossbreeding or hybridization and were grown on fresh farmland. If these foods caused problems, contrast that with our modern grains which have been highly crossbred, hybridized, and now genetically modified and grown on over-farmed land whose mineral-deficient soil would not be able to grow food without the aid of fertilizer. And, as if that alone were not enough, the little nutrition that is in these foods and again, even in their ideal state they caused problems for humans attempting to live off of them is mostly discarded in the processing, leaving foods containing large percentages of nothing but sugars and starches.
In an article entitled, "Stabilized Rice Bran," which was featured in Alternative Medicine magazine, Betty Kamen, Ph.D., made some interesting observations on cereal grains in our diets:
The trend in our diet over the years has been toward large-scale elimination of dietary nutrients and trace elements. This is a practice that has accelerated dramatically in the last century, especially in recent decades. Much of our food has been stripped down to a few macronutrients such as sugar and starch, while the complex array of micronutrients is being discarded.
Our bodies have never adapted to this slow but devastating change in the quality of our food. Compared with the diet of any healthy animal living in the wild, the human diet is "abnormal and exotic, driven by style and economics," as the director of a British cancer research institute recently remarked. And looking at the diets of our ancient ancestors, the food we consume is a sorry trade-off for quantity versus quality.
In the same article Mrs. Kamen described the processing of rice: About 65% of the rice nutrients are in the bran, the seed coat (or polish) covering the white interior kernel. During the milling process, the hull or outer covering of the rice grain, is first removed, and then the bran coat is removed in a step called polishing the rice. She went on to point out that the rice germ, also containing more nutrition than the starches and sugars left in processed white rice, is also discarded. And if you thought brown rice which is brown because a thin layer of the bran is left on the rice overcomes the problems of white rice, Mrs. Kamen noted that the milling process was damaging enough to the bran that the enzyme lipase was released into the bran. As Mrs. Kamen stated, "Consequently, almost all brown rice contains rancid oils to some degree. The absolute nutritional superiority of brown rice is therefore questionable."
Wheat grains suffer the same fate, if not worse. Wheat flour also has the bran which, like rice, has the highest percentage of the nutrition and vitamins of the grain removed as well as the germ, leaving nothing but the white starchy endosperm, which is ground into white flour and then, in the majority of cases, bleached with chlorine, a potent toxin. To improve the baking consistency of this flour, it is then treated with other chemicals, such as aluminum chloride, calcium propionate, nitrogen dioxide, potassium iodate, etc. Ross Hume Hall, Ph.D., in an article entitled, "Enriched White Bread Really?" commented that the "highly refined wheat product has been stripped of 11 known vitamins, half a dozen nutritionally significant minerals, as well as the essential fatty acids." The flour, stripped of natural vitamins, then has niacin, riboflavin, thiamin and the mineral iron added back to it, in the form of cheap vitamins that are of questionable use by the body, so that it can be labeled, "enriched."
Like rice and wheat, corn also suffers from the modern production methods and processing. Cornmeal, which shouldn't be confused with corn flour, is milled yellow corn which has been shelled, dehulled and degermed to give it the longest shelf-life possible. Because much of its nutrition is lost in this processing, cheap vitamins thiamin, riboflavin, and niacin and one mineral, iron are added back to it so that it too may be labeled "enriched."
Corn is the second largest crop in America and probably one of the most hybridized and genetically modified crops. Gary Null, an author, consumer advocate, and investigative reporter wrote of the dangers of hybridized corn in a piece entitled, "The Hidden Hazard of Hybrids":
In order to breed corn that would produce more food per acre, scientists created hybrid varieties. One of the reasons hybrids are able to produce more is because they are sterile; energy normally allocated to reproduction is redirected toward growth. But some feel that this unnatural manipulation has also made hybrids nutritionally inferior plants.
Studies have revealed that hybrid corn varieties are less nutritious than their unhybridized counterparts. In one comparison of open-pollinated (non-hybrid) corn and hybrid corn, the open-pollinated variety had 75% more crude protein, 875% more copper, 345% more iron, and 205% more manganese. Similar differences were noted for calcium, magnesium, zinc and sodium. Another study found that hybrid corn was unable to absorb cobalt and other trace minerals from the soil.
While hybrids may produce more bushels per acre, open-pollinated corn will out-produce hybrids in terms of nutrients per acre. And nutrients, after all, are what food is all about. However, farmers make their profits on volume, not nutrient quality. Hybrid corn is also more susceptible to certain insect pests, which insures brisk sales of toxic pesticides and keeps chemical companies happy. (Based on excerpts from Spectrum Magazine and information from Acres USA, March 1998).
In many cases even if a product has a less processed form of grain in it, the other ingredients aren't something a person would eat if he had a full understanding of them. Look at the ingredients in any popular whole-grain bread product. They are full of hydrogenated vegetable oils, salt, processed sugars and a long list of chemical preservatives. Also, even grains that appear to be unprocessed may indeed be processed. Virtually all oat products are steamed to extend the shelf-life of oat-containing food products because oat grains contain oils that will destabilize and turn rancid very quickly if they are not deactivated by steaming.
Even modern production and harvesting has affected the quality of the grains in negative ways that most people would not even consider. Seeds and grains contain substances called enzyme inhibitors which keep them from germinating and growing until the conditions are right. In Enzyme Nutrition, by Dr. Edward Howell, Howell described the old methods of harvesting which allowed the grains, sheaved and shocked, to stand in the field for several weeks exposed to the weather, allowing a degree of germination and at least partial elimination of the enzyme inhibitors. Modern production eliminates this time in the field, thus leaving all the enzyme inhibitors in tact. While certainly the human body can digest foods containing enzyme inhibitors, to do so requires harder work by the pancreas because the enzyme inhibitors can actually inhibit digestive enzymes as they attempt to digest foods with the enzyme inhibitors intact.
Another drawback with grains is that they are acid forming in the body and also rank moderate to high on the glycemic index, which is a measure of the rate at which a food spikes blood sugar. In a Los Angeles Times article entitled "Rethinking Our Daily Bread," the author, Patricia King offered evidence that eating a diet high in foods that rate high on the glycemic index raised the body's levels of insulin, which she termed the "hunger hormone." Patricia King wrote:
In a 1999 study published in the American Academy of Pediatrics medical journal Pediatrics, Dr. David Ludwig, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and director of the obesity program at Children's Hospital Boston, found that obese children downed 38% more calories after a moderate-glycemic meal of steel-cut oats than they did after a vegetable omelet and fruit meal designed to keep blood sugar levels low.
When the meal contained high-glycemic, refined, instant oatmeal, the obese children ate a whopping 83% more. All of the meals contained the same number of calories. "From a hormonal standpoint, all calories are not alike," says Ludwig.
It is interesting that two different groups that claim to eat diets which reduce or eliminate many of our modern degenerative diseases, so-called paleo diets and raw-food vegan diets, both eliminate grains, and this certainly could be one of the common denominators behind the reversal of sickness for those that adhere to either of the diets. When you consider the sheer volume of highly refined and heavily processed grains, devoid of any real nutrition and high in calories, present in the American diet, it isn't hard to understand why people get well when they eliminate them from their diet.
Contemplate for a minute the number of pre-packaged snack foods that are either wheat or corn flour based and contain either a cheap trans-fat containing hydrogenated vegetable oil or are deep fried in one. A recent report on diabetes projected that 1 in 3 people born in the year 2000 are expected to develop diabetes in their lives. Ironically, many of these people thought they were eating healthy by following contemporary dietary recommendations.
The American Heart Association states that the average American consumes about 6 to 18 grams of salt daily, or roughly one to three teaspoonfuls per day. That means that some Americans eat close to 15 pounds of salt per year. Yet the same organization states that we need only about 200 mg to 500 mg each day, or about Ό teaspoon daily.
The largest percentage of salt in the diet, approximately 85% of salt consumption, comes from prepackaged foods and snacks. The reason is that the base ingredients of these foods have been so heavily refined, "enriched" with cheap vitamins and minerals, and drenched in chemical preservatives designed to give them the longest shelf-life possible, that few people would eat these products without the large volume of salt added to them for taste or to enhance the taste.
Excess salt intake can lead to cardiovascular disease, which includes high blood pressure, coronary heart disease (heart attack and chest pain), stroke, and congestive heart failure. One AHA report stated that cardiovascular disease kills more Americans than the next seven causes combined including cancer.
While some salt intake is necessary for life, too much salt is poisonous to life. Salt is used to preserve and cure foods ham and fish for example because it kills life in the food as well as inhibits microbial growth, keeping the foods from decomposing. Rest assured, salt's ability to kill cells and microbes does not stop simply because it is ingested into the human body. If the salt has not been heat treated, while it may eventually be broken down by the body into a form it can use, when it initially enters the body it has a negative effect on living matter in the body in the same manner as chlorinated water or antibiotics, especially in the excessive amounts it is being consumed by most Americans. In doses of 1.5 to 3 grams per kilogram of body weight, salt can be lethal for humans, and there have been reports of babies and small children being killed by accidental salt poisoning.
Probably the biggest problem with salt, in the form of normal table salt, is that it is an inorganic source of sodium (table salt is sodium chloride, a compound formed when sodium and chlorine bond together). To understand this, it must be understood that any vitamin or mineral will be most useable by the human body when it comes from a food. Humans could not use ground up rocks as a source of nutrition, even though this would contain minerals in abundance. However, humans can live on food which has been allowed to grow on soil containing ground up rocks, with the foods assimilating the minerals from the rock dust into a living, organic form easily used by the human body.
To understand the inorganic nature of salt, it would be similar to comparing the iron in spinach to an iron supplement that consists of tiny shavings off of a piece of iron. One is from a living, organic source with a long history of use as a food and its iron would be easily assimilated and used by the the human body, and the other is nothing more than a ground up rock and would be much more difficult for the body to use, if it can use it at all. Indeed, while vitamins and minerals from foods are rarely toxic even in large doses, vitamins and minerals from inorganic sources are often toxic if the dosage is increased only slightly above normal levels.
It must be understood that normal table salt is much closer to being a ground up rock than it is an organic mineral coming from a food source. And to compound matters, like most staples of the SAD diet, salt is processed and refined so that it will pour freely and doesn't cake together in the salt shaker under humid conditions. The processing involves kiln firing the salt at up to 1200 degrees F. and adding other inorganic substances, again of questionable use by the body, such as potassium iodide, dextrose, and calcium silicate.
The high temperatures salt is subjected to changes it chemically so that new compounds are formed in it and it becomes insoluble in water. With the salt now being insoluble in water, it is not only unusable by the body but the body must expend its energy trying to expel the substance from the body. It is also worth noting that unprocessed sea salt can contains up to 84 trace minerals, admittedly in an inorganic form, but it is plausible that some of these trace minerals could be used by the body. David Wolfe, a prominent figure in the raw food movement, maintains that kiln-firing salts "causes all the trace minerals to oxidize and evaporate right off."
Interestingly, while the body is more than capable of expelling excess inorganic salt that it can't use, excess salt or a breakdown in the body's ability to expel the salt can cause it to store the salt in the body. While the body normally uses salt to regulate the amount of water in it salt retains water and potassium makes the body lose water excess salt in the body can lead to excess water in the body. Victoria BidWell, in The Salt Conspiracy, wrote, "One ounce of ingested salt holds three quarts of water or 6 pounds of excess bodily water and fluids in suspension. Consider. . .an ounce of salt in the body will seize and hold three quarts of water! This means. . .salt holds 96 times its weight in water!"
Excess salt in the diet causes problems because the extra water it holds in the body creates a burden on the heart and cardiovascular system. Some of the salt-related conditions that are caused by water retention in the body are, edema (accumulation of fluid beneath the skin), anasarca (severe, generalized edema), and high blood pressure. Victoria BidWell, again in The Salt Conspiracy, explained the immediate benefits of withholding excess salt from the body:
Hygienic theory explains that the human body stores in the less vital tissues the waste and poisons it lacks energy to expel. Since these poisons cannot, in a state of on-going enervation, be excreted, they are deposited in those tissues in which they would do least harm: connective tissues, fatty tissues, subcutaneous tissues.
That this theory is indeed truth is demonstrated without fail when a swelled, fleshy Sufferer from The Salty, SAD Diet undertakes a fast. Within 2 to 3 days, he loses as much as 10 to 20 pounds, most of which is water weight. Even if he does not have the wherewithal to fast and simply goes 100% on The Salt-Free Ideal Diet for 5 days (!) his swelling is greatly reduced. The Sufferers of edema, obesity, and/or anasarca without exception find immediate, joyful relief by turning to Hygiene.
Probably some of the confusion about salt comes from the fact that sodium is needed by the body. A reader may ask, "How could salt be a 'poison' when it is required by the body?" However, it is both the amount and type of salt being ingested by Americans that cause the problems. The sodium issue is so important for those on the journey to health that it will be addressed again in a later chapter with suggestions on how to meet the body's needs in a healthy way.
Meat and Animal Products
America is a protein-centered nation. Foods high in protein are marketed as healthful based on the fact that they are high in protein. Most health food stores have shelves devoted to high-protein drinks and shakes. Weight-lifting magazines are inundated with advertisements for high-protein drinks and foods, with the not-so-subtle marketing message that protein in the diet is directly transformed into muscle on the body.
However, the actual protein requirements for humans are quite modest and most Americans eat far in excess of the body's actual requirements. Protein in excess, however, is acidifying for the body and it has been shown repeatedly that when our country is compared to populations from countries that eat less protein, especially protein from animal products, those populations have far less degenerative disease than found in the American population.
David Wolfe, pointed out in The Sunfood Diet, an informative paragraph from Morris Krok's Diet, Health, and Living On Air that explains some of the danger of protein:
"In the metabolism of fats, sugars, and starches, the waste which is left behind is carbon dioxide and water. This however is not the case with protein, which leaves as its end-products uric acid and urea, which, if retained in the system, are very harmful. Thus not only is protein not well utilized for bodily heat, but it is also a potential danger to the health of the liver and kidneys, and because of this, is the greatest factor in acidifying the entire membranous tract."
Since the human body requires protein, the body, when properly functioning, is equipped to handle uric acid and urea. The problems begin to emerge, however, when the body is not functioning properly or the levels of protein are in such high amounts that the body can't properly eliminate the uric acid created when it is broken down by the body. Dr. Norman Walker explained this in Fresh Vegetable and Fruit Juices:
Physiologically, the eating of meat increases the acidity of the body. In the processes of digestion and the breaking down of the meat into its original amino acids, a vast amount of uric acid is generated in the body. If the body could eliminate this immediately, it might do only little harm. But what actually happens is that the muscles absorb enormous amounts of this uric acid, and in the course of time they are saturated with it. Eventually this acid forms into crystals with sharp needlelike points which cause the pain and discomfort known as rheumatism, neuritis, sciatica, nephritis (Bright's disease) or some diseases of the liver.
To further complicate matters, it is estimated that between 75% to 85% of all exposure to toxins from food sources come from eating animal products. This happens in part because foods grown for animal consumption are often allowed many times the level of pesticides than foods destined for human consumption are allowed, and animals that eat these foods concentrate the toxins in their bodies. Because humans are at the top of the food chain and, at least for Americans, eat a large percentage of daily calories from foods composed of animal products, we are exposed to a large amount of toxins through these foods.
Also, animals, like humans, encase toxins in fat that can't be eliminated through normal channels to help isolate them. This makes foods high in fat, such as butter and milk a potentially dangerous source of toxin exposure. The book Diet for a Poisoned Planet by David Steinman, broke foods down into three categories of toxin/pesticide contamination based on colors: Green Light (safe), Yellow Light (caution), and Red Light (danger). Red Light or potentially harmful high-fat foods include butter, cheese, ice cream, and whole milk. Steinman remarked of butter:
Among the approximately 76 million Americans who eat butter regularly, the risk of cancer which I worked out using a standard cancer risk assessment formula translated into as many as seventy-one excess cancer cases a year in one million persons; we should expect roughly 5,400 Americans alive today to get cancer from the pesticides lodged in butter.
Another important issue with animal products is the fact that the majority of farm raised animals are not allowed to eat the foods they would normally eat in the wild. This directly affects the nutrition of the animals as food for humans. For example, the main reason given by most for eating fish is to obtain the beneficial omega-3 fatty acids fish provide. However, farm-raised fish are usually fed grain, which is not something fish would eat in the wild. This practice significantly decreases the amount of omega-3 fatty acids in the fish.
Similarly, cows fed on grain, when compared to grass-fed-only cows, also have a marked decrease in the amount of omega-3 fatty acids, as well as a similar reduction in conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), vitamin E, and selenium. And Americans would be fortunate if the only unnatural food being fed to cattle were grains, despite the problems generated by this practice. Modern factory-farming methods, however, have given rise to any number of perversions of diet for animals destined for our food chain. For instance, for many years cattle that were sick, diseased, or which had died from unknown causes, called downer cows, were ground up and fed back to other cattle in the form of what were described as high-protein feeds.
Howard Lyman, the former rancher who was sued along with Oprah Winfrey for remarks made on Oprah's program on Mad Cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE), made some telling remarks about BSE and "downer" cows in Mad Cowboy: Plain Truth from the Cattle Rancher Who Won't Eat Meat when he wrote:
I couldn't help but wonder if BSE, or something very much like it, might already be present in the United States. There had never been (and still has never been) any confirmed cases of BSE in the United States. But every year about a hundred thousand cows in this country die mysteriously of what is known as Downer Cow Syndrome. These cows like the steers in Marsh's experiment look fine one day and drop over dead the next. I saw this happen many times on my operation in Montana, far more often in the feedlot cattle than in the grass-fed breeding cows. Since slaughterhouses don't accept animals unless they arrive alive and ambulatory, I would typically like other feedlot operators sell my downer cows to the renderer. And so they were undoubtedly coming back to my feedlot and others in the form of feed.
Due to concerns that Mad Cow disease was being spread by feeding cattle to cattle, the practice was eventually banned. However, the regulations in place are often lightly enforced and repercussions for breaking this prohibition are almost nonexistent. And while feeding cattle to cattle has been banned, it is still legal to feed downer cows to hogs and other farm animals. Chickens are also routinely fed cow's blood, which is sprayed onto their food to add protein to it.
Animals are also subjected to living conditions which also affect their quality and nutrition. As Rev. George Malkmus pointed out in Why Christians Get Sick:
Chickens that lay eggs sold in the market usually never see the light of day. These animals are raised in wire cages where they can hardly move, so that all energy will go into egg production. Their food and water is brought to them automatically by conveyor. Various chemical substances, including antibiotics are added to feed and water.
This is certainly far removed from the back yard flock our ancestors kept, which were able to eat greens, bugs, worms as well as having sunlight and a rooster, each adding nutrition to the egg.
The full repercussions of the horrors of factory farming may not ever fully be known. For one, the medical and scientific community rarely makes a connection between diet and disease, and if the connection is made, the powerful agribusinesses' investment in well-placed government officials usually maintains enough damage control to keep the general public feeling safe and eating their products. For years the British government denied that Mad Cow disease posed any threat to human health. It was only after people started dying from the disease were they finally forced to admit the connection between Mad Cow disease and its human counterpart, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
If any lesson is to be learned from all of this, it is that consumers cannot wait to find out that what they are eating isn't safe because it can easily be seen that no government agency is going to step in and tell everyone the truth about the foods we eat on a daily basis. The solution is to admit to ourselves that our foods are no longer safe and take matters into our own hands.
Vegetable Oils And Other Fats
Dr. Edward Howell summarized the problem of free fats and oils perfectly in one sentence: "Any isolated, purified, skeletonized food material must be expected to have adverse, far-reaching effects on the health of living organisms."
While the processing of foods into oils places the rendered product into the same category as devitalized sugar and flour, what is unique about oil, however, unlike sugar or flour, is that there is often an extra message of health attached to it. For over fifty years now people have been told by the media, doctors and various government agencies that replacing animal fat with a vegetable oil would help prevent heart disease.
This health-based message stemmed originally from research on cholesterol done in the mid-fifties by a Russian researcher named David Kritchevsky, which became known as the lipid hypothesis. With very little other research, the American Heart Association, almost immediately, began to warn of the dangers of high cholesterol, high fat diets and recommending the use of vegetable oils in the place of butter and other animal fats.
What is interesting is that at the same time the push to change to vegetable oils was growing stronger, research was already showing that the new oils contained a virtually new, highly undesirable type of fat which would eventually turn out to be more dangerous to the human body than the saturated fats it was replacing. This fat was called trans fat, a type of fat which occurs naturally in very small amounts in animal fats but is contained in much larger quantities in the highly processed oils coming to market. Additionally, the chemical makeup of the naturally occurring trans fat is different from the chemical makeup of the trans fat in the new oils.
In The Oiling of America, a paper by Mary G. Enig, Ph.D. and Sally Fallon, they noted, "... most of the trans isomers in modern hydrogenated fats are new to the human physiology and by the early 1970s a number of researchers had expressed concern about their presence in the American diet, noting that their increasing use had paralleled the increase in both heart disease and cancer." But even though it was known almost immediately, from very limited research, that saturated fats were supposedly harmful to human health, it would take almost half a century for the research into the dangers of trans fats to affect government dietary guidelines (due in part to heavy lobbying from the edible oil industry and insiders from the edible oil industry who took key positions in the Food and Drug Administration and blocked attempts to warn of the dangers trans fats posed).
It was not until 1999 that the government mandated that the amount of trans fats in food products be labeled. And this was done despite heavy lobbying from groups such as the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA), which not only initially fought the labeling requirement altogether, but later lobbied strongly against the FDA-proposed footnote statement to the Nutrition Fact box, which advised consumers to "reduce their trans fat consumption as much as possible."
Although most people would understand vegetable oils are processed and refined oils, few people grasp just how highly processed these oils are. Tim O'Shea, a chiropractor and clinical nutritionist in San Jose, California, wrote in an article in Alternative Medicine magazine, the processes soy oil goes through on its way to becoming margarine:
The first step in soy processing is high-temperature cooking to try and get rid of the phytic acid. High temperatures denature the natural enzymes of the soybean. Without enzymes, any plant becomes a devitalized food, very difficult to digest in the human tract. Remember that enzymes, vitamins and minerals are three legs of the tripod of metabolic activity. Take away any one and the other two cannot function properly.
After cooking, soy oil is removed by one of two paths: pressing or solvent extraction. Soybean oil is rarely cold-pressed, as many claim, but is usually subjected to heat, which produces destructive free radicals. An easier method of oil extraction is by the use of solvents. Several are used in soybean oil processing. Hexane, a petroleum distillate, is the standard chemical used. Traces of this toxic solvent may be left behind in the finished products, both in the oil and in the protein isolate.
The next step in the refining process is degumming, the removal of residual fiber, or gum, from the oil. The problem is that valuable trace minerals like calcium, copper, magnesium and iron, as well as chlorophyll, are removed as well.
Next, the refined oil is mixed with sodium hydroxide (which is what drain cleaners are made of) at a temperature of 167°F. The purpose of this step is to remove any remaining free fatty acids.
To remove extra pigments and make the oil completely clear, bleaching is accomplished by more high heat, followed by filtering. Other free radicals called peroxides are thus introduced.
Deodorizing is then thought to be necessary to destroy any natural aromatics. This process uses extreme heat, up to 518°F, which destroys whatever vitality and antioxidants the oils might have left. The oil is thus rendered absolutely tasteless, colorless and odorless. It is now devoid of any useful vitamin, mineral, enzyme or nutrient content whatsoever.
And even though it has undergone extreme high temperatures at several steps, as long as no external heat was added during the actual pressing step, the oil can still be sold as "cold-pressed."
As if no further biological indignity could have been levied against the lifeless processed oil, researchers in the 1930s at Dupont figured out a way to harden the oil into a perfectly engineered non-food: margarine. They found out that if they subjected the refined oil to yet another round of high temperatures up to 410°F and also forced hydrogen gas in the presence of an aluminum catalyst through the oil, they could produce a substance with the desired spreadability and shelf-life. That's what hydrogenated margarine means. And at least 80% of the margarine made in the U.S. comes from refined soybean oil.
In understanding the process that turns soy into oil and margarine, it is easier to understand why processed oils have far-reaching effects on the health of living organisms. Look at the ingredients of most junk foods. Many contain either soy or canola oil. The heavy processing of these two oils brings the trans fat level of soy oil up to a 40% trans fats level and up to a 50% level for canola oil.
If heavily processed oils were the only bad ingredient in the Standard American Diet, it would be bad enough many in the alternative health field claim vegetable oils to be the worst "food" in American's diets but keep in mind how many food items contain vegetable oils, devitalized corn or wheat flour, and processed sugar, salt, and a long list of chemical preservatives ... and, of the food items left over that don't contain vegetable oils, many of these end up being fried in a vegetable oil.
Interestingly enough, both Christians and non-Christians alike will often, at least initially, blame God, Satan, or other outside factors if they become sick, never giving the man-made, non-foods they have been ingesting any credit whatsoever.
Fast Foods, Convenience Foods
Stop for a minute and think about all the nutritionally-void foods you have read about up until this point the processed sugars, processed grains, trans fats, excessive salt, etc. Nothing embodies these foods like fast foods and convenience foods, many of which contain large amounts of calories and very little if any actual nutrition in them.
If the hazards of some of these foods were pointed out to the manufacturer or producer, the response would be that it was not meant to be the sole source of nutrition but merely part of a balanced diet or that it was meant only to be enjoyed occasionally.
But what happens when everything a person eats on a daily basis is made up of these foods? Bill Phillips, author of the very successful book, Body for Life, said in an interview with Outside magazine:
It's like we're living on Temptation Island. My house is only a few miles from my office, and I pass eight fast-food places on the way to work. There's a multibillion-dollar industry out there that's banking on the fact that you won't be able to resist.
We're eating and eating and eating, but we're starving, because we aren't getting the nutrients we need. Think of Golden. It used to be a mining town. The first settlers came here and they'd dig through mountains of dirt to find one little scrap of gold. That's what our bodies do. Out of all the junk we're putting in it, we're asking our body to go through and find the gold it needs to fuel our metabolism and our mind and our muscles.
With heavily-processed foods available at every turn, it is no surprise that over half of Americans are overweight with 27% of those being obese, bringing with it all the associated health risks of being overweight increased risk of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc.
And sadly, with clever marketing slogans
Vitamins And Supplements
With all the problems of the SAD diet (Standard American Diet), few would place vitamins and supplements very high on the list of potential troublemakers for Americans. And indeed, with the quality of food in America, some supplementation for those on the SAD diet is probably preferential to not supplementing.
The problems arise because many people think they can eat a poor diet, supplemented with vitamins, and still be healthy. No doubt, this is due in large part to the marketing message behind vitamins and supplements, which not so subtly informs consumers they can do exactly that.
Interestingly, the over-processing and devitalization of our foods is used as justification for the need to supplement our diets in the first place. Yet, if one carries this train of thought through to its logical conclusion, vitamins and supplements are also heavily processed nutrients which have been isolated and concentrated, devoid of any resemblance to any food in its natural state.
Far from nutrients found in whole foods, some synthetic vitamins are industrial byproducts and others are actually, ironically, byproducts of the food devitalization process itself. For instance, one of the Cargill Corporation's more valuable raw materials is a soybean distillate described by the company itself as a "black, ugly, stinking ooze" which is rich in tocopherols or natural vitamin E. As it turns out, the material, a waste product Cargill gave away or burned for years, comes from the deodorizing process of refining soybeans and is sold as vitamin E..
Part of the allure of vitamins and supplements comes from the fact that American consumers have been conditioned from cradle to grave to believe that the answer to any problem lies in some magic substance that only needs to be purchased and consumed to make the problem vanish virtually overnight. The supplement industry, which is a 23-billion-dollar-a-year industry, with vitamins, herbs and minerals occupying 9.8 billion of that market, has learned to capitalize on this and manipulates consumers in much the same way as drug companies. In fact, some vitamins are manufactured either by drug companies or through companies which drug companies bought out.
And part of the problem here is that, as the line between vitamins and drugs blurs in consumers minds, the vitamins themselves are products of the same type of mentality that led to the development of drugs as we know them. At one time certain herbs were known to confer special medical qualities that made them beneficial for someone with a certain condition. The medical and scientific communities sought to isolate the beneficial elements of herbs and incorporate them into an easily-marketable pill or supplement. James Bailey, L.Ac., an herb columnist, touched on this and its consequences in an article in Yoga Journal:
Most Western consumers now view herbs and pharmaceutical medication in the same way: each herb, like a drug, remedying a specific condition for example, St. John's wort for depression, gingko for memory loss, Echinacea for colds, and senna for constipation. ...
For example, the herb kava kava has been in the news lately for its potential liver toxicity. When used the traditional way, kava causes no harm to the liver. In the South Pacific, where the herb is indigenous, only the root of the plant is used. Profit-based pharmaceutical companies, however, have discovered what they think to be the "active ingredient" of the plant, kavalactones, found both in the root and in higher concentration in the stems of the plant. To maximize profits the stems are being mined for kavalactones for the manufacturing of the highly potentized nutriceutical kava products.
So why have Pacific islanders only been using the root and not using the stem? Because more is not always better, and may even be toxic. While a small dose of root-sourced kavalactone can serve to reduce stress and anxiety, high concentrations from the stems of the plant can cause a cascade of unwanted side effects.
The same attitude that leads to problems with vitamins and supplements also permeates the food industry, which seeks to "enrich" devitalized, processed foods with vitamins and minerals to make them more appealing to health-conscious consumers . . . and increase their profits in the process. Michael Pollan, author of The Botany of Desire: A Plant's-Eye View of the World, wrote regarding this issue in an New York Times Magazine article, "Selling unprocessed or minimally processed whole foods is a fool's game, especially since the price of agricultural commodities tends to fall over time, and one company's apples are hard to distinguish from any other's. The best way to do this has always been by ''adding value'' to cheap raw materials -- usually in the form of convenience or fortification."
But just as every attempt to improve on the things God gave us fails, just as baby formula or highly-processed vegetable oils falls short, fortification or "enrichment" of devitalized foods also fall short. Keep in mind that with these processed foods, there is an element that cannot be duplicated in a food processing plant or laboratory the living components. Michael Pollan went on to write in the same article:
It is not at all clear that the ''healthy'' ingredients we're isolating function in isolation the same way they do in whole foods. Already we're finding that beta carotene extracted from carrots, or lycopene from tomatoes, don't work nearly as well, if at all, outside the context of a carrot or a tomato. Even in the pages of Food Technology [a trade magazine for food scientists], you now find nutritionists cautioning the industry that ''a single-nutrient approach is too simplistic.''
Foods, it appears, are more than the sum of their chemical parts, and treating them as collections of nutrients to be mixed and matched, rather than as the complex biological systems they are, simply may not work.
Our goal should be then, not to eat a poor diet and rely on supplements that may or may not work to keep us healthy, but to eat a diet rich in vitamins and minerals the way God gave them to us, in living, whole foods. And if we feel that some supplementation is necessary, it should be viewed as just that, supplementation, not what we rely on to keep us healthy. Supplements taken should be researched diligently and only those of the highest quality should be consumed.
One important thing to note: while it is clear that there may be problems with vitamins and supplements, with the condition of our soil, the quality of our produce, and the environmental pollution we face on a daily basis, this is an option that should remain available for those that feel they must supplement. There is a move underway by our federal government to limit consumers' access to vitamins by regulation, with some suggesting that supplements with certain levels of vitamins and minerals in them be available only by prescription. This should be resisted fully by Americans.
While vitamins may not be all consumers think they are, they are a far cry from prescription drugs, which kill more than 100,000 Americans and seriously injure an additional 2.1 million every year, and this is not even taking into account prescribing errors or drug abuse! (Based on a study by Dr. Bruce H. Pomeranz, principal investigator and a neuroscience professor at the University of Toronto, who analyzed 39 studies of hospital patients from 1966 to 1996.)
The Road To Wellsville
I wanna heal
I wanna feel
Like I'm close to something real
I want to find something I've wanted all along
Somewhere I belong
-- Linkin Park,
Somewhere I belong
As mentioned in the earlier chapter on salt, any mineral obtained through a food will be more useable by the body than a mineral obtained in any other way, and sodium is no exception in this case. There are those in the raw food community that maintain that any vitamin or mineral obtained outside of a food source is not only unusable by the body but actually a toxin that harms the body. While that may not always be true, certainly the absolute best sources of vitamins and minerals do come from foods.
Salt, in its inorganic form, as found in the salt shaker, is actually sodium chloride, a compound formed when sodium and chlorine bond together. However, salt in food is in the form of sodium, not sodium chloride. It is in this form that it will be most useable by the body.
Foods Naturally High in Sodium
Per 3½ oz. of food
Beets 60 Beet Greens 130 Celery 125 Chard, Swiss 145 Dandelion greens 44 Kale 75 Sesame seeds 60 Spinach 70
Sodium and potassium are responsible for maintaining the correct fluid levels in the body as well as in the body's cells. The general consensus is that the potassium to sodium ratio should be 1:1 or 2:1, but some even suggest a ratio as high as 3:1. However, with the SAD diet, the ratio is turned around and the amount of salt consumed by the average American is far in excess of the amount of potassium. Some foods high in potassium are avocado, with 6 ounces containing 1080 mg, orange juice, with one cup containing 500 mg, and bananas, with one medium banana containing 470 mg of potassium.
Another source of both sodium and potassium is sea vegetables such as kelp, dulse, laver, and nori, which contain not only a balanced ratio of sodium and potassium but are also a good source of iodine as well as an assortment of trace minerals. Since processed iodized table salt should be eliminated, sea vegetables can become an important source of iodine, if not the sole source.
One note of caution on sodium: With all the hazards of excess salt in the American diet, it is possible to go too low on sodium. If all external salt is eliminated and the loss of sodium is not compensated for by increasing intake of high-sodium foods, one of the results can be extreme fatigue. Outside of a vitamin B12 deficiency, a lack of sodium is probably the second biggest problem someone will face on a predominately raw-food diet. If the foods high in sodium or sea vegetables are not consumed for some reason, the next best source of sodium is a good quality, natural Celtic sea salt. Although Celtic sea salt is sodium in an inorganic form, it has never been kiln-fired and is more useable by the body than common table salt, though less useable by the body than sodium from a food source.
In a lecture on raw foods, David Wolfe, an influential promoter of the raw-food movement, mentioned the dangers of a diet too high in fruit, which contains almost no sodium:
You say, "I go on raw foods. . .I can eat only fruit now." And that is one of the biggest traps. I can tell you exactly what is going to happen:
1) There is not enough minerals in the fruits that exist today.
2) The fruit is almost never ripe...so it has a propensity to have a lot of acids, which have a reducing affect on our body, and can literally suck minerals out of our body.
3) They will go dangerously low on salt, because a true fruit diet will have no salt in it.
And by the way on salt, some people need more than others. Some people do better with more and some people do better with less. Some people can eat celery only for salt, and some people can't. And we do differ. . . .
Another beneficial way to get sodium is to drop a stick of celery into the juicer while making your favorite juice. A mixture of carrot and celery juice is very complimentary to each other. Dr. Norman Walker wrote in Fresh Vegetable and Fruit Juices, "The combination of celery with other juices is generally beneficial, and certain formulas have been used to help clear up deficiency and other conditions in the body, with almost phenomenal results." Dr. Walker went on to write, "In the case of nervous afflictions resulting from the degeneration of the sheathing of the nerves, the abundant use of carrot and celery juice has helped to restore these to their normal condition and thus alleviate or remove the affliction."
The Wellsville Diet's Ladder
|Tier 1: The Very Best Foods|
|Tier 2: Good Foods|
|Vegetables:||Fruits:||Nuts And Seeds:|
Pignolias (pine nuts)
|Tier 3: Foods To Eat In Small Amounts|
|Raw Animal Products:||Game Meat:||Vegetables:|
|Tier 4: Foods To Avoid|
Nuts and Seeds
Roots and Tubers
Fasting is one of the oldest known treatments for ailments. It was mentioned both in the Bible as well as in literature predating the Bible by thousands of years. It was used in eastern medicines, such as Ayurvedic medicine, the ancient Hindu science of health and medicine, as well as early western medicine. Early proponents of fasting include Hippocrates, Galen, and Paracelsus, and the reasons given include its benefits to the body, mind and soul. Many who fast claim to reach spiritual highs or heightened clarity in thinking, or, in the words of Plato, "I fast for greater physical and mental efficiency."
In modern times, fasting has been used extensively by early Natural Hygienists such as Sylvester Graham, Herbert Shelton, who founded the How-to-Live magazine in 1928, and T.C. Fry, all of whom used fasting as the cornerstone of their healing programs.
Indeed, because fasting was known to greatly improve or eliminate such problems as anxiety, asthma, arthritis, depression, allergies, headaches, heart disease, diabetes, high cholesterol, digestive disorders, mental illness, obesity and a long list of other ailments, it was the perfect vehicle for those who championed a health-based, drug-free approach to health, such as the early Natural Hygienist.
The principle behind fasting is simple: because up to 80% of the body's energy is used up in digestion, a fast allows energy normally devoted to digestion to be diverted into metabolic repair and healing. In addition, the extra energy is also used to eliminate toxins that our body, overburdened by our modern diets, is unable to eliminate, leaving them in the body to cause problems at a later date.
Fasting is by far the fastest way to detoxify your body, but because of that, the fasting experience will be different for different individuals, and it will also vary depending on the diet of the person fasting and his condition of health, or lack thereof. Because both humans and animals encase toxins that they cannot rid through normal channels in fat, fasting, which will force the body to burn stored fat, will release toxins at an accelerated pace. Symptoms of a rapid detox can mimic those of the cold or flu, and may include fatigue, muscle soreness, and mild nausea.
Changing diets to include whole, unprocessed foods, including lots of raw fruits and vegetables and their juices, getting plenty of exercise, fresh air and sunshine, and drinking pure water will also help to detoxify the body, only at a slower rate. Because of this, it may be wise to initiate a change in diet and lifestyle and wait a reasonable time period after doing so before embarking on your first fast. This route may also be a better alternative for someone who is too weak to fast, is undernourished, or whose body is in the last stages of a serious disease, like cancer, which may make extended fasting unwise, if not impossible.
The frequency and duration of fasts vary, but it is generally accepted that, like exercise, any fasting is better than no fasting. Paul Bragg, a Life Extensionist Specialist known for his robust health and strong muscular appearance, wrote the very inspiring, The Miracle Of Fasting, in which he outlined his personal fasting program:
My daughter Patricia and I are very sincere and faithful to our fasting program. We know what it has done for us, for the members of our family, for our friends and for millions of Bragg health-conscious students around the world. Our Bragg fasting program calls for 4 longer fasts a year, along with a weekly 24 to 36 hour fast. Fasting helps cleanse and keep your body healthy. These cleansing fasts will help you live a longer, healthier and more vital life! So, my calendar calls for an early January fast. Sometimes this fast only lasts 7 days, it may run 8 days, it may run 9 days, and it may extend the full 10 days. At the beginning of each year I mark the days that I am going to fast for 7 to 10 days. You may wonder why I say 7 to 10 days. Sometimes I fast only 7 days because I feel that in that time I have accomplished the necessary house cleaning of my body. Be flexible on dates if you feel a cold coming on. Colds call for an earlier start to your fast to help cleanse out the mucus toxins. Colds indicate your body needs detoxifying and a good cleansing. A cold is Mother Nature forcing you to fast!
A fast of 3 days or longer should be conducted under ideal conditions. You should be able to rest any time you feel the toxins passing out of your body. During this time you might feel some discomfort. You should rest and relax quietly until the poisons have passed out of your body. It's best to be at peace and alone when possible. This brief period of discomfort will leave as soon as the loosened toxins have passed out through your kidneys, lungs, skin, etc.
During longer fasts don't tell others you're fasting. Why not? During a fast you must keep in mind only positive thoughts of the cleansing and the renewing miracles happening in your body. Often others are ignorant and uninformed about fasting and project negative thoughts.
Interestingly, Paul Bragg thrived on his fasting program and lived life to the fullest while doing so. Sadly, his life was cut short in his nineties in a tragic accident in which he drowned after being knocked unconscious in the water while either water skiing or surfboarding (sources vary). It is also worth noting that Jack LaLanne, also known for his robust health and daring feats of strength throughout his life, such as celebrating his seventieth birthday with a mile-long swim, in which he towed 70 rowboats filled with 70 people, was a student of Paul Bragg.
While everyone may not feel it necessary to fast on a weekly basis or for seven to ten days at a time, two to four fasts of a two to three day duration a year, accompanied by twenty-four-hour fasts throughout the year, at the individual's discretion, would be of great benefit to most Americans.
There are a few important items for those who have never fasted. It is generally considered best to start out with a few short fasts before undertaking a long fast if you have never fasted before. Also, a person who is generally healthy should be able to fast safely for a week or more, but someone with a health problem may want to find a professional to supervise even a short fast. And there are certain conditions, such as diabetes, gallbladder problems, thyroid dysfunction, and kidney problems, where fasting is not recommended or should under no circumstances be undertaken without first consulting with a professional with experience in fasting.
Since the invention on the juicer, juice fasting has become quite popular and many people use the word fast to mean a juice fast. It should be kept in mind that juice fasting is a relatively new event in fasting history and that for most of history, fasting meant water fasting. When the term fasting is used by Paul Bragg and others, it should be taken to mean water fasting.
This isn't to say that juice fasting doesn't have its place. It is generally recommend that someone who fasts to gradually decrease the heavy foods they eat and gravitate toward lighter foods and fresh vegetable and fruit juices as they head into the fast and reverse this process as they break the fast. In these instances fresh juice may be very beneficial.
It should be kept in mind, however, that part of the benefit of fasting comes from the body going into ketosis while on the fast. Ketosis means that the body, deprived of carbohydrates, turns to stored body fat to burn for its energy (which also releases ketones into the body in the process, thus the term ketosis). Since toxins are stored in body fat, it is important that the body metabolizes some of its fat for energy in order to rid the body of toxins.
A person who juice fasts is more correctly going on a juice diet, which may be very beneficial from time to time in its own right because nutrition is obtained in an easily digested form that does free up energy normally used in digestion, while still providing the body with vitamins and minerals. But regardless, fresh vegetable or fruit juice is still food, it has just been separated from its fiber, so a person who claims to be "juice fasting" is still eating and not doing a fast in the traditional sense of the term.
As a person moves from sickness into health, even though a person may experience fatigue during a fast, few things will provide the exhilaration and feelings of wellness that fasting will provide. It should be stressed, though, that too much of anything, no matter how beneficial in normal amounts, can be detrimental to your health in abnormal quantities, and there are no exceptions to this rule for fasting.
While it may be entertaining to read about individuals who supposedly go for months on end or even for a full year without eating, this isn't something that should be seriously considered. Several prominent figures in the raw-food movement, including Rev. George Malkmus and Dr. Norman Walker, are (or were) firmly against extended fasting.
There is also an segment of people who are quite cultist about fasting and elevate its abilities to mythical proportions. A person should keep a level head and understand the limitations of fasting. Even major proponents of fasting such as Hebert Shelton admitted it had limitations. Dr. Edward Howell, while noting in Enzyme Nutrition that fasting would be of great benefit to cancer patients in theory, fully acknowledged the limitations of fasting and had the foresight to take the individual's condition into account:
Earlier in this volume I explained that it is necessary to drastically tame down overly rich digestive enzyme secretions so that metabolic enzyme potency can be increased to an effective level. A complete fast reduces digestive enzyme secretion to a trickle in several days. This would enable the enzyme potential to effectively remodel any area involved in defective metabolism. But the victims of terminal cancer are poor candidates for a fast long enough to be effective.
As Dr. Norman Walker pointed out in Pure and Simple Natural Weight Control, a person who has eaten three meals a day, averages one thousand meals a year, and a person who is forty years old has consumed over 40,000 meals in their lifetime. Dr. Walker wrote:
Consider the number of years you have lived and how long it has taken you to get into the condition that you find yourself today. You did not get into this condition suddenly, overnight. No, indeed! You are today the sum total of the food you have eaten all your life, and of the lack of care and attention which you should have given to your body every day of your existence.
The fact that diseases that took years and many thousands of improper meals to develop can begin to diminish within months after a diet and lifestyle change and can begin to improve with even short fasts, points out the true miracle of the body God created for us and its resiliency. But with all the factors of age, diet, and other factors, such as drugs, alcohol, physical injury, etc., while some diseases may improve dramatically, some degree of damage done to the body may be irreversible even with a program such as the Wellsville Diet accompanied with fasting.
A reader who feels that he or she is "too far gone," though, should not despair. Dr. Norman Walker nursed himself back to health from near death in his mid-forties to early-fifties and went on to live to be 110 to 118 years old (sources vary). Even though there are other factors involved, the greatest cause of sickness is diet related, and when you remove the cause of sickness, the body will heal.
The Trophoblast Thesis Of Cancer
"In 1902, John Beard, a professor of embryology at the Universiy of Edinburgh in Scotland, authored a paper published in the British medical journal Lancet in which he stated there were no differences between cancer cells and certain pre-embryonic cells that were normal to the early stages of pregnancy," G. Edward Griffin wrote in World Without Cancer." He went on to write, "In technical terms, these normal cells are called trophoblasts. Extensive research had led Professor Beard to the conclusion that cancer and trophoblast are, in fact, one and the same." As Edward Griffin points out, this theory became known as the "trophoblast thesis of cancer."
World Without Cancer, by G. Edward Griffin, marshals the evidence that cancer is a deficiency disease like scurvy or pellagra and mainly focuses on an essential food compound, known as nitrilosides or vitamin B-17, found in great abundance in the wild, but which has been virtually eliminated from our modern diet. Some foods containing significant amounts of vitamin B-17 are wild blackberries, elderberries, macadamia nuts, apricot seeds, apple seeds, and mung sprouts. The nutrient can also be concentrated into a vitamin and is available in both pill form and as an injectable.
Vitamin B-17, also known as Laetrile, and its use in the treatment of cancer have been extremely controversial since its inception. But something interesting about World Without Cancer that is often overlooked is that using nitrilosides is in fact a second line of defense for the body in its fight against cancer a battle it wages frequently since "cancer" cells are not "foreign invaders" attacking the body, but rather part of the normal healing process. The first line of defense against cancer is pancreatic enzymes.
The trophoblast thesis championed by John Beard maintains that, as the body is damaged by everyday wear, aging, improper diet, contact with substances known to damage the body, such as tobacco or toxic chemicals, etc., the body begins to heal itself with cells, to some extent, made up of trophoblast cells. Under normal conditions, when the healing is complete, the immune system "turns off" the trophoblast cells and stops what would otherwise be an overgrowth of these cells a condition we would label cancer by the use of pancreatic enzymes.
G. Edward Griffin insightfully saw that cancer, rather than being an invasion of mutated cells, was more correctly an "over-healing" situation in the body (while even he admitted that describing it as such might be an oversimplification). This is one reason why cancer so easily evades the immune system, which would under normal conditions kill off anything foreign to the body fairly quickly. Edward Griffin wrote:
One of the characteristics of the trophoblast is that it is surrounded by a thin protein coating that carries a negative electrostatic charge. In technical terms this is called the pericellular sialomucin coat. The white blood cells also carry a negative charge. And, since like polarities repel each other, the trophoblast is well protected. The blocking factor is nothing more than a cellular electrostatic field. . . .
Part of nature's solution to this problem, as pointed out by Professor Beard in 1905, is found in ten or more pancreatic enzymes, of which trypsin and chymotrypsin are especially important in trophoblast destruction. These enzymes exist in their inactive form (as zymogens) in the pancreas gland. Only after they reach the small intestine are they converted to their active form. When these are absorbed into the blood stream and reach the trophoblast, they digest the negatively-charged protein coat. The cancer then is exposed to the attack of the white cells and it dies.
Like Laetrile, the trophoblast theory of cancer is not without some controversy. In 1990, Laetrile-researcher Robert Bradford stated that modern science had proven the trophoblast theory incorrect. But Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D., director of the The Moss Reports for cancer patients, wrote a paper entitled, "Trophoblast from the Past: New Discoveries Breathe Life into an Old Theory" in which he described two separate researchers who independently came to support the trophoblast theory based on their own research.
The first scientist Moss wrote of, Valentin I. Govallo, MD, Ph.D, director of the Laboratory of Immunology in Moscow, noticed the links between cancer and pregnancy and began developing and testing treatments based on the similarities. His initial work revolved around stimulating the immune system, but this approach was abandoned because of the treatment's high failure rate due to the tumor's ability to "block" the immune system, just as professor Beard had discovered in his own research on trophoblast cells.
Govallo's second approach, as noted by Moss, used human chorionic villi, described as a "placental extract to immunize the patient against the fetus-like cancer," in what Govallo termed as his "immuno-embryo-therapy." The treatment, unlike his first attempt, was very successful and had a 77.1% five-year-plus survival rate for patients with advanced cases of cancer. Govallo admitted, again as noted by Moss, that he did not fully even understand why his treatment was working so well.
The second researcher Moss wrote of, Dr. M. Rigdon Lentz, spent years studying cancer's ability to block the immune system and developed a machine called an UltraPheresis machine, which filters the "blocking factors" out of a cancer patients blood in a manner similar to a kidney dialysis machine. In the initial trials, the cancer tumors dissolved so rapidly that it was fatal to the patients. Ralph Moss wrote:
Lentz's published results contain many revelations about the ultimate power of the immune system, once it is deblocked, to destroy tumors. One of the most startling facts is that the first three of Lentz's terminally ill patients who died in the initial clinical trial had tumor lysis syndrome: dead cancer cells and debris that can overwhelm the liver and kidneys (J Biol Response Mod 8:511-527, 1989). Autopsies of these patients showed that "all measurable disease" had been destroyed due to "massive hemorrhagic and coagulative necrosis." Lentz learned that one must proceed slowly in harnessing such explosive anti-cancer reactions.
Speaking of Robert Bradford's comments that modern science had "undermined the trophoblastic thesis" Moss wrote, "Bradford raised many technical objections to the Beardian thesis. And indeed many questions need to be answered before this theory can be accepted as fact." But, interestingly, while the trophoblast theory of cancer may not be fully understood, those who have taken this approach in fighting cancer, even unknowingly, as the two researchers Moss wrote of, have had startling results far in excess of conventional, "science-approved" approaches in which the theories behind them are fully understood.
The Body's First Line of Defense Against Cancer
As mentioned earlier, ten or more pancreatic enzymes, of which trypsin and chymotrypsin are especially important in the body's fight against cancer. These enzymes make up the body's first line of defense against cancer. Imagine if your house is protected by its first line of defense, a tactical pump-shotgun with a laser sight, and for a backup you have placed a baseball bat in a strategic location. In the case of a break-in, which would be the more effective line of defense? The first line of defense, of course. Could that baseball bat still come in handy? You bet it could.
But modern man's diet takes a heavy toll on the pancreatic enzymes. Remember, it is estimated that up to 80 percent of the body's energy is used up in digestion, with heavily processed foods and cooked animal products, the very foods making up the bulk of the American diet, placing an unusually hard burden on the pancreas.
Philip E. Binzel, Jr., M.D., a medical doctor who fought for the use of vitamin B-17 and nutrition in treating cancer, explained in Alive And Well, One Doctor's Experience with Nutrition in the Treatment of Cancer Patients the mechanisms of the body's first line of defense:
What causes a breakdown in that defense mechanism? Suppose you have an individual who is eating large quantities of animal protein. It takes large amounts of the enzymes trypsin and chymotrypsin to digest animal protein. It is possible that this individual is using up all, or almost all, of his trypsin and chymotrypsin for digestive purposes. There is nothing left over for the rest of the body. Thus, this individual has lost his first line of defense against cancer.
The skeptic might point out that attempts to duplicate John Beard's success with fighting cancer by the use of supplemental pancreatic enzymes were unsuccessful when other researchers tried to duplicate his research. Beard's response to this criticism was that the enzymes of the time were not strong enough and the dosage prescribed too low to be effective. Indeed, pancreatic enzyme supplements usually come from animal sources, which do not work as well as enzymes produced by a human's pancreas. This approach also suffers from the "pill mentality" which afflicts both the medical and scientific communities, as well the general public, and develops when scientists believe they can isolate beneficial components and concentrate them into pill or injectable form, having them work in isolation despite the fact that nutrients rarely, if ever appear this way in nature.
Remember from the chapter in this book "Understanding Sickness," enzymes are the body's only course for true healing, and ultimately, any healing is going to be done by the body with metabolic enzymes. Dr. Edward Howell, in his book Enzyme Nutrition wrote, "The old saying that nature will cure really refers to metabolic enzyme activity, because there is no other mechanism in the body to cure anything."
The human pancreas produces both digestive and metabolic enzymes; however, if overburdened with a poor diet, it will divert more of its enzyme potential into manufacturing digestive enzymes, at the expense of the rest of the body, which needs metabolic enzymes for repair and healing. A better approach than relying on supplemental pancreatic enzymes, collected in the slaughterhouse from animal sources, would be to adopt measures which free up the pancreas to manufacture more metabolic enzymes than digestive enzymes.
Beneficial measures that will ease the burden of digestion on the pancreas include: eliminating cooked and pasteurized animal products; eating smaller, lighter meals; fasting; eating foods in their natural, raw state; and juicing fresh vegetables and fruits, which allows for them to be transformed into a form which is easily and quickly digested. In addition, some supplemental enzymes may be beneficial, also, and preferably the enzymes should be from vegetarian or vegan sources, rather than from animal sources. But again, these enzymes should be seen as supplementation to the above measures, not a shortcut to avoid the above measures.
The Body's Second Line of Defense Against Cancer
While most of World Without Cancer and Alive And Well touch only briefly on the body's first line of defense against cancer, both describe the body's second line of defense against cancer, nitrilosides or vitamin B-17, in detail. The vitamin deficiency theory of cancer was developed in the early 1950s by Dr. Ernest T. Krebs Jr., and his father of the same name, with a concentrated pill or injectable form of vitamin B-17.
The vitamin deficiency theory of cancer, as described by Edward Griffin and Dr. Binzel, states that there is a nutritional component to the cancer puzzle that serves as a backup to the pancreatic enzymes that make up the body's first line of defense against cancer. This theory is based on a compound in certain foods that contain cyanide and benzaldehyde bonded together in a manner that makes it harmless to the body under normal conditions but which is deadly to cancer. And the reason it is so deadly is because cancer contains an "unlocking" mechanism that causes the compound of cyanide and benzaldehyde to separate and become toxic, killing the cancer cell which "unlocked" the poison in the process. Dr. Binzel described the body's second line of defense against cancer in Alive and Well:
Dr. Krebs et al. found that the body has a second line of defense against this disease. This second line of defense is formed by a group of substances known as nitrilosides. The cancer cell has an enzyme, beta-glucosidase, which, when it comes in contact with nitrilosides, converts those nitrilosides into two molecules of glucose, one molecule of benzaldehyde and one molecule of hydrogen cyanide. Originally, it was thought that only the hydrogen cyanide was toxic to the cancer cell. Recent evidence has shown that, while the hydrogen cyanide may exert some toxic effect, it is the benzaldehyde that is extremely toxic to the cancer cell.
What is so significant about this is that this is a target-specific reaction. Within the body, the cancer cell and only the cancer cell contains the enzyme beta-glucosidase. Thus, the benzaldehyde and the hydrogen cyanide can be formed in the presence of the cancer cell, and only the cancer cell. Thus, they are toxic to the cancer cell and only the cancer cell. The normal cell contains the enzyme, rhodanese, which converts the nitrilosides into food.
This deficiency view of cancer maintains that many staple foods for Americans once contained fair amounts of nitrilosides but that these were eliminated as the diet changed to foods which had virtually no nitrilosides. For example, millet, which contains a medium amount of nitrilosides, was once the main grain used in bread, but was replaced by wheat, which contains no nitriolosides. Also, crossbreeding and domestication of plants reduces the amount of nitrilosides in the them. For example, domestic blackberries are a low source of nitrilosides but wild blackberries are a high source of nitrilosides or vitamin B-17. As mentioned earlier, some foods that still contain medium to high amounts of vitamin B-17 are wild blackberries, elderberries, macadamia nuts, apricot seeds, apple seeds, and mung sprouts, and this is certainly not an exhaustive list, as there are many more foods that contain nitrilosides, even though modern farming techniques have greatly reduced the amount of nitrilosides in the American diet as a whole.
Occasionally, an alarming warning is given that apple or apricot seeds contain cyanide and are toxic, but rest assured, while having a higher quantity of nitrilosides, they are as harmless as blackberries and macadamia nuts, which contains the exact same cyanide-containing compound that apple or apricot seeds contain. Remember, the cyanide is only released at the cancer cell, and as pointed out by Dr. Binzel, at any other point in the body, the enzyme rhodanese converts the nitrilosides into food.
Remember from the chapter "Understanding Sickness," one of the causes of problems in the body is nutritional deficiencies and the only way deficiency diseases scurvy or pellagra, for example are corrected is to improve the diet to the point where all the body's nutritional requirements are met, which allows the body to heal. Approaching cancer from a deficiency standpoint is logical, since there is a successful medical history of curing major diseases by bringing diet up to meet the body's nutritional requirements (as well as a history of science denying that nutritional connection right up until it became painfully obvious).
While concentrated vitamin B-17 in its pill or injectable form, also known as Laetrile, is an isolated, purified, skeletonized food nutrient, it is a vitamin which does appear to concentrate well and maintain both its health benefits and its safety, probably in part because it is an actual derivative of apricots seeds, versus being a synthetic vitamin like many of today's cheap vitamins. In general, any nutrient obtained in its natural state will be safer and better utilized by the body. However, Laetrile may certainly be an acceptable, safe approach in advanced cancer situations, when time is of the essence.
Dr. Binzel, who treated his patients with a combination of a cooked-food vegetarian diet and supplemental vitamin B-17, described an 87.3% two- to four-year-plus survival rate for those who suffered from primary cancer and an 70.4% two- to four-year-plus survival rate for those patients whose cancer had metastasized. As Dr. Binzel put it, "If you consider only those patients who have survived five years or more, this means that my results were 287% better than those reported by the American Cancer Society for the treatment of metastatic cancer by "orthodox" methods alone. Metastatic means that the cancer has spread from its location of origin to other areas of the body.
The Total Nutritional Approach to Cancer
It should be pointed out that many people have successfully used a diet low in animal protein and high in fresh vegetables and fruits to heal themselves from cancer and go on to live normal lives. These people have unknowingly stumbled on to what John Beard discovered as early as 1902 and Dr. Ernest Krebs discovered in the early 1950s.
Dr. Philip E. Binzel, Jr., for example, used a cooked-food vegetarian diet in conjunction with vitamin B-17 to obtain the excellent survival rates of the patients he wrote of in Alive And Well. Others who have successfully used diet as a treatment for cancer are Dr. Lorraine Day, M.D., who used a predominately raw food, vegan diet to heal herself of breast cancer, and Rev. George Malkmus, who healed himself nutritionally of colon cancer he was diagnosed with in 1976, going on to found the popular Hallelujah Dietsm program, which claims to heal many diseases, including cancer, using nutrition and some supplementation.
It is unclear if everyone involved in a nutritional approach to cancer even fully understood how changing diets to a more natural diet invariably increased the amount of nitrilosides consumed as well increasing a number of other vitamins and minerals missing from our normal diets of highly processed foods and cooked animal products. The diet change also eased the burden on the pancreas from manufacturing digestive enzymes, allowing it to divert more of its energy toward doing metabolic repair and healing. One person who did fully understand the enzyme process as it relates to both diet and cancer was Dr. Edward Howell.
Dr. Howell wrote in Enzyme Nutrition, "How many ailments afflict the human race? One hundred? Five hundred? One thousand? Are we more expert in breeding disease than are wild animals? Can you name even one species of wild animal afflicted with a hundred diseases? Fifty? Twenty-five? Or even one?" Edward Griffin also noticed this fact as it relates to cancer when he wrote, "It is significant that one seldom finds cancer in the carcasses of wild animals killed in the hunt. These creatures contract the disease only when they are domesticated by man and forced to eat the foods he provides or the scraps from his table."
It is worth noting that animals in the wild get a diet naturally high in nitriolosides and which contains no cooked or processed foods. This means that animals get more living foods with enzymes the living components of food intact. The lack of processed foods, combined with the higher enzyme content of their food, makes for easily digested foods which are kind to the animals' pancreases. Dr. Edward Howell, in Enzyme Nutrition, wrote of research by both himself and others that documented the size of the pancreas in domestic animals and their wild counterparts. In all cases, the pancreas of the wild animal was smaller than the pancreas of the domestic animal an indicator that the domestic animal's pancreas had to work much harder to produce digestive enzymes for the unnatural, cooked and processed foods fed to them by man.
People who adopt a predominately raw-food diet take advantage of the body's first and second lines of defense against cancer. And not only do they increase the nitrilosides in their diet but also a host of other vitamins and minerals and other nutrients that have anti-cancer properties. For example, researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, recently found that a chemical produced when digesting such greens as broccoli and kale can stifle the growth of human prostate cancer cells. Discoveries like these take place on an almost daily basis, but diet is still relegated by medical doctors to being a cancer preventative, not a treatment.
Those familiar with the three theories of healing, discussed in the chapter "Understanding Sickness," would understand why the nutritional approach to cancer would be the best approach. The two main ways in which chronic diseases have been stopped are either through metabolic enzyme activity, brought about by giving the pancreas a break from digestion so that it can divert its energy into doing bodily repair (one of the reasons fasting is one of the oldest known treatments for disease), or by meeting a nutritional requirement, which is the way vitamin deficiency diseases such as pellagra, scurvy, beriberi, rickets, and other diseases have been stopped.
Those who have survived cancer by changing to a diet low in meats and other cooked animal products and high in fresh vegetables and fruits, fresh vegetable and fruit juices, plenty of pure water, and changing their lifestyle to include exercise, fresh air, and sunshine, have unknowingly applied the body's first line of defense, as well as its second line of defense against cancer. Since this approach does use natural, safe healing methods, proven by time and history, it is small wonder that many have obtained excellent results by using this approach.
Contrast this with the conventional approach to cancer. Throughout history, no chronic disease has ever been cured by the use of chemicals, surgery, or chemotherapy and radiating the body. Edward Griffin noted this when he wrote, "Most research projects are preoccupied with exotic and toxic drugs or machines that deliver death rays to selected parts of the body. There is no counterpart for any this in nature, and it is small wonder that progress has been disappointing."
Other Important Information about Cancer
There are a couple of more important issues about cancer. One is the misconception that things "cause" cancer. While it is clear that some things cause harm to the human body, such as smoking, it should be kept in mind that it is the healing process gone awry that allows cancer to form. If the body's first and second lines of defense against cancer are working properly, cancer tumors would be impossible to form (this does not mean that damage to the body may not cause problems it just will not cause cancer). Dr. Edward Howell wrote of this fact in Enzyme Nutrition:
One after another the chemicals making up the formulas of commonly advertised remedies are being accused of causing cancer as a result of testing on laboratory rats and mice. Other chemical compounds used around the home have been tested and found to be carcinogenic (cancer-causing) and banned from the market. Cancer researchers feel they are serving society and doing their duty by this sort of detective work. But from what you have learned by studying this book, you know they are merely pointing at stimulating factors of cancer, and not the one basic cause. If the body chemistry is not afflicted by the basic cause, the hundreds of stimulating causes will be ineffective in causing cancer.
Those familiar with the three theories of healing, discussed in the chapter "Understanding Sickness," would remember that one of the healing methods was to remove any external problem toxins, radiation, smoking, etc. that could be damaging the body, allowing it to heal itself. While known or unknown "carcinogens" may not cause cancer in the sense we have been led to believe, bodily repair is an energy intensive process. Certainly someone does not want to knowingly damage his body, but someone with cancer certainly wants to avoid anything damaging to a body with a malfunctioning repair system, as well as waste energy needlessly with unnecessary repair.
One other important issue with cancer is that, since it is actually a problem with the healing process itself, any potential treatment should focus on the body's defense mechanisms and not the cancer or tumor. A body stressed with cancer attempts to seal it off, forming a lump or a tumor in the process. While it may be appropriate to remove a tumor in some cases, remember it is there because the body's healing process has gone awry. Cutting out a tumor surgically may give the patient some piece of mind, but the surgical process creates a massive trauma to the body which itself must be healed. . .in a body that is already having trouble with the healing process. Dr. Binzel wrote of this in Alive And Well:
From the time that cancer was first diagnosed (some three hundred to five hundred years ago) to the present, most members of the medical profession have treated this disease using the theory that the tumor is the disease. This theory said that, if you can remove the tumor or destroy the tumor, you will cure the disease. Drs. Krebs, Burk, Nieper, and others said in essence, "Wrong!" These men had seen thousands of cancer patients die. They realized that ninety-five per cent of these patients had their tumors treated with surgery, and/or radiation, and/or chemotherapy. It was obvious to them that, if removing the tumor or destroying the tumor cured the disease, ninety-five percent of these people would be alive and well. It was, therefore, equally obvious to them that removing the tumor or destroying the tumor did not cure the disease. This meant, of course, that the tumor was not the cause of the disease but was merely a symptom of the disease.
Dr. Binzel, in a later chapter, outlined the times in which he was concerned about removing tumors:
If the tumor, because of its size or position, is interfering with some vital function, you have to deal with the tumor by whatever means are best available.
If the tumor, because of its size or position, is causing pain, you have to deal with the tumor by whatever means are available.
If the presence of the tumor presents a psychological problem for the patient, have it removed.
Regarding this same issue, Edward Griffin commented, "Orthodox medicine, on the other hand, is totally focused on the tumor. To most oncologists, the tumor is the cancer. If they remove it surgically or burn it away, they happily announce to the patient: "Good news. We got it all!" And indeed, no matter what condition the cancer patient is left in, no matter how poor the quality of life from that point on, no matter how horrific the treatment, and even if the patient dies shortly thereafter, as long as the tumor has been shrunken by use of poison or radiation, or surgically removed, the treatment is considered a success.
One last item of importance with cancer is the attitude and determination of the cancer patient. Remember, cancer is the end result of a process that took many years of a body being stressed out by improper meals and unhealthy living. In our fast-paced nation we expect doctors to cure our problems almost instantly, but a problem such as cancer that took many years to develop is going to take time for a full recovery. During the time of regaining health, attitude is extremely important. As Dr. Edward Howell points out, "Even in terminal cancer patients whose tissues have been abused and damaged, the desire to forge ahead can make the difference between success and failure."
Christianity Or The Cults?
When the Texas-based publication, The Baptist Standard, published an article on the predominately raw food, vegan Hallelujah Dietsm, letters to the editor decried The Baptist Standard for promoting New Age philosophy. Rev. George Malkmus, the creator of the Hallelujah Dietsm, answers this criticism by asserting that those in the New Age movement are simply using a diet that God Himself instituted in the Bible (Genesis 1:29), and that the New Agers are healthy because of it, just like Christians would be if they followed the diet.
But nonetheless this issue should be expounded on, as it contains a frequent criticism of the raw food movement and other important health-related issues. Admittedly, those involved in a health-based approach to healing are an eclectic group of people and to say they cover a broad range of the religious spectrum is an understatement.
The main question on this: Is it unchristian for a Christian to participate in something simply because there are some fringe elements of society involved in its promotion? Since the origin of the vegan movement is Biblical Genesis 1:29 "Then God said, 'Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you.'" it is not unchristian to participate in it simply because it has been hijacked by the cults. Furthermore, it is not biblical to say that eating meat is a sin, however, since God did introduce meat into our diet at a later date in the Bible (Gen 9:2-4). Eating meat should be treated as a health issue, not a moral issue.
Invariably someone investigating the raw-food and natural-healing movements is going to find it intersecting with Eastern philosophy at some point. For example, Dr. Norman Walker, a Christian who promoted the eating of natural, raw food, also practiced foot reflexology a practice related to acupuncture that can be traced back to Eastern medicine. Another example of this intersection of traditional Christian and Eastern ideas is the YMCA, which promotes itself as a Christian organization, yet offers classes in yoga and Tai Chi, both of which are easily traced back to Eastern origins.
If a Christian believes it is wrong to participate in these practices simply because of their unchristian origins, he commits what is known as a genetic fallacy. This error happens when someone is arguing to dismiss an idea simply because of where it originated. However, as B.J. Oropeza commented in an article for the Christian Research Institute, "If we were consistent in applying this kind of logic, we should also abandon astronomy because its roots are in the practice of astrology."
While alternative medicine may owe a great deal to Eastern medicine, the Easterners actually owe a great deal to God the Creator whether they realize or acknowledge Him. The fundamental problem with Eastern medicine for Christians is its concept of "chi," which is also sometimes referred to as a "life force." The New Age, metaphysical terms "Innate Intelligence" or "God Within" are also related to chi in concept. Chi is considered an invisible energy that runs through everything in the universe, including the body, and Eastern medicine teaches that this energy can be "tapped into" for health benefits.
While it may be possible, such as is the case with martial arts or yoga, to practice just the physical aspects and totally reject the spiritual aspects of these practices, keep in mind that whether it be purely physical or purely spiritual, chi applies equally to both for those who espouse Eastern philosophy. In general, orthodox Christianity considers chi to be unbiblical at best and cultic or demonic at worst. Elliot Miller, writing on the "chi" involved with meridian therapy (e.g., acupuncture, acupressure), Applied Kinesiology, homeopathy, reflexology, polarity therapy, Therapeutic Touch, and (at least in its original theory) chiropractic, for an article for the Christian Research Institute, wrote:
While bioenergy has resisted the scrutiny of hard science, it is not difficult to classify it in terms of the sociological setting in which it has historically appeared: it is a fundamental feature of spiritistic paganism. Parapsychologist Thelma Moss, who has extensively researched healing energies, provides a few examples: Is there a common thread that can be discerned through these various phenomena of healing? I believe so. The Hindus call it prana, the Hawaiians mana, the Chinese chi, and Hippocrates called it the heat oozing out of my hand. Mesmer animal magnetism, and Quimby mind force. I believe they were all referring to the same invisible energy.
Wherever it has appeared in ancient paganism, modern occultism, or parapsychological research this life force has been accompanied by altered states of consciousness, psychic phenomena, and contact with spirits. Additionally, those who are capable of perceiving, and adept at manipulating, this force invariably are shamans (e.g., witch doctors), sensitives, or psychics, thoroughly immersed in the pagan/occult world.
What Mr. Miller failed to point out, however, is that while some methods of healing have failed the scrutiny of science, these methods of healing, at least to some extent, have been practiced successfully in totally secular environments which did not involve shamans, psychics, or witch doctors. Chiropractic, for example, was founded by Dr. Daniel David Palmer, who considered himself a "Magnetic Healer," which is a cross-between massage and meridian therapies (related to acupuncture and Chinese medicine), but a very large percentage of chiropractic doctors approach their practice from a purely physical aspect and offer good results in the process.
The Chinese spent a great deal of time studying the effects of herbs and mapping out physical nerve paths in the body. Rather than seeing this as part of Eastern philosophy, another option here is that it was a purely secular science onto which the Chinese built a religious system. Therefore, rather than automatically being demonic or pagan, it could be that some practices do run counter to Christian beliefs and others are simply medicine practiced in the name of false philosophy and counterfeit religion. And for a Christian, the latter issue could be somewhat analogous to the issue of a Christian eating meat that had been offered to idols, which is considered acceptable for Christians as long as it does not cause a weaker brother to fall (1 Cor 8:1-13).
For those unfamiliar with this issue, meat offered to idols encompassed most of the meat sold at market for the Christians of Corinth to eat. Some Christians ate freely of the meat, while others abstained because they thought to eat meat offered to idols would involve them in pagan rituals the debate over the issue between the two groups was becoming heated and divisive. In his letter to the Corinthians addressing the matter, the Apostle Paul's opinion was basically, "Meat offered to these make-believe gods has no effect on you. You are free to eat this meat." Paule went on to say, again paraphrased, "However, do not allow your freedom to become a stumbling block for other, younger and weaker brothers and sisters."
In general, the therapies that seem acceptable for Christians should be ones that involve specific nerve energy paths, such as foot reflexology and other "zone" or meridian therapies. Despite the fact that those who practice Eastern medicine would call this energy "chi," it is a physical therapy, as any doctor of chiropractic could attest to. The therapies that should be avoided by Christians are ones that involve any type of "energy" that comes from outside the body, such as shamans who claim to be "harnessing" energy from the universe. Also problematic for Christians is the practice of meditation, or clearing the mind of all thought, usually with the goal of reaching an "altered state" of consciousness.
The issue of causing a weaker Christian to be led astray is a real issue. For example, Yoga Journal magazine offers several excellent sections on the medical benefits of physical stretching and also offers good information on the medicinal uses of herbs, but the rest of the magazine offers Eastern and New Age philosophy and questionable advertising at every turn of the page. It would be wise, even though the physical aspects of yoga could benefit a person, not to give the magazine as a gift to someone who may be led astray by doing so.
The Christian Research Institute recommends "Christians not to go to holistic healers, even in such widely-accepted and sometimes innocuous practices as chiropractic, without first inquiring as to their beliefs and practices." While this is something more Christians should consider, be it for a health practitioner or a car mechanic, why is there no call to also inquire of the beliefs of AMA-approved medical doctors? The implication is that unbelieving medical doctors, who prescribe drugs, including dangerous drugs such as Prozac, Ritalin and other mood-altering drugs with little or no provocation are fine since they have passed the test of "hard" science, but if a doctor of chiropractic holds to an unbiblical belief system, a Christian's salvation suddenly comes into jeopardy? However, ungodliness is ungodliness, no matter the umbrella.
Isn't it also interesting that the standard used by Christians in a position of authority to judge non-conventional fields of medicine is whether or not these fields have been accepted by science, which itself is often at odds with Christian beliefs. Western medicine, which long ago abandoned its creed of "First do no harm," instead worships at the alter of money, employing ungodly but lucrative methods of health "care," including surgery, poisonous medications, and radiation, in place of much safer, less invasive forms of treatment that are not as profitable.
And even if the above examples of ungodliness in orthodox medicine could somehow be reconciled with Christianity, there are still many unbiblical facets to it. For example, there is nothing Christian about its alliance with socialistic state and federal governments, which it uses to unfairly discriminate against alternatives in health care; to force vaccination programs onto the unwilling; to force treatments onto minors over the objections of their parents; to use its monopoly standing to maintain artificially high prices; and to attempt to regulate vitamins and supplements in an attempt to eliminate competition. Remember also, it was secular science which gave us the the unchristian theory of evolution and which uses the same godless worldview to justify abortion.
In reality, a Christian would be much more blessed to have effective foot reflexology done on him by an unchristian doctor than to visit a so-called Christian medical doctor who elevates profit over safety to the point that it has become pure idolatry. Which of the two doctors would be honoring God and His creative work? But a Christian would be even more blessed to find a Christian doctor like Dr. Norman Walker or Dr. Lorraine Day, who employ natural healing methods that helps the body heal itself, just as God designed it to do.
Before Christians take a hard-line stance against everything Eastern, consider the practices of yoga and fasting. The testimony from those who water-fast and those who practice yoga could almost be interchangeable. Both claim medical benefits that so-called "hard" science have rejected. Both claim spiritual benefits also immeasurable by science. Both have been traced back to Ayurvedic medicine, the ancient Hindu science of health and medicine, with fasting being mentioned in ancient Hindu texts that predate written manuscripts of our Bible by thousands of years. Had fasting not been mentioned favorably in the Bible itself, it almost certainly would be identified by orthodox Christianity today as originating from false religions or regarded as New Age movement pseudo-science.
In the end, these issues should be tested against scripture, just as all issues should be, to discern right from wrong and avoid deception (2 Timothy 3:16-17), with certain medical practices evaluated on a case by case basis, rather than with blanketed rejection of entire fields of health care simply because of their origin.
Copyright 2004, Jay Banks