Don’t buy this…it’s poison.

Posted by: admin  /  Category: Food, Health
I’ve been constantly upset by the blatant lies published daily by this company regarding the nutrional value of their product. Millions of people every day are buying this product and feeding it to their family believing that they are feeding them a nutritious product. when in reality it’s the opposite in fact it’s downright toxic.
The product is Nutella the chocolate and hazelnut spread.
What the advertising says is that it’s easy and quick to provide a nutritious breakfast by spreading an ounce or two of Nutella onto a slice of toast.
The advertising claims their product is simply hazelnuts and cocoa powder, if you care to do a little research you’ll  find the first ingredient in Nutella is Sugar, in fact 53% of every 100 grams is sugar.
Sugar is by far the most toxic natural food on earth.

As for its nutritious qualities, let’s be honest: Nutella has the basic nutrition profile of chocolate frosting with slightly more protein. (Chocolate frosting has 1 gram of protein; Nutella has 3 grams, thanks to its hazelnuts and skim milk.)

So, is chocolate frosting healthy for breakfast? Of course not. Two tablespoons of Nutella contains the equivalent of five teaspoons of sugar. That’s very high.

But even the Nutella website says it should be “used in moderation with complementary foods.” A tablespoon spread on a slice of high-fiber whole grain bread accompanied by fresh fruit and a glass of milk or some yoghurt is not going to get you arrested by the nutrition police.

To put it clearly, Nutella is dangerous, it’s toxic and should be avoided at all cost’s.

Get enough healthy fats in your diet…

Posted by: admin  /  Category: Food, Health


7 “FATTY” Foods that Can Help You to Get a Flat Stomach (some of these will surprise you!)

Healthy fats

7 “FATTY” Foods that Can Help You to Get a Flat Stomach (some of these will surprise you!)

These 7 shocking Fatty (but healthy) super-foods can actually help you to burn body fat faster!

By Mike Geary, Certified Personal Trainer, Certified Nutrition Specialist
Author of the best-seller — The Truth about Six Pack Abs

At this point, the anti-fat propaganda has died and almost everybody understands by now that eating fat doesn’t necessarily make you fat. In fact, it’s absolutely imperative to get enough healthy fats in your diet to keep your hormones balanced, blood sugar under control, and prevent cravings. Here are 7 examples of “fatty” foods that can actually HELP you to get lean…

1. Super Dark Chocolate (at least 72% cacao content or higher) – It might not be a secret anymore, but yes, dark chocolate (NOT milk chocolate) can be a very healthy food, even though it is technically calorie dense.

However, I would contend that dark chocolate can actually HELP you to burn off more body fat if you’re the type of person that has a sweet tooth and likes to eat a lot of desserts. In this case, just 1 or 2 small squares of dark chocolate can many times satisfy your sweet tooth for only 30 or 40 calories as opposed to 500 calories for a piece of chocolate cake or a piece of pie.

Also some brands of dark chocolate that are in the mid 70’s in % cacao content or higher, can have a fairly high ratio of fiber content (I’ve seen some brands have 5 grams of fiber out of 15 grams of total carbs per serving), and relatively low sugar content compared to the amount of healthy fats. In fact, that’s one of the “tricks” I use to select a good quality chocolate… I look for more total fat than total carbs (or about the same number of grams of each).

The importance of that fact is that it means many dark chocolates will not greatly affect your blood sugar and will have a fairly blunted blood sugar response compared to other “sweets”.

In addition, dark chocolate is also very rich in healthful antioxidants, including a powerful compound called theobromine which has been shown to help lower blood pressure and have other health benefits. The fat content in a good dark chocolate should come solely from the natural healthy fats occurring in cocoa butter and not from any other added fats. Any chocolates with added fats or other additives will generally not be as healthy.

The reason I say to choose dark chocolates with at least 72% cacao content is that the higher the % of cacao, the lower the % of sugar. However, this does mean that any chocolate over 80% cacao content will generally start to get a more bitter taste and have very little sweetness. If you like this type of taste, then the higher % cocao, the better. Otherwise, a good 75% dark chocolate is in my opinion an almost perfect combination of lightly sweet with a rich chocolate taste. Just remember to keep those daily quantities of chocolate small as it is calorie dense!

You can also reap the benefits of the antioxidants and fiber without all of the calories by using organic unsweetened cocoa powder in your smoothies or other recipes.

2. Coconut milk, coconut flour, and coconut oil — Coconut milk and oil are great sources of a super healthy type of saturated fat called medium chain triglycerides (MCTs), including a component called lauric acid, which is a powerful nutrient for your immune system, and is lacking in most western diets. In addition, MCTs are readily used for energy by the body and less likely to be stored as body fat compared to other types of fats.

Along with coconut milk and coconut oil as healthy fat choices, we’ve also got coconut flour as a healthier flour option for baking. Coconut flour is an extremely high fiber flour alternative (almost ALL of the carbs in this flour are fiber and not starch!). Coconut flour is also VERY high in protein compared to most flours and is also gluten free!

Just beware that if you’re going to use coconut flour for baking, it absolutely NEEDS to be mixed with other flours as it sucks up moisture like crazy… I’ve made delicious baked goods by mixing coconut flour with almond flour and quinoa flour in equal parts, and adding slightly more liquid ingredients than the recipe calls for.

3. Grass-fed (pasture-raised) butter — yes, delicious smooth and rich BUTTER (real butter, not deadly margarine!)… It’s delicious, contains loads of healthy nutritional factors, and does NOT have to be avoided in order to get lean. In fact, I eat a couple pats of grass-fed butter daily and maintain single digit body fat most times of the year.

There’s a lot of confusion about this topic… in fact, I just saw a TV show today that was talking about unhealthy foods and one of the first things they showed was butter. It just shows that the majority of the population has zero idea that butter (grass-fed only!) can actually be a healthy part of your diet.

In fact, there’s even ample evidence that REAL butter can even help you to lose body fat for a couple of main reasons:

a. Grass-fed butter is known to have high levels of a healthy fat called CLA, which has been shown to have anti-cancer properties, and also has been shown to help burn abdominal fat and build lean muscle.

b. Grass-fed butter also has an ideal balance of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids (unlike conventional grain-fed butter) which helps fight inflammation in your body, and can help balance hormones.

c. The healthy fats in grass-fed butter also contain MCTs, which help to boost your immune system and are readily burned by the body for energy. The healthy fats in grass-fed butter also help to satisfy your appetite and control blood sugar levels, both of which help you to stay lean!

If you have a hard time finding a grass-fed butter at your grocery store, Kerrygold Irish butter is one of my favorites, and even though the label doesn’t clearly state “grass-fed”, the cows are 100% grass-fed on lush green pastures in Ireland. It’s one of the richest butters in color that I’ve seen, which indicates high levels of carotenoids.

4. Whole Eggs, including the yolk (not just egg whites) — Most people know that eggs are one of the highest quality sources of protein. However, most people don’t know that the egg yolks are the healthiest part of the egg… that’s where almost all of the vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants (such as lutein) are found in eggs.

In fact, the egg yolks contain more than 90% of the calcium, iron, phosphorus, zinc, thiamin, B6, folate, and B12, and panthothenic acid of the egg. In addition, the yolks contain ALL of the fat soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K in the egg, as well as ALL of the essential fatty acids. Also, the protein of whole eggs is more bio-available than egg whites alone due to a more balanced amino acid profile that the yolks help to build.

Just make sure to choose free-range organic eggs instead of normal grocery store eggs. Similar to the grass-fed beef scenerio, the nutrient content of the eggs and the balance between healthy omega-3 fatty acids and inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids (in excess) is controlled by the diet of the hens.

Chickens that are allowed to roam free outside and eat a more natural diet will give you healthier, more nutrient-rich eggs with a healthier fat balance compared with your typical grocery store eggs (that came from chickens fed nothing but soy and corn and crowded inside “egg factories” all day long).

5. Grass-fed beef or bison (NOT the typical grocery store beef!) — I know most people think that red meat is unhealthy for you, but that’s because they do not understand how the health of the animal affects how healthy the meat is for consumption. Keep this in mind — “an unhealthy animal provides unhealthy meat, but a healthy animal provides healthy meat”.

Typical beef or bison that you see at the grocery store is raised on grains, mainly corn (and to some extent,

soybeans). Soy and corn are NOT the natural diet of cattle or bison, and therefore changes the chemical balance of fats and other nutrients in the beef or bison. Grain-fed beef and bison is typically WAY too high in omega-6 fats and WAY too low in omega-3 fats. In addition, the practice of feeding cattle corn and soy as the main portion of their diet upsets their digestive system and makes them sick… and it also increases the amount of dangerous e-coli in the meat. This is not the case with grass-fed meat.

On the other hand, grass-fed beef from cattle and buffalo (or bison) that were raised on the type of natural foods that they were meant to eat in nature (grass and other forage), have much higher levels of healthy omega-3 fats and lower levels of inflammatory omega-6 fats (that most people already eat way too much of) compared to grain fed beef or bison.

Grass fed meats also typically contain up to 3 times the Vitamin E as in grain fed meats.

In addition, grass-fed meat from healthy cattle or bison also contain a special healthy fat called conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) in MUCH higher levels than grain-fed meat. CLA has been proven in scientific studies in recent years to help in burning fat and building lean muscle (which can help you lose weight!). These benefits are on top of the fact that grass-fed meats are some of the highest quality proteins that you can possibly eat… and this also aids in burning fat and building lean muscle.

Grass-fed meats are a little harder to find, but just ask your butcher or find a specialty grocery store and they usually have cuts available. I’ve also found a great site to order grass-fed meats online and have gotten to know the owner of this company well, and they are dedicated to the quality of their foods.
6. Avocados — Even though avocados are typically thought of as a “fatty food”, they are chock full of healthy fats! Not only is this fruit (yes, surprisingly, avocados are actually a fruit) super-high in monounsaturated fat, but also chock full of vitamins, minerals, micro-nutrients, and antioxidants.

Also, in my opinion, guacamole (mashed avocados with garlic, onion, tomato, pepper, etc) is one of the most delicious food toppings ever created, and you can be happy to know that it’s also one of the healthiest toppings you can use on your foods. Try sliced avocados or guacamole on sandwiches, burgers, eggs or omelets, on salads or with fish, or as a delicious side to just about any meal.

The quality dose of healthy fats, fiber, and micronutrients that you get from avocados helps your body to maintain proper levels of hormones that help with fat loss and muscle building. Also, since avocados are an extremely satiating food, eating them helps to reduce your appetite in the hours after your meal. Say goodbye to junk food cravings and bring on that fat burning! I personally eat anywhere from a half to a full avocado DAILY and it only helps to keep me lean.
7. Nuts: Walnuts, Almonds, Pistachios, Pecans, Brazil Nuts, Macadamias, etc — Yes, this is yet another “fatty food” that can actually help you burn belly fat! Although nuts are generally between 75-90% fat in terms of a ratio of fat calories to total calories, this is another type of food that is all healthy fats, along with high levels of micronutrients such as vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants. Nuts are also a good source of fiber and protein, which of course, you know helps to control blood sugar and can aid in fat loss.

Nuts also help to maintain good levels of fat burning hormones in your body (adequate healthy fat intake is vitally important to hormone balance) as well as helping to control appetite and cravings so that you essentially eat less calories overall, even though you’re consuming a high-fat food. My favorite healthy nuts are pecans, pistachios, almonds, macadamias, and walnuts, and by eating them in variety, you help to broaden the types of vitamins and minerals and also the balance of polyunsaturated to monounsaturated fats you obtain.

Try to find raw nuts instead of roasted nuts if you can, as it helps to maintain the quality and nutritional content of the healthy fats that you will eat.

Also, try to broaden your horizons beyond the typical peanut butter that most people eat, and try almond butter, cashew butter, pecan butter, or macadamia butter to add variety to your diet.

One of the little “tricks” that I’ve used with clients when trying to cut down body fat is to have them eat a handful of nuts such as almonds or pecans about 20 minutes before lunch and dinner. This ends up being a perfect time to control your appetite before lunch or dinner and helps you to eat less overall calories on that meal.

A brain toxin in most vaccines..

Posted by: admin  /  Category: Health


Aluminum is a potent neurotoxin…

By Dr. Mercola

When it comes to vaccine safety, much of the talk about adjuvants — agents that stimulate your immune system to increase immunologic response to the vaccine — has centered around thimerosal (mercury). But a different adjuvant, aluminum — which is a demonstrated neurotoxin commonly given to children through multiple vaccines — has been largely ignored, even though it can induce serious disorders in humans that may even exceed the toxicity of mercury..

According to a new study published in Current Medical Chemistry, children up to 6 months of age receive 14.7 to 49 times more aluminum from vaccines than the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety limits allow.

Aluminum Has Replaced Mercury in Many Vaccines

Mercury (thimerosal) exposure from vaccines has declined significantly since it was eliminated from the single-dose vials of most childhood vaccines. However, while mercury use has decreased, the use of aluminum additives has increased! Many vaccines contain aluminum, including those in the table below. This is NOT an all-inclusive list, however. Your best bet if you’re wondering about a specific vaccine is to read through the package insert of each vaccine in question.

Hepatitis A

Hepatitis B

DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis)

Hib vaccine

Pneumococcal vaccine

Gardasil (HPV vaccine)

Like other adjuvants, aluminum is added to the vaccine in order to boost your immune response to the antigen. The antigen is what your body responds to and makes antibodies against (the virus being injected). By boosting your body’s immune response, the vaccine manufacturer can use a smaller amount of antigen, which makes production less expensive.

Interestingly enough, according to Dr. David Ayoub, a radiologist and physician who has become a specialist on the additives and preservatives used in vaccines, even our modern medical literature admits that exactly how this happens is still a mystery. And it’s not a consistent finding either. In our interview last year he mentioned a couple of studies on the more recent HPV vaccine, which found that the aluminum adjuvant had no effect at all on immune response. So it could be that adding aluminum to vaccines is not having the intended effect at all … but rather is causing unforeseen, and potentially devastating, consequences.

Aluminum is a Brain Toxin

Aluminum is found in the earth’s crust, and in air, soil and water. However, although aluminum is a common, “natural” substance, it’s important to realize that it has absolutely no biological role inside your body and is, in fact, a demonstrated neurotoxin.

As researchers wrote in Current Medicinal Chemistry:

“Experimental research … clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.”

There is overwhelming evidence that chronic immune activation in your brain is a major cause of damage in numerous degenerative brain disorders, such as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s and ALS, which may explain the link between aluminum-containing vaccines and these diseases.

When you or your child is injected with a vaccine, the aluminum compounds it contains accumulate not only at the site of injection but travel to your brain and accumulate there. In your brain, aluminum enters neurons and glial cells (astrocytes and microglia). Studies have shown that aluminum can activate microglia and do so for long periods, which means that the aluminum in your vaccination is priming your microglia to overreact.

Even a study in Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, admitted that:

“Aluminum is now being implicated as interfering with a variety of cellular and metabolic processes in the nervous system and in other tissues.”

Aluminum is not only toxic in and of itself, but it also impairs your body’s ability to excrete mercury, and it impairs glutathione synthesis. As a consequence, aluminum will make whatever amount of mercury you have in your system — from eating seafood, dental fillings, vaccines, etc. — even more toxic. The problem, of course, is that U.S. regulators have once again thrown the precautionary principle to the wind, and have allowed this known poison to be injected into our children without proper safety and toxicity testing.

Researchers continue in Current Medicinal Chemistry:

“Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds … We hope that the present paper will provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly contentious medical issue.”

Which Vaccine Contains the Most Aluminum?

According to the FDA, the maximum amount of allowable elemental aluminum is 850 mcg per vaccine. How was this limit determined? When Dr. Ayoub investigated the FDA regulations on aluminum, he discovered that the limitation of 850 mcg per vaccine is based on the effectiveness of the adjuvant and has nothing to do with limitations based on safety! So although 850 mcg of aluminum may be “legally” safe in a vaccine, this is based solely on the efficacy of the vaccine, NOT on any safety data whatsoever.

With that in mind, Dr. Ayoub has identified one vaccine in particular as being one of the absolute worst in terms of aluminum content — Pediatrix. It’s a combination vaccine, which contains the full legal limit: 850 mcg of elemental aluminum.

The average aluminum content per vaccine ranges between 200 to 400 mcg, but if your child receives multiple vaccines at one time, which is common, the dose will rise much higher. Based on the number of vaccines given, children today are receiving 17 shots that contain aluminum, compared to four vaccines in the 1970s into the mid-80s. According to Dr. Ayoub’s calculations, the milligram dose of aluminum received has more than doubled in that time.

How Do You Get Rid of Aluminum?

This is not an easy metal to eliminate but some preliminary evidence suggests that have enough sulfur in your body is essential. This is partially related to the fact that sulfur is essential for glutathione, which is a powerful intracellular detoxifier that your body produces. Although you can take supplemental glutathione it is not recommended as it is far inferior to your body’s own glutathione and costs much more.

As this point it is unclear to me if supplemental sulfur like MSM would be beneficial as I am in the process of doing comprehensive literature reviews on this topic. So my current recommendation is to optimize your sulfur intake through dietary sources. Onions and garlic are good if they are grown in sulfur replete soils but most soils are actually deficient in sulfur. So animal-based proteins seem to be one of your best bets. Whey protein concentrate is particularly high in cysteine, one of the two sulfur-bearing amino acids that is a direct precursor to glutathione.

Please note that if you avoid animal proteins it is VERY easy to become sulfur deficient and this may be one of the most significant risk factors for choosing an animal protein free diet.

Tips for Making Informed Vaccine Choices

It is up to you whether you want to avoid aluminum-containing vaccines, but if you do decide to use them for yourself or your child, you may want to separate aluminum-containing vaccines by 2-4 weeks, and only take single formulas/shots.

For more information, I strongly urge you to listen to the above interview with Dr. Ayoub in its entirely to learn more about the dangers of this common vaccine adjuvant. You can also read Aluminum in Vaccines — a Neurological Gamble, an e-book by Neil Miller, director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute, which documents many of the hazards associated with aluminum-laden vaccines.

Clearly, aluminum stands poised to take over mercury as one of the worst offenders against health, but remember this too is only one aspect of vaccination to consider. Before making a decision on vaccinating your children against anything, I strongly urge you to review ALL the side effects and risks involved. Making this effort could make a tremendous difference in the health of your child.

Remember: Vaccines can cause serious health problems including brain inflammation and autoimmune disorders, allergies, ear infections, and more

There’s a very real association between vaccine complications and learning and behavioral disorders in children

The components of vaccines, and the combination of vaccines administered together in the CDC’s official schedule, have never been proven safe

The ingredients and contaminants in vaccines can be detrimental to your health

For more information, I encourage you to get involved with the work that the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is doing to protect your right to choose which vaccines you want your children to receive, including the legal right to use all, some or no vaccines at all.

Reasons to love Himalayan salt…

Posted by: admin  /  Category: Health



Salt is an essential nutrient that our bodies require for transporting nutrients into and out of our cells, regulating blood pressure, exchanging ions and much more. However, not all salts are equal. Table salt, which has been stripped of all its minerals except sodium and chloride, for instance, will not have the same positive biological impact upon our bodies as pure, unrefined salt that boasts a robust mineral profile.

One of the most nutritious and “complete” salts we can purchase today is Himalayan salt, a salt that has been formed over millions of years in the Himalayas and which contains so many macrominerals and trace minerals that it is actually pink in color. In this article, you’ll learn more about the health benefits of Himalayan salt and how it can help transform even the blandest of meals into a powerhouse of nutrition.

Reasons to love Himalayan salt

Rich in minerals – Himalayan salt’s biggest draw, of course, is its dense concentration of minerals. According to a spectral analysis provided by The Meadow, Himalayan salt contains 84 minerals, electrolytes and elements – a staggering number considering that only 118 elements are known to science. For this reason, adding more Himalayan salt to your diet can help rectify virtually any mineral deficiency you might have. Significantly, Himalayan salt contains iodine, magnesium, zinc, iron and calcium – the five minerals in which the United States population are most deficient. Widespread iodine deficiencies (largely blamed on ongoing soil erosion) is an especially serious issue, since iodine plays an essential role in the functioning of the metabolism-controlling thyroid gland. If you add more Himalayan salt to your food, however, you won’t need to worry about an iodine deficiency ever again.

Sodium content – Unsurprisingly, one of the minerals in which Himalayan salt is richest is sodium. Though sodium suffers from a bad reputation due to its connection with processed foods, real, unprocessed sodium is needed by our bodies. It helps regulate blood volume and thus blood pressure, but also helps control muscle contractions, heart functions and nerve transmissions. The recommended daily intake (RDI) of sodium is between 1,500-2,300 milligrams for men and women between the ages of 9-50; one teaspoon of Himalayan salt contains approximately 400 milligrams of it.

Detoxification – Though it is traditionally eaten with food, Himalayan salt’s impressive mineral profile also lends it well to external detoxification. For example, you can’t find a better salt than Himalayan salt in which to bathe; its minerals and negative ions easily penetrate the skin, producing a cleansing and detoxifying effect that can leave your skin and mind feeling rejuvenated and invigorated for hours thereafter. Likewise, Himalayan salt has a positive effect on our air. It’s not a coincidence that virtually all reputable salt lamps are made using Himalayan salt rather than table salt or sea salt; its negative ions bind themselves to positive ions in the air, neutralizing it and ridding it of pollutants.

Purchasing advice

Himalayan salt can be purchased in health food stores or online, and is usually sold as fine or coarse grains. Fine-grained Himalayan salt is recommend, since the small, unobtrusive crystals are far easier to incorporate into most meals. When purchasing your salt, remember to check that it is pink in color; this indicates that the salt is dense in minerals.

Sources for this article include:

About the author:
Michael Ravensthorpe is an independent writer whose research interests include nutrition, alternative medicine, and bushcraft. He is the creator of the website, Spiritfoods, through which he promotes the world’s healthiest foods.


The always open gateway to your body…

Posted by: admin  /  Category: Health

Toxicity of dentistry…

Quite often the source of a health challenge would be right in front of you, or as Dr Huggins would say…Right under your nose. Yes in your mouth, or more specifically, your teeth.

After working with Dr Huggins for more than three years and reading some very notable and knowledgeable authors like Dr Hal Huggins, Dr Thomas E Levy, Dr George Meinig and of course the original master, Dr Weston A Price. I feel confident in my understanding and experience; however I will never recommend, or prescribe a product or procedure based on you telling me of your illness or disease, because I’m not qualified to do that. However I will share my experience and knowledge and if you have results similar to the thousands of others I’ve talked with then I’m sure you’ll be happy.

As mentioned earlier, your blood can tell you so much about what is happening in your body, At Huggins Applied Healing we would look at a blood test, this test was quite comprehensive and would indicate several things to us. The test would be a Blood profile and CBC with a manual differential.

Now I have to make that statement very clear, myself or Carolyn being the most experienced in the company at the time were not the ones making assessments, judgments or recommendations on what was happening in a client’s blood. No, this was only done by a computer program which had been created based on Dr Huggins work. This was the Huggins Recovery Program or as it was later known, The Assist Program.

However, Carolyn and I would look at the program results and over the years became very knowledgeable and experienced in understanding what was happening in the blood.

The Blood profile and CBC with manual differential consisted of 35 components, ranging from Calcium and Phosphorus right down to the red and white cells plus the five components of each.

As I mentioned earlier the blood is very complex, not just some red stuff that flows through your veins.

Components of the blood such as Bilirubin, AST, ALT and LDH will provide an indication as to what is happening in your liver, every component in the blood is affected by the others, so correcting one area will affect another area. So when you see your doctor who tells you are a little run down and suggests taking an iron tonic please understand that although it will increase the red blood cells it won’t necessarily improve the effectiveness to carry oxygen (oxyhemeglobin) to the areas of your body crying out for help.

This is why the Recovery program is so effective; it will look at all areas of your blood and address each of the deficiencies or surpluses as they relate to each other.

The Assist program is available from Dr Huggins office, the cost as of April 2011 was $765.00. As with any program based on your specific blood you will have to pay for the blood draw which can vary from lab to lab. My recommendation would be to join Life Extension; the cost of joining is around $75.00 per annum. You can then have the blood test at a very reasonable price,

The number to contact Life Extension on is 1-800 208 3444

The next paragraph is directly from the work of Dr Huggins, I felt that this would be a valuable addition to this book.

When a healthy body is challenged with a toxin or antigen, what happens to the white blood cells? They increase in order to defend the body and reestablish its homeostasis. If the toxins do not go away, what does the healthy body do? It increases the defense team. That means that it brings on additional white blood cells.. In the case of mercury escaping from a filling, the questions becomes how many white blood cells does it take to remove all the mercury coming out of it? The answer should be billions and billions, if it were indeed possible. The real answer is that white blood cells cannot remove all the mercury coming from the filling, but they fight anyway. Is it possible that the really super healthy body constantly increases the number of white cells thinking that it can eventually win the battle by overcoming the enemy by sheer number? Outsiders, that is doctors not living within the body or really understanding its dilemma, come up with a name to describe the event. The label is leukemia, which describes the conditions of massive battle. The treatment is to kill off

those white cells in order to reestablish homeostasis. What is missing is understandings that the white blood cells are just behaving in response to their job description in trying to defend your life. This is not a slam toward our system, just a suggestion of one more way to look at a problem that has found very little help over the past three decades. Maybe it is an accommodation for survival.

Taken from “The Mechanics of Toxicity”, by Dr Hal Huggins.

I have added this to show and justify dealing with the cause of the problem not just the symptom which is traditionally what is done by the average GP, and doctors treating patients in hospitals.

How they blatantly lie….

Posted by: admin  /  Category: Food, Health


“If they have to put the word ‘natural’ on a box to convince you, it probably isn’t.”

By Dr. Mercola

In the words of Fast Food Nation author Eric Schlosser:

“If they have to put the word ‘natural’ on a box to convince you, it probably isn’t.”

But this doesn’t stop countless processed food manufacturers from boldly labeling their products as 100% natural in the hopes of appealing to health-minded shoppers like you.

After all, products labeled as “natural” or “sustainable” account for $50 billion in sales annually, or 8 percent of total retail grocery sales, and the numbers are likely growing.

When you see a supposedly “natural” product, like ConAgra’s Wesson brand vegetable oils claim to be, you would probably assume they contain no genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which by definition are not found in nature.

But Wesson oils, specifically the Canola Oil, Vegetable Oil, Corn Oil, and Best Blend, do in fact contain GMOs, prompting a class-action lawsuit over their misleading “100% natural” label claim.

Any GM Product is, by Definition, NOT Natural

The lawsuit alleges that ConAgra’s use of GM corn and soy in their cooking oils disqualifies the product as being labeled “all-natural.” The plaintiffs cite two very fitting definitions of genetic modification to prove their point, including one from biotech giant, and leading GM seed creator, Monsanto.

As Food Safety News reported:

“According to Monsanto, GMOs are: “Plants or animals that have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs.” The complaint also quotes a GMO definition from the World Health Organization: “Organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally.”

It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit turns out, as a conviction against ConAgra could have important consequences for the manufacturers of countless other processed foods. Virtually all processed foods contain GM ingredients, unless they are certified organic, and many of them also claim to be all natural.

How do GM Food Manufacturers Get Away with Using the “All-Natural” Claim?

The natural food label on processed food has no standard definition and really no meaning at all. The term is only regulated on meat and poultry, for which an item labeled natural may not contain any artificial flavors, colors or chemical preservatives. But in the processed food arena, a “natural” product can be virtually anything — genetically modified, full of pesticides, made with corn syrup, additives, preservatives and artificial ingredients.

So if you’ve ever wondered how heavily processed foods like 7-Up, Cheetos, and potato chips can claim to be “natural,” that’s how.

The main point to remember is that as it stands, in the United States a food can be labeled 100% natural even if it contains GM ingredients. The ConAgra lawsuit is poised to change all of that, but only if the suit is successful …

Even Organic Foods May be Contaminated with GM Ingredients

The problem with GM ingredients infiltrating the food supply are two-fold. First are the manufacturers like ConAgra, who intentionally use GM corn, GM soy and other GM ingredients but “greenwash” their labels to

keep it quiet. Then there is the problem of GM contamination, which is becoming progressively more difficult to control.

If you’ve followed the debate about genetically engineered crops for some time, you may remember that the USDA initially proposed that the organic rules should allow GM foods to be labeled organic. Fortunately, the public outcry stopped this atrocious proposal. In fact, it was the second largest citizen response up until that time for any proposed regulation. After several hearings around the United States, the final organic rule did not allow for GM ingredients.

However, we’re now facing significant contamination, both in the fields and during processing, and as a result it’s becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to guarantee a food will not contain any kind of GM substance. This is an industry fact that holds true for all organic retailers. Even the Non-GMO project has admitted this. The approval of GM alfalfa this year will only make matters worse, as alfalfa is a powerful pollinator.

“Contamination is an intentional strategy,” Dr. Philip Bereano, professor emeritus at the University of Washington and an engaged activist concerning GM foods, says. “It’s an intentional strategy by both the government and the industry. We have statements to that effect… Contamination in the field by pollen flow; contamination in the processing. They use the same railcars for engineered and non-engineered crops and things like that.”

Ronnie Cummins with the Organic Consumers Association also discussed this in an interview, warning that any alfalfa growing within a five mile radius of GM alfalfa will immediately become contaminated. The ramifications of this contamination are actually far worse than you might think, because alfalfa is a major food source for organic dairy cows. So once organic alfalfa becomes contaminated, organic milk and beef goes out the window too.

Total Video Length: 01:28:08
Download Interview Transcript

Echoing Dr. Bereano’s beliefs exactly, Cummins also said:

“I believe that this is an act of premeditated genetic pollution of the gene pool of alfalfa and related plants

by Monsanto. They know exactly what they’re doing.

They understand is that if you pollute enough alfalfa across the country to where it becomes impossible to grow organic alfalfa that isn’t contaminated, perhaps then the organic community will weaken and allow genetically engineered animal feed under the rules of organic production.”

GM contamination is really getting worse by the day. Just a few months ago, Riceland Foods, the largest rice cooperative in the U.S., filed suit against Bayer Corporation after its natural long-grain rice was contaminated with Bayer’s unapproved GM rice—and they won. The jury determined that Bayer caused “tremendous harm to Riceland and the entire industry,” awarding Riceland $11.8 million in compensatory damages and $125 million in punitive damages.

This type of contamination is going on all over the world, which is why we cannot rest on our laurels and must fight against the approval of each and every new GM crop. You cannot contain them. They absolutely WILL contaminate their conventional and organic counterparts, which will mean ultimately the entire food supply will contain GMOs.

New GM Dangerous Described as a Health “Emergency”

Research by Dr. Don M. Huber, an internationally recognized plant pathologist and professor emeritus at Purdue University, has unearthed new evidence of potential harm to both livestock and humans from GM crops. On January 17, he alerted the federal government to a newly discovered organism related to GM corn and soy, which appears to be responsible for plant death, as well as infertility and spontaneous abortion in animals fed GM crops.

In a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, Huber urged the government to immediately stop deregulation of Roundup Ready crops, and to delay the approval of alfalfa until further research has been conducted.

The letter reads, in part:

“Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn—suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science! … I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high-risk status.

In layman’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency.”

Unfortunately, his strong words fell on deaf ears, and GM alfalfa was approved anyway. I urge you to watch the video below, featuring Dr. Huber. In it he explains the science behind the new organism, and the threat it poses.

Dr. Huber Explains Science Behind New Organism and Threat from Monsanto’s Roundup, GMOs to Disease and Infertility from Food Democracy Now! on Vimeo.

Eat “Natural” Processed Foods at Your Own Peril

There’s no doubt in my mind that if you want to maintain good health, you simply must educate yourself about how the foods you eat are produced. When you compare unadulterated, organic foods to conventional processed foods (most of which contain GM ingredients), there’s simply no question that one is real, natural food, and the other is anything but!

Since the U.S. government prevents the labeling of GM foods, it’s imperative to educate yourself on what they are, and to help spread awareness. First and foremost, avoid most processed foods, unless it’s labeled USDA 100% Organic. You can also avoid GM foods that are not found in processed foods, if you know what to look for. There are currently eight genetically modified food crops on the market:


Sugar from sugar beets


Hawaiian papaya

Cottonseed (used in vegetable cooking oils)

Some varieties of zucchini

Canola (canola oil)

Crookneck squash

The free Non-GMO Shopping Guide is a great resource to help you determine which food brands and processed food products are GM-free. Print it out for yourself, and share it with everyone you know. If you feel more ambitious you can order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure in bulk, and bring them to the grocery stores in your area. Talk to the owner or manager and get permission to post them in their store.

Remember, 90 percent of the money Americans spend on food is spent on processed foods, which is a disaster for your health even if you’re buying “natural” processed foods.

And GM ingredients are only one reason for this … many processed foods will also contain any number of other health hazards, including pesticides, antibiotics, hormone-disrupting chemicals, rancid fats, chemical additives, colors and preservatives, and an untold amount of other chemically-derived byproducts and toxins that may or may not claim to be “natural” on their labels.

The 9 Signs of Truly Natural Food

If a “natural” label claim is no measure of food quality, then what is? First and foremost, you’ll want to focus your purchases on items that have no labels at all … namely fresh vegetables, preferably organic and locally grown. Grass-fed, organic meats and raw dairy products are also staples your family can safely invest in. To help you find organically grown, wholesome food in your area, check out these helpful resources:

Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)

Local Harvest — This Web site will help you find farmers’ markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.

USDA Farmer’s Markets database

Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals — The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.

Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) — CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.

FoodRoutes — The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSA’s, and markets near you.

A Campaign for Real Milk — To help you find resources for pasture-fed, unprocessed, raw dairy products.

Next, whether you’re shopping at a supermarket or a farmer’s market, here are the 9 signs of a high-quality, healthy food:

It’s grown without pesticides and chemical fertilizers (organic foods fit this description, but so do some non-organic foods)

It’s not genetically modified, and contains NO GM ingredients

It contains no added growth hormones, antibiotics, or other drugs

It does not contain artificial anything, nor any preservatives

It is a whole food, and this means it will not have a long list of ingredients (for instance, high-quality almond butter should contain almonds (preferably raw) and maybe sea salt — no added oils, sugars, etc.)

It is fresh (if you have to choose between wilted organic produce or fresh local conventional produce, the latter is the better option)

It did not come from a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO)

It is grown with the laws of nature in mind (meaning animals are fed their native diets, not a mix of grains and animal byproducts, and have free-range access to the outdoors)

It is grown in a sustainable way (using minimal amounts of water, protecting the soil from burnout, and turning animal wastes into natural fertilizers instead of environmental pollutants)

When you keep these principles in mind when you shop for food, the definition of the word “natural” on a label becomes a moot point. You needn’t rely on buzz words and other “green” marketing tricks to determine a truly healthy food. Instead opt for the freshest foods in the least processed and least altered forms, and this will almost always be the healthiest choice.

Is it safe…..NO

Posted by: admin  /  Category: Health

So what exactly is Fluoride?

Well for the purpose of this article, there are two types, Sodium Fluoride and Calcium Fluoride

Calcium Fluoride appears naturally in underground water sources and even seawater.

Sodium Fluoride is a synthetic waste product of the nuclear, aluminium, and phosphate fertilizer industries. This fluoride has an amazing capacity to combine and increase the potency of other toxic materials. The sodium fluoride obtained from industrial waste and added to water supplies is also already contaminated with lead, aluminum, and cadmium. It damages the liver and kidneys, weakens the immune system, possibly leading to cancer, creates symptoms that mimic fibromyalgia, and performs as a Trojan Horse to carry aluminum across the blood brain barrier. The latter is recognized as a source of the notorious “dumbing down” with lower IQ’s and Alzheimer’s effects of fluoride. Various permutations of Sodium Fluoride are also in many insecticides for homes and pesticides for crops. Sometimes it is even added to baby foods and bottled waters. If you live in a water fluoridated area, purchase commercially grown fruits, especially grapes, and vegetables that are chemically sprayed and grown areas irrigated by fluoridated water, you are getting a triple whammy! Better skip that fluoridated toothpaste! – source

Besides tap water, what else is Sodium Fluoride found in?

1. Toothpaste – As of April 7th, 1997, the United States FDA (Food & Drug Administration) has required that all fluoride toothpastes sold in the U.S. carry a poison warning on the label. The warning cautions toothpaste users to:“WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately.” For data on how much fluoride children ingest from toothpaste, click here .

2. Infant Formula – For further information on fluoride exposure from infant formula, click here

3. Processed Cereals – “During manufacturing, infant dry cereals are processed in a slurry and placed in a revolving drying drum. The water from the slurry evaporates, and the fluoride from the water remains in the cereal. Thus, the fluoride concentration of the water used during processing can substantially affect the final fluoride concentration… Infants who eat large quantities of dry infant cereals reconstituted with fluoridated water could ingest substantial quantities of fluoride from this source.” – Heilman JR, et al. (1997). Fluoride concentrations of infant foods. Journal of the American Dental Association 128(7):857-63.

4. Juices – “Our data suggest that young children who regularly or frequently drink substantial quantities of [juice] possibly should not receive dietary fluoride supplements, since they might be at increased risk of developing dental fluorosis.” – Kiritsy MC, et al. (1996). Assessing fluoride concentrations of juices and juice-flavored drinks. Journal of the American Dental Association 127(7):895-902.

5. Soda – “Seventy-one percent of the [sodas] had fluoride levels exceeding 0.60 ppm, which is considered to contain sufficient fluoride so that dietary fluoride supplements are contraindicated.”- Heilman JR, et al. (1999). Assessing

fluoride levels of carbonated soft drinks. Journal of the American Dental Association 130(11):1593-9.

6. Wine – “Analyses of nineteen California wines revealed fluoride concentrations ranging from 0.23 to 2.80 ppm (mean 1.02 ppm, with seven samples above the international limit of 1 ppm).” – Burgstahler AW, et al. (1997). Fluoride in California wines and raisins. Fluoride 30: 142-146.

7. Beer – “Soda and beer bottled with fluoridated water contain 0.7 to 1 ppm fluoride; consumption of these beverages is almost certainly more variable among individuals than consumption of water… If beer contains 0.7 ppm fluoride, heavy beer-drinkers may ingest more than 4 mg daily from beer alone.” – Groth, E. (1973), Two Issues of Science and Public Policy: Air Pollution Control in the San Francisco Bay Area, and Fluoridation of Community Water Supplies. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, May 1973.

8. Teflon Pans – “Teflon-lined cookware contributes to the fluoride ingested by humans. Full and Parkins boiled fluoridated water at a moderate rate until a one-third or one-half reduction in volume was attained, then determined the fluoride content of the residual water… In Teflon-coated ware, the concentration of fluoride ion increased to nearly 3 ppm.

9. Rat Poison – Since the 1800s, fluoride has been a key component in rat poison and insecticides. When mixed into grain or other food, rats will readily consume the poison and die

10. PROZAC! – Part of the main ingredient in Prozac is fluoride. Talk about dumbing down society.

The below countries have made a stand against fluoridation of their drinking water.

Germany: “Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication.” (Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999).

France: “Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of ‘chemicals for drinking water treatment’]. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations.” (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l’Environment, August 25, 2000).

Belgium: “This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.” (Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000).

Luxembourg: “Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn’t the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by

their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs.” (Jean-Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L’Environment, May 3, 2000).

Sweden: “Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden…New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown.” (Gunnar Guzikowski, Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket — National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 2000).

Denmark: “We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated.” (Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999).

Norway: “In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated.” (Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa Statens institutt for folkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 2000).

Finland: “We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need.” (Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000).

Northern Ireland: “The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for operational reasons. At this time, there are no plans to commence fluoridation of water supplies in Northern Ireland.” (C.J. Grimes, Department for Regional Development, Belfast, November 6, 2000).

Austria: “Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria.” (M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000).

As of 26th May 2011, 3692 medical professionals have signed the statement calling for the end of water fluoridation. Full details can be found here

• 650 Nurses (RN, MSN, BSN, ARNP, APRN, LNC, RGON)
• 533 DC’s (Doctor of Chiropractic, includes M Chiro)
• 457 PhD’s – includes DSc, Doctor of Science; EdD (Doctor of Education); DrPH (Doctor of Public Health)
• 397 MD’s (includes MBBS)
• 311 Dentists (DDS, DMD, BDS)
• 155 ND’s (Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine)

• 82 Lawyers (JD, LLB, Avvocato)
• 82 Pharmacists (Pharm.D, B. Pharm, DPh, RPH)
• 77 RDHs (Registered Dental Hygienist); also DH, RDHAP, EFDA, RDAEF, and RDN
• 59 Acupuncturists (LAc – Licensed Acupuncturist, and, MAc -Master Acupuncturist)
• 34 DO’s (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine)
• 25 Veterinarians (DMV, VMD, BVMS)
• 17 OD (Doctor of Optometry)
• 15 PA-C (Physician Assistant – Certified); also MPAS and RPA-C

So it is apparent that fluoride is a poisonous by-product of industry. If fluoride is a main ingredient in Procaz, are governments that allow water fluoridation attempting to dumb their people down? Are we more malleable as a society when fluoride is present? I would say Yes and Yes!!


Detox…..not as easy as “they” tell you it is..

Posted by: admin  /  Category: Health


During my time working for Dr. Huggins I constantly
came across clients wanting to go through some form of detoxification or chelation,
my first question was to ask why?. The standard response was “to
remove the heavy metals from my body” it has been proven that these come
primarily from the amalgam fillings placed in the teeth over the years.

I can understand why this would be a strong desire especially as the person had been
experiencing one form of health problem or another and often this had been the
case for several years.

I would then ask if they still had amalgam fillings in their teeth, if the answer was
yes then I’d explain that there was no point in using one of the many forms of
detox or chelation at this time.

To do this was a little like trying to dry yourself while still in the shower…yes
that does sound a little silly but that is what they would be doing.

The amalgam was, and is the greatest source of mercury released into the body,
every time you chew, brush your teeth or drink hot drinks you stimulate the
release of methyl mercury which is 100 times more toxic than mercury, mercury
is the most toxic non radioactive substance on earth.

So, detoxification is simply not a viable option until the amalgams have been

Now back to the subject of detoxification, I will cover this assuming that there
are no amalgams in your teeth.

We’ve all seen and heard the many claims that a particular product will remove all
heavy metals from your body in two days, or one week or a month. All you have
to do is drink this unction or potion twice a day or take this pill with all
meals or whatever…

Some, I’m sure will have some positive effect’s however, most don’t…mercury is not an
element that actually wants to leave the body once it has found somewhere to
live. The problem is that blood tests in the main will not show mercury in the
blood, it’s devious, it hides, and I liken it to the Taliban or some other
terrorist organization. They wouldn’t wander the streets of NY holding a banner
claiming to kill all the American infidels. No, they would take a job and
pretend to be an active member of the community.

Ok so what do I mean by this, your blood cells all carry an identifier like a
number plate on a car, this is called a Major Histocompatibily Complex (MHC).
This is unique to every person; your immune system constantly looks for “non
self” cells, when found the alarm bells are sounded

The first line of defense is Globulin, part of the total protein in your body. Globulin
will rush in to attack the invader, but sadly, mercury is indestructible to
anything the body can throw at it so all that happens is the globulin is
rendered totally ineffective and the mercury now has a hiding place.

So, when you have your blood tested by those wonderful people telling you that
their product is “the best thing since sliced bread”, mercury doesn’t show up,
and “wow, this amazing product has
done its job…no it hasn’t, it’s just
that the mercury is hiding.

To my knowledge there is only one way of actually finding the level of mercury in one’s

body, this test is done by a wonderful company called “Quicksliver Scientific”
in Lafayette, Colorado run by Chris Shade, PhD.

This is a methyl and inorganic mercury test, and as far as I know, Dr Shade is the
only one in the country doing this. At the beginning of 2011 the cost was $250.00.

There are several tests that can be done in addition to the methyl mercury test that
will help, please spend some time at their web site.

Dr. Shade is a wonderful man and can be contacted:

303 531 0861

The test is done by Quicksilver Scientific but you still need pay to have the blood
draw, this is done through a lab such as LabCorp or Quest Diagnostics, you’ll
need to do your own research here because the blood draw can vary from $35 to
$100. At the end of the day it’s just a blood draw and should be on the lower
end of the scale.

Probably the easiest and least traumatic way of detoxifying is to use the C-flush method
which is basically using Vitamin C or Sodium Ascorbate powder, when doing this
you should always ensure you have the following ingredients:

Sodium Ascorbate powder

Probiotic capsules/tablets/drink

Activated charcoal capsules


Or you can call Huggins Applied Healing and buy the C-Flush package which includes
all the above. 1 800 948 4638

This process is best started on a Saturday if you work during the week; this is to
allow a day of rest following the C-flush.

The program is done over a 7 week period, week one you start by taking one gram of
sodium ascorbate powder (roughly a level teaspoon) in 2 oz’s of water, mix
thoroughly and swallow.

This is done every 20 minutes until the onset of diarrhea, it typically takes 8 or 9
grams to induce diarrhea, and once the diarrhea starts it will normally
continue for a couple of hours. Do not take any more sodium ascorbate powder
that day. If however diarrhea hasn’t started by the fifteenth gram you should
stop and try again the next day.

You should drink the electrolyte drink to replace those lost during the elimination;
I found that taking two activated charcoal caps a few hours after the diarrhea
has stopped will also help in preventing an unexpected reoccurrence.

Now I said this is done over a 7 week period so here are the specific instructions:

Week 1.

One gram of sodium ascorbate powder in 2 oz’s of water every 20 minutes until diarrhea
starts, continue to eat normally during the day. Take two charcoal capsules
several hours after the diarrhea has stopped, also take the electrolyte drink
and the Probiotic.

The following day should be a day of rest and recuperation because you will feel

rather drained and a little tired.

Week 2.

Repeat the process as per week one.

Week 3.

Repeat the process as per week one.

Week 4, 5 and 6.

Eat normally; take no sodium ascorbate powder.

Week 7.

Repeat process for week one.

This is the least traumatic way of detoxifying and one that is recommended by Dr.

When I first joined Dr. Huggins, I wanted to try the C Flush so I would have
firsthand experience and be able to honestly relate my findings to the clients
I talked to each day. So during the first seven weeks I used this method of
detoxifying and found it quite helpful and very easy to do.

Mercury, Silver and Copper..not good.

Posted by: admin  /  Category: Health


During my three and a half years working for Dr. Huggins I was frequently told that the client didn’t have the old silver filling, their reliable dentist informed them that they had the new “high copper amalgam” filling. He had told them that this was safer and more reliable than the antiquated filling they had before.

The dentist was telling the truth, sort of, it was definitely more reliable, the question is “more reliable in what way?”

Well it was more reliably releasing a toxin that’s true but was it safer for the patient? The answer to that question is definitely a NO.

The High Copper Amalgam filling was developed by the American Dental Association (ADA) who also holds a patent on it. They understood that the original released toxins so they wanted to show they had the public’s best interests at heart. Well this didn’t work exactly as they intended. The new filling released mercury 50 times greater than the original.

So stating that in a different way, one amalgam placed since 1976 will provide the same mercury exposure that 50 of the old pre “76” fillings.

The toxicologist at the University of Arkansas, Dr. Louis Change once reported that one microgram of mercury will damage the human body. Professor Joseph Levisky at the University of Colorado stated that one atom kills one cell. I think each amalgam filling will release 34 micrograms daily, so do you think they are safe.

This process is speeded up dramatically by normal everyday human functions; chewing food is the primary culprit but the chemical reaction from acids speed up this process, and this can be even more damaging as it creates a corrosive effect. The next problem is the electrical effect, mercury combined with copper and silver stimulates an electrical current and releases mercury. Now if there is also a gold crown in the mouth this will increase the mercury release by 10 fold.

The last agitator is heat; drinking hot drinks will increase the amount of mercury vapor released from the amalgam.

The most sensitive parts of your body are the insides of your cheeks and under your tongue so you can imagine where the mercury vapor goes, yes straight into your blood stream. Your red blood cells include hemoglobin which has four ports on each cell. These cells should carry oxygen but sadly the mercury attaches to one, two or possibly all four ports. So now mercury is now being transported throughout the body to be distributed in a filter organ such as the Liver, Kidney, Heart or Brain.

Mercury can inflict damage in a variety of ways; it can rupture the cell membranes, nerve impulse transmission, hormonal malfunction and the creation of methyl mercury which sees no barrier such as the blood brain barrier and placental barrier.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog.

Harry Hoxsey…

Posted by: admin  /  Category: Health

I first read about Harry Hoxsey about three years ago and was stunned at his work and how it was dismissed by the powers that be..

To learn of a genuine way of beating cancer without the need for toxic drugs that in reality do as much damage as potential help you’d think it would be welcomed with open arms.

Sadly the world, lead by America or the American Drug Cartel simply do not want true healing to happen, it’s not in their best interests for complimentary/alternative healing to be accepted. So they throw billions of dollars to the advertising agencies to dole out compelling TV/radio and published ad’s to dissuade the general public.
This propoganda is not new, Adolf Hitler used it on the German people, is that what we are becoming!!!

When Healing Becomes a Crime

by Kenny Ausubel

Tikkun Magazine June 12, 2001

The Hoxsey Legend
The “Unproven Treatments”
The Big Business of Cancer

There is another cancer war — against “unproven” alternative cancer therapies. But is the medical standard of proof a double standard?

In February 2001, a federal government-sponsored report under the auspices of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was published finding “noteworthy cases of survival” among cancer patients using the Hoxsey herbal treatment. After seventy-five years, Uncle Sam is finally giving a state nod to what is arguably the most notorious alternative cancer therapy in American history.

In the 1950s at the height of organized medicine’s crusade against the Hoxsey Cancer Clinics, the American Medical Association crystallized the medical establishment’s sentiments in its supremely influential Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). “It is fair to observe that the American Medical Association or any other association or individual has no need to go beyond the Hoxsey label to be convinced. Any such person who would seriously contend that scientific medicine is under any obligation to investigate such a mixture or its promoter is either stupid or dishonest.”

The recent NIH report marks a surprising reversal in the longstanding medical civil war between conventional and alternative approaches. After a long exile, alternative therapies are now ascendant, riding a crest of popular demand, scientific validation, and commercial promise. The face of cancer treatment may soon become almost unrecognizable as valuable alternative therapies begin to permeate mainstream practice.

If Harry Hoxsey had lived to witness this apparent sea-change in medicine, he might likely feel very mixed emotions. He would heartily cheer the grassroots surge propelling the movement, the same kind that once carried his Hoxsey Cancer Clinics to unmatched heights of popularity and validation. He would be exhilarated by the philosophical conversion of his enemies. But he would also be cynical, suspicious that a clinging monopoly was fighting to save face and above all keep its corner on the cancer market. But then, Hoxsey survived decades of being “hunted like a wild beast” only to see his clinics padlocked without the scientific test he relentlessly sought. He died a broken man, anguished over the future he felt was robbed from humanity. Yet the Hoxsey treatment did live on, thriving as an underground legend, still attracting more patients today than any of the other banished therapies, irrepressible after all.

The astonishing saga of the rise and fall and rebirth of Hoxsey provides a classic case history of the corrosive medical politics that have long prevented the fair investigation of promising alternative cancer therapies.

Paradoxically, this long-standing denunciation has not been based on the objective scientific evidence that is supposed to determine the acceptance or rejection of medical therapies. Rather, the dismissal typifies the kind of pre-factual conclusion that has characterized “scientific” medicine’s century-long pattern of condemnation without investigation.

In fact, the unspoken reason for the renaissance of alternative cancer therapies is sadly obvious: The medical establishment has largely lost its celebrated “War on Cancer” based on surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. But what has remained hidden from most people is the existence of the other cancer war: organized medicine’s zealous campaign against “unorthodox” cancer treatments and their practitioners. Over the course of the twentieth century, innovators such as Harry Hoxsey advanced more than one hundred alternative approaches, at least several of which have seemed to hold significant promise. Yet rather than inviting interest and investigation from mainstream medicine, their champions have been ridiculed, threatened with the loss of professional licenses, harassed, prosecuted, or driven out of the country.

The facts clearly reveal that a consortium of interests has consistently condemned these treatments without investigation: the American Medical Association (AMA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and the American Cancer Society (ACS), as well as certain large corporations that profit from the cancer industry. It is important to emphasize that this confederation of interests known as organized medicine consists principally of medical politicians and business interests, not practicing doctors. Physicians themselves have often objected to the unscientific rejection of alternative therapies and to restrictions on their own freedom to research or administer them.

The news blackout and disinformation campaign muffling this scandal have been so effective that most people do not happen into the underground of “disappeared” therapies until the fateful moment when they or their friends or relations are diagnosed with the dread disease. Usually only while fighting for their lives do patients discover the plethora of alternative cancer therapies claiming to offer hope and benefit, though with little if any scientific evidence to support the assertions. The story of Hoxsey sheds disturbing light on the many anecdotes of “people who got well when they weren’t supposed to,” as cancer surgeon Dr. Bernie Siegel terms these remarkable remissions in the netherworld of alternative therapies.

The Hoxsey Legend

In 1840 Illinois horse farmer John Hoxsey found his prize stallion with a malignant tumor on its right hock. As a Quaker, he couldn’t bear shooting the animal, so he put it out to pasture to die peacefully. Three weeks later, he noticed the tumor stabilizing, and observed the animal browsing knee-deep in a corner of the pasture with a profusion of weeds, eating plants not part of its normal diet.

Within three months the tumor dried up and began to separate from the healthy tissue. The farmer retreated to the barn, where he began to experiment with these herbs revealed to him by “horse sense.” He devised three formulas: an internal tonic, an herbal-mineral red paste, and a mineral-based yellow powder for external use. Within a year the horse was well, and the veterinarian became locally famous for treating animals with cancer.

The farmer’s grandson John C. Hoxsey, a veterinarian in southern Illinois, was the first to try the remedies on people, and claimed positive results. His son Harry showed an early interest and began working with him at the age of eight. When John suffered an untimely accident, he bequeathed the formulas to the fifteen-year-old boy with a charge to treat poor people for free, and to minister to all races, creeds, and religions without prejudice. He asked that the treatment carry the Hoxsey name. Finally, he warned the boy against the “High Priests of Medicine” who would fight him tooth-and-nail because he was taking money out of their pockets.

Hoxsey planned to go to medical school to bring the treatment to the world, but soon found he had been blackballed after secretly treating several terminal patients who pled for their lives. With a local banker

backing him, he founded the first Hoxsey Cancer Clinic in 1924, championed by the chamber of commerce and high school marching bands on Main Street.

As early word of his reputed successes spread, Hoxsey was invited to nearby Chicago, headquarters of the newly powerful AMA, to demonstrate the treatment. Grisly and indisputable photographic proof of the terminal case Hoxsey treated verifies that the patient recovered, living on for twelve years, cancer-free.

Hoxsey then claimed that a high AMA official offered him a contract for the rights to the formulas. The alleged agreement assigned the property rights to a consortium of doctors including Dr. Morris Fishbein, the AMA chief and editor of the JAMA. Hoxsey himself would be required to cease any further practice, to be awarded a small percentage of profits after ten years if the treatment panned out. Invoking his Quaker father’s deathbed charge that poor people be treated for free and that the treatment carry the family name, Hoxsey said the official threatened to hound him out of business unless he acquiesced.

Whatever may have happened, that’s when the battle started. The AMA first denied the entire incident, then later acknowledged the patient’s remission, though crediting it to prior treatments by surgery and radiation.

Yet one thing was certain: Hoxsey had made a very powerful enemy. By crossing swords with Fishbein, he alienated the most powerful figure in medicine. The AMA promptly dubbed him the worst cancer quack of the century, and he would be arrested more times than any other person in medical history.

Hoxsey quickly found himself opposing Fishbein’s emerging medical-corporate complex. As late as 1900, medicine was therapeutically pluralistic and financially unprofitable. Doctors had the highest suicide rate of any profession owing to their extreme poverty and low social standing. Fishbein’s AMA would engineer an industrialized medical monoculture. What radically tipped the balance of power was an arranged marriage between big business and organized medicine. Under Fishbein’s direction, the AMA sailed into a golden harbor of prosperity fueled by surgery, radiation, drugs, and a sprawling high-tech hospital system. The corporatization of medicine throttled diversity. The code word for competition was quackery.

It was easy for the medical profession to paint Hoxsey as a quack: he fit the image perfectly. Brandishing his famed tonic bottle, the ex-coal miner arrived straight from central casting as the stereotype of the snake-oil salesman. When the AMA coerced the pathologist who performed Hoxsey’s biopsies to cease and desist, Hoxsey could no longer verify the validity of his reputed successes. Organized medicine quickly adopted the stance that his alleged “cures” fell into three categories: those who never had cancer in the first place; those who were cured by prior radiation and surgery; and those who died. In exasperation, Hoxsey attempted an end run by approaching the National Cancer Institute. In close collaboration with the AMA, the federal agency refused his application for a test because his medical records did not include all the biopsies.

Meanwhile Hoxsey struck oil in Texas and used his riches to promote his burgeoning clinic and finance his court battles. Piqued at Hoxsey’s rise, Fishbein struck back in the public media, penning an inflammatory article in the Hearst Sunday papers entitled “Blood Money,” in a classic example of purple prose and yellow journalism. Outraged, Hoxsey sued Fishbein. In two consecutive trials, Hoxsey beat Fishbein, standing as the first person labeled a “quack” to defeat the AMA in court. During the trials, Hoxsey’s lawyers revealed that Fishbein had failed anatomy in medical school, never completed his internship, and never practiced a day of medicine in his entire career.

By now Fishbein was mired in multiple scandals, including his effective but unpopular obstruction of national health insurance at a time when doctors had become the richest professionals in the country and the Journal the most profitable publication in the world. Drug ads powered JAMA, but its biggest single advertiser in the 1940s was Phillip Morris. (Camel cigarettes had the largest booth at the AMA’s 1948 convention, boasting in its ads that “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.”) Enmeshed in controversy, Fishbein’s stock was trading low, and, shortly after his first loss to Hoxsey, the AMA chief was deposed in a humiliating spectacle.

But ironically Hoxsey’s stunning dark-horse victory against the “most terrifying trade organization on Earth” only ended up bringing the house down. He immediately faced a decade-long “quackdown” by the FDA.

By the 1950s, Hoxsey was riding what was arguably the largest alternative-medicine movement in American history. A survey by the Chicago Medical Society showed 85 percent of people still using “drugless healers.” Hoxsey’s Dallas stronghold grew to be the world’s largest privately owned cancer center with 12,000 patients and branches spreading to seventeen states. Congressmen, judges, and even some doctors ardently supported his quest for an investigation. Two federal courts upheld the therapeutic value of the treatment. Even his archenemies, the American Medical Association and the Food and Drug Administration, admitted that the therapy does cure certain forms of cancer. JAMA itself had published the research of a respected physician who got results superior to surgery using a red paste identical to Hoxsey’s for skin cancers including lethal melanoma, a skin cancer that also spreads internally.

Medical authorities escalated their quackdown in the McCarthyite wake of the 1950s. On the heels of a California law criminalizing all cancer treatments except surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, the federal government finally outlawed Hoxsey entirely in the United States in 1960 on questionable technicalities. Chief nurse Mildred Nelson took the clinic to Tijuana in 1963, abandoning any hope of operating in the United States. It was the first alternative clinic to set up shop south of the border. Mildred quietly treated another 30,000 patients there until her death in 1999. Like Hoxsey, she claimed a high success rate, but her contention is unverifiable since the treatment has yet to be rigorously tested.

Hoxsey never claimed a panacea or cure-all. He maintained that the Dallas doctors used his clinic as a “dumping ground” for hopeless cases, and that the great majority of patients he got were terminal, having already had the limit of surgery and radiation. He said he cured about 25 percent of those. Of virgin cases with no prior treatment, he claimed an 80 percent success rate. Seventy-five years after Hoxsey began, why do we still not know the validity of his claims?

The “Unproven Treatments”

Organized medicine has systematically dismissed alternative cancer therapies as “unproven,” lacking the rigorous scientific proof of clinical trials. But if the Hoxsey treatment is unproven, it’s not disproven. Like virtually all the “unorthodox” cancer therapies over the course of the twentieth century, it was politically railroaded rather than medically tested. However, over the last few decades, controlled laboratory tests have shown all the individual herbs in the internal tonic to possess anti-tumor and anti-cancer properties, as I documented in detail in my recent book on Hoxsey, When Healing Becomes A Crime. Though the formula has never been tested as a whole entity, clearly there is a credible scientific basis for looking at it. Organized medicine has not disputed the effectiveness of the external remedies since 1950, and the red paste (Mohs treatment) is listed in Taber’s Medical Encyclopedia as a “standard treatment,” though it is seldom used.

After all, plants are the cornerstone of pharmaceutical drugs. The very word drug derives from the Dutch term droog, which means “to dry,” since people have historically dried plants to make medicinal preparations. It is well proven that many botanicals possess powerful anti-cancer properties. Numerous primary pharmaceuticals derive from plants, as do several major chemotherapy drugs, such as Taxol from the Pacific Yew tree, Vincristine and Vinblastine from the Madagascar periwinkle, and Camptothecin from the wood and bark of a Chinese tree. About 30 percent of chemotherapy drugs altogether are derived from natural substances, mainly plants. A quarter of modern drugs still contain a plant substance, and about half are modeled on plant chemistry. During Hoxsey’s era, surgery and radiation were primitive and excessive. Both were solely local treatments, reflecting the profession’s belief that cancer was a local disease. As such they could address just a quarter of all cases, claiming to cure only about a quarter of those. With the advent of toxic chemotherapy drugs in the 1950s, organized medicine at last acknowledged cancer as a systemic disease, which Hoxsey and the other “unorthodox” practitioners had been asserting throughout.

Clearly, conventional cancer treatments have an important place in medicine and save lives. But since the 1950s, evidence has steadily accumulated that surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy are far less effective than the public is being led to believe. Investigative journalist Daniel Greenberg, writing in the Columbia Journalism Review in 1975, produced the first widely reported exposé showing that cancer survival rates since the 1950s had not progressed, and that improvements from 1930 to 1950 were mainly a consequence of improved hospital nursing care and support systems. Greenberg found that even the valid improvements were very, very small, and that there had been no significant advancements in treating any of the major forms of cancer.

By 1969, Dr. Hardin Jones had already released a shocking report on this issue at the Science Writers Convention, sponsored by the American Cancer Society. Jones, a respected professor of medical physics from the University of California at Berkeley and an expert on statistics and the effects of radiation and drugs, concluded that “the common malignancies show a remarkably similar rate of demise, whether treated or untreated.” Joining the fray, Nobel laureate James Watson charged that the American public had been sold a “nasty bill of goods about cancer.” This eminent co-discoverer of the DNA double helix remarked bluntly that the War on Cancer was “a bunch of shit.”

These “proven” cancer treatments are themselves largely unproven. The standard of proof for therapeutic efficacy is in fact a double standard. Surgery was grandfathered in as standard practice early in the twentieth century without randomized, double-blind clinical trials, which only became widespread in the 1960s with the advent of chemotherapy. Its dangers and limitations have since been only superficially acknowledged or studied, and little is known about its efficacy in relation to a baseline marker of no treatment.

Like surgery, radiation therapy was grandfathered in without rigorous testing. Radiation is carcinogenic and mutagenic. In the few tests comparing radiation treatment against no treatment, according to Jones, “Most of the time, it makes not the slightest difference if the machine is turned on or not.” Jones went even further, saying, “My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims actually live up to four times longer.” Radiation is often combined with surgery despite the fact that tests have generally shown it made no apparent favorable difference. A recent study with patients with the most common form of lung cancer found that postoperative radiation therapy, which is routinely given, actually raises the relative risk of death by 21 percent, with its most detrimental effects on those in the early stages of illness. Nevertheless, radiation is used on about half of cancer patients.

It was into this disappointing setting that chemotherapy entered as the next great hope of cancer treatment. Chemotherapy drugs are poisons that are indiscriminate killers of cells, both healthy and malignant. The strategy is quite literally to kill the cancer without killing the patient. By the mid-1980s, prominent members of orthodoxy published unsettling assessments that could no longer be dismissed. Writing in Scientific American, Dr. John Cairns of Harvard found that chemotherapy was able to save the lives of just 2 to 3 percent of cancer patients, mostly those with the rarest kinds of the disease. By medicine’s own standards, at best chemotherapy is unproved against 90 percent of adult solid tumors, the huge majority of common cancers resulting in death. Moreover, true placebo controls have been almost abandoned in the testing of chemotherapy. Drug regimen is tested against drug regimen, and doctors hardly ever look at whether the drugs do better than simple good nursing care. Because chemotherapy drugs are outright poisons, many carcinogenic, the drugs themselves can cause “treatment deaths” and additional cancers. One study among women surviving ovarian cancer after chemotherapy treatment showed a one-hundred-fold greater subsequent incidence of leukemia over those not receiving chemotherapy. In some studies, when chemotherapy and radiation were combined, the incidence of secondary tumors was about twenty-five times the expected rate. Nevertheless, chemotherapy is given to 80 percent of patients

Amazingly, 85 percent of prescribed standard medical treatments across the board lack scientific validation, according to the New York Times. Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical Journal, suggests that “this is

partly because only one percent of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound, and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all.”

A hundred years from now, medicine will likely come to regard some of these “proven” cancer treatments the way we now remember the use of mercury and bloodletting. As Dr. Abigail Zuger recently wrote in the New York Times contemplating the hundredth anniversary of the 1899 Merck Manual: “We have harnessed our own set of poisons for medical treatment; in a hundred years a discussion of cancer chemotherapy may read as chillingly as endorsements of strychnine for tuberculosis and arsenic for diabetes do today.”

The Big Business of Cancer

The medical civil war between Hoxsey and organized medicine has largely reflected a trade war. Profitability has often been the driving force behind the adoption of official therapeutics. At over $110 billion a year just in the United States, cancer is big business, a whopping 10 percent of the national health-care bill. The typical cancer patient spends upward of $100,000 on treatment. It is estimated that each hospital admission for cancer produces two to three times the billings of a typical non-cancer admission. More people work in the field than die from the disease each year. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein, a professor of environmental and occupational medicine at the University of Illinois in Chicago, “For decades, the war on cancer has been dominated by powerful groups of interlocking professional and financial interests, with the highly profitable drug development system at its hub.” Global sales of chemotherapy drugs in 1997 were $30.9 billion, about $12 billion of it in the United States.

Pharmaceutical companies pin the high costs of drugs on the forbidding expense of testing and approving each new drug, now pegged at $500 million. In fact, this prohibitive figure has served as a barrier of entry for all but giant corporations. The entire system is founded in patents, twenty-year exclusive licenses that provide monopoly protection. As an herbal product, the Hoxsey tonic cannot be patented and therefore occupies the status of an orphan drug that no company will develop. While approving about forty highly toxic cancer drugs, the FDA has yet to approve a single nontoxic cancer agent or one not patented by a major pharmaceutical company.

Alternative therapies are finally emerging in part because of the dramatic cost savings they represent, and because at least some may well represent a major new profit center. “Alternative medicine is clearly the largest growth industry in health care today,” wrote Jane Brody in the New York Times in 1998. Dr. David Eisenberg of Harvard surveyed the American public to find 42 percent using alternative therapies in 1997. The number of visits to alternative practitioners exceeded total visits to primary-care physicians. Spending was conservatively estimated at $21.2 billion, with at least $12.2 billion paid out-of-pocket by committed customers. Total out-of-pocket expenditures for alternative therapies were comparable with expenditures for all physician services.

The numbers are no less dramatic for cancer treatment. A national study estimated 64 percent of cancer patients to be using alternative therapies. A recent survey at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, the world’s largest with 13,000 patients, found an astounding 83 percent using alternatives.

Major corporations are already entering the alternative marketplace. Procter & Gamble initially spent millions sponsoring the research of Dr. Nick Gonzalez, who took up the work of Donald Kelley, a dentist who reputedly cured himself of terminal pancreatic cancer using enzymes and other nutritional means. A pilot study with pancreatic cancer patients provided better results than had been seen in the history of medicine for a disease that is 95 percent incurable. The subjects lived an average of triple the usual survival rate, and two patients have lived for four and five years with no detectable disease. Nestlé has also financed the work of Dr. Gonzalez. These studies led to a $1.4 million grant to Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons by the NIH’s National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) and supervised by the NCI. The

engagement of large corporations vaulted the formerly reviled treatment to instant plausibility. When big companies start to take a stake in alternative cancer therapies, it signifies the maturation of a market and consecrates a political realignment.

Both M. D. Anderson and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center have been testing green tea, or more accurately several of its “active” ingredients, for anti-cancer properties. Because various studies have shown that green tea reduces the risk of colorectal, lung, esophageal, and pancreatic cancers, Lipton tea company is also testing the substance at the University of Arizona.

In association with the NCI, M. D. Anderson is set to evaluate shark cartilage, which is reputed to have anti-cancer activity and is widely used by a cancer underground in the United States and abroad. (Sadly, this market surge is further endangering several shark species.) The University of Toronto is testing mistletoe, a folk remedy for cancer espoused by the Austrian spiritual philosopher Rudolf Steiner, originator of Waldorf education and biodynamic farming. Mistletoe has shown anti-tumor effects in both human and animals studies in Germany.

The release of the report on Hoxsey through the NIH’s NCCAM is a harbinger of the changes to come. As the report concludes, further investigation “is justified not only because of the public health issue to justify the large number of patients who seek treatment at this clinic, but also because of the several noteworthy cases of survival.” The report specifically notes a seven-year melanoma patient who had no other treatment besides Hoxsey’s tonic and external salves. Average survival time for advanced melanoma is seven months. If such a remarkable remission occurred using conventional treatments, it would be front-page news worldwide.

“It’s interesting to contemplate the dilemma that the National Cancer Institute is in,” conjectures Ralph Moss, an advisor to the NCCAM and NCI, and a respected researcher and author on both alternative and conventional cancer treatments. “If they do decide to do the tests, then there’s always that possibility — and I think it’s a damn good possibility — that some of these treatments are going to turn out to be quite valuable. If they decide not to do the tests, there’s going to be tremendous fury in Congress and the public, because what then are they about? If they’re not about scientific testing, what good are they? Why are we wasting our money?

“What we’re saying is: Prove them or disprove them. We’ve had seventy-five years of Hoxsey. Does it work? Doesn’t it work? Nobody knows. How do you know? Short of good studies, how does one decide issues like that? We don’t want people doing something if it’s not going to work for them, not in terms of just conventional treatment, but alternative treatments as well.”

“The best-case scenario,” Moss speculates, “is that some tests will be carried out with the imprimatur of NCI, NCCAM, and probably other collaborative centers like the University of Texas and Columbia. Some of those will show that there’s no effectiveness, and some of them will probably show that there is effectiveness in some treatments. The ones that are shown to be effective that are funded by and based on NCI-reported research are then going to be published in major medical journals. The first one that validates a nontoxic treatment is the beginning of the end of this Middle Ages that we’re in. Because once one goes through the door, then a lot of others are going through the door, and that’s what they’re afraid of. They’re afraid that, if a Hoxsey were proven to be effective, the public will run to it because nobody wants the chemo drugs. If chemo is the only choice, then they’ll reluctantly take it, but the minute it’s known there is something nontoxic out there, everybody’s going to want it.”

The abiding truth for cancer patients is that they want unrestricted access to all treatments. According to one analysis, only about 5 percent entirely abandon conventional cancer care even when pursuing an alternative. What patients seek is the best of all worlds, an expanded menu of options supported by access to credible information. The stereotype that orthodoxy has long put forth of poor, credulous cancer patients ripe for exploitation by clever promoters turns out to be false. In a study by sociologist Barrie Cassileth, the profile of

patients using alternative cancer therapies describes well-educated, middle-income, often female clients who have done a considerable amount of due diligence to make their choice.

While physicians fought fiercely for their professional sovereignty during the twentieth century, the greater social issue today is the sovereignty of the patient. In a market economy, goes the old saw, the customer is always right. The AMA’s Oliver Field, an architect of the aggressive repression against Hoxsey and myriad “quack” therapies in the 1950s, responded surprisingly when I posed to him the polarizing question of freedom of medical choice. “This is a free country. You pays your money and you takes your choice. If it’s wrong, you’re the one who’s going to suffer.”

It was anomalous to hear the former head of the AMA’s Bureau of Investigation, which once boasted a rolodex of over 300,000 “quacks,” echo the words of his
past nemesis. Judge William Hawley Atwell, who ruled twice in Hoxsey’s favor in federal courts and fully affirmed the therapy’s value, had stated in 1949 regarding Hoxsey’s victory over Dr. Morris Fishbein: “So I wish to say, pay your money and take your choice. Those who need a doctor, if you think one side is the best, go and get him. If you think the other side is best, you certainly have the right to go and get him. This is a free country; that is what we stand for in America.”

Why was the Hoxsey therapy not investigated in the first place seventy-five years ago? The overarching truth is that it has been politically railroaded instead of medically tested. The medical civil war has distorted cancer from a medical question into a political issue. The many practitioners and doctors thrust involuntarily into the front lines of the cancer wars would surely prefer to settle the question in a clinic or laboratory, not a courtroom. Meanwhile, cancer patients remain trapped in the crossfire, fighting for their lives.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog.