50 Years of Suppressed Research On Whole Food Derived Chromium Has Denied Mankind Life-Saving Facts About The Most Important Nutrient Discovered To Date

By Christopher C. Barr, Health/Nutrition Historian

 

“Type II diabetes is not a disease. It is the lack of a natural ingredient, known as GTF Chromium.” -- Dr. Walter Mertz, M.D.

 

Reportedly stated in 1959 as an assistant to Dr. Klaus Schwarz, M.D. upon discovery and publication of findings in Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Volume 85 Issue 1

 

November is ‘American Diabetes Month’ according to the 2009 National Health Observances, National Health Information Center, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.

 

This month marks a golden opportunity as it is the 50^th anniversary of the documentation for the mineral chromium as an essential nutrient specifically in the form of Glucose Tolerance Factor (GTF) Chromium – and the 50^th anniversary is the golden anniversary!

 

‘Chromium(III) and the glucose tolerance factor’ established that the mineral chromium was the largest portion of a molecule previously identified as the glucose tolerance factor.

 

This publication in Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics for November, 1959, further established that it was the chromium portion that specifically was essential for metabolism of blood sugar.

 

Dr. Klaus Schwarz, a visiting scholar from Germany on a Special Research Fellow program at the National Institutes of Health had just two years previous established the mineral selenium as an essential nutrient for life. Subsequent to this he was joined by Dr. Walter Mertz – also a visiting scholar from Germany at the National Institutes of Health – and the subsequent chromium finding resulted from this pairing.

 

Both of these findings were made in the course of liver studies which should be of more than passing interest. That will be addressed later in this article.

 

Tests For Toxicity With Chromium Inadvertently Led To Discovering That It Caused Record Longevity In Lab Animals

 

At about the same time as Schwarz and Mertz findings were published there was a Trace Mineral Research Laboratory being established at Brattleboro, Vermont by Dr. Henry Alfred Schroeder, M.D..

 

The phrase ‘trace mineral’ is applied to mineral elements for which usages are generally in microgram amounts (parts per million) rather than the more common milligram amounts (parts per thousand) traditionally found for nutritional usages.

 

Dr. Schroeder was a graduate of Columbia and Yale Universities, and a tenured professor at Dartmouth University. His accomplishments were many including establishing the salt connection to hypertension (high blood pressure) and establishment of protocols that still form the basis for its treatment today; numerous contributions to NASA regarding astronauts; recognized with the highest award from the American Heart Association; and many, many others.

 

Schroeder initially started with investigations on three minerals. One of those was chromium.

 

The use of chromium resulted in a record for longevity in his laboratory animal studies. This was a very surprising and most unexpected result because the purpose of Schroeder’s newly established laboratory was intended to be establishing toxicity rather than seeking nutritional benefit.

 

Schroeder did not expect to find chromium as beneficial. The unexpected benefit found for chromium led to his digging deeper and discovering the recent work of Schwarz and Mertz on chromium.

 

Schroeder shifted from a toxic focus to a nutritional one for his chromium studies and discovered that cholesterol problems were in fact a manifestation of severe chromium deficiency.

 

Subsequently, Schroeder concluded that heart disease was a manifestation of severe chromium deficiency. It therefore made sense that diabetics were far more prevalent to have heart problems as both conditions were a manifestation of severe chromium deficiency.

 

Schroeder concluded that “the most effective way of avoiding the atherosclerotic-diabetic syndrome is by prevention”. He looked for a day when “this essential micronutrient so necessary to the integrity of arteries” would no longer be removed by refining. Or at the very least, “if the public insists on white flour and white sugar” to have chromium “restored in sufficient quantities to those foods to ensure their adequate metabolism.”

 

However, it was soon established that the pharmaceutical, purified product available of chromium chloride had the lowest absorption rate found for any nutrient – a rate of less than one-half of one per cent. That is practically nothing at all.

 

After almost 20 years of intense research it was concluded that the benefit of chromium only came as it was incorporated in the growth process.

 

Schroeder expressed great expectation for chromium produced in such a manner in his book, ‘The Trace Elements and Man’. He wrote of the great benefit to mankind for this new chromium that Dr. Schwarz and Dr. Mertz had almost completed.

 

Alas, Schroeder died prior to the completion of this full biological chromium product.

 

Dr. Schwarz died suddenly shortly after the completion of this full biological chromium product.

 

Only the much younger Dr. Mertz survived.

 

It was about this time at the conclusion of the 1970s that I came across the studies on chromium and the knowledge of this new biological, grown, 100 per cent whole food form of chromium.

 

Diabetes was rampant in my family on both my father’s and mother’s sides so this captivated my attention. Diabetes is said to be genetic though I subsequently learned that jeans have as much or more to do with diabetes as genes. Families tend to eat the same way and that is why diabetes “runs in families”.

 

The results from this new chromium were amazing and yet word was not getting out about it. Dr. Mertz was strangely quiet about chromium. His occasional addresses on chromium were short and understated.

 

Mertz had been named director for Human Nutrition Research at the United States Department of Agriculture. I decided to write Dr. Mertz about gathering chromium information. It was many years before the advent of the internet and research was a painstaking, slow process.

 

My letter to Mertz asked his assistance how I might obtain a list of all the nutrition studies on chromium so that I could just look each one up instead of trying to discover them happenstance on my own. Mertz responded to my inquiry with a question of his own. He wanted to know why I wanted information on chromium.

 

At first I was puzzled. Why wouldn’t the lone remaining pioneer on chromium nutrition want more attention to this most important matter? Upon deeper reflection I was perturbed that a government official – a public servant – would be hesitant to accommodate a citizen request for how to obtain information.

 

Well, I had been around the block more than a few times regarding health and nutrition research by this time and was finally able to read between the lines. Mertz was not going to be forthcoming. The reason soon became evident.

 

A new form of chromium had begun to sweep through the industry. It was called chromium picolinate. I had learned very early on that this form of chromium was not only vastly inferior to the 100 per cent whole food, grown variety of chromium, but in fact made use of picolinic acid that previously had been determined to be cytotoxic. That means toxic to cells.

 

My research turned up that the patent for chromium picolinate (United States Patent #4315927) was assigned to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

 

Now I understood.

 

The USDA was Dr. Walter Mertz’s boss. It was apparent that job security in a very high level, cushy, and prestigious job was of more importance to Mertz than competing with his boss – the United States government – in the marketplace.

 

The full force of the federal government’s backing resulted in chromium picolinate becoming dominant among chromium supplements. When studies disclosed toxic aspects of chromium picolinate more than a decade later they were swiftly and harshly criticized.

 

A couple other man-made, synthesized chromium compounds later entered the marketplace with similar levels of effectiveness (or ineffectiveness if compared to 100 per cent whole food chromium) though at least not having a toxicity issue also attached as with the picolinate variety.

 

The vast majority of chromium studies for blood sugar and cholesterol have been conducted with chromium picolinate (patented by the federal government). Results have been spotty and inconsistent through the years. Rarely has the 100 per cent whole food chromium even been acknowledged to exist in government or academic circles.

 

Exactly 50 years after chromium was established as an essential nutrient in this ‘American Diabetes Month’ there is not a single mention of GTF Chromium on the gargantuan web site of the sponsoring American Diabetes Association organization.

 

Yet in the few studies with 100 per cent whole food GTF Chromium – and the ever growing circle of individual users thereof – the results are often astounding. Noted are reductions of high blood sugar and high A1C scores, as well as reductions of high levels of the bad LDL cholesterol with an added bonus of increased levels of the good HDL cholesterol.

 

A good sized book could be filled with just the examples of which I have personal knowledge. Following is an example representative of results with 100 per cent whole food GTF chromium.

 

A female, approximately 60, was referred to me with a 20-year history of out of control diabetes more than 5 years ago. Her diabetes was out of control largely due to not following a diabetic regimen.

 

“I like macaroni and cheese and I like white bread, and I’m not going to stop eating them,” she told me.

 

Her A1C score hovered about 10 or 11. Normal A1C is 4 or 5 for a healthy individual though once a diagnosis of diabetes is rendered the goal of medical doctors is 7. The woman also previously had open heart surgery.

 

She began a regimen of 100 micrograms (1 tablet) of whole food GTF Chromium three times daily, plus 50 micrograms (1 tablet) of whole food selenium three times daily, a whole food silica three times daily, a whole food magnesium at bedtime and first thing in the morning, and a broad spectrum whole food mineral compound.

 

Three months later she returned after her regularly quarterly check-up with her long-time medical doctor – a diabetic specialist – and quite a tale to tell. She said the doctor came in with her results with a big smile and said, “I see you’ve finally made some changes to your diet.”

 

“Nope,” the woman curtly replied.

 

The doctor laughed and said, “The numbers don’t lie.”

 

“Well, I haven’t made any changes to my diet,” the woman insisted before asking, “Do you want to know what I did?”

 

“Yes,” the doctor said.

 

The woman known for her independent and spirited ways replied, “Are you sure you want to know?”

 

“Yes, I want to know,” the doctor replied.

 

“Well I’ve been taking this whole food GTF chromium,” the woman said before being abruptly cut off as the doctor replied, “That doesn’t work, and sometimes it makes blood sugar worse.”

 

At that point I laughed as I informed the woman that there is no study ever done to indicate whole food GTF chromium making blood sugar worse, and that frankly that wasn’t even possible.

 

The woman laughed at that point and said her doctor then sent her to the Registered Dietitian who asked her why she was there. She told the dietitian she didn’t know why but her doctor sent her, and then told the dietitian about taking whole food GTF chromium. She was told that doesn’t work and said she got up and said, “Well I don’t know what I’m doing here,” stood up and left.

 

Well, another three months later and another regular quarterly check-up later showed her A1C down to 7, her cholesterol below 200, and her HDL above 50 for the first time ever.

 

She said that the doctor asked “Are you still taking those chromium pills?”

 

“I sure am,” the woman replied.

 

“Well, I guess that is working for you,” the doctor said.

 

That was five years ago and the doctor didn’t say anything else about her supplements until one year ago. I hadn’t heard from this woman for some time when she called me one year ago.

 

“I just came from my quarterly check-up where my doctor chewed me out and had to call to tell you about it,” she said.

 

“My A1C was 11 and the first thing out of my doctor’s mouth was, ‘Are you still taking those chromium pills?’”

 

The woman told me that she had been trying to cut back on expenses for several months so hadn’t been taking her whole food GTF chromium, and that she told her doctor so.

 

“You get back on those pills and you stay on them,” the doctor chided her.

 

Four years later the doctor knew why a woman previously with out of control diabetes for 20 years had been finally stabilized for almost 5 years – whole food GTF chromium. I chuckled under my breath as the woman told me this as I thought to myself: “You could have saved the $22 per month for GTF chromium by just skipping one soda every other day!”

 

The woman said that she was getting back on the whole food GTF Chromium.

 

The woman subsequently mailed me a copy of a letter she had received from her doctor after her next regular quarterly check-up with the only words in capital letters being “ACCEPTABLE RANGE OR NORMAL” regarding her test results that included ‘Hemoglobin A1C – 7.4%’.

 

Obesity Is Not The Primary Cause of Diabetes, It’s A Lack Of Nutrient Density – And More Specifically, CHROMIUM!

 

One more matter very important to note – especially during American Diabetes Month. Obesity is noted as a primary cause of diabetes (and heart disease, cancer, arthritis, etc.).

 

There is a well-known, famed, extensive and long term study that decisively refutes this. Every doctor and dietitian worth their salt knows the Framingham studies. These studies disclosed that those on a traditional, Mediterranean diet consisting of whole grains, fresh fruits and vegetables, and olive oil, have much less diabetes and heart disease than average Americans. Those dietary choices are trumpeted far and wide for disease prevention and for good health.

 

Those on a traditional, Mediterranean diet are of Italy and Greece with an abundance of overweight and yes, OBESE individuals who have much less numbers of debilitating diseases and enjoy robust health.

 

It isn’t obesity, per se, that is the issue. It is a matter of nutrient density. If your obesity is due to eating large amounts of white, refined flour and white, refined sugar products that have the vast majority of nutrients stripped away, and processed (or scant) fruits and vegetables, along with processed oils, then diabetes, heart disease, cancer, arthritis, etc. are due to an extreme deficiency of nutrients so that all those extra cells are unsupported and break down. Again, it is not due to obesity, per se. It is a matter of nutrient density.

 

On the other hand, if your obesity is because you like to eat, but what you eat is a variety of good, wholesome, fresh, unprocessed foods then you will enjoy robust health with much less debilitating diseases. Once again, it is not a matter of obesity, rather it is a matter of whether you are providing the nutrient density for the weight that you are carrying.

 

Case in point …

 

A woman I have known for many years has worked more than 30 years in a factory job for a major corporation averaging more than 40 hours weekly. The company began having an annual Mayo Clinic evaluation done on site a few years ago checking height/weight (BMI/obesity), blood pressure, blood sugar, total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, and bone density.

 

Now this woman by nature of the long hours of her job and long drive has what would be described as a sedentary lifestyle, is in her 50s, was born and bred in the south on biscuits and gravy (which is still a favorite), and has a BMI exceeding 30. In short she is an obese woman with classic risk factors for diabetes, heart problems, arthritis, etc.

 

However, this woman had been on optimum amounts of 100 per cent whole food GTF Chromium, Selenium, Silica, Folate/B6/B12 and Magnesium for some time before the first Mayo Clinic evaluation a few years ago.

 

The woman told me that each person in front of her received numerous recommendations from the nurse reading and advising about the results of each one. When it was her turn she said that the nurse looked at her, looked at her results, and then looked at her again saying, “You’re overweight and need to lose some weight.”

 

“No kidding,” the woman told me when relating this to me.

 

The woman handed me her results and I laughed.

 

“They don’t very often see many people with any one of these numbers in the normal range,” I told her. “They never see someone with all of these numbers in the normal range.”

 

The woman told me that she had informed the nurse about her whole food supplement regimen and that the nurse asked for my telephone number saying, “I need to talk to him.”

 

Never did receive a telephone call from her though.

 

Each year since then this woman has continued on her whole food supplement regimen and each year as she gets older her numbers in each and every area improve – other than her height and weight that stay the same. Each year the woman tells me that the nurse asks her if she is still on the same supplement regimen, and again the nurse says of me, “I need to talk to him.”

 

Still have not ever received a telephone call from that nurse to this day.

 

Health Care Reform Is a Lie! The Diabetes Epidemic Could Be Eliminated In A Few Months With Whole Food Chromium!

 

Finally, a comprehensive study released less than one year ago placed the total cost for diabetic care annually at $218 billion.

 

If every man, woman and child in America took 100 micrograms of 100 per cent whole food GTF Chromium three times daily to make sure that not one diabetic was missed it would still cost less than half that amount.

 

There are plenty of other valid reasons for taking that amount of GTF Chromium every day besides just in case you have, might have, or might someday have diabetes.

 

Some months back President Obama wanted his advisors to come up with ways to collectively cut costs a total of $100 billion between all of them.

 

Having every American take 100 per cent whole food GTF Chromium as outlined above will cut costs a total of $100 billion annually all by itself for total health care costs.

 

100 per cent whole food GTF Chromium is real hope for genuine health care reform with a change for the better.

 

 

Chris Barr has investigated and applied research in nutrition through four decades. He has been involved with chromium research through three decades. He has instructed doctors on nutrition in both a classroom setting and private consultations. His background includes radio programs and an appearance on the CBS Evening News as a health expert. His Naturally Speaking weekly newspaper columns have been enjoyed by many for years. It has been published from coast to coast. You may write him at PO Box 1147, Pocohontas, AR 72455 or by email at servantofYHVH@hotmail.com.

"MEDICAL TYRRANY" © Commentary by C. Norman Shealy, M.D., Ph.D.

In the last 100 years there have been several significant non-scientific, non-humanitarian, ultimately evil attempts by certain egocentric groups to control life and death according to the beliefs of these groups, often supported by the government!

EUGENICS

“Eugenics was practiced around the world and was promoted by governments, and influential individuals and institutions. Its advocates regarded it as a social philosophy for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of certain people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of certain people and traits.^[6] Today some regard it as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people.^[7] The "interventions" advocated and practiced by eugenicists involved prominently the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, 'promiscuous women', homosexuals and entire "racial" groups——such as the Roma and Jews——as "degenerate" or "unfit"; the segregation or institutionalization of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, their "euthanasia", and in the worst case of Nazi Germany, their mass extermination.^[8] The practices engaged in by eugenicists involving violations of privacy, attacks on reputation, violations of the right to life, to found a family, to discrimination are all today classified as violations of human rights.

The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,^[10] drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, William Keith Kellogg, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling^[11] and Sidney Webb.^[12][13][14] Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was however Adolf Hitler”

THE ABOVE WAS TAKEN FROM Wikipedia, with some spellings corrected!

TUSKEEGE SYPHILLIS EXPERIMENT

“For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,”¹ their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all.

The United States government did something that was wrong—deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens. . . . clearly racist.”

—President Clinton's apology for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to the eight remaining survivors, May 16, 1997

LOBOTOMY

“Scheflin and Opton in The Mind Manipulators state that 100,000 people received lobotomies between 1946-1955, with half of the operations occurring in the U.S.

The lobotomy victim’s "sacrifice" was substantial. Psychiatrists Franz Alexander and Sheldon Selesnick noted that through psychosurgery:

"an area essential to the human being - his personality - is forever destroyed".

“Psychiatry's only and entire approach has been the application of force to a human being, whether this force be physical (involuntary commitment, straight jackets, restraints, abuse, torture, brain surgery), electrical (ECT, shock treatments), or biochemical (drugs). The aim is always to alter behavior, forcibly, with no appeal to the person themselves - their mind, thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, goals, intentions, responsibility or desires are ignored and even largely denied by modern psychiatric theories and methods.”

PSYCHIATRY

With the assistance of schools psychiatrists and physicians are insisting that a remarkably high percentage of young children be placed on drugs that alter their brain and personality, sometimes for life.

STATIN DRUGS

Huge numbers of Americans are bulldozed by arrogant physicians into taking statin drugs, threatened often with tales of doom. I have seen scores of individuals who have developed severe peripheral neuropathy (their physicians refused to admit that it could be due to statins), muscle pain and weakness and memory loss. There are many safe alternatives to controlling cholesterol problems but he overwhelming percentage of physicians criticize and intimidate patients who do not wish to take statins.

CHEMOTHERAPY

Patients with cancer are urged to have chemotherapy and given stern warnings of death without them. Despite this, to take just one example, malignant brain tumors, there is no published evidence that chemotherapy prolongs life. Radiation does prong life for most such patients.

The reason for this brief overview of Medical Tyranny is a recent case in Minneapolis, that of Daniel Hauser, which has engendered national attention. Physicians have determined that THEY are the complete and final judges and ultimately prosecutors, with the power of the local prosecutor and a judge to force treatment on a 13 year old boy who has Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The mother has taken the boy away and is the subject of a nationwide witch hunt to imprison her and force the boy to have chemotherapy, despite the objections of the parents and the boy. The question is NOT whether the therapy has a high likelihood of success. Medical literature supports their claim of a 90% likelihood of success although there is also at least as good evidence that it is only about 82%--still better than with any other malignancy.

For each of the following factors, the prognosis is reduced by 7%

· Age >= 45 years

· Stage IV disease

· Hemoglobin <>

· Lymphocyte count <>

· Male

· Albumin <>

· White blood count >= 15,000/µl

Of course the boy is male so we can assume that his prognosis in not 90% as claimed by the Medical Tyrranists.

Far beyond the medical statistics is the ultimate legality and moral/ethical issues. Parents are responsible for the welfare of their children. Under what Constitutional law is it proper to FORCE treatment against the will of the parents and child. A 12 year old in most religions is considered mature enough to become confirmed. To me and many ethicists and spiritual authorities, forcing treatment is just another example of Medical Tyranny!

MEDICAL TYRRANY ©

C. Norman Shealy, M.D., Ph.D.

"Fake Medical Research" - Commentary by Jon Rappoport

But first, a word from your intrepid writer. That’s me.

Yesterday, I wrote a piece in which I urged readers to take a chance and sign up for my next FREE telephone seminar. And some of you did. So let me follow up that encouraging news by saying I have conducted a rigorous study, and have found that there are 134,456,094 people west of the Mississippi River who are deeply and terminally bored.

Which is exactly the condition my seminars relieve. I present new and semi-new ideas, and people can choose to act on them or not. And it’s all free! Absolutely nothing to lose. Tell your friends. Let’s have some fun! The future is waiting, so to speak, for people who have new ideas of their own who can turn them into reality. You might say that’s what the future IS. If it isn’t, then we’re just stuck with the present moment bleeding and spreading out like ink on a blotter. Nobody wants that. It’s messy and it doesn’t get us anywhere. As soon as you see what the present moment is, you want something else. That’s what the human species is all about. Restless.

And if you feel inspired or stimulated or poked or prodded by my thoughts, you can go to my site, www.nomorefakenews.com, and you can make a donation to keep this train going, or you can buy a few of the many audio seminars I’ve done in the past.

To be frank, I’m not getting rich by doing this. I know that’s a shocker, but it’s true. So I can use some help. I’ve decided to do the opposite of what common sense dictates, and the opposite is: GIVE IT AWAY. Hence, the free seminars. The next one is coming up on April 23. Just click on the link above to sign up. Then email an article or two of mine to your friends, or just command them in a very strong voice to sign up, too. A deep baritone works well. So does a harsh shriek on occasion.

Okay. On to today’s subject, which is fake medical research.

As I indicated a few days ago, the production of antibodies by the body used to be taken as a good sign. A doctor would say, “Well, looks like Jim encountered GermX, but fortunately he produced those scouts of the immune system called antibodies, and they IDed the germs with a big searchlight, and then the shock troops moved in and squashed that germ before it could really get rolling. Jim has a strong immune system.”

However, suddenly, around 1980, that all shifted. It became: “Jim has a problem. He’s producing antibodies to GermX, and that means he’s INFECTED and this is bad, so we’ll have to give Jim some medicine and treat him and hope he gets better (before the toxic aspect of the medicine puts him flat on his back).”

And there is yet another wrinkle on this weird turnaround.

A vaccine stimulates the body to produce what, class? ANTIBODIES. That’s right.

When the vaccine stimulates antibodies, the docs say, “Good, we’re building up little Freddy’s immune system, because these antibodies help stop the onset of disease.”

But when Freddy, all by himself, produces the very same antibodies, the doc is likely to say this is a problem and Freddy is infected and he’s ill and he needs drugs.

That’s called a contradiction.

Don’t blame me.

It also reveals a preference for artificially manufactured substances over naturally manufactured substances. If the vaccine does it, that’s good. If the body does it, that’s bad.

“You see, son, your left eye is inherently defective. All left eyes are. So we want to take it out and replace it with our brand new zoom boom device that will see for you. This new eye won’t really do any better than the left eye you already have, but it won’t be defective. All left eyes are defective, because the manuals say they are. It’s like the Bible. The Bible says Eve ate the apple, so she did. End of argument. The manual says all left eyes are defective, so they are. Get it? It makes perfect sense. Don’t worry your little head about it. It’s too sophisticated for most people to understand.”

Way back there, when I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., which was all about fake medical research, I learned the following interesting fact from a person at the US National Institutes of Health:

If a vaccine for AIDS was ever developed, people who were given it would also be given a letter, and the letter would say, This person has antibodies for HIV, but he is healthy, so don’t give him drugs (which are fantastically toxic). He’s fine. He’s not going to get sick.

However, if a person produced, all on his own, the very same antibodies, the medical pronouncement would be: He’s sick, or he’s going to get sick, and this is a lethal disease, so we have to give him horrendous chemicals right now and hope he doesn’t die before our very eyes.

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com

Renowned fitness expert, Michael Torchia, prepares a class action lawsuit against Nintendo for the ill effects of their Wii play station games

Michael Torchia's mission is to have Nintendo pull their Wii games off the shelves until they make important changes to their products. People around the World are sustaining serious injuries due to the lack of proper warnings on their products and Torchia is taking a stance to ensure that people are aware of the potential dangers. In addition, Torchia feels Nintendo is misrepresenting their Wii games as a replacement for sensible exercise and sports activities. He believes that Nintendo needs to issue a warning that these games are intended for entertainment and not to replace actual physical activity. Through slick advertising campaigns and product placements on popular television shows, children and adults are being brainwashed that Wii games are safe and effective ways to become physically fit. "On the contrary, Nintendo is contributing to the epidemic of obesity. Young and old are putting away their gym clothes and shying away from going outdoors to play sports, because the addictive appeal to the Wii game products. Just as the tobacco companies created such a false image of their products and hid the potential dangers, so is Nintendo," says Torchia.

There is a new phenomenon that is occurring as a result of extensive and widespread usage of the Wii Fit and Wii Balance Board. As more people use the Wii as an exercise tool, they are sustaining injuries in their knees, back and wrists because of overuse and improper warm- up. It seems that up to ten people a week are being hospitalized with injuries caused by playing Nintendo Wii games, prompting doctors in Britain to issue warnings of the dangers associated with the Wii video game system. "Most patients are admitted after playing tennis or running games which involve sudden movements, resulting in tendon stretching or tearing"says, Dr. Dev Mukerjee of Broomfield Hospital, Essex.

As a health and fitness expert with over 30 years experience, Torchia knows first hand the importance of physical activity based on an individual's needs and capabilities. He has created specialized programs for obese children, handicapped individuals, baby boomers and even pets. It is because of this extensive knowledge that he is able to gage why so many people are sustaining injuries using these products incorrectly. "Not only are people getting injured due to a lack of instruction, they are also developing improper stroke patterns from long term use of the sports games which can potentially effect their ability to excel in those specific activities later in life" says Torchia.

Michael Torchia, has retained a prominent law firm in Beverly Hills, California to prepare a class action suit against Nintendo. In addition, Torchia is spreading the word across the country through his radio talk show, Shape Up America and PodCasts via his website: OperationFitness.com for people to report any injuries which have been incurred while using the Wii games. Torchia is dedicated to fighting the epidemic of obesity and ill health, which are both reversible. For further information or to report injuries, visit OperationFitness.com.

Laetrile Facts

By Virginia Hauf

A doctor from the United States FDA once said that Laetrile contains ‘free’ hydrogen cyanide [HCN] and, thus, is toxic. I would like to correct that misconception. There is no ‘free’ hydrogen cyanide [HCN] in Laetrile. When Laetrile comes in contact with the enzyme beta-glycosidase [the cancer cell], the Laetrile is broken down into four molecules:

(a) Two molecules of glucose

(b) One molecule of benzaldehyde

(c) One molecule of hydrogen cyanide [HCN]

Within the body, the cancer cell and only the cancer cell contains that enzyme, beta-glycosidase, therefore, if no cancer is in the body, no hydrogen cyanide can be released.

The key word here is that the HCN must be FORMED. It is not found floating around freely in the Laetrile and then released. It must be manufactured. The enzyme beta-glycosidase, and only that enzyme, is capable of manufacturing the HCN from Laetrile. If there is no beta-glycosidase, no HCN can be formed from the Laetrile.

“Laetrile does contain the cyanide radical [CN]. This same cyanide radical is contained in Vitamin B-12 and in berries such as blackberries, blueberries and strawberries. You never hear of anyone getting cyanide poisoning from B-12 or any of the above-mentioned berries, because they do not. The cyanide radical [CN] and hydrogen cyanide [HCN] are two completely different compounds, just as pure sodium [Na+]--one of the most toxic substances known to mankind--and sodium chloride [NaCl], table salt, are two completely different compounds.”

When the medical community first explored the possibility of using Laetrile as a cancer drug in the 1920s, they discovered that amygdaline secreted cyanide. They just didn’t understand what triggered it, and they were clueless why it was important. Cyanide was, after all, a poison that killed people. That was enough.

Hydrogen cyanide [HCN] is a chemical that kills cancer cells and leaves healthy cells intact. While the NCI found HCN in the patients in the NCCTG study, the FDA, a couple of years later found no evidence that Laetrile contained cyanide. Of course, the FDA tested the Laetrile extract. Cyanide, Dr. Binzel discovered, does not appear until Laetrile comes into contact with a cancer cell. At that point, cyanide is present.

The reason the FDA flip-flops so much on whether or not Laetrile is a toxic element is that when they alleged that Laetrile was toxic in the first Jason Vale hearing, Vale’s lawyers challenged their claim and asked them to present evidence to that fact. The FDA admitted they had none. Nevertheless, they still insist that a minimum lethal dose of HCN is 100 mg per 150 lbs. In 1984 the FDA determined that an apricot seed contains 2.92 mg/g of HCN and a peach pit contains 2.50 mg/g. This is interesting since a later FDA test revealed that Laetrile, the serum form of amygdaline contains no HCN at all, and thus, is worthless as an anticancer agent.

It is clear that the Laetrile debate will continue for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the pharmaceutical industry continues to test anticancer medicines derived from artificial amygdaline, claiming that it is much safer, and much more stable, than organic amygdaline. It’s a safe bet, however, that before the pharmaceutical industry introduces an effective cancer-fighting amygdaline drug which will cost the consumer much, much more than a bag of apricot seeds, serum and tablet forms of Vitamin B-17 will be regulated by the FDA and Laetrile will be classified as a prescription drug.

The FDA banned vitamin B17 years ago
although it is banned, it is not illegal

You Ask: What's the Difference

What it means is that ~ If any hospital uses laetrile the law says that they jeopardize any grants from the government as well as any monies from Medicaid and other hospital insurance originating from the government. Since nearly all of hospital revenues come from patient insurance, not one hospital in the U.S. will take the chance and use any banned substance including, Amygdaline (also called vitamin B17 and Laetrile.)

Any Doctor, in the United States, that wants to use the substance from apricot pits, must have their patient fill out a form and then the doctor must submit the form to the FDA... Again, doctors don't want to get involved in this and would rather keep their names off of the FDA lists. Additionally, the doctor's malpractice insurance will not be valid if they prescribe laetrile (B17, amygdalin) to a patient. The American Medical Association (AMA) treats any Doctor that prescribes laetrile to be a renegade (traitorous) and that he has violated the AMA's membership policies and will be subject to membership termination. Therefore any Doctor that prescribes laetrile may destroy his career as a Doctor.

Any individual that sells laetrile must not claim that it does anything in his place of business. Many health food stores in the past were raided and had to give up their supplies of B17 because the B17 was near books that claimed that the B17 was the answer to cancer...In other words the books were near the B17 in the stores and was therefore considered "labeling" which is a term used by the FDA. Labeling according to the FDA is against the law and can be prosecuted.

However on the Internet, it is different. Internet law is tricky and not the same as U.S. commercial law. In one case, Ken Kholas took the FDA to court and won his B17 back. That court case proved it wasn't wrong for him to have or to sell it thought it cost Ken's father a tremendous amount of money.

What THIS MEANS TO YOU is that you can purchase, use and have B17 and you will not have violated any law.

ADMINISTRATION OF AMYGDALIN

Slow drip infusion. The most efficacious mode of administration is through the slow-drip infusion technique which was developed in Tijuana, Mexico. It became apparent that the breakdown of amygdalin and its subsequent detoxification was very rapid. If it were to be administered over a longer period of time, this could be overcome. In addition, the amygdalin must pass through many biological membranes in order to reach it site of action. This can be accomplished by combining the amygdalin with Dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO-laboratory grade) or artemether. Finally, as vitamin C is known to slow the growth of tumors, it is added to allow the amygdalin and the rest of the metabolic therapy more time to work.

The amygdalin should be added just prior to injection to insure maximum potency. This complete infusion is administered intravenously over a 2 to 3 hour period, or intamuscular.

More rapid administration can result in a localized burning sensation due to the large amounts of vitamin C. This infusion is administered daily over the first 21 days of metabolic therapy.

Intravenous Injection: In some instance where the slow drip infusion is not practical, intravenous administration of amygdalin can be used. This method provides the same high concentration in the blood as the slow drip infusion. Three vials (3 grams each) are administered daily in a slow intravenous push, usually in the brachial vein just proximate to the elbow. Preferably this administration should be between meals. The intravenous administration should be daily for 21 days.

For treatment: The tablet side is 500 milligrams (mg). Two of these tablets should be given 3 times a day. If patients have difficulty swallowing, the tablets may be broken up and added to the soft food. The patient should take 1 tablet six times a day.

As a preventive: The tablet size is 100mg. One or two tablets should be taken daily.

This data is provided for informational purposes only by Jenny Hauf.

CANCER: What you may Not Have Been Told

"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship ... To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a republic ... The Constitution of this republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom."

Benjamin Rush, M.D., signer of The Declaration of Independence, physician to George Washington.

From THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF BENJAMIN RUSH

CANCER: What you may Not Have Been Told

By Jenny Hauf

In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared ‘war on cancer’. Since that time, the US has spent more than one trillion dollars on treatment and research. One trillion dollars! That is one thousand billion US dollars. Unfortunately, the overall death rate from cancer has increased 5% and some cancers have increased several hundred percent.

The very basic concept of cancer is that certain types of cells have gone ‘amuck’ in large numbers. Cancer can be of two types: one benign, which is localized and only causes problems by its location and rate of growth; the second one is malignant, which means it can move from one place to another. We all have cancer cells. I have them; you have them; newborn babies have them. Whether or not these cells will mutate depends on our immune system’s ability to identify these cells as abnormal and kill them.

Cancer is caused by a number of factors. Some of the major factors are chronic stealth infections (microorganisms), chemicals, radiation and strong electromagnetic fields. The microorganisms that cause cancer include adenoviruses, herpes viruses, hepadenoviruses, and the papovaviruses, which contain the, now famous, SV40 virus. The SV40 was found as a contaminant in the polio vaccines during the 60s and 70s and has been shown to cause various types of brain cancers in humans.

Investigating microorganisms as a cause for various cancers is only now being explored. Since 1967, when the US Surgeon General, William H. Stewart, made the statement, “The book is closed on infectious disease,” funding for the investigation of microorganisms, as a causal factor for cancer and other diseases, dried up. The focus was redirected to the research on genetic causes of cancer. Subsequently, billions of dollars went into this research. Ultimately, this new focus and increased revenue has made no appreciable difference to life expectancy or quality of life for any patient. It has not improved or identified viable treatments of cancer or other diseases.

Cancer-causing genes have been knowingly identified through laboratory testing within the medial community. So what? Has this finding made any difference in life expectancy or quality of life? No. It is interesting to note the current biotech industry would not be where it is today without this research and the financial support out of every one of our pockets. Every time we ‘walk for the cure’, hold benefits, and make donations, we are supporting the financial appetite of the problem and not the solution.

Chemicals are another cancer causing agent. In 1990, Eilhu Richter and Jerry Westin of Hebrew University’s Hadassah School of Medicine observed that between 1976 and 1986, Israel was the only country among twenty-eight studied that showed a breast cancer rate drop. Among those twenty-eight, was the United States. The richest, most powerful, and supposedly, most medically advanced country in the world, was out ranked by Israel.

The Israeli researchers were anticipating a 20% rise in breast cancer mortality, consistent with other countries. In fact, they amazingly observed an 8% drop. In the youngest group, instead of a 20% rise, the rate dropped 34%. Statistically, this is a 50% change. This magnitude of change, in the study of cancer, is enormous. The identifiable reason for this drop in mortality rates was attributed to the 1978 ban on three organochloride pesticides: alpha benzene hexachloride, gamma benzene hexachloride (lindane which is typically used for lice treatment), and DDT. There are many studies showing the toxic effects of chemicals. Interestingly, chemical companies have paid for studies that come to the conclusion that chemicals are good. Yet, independent, non-industry organizations show significantly that chemicals are harmful. This, in turn, poses a very important question of whose interests are truly being served.

One of the first forms of cancer treatment was radiation. They began using this form of treatment in the early 1900’s. Hum, the statistics stated earlier says that even as late as 1971 cancer is on the incline not the decline. In more recent years, it has even been proven that radiation is yet another known cancer causing carcinogen, beyond a doubt. Do you see a pattern forming?

ElectoMagnetic Fields (EMF’s) are known to cause cancer. Electricians are ten times more likely than anyone in the general population of developing cancer such as leukemia. Cell towers, cell phones, high power electrical lines and computers have all been named as potential contributors to a cancer diagnosis.

The mechanism as to how cancer becomes established is always the same, oxygen deficiency. Two-time Noble Prize winner for medicine, Otto Warberg, theorized that cancer was caused by the replacement of oxygen with the fermentation of sugar. In an oxygen-deprived state, the normal tissue cells regress in their development and start to behave like bacteria utilizing sugar as their means to get energy. Cancer cells, when they behave like bacteria, lose their growth inhibition. They do not remain anchored to other cells and have an indefinite proliferative life span.

Conventional therapies for the battle against cancer include chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery. Patients need to beware that what their medical doctor shares with them regarding cancer treatments does not present the entire picture. A doctor’s word should not be taken as gospel without further research. In 1978, for example, the Office of Technology Assessment, an arm of the US Congress, issued a major report concluding that only 10-20% of all procedures used in medical practices have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial. In other words, 80-90% of what doctors implement as treatment is unscientific guesswork. Since then, this study, to my knowledge, has not been repeated, as it would only serve to strengthen the case against these conventional therapies.

The pharmaceutical industry, which is the most profitable industry in the world, has a strong vested interest in what goes on in all countries’ governments, in particular, the industrial nations. On Capitol Hill, Washington DC, there are 625 (my last count) registered lobbyists that are on the pharmaceutical industry payrolls. That equates to more drug lobbyists than senators and congressmen combined. Unfortunately, I have not found similar statistics for Canada, though I have no reason to believe that the situation is much better there. In the US, more than half of the pharmaceutical lobbyists were either former members of congress (21) or worked in congress or other federal agencies (295). Basically, they are ‘hired guns’ to ensure that the interests of the pharmaceutical industry are well served. In the 1999-2000 US federal election $262 million was spent by this industry for political influence. Governments are not immune to the influence of the long arm of the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceutical companies are not interested in winning the war on cancer. Their interest lie in waging the war on cancer, not winning the war. Why? In waging a war, maximum profits for pharmaceuticals are guaranteed by those convinced of victory over a bitter enemy, regardless of the evidence to prove otherwise.

Two time Nobel Prize winner Dr. Linus Pauling wrote, “Everyone should know that the war on cancer is largely a fraud.” According to the US National Cancer Institute: a five-year survival rate for cancer for all nationalities was 49% in 1974 to 1975 and 50.7% in 1981 to 1986. This represents merely a 1.7% improvement in thirteen years. However, the 1.7% improvement may be due to earlier diagnosis rather than true survival rates. Overall, from 1947-1984, the incidence of cancer in the general US population grew by 40%.

Over the years, official medicine has poured billions of dollars into radiation, chemotherapy and surgical research as the major weapons in the ‘war on cancer’. The overall cancer death rate has risen by 5% since the war began. (Richard Waters, “Options”, 1993.) Dr. Alan Levin of the University of California Medical School stated, “most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy”. According to Dr. John Cairn of the Harvard University School of Public Health, “Only 2-3% of the nearly one-half million Americans diagnosed with cancer every year are being saved by chemotherapy.” In March 1971, a New York Journal of Medicine study found that 10% of 133 patients using the Chemo drug 5FU (5 Flouro Uracil) died as a result of the drug’s toxicity. Some doctors jokingly refer to this drug as ‘5 Feet Under’.

In February 1996, the WHO (World Health Organization) formally designated Tamoxifen as a carcinogen. According to Dr. Samuel Epstien of the University of Illinois, the drug Tamoxifen (commonly used for breast cancer treatment) is “a rip roaring liver carcinogen”. The National Cancer Institute and Zeneca Pharmaceutical lobbied to keep legislators from adding Tamoxifen to its list of carcinogens. (Science News, March 2, 1996). Zeneca’s annual revenues from Tamoxifen were $470 million. Interestingly enough, Zeneca Pharmaceuticals is one of the world’s largest producers of pesticides and industrial chemicals. Zeneca makes the carcinogenic herbicide acetochlor and other chlorine products creating annual revenues of over $300 million on these chemicals.

Acetochlor and all polychlorinated herbicides are estrogen mimickers. The body produces natural estrogen and progesterone in a balanced combination. When estrogen is produced in larger amounts, the body becomes imbalanced and thus potentially puts the body into a compromised condition. This imbalance of hormones can lead to cancer. Tamoxifen is promoted as a form of chemotherapy treatment. Zeneca claims Tamoxifen blocks estrogen mimickers.

Not surprisingly, who would know more about estrogens effects on the body and how to block this than the company who produces estrogen mimickers. Estrogen mimickers on their own have one to one estrogenicity factor. This means that one molecule of estrogen mimicker acts like one molecule of estrogen. Put two estrogen mimickers together and you have a compound that can have an estrogenicity factor of 1600. This means that the effects of two molecules of two estrogen mimickers can act like 1600 molecules of estrogen. It is broadly known that estrogen is a significant cause of breast cancer.

An NCI (National Cancer Institute) study followed 46,355 women and tracked the 2,082 cases of postmenopausal breast cancer that occurred among them. Women on estrogens only were 20% higher risk. Those on both estrogens and progestins had a forty-percent higher risk. A UCLA study found that women who received combined Hormone Replacement Therapy for five to ten years were 51% more likely to develop breast cancer.

Radiation is another weapon in the war against cancer yet radiation is also a major cause of cancer itself. According to internationally respected radiation expert Rosalie Bertells, her research provided evidence that mammography’s cause more cancer than they detect. And regular mammography’s cause cumulative radiation damage not to mention that as a diagnostic tool they are very ineffective.

This crude method will detect cancers that are no less than seven years old. Yet radiation therapy is a cash cow for most cancer therapy hospitals and clinics. Not to mention, most doctors are lavishly treated by pharmaceutical companies with gifts. According to ABC Primetime Thursday night, (Feb 21, 2002) doctors were coerced with $6 billion in parties, gifts and trips to “educate” medical doctors.

Radiation and chemotherapy are toxic substances which in turn can, and do, generate cancer. Adding a poison to kill a poison is not good math for our bodies. Yet government bows to the dictums of industry which supports and promotes these aggressive interventions.

Government institutions are generally against alternative medicine. As an example, the Ontario government proposed deregulation of Naturopathic Medicine in 1982 as one MPP explained, “Naturopathic Doctors are not a threat to the public and do not need to be regulated because since their legislative inception in 1925 they have not killed anyone. Therefore, naturopathic doctors do not need to be regulated.”

In the US, official medicine also stifles alternative medicine. The Office of Alternative Medicine was established within the National Institute of Health and given a mere $2 million research budget. Yet the same year, the National Institute of Health spent $68 million of taxpayers’ money on a single research trial for one drug. One chemical received 34 times more funding than an entire research department that funds non-patentable research.

In conclusion, imagine that your body is the house of your soul and you have been putting garbage in one room in your house for years. Eventually, this garbage finally attracts flies. Flies are like cancer. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy may kill the flies but they also contribute to the garbage. So, if you don’t get rid of the garbage, the flies will come back.

The comments I have made regarding the use of chemotherapy and radiation are mine. Everyone must make their own decision on what they want to put into or expose their body to.

Jenny Hauf