The Archive Site is Ready

 

OK, for those of you who wish to access all the past issues of this newsletter, and for those who are trying to get friends or family interested in improving their health, you can access them all at: http://healthpath.wickedstones.com/. Special thanks to our dear friend Vikki up in the Great White North for providing the web space for this stuff.

 

Major Mycotoxins and Toxin-Producing Fungi from Corn, Cereals, Soybeans, Peanuts, and Other Products

and Some of their Effects on Animals

 

The following table is from: www.micotoxinas.com.br, a Brazilian website. This was compiled by Prof. Homero Fonseca, ESALQ/USP, Piracicaba, SP, Brasil/ FONSECA & CIA. S/C LTDA. – ME. Their main page is written in Portuguese, but if you can wrangle your way through that, most of their documents are in English.

 

While this table is intended to show the problems caused to livestock by these toxins, most of this is also applicable to humans. I have added some explanation and definitions to his text (in green, obviously). Note that “cereal grains” are mostly grasses cultivated for their edible seeds (actually a fruit of that grass called a caryopsis). Cereal grains are grown in greater quantities worldwide than any other type of crop. In some developing nations, cereal grains constitute practically the entire diet of common folk. In developed nations, cereal consumption is more moderate, but still substantial. Cereal grains include: wheat, corn/maize, millet, sorghum, rye, barley, rice, wild rice, teff, and spelt. Sometimes included in this category are buckwheat, amaranth, quinoa, kañiwa, and cockscomb.

 

 

It surprises me how many ranchers do not know about the ailments their livestock can get from the various feeds listed in this table. But honestly, how many really do any research? They are too busy tending the livestock and trying to plump them up for market to invest the time to find out exactly why one of them got sick. And given that you too, might contract some of these ailments, how much do you really want to continue eating those grains?

You can only be sure if you make them at home. A Wall Street Journal article exposes McDonald’s French fries to contain “wheat and milk ingredients” that could pose problems for people who have allergies to these substances. As I recall, McDonald’s denied that their fries contained those things. Full story at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11326937/

 

OK, so you don’t have an allergy to milk or wheat, so French fries are OK, right? What are they cooked in? Animal fat (lard)? Vegetable oil (remember what we exposed those as)? The deep fryers in all McDonald’s, as in many other fast food places, are full of trans fats. You do not want those in your body! And, one other point (which we have also made before): potatoes might have mold issues. Mold, which might be visible on the outer skin, will have non-visible tendrils permeating the meat of the potato, so even if you peel the skin, the potato would not be safe. Yes, but cooking them kills the mold, right? Yes, it does, but remember what fungi do when in the process of dying? They produce mycotoxins. Chances are high that those mycotoxins were not destroyed in the cooking process (interior of the food has to exceed 269 °F (131 °C)).

 

How Many Times a Day do You Brush?

 

If you are brushing your teeth with toothpaste that has triclosan in it, and you are rinsing with tap water that has chlorine in it, you are getting a little chemical reaction right in your mouth. What a wonderful gift from the toothpaste manufacturers. That’s not to mention that some of the toothpastes contain fluoride that isn’t really fluoride but fluorosilicic acid, which is a toxic waste product that is molecularly similar to fluoride but has a much different effect on the human body -- a toxic effect. When you wash your hands with antibacterial soap that contains triclosan, you are getting the fumes emitted from this chemical reaction. Full story at: http://www.newstarget.com/017804.html

 

Why Do They Prescribe Poison and Not Look for the Cause?

 

This comes from Dr. Peter Zeischegg’s newsletter: The mother of a 12 year old boy told me that her son, showing tendencies of autism, was put on Risperdal, an anti-psychotic drug with a vast number of potentially devastating side effects (it works by changing the effects of chemicals in the brain). I understand the dilemma many parents face. Their child is different, does not fit in, there is pressure from the school, the teachers, family members.

 

Now we told you some of the stuff about autism in the last newsletter, but instead of looking for the cause and trying to fix it, here’s one more doctor who’s just trying to cover a symptom. Here’s what the FDA says about that drug:

 

The FDA issued a public health advisory directing manufacturers of all antidepressant drugs to revise their product labeling to include a “black box” warning to alert health care providers of an increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior in children being treated with the drugs. The announcement affects the entire general class of antidepressant medications, including Prozac (fluoxetine), Zoloft (sertraline), Paxil (paroxetine), Luvox (fluvoxamine), Celexa (citalopram), Lexapro (escitalopram), Wellbutrin (bupropion), Effexor (venlafaxine), Serzone (nefazodone), and Remeron (mirtazapine), among others.

 

July 2004 - Risperdal (risperidone) - FDA and Janssen revised the WARNINGS section of labeling, describing the increased risk of hyperglycemia and diabetes in patients taking Risperdal. FDA asked all manufacturers of atypical anti-psychotic medications, including Janssen, to add this warning statement to labeling. (etc., etc., ad naseum) Go to USFDA Medwatch for more: http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/SAFETY/2004/safety04.htm.

 

Excuse me, but if that FDA warning was issued a year and a half ago, why is this stupid doctor prescribing this medication to a person who only has “tendencies of autism”? And people trust their lives to guys like this? Educate yourself and ask your doctor serious questions about every pill they prescribe for you. Don’t believe it just because the “expert” said so. Remember, there is no such thing as a “safe drug.”

 

PDR possible side effects of Risperdal: Fever, sweating, severe muscle stiffness (rigidity), confusion, fast or irregular heart beat could be symptoms of a potentially fatal side effect called Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome (NMS); Allergic reactions may occur: difficulty breathing, closing of the throat, swelling of the lips, tongue, or face; or hives; Uncontrollable movements of the tongue, face, lips, arms, or legs that may not resolve upon cessation of Risperdal; Muscle spasms of the face or neck; Severe restlessness or tremor; Severe drowsiness or fainting; Irregular or very fast heartbeat; Diabetes, The more mild side effects: restlessness, drowsiness, tremor, insomnia, blurred vision, dizziness, headache, nausea, weight gain.

 

And when this kid steals a gun and blows away all his classmates, who are they going to blame? Oh, I guess that’s no longer a big deal, now that the Vice President has shot his friend. What excuse is he using this week?

 

Cancer Warnings to Be Added to Two Ointments

from Associated Press

 

WASHINGTON — The labels on two prescription creams to treat eczema will have to bear warnings of possible cancer risks, the Food and Drug Administration said Thursday. The FDA action follows an agency advisory committee recommendation in February that Elidel and Protopic carry the label warnings. The new labeling also will clarify that the two drugs are recommended for use only after other prescription topical medicines have been tried by patients, the FDA said. The agency is also issuing a guide updating patients on its concerns. Full story at: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-na-warning20jan20,0,6631849.story?coll=la-home-science

 

 

Soy Protein, Isoflavones, and Cardiovascular Health.

An American Heart Association Science Advisory for Professionals from the Nutrition Committee

 

by Frank M. Sacks MD, Alice Lichtenstein DSc, Linda Van Horn PhD, RD, William Harris PhD, Penny Kris-Etherton PhD, Mary Winston EdD, for the American Heart Association Nutrition Committee

 

Abstract –Soy protein and isoflavones (phytoestrogens) have gained considerable attention for their potential role in improving risk factors for cardiovascular disease. This scientific advisory assesses the more recent work published on soy protein and its component isoflavones. In the majority of 22 randomized trials, isolated soy protein with isoflavones, as compared with milk or other proteins, decreased LDL cholesterol concentrations; the average effect was 3%. This reduction is very small relative to the large amount of soy protein tested in these studies, averaging 50g, about half the usual total daily protein intake. No significant effects on HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, lipoprotein (a), or blood pressure were evident. Among 19 studies of soy isoflavones, the average effect on LDL cholesterol and other lipid risk factors was nil. Soy protein and isoflavones have not been shown to lessen vasomotor symptoms of menopause, and results are mixed with regard to soy’s ability to slow postmenopausal bone loss. The efficacy and safety of soy isoflavones for preventing or treating cancer of the breast, endometrium, and prostate are not established; evidence from clinical trials is meager and cautionary with regard to a possible adverse effect. For this reason, use of isoflavone supplements in food or pills is not recommended. Thus, earlier research indicating that soy protein has clinically important favorable effects as compared with other proteins has not been confirmed.

More at: http://circ.ahajournals.org/

 

As we have implied before, soy increases your risk for cardiovascular problems and certain cancers, but more than that, it has been shown to be a large source of mycotoxins. But we’ve said all this before.

 

More Aflatoxin Dog Deaths

 

February 15, 2006: JERUSALEM - A rare public appeal went out on Wednesday to Israeli pet owners to bring their dogs to donate blood to help save more than a dozen canines poisoned by toxic American pet food. Approximately 23 dogs have died in Israel in recent weeks from liver failure after eating Nutra Nuggets, manufactured by the U.S.-based Diamond Pet Food Company. Veterinarians say at least another 17 pets have been poisoned and that only a handful was expected to survive. More at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11365419/

 

Given that was a major media news release, you can bet the numbers were higher than reported. Now we know Diamond even exported its poison and it was not restricted to the few U.S. states as they stated earlier. Bunch of lying profiteers…

 

 

Why America Has to Be Fat

A Side Effect of Economic Expansion Shows Up in Front

 

by Michael S. Rosenwald

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, January 22, 2006; Page F01

 

I am fat. Sixty pounds too hefty, in my doctor’s opinion. Probably 80 pounds, in my fiancee’s view.

 

Being fat makes me a lot of things – a top contender for type II diabetes, for instance, or a heart attack, or stroke, maybe even a replacement knee or hip. My girth also puts me in familiar company, with about two-thirds of the U.S. population now considered overweight.

 

But in many ways, my being fat also makes me pretty good for the economy.

 

You’ve read the headlines: America’s problem with bulging waistlines has reached pandemic proportions, according to federal health officials, who warn that obesity is becoming society’s No. 1 killer. But as doctors wrestle with the problem, economists have been pondering which corporations and industries benefit, and the role that changes in the overall economy have played in making us fat to begin with.

 

It turns out, economists say, that changes in food technology (producing tasty, easy-to-cook food, such as french fries) and changes in labor (we use to be paid to exercise at work, now we pay to exercise after work) combined with women’s importance in the workforce, not the kitchen, have combined to produce industries able to cheaply and efficiently meet the demands of our busy lives. The cookie industry. The fast-food industry. Potato chips. Soda. The chain-restaurant industry, with its heaping portions of low-priced, high-calorie foods.

 

In some ways, we are better off in this Fat Economy. Many people work in easier, better-paying jobs, which help pay for their big homes in the suburbs. Women don’t have to spend two hours preparing dinner every night; many have risen to unprecedented levels of corporate and political power. Flat-panel plasma TVs hang over fireplaces, which can be lit using the same remote control for flipping channels. But the unintended consequence of these economic changes is that many of us have become fat. An efficient economy produces sluggish, inefficient bodies.

 

“The obesity problem is really a side effect of things that are good for the economy,” said Tomas J. Philipson, an economics professor who studies obesity at the University of Chicago, a city recently named the fattest in America. “But we would rather take improvements in technology and agriculture than go back to the way we lived in the 1950s when everyone was thin. Nobody wants to sweat at work for 10 hours a day and be poor. Yes, you’re obese, but you have a life that is much more comfortable.”

 

For many corporations, and even for physicians, Americans’ obesity has also fattened the bottom line. William L. Weis, a management professor at Seattle University, says revenue from the “obesity industries” will likely top $315 billion this year, and perhaps far more. That includes $133.7 billion for fast-food restaurants, $124.7 billion for medical treatments related to obesity, and $1.8 billion just for diet books – all told, nearly 3 percent of the overall U.S. economy.

 

Did you know, according to consumer-research firm Mintel Group, that we guzzled $37 billion in carbonated beverages in 2004? The same year, we spent $3.9 billion on cookies – $244 million of which were Oreo cookies sold by Kraft Foods for about $3.69 a package. In 2003, we splurged $57.2 billion on meals at restaurants such as Denny’s, Chili’s and Outback Steakhouse (a personal favorite). Potato chip sales hit $6.2 billion in 2004.

 

“Put simply, there is a lot of money being made, and to be made, in feeding both oversized stomachs and feeding those enterprises selling fixes for oversized stomachs,” Weis wrote in 2005 in the Academy of Health Care Management Journal. “And both industries – those selling junk food and those selling fat cures – depend for their future on a prevalence of obesity.”

 

And the prevalence of obesity won’t fade anytime soon. According to David M. Cutler, an economist at Harvard University, Americans’ waistlines are caught in a simple accounting quagmire. In a 2003 paper titled Why Have Americans Become More Obese? Cutler wrote: “As an accounting statement, people gain weight if there is an increase in calories taken in or a decrease in calories expended.” (Gee, the secret of my diet: eat less, exercise more.)

 

On the calories-expended side of the Fat Economy, economists have noted that changes in the workplace have caused us to burn fewer calories. Prior to the 1950s, jobs often meant hard labor. We lifted heavy things. We worked outside. Our desks – if we had them – did not come equipped with computers. We lived in urban environments, walking most places.

 

Now many Americans work in offices in buildings with elevators. If we walk anywhere, it’s to lunch – to TGI Friday’s or the corner burrito shop. We live in the suburbs; we drive to and from work and – in my case – to and from the mailbox. We pay $60 a month for the privilege of lifting something heavy in a gym we have to drive to. (I belong to two gyms, in the hope that guilt will cause me to visit at least one.) And we also must pay to exercise by giving up our free time. Do we work out, or do we drive the kids to their soccer game, where we can sit and watch? Do we work out, or do we download new songs from iTunes?

 

“People are just not willing to give up their leisure time,” Philipson said. “People don’t want to pay to exercise with their leisure time.”

 

Which brings us to the calories-consumed side of the ledger. If we don’t expend calories, they add up and turn into pounds. Thirty-five hundred calories generally equals one pound. So behold, for argument’s sake, the french fry. An order of large fries at McDonald’s puts 520 calories into one’s body. It is well known, at least by this consumer, that an order of large fries can generally be placed, filled and consumed in a matter of minutes.

 

But this was not always so, Cutler said. Before World War II, if you wanted a french fry, you went to the store, bought potatoes, took them home, washed them, peeled them, sliced them and fried them. “Without expensive machinery, these activities take a lot of time,” Cutler said. “In the postwar period, a number of innovations allowed the centralization of french fry production.” Now fries are prepped in factories using sophisticated technologies, then frozen at sub-40-degree temperatures and shipped to a restaurant, where they are deep-fried, or to someone’s home, where they are microwaved. Either way, they are served up in a matter of minutes.

 

French fries helped drive up U.S. potato consumption by 30 percent between 1977 and 1995, but they mean more than that – they symbolize the convergence of the economic and technological changes that have made us fat. Cutler and Philipson have noted that when women joined the workplace, they left behind some of the labor that traditionally went into cooking meals. This happened as technology increasingly allowed for mass production and preparation of food. Much of this type of food – be it french fries, potato chips, frozen dinners or quick meals at restaurants – contains more calories.

 

We expend fewer calories and take more in. The pounds add up. Hence, the Fat Economy.

 

“The structure of the economy has made us more obese,” Cutler said. “That is clearly true. What businesses do is they cater to what we want, whether what we want is really in our long-term interests or not. So people are obese and they want to diet, but they also want things to be immediately there. Manufacturers and storeowners make that possible. The upside is nobody spends two hours a day cooking anymore.”

 

So do Americans have to be fat for the economy to thrive? The economy would not exactly crash if people stopped spending money on french fries and meals at TGI Friday’s. Economists think the money would just be spent differently or in different places. Specific industries would adapt – as many have already, offering more healthful choices – to meet changing demands. No business can survive by selling things people don’t want.

 

In fact, the overall long-term economic costs of obesity are many. The $10,000 of extra medical care that the overweight require over their lifetimes certainly makes a doctor’s wallet fatter, but it could bankrupt the health insurance industry. Also, research shows that while more women have entered the workforce, their wages, particularly for white women, sink if they are overweight.

 

Much of the long-term financial burden for obesity will fall on the shoulders of U.S. corporations, which already fork out billions of dollars a year in sick time and insurance costs related to obesity illnesses, and on American taxpayers, through their contributions for programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. What’s more, shorter life-spans will more quickly take millions of educated people out of the workforce.

 

For that last problem, the Fat Economy has already found ways to innovate and profit. In Lynn, Ind., there is a company called Goliath Casket that makes caskets up to 52 inches wide. The company’s Web site, which can be found at http://www.oversizecasket.com/, notes that Goliath’s founder quit his job as a welder in 1985, saying: “Boys, I’m gonna go home and build oversize caskets that you would be proud to put your mother in.”

 

Let’s see… we don’t sell you a food that makes you fat. We also do not sell you a pill or diet book that promises you will get thin (and you get even fatter when you stop their diet). Does this mean we, who are trying to help you get healthy without a fee attached, are doomed to failure and are merely wasting our time?

 

                                                                                                         Return to Index