Are Cancer Patients’ Hopes Too High?
Shocking Truth About What’s in Vaccines
Healthy Family Spotlight – The Peters
Aspartame Associated With Increased Risk of Blood Cancers
The Root Cause of Your Autoimmune Disease
The Remarkable Rebounder
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – At least two thirds of people with advanced cancer in a new survey believed the chemotherapy they’re receiving might cure them, even though the treatment is only being given to buy some time or make them comfortable.
“Their expectations are way out of line with reality,” Dr. Deborah Schrag of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston told Reuters Health.
Her team reports in the New England Journal of Medicine that 69 percent who were terminally ill with lung cancer, and 81 percent with fatal colorectal cancer, did not understand that their chemotherapy was not at all likely to eliminate their tumors.
When lung cancer or colorectal cancer has spread, chemotherapy may extend survival for weeks or months at a cost of some substantial side effects.
Perhaps ironically, the patients who had the nicest things to say about their doctors’ ability to communicate with them were less likely to understand the purpose of their chemotherapy than patients who had a less-favorable opinion of their communication with their physician.
“This is not about bad doctors and it’s not about unintelligent patients,” said Schrag. “This is a complex communication dynamic. It’s hard to talk to people and tell them we can’t cure your cancer” because doctors find it uncomfortable to hammer home grim news and patients don’t want to believe it.
“If patients actually have unrealistic expectations of a cure from a therapy that is administered with palliative intent, we have a serious problem of miscommunication that we need to address,” write Drs. Thomas Smith and Dan Longo of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in a commentary accompanying the study.
“This may explain why two months before death, half of all patients with lung cancer have not heard any of their doctors use the word ‘hospice,‘” they write.
TONING DOWN OPTIMISM ‘HARD’
The study “suggests we need to spend a little more time” explaining the hard facts to patients, said Dr. Hossein Borghaei, an oncologist at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, who was not involved in the research. “Medical oncologists are going to need to tone down their optimism and enthusiasm, but it’s hard.”
The findings are based on interviews with 1,193 patients, or their surrogates, who had been diagnosed with cancer that had spread. All were receiving chemotherapy.
“The fact that 20 to 30 percent of respondents recognized that chemotherapy was not at all likely to cure them shows that at least some patients were able to accept this reality and to acknowledge it to an interviewer,” the researchers wrote.
“These are not trivial issues. Chemotherapy near the end of life is still common, does not improve survival, and is one preventable reason why 25 percent of all Medicare funds are spent in the last year of life,” write Smith and Longo.
“There is a lot of harm in not having patients understand the finality of the disease,” said Borghaei. Chemo drugs “are very powerful, they have a lot of side effects, the chemotherapy is going to harm you more than it helps you, and it can actually shorten your life. All of this should be taken into account.”
Smith and Longo said the results are probably due, in varying degrees, to patients not being told their disease is incurable, patients not being told in a way that let them understand, patients choosing to not believe the message, or patients being too optimistic. “It is probably a combination of all four possibilities,” they said.
Borghaei said the study “doesn’t take into account what patients bring to the table when they are diagnosed with incurable cancer.”
Many patients insist that they are going to beat the odds once they hear the news.
“What are you supposed to do, stand in front of someone with advanced disease and argue with them?” said Borghaei. “It’s not productive. But I hear that all the time, especially from the younger patients.”
“I think it serves as a stark reminder to physicians: just slow down, maybe take a few minutes to realize how hard this is,” said Schrag. “Recognize that this is not one conversation, but typically a series of conversations to see if they’ve understood it, and how they’re acting on it.”
When a cure is extremely unlikely, “We have to make sure people have the opportunity to plan and prepare for what is much more likely to happen,” she said.
Flu season is here! Certain immune boosting supplements can help build your immune system and help prevent the Flu, but if you get the flu, you may want to try Elderberry (Sambucus Nigra).
You see, Flu viruses are primitive organisms which cannot replicate themselves, thus they must use DNA from living cells in order to reproduce. Flu viruses invade cells by puncturing the cell walls with little spikes (called hemagglutinin) coated with an enzyme called neuraminidase, which helps break down the cell walls. Elderberry actually disarms these spikes and inhibits the action of this enzyme — thus preventing Flu viruses from invading cells.
Elderberry also activates the immune system. Best results are obtained when elderberry is taken at the onset of flu symptoms. My family takes Sambucol, a black elderberry extract, if we think we are getting the Flu. And NO, we don’t take the flu vaccine, which even the CDC admits doesn’t work.
We were married in 2006 and our first child was born in 2008. Fortunately my wife and I were already aware of the dangers of immunization, and all four of our beautiful children are vaccine-free.
While we knew that vaccinations were harmful, it wasn’t until we came across Ty Bollinger’s book Cancer – Step Outside the Box, shortly after our oldest child was born, that we found out why. The information in Ty’s book fully convinced us that we could not trust the medical system with our health. It is a scary thing to learn that it is not that our doctors are well meaning and simply misguided, but that there is an actual agenda to keep people sick so that profits may be made from the sale of drugs. But it is also empowering and liberating to know that there are alternatives, that we can cure illness and disease without injecting our bodies full of poison and subjecting it to harsh medical procedures.
It has been an amazing journey, and from a thick volume like Ty’s or a thin book of Amish home remedies, we are learning more every day. We have met or read the material of many wonderful people who instead of worrying about the next quarter’s profits are devoting their time to helping people become healthy. We are also realizing that it is a huge responsibility on our part. By God’s grace we will continue to learn and work toward a healthier future for our family.
By: Dr. Mercola
Aspartame is an artificial sweetener used in diet soda and over 6,000 other sugar-free or “diet” products. New research1 linking aspartame to cancer in some individuals has sparked a flurry of commentary, including an “apology” from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, a Harvard University teaching facility, for promoting the results2.
I first found out about the study when ABC News contacted me and requested that I provide them with a comprehensive analysis of this 40-page study within an hour. Fortunately, I have extensively reviewed this topic and was able to provide their requested review.
Funding was provided by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI).
The Harvard hospital originally sent out a press release with the headline: “The truth isn’t sweet when it comes to artificial sweeteners.” Alas, just half an hour before the release of the study, the hospital suddenly got cold feet, issuing the following statement:
“Upon review of the findings, the consensus of our scientific leaders is that the data is weak, and that BWH Media Relations was premature in the promotion of this work. We apologize for the time you have invested in this story.”
According to Erin McDonough3, senior vice president of communication and public affairs, this was “the first time something like this had ever happened in her 25 years of working in media relations.”
NBC News stated4:
“Not all science deserves publicity. Some is not done well. Some comes to equivocal conclusions and serves solely to alert other researchers of the need for further study. The research… about a potential cancer from aspartame falls squarely in that second category. If such a study does get attention, it can often increase the confusion and anger that many people feel about science in general – and the study of possible risks and benefits of our diet, in particular.”
None of this surprises me. After all, can you imagine the liability the food and beverage industries, not to mention virtually every public health agency in the US, would face were there convincing evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic? They simply cannot afford such evidence to be accepted.
But make no mistake about it, this study is of great importance because it’s the most comprehensive and longest human study — spanning 22 years — that has ever looked at aspartame toxicity. The study evaluates the effect between aspartame intake and cancer, and they found a clear association between aspartame consumption and non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and leukemia.
This is the first large-scale observational human study to report an association between aspartame consumption and blood cancers. The long-term nature of this study is really crucial because one of the primary tricks companies use to hide the toxicity of their products is short-term tests.
As the study mentions, the longest study prior to this one was only four and half months, far too short to reveal any toxicity from chronic exposure. Unfortunately, because there are so many of these short-term trials, they get away with saying that aspartame is one of the most studied food additives ever made and no health concerns have ever been discovered. The beverage industry was quick to respond5 to the study saying aspartame has been “deemed safe for decades by the world’s leading toxicologists.”
Well, they simply didn’t look long enough! But the average person does not realize that all those industry-funded studies were so pathetically short, and the media doesn’t inform them of this fact either. Hence, people are easily misled.
A number of animal studies have clearly documented the association between aspartame and cancer, as the study points out. But what most researchers do not appreciate is that humans are the only animals that do NOT have the protective mechanism to compensate for methanol toxicity. So evaluating methanol toxicity in animals is a flawed model for testing human toxicity.
This is due to alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH). In humans, methanol is allowed to be transported in the body to susceptible tissues where this enzyme, ADH, then converts it to formaldehyde, which damages protein and DNA that lead to the increased risk of cancer and autoimmune disease.
Interestingly, the previous AARP Diet and Health Study, which did not find an association with aspartame and cancer, used fruit juice as the control. Most are unaware that canned or bottled fruit juice is loaded with methanol that dissociates from the pectin over time and can actually cause similar problems as aspartame. This does not occur in freshly consumed fruits and vegetables, only ones that are bottled or canned. Hence no major difference could be discerned between the aspartame and the control group.
The health statistics for nearly 48,000 men and over 77,000 women over the age of 20 were reviewed for the featured study. They found that men who consumed more than one diet soda per day had an increased risk of developing multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Interestingly enough, this association was not found in women.
Leukemia was associated with diet soda intake in both sexes.
One hypothesis for the difference between the sexes is that men have a higher activity of the enzyme ADH, as I mentioned earlier, which metabolizes methanol and converts it to formaldehyde. More formaldehyde circulating in your blood would naturally have more opportunity to cause greater damage.
While the findings from this study add credible evidence that consuming aspartame over a long period of time can pose significant health risks, it also demonstrates that our understanding of the precise mechanism of harm is still lacking and needs to be investigated further, as it’s unclear why the women in this study didn’t experience the same increased rates of cancer.
It’s possible that there is some hormonally mediated protection against the adverse effects of aspartame in women, in addition to men having higher ADH activity, but the study was not designed to answer that question.
All in all however, I believe the study offers significant supporting evidence of the danger that “diet” drinks and foods pose. Many have indeed been injured by aspartame — there are more adverse reports to the FDA on aspartame than all other food additives combined. It’s also widely known how massive industry and government collusion at the FDA was ultimately responsible for its approval after it failed to be approved for many years.
Although the authors’ summary conclusion mentions they do not rule out the possibility of chance for this association, it’s worth noting that this is because they could not offer a conclusive explanation for the difference between the sexes.
I carefully reviewed this study in its entirety, and found it to be extremely well executed. While the mechanism responsible for the difference between the sexes for certain cancers need to be studied further, a biological mechanism for cancer from aspartame does exist, which I’ll review in a moment. Furthermore, it was the reviewers of the study that pushed back during the editing process, insisting that it should be made clear that chance was a plausible explanation for the findings6.
Lead researcher Eva Schernhammer, MD, DrPH stated in the original press release (which has since been removed):
“The sex difference we observed deserves consideration. There are many possible explanations in this, one being chance, however these differences could be related to a yet-to-be-discovered risk factor for lymphoma and leukemia, which are associated with soda consumption in men, but not women.”
Aspartame is primarily made up of aspartic acid and phenylalanine. The phenylalanine has been synthetically modified to carry a methyl group, which provides the majority of the sweetness. That phenylalanine methyl bond, called a methyl ester, is very weak, which allows the methyl group on the phenylalanine to easily break off and form methanol. This is in sharp contrast to naturally-occurring methanol found in certain fruits and vegetables, where it is firmly bonded to pectin, allowing the methanol to be safely passed through your digestive tract.
If the methyl alcohol is broken off from the phenylalanine, as easily happens when drinks sweetened with it are exposed to higher temperatures, it no longer tastes sweet. This is precisely what happened to most of the diet soda sent to the Middle East for US troops. They received non-sweet sodas that were loaded with dangerous levels of methanol, which can be toxic when it’s in this already broken down state.
Methanol acts as a Trojan horse; it’s carried into susceptible tissues in your body, like your brain and bone marrow, where the ADH enzyme converts it into formaldehyde, which wreaks havoc with sensitive proteins and DNA. All other animals, on the other hand, have a protective mechanism that allows methanol to be broken down into harmless formic acid…
According to aspartame expert Dr. Woodrow Monte, there’s a major biochemical problem with methanol in humans, because of the difference in how it’s metabolized, compared to all other animals. This is why toxicology testing on animals is a flawed model. It doesn’t fully apply to humans.
Both animals and humans have small structures called peroxisomes in each cell. There are a couple of hundred in every cell of your body, which are designed to detoxify a variety of chemicals. Peroxisome contains catalase, which help detoxify methanol. Other chemicals in the peroxisome convert the formaldehyde to formic acid, which is harmless, but this last step occurs only in animals.
When methanol enters the peroxisome of every animal except humans, it gets into that mechanism. Humans do have the same number of peroxisomes in comparable cells as animals, but human peroxisomes cannot convert the toxic formaldehyde into harmless formic acid.
So again, to recap: In humans, the methyl alcohol travels through your blood vessels into sensitive areas, such as your brain, that are loaded with alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), which converts methanol to formaldehyde, and since there’s no catalase present, the formaldehyde is free to cause enormous damage in your tissues.
In related news, a study published on October 19 in the journal Appetite7, found that compared with sucrose (regular table sugar), saccharin and aspartame caused greater weight gain in adult rats, and this weight gain was unrelated to caloric intake. The underlying mechanism was not determined.
However, a number of studies have already shown that consuming artificial sweeteners breaks the connection between a sweet sensation and a high-calorie food, thereby changing your body’s ability to regulate intake naturally. In a similar 2008 study8, rats that ate yogurt sweetened with an artificial sweetener consumed more calories, gained more weight, and put on more body fat than rats that ate yogurt sweetened with sugar. Other studies, too, have shown that eating artificial sweeteners might hinder your body’s ability to estimate calorie intake, thus boosting your inclination to overindulge.
The fact that aspartame is NOT a dieter’s best friend has been known by scientists for some time. The problem is this news has not received the necessary traction in the media…
For example, a study from 19869, which included nearly 80,000 women, found that those who used artificial sweeteners were significantly more likely than non-users to gain weight over time, regardless of initial weight. According to the authors, the results “were not explicable by differences in food consumption patterns,” and concluded that:
” The data do not support the hypothesis that long-term artificial sweetener use either helps weight loss or prevents weight gain.”
Another more recent study with the telling title of Gain Weight by “Going Diet?” Artificial Sweeteners and the Neurobiology of Sugar Cravings, published in 201010, found that epidemiologic data suggest artificially sweetened foods and beverages do not reduce weight. Quite the contrary:
“Several large scale prospective cohort studies found positive correlation between artificial sweetener use and weight gain. The San Antonio Heart Study examined 3,682 adults over a seven- to eight-year period in the 1980s.
When matched for initial body mass index (BMI), gender, ethnicity, and diet, drinkers of artificially sweetened beverages consistently had higher BMIs at the follow-up, with dose dependence on the amount of consumption… Saccharin use was also associated with eight-year weight gain in 31,940 women from the Nurses’ Health Study conducted in the 1970s.
Similar observations have been reported in children.
A two-year prospective study involving 166 school children found that increased diet soda consumption was associated with higher BMI Z-scores at follow-up, indicating weight gain. The Growing Up Today Study, involving 11,654 children aged 9 to 14 also reported positive association between diet soda and weight gain for boys. For each daily serving of diet beverage, BMI increased by 0.16 kg/m2… A cross-sectional study looking at 3,111 children and youth found diet soda drinkers had significantly elevated BMI.”
Many people belatedly realize they’ve been suffering reactions to one artificial sweetener or another. If you suspect an artificial sweetener might be to blame for a symptom you’re having, a good way to help you weed out the culprit is to do an elimination challenge. It’s easy to do, but you must read the ingredient labels for everything you put in your mouth to make sure you’re avoiding ALL artificial sweeteners. To determine if you’re having a reaction to artificial sweeteners, take the following steps:
Let me make it abundantly clear that even though you may not show immediate signs of any noticeable reaction after consuming artificial sweeteners, please don’t make the mistake of telling yourself “they must be OK for me”. I strongly urge you to avoid them at all costs. They are toxic to all humans and will not help you in any way, shape, or form.
Also, if you do experience side effects from aspartame, please report it to the FDA (if you live in the United States) without delay. It’s easy to make a report — just go to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator page, find the phone number for your state, and make a call reporting your reaction. There’s no telling just how many reports they might need to receive before taking another look at aspartame’s safety and reconsidering their stance. But I CAN tell you, the more reports they get, the more likely that is to happen. So if you suspect you have experienced an adverse reaction from aspartame (or any other drug or food additive), please take a moment to make this important call.
The best strategy is to lower your use of sugar and eat right for your nutritional type and make sure you have enough high quality fats. Once your body has the proper fuel, your sweet cravings will radically diminish and you will be satisfied without them. If you still have cravings it is a strong suggestion you need to further refine your attempt to identify the right fuel for your body. My free Nutritional Plan can help you do this in a step by step fashion.
If you need a sweetener you could use stevia or Lo Han, both of which are safe natural sweeteners. Remember, if you struggle with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes or extra weight, then you have insulin sensitivity issues and would benefit from avoiding ALL sweeteners.
If you’re having trouble weaning yourself off soda, try Turbo Tapping. Turbo Tapping is a clever use of the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), specifically designed to resolve many aspects of an addiction in a concentrated period of time.
By: Dr. Jonathan V. Wright
Originally published in Nutrition & Healing newsletter; Vol. 8 Issue 12, February 2012
All it takes is one look around the grocery store to see that gluten sensitivity is on the rise. Because of the increase in celiac disease, gluten-free foods are more in demand now than ever before. But did you know that even if you don’t have celiac disease, you might be gluten sensitive and not even know it?
It’s possible – because not even many doctors know you can be gluten sensitive without the telltale gastrointestinal issues that accompany celiac disease.
But if you’re suffering from an undiagnosed health problem – or even an “incurable” autoimmune disease – you should consider getting tested for gluten sensitivity. Believe it or not, this “hidden” sensitivity can be at the root of many illnesses – many of them “incurable” autoimmune diseases.
Ultimately, that means that treating these diseases could be a simple as adjusting your diet.
The key to understand this starts with the fairly recent research-backed realization that although gluten sensitivity and celiac disease may overlap, they are not the same illness. Let’s cover that first.
Celiac disease – triggered by gliadin, a gluten protein – almost always features very notable gastro-intestinal symptoms, including bloating, gas, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and cramping. In medical school, we were told that celiac disease without gastro-intestinal symptoms was rare to non-existent. We were also told that if an intestinal biopsy that appeared normal meant there was no gluten sensitivity at all.
By contrast, gluten sensitivity (now research-differentiated from celiac disease) often has no gastro-intestinal symptoms at all. To make matters worse, intestinal biopsies in individuals with gluten sensitivity are often normal.
A recent research publicationi summarizes other differences between celiac disease and gluten sensitivity. The researchers wrote: “Unlike celiac disease, gluten sensitivity is not associated with increased intestinal permeability, in fact, [intestinal permeability] was significantly reduced in gluten sensitivity compared with controls.”
The researchers pointed out that compared with healthy individuals, certain immune markers (for the technically inclined, IL-6 and IL-21) were elevated in celiac disease but not in those with gluten sensitivity, while another immune marker (TLR 2) was elevated in gluten sensitivity but not in celiac disease.
However, the two problems did share one similarity: lower levels of the immune marker FOXP3 when compared with healthy individuals.
These researchers concluded: “This study shows that the two gluten-associated disorders, celiac disease and gluten sensitivity, are different clinical entities…and it contributes to the characterization of gluten sensitivity as a condition associated with…absence of detectable changes in [the intestinal] mucosal barrier.”
Why bother pointing out these differences between gluten sensitivity and celiac disease? It’s because even many physicians don’t know that it’s possible to be sensitive to gluten with minimal if any gut symptoms, so they don’t even look for gluten as a relatively common cause of non-gastrointestinal symptoms and illnesses, many of them autoimmune.
Decades ago, an article in the Lancet (sorry, can’t find the reference) pointed out that the then-new science of white blood cell typing, called “HLA antigens,” was finding that certain diseases occurred much more commonly in individuals with certain HLA antigen types. (If you’re thinking that this is just a modern, scientific way of documenting and re-stating that illnesses run in families, you’re right. Genetically related individuals are much more likely to share many of the same white blood cell types, as they do the red blood cell types A, B, O and AB.)
One group of these “HLA-linked” diseases is almost entirely auto-immune. It includes the following disorders:
(At the time of the Lancet article, “gluten sensitivity” was not yet distinguished from celiac disease.)
The author of this decades-old article pointed out that all but one of these diseases were believed to be auto-immune diseases. He pointed out that the only disease on this list that has an external trigger is celiac disease, which was known since the 1940s to be caused by gluten and gliadin in wheat and other cereal grains. The author then speculated that gluten might actually be the external trigger for all these other illnesses that were originally thought to be of internal origin.
Over the years, I have found that this is often the case. At Tahoma Clinic, whenever we work with an individual with any of these diagnoses, we always include the secretory IgA (“sIgA”) anti-gliadin antibody test. (For more details about this test see the August 2011 issue of Nutrition & Healing.)
The sIgA anti-gliadin antibody test is positive in over 90 percent of individuals with any of these problems. Subsequent total elimination of gluten and gliadin, and very often all milk and dairy also, almost always results in major improvements in the health of these individuals.
How does this relate to whether or not an undiagnosed (or “hidden”) gluten-gliadin sensitivity could be to blame for many or even most of your health problems?
Remember that diseases run in families. So, if your family health history includes any of the autoimmune problems listed above, and you are personally having symptoms and health problems that haven’t been diagnosed, you may well have undiagnosed gluten-gliadin sensitivity, and should consider having yourself checked with the sIgA anti-gliadin antibody test.
There are also more routine laboratory test clues to undiagnosed gluten-gliadin sensitivity. They all arise from a major effect of gluten sensitivity noted above: the research-proven fact that intestinal absorption of nutrients is “significantly reduced in gluten sensitivity compared with controls.”
The first is a measurement included with nearly all routine physical examinations: serum triglycerides. Triglycerides are a type of blood fat. Fats and fat-soluble vitamins are known to be poorly absorbed by individuals with gluten-gliadin sensitivity.
At Tahoma Clinic, our colleague Davis Lamson N.D. pointed out to the rest of the physicians that a fasting serum triglyceride measurement below 50 milligrams per deciliter (normal in most laboratories is said to be 50 to 150 milligrams per deciliter) means gluten sensitivity and gluten-induced malabsorption until proven otherwise. (In my experience, this has been true nearly 100 percent of the time.) Dr. Lamson also points out that any individual with both undiagnosed symptoms and health problems and a fasting serum triglyceride below 75 milligrams per deciliter should always be checked for gluten-gliadin sensitivity too, as the probability is high.
Poor intestinal absorption is also to blame for abnormalities in two other tests commonly recommended by practitioners skilled and knowledgeable in natural medicine: the mineral analysis done with a hair specimen, and the fasting plasma essential amino acid determination. If either or both of these tests shows multiple low measurements (three or more of the essential amino acids, five or more of the essential minerals), I’ll recommend testing for gluten-gliadin sensitivity. Much more often than not, the test is positive.
Of course, the ultimate proof that gluten sensitivity is the problem is the often-dramatic improvement in previously undiagnosed, chronic symptoms and health problems that always follows the total elimination of gluten-containing foods in these individuals.
Bottom line: Whether you have gastrointestinal problems or not, if you have undiagnosed symptoms or health problems – and if you have one or more of the auto-immune problems listed above in your family – you may have gluten sensitivity. The odds are even higher if your fasting serum triglycerides are below 75, and/or your fasting plasma essential amino acid or hair mineral tests show multiple lower than normal values.
As little as 10 years ago, gluten-free products were hard to find. Twenty years ago, it was almost impossible to find them except in health food stores. Now, it seems gluten-free products are everywhere, even in some convenience stores. Obviously, more and more people are buying gluten-free.
Gluten sensitivity isn’t an infectious disease, so why does there appear to be a spreading epidemic?
Although there probably isn’t a spreading epidemic of gluten sensitivity itself, there’s certainly been a spreading epidemic of a research-demonstrated “trigger” for the problem.
A little-recognized reason for the seeming epidemic of gluten sensitivity can be traced directly to the use and over-use of antibiotics, all beginning in the 1940s.
Mainstream Medicine doesn’t understand this at all, and would likely deny even the suggestion. Even many natural medicine practitioners overlook this problem. However, both groups do know that use and overuse of antibiotics has caused many, many Candida albicans (yeast) infections.
In 2003, a group of Dutch researchers reportedii that Candida albicans may stimulate the formation of antibodies to gluten as well as auto-immune antibodies against tissue transglutaminase and endomysium, other types of antibodies found in many gluten-sensitive individuals.
In 2009, another group of researchers reported a single case of chronic candida infection in a four-year-old boy who also was found to have elevated anti-gliadin antibodies. Treatment with anti-fungal patent medicines resulted in improvement in the candida infection, while at the same time the anti-gliadin antibodies declined. Although not a controlled study or even close, this case supports the findings of the research reported in 2003.
In addition to improved diagnostic techniques finding more and more individuals with gluten sensitivity (read more about that on page XX), it appears very likely that the use and overuse of antibiotics leading to many more candida infections has in turn resulted in many more cases of gluten sensitivity also.
In 1989, my wife Holly and I visited the office of Dr. Christopher Reading in Dee Why, a suburb of Sydney, Australia. He showed us documentation of over 500 individuals who came to see him with a diagnosis of lupus, a usually-thought-to-be incurable auto-immune disease. With hard work on their own and with Dr. Reading’s treatment, these individuals eliminated all signs and symptoms of lupus as well as the patent and formerly patent medicines used to treat it.
Mainstream medicine then and now knows of no cure for lupus, but usually tries to control the symptoms with powerful patent and formerly patent medicines, all too frequently including prednisone (a very powerful pseudo-steroid), and methotrexate (an immune-system-destroying, formerly patent medicine often used in cancer treatment). Often, the effects of the patent and formerly patent medicines are as bad as or worse than the damage caused by the lupus itself.
How did over 500 individuals eliminate all signs and symptoms of lupus – and all patent medicines given for it, too – over 20 years ago? Dr. Reading had them totally eliminate all gluten, all milk and dairy products, and often other foods to which they were found to be allergic.
The other major part of Dr. Reading’s treatment included repeated massive (but safe) doses of vitamins and minerals given intravenously.
Despite the success of these 500+ individuals entirely eliminating their lupus over 20 years ago, no researcher or group of researchers have reported any follow-up investigation of Dr. Reading’s pioneering work.
i Sapone A, Lammers K, et al. Divergence of gut permeability and mucosal gene expression in two gluten-associated conditions: celiac disease and gluten sensitivity. BMC Medicine 2011;9:23
ii Nieuwenhuizen WF, Pieters RH, Knippels LM, Jansen MC, Koppelman SJ Is Candida albicans a trigger in the onset of coeliac disease? Lancet. 2003 Jun 21;361(9375):2152-4.
Research has led many scientists to conclude that jumping on a mini-trampoline is possibly the most effective exercise yet devised by man, especially because of the effect rebounding has on the lymph system. The human body needs to move. The lymph system bathes every cell and carries nutrients to the cell while removing toxins such as dead and cancerous cells, heavy metals, infectious viruses, and other assorted wastes. But unlike the blood (which is pumped by the heart), the lymph is totally dependent on physical exercise to move. Jumping on a mini-trampoline is frequently referred to as “rebounding.” You can rebound several times a day while listening to the radio or watching TV.
Lymphocytes (the primary cells of the lymph system) make up roughly 25% of all white blood cells in the body. Like other white blood cells, they are produced in the red bone marrow. Lymphocytes constantly travel throughout the body, moving through tissues or through the blood or lymph vessels. There are two major classes of lymphocytes: T-cells and B-cells. The letter “T” refers to the thymus, where those lymphocytes mature. The letter “B” refers to the bone marrow, where that group of lymphocytes matures.
T-cells carry out two main defensive functions: they kill invaders and orchestrate or control the actions of other lymphocytes involved in the immune process or response. In addition, T-cells recognize and destroy any abnormal body cells, such as those that have become cancerous.
Like T-cells, B-cells are also programmed to recognize specific antigens on foreign cells. When stimulated during an immune response (such as when foreign cells enter the body), B-cells undergo a change in structure. They then produce antibodies, which are protein compounds. These compounds bind with specific antigens of foreign cells, labeling those cells for destruction.
You can see that B-cells and T-cells are key players in our immune response. But without muscular contraction, adequate exercise, and movement, these lymphocytes are not able to do their job, because the lymph doesn’t flow. Thus, the body’s cells are left stewing in their own waste products and starving for nutrients, a situation which contributes to cancer and other degenerative diseases, as well as premature aging. Rebounding has been shown to increase lymph flow by up to thirty times!
Also, all of the body’s cells become stronger in response to the increased “G forces” during rebounding, and this cellular exercise results in the self-propelled lymphocytes being up to five times more active!
Rebounding on a mini-trampoline directly strengthens the immune system, increases lymph flow, and oxygenates the blood. Unlike jogging on hard surfaces which puts extreme stress on certain joints such as the ankles and knees eventually damaging them, rebounding affects every joint and cell in the body equally. Plus, there are no cars, dogs, and bad weather to worry about.
There are several companies that sell rebounders, but our favorite is Needak Rebounders. They’ve been in business for decades, they’re made in the USA, their customer service is outstanding, and they sell a 1/2 fold rebounder that comes with a carrying case so you can take it wherever you go. For those who have balance problems, they also sell a “stabilizer bar” that bolts securely onto the rebounder that you can hold on to.
You may have heard the slogan, “Laughter is the best medicine.” I wholeheartedly agree. So, here’s a little humor to make you smile.
OK, enough for this time. But stay tuned. My next monthly newsletter will have more great info.
And please remember that CANCER DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A DEATH SENTENCE!
Thanks and God bless.