Updated List

1. Genetically modified foods and animal produce raised on GM feed must be labeled in European Union countries. Why not in the USA?

http://www.drgreene.com/blog/2003/07/25/genetically-modified-food-europe

2. The practice of adding antibiotics to animal feed in order to promote growth has been banned in European Union countries since 2006. Why is it still permissible in the United States?

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/1687&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN

3. European nations and Canada have banned the use of genetically modified bovine growth hormone (rBGH) which stimulates the production of milk containing increased levels of Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1). High concentrations of IGF-1 in human serum are associated with an increased risk of breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancers. Why is the use of rBGH not banned in the USA?

http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/milk.htm

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(02)00731-3/abstract

4. Chemical companies are now being required to prove that their products are safe before releasing them for commercial use in Europe. Why not in the USA?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/11/AR2008061103569.html

5. The inclusion of phthalates, industrial chemicals used as solvents, is banned in deodorants, hair sprays, nail polishes and perfumes in European Union countries. Why not in the USA?

http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/phthalates.htm

6. Direct marketing of prescription drugs to consumers is banned in almost every country. Why not in the USA?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Direct-to-consumer_advertising
http://www.clinicalcorrelations.org/?p=2867

Why are Americans not being protected? Ask the politicians in Washington D.C.

Genetic modification is radically different from using plant breeding techniques to select out particular traits such as disease resistance. In genetic modification, genes from bacteria and viruses are introduced into plant cells in the laboratory and this process can cause significant collateral damage to the plant’s biochemistry, so much so that some animals can detect the changes and refuse to eat the genetically modified (GM) produce (1).

Which Crops Are Genetically Modified?

There are presently nine crops grown in the U.S. where some of the produce is GM and these are soybeans, corn, cottonseed, canola, alfalfa, sugar beet, Hawaiian papaya, yellow crookneck squash and zucchini. Approximately 86% of all the corn and 93% of all the soybean, cottonseed and canola currently grown in the U.S. are now GM. Also, 95% of all the sugar beet planted is GM. Recently, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) deregulated genetically- engineered alfalfa, which is commonly used in cattle feed.

In approximately 68% of GM crops, bacterial genes are inserted that enable the plants to resist the weed killer Roundup. As a result, farmers can spray these crops heavily to destroy unwanted competition while the crop survives and thrives, albeit contaminated with herbicide.

Another 19% of GM crops have a gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) inserted that results in the production of Bt toxin, an insecticide. So the modified crops now produce their own insecticide. The remaining 13% of GM crops produce both an insecticide and are also herbicide tolerant.

So How Can We Avoid GM Foods?

1) Buy produce that is certified 100% organic.
2) Purchase produce labeled “Non-GMO” or “Made without Genetically Modified Ingredients.”
3) Avoid the high-risk crops; soybeans, corn, cottonseed, canola and sugar beet and products derived from them unless they specifically state that they are organic or non-GMO.
4) Purchase from vendors such as Trader Joe’s who guarantee that produce bearing their label is non-GMO.
5) Download the free Non-GMO Shopping Guide.

Reference

1) Smith, J. M. (2009) Video: Everything You Have To Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods. http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/Home/index.cfm

© Christopher J. Jones, M.Sc., Ph.D.

As we approach Thanksgiving, this uniquely North American holiday, the nation gives thanks and commemorates the deliverance of the early settlers and the success of their first harvest.

Thanksgiving is a time of great feasting, probably the greatest feast of the year, when families come together and sit down to the traditional, rich Thanksgiving dinner, after which they usually retire, substantially heavier, to comfortable chairs where they collapse and fall asleep. I often think that this would be the perfect time for an enemy to attack, when the nation is collectively comatose upon the sofa. A similar overindulgence occurs at Christmas and New Year and it is no coincidence that many people become ill with colds, flu and other infections at this time of the year. Why is this? I believe there are several reasons.

Excessive Sugar Consumption

During the fall and early winter season, the nation consumes an excess of foods rich in sugar and refined carbohydrates, above and beyond the average consumption during the rest of the year. The sugar is consumed not just in candies, cookies and desserts but also in drinks and even in main courses. Let’s consider how much sugar we could consume individually during a Thanksgiving dinner by taking a look at the amount of sugar per serving as shown on the food labels: Cream of Tomato Soup (10g), Candied Sweet Potatoes (27g), Cornbread (15g), Cranberry Jelly (20g), Grape Juice (39g), Pumpkin Pie (18g) and Vanilla Ice Cream (23g). The total comes to a staggering 152 grams of sugar which is over 5 ounces, more than a quarter pound, and this does not include the sugar in cookies, cakes and sweetened coffee that may also be consumed. If you have pecan pie instead of pumpkin pie, add an extra 14 grams of sugar per serving. Some of the sugar occurs naturally in the food and the rest is added. It can come in several guises, not just glucose, fructose and table sugar but also as corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, maple syrup and, more recently, evaporated cane juice. Honey is also essentially sugar and should never be given to children under 12 months of age because it may contain spores of Clostridium botulinum to which they are not fully resistant.

Effect of Sugar on Our Immune System

Sugar is sweet but, in excess, it is certainly not our friend. It has many adverse effects upon our health, one of which is the weakening of our immune system, our body’s defense mechanism. Consuming 100 grams of sugar has been shown to reduce the ability of our white blood cells to engulf bacteria by over 40% (1). This suppression of our defenses begins less than 30 minutes after the sugar is ingested and it takes over five hours to return to normal assuming no further sugar is consumed during that time. In contrast, when we ingest complex unrefined carbohydrates, there is no deleterious effect upon our immune system.

Healthier Eating

The solution to the problem is to greatly reduce our intake of sugar and refined carbohydrates, not just during the holidays but at all times. Examples of refined carbohydrates include white rice and products made from refined flour such as white bread, cake, pastry and pasta. Read food labels to ascertain if sugar or one of its surrogates is present and in what quantity. Avoid ruining perfectly good dishes such as carrots and sweet potatoes with added sugar. Refrain from drinking sodas, lemonade and fruit juices loaded with sugar. Also limit the consumption of fat, particularly saturated fat, which can make the circulation sluggish and promote arterial disease. Sugar and fat also contain calories. There are four calories per gram of sugar and nine calories per gram of fat and if we don’t use these up in normal metabolism and by being active then we will gain weight and this can lead to serious chronic health problems and disability. Make your Thanksgiving dinner as healthy as possible with the inclusion of a salad course, whole grains, and plenty of vegetables such as peas, beans and Brussels sprouts. You will certainly feel much better afterwards. Try a fresh fruit salad for dessert but if your heart is set upon pie then make it a special treat and enjoy it in moderation.

Vitamin D

Another reason why we are more sensitive to infections during the late fall and winter months is that we get less exposure to sunlight. This is partly because there is more cloud cover and also because we tend to spend less time outside when it’s cold and wet. As a result, the prime mechanism whereby we make vitamin D, namely exposure to sunlight, is significantly limited. Also, in our busy lives today, we rarely spend enough time outdoors, even in the sunshine states regardless of the season. It is therefore important to ensure that we receive enough vitamin D in dietary and supplement form. As well as helping to maintain bone integrity, vitamin D has been found to increase the production of a class of proteins known as antimicrobial peptides, which interfere with the action of certain bacteria and viruses, including the flu virus, thereby inactivating them and keeping us symptom-free.

Food sources that contain natural vitamin D are egg yolk, fish and liver, including cod liver oil, but these may not provide enough and are excluded in vegan and many vegetarian diets. Some rice and soy beverages, orange juice and many breakfast cereals are fortified with vitamin D but the amounts present are not sufficient to protect against infections. Daily multivitamin supplements contain only 400 IU of vitamin D, sufficient to prevent rickets but inadequate for maintaining optimal health. According to Dr. Joseph Mercola (2), we should be taking 35 IU (International Units) of vitamin D per pound of body weight per day if we don’t get enough sun exposure and Dr. Mark Hyman (3) recommends 5,000-10,000 IU per day for optimal health.

Exercise

A third way to stay healthy during the fall and winter months is to exercise regularly. Provided we spend time outdoors walking, cycling, jogging or working in the garden during early morning or late afternoon when the sun is not too strong, we should be able to make some of the vitamin D that we need, and we can supplement with the rest. Regular exercise will also help to control our weight, stimulate our cardiovascular and respiratory systems, and strengthen our immune system, thus increasing our resistance to infections. It is good to get out of doors and into fresh air rather than being cooped up indoors where toxic chemicals can accumulate and infections are more easily transmitted. Keeping the house clean, aired and fresh will also help to keep us and our families healthy.

Happy Thanksgiving and Good Health!

© Christopher J. Jones, M.Sc., Ph.D.
Adventist Health Ministry,
Laguna Niguel, California 92677, U.S.A.

References

1) Sanchez, A. et al. (1973) Role of Sugars in Human Neutrophilic Phagocytosis. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 26, 1180-1184.

2) http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/10/10/Vitamin-D-Experts-Reveal-the-Truth.aspx

3) Hyman, M. (2008) The UltraMind Solution. Scribner, New York, NY 10020, page 135.

I believe that the greatest threat to our health today is an ingredient in our diet, the consumption of which has risen dramatically in recent history. I’m talking about sugar. Let’s look at how much our sugar consumption has increased. Here are the figures for Great Britain and they are essentially the same for other developed countries.

Sugar Consumption

• In 1700, the average person consumed about 4.6 pounds of sugar per year.
• By 1770, it had increased nearly four times, to 16.2 pounds.
• By 1800, it was 18 pounds.
• By 1850, it had doubled to 36 pounds and by 1900 it was 90 pounds.

Here is a graph of sugar consumption in Great Britain from 1815 to 1955. Notice the dips that coincided with the two World Wars and the slow recoveries in sugar consumption thereafter, the first prolonged by the Great Depression and the second by continued rationing.

In the United States, it is now estimated that more than 50 percent of Americans consume a 1/2 pound of sugar per day, which amounts to 180 pounds of sugar per year. It is little wonder that we are in the midst of a chronic disease and obesity epidemic.

Forms of Sugar

Sugar comes in essentially two forms; naturally occurring and processed. The naturally occurring sugars give sweetness to certain fruits and vegetables for example, to apples, tomatoes and carrots. Processed sugars are the sugars that are extracted from natural sources, for example table sugar from sugar cane and sugar beet, and high fructose corn syrup manufactured from corn starch by an enzymatic process.

Some of the Simple Sugars and their Components

Glucose, also known as Dextrose
Fructose, also known as Fruit Sugar
Galactose
Maltose ( Glucose-Glucose ) Malt Sugar
Lactose ( Glucose-Galactose ) Milk Sugar
Sucrose ( Glucose-Fructose ) Table Sugar

We are designed to handle the simple sugar glucose very well. It is the major energy source for our brain, and every living cell in the body is capable of metabolizing glucose. Fructose on the other hand is not handled at all well and is metabolized largely in the liver. It is now considered by some to be toxic (1)

Today, we are taking in vastly more sugar than we need and the excess is overwhelming our normal metabolic processes. The result is a steady degradation in our health as exemplified by a greater susceptibility to infection and an increased incidence of serious chronic diseases. . Dr. Nancy Appleton has listed 146 ways in which sugar can adversely affect our health (2). Some of the most serious effects are listed below. Purified fructose is far more deleterious than glucose or natural fructose.

Serious Effects of Sugar on Our Health

1. Sugar weakens our immune system (3,4,5) . It has been shown that ingestion of 100 mg of sugar in the form of glucose, fructose, sucrose (table sugar), honey or orange juice resulted in an approximate 50% reduction in the ability of neutrophils to ingest bacteria. This inhibition lasted for at least five hours.

2. Sugar is the preferred food of cancer cells. They thrive on it and can use both glucose and fructose (6).

3. Excessive sugar consumption can lead to obesity. The increasing use of high fructose corn syrup in processed foods correlates with the obesity epidemic. Fructose is readily converted into fat (7) and it also inhibits the production of leptin (8), a hormone which tells us when we are full. So, as a result, we keep on eating and getting fatter.

Obesity itself is a major risk factor for Type 2 diabetes, cardio and cerebrovascular disease, cancer at at least 5 locations, dementia, osteoarthritis, and a host of other medical conditions (9)

4. Fructose consumption can lead to an elevation of serum uric acid levels which in turn results in elevated blood pressure, a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke. (10,11)

5. Fructose induces insulin resistance. There is growing evidence that fructose can induce the condition known as insulin resistance (12). This is where the tissues do not respond adequately to insulin and so do not absorb circulating glucose in the normal manner with the result that blood glucose levels rise above the normal range and produce adverse effects. The induction of insulin resistance by fructose occurs independently of weight gain and differences in caloric intake (13,14) and the effect may be mediated by increased uric acid levels. Insulin resistance precedes the development of type 2 diabetes and is characteristic of it.

6. Fructose and metabolic syndrome. It is now clear that high fructose consumption represents a serious threat to our health. Either directly or indirectly, it promotes fat synthesis, high blood pressure, and insulin resistance, all of which are characteristic of a condition known as metabolic syndrome, a collection of traits probably best described by Gerald Reaven (15) that greatly increase our risk of heart disease, stroke and type 2 diabetes. Metabolic syndrome now affects over 55 million people in the United States (16) and is indicative of chronic disease. It used to be found only in adults but now occurs in adolescents also.

Reducing Our Sugar Consumption

So, now that we know what a serious threat excessive sugar intake is to our health, what can we do about it? Obviously, we have to reduce our sugar consumption. How? Here are a few suggestions.

1. First, we need to be aware of our sugar intake. How quickly do we go through a bag of sugar at home? We should make a conscious effort to reduce our sugar intake and this can be done gradually so that we minimize the risk of relapse. Try reducing the amount of sugar you put in tea or coffee, and in recipes. If you do this in stages, it will be easier to adapt and you will see the benefit when you notice that it takes longer to go through a bag of sugar.

2. Avoid using artificial sweeteners because they will perpetuate your sweet tooth. The whole idea is to recalibrate our taste buds. Also, some artificially sweeteners may have side effects.

3. Avoid all sodas. They are rich in added sugars or artificial sweeteners.

4. Read all labels on processed foods and baked goods.. You may be surprised at the sugar content. If you cannot avoid such foods, then make a conscious effort to reduce your intake of them. Knowledge is power.

5. Wean yourself off dessert. Substitute fresh fruit and some cottage cheese for processed desserts such as pies, puddings and ice cream. You should reserve those for special occasions only and then in moderation.

6. Eat real fruit and avoid fruit juices which only serve to concentrate the sugars and remove the fiber. Aim for 2-3 servings of fruit per day and at least five servings of vegetables, half of which should be raw.

7. Don’t go shopping when you are hungry.

8. Eat a good breakfast, preferably high in protein and fiber and low in sugar and refined carbohydrates. The same applies to lunch. Eat a light dinner. If you need to snack, then have some fresh fruit and nuts on hand.

Hopefully, if you follow this advice you will eventually be repulsed if you encounter anything intensely sweet and you will be doing your health a big favor.

© Christopher J. Jones, M.Sc., Ph.D.

References

1. Lustig, R. H. (2009) Sugar: The Bitter Truth. UC Television Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

2. Appleton, N. 146 Reasons Why Sugar Is Ruining Your Health. http://rheumatic.org/sugar.htm

3. Sanchez, A., et al. “Role of Sugars in Human Neutrophilic Phagocytosis,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Nov 1973;261:1180-1184.

4. Bernstein, J., et al. “Depression of Lymphocyte Transformation Following Oral Glucose Ingestion.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.1997;30:613.

5. Jones, C. J. (2010) How to Build and Maintain a Strong Immune System. http://www.health360.info/ensure-health.html

6. Liu, H. et al. ( 2010) Fructose Induces Transketolase Flux to Promote Pancreatic Cancer Growth. Cancer Res. 70:6368-6376. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/70/15/6368.full

7. Stanhope, K. L. & Havel, P. J. (2008) Fructose Consumption: Potential Mechanisms for Its Effects to Increase Visceral Adiposity and Induce Dyslipidemia and Insulin Resistance. Curr. Opin. Lipidol. 19:16–24.

8. Shapiro, A. et al. (2008) Fructose-Induced Leptin Resistance Exacerbates Weight Gain in Response to Subsequent High Fat Feeding. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 295: R1370–R1375.

9. Jones, C. J. (2010) Obesity and Its Serious Health Consequences. http://www.health360.info/obesity-health-consequences.html

10. Feig, D. I., Kang, D. H. & Johnson, R. J. (2008) Uric acid and Cardiovascular Risk. N. Engl. J. Med. 359:1811–1821.

11. Feig, D. I. & Johnson, R.J. (2003) Hyperuricemia in Childhood Primary Hypertension. Hypertension 42:247–252.

12. Johnson, R. J. et al. (2009) Hypothesis: Could Excessive Fructose Intake and Uric Acid Cause Type 2 Diabetes? Endocrine Reviews 30 (1): 96-116.

13. Havel P. J. (2005) Dietary Fructose: Implications for Dysregulation of Energy Homeostasis and Lipid/Carbohydrate Metabolism. Nutr Rev 63:133–157.

14. Nakagawa, T. et al. (2006) A Causal Role for Uric Acid in Fructose-Induced Metabolic Syndrome. Am J Physiol 290:F625–F631.

15. Reaven, G. M. (1997) Banting Lecture 1988. Role of Insulin Resistance in Human Disease. Nutrition 13:65.

16. Ford, E. S., Giles, W. H. & Mokdad, A. H. (2004) Increasing Prevalence of the Metabolic Syndrome Among U.S. Adults. Diabetes Care 27:2444–2449.

A research team based at University College London has published the results of a study (1) which show an association between the time spent sleeping and mental aging.

The project involved 1,459 women and 3,972 men who were aged 45–69 at the beginning of the investigation. The time spent sleeping ( in hours ) during an average week night was assessed once between 1997 and 1999, and then again between 2002 and 2004. Cognitive function was measured using 6 different tests.

It was shown that if the time spent sleeping had either decreased from 6-8 hours or increased from this interval, there was an association with lower scores on most of the cognitive tests. The magnitude of these effects was equivalent to a 4-7 year increase in age.

According to the lead author, “The main result to come out of our study was that adverse changes in sleep duration appear to be associated with poorer cognitive function in later-middle age.”

The take home message is that we should try to get around 7 hours of sleep every night. It should be pointed out that an association does not prove cause and effect but the findings of this study certainly merit further investigation.

1. Ferrie, J, E., Shipley, M. J., Akbaraly, T. N., Marmot, M.G., Kivimäki, M. & Singh-Manoux, A. ( 2011 ) Change in Sleep Duration and Cognitive Function: Findings from the Whitehall II Study. SLEEP: 34 (5): 565-573.

Perhaps the best way to answer this question is to study those people who actually do live long and healthy lives. There are regions of the world known as Blue Zones where a higher proportion of people live to 100 years or more and in generally good health. What is the secret of their longevity?

In his 2008 book entitled “The Blue Zones, Lessons for Living Longer from the People Who’ve Lived the Longest” (1), the explorer Dan Buettner examines this question. He reports on four Blue Zones; the Barbagia region of Sardinia, Italy; the Okinawa archipelago, Japan; the Seventh-Day Adventist community of Loma Linda, California, and the Nicoya Peninsula of Costa Rica. Since his book was published, a fifth Blue Zone, the Greek island of Ikaria, has been added to the list. The diet and lifestyle of the inhabitants of these regions have been studied and they have been found to share several features in common. These are,

1. Spending quality time with family and friends. Being socially active.
2. Eating a predominantly plant-based diet.
3. Engaging in regular low-intensity exercise.
4. Refraining from smoking.

1. Spending Quality Time with Family and Friends

There are distinct benefits in being part of an extended family and being sociable. Good habits of caring and sharing are encouraged and people look out for one another. Older members of the community are active and involved and, as a result, they have a sense of purpose and belonging. In Okinawa they call it ikigai – the reason for waking up in the morning. The elders are respected in the community and take pride in seeing their children and grandchildren grow up well. An 11-year study that followed active members of society between the ages of 65 and 92 found that those who had a strong sense of purpose lived longer and had sharper minds (2).

2. Eating a Plant-Based Diet

Eating a predominantly plant-based diet where much of the produce is fresh, locally grown and pesticide – free ensures a rich intake of vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals that are essential for good health. Many of these substances are anti-oxidants and serve to neutralize free-radicals and peroxides, collectively known as reactive oxygen species, that are produced in our body during oxidative metabolism. If these reactive oxygen species are not neutralized, they will contribute to physical degeneration, aging and the onset of chronic disease.

3. Engaging in Regular Low-Intensity Exercise

Regular low-intensity exercise will serve to use up excess calories, stimulate the circulation and strengthen the immune system, all of which will contribute to good health. The inhabitants of the Blue Zones are physically active virtually every day. Many of them work out of doors, in the fields or on hillsides, herding animals and tending to crops and small holdings. Spending long periods in front of a television or computer is not part of their life style. They are not sedentary, nor do they engage in occasional bursts of high-intensity exercise. It has been shown that high-intensity exercise, where the body’s energy metabolism goes into high gear, can produce a surge of reactive oxygen species (ROS) which could overwhelm antioxidant defenses, thereby increasing the risk of cell and tissue damage (3) and also weakening our immune system. It is therefore important to achieve the correct balance between ROS generation and neutralization. That’s why regular low intensity exercise coupled with a diet rich in antioxidants works so well.

4. Refraining from Smoking

It is well established that smoking is a high risk factor for certain cancers as well as for coronary heart disease, stroke, peripheral vascular disease and chronic obstructive lung disease, all of which can reduce life expectancy (4). Therefore, refraining from smoking and from exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke will greatly reduce the risk of contracting these diseases.

© Christopher J. Jones, M.Sc., Ph.D.
Adventist Health Ministry,
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677, USA

References

1) Buettner, D. (2008) The Blue Zones: Lessons for Living Longer from the People Who’ve Lived the Longest. National Geographic Books. ISBN 1426202741.

2) Butler, R. N. (1999) The Inequality of Longevity: Life Expectancy Gap Widens Between Industrialized World and Developing Nations. Geriatrics 54, 12-15.

3) Ji, L.L. (2003) Free Radicals and Exercise: Implication in Health and Fitness. Journal of Exercise and Sport Fitness, 1(1), 15-22. http://www.scsepf.org/doc/pdf_mem_only/Free%20radicals%20and%20exercise%20implicaton%20in
%20health%20and%20fitness.pdf

4) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009) Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/
health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/index.htm

Based on the most current data available, the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit organization based in Washington D.C., has come out with their latest version of the Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides, detailing the twelve fruits and vegetables with the highest levels of pesticide contamination ( The Dirty Dozen ) and the fifteen with the lowest levels ( The Clean Fifteen ). The top 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables, referred to as The Dirty Dozen, are as follows with the most contaminated first: Apples, Celery, Strawberries, Peaches, Spinach, Nectarines ( Imported ), Grapes ( Imported ), Sweet Bell Peppers, Potatoes, Blueberries ( Domestic ), Lettuce, and Kale/Collard Greens. At the other end of the scale, the fifteen fruits and vegetables with the lowest concentrations of pesticides, known as The Clean Fifteen, are as follows, with the cleanest first: Onions, Sweet Corn, Pineapples, Avocado, Asparagus, Sweet Peas ( Frozen ), Mangoes, Eggplant, Cantaloupe ( Domestic ), Kiwi, Cabbage, Watermelon, Sweet Potatoes, Grapefruit, and Mushrooms. Most of the samples were washed and peeled prior to being tested, so the rankings reflect the amounts of the chemicals likely to be present in the produce when is it eaten. By choosing to eat 5 servings of fruits and vegetables a day from the Clean 15 rather than the Dirty Dozen, the amount of pesticide consumed can be lowered by 92 percent, according to the EWG, and you will also eat fewer types of pesticide. The new Shopper’s Guide is accompanied by the video below in which the renowned physician and health commentator Dr. Andrew Weil gives his recommendations based on the findings.

The Dirty Dozen™

Here are the comments that the EWG made in their report on “The Dirty Dozen”.

Findings on the fruits: The most contaminated fruits are apples, strawberries, peaches, domestic nectarines, imported grapes and domestic blueberries.

• Every sample of imported nectarines tested positive for pesticides, followed by apples (97.8 percent) and imported plums (97.2 percent).
• 92 percent of apples contained 2 or more pesticide residues‚ followed by imported nectarines (90.8 percent) and peaches (85.6 percent).
• Imported grapes had 14 pesticides detected on a single sample. Strawberries and domestic grapes both had 13 different pesticides detected on a single sample.
• As a category. peaches were treated with more pesticides than any other fruit, registering combinations of up to 57 different chemicals. Apples were next, with 56 different pesticides and raspberries with 51.

Findings on the vegetables: The most contaminated vegetables are celery, spinach, sweet bell peppers, potatoes, lettuce and greens (kale and collards).

• Some 96 percent all celery samples tested positive for pesticides, followed by cilantro (92.9 percent) and potatoes (91.4 percent).
• Nearly 90 percent of celery samples contained multiple pesticides, followed by cilantro (70.1 percent) and sweet bell peppers (69.4 percent).
• A single celery sample was contaminated with 13 different chemicals, followed by a single sample of sweet bell peppers (11), and greens (10).
• As a category, hot peppers had been treated with as many as 97 pesticides, followed by cucumbers (68) and greens (66).

The Clean Fifteen

Here are the EWG’s comments on “The Cleanest Fifteen”.

Findings on the fruits: The fruits least likely to test positive for pesticide residues are pineapples, avocados, mangoes, domestic cantaloupe, kiwi, watermelon and grapefruit.

• Fewer than 10 percent of pineapple, mango, and avocado samples showed detectable pesticides, and fewer than one percent of samples had more than one pesticide residue.
• Nearly 55 percent of grapefruit had detectable pesticides but only 17.5 percent of samples contained more than one residue. Watermelon had residues on 28.1 percent of samples, and 9.6 percent had multiple pesticide residues.

Findings on the vegetables: The cleanest vegetables are onions, sweet corn, asparagus, sweet peas, eggplant, cabbage, sweet potatoes and mushrooms.

• Asparagus, sweet corn and onions had no detectable pesticide residues on 90 percent or more of samples.
• More than four-fifths of cabbage samples (81.8 percent) had no detectible pesticides, followed by sweet peas (77.1 percent) and eggplant (75.4 percent).
• Multiple pesticide residues are extremely rare on vegetables low in overall contamination. No samples of onions and corn had more than one pesticide. Less than 6 percent of sweet potato samples had multiple pesticides.
• Of the low-pesticide vegetables, no single sample had more than 5 different chemicals.

Christopher J. Jones, M.Sc., Ph.D.

There is clear and growing evidence that children today are exhibiting higher rates of allergies, attention deficit disorders (ADD, ADHD), autism, developmental defects, learning disabilities, brain cancer and acute lymphocytic leukemia. The prime suspect in all of these conditions is increased exposure to environmental toxins and our children are especially at risk. Even babies are being born “prepolluted” and the pollutants are often present in higher concentrations in the babies compared to their mothers.

Why are our babies and children so much at risk?

There are several reasons.

1) In utero, toxins may be secreted by the fetus but then they are reabsorbed again when the fetus swallows the amniotic fluid.

2) Fetuses, infants and young children do not have fully developed detoxification systems and so are more at risk from the chemical effects of toxins.

3) Cells are rapidly growing and dividing as tissues and organs develop and these processes are vulnerable to the action of toxic chemicals.

4) Infants and children consume more food and drink relative to their body weight than adults do and so they take in higher amounts of toxins relative to their body weight.

5) Babies and young children are crawling on surfaces that may have been treated with chemicals such as fire retardants and stain repellents and these substances will get onto the babies skin and into their bodies as the children put their hands in their mouths.

6) By the time children are 6 years old in the U.S.A. they may have been exposed to as many as 49 doses of 14 different vaccines (1). Some of these vaccines may contain aluminum salts used as adjuvants ( “boosters” ) and mercury ( in the form of the preservative Thimerosal ) as well as formaldehyde, phenoxyethanol, glutaraldehye, sodium acetate, sodium borate, sodium chloride, monosodium glutamate (MSG), hydrochloric acid, hydrogen peroxide, lactose, gelatin, yeast protein, egg albumin, human and bovine serum albumin, and some antibiotics.

We have to be so vigilant today, especially with our babies and young children, not only to protect them from obvious hazards such as road traffic but also from exposure to toxic chemicals.

What are these toxins?

In the latest study sponsored by the non-profit Environmental Working Group, umbilical cord blood of newborn babies in five states was tested between December 2007 and June 2008 and a total of 232 polluting chemicals found (2). These included lead, mercury, the plastic component BPA (bisphenol A) and chemicals normally found in cosmetics, fragrances, flame retardants, non-stick coatings, pesticides, rocket fuel and waste byproducts. These chemicals were clearly not filtered out by the placenta. This is the first time that synthetic musk chemicals and BPA have been reported in newborns.

Have they been tested for safety?

There are now over 80,000 chemicals that may be used in products in our environment and more than 3,000 of them are manufactured in quantities of over a million pounds each per year. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required testing of only a few hundred and these tests are certainly not as rigorous as those required for pharmaceutical drugs. And yet we know that drugs approved for clinical use often have side effects and contraindications, some of which can be very serious. So it stands to reason that exposure to industrial chemicals which have never been properly tested could pose a serious threat to our health and wellbeing.

What’s being done about this?

Judging from the present state of affairs, the current law regulating toxic chemicals in the USA, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), passed in 1976 and never amended, is woefully inadequate. When passed, it grandfathered in approx. 62,000 chemicals already in use, declaring them to be safe when there was little supportive evidence. Since that time, over 20,000 more chemicals have been introduced, again with little to commend their long-term safety. Now there is a new bill before Congress entitled the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2011” introduced by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and co-sponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer, Amy Klobuchar, Charles Schumer and others. It is designed to protect Americans, and especially children, from toxic chemicals in everyday consumer products. Further details are contained in a report from Senator Lautenberg’s office (3). To summarize, the new bill would address each of the failings of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and would require chemical companies to demonstrate the safety of industrial chemicals.

It is imperative that this act be passed so that current and future generations will be protected from exposure to chemicals which can endanger our health.

© Christopher J. Jones M.Sc., Ph.D.

References

1) http://www.nvic.org/Downloads/49-Doses-PosterB.aspx

2) Environmental Working Group (2009) Cord Blood Contaminants in Minority Newborns. 60pp. http://www.ewg.org/files/2009-Minority-Cord-Blood-Report.pdf

3) http://lautenberg.senate.gov/assets/SafeChem-Summary.pdf

There are more chemicals in commerce in the U.S.A. today than ever before, and most have not been properly tested for safety. It is therefore little wonder that allergies, autism, leukemias and developmental abnormalities are on the rise in our children. Please support Senator Frank Lautenberg and his Bill to protect our children from exposure to toxic environmental chemicals.

Christopher J. Jones, M.Sc., Ph.D.

Are there ways to treat cancer other than by the conventional means of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation? Yes, there are. In this presentation, Dr. Joseph Mercola interviews Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, a New York physician, who has been having remarkable success in using alternative means to treat patients with many types of cancer, including advanced cases where there might otherwise have been no hope.

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Alternative cancer treatments are a kind of “forbidden area” in medicine, but Dr. Gonzalez chose to go that route anyway, and has some remarkable success stories to show for his pioneering work.

He didn’t set out to treat cancer at first, let alone treat patients. His original plan was to be a basic science researcher at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, a teaching hospital for Cornell Medical College. However, while he was a medical student he had a chance meeting with Dr. William Kelley, a controversial dentist, who was one of the founders of nutritional typing. This meeting with Dr. Kelley, who had reported success with alternative and nutritional approaches to cancer treatment, inspired him to begin a student project investigation into the work in the summer of 1981.

“I started going through his records and even though I was just a second year medical student, I could see right away there were cases that were extraordinary,” he says. “Patients with appropriately diagnosed pancreatic cancer, metastatic breast cancer in the bone, metastatic colorectal cancer… who were alive 5, 10, 15 years later under Kelley’s care with a nutritional approach.”

This preliminary review led to a formal research study, which Dr. Gonzalez completed while doing his fellowship in cancer, immunology and bone marrow transplantation.

The “Impossible” Recoveries of Dr. Kelley’s Cancer Patients

After going through thousands of Kelley’s records, Dr. Gonzalez put together a monograph, divided into three sections:

1. Kelley’s theory

2. 50 cases of appropriately-diagnosed lethal cancer patients still alive five to 15 years after diagnosis, whose long-term survival was attributed to Kelley’s program.

3. Patients Kelley had treated with pancreatic cancer between the years 1974 and 1982.

According to Dr. Robert A. Good, President and Director of the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, who had become Gonzalez’ mentor, if Kelley could produce even one patient with appropriately diagnosed pancreatic cancer who was alive 5-10 years later, it would be remarkable. They ultimately tracked down 22 of Kelley’s cases. Ten of them met him once and didn’t do the program after being dissuaded by family members or doctors who thought Kelley was a quack.

The average survival for that group was about 60 days.

A second group of seven patients who did the therapy partially and incompletely (again, dissuaded by well-intentioned but misguided family members or doctors), had an average survival of 300 days.

The third group consisting of five patients, who were appropriately diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer and who completed the full program, had an average survival of eight and a half years! In Dr. Gonzalez’ words, this was “just unheard of in medicine.”

One of those patients included a woman diagnosed by the Mayo Clinic with stage four pancreatic cancer who had been given six months to live. She’d learned about Kelley’s program through a local health food store. She completed his treatment and is still alive today, 29 years later.

The Truth about Medical Journals: Why Dr. Gonzalez’s Book Was Never Published.

However, despite—or rather because of—the remarkable success of the treatment, Dr. Gonzalez couldn’t get his findings published.

“We tried to publish case reports in the medical journals; the whole book, parts of the book, individual case reports—with no success,” he says.

This is an important point that many fail to realize.

Those of us who practice natural medicine are frequently criticized for not publishing our findings. My justification for that is that it’s not going to be published anyway, and Dr. Gonzalez’ anecdotal story confirms this view.

His mentor and supporter, Dr. Good, was one of the most published authors in the scientific literature at that point, with over 2,000 scientific articles to his name. He’d been nominated for the Nobel Prize three times, and yet he was refused because the findings were “too controversial,” and flew in the face of conventional medical doctrine.

If the cream of the crop is refused, how does a general primary care physician get an article published?

He doesn’t…

“Robert A. Good was at the top of his profession: President of Sloan-Kettering, the father of modern immunology who did the first bone marrow transplant in history. Yet, he couldn’t get it published,” Gonzalez says. “He couldn’t even get a single case report published.

In fact, I have a letter from one of the editors, dated 1987, who wrote a blistering letter to Good saying “You’ve been boondoggled by a crazy quack guy. Don’t you see this is all a fraud?”

It was just the most extraordinary, irrational letter… Because in the report the patients’ names were there, the copies of their pertinent medical records were there… Any of them could have called these patients, like Arlene Van Straten who, 29 years later, will talk to anyone… But no one cared. They wouldn’t do it; they didn’t believe it.

They couldn’t believe it.

It was very disturbing to me because I say, “It is what it is.” I come out of a very conventional research orientation, and it was astonishing to me—I had assistance; I had the president of Sloane-Kettering who couldn’t get this thing published because it disagreed with the philosophy that was being promoted in medicine; that only chemotherapy, radiation, or immunotherapy can successfully treat cancer, even though the success rate was abysmal.

The idea that medical journals are these objective and unbiased repositories of the truths about science is total nonsense. Most of them are owned by the drug companies. They won’t publish anything that disagrees with their philosophy.”

By the end of 1987, it was clear that the work would never get published, and since Dr. Good had retired from Sloan-Kettering, they no longer had the power-base to conduct clinical trials.

Dr. Kelley, realizing his work would never be accepted, let alone get published, “went off the deep end,” in Dr. Gonzalez’ words, and stopped seeing patients altogether.

“When I last spoke to him in the summer of 1987, he accused me of being part of a CIA plot to steal his work, and I knew that I had to move on,” Dr. Gonzalez says.

“To this day, of course, I give him credit for his brilliant innovation. It’s kind of like Semmelweis, who ended up going crazy during the 19th century after showing doctors should wash their hands before delivering babies and no one accepted that. Semmelweis just went off the deep end, and that’s what kind of what happened to Kelley, I say with great sadness.”

Starting the Alternative Cancer Treatment Practice

Dr. Gonzalez set up a practice in New York together with his associate, Dr. Linda Isaacs, and started seeing patients using Kelley’s three-pronged approach. The results were impressive.

One of his remarkable success stories includes a woman diagnosed with inflammatory breast cancer, which is the most aggressive form. She’d been given a death sentence.

Today, over 23 years later, she’s still alive and well, and cancer free.

“Here’s a woman that was given six months to a year to live AND developed metastases while getting aggressive multi-agent chemotherapy, yet 23 and a half years later, she’s alive and well, enjoying her life and just doing so well.

We could see that Kelley’s approach really worked and when I report these cases I’m giving Kelley the credit because he developed this treatment,” Dr. Gonzalez says.

Recognition from the National Cancer Institute

In 1993, as part of a legitimate effort to reach out to alternative practitioners, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) invited Dr. Gonzalez to present 25 of his cases in a closed-door, invitation-only session. On the basis of that presentation, the NCI suggested he conduct a pilot study with patients diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer, which in conventional medicine is known to be an untreatable, highly lethal form of cancer.

Interestingly, Nestle stepped in to finance this pilot study. It may seem an odd choice, but the business motivation was the same then as it is today—making junk food appear healthier is a good business move, even if it’s only in theory.

Supervised directly by Dr. Ernst Wynder, a premier cancer researcher, the study was completed in early 1999 and published in June that year. According to Dr. Gonzalez:

“It showed the best results for the treatment of pancreatic cancer in the history of medicine.”

Chemo Therapy vs. the Kelley Treatment

To put his results in perspective, the chemo drug, Gemzar, approved for pancreatic cancer dates back to 1997, and the major study that led to its approval had 126 patients. Of those, 18 percent lived one year. Not a single patient out of the 126 lived beyond 19 months.

Dr. Gonzalez’ study had 11 participants, of which:

•Five survived for two years
•Four survived three years
•Two survived five years
Based on these results, the NCI decided to fund a large scale clinical trial, to the tune of $1.4 million, to test his nutritional approach against the best chemo available at the time.

“My friends say “Why did you get involved with something like this? How could you trust the NCI?”

Well, the NCI had been very fair, up to that point, and the then-director, Richard Klausner, in face-to-face meetings with him said he thought I was doing something really interesting and needed to be properly supported,” Dr. Gonzalez says.

But that goodwill soon disappeared.

How to Sabotage a Clinical Study 101

About a year after the study was approved, Klausner left the NCI and was replaced by new management with a wholly different attitude.

“[F]rom our first meeting, we knew something has changed significantly,” Dr. Gonzalez says, “and all the people that had initially been assigned to the study, who were supportive and believed we were doing something useful, were taken off it. In fact one of them couldn’t even talk to me. She said she’d be fired if she talked to me; if she took my phone call.

I was told by another person who had supported me at the NIH that I shouldn’t call him at his office; that he was afraid his line was tapped, and I should only call him at home.

That’s how insane the politics over this clinical study got. I couldn’t believe it! I thought this was just something you’d read about or see on TV, or that some paranoid or crazy person would make up. But here I was living it. Coming out of Robert Good’s group, I don’t say that to impress people, but my background is so pure and conventional! It was unbelievable to see that the profession I respected and wanted to join could behave like this.”

Unfortunately, the study was, in the end, sabotaged.

“Turned out the principal investigator at Columbia, who’s supposed to be completely neutral, had helped develop a chemo regimen that was being used against us—a conflict of interest that was never declared,” Dr. Gonzalez explains.

“[T]here are specific requirements for entry into a clinical study. Ours is a nutritional program, and when the first protocol version was written, we had a list of specified criteria… They have to be able to eat…Ours is a nutritional program, so patients have to be able to eat. If they can’t eat, they can’t do the therapy. They have to be able to take care of themselves…

This is a program the patients have to follow at home.

Initially, the patients could do it and responded to the treatment. Then, there was a sudden change, around 2000-2001, when the Columbia group took total control of the entry of patients in the study. We were excluded from that process, except during the initial months. The thinking was that if we were involved in the admission process, we’d enter the dreaded bias, whereas if conventional doctors were in control, they couldn’t possibly be biased.

Of course, the chief investigator helped develop the chemo regimen used in the study. That’s virtually the definition of a ‘potential bias’!

He started sending us patients that couldn’t eat. We had patients that were so sick we would never have accepted them into our private practice. That were so sick, they died before they got the treatment.

Whether it was a trick to the protocol or not, the Columbia team, the NCI, and the NHI insisted that we had an “intent to treat provision into protocol”. This means that the minute a patient is accepted into the trial, they’re considered treated, even if they never do the therapy. So the chief of the study at Columbia would enter patients that were so sick, several died before they could pursue their treatment. But because of this intent to treat provision into protocol, they were considered treatment failures.

Ultimately, 39 patients were entered for treatment. Maybe at best, being kind and optimistic, maybe five or six actually did it, the great majority were so sick they couldn’t do it.”

As a result, the chemo treatment appeared to be a clear winner in this head-to-head evaluation of treatments against incurable pancreatic cancer.

In 2006, Dr. Gonzalez and his partner filed a complaint with the Office of the Human Research Protection (OHRP), which is a group responsible for making sure federal-funded clinical trials are run properly. After a two-year investigation, the OHRP determined that 42 out of 62 patients had been admitted inappropriately. Unfortunately, this never made it to the media, and the Columbia team was able to publish the research findings without mentioning the results of the OHRP review.

“So the study was a total boondoggle; a waste of $1.4 million,” Dr. Gonzalez says. “Even though I won the grant, all the money went to Columbia. It’s all gone. The data, as far as I’m concerned, is worthless, and the NIH and NCI are using it to show that my therapy doesn’t work.

So that’s how this long journey of 30 years, from when I first met Kelley, has gone.

“I tell people now regarding the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), I wouldn’t send a dog to that group.

They’re not there to help you objectively investigate alternative therapies; they’re there to undermine them. It gives the illusion that the government’s interested in alternative therapies, when in fact that office is being used, as it was in my case, to help undermine promising useful alternative therapies.”

Dr. Gonzalez’s Three-Pronged Approach to Cancer Treatment

Although most of the studies done on this approach were done on pancreatic cancer, Dr. Gonzalez uses it to treat ALL cancers, from brain cancer to leukemia. His treatment, which is based on Kelley’s work, consists of three protocols: diet, supplements and enzymes, and detoxification.

The Dietary Protocol:

The cornerstone of the treatment is a personalized diet based on your nutritional- or metabolic type.

Dr. Kelley originally had 10 basic diets and 90 variations that ranged from pure vegetarian and raw food, to heavy-protein meals that included red meat three times a day.

“In terms of diet, Kelley… found that patients diagnosed with the typical solid tumors: tumors of the breast, lungs, stomach, pancreas, liver, colon, uterus, ovaries, and prostate needed a more vegetarian diet,” Dr. Gonzalez explains. “But he had all gradations of a vegetarian diet; one that was 80 percent raw, one that was 80 percent cooked. So even on the vegetarian side, there were all different variations.

Some had minimal animal protein, some had fish, some had also red meat.

A patient with immune cancer (leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and sarcomas,( which are connective tissue cancers that are related to immune cancers) tended to do best on a high-fat, high meat diet.

… Then there are balanced people that do well with a variety of foods, both plant foods and animal products, but they don’t tend to get cancer.

Cancer tends to occur on the extremes, the extreme vegetarians—those that tend to be too acid—or extreme meat eaters, who tend to be too alkaline. Balanced people don’t tend to get cancer too much. So we continued the individualized approach, as did Kelley.”

Individualized Supplementation and Enzyme Protocol:

The second component is an individualized supplement protocol, designed for your particular metabolism.

“For example, our vegetarian patients need completely different supplements from our meat eaters. The vegetarians do very well with most of the B vitamins, while the meat eaters don’t. The vegetarians don’t do well with vitamin A, but the meat eaters do. The vegetarians do well with vitamin D; the meat eaters not so well with large doses, and so on,” Dr. Gonzalez explains.

“The meat eaters do well with calcium ascorbate as a vitamin C source, while the vegetarians do well with large doses of ascorbic acid. So the supplement protocols are very individualized and very precisely engineered.”

Omega-3 fats are also prescribed, but even here Dr. Gonzalez prescribes different types of omega-3′s depending on the patient’s nutritional type. In his experience, vegetarians, or carbohydrate types, tend to fare better on flaxseed oil, which contains alpha linoleic acid (ALA) – a plant-based omega 3.

“It is thought that the conversion of the plant-based ALA into the fish-oil based eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is not that efficient,” he says, “But we find that our vegetarian patients actually do it very well and don’t use the fish oil or animal-based omega-3 fatty acids as effectively.”

Chia and hemp seed oils can also be used.

Protein types, on the other hand, appear to need the EPA and the DHA and do better on animal-based omega-3 such as krill oil.

“They don’t do well with flaxseed,” he says. “Those are the people who can’t make the conversion.”

In addition to vitamins, minerals and trace elements, he also prescribes large doses of pancreatic enzymes.

“The essence of Kelley’s work was based on the work of Dr. John Beard, which goes back to the turn of the last century, about 110 years ago. Beard was a professor at the University of Edinburgh, an embryologist who first proposed that pancreatic proteolytic enzymes are the main defense against cancer in the body and are useful as a cancer treatment,” he explains.

When treating cancer, however, he found it’s important to take the right ratio of active and inactive enzymes. The inactive precursors are particularly active against cancer. They also have far longer shelf life, and are more stable.

“That would be my advice – get an enzyme that isn’t completely activated,” Dr. Gonzalez says. “More active isn’t better when it comes to pancreatic enzymes, just like more and more D isn’t better than getting the right dosage. You want the right proportions of activated and inactive—most of it as an inactive precursor.”

His proprietary enzyme formula is manufactured by NutriCology. According to Dr. Gonzalez, pancreatic enzymes are not only useful as treatment for active cancer but are also one of the best preventive measures.

Antioxidants, such as astaxanthin, are also very helpful, both in the prevention and treatment of cancer.

The Detoxification Protocol:

The third component is a detoxification routine. Coffee enemas are used to help your liver and kidneys to mobilize and eliminate dead cancer cells that have been broken down by the pancreatic enzymes.

Coffee enemas, although often scoffed at today, were actually used as part of conventional medicine all the way up to the 1960s, and were included in the Merck Manual, which was a handbook for conventional medical treatments into the 1970s.

“They fell out of favor not because they didn’t work, but because the drug industry took over medicine, so things like coffee enemas were kind of laughed at,” Dr. Gonzalez says. “So Kelley learned about coffee enemas from conventional literature and incorporated them into his program and found them extremely helpful.”

When you drink coffee, it tends to suppress your liver function, but when taken rectally as an enema, the caffeine stimulates nerves in your lower bowels, which causes your liver to release toxins as a reflex. Other detox strategies include colon cleanses and liver flushes developed by Kelley.

It’s important to realize, however, that conventional coffee should NOT be used for enemas. The coffee MUST be organic, naturally caffeinated coffee, and were you to do this at home, you’d also want to use non-bleached filters to avoid introducing toxins into your colon.

“[Organic coffee] is loaded with antioxidants,” Dr. Gonzalez says. “In fact, there are recent studies showing that coffee loaded with antioxidants can have an anti-cancer effect and that coffee may actually help suppress cancer.

But you have to use organic coffee, it has to have caffeine, and you have to use a coffee maker that doesn’t have aluminum, and preferably no plastic.”

Dr. Gonzalez also relies on sodium alginate as a detoxifying agent.

“We have a preparation that we put together and it’s very effective… It’s an algae and it chelates heavy metals and halides. I never use intravenous chelation; we just use sodium alginate.”

He recommends taking three capsules three times a day, away from meals, for six weeks to detoxify your body of heavy metals, such as mercury, and halides.

Final Thoughts

This is one of the most fascinating interviews I’ve ever done, and it is chock full of information—far more than I can summarize here. So please, I urge you to take the time to listen to the interview in its entirety.

In addition to expounding on the subjects mentioned above, Dr. Gonzalez also reviews the benefits of optimizing vitamin D during cancer treatment, and how iodine supplementation can benefit breast cancer—not to mention help protect against thyroid cancer, in light of the current nuclear crisis in Japan.

We discuss the benefits of juicing and chiropractic adjustments, and the importance of regular exercise for cancer patients. We also review the dangers of electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, in terms of how it may aggravate cancer growth and hinder cancer recovery, and the benefits, along with some surprising precautions, of earthing or grounding.

For more information about Dr. Gonzalez and his practice, see www.dr-gonzalez.com. He’s also working on a series of books, two of which have already been published and received five-star reviews: The Trophoblast and the Origins of Cancer, and One Man Alone: An Investigation of Nutrition, Cancer, and William Donald Kelley , which is the original monograph of Dr. Kelley’s work that he couldn’t get published 23 years ago.

This written summary is only a small glimpse of the insights that were shared in our interview. If you or anyone you know struggles with cancer I would strongly encourage you to listen to the entire interview

Thankfully, Dr. Gonzalez is still practising medicine and actively engaged in treating cancer patients with natural alternatives to toxic drugs and radiation. His office is in Manhattan and he can be reached at 212-213-3337.