I can highly recommend Life School Musical in any church to perform as a ministry for the entire congregation. It has a great message as well for a child to put their faith in God.
I will post pictures tomorrow! Took some great ones to share....
RMA Warehouse orders - check
Community Bible College details - check
Update with the office manager - check
RMA various details - check
Moms Against Hunger details - check
Coffee Cafe details - check
a happy lunch with staff members - check
my office to finsh some paperwork - check
online ministry updates and emails - check
--------------------------------------- I need a coffee please!
decisions about my upcoming house details - check
make some phone calls - check
days done and I can crash back at our temporary abode.
sometimes I feel like the day flew so fast past that it went like a blast!
oh by the way? It's still HOT here..... but I love my job!!!!
The Clothes that Kill You Slowly but Surely
If you're like most people I bet you never give a thought to whether your clothes are toxic... even if you take care to eat organic foods and use organic cleansers in your home. Keep reading and you may change your mind. . .
Continued below. . .
I'm mindful of the problem because (cancer concerns aside) I'm sensitive to a wide range of chemicals -- including those found in some types of cloth. A few years ago I bought a beautiful set of sheets from a fancy store. The label said they were100 percent cotton, but after sleeping in them a few nights I was in bone and muscle pain from head to toe. Repeated washings didn't get out whatever the offending substance was.
I got a terrible reaction from the dyes or maybe the chemicals used to make those all-cotton sheets "no-iron". You can only imagine what true synthetic cloth can do to us. It's largely a product of the oil industry.
The Toxins Lurking in Your Clothing...
We have the illusion that clothes made from synthetic fibers are safe, but the materials are in fact full of invisible chemicals the clothing industry prefers we don't think about.
A hundred years ago, clothing was made of natural fibers like cotton, flax, wool, and silk. In the early 1900s synthetics were developed.
Although rayon was introduced in 1924, the first truly synthetic fiber was nylon, made by DuPont from the petro-molecule toluene. Nylon because a popular material for women's panty hose.
Other synthetics followed:
Today's clothing (a $7 trillion/year industry) is manufactured using an astounding 8,000 synthetic chemicals.
Nowadays, clothes also contain toxins like formaldehyde, brominated flame retardants, and perfluorinated chemicals (Teflon) to provide "non-iron" and "non-wrinkle" qualities. Insecticides are even applied in the name of good health!
For half a century, skin and chemicals have been interacting… creating problems like infertility, respiratory diseases, contact dermatitis, and cancer.
The more synthetic clothing you wear, the greater your risk of absorbing toxic chemicals that harm your health.
The Problems with Synthetics…
When toxins are absorbed through your skin — your largest organ — they bypass your liver, the organ responsible for removing toxins.
You also may not realize that your skin keeps you healthy by venting toxins… up to a pound per day.
Petrochemical fibers restrict and suffocate your skin — shutting down toxic release. Meanwhile, they contribute to your total toxic burden and may become the "tipping point" for triggering the onset of disease.
Two contributing factors are (1) toxic buildup in your body and (2) multiple chemicals that interact together to create even worse problems than the individual chemicals by themselves.
Skin rashes, nausea, fatigue, burning, itching, headaches, and difficulty breathing are all associated with chemical sensitivity. If you have mysterious health symptoms that you can't seem to get control over, it's worth checking out whether your clothes could be the problem.
The Chemicals You Wear Every Day…
With a "mere" 8,000 chemicals used in clothing manufacture, it's a sure bet you're wearing many as you read this. Let's highlight some of the worst.
These kinds of fabric finishes "scream" chemicals...
Formaldehyde is linked to a 30% increase in lung cancer, plus skin/lung irritation and contact dermatitis. It is found in fabrics claiming to be:
It's also used in dyes and printing to fix the design and prevent "running".
Most governments restrict formaldehyde levels in clothing… but not the U.S. One of the worst offenders is China. Beware of "Made in China" labels.
Use of formaldehyde in clothing is extremely widespread. There have even been lawsuits alleging high levels of it in Victoria's Secret bras.
High temps and humidity make "poison clothes" even worse — they open your pores and increase chemical absorption.
And you absorb formaldehyde from multiple sources daily, so don't be fooled by manufacturers' reassurances.
Disperse Blue Dyes may look gorgeous — even regal — but they put you at high risk for contact dermatitis… especially dark blue, brown, and black synthetic clothing. It's important to note — laundering does not reverse that risk.
Worse… Disperse Blue 1 is classified as a human carcinogen due to high malignant tumor levels in lab animals.
Incidentally, you might be interested to know that this dye also shows up in cosmetics and semi-permanent hair dyes.
Fire and burn hazards: The Marine Corps now prohibits troops in Iraq from wearing synthetic clothing while off base… after too many unfortunate burns from soldiers wearing polyester, acrylic, and nylon — which readily melts in high heat and fuses to the skin. (Dudes, what did you expect? The stuff is a first cousin to plastic. Both are products of the oil industry.)
Of course, that begs the question of whether flame retardants are safer…
Flame Retardant use began in 1971, when government required children's sleepwear to be self-extinguishing. The solution was to add brominated Tris.
Studies measuring urine samples showed that this chemical is readily absorbed.
Brominated Tris is a mutagen, and causes cancer and sterility in animals. (Mutagens cause inheritable mutations by damaging DNA.) They also cause testicular atrophy and sterility.
Tris was banned in children's clothing in 1977 (but lives on in upholstered furniture foam, baby carriers, and bassinets). Today most synthetic fabrics contain a new generation of flame retardants bonded into the fabric, which must survive 50+ washings.
According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's National Burn Center, only 36 children a year suffer serious injuries from sleepwear catching fire. My heart goes out to these tragic victims and their families. But is the toxic contamination of millions of children worth protecting 36 children per year from burns?
This sort of regulation is a product of the "precautionary principle" — the notion that there should be no limit to the amount of money spent or the amount of inconvenience inflicted on millions of people when it comes to preventing rare dangers that affect a tiny number of people. The mania for making our society risk-proof and accident-proof actually increases danger in many cases.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission exempts certain sleepwear from flammability standards. Two companies selling kids' sleepwear without flame retardants are L.L. Bean and Lands' End.
But it's not just children's sleepwear…
Demand is high for fire-retardant uniforms and civilian clothing.
Lab studies show that flame retardants (PBDEs) can cause a slew of health issues — thyroid problems, brain damage, ADHD symptoms, and fertility problems.
The insecticide permethrin is now in civilian outdoor wear and military uniforms even though no long-term studies have assessed its safety. We wrote about this dangerous chemical in Issue #89. You can see it at www.cancerdefeatedpublications.com/newsletters.
Silver nanoparticles in name-brand clothing create anti-odor, anti-wrinkle, and anti-stain clothes.
"Nano" means "really tiny"… super-microscopic.
Nano-particles in clothing can create easily absorbed toxins that, due to their miniscule size, are transported into all your organs, including your brain… consequences unknown.
Other scary toxins include sulfuric acid, urea resin, sulfonamides, halogens, and sodium hydroxide.
The Health Hazards of Built-Up Electrical Charges…
Electrostatic charges accumulate in synthetic clothing. There are stories of shocking mini-explosions from mixing layers of synthetic clothing with synthetic carpeting.
And get this: synthetic undergarments contribute to infertility in men.
A 24-month study of male dogs wearing either loose-fitting polyester underpants or loose-fitting cotton ones showed that wearing polyester created significant decreases in sperm count and degeneration of the testes. The animals wearing cotton suffered no side effects. (And, please, no letters to the editor about dogs wearing underwear. I agree, it sounds silly.)
Scientists think polyester traps body heat, encourages chemical absorption, and creates electrostatic build-up… which all affect sperm count.
Is Tight Fitting Clothing a Problem?
The short answer is "yes".
We recently ran an article on the risks of wearing bras, especially tight ones (Issue #65).
Probably the most unsafe clothing item ever introduced in the name of fashion was the corset. It squeezed women's bodies and crushed their internal organs to the point of broken ribs.
Today, some scientists believe restrictive bras suppress the lymphatic system — which flushes toxins from your breasts and lymph nodes and helps prevent breast cancer.
Anna Maria Clement and Brian R. Clement, co-authors of the book Killer Clothes, recommend limiting bra usage as much as possible.
Your shoes might also fit the category of tight clothing. A 2009 survey of 2,000 people found that 40% of women buy and wear uncomfortable shoes to make a fashion statement. By contrast, just 17% of men did likewise.
Synthetics Hurt Athletic Outcomes…
Despite the wide appeal of synthetic athletic apparel, medical studies show that synthetic fibers cause muscle fatigue — which can mean the difference between winning and losing for competitive athletes.
In a study of 24— to 27-year-old men, natural linen long sleeved shirts were worn for five hours -- and then polyester ones were worn for another five hours. Their arms were monitored during both, with electrodes measuring skin temperature and velocity of the men's muscle tissue.1
No changes were measured when they wore the linen. But when they donned polyester they endured a range of muscle disruptions…
The Bottom Line…
It's important to realize that while individual chemicals might not endanger your health, the synergistic effect of multiple chemicals interacting can have unpredictable negative effects.
Natural and organic clothing is becoming more popular again. But it can still be a challenge to find it, and you may have to piece together items from multiple suppliers. Here's empowerment for the process…
Priority #1 — Choose natural fibers.
Incidentally, the Organic Trade Association estimates that one non-organic cotton T-shirt uses one-third pound of pesticides and fertilizers. Cotton production uses one-fourth of all the world's fertilizers.2 It's another good reason to choose organic cotton to add to the ones above.
Here are some sources to get you started in your search for healthier clothes.
Start small… Choose organic for clothing closest to your skin most of the time — underwear, sleepwear, camisoles, and the like… and then build as you replace items in your closet. Move in a healthier direction with your clothing to drastically reduce your chemical load.
1 Clement, Anna Maria, and Clement, Brian, Killer Clothes: How Seemingly Innocent Clothing Choices Endanger Your Health … And How to Protect Yourself! Hippocrates Publications, 2011. p.75.
If you’d like to comment, write me at firstname.lastname@example.org. Please do not write asking for personal advice about your health. I’m prohibited by law from assisting you. If you want to contact us about a product you purchased or a service issue, the email address is email@example.com.
Editor in Chief: Lee Euler Contributing Editors: Mindy Tyson McHorse, Carol Parks, Roz Roscoe Marketing: Ric McConnell Information Technology Advisor: Michelle Mato Webmaster: Steve MacLellan Fulfillment & Customer Service: Joe Ackerson and Cami Lemr
Health Disclaimer: The information provided above is not intended as personal medical advice or instructions. You should not take any action affecting your health without consulting a qualified health professional. The authors and publishers of the information above are not doctors or health-caregivers. The authors and publishers believe the information to be accurate but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. There is some risk associated with ANY cancer treatment, and the reader should not act on the information above unless he or she is willing to assume the full risk.
Lee Euler, Editor
| Web Version | Subscribe | Back Issues | Resource Center | Write us
About Cancer Defeated!
What Color is Cancer?
It might very well be a combination of red, yellow, orange, green and blue. Why those colors?
Because they're the colors used in nine artificial dyes added to foods so they'll appear more appetizing.
Just think—how much fun would life be without green M&Ms®? And your Froot Loops® cereal just wouldn't look as fruity without those pastel shades of pink, blue and green.
For that matter, would your dog eat his food if it weren't the proper color? Well, HE probably would. But I guess the food industry believes that adding color even kicks his appetite up a notch! (I thought dogs were color blind, but I checked this out and apparently it's a myth.)
But we may have to pay a heavy price for using synthetic dyes instead of natural sources of food color. . .
Continued below. . .
If you'd prefer to believe these dyes are perfectly safe and are unlikely to pose a major health threat—DON'T READ THIS ARTICLE!
But if you've always suspected these artificial ingredients could be linked to serious health concerns … READ ON!
According to the report Food Dyes: A Rainbow of Risks, published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), many of the nine currently approved dyes have been linked to allergic reactions, hyperactivity and cancer.
In June 2008, CSPI petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to request a ban on the use of Yellow 5 and other synthetic food dyes due to their adverse effects on children's behavior1.
According to a March 2011 CSPI statement2, the FDA formed an advisory committee that is reviewing evidence linking the dyes to hyperactivity disorders and other behavioral problems. But CSPI Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson said this action has come after "many years of denial" by FDA officials.
So just how bad ARE the food dyes you ingest every day? Let's take a peek at the research…
Would you chase your food
Surely you wouldn't! But all the same, you're probably eating your share of food dyes made from petroleum.
CSPI said synthetic food dyes tend to be cheaper, more stable, and brighter than most natural colorings. And you better believe the FDA slaps its almighty stamp of approval on them before they reach stores.
Of the nine approved synthetic dyes, three of them—Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6—account for 90 percent of all dyes used. So you'd expect these to be the 'safest' to use, right? Well consider these facts:
Don't think that the other five dyes are any safer. Most of the other dyes profiled in the study were linked to occurrences of bladder, brain, kidney and thyroid tumors in mice.
The fact is none of these additives have any nutritional value to the human body. And because they actually can do more harm than good, advocacy groups like CSPI say they should be completely banned.
But all the FDA has been willing to do is slap labels on foods advising that they contain artificial dyes and coloring. Essentially they're ducking the question of possible dangers rather than encouraging the use of safer alternatives.
And yes, there ARE plenty of safe ways to add color to foods…
A drop or two of NATURAL color will do!
If you take a peek at Nature's bounty of fruits and vegetables, you can see a rainbow of natural color. Plant extracts can add natural color to foods—without the harmful side-effects.
And better still, most of these extracts are high in antioxidants, bioflavonoids, and polyphenols which help protect rather than harm your health.
Actually, you can make your own food coloring from other foods. You can use a sieve to strain the pulp from fruit or vegetable juices and then use the juice to achieve the desired color in foods of your choice.
Here are some of the foods you can use as natural dyes:
But if you're not inclined to do all the straining and mixing yourself—don't worry! Companies such as Nature's Flavor, Chefmaster Natural Coloring, India Tree, and Seelect Tea all sell natural food colorings and flavorings.
If it's hard to eliminate all artificial dyes from your diet, then at least take small steps toward eating more natural, whole foods. Cutting back on food coloring is better than doing nothing at all.
You can enjoy a kaleidoscope of natural food colors—minus the elevated cancer threat!
Last week I sent you an important article about the link between cancer and polio vaccines. If you missed it, just scroll down and see it now!
Chilling News about a Vaccine You
What does a 12-year-old have in common with a 70-year-old?
Potential exposure to a virus that turns normal cells into cancerous ones...
Certain evidence points to a strong link between a vaccine you had as a child, and cancer… and the infection mysteriously extends to your children and grandchildren.
Mass vaccination campaigns of the 1950s and 1960s are now suspected in thousands of deaths per year via a cancer-causing virus contained in the early polio vaccines. But this doesn't mean you'll get cancer for sure. Keep reading and I'll explain. . .
Continued below. . .
Researchers discovered this deadly vaccine tragedy in 1994 — when Dr. Michele Carbone found the SV40 virus in 60% of lung cancers (mesotheliomas) studied, 33% of osteosarcoma bone cancers, 40% of other bone cancers…
This is no monkey business!
Known as SV40, this virus came from dead monkeys whose kidney cells were used to culture polio vaccines. Over 98 million people in the U.S., plus more in other countries, were exposed to the contaminated vaccine.
And it appears there's a link to you, even if YOU were not vaccinated.
It turned out to be…
A medical marvel with a deadly glitch
Polio virus has been around forever — yet paralysis-causing epidemics have only existed since the late 1800s. In fact, 95% of polio cases occur without symptoms. Most victims just get a mild fever. But in a tiny fraction of 1% of victims, it penetrated the blood-brain barrier to cause paralysis or death… which naturally aroused much fear.
At the height of the polio epidemic in the early 1950s, the first polio vaccines were cultured in monkey tissue. The vaccine was rushed to market and made mandatory because of government panic and public hysteria about the disease.
From the beginning there were cries of "foul", accusations of poor manufacturing controls, and questionable efficacy.1
Then in the late '50s the monkey tissue was found to be contaminated with a virus that could be linked to cancer and other serious diseases… after it was too late and millions had received it.
Bernice Eddy, PhD, National Institutes of Health (NIH), discovered that a staggeringly high 70% of hamsters injected with kidney cell cultures containing SV virus died without apparent cause. She later discovered that tumors could be passed easily from one animal to another over a long time period while remaining cancerous.2
It was dubbed SV40 -- the fortieth simian virus found in monkeys' kidney cells.
"The Great Polio Vaccine Cover-Up"…
Eddy went public with this news — which enraged her boss at the NIH to no small degree. He tried everything he could to marginalize and discredit her — viewing her discovery as a direct threat to his career and a public health policy he staunchly supported.3
In June 1961, a letter from a colleague to the surgeon general detailed how Eddy's work was muzzled and repressed.4
Meanwhile by 1960, the Salk vaccine had been administered by injection to half the American public.
But there was a rival vaccine — the oral vaccine developed by Sabin. By mid-1960, sixty million Russians had received Sabin's oral vaccine (OPV) in field trials. It was pronounced a resounding success.
A group of Merck scientists led by Dr. Maurice Hilleman eventually proved both the Salk and Sabin forms were contaminated with SV40.
But the government purposefully kept this under wraps, warning neither doctors nor the public… while the vaccines continued to be given for years.
Eventually word leaked out… on July 25, 1961 the New York Times ran a story on page 26, quoting directly from the government's official press release.5
One news outlet opted against silence… On August 6th, 1961 the National Enquirer carried the year's most complete SV40 story, in an article entitled, "The Great Polio Vaccine Cancer Cover-Up…" running three pages long. Despite its tabloid status, the article contained amazing scientific quotes and an accurate recounting of Eddy's hamster experiments.6
The SV40 was so virulent, it became a popular tool of cancer researchers awed by its ability to transform healthy animal cells into tumor cells in test tubes. This tiny but mighty life form could completely disrupt cells, cause them to lose control of themselves, and to reproduce wildly.
Finally in 1994 Dr. Michele Carbone autopsied dead research animals to make a shocking discovery… SV40 was linked to the rare malignant mesothelioma — as well as to brain cancer and osteosarcoma (bone cancer).
Carbone's research found that SV40 causes mesothelial cells to become malignant 1,000 times faster than fibroblasts.7
Between 1997 and 2003, 25 new published studies showed presence of SV40 in mesotheliomas… 16 others found SV40 in brain, bone, and other cancers.8
In fact, one study showed the presence of SV40 infections in children born after 1982 — decades after the polio vaccine was supposedly cleaned up9,10. Why SV40 is apparently still spreading is a mystery.
SHOCKING revelations from a vaccine maker…
Initially, no one could fathom how SV40 was transmitted to humans.
That is… until Dr. Maurice Hilleman — head of Merck's vaccine program, developer of more than 36 vaccines, and recipient of a special lifetime achievement award from the World Health Organization — made shocking revelations before he died about Merck's responsibility in unleashing the SV40, as well as the AIDS virus.11
He also testified that the government kept SV40 contamination a secret to avoid public hysteria.
What we NOW know about SV40…
Disturbing new insights:
Are YOU from a high-exposure state?
Where did you spend your 1950s and 60s? Per NIH, these states had high SV40 vaccine exposure18:
Low exposure states:
Remaining states are theoretically SV40-free. But, cancer rates are also high in the United Kingdom and Italy, all of which had huge mass vaccination programs.
Scientific integrity or government cover-up?
Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist here — but consider…
But some in the scientific community question whether this "continuing evaluation" is being performed with total scientific integrity.
Despite the government's foot dragging...
SV40 is one of the most widely studied viruses
For forty years, SV40 has been widely studied and well understood. Over 3,400 scientific articles name SV40 in the title… over 15,000 articles mention SV40.
SV40 was routinely used to create human cancers in the lab, to test cancer therapies.21
Moreover, it is now known how this virus causes cancer on a molecular level. SV40 oncogenesis is mediated by the viral large tumor antigen (T-ag) — which inactivates the tumor suppressor proteins p53 and pRb.22
Experts in SV40 research finally announced SV40 is a class 2A human carcinogen.23
Good news: Not EVERYONE
There is hope. Nearly every Baby Boomer received these vaccines forty or fifty years ago, and sadly, we can't turn back the clock for a do-over.
However, even Carbone, a leading SV40 expert, says, "… you need many different carcinogens, because different carcinogens do different things. Cancer is a multifactorial process."
No one factor can create cancer all by itself. Instead, your cells require numerous "hits" (insults) from various carcinogens.
But Carbone does consider SV40 one of the most potent human carcinogens.
He also goes on to state that cellular changes in your body (unlike a test tube) are influenced by the status of your immune system. A healthy immune system generally seeks and destroys invading viruses.
So, mitigate your personal risk by engaging in strategies known to enhance your immune system, such as:
It does appear there's damaging evidence about polio vaccines, but we may never be 100% sure.
All the same, what's done is done. Move forward confidently with strategies known to reduce your risk. And at the same time, be wary and don't repeat the mistakes of the past.
Footnotes for first article:
1 Center for Science in the Public Interest. (2008). Petition to Ban the Use of Yellow 5 and Other Food Dyes, in the Interim to Require a Warning on Foods Containing These Dyes, to Correct the Information the Food and Drug Administration Gives to Consumers On the Impact of These Dyes on the Behavior of Some Children, and to Require Neurotoxicity Testing of New Food Additives and Food Colors. Retrieved 4/25/11 from http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/petition-food-dyes.pdf
Footnotes for second article:
1 Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 163 No. 2, Jan. 12, 1957.
Lee Euler, Editor
| Web Version | Subscribe | Back Issues | Resource Center | Write us
About Cancer Defeated!
Sugar Doesn't Just Feed Cancer,
The Secret to Having Healthy Blood Sugar
Here's the latest research on how to reduce
If you're concerned about your blood sugar, you've probably tried exercising and watching what you eat.
Perhaps you've also tried popular supplements like cinnamon, chromium or gymnema.
All these things can help your blood sugar. But none of them are a complete solution. Why? Because none of them address all the underlying causes that contribute to blood sugar problems.
Unless you address all these underlying factors, you're only getting a partial solution to your blood sugar problem.
That's why I'm so excited to tell you about a new breakthrough that's working wonders for my patients.
The Times article taught me some new things about sugar's dangers that I didn't know. And that's saying something, considering how much I read about the subject. The new developments are by far the worst news about sugar I've ever seen. If you take heed, this news could save your life.
The evidence indicates sugar is not just another food. It's a uniquely toxic, poisonous substance. It does strange things in and to the body.
Sugar doesn't just feed cancer. There's every sign sugar actually causes cancer — as well as obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes. Cancer Defeated has written frequently on the fact that all these problems are really one problem, but we didn't know the exact mechanism. Now the big picture is coming clear.
And as far as I know, authorities in alternative cancer treatment have missed this new angle. Here's what happened. . .
Among alternative cancer experts, it's well known that cancer cells consume vast amounts of sugar — far more than healthy cells do. That's why we tell cancer patients not to eat any sugar at all. Healthy people should eat as little as they can.
A well-known cancer treatment, insulin potentiation therapy or IPT (see Issue #33), is entirely based on cancer's hunger for sugar. So is a mainstream medical test, the PET scan, in which a patient is injected with radioactively-tagged sugar, because the sugar will concentrate where cancer cells are found, causing the cancer cells to light up the scan like a Christmas tree.
So there's absolutely no doubt that cancer feeds on sugar. In spite of that, few conventional cancer doctors will tell a patient to give up sugar. Most insist that what you eat makes no difference at all to your chances of beating cancer. That's why the New York Times article is surprising.
Alternative cancer experts are ahead of the mainstream on this important subject. But anybody can get too absorbed in his own little field, and maybe that's what happened. Those of us who research and write about alternative treatments have been totally absorbed with the way cancer cells metabolize sugar, but it turns out the real story is how a healthy body metabolizes sugar.
Cutting through the myths
Some experts will tell you that sucrose — granulated table sugar — is a bit healthier than high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), the sweetener found in sodas and almost every manufactured, processed food — even bread. These experts believe HFCS is the devil that's the source of many problems.
Other experts will tell you that fruit is completely healthy, even though it's high in fructose. And still others will tell a cancer patient that a carb is a carb is a carb, i.e. the digestive process turns all carbs -- potatoes, white rice, fruit, granulated sugar AND HFCS -- into blood sugar (glucose), so you need to cut back or cut out all these foods. These experts say not just sugar but ALL carbohydrates feed cancer.
It turns out all of these beliefs are off the mark or even dead wrong.
First, take the idea that granulated sugar -- sucrose, made from sugar cane or beets -- is different from HFCS. Wrong. They're essentially the same thing. Each is roughly half glucose and half fructose. It's the fructose that does the harm, as I'll explain shortly. Because health food advocates have created a storm about HFCS the last few years, some food manufacturers are switching back to cane sugar/sucrose and touting their products as "fructose free". In this case, the health nuts are wrong. It makes no difference.
I was disappointed to learn that fresh fruit MAY be a problem for cancer patients. It's high in fructose, the type of sugar the body has trouble metabolizing. Several years ago, I started making the switch from a typical American diet to a diet high in raw foods. Fresh fruit was a large part of my new eating plan, because I like it.
Now I have to tell you, if the new findings hold up, fresh fruit probably isn't a good idea for cancer patients. You should definitely eat fresh, raw foods — but those foods should be vegetables. Fruit consumption should be low to moderate. I'm basing this on the new theory. As yet, there's not much clinical evidence. But if you're fighting cancer, play it safe.
Fruit IS rich in vitamins, minerals and many other phytonutrients (nutrients found in plants). If you cut out fruit you'll need to take appropriate supplements. An example would be wine, which some people think is a health food. It's not. It's a megadose of sugar, even if it does contain some valuable nutrients. But you can get some of the benefits of wine by taking resveratrol supplements.
Use moderation, take small steps
If you don't have cancer, I believe moderate fruit consumption is still a good idea.
But don't do what I did for several years and make fruit a huge part of your diet. I believed and hoped it was a healthy way to keep indulging in sweets. Bad idea. By eating fruit, I was taking in tons of antioxidants, bioflavonoids and other good things, but also tons of fructose.
One thing fruit has going for it is that the fructose comes packaged with a large amount of fiber. Fiber fills you up, and has many other benefits too numerous to cover here. If you're in the habit of living on sodas, cakes, cookies and doughnuts, it's not likely you'll ever eat enough fruit to even touch the amount of sugar you get from these processed foods.
That means switching from these sugary foods to fresh fruit is a huge step in the right direction. A switch to no sweets at all is probably more than most people can handle. So, as long as you don't have cancer, a switch to fresh fruit is a good first step. But if you do have cancer, my view is that you need to stop EVERYTHING that contains either fructose OR sucrose.
Now for a good word about a few carbs. . .
To continue with the myth-debunking, the good news is that potatoes, rice and similar carbs may not be so bad. These contain neither sucrose nor fructose. The body breaks them down into glucose, the same kind of sugar that circulates in your blood.
All of your cells can directly utilize glucose with a minimum of effort. This type of sugar — this type of carb — puts the least strain on your body. The new theory is that fructose puts a unique, one-of-a-kind strain on the body that may be THE key to heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity and cancer. If this theory is true (and it sure looks to me like it is), then potatoes and rice aren't strongly implicated in these degenerative diseases, even though they're carbohydrates.
I don't recommend binging on these safer carbs, but it's okay to eat moderate amounts — very moderate, if you're a cancer patient.
Wheat is another story. Like rice and potatoes, wheat products are metabolized into glucose and seem to belong in the category of comparatively "safe" carbs. But allergy to wheat is so widespread in our society, I recommend giving it up anyway.
I don't want to digress here on the many dangers of wheat. I'll just say that if you suffer from ANY chronic disease — from arthritis to heart disease to indigestion — avoid wheat. Try giving it up for a few months. There's a good chance your medical problems will diminish or completely disappear.
One hundred calories doesn't equal one hundred calories
One of the dearly held beliefs of weight loss experts is that one calorie equals another. If you want to lose weight, it's a matter of calories in, calories out. If you don't burn up every calorie you eat, the excess is added to your flab.
If you want to lose a pound of weight, you have to burn up 3,500 more calories than you eat — and it doesn't matter if the calories you give up are fats or carbohydrates, steaks or chocolate cake. You're not going to lose the pound until you eat 3,500 fewer calories.
The new theory casts serious doubt on this old belief. One calorie isn't just like another. A hundred calories from fructose are NOT like a hundred calories of protein or even glucose, the kind of sugar your body's cells can take in directly.
There's something different about fructose. I'm going to briefly explain what it is. If you have a taste for science and you'd like to know the details, check out a 90-minute Youtube lecture by an M.D. named Robert Lustig, Professor of Pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco.
Dr. Lustig is an expert on child obesity and a leading critic of sugar — both table sugar and HFCS — because both these sugars basically come down to fructose. He's the source of most of what was in the New York Times Magazine article and most of what I'm telling you here.
He didn't conduct the scientific studies himself, but he's a very effective speaker and he passionately believes sugar is a poison. He actually uses the word "poison" 13 times in his lecture. You can quickly find his talk by Googling "Sugar: The Bitter Truth".
The two-minute explanation of how fructose messes you up
The quick summary is that, unlike glucose, fructose has to be metabolized in the liver by way of a very complex and inefficient process. Your digestive system quickly breaks down a potato or a grain of rice into glucose, the "good" sugar. The glucose then passes through your intestinal wall into your bloodstream, and your cells are able to take it up and "eat it" with no problem.
Not so with fructose. Your liver has to convert fructose into glucose, the food your cells can take up. It's about like trying to turn a bowl of fish soup into a fish. The resulting process is so complex it puts a great strain on the liver. And here's the thing researchers say is key: 30 percent of the fructose is converted into fat and stays in your liver.
The growing load of fat in your liver causes disastrous damage over a period of many years. It appears to be the main cause of "metabolic syndrome" or "insulin resistance syndrome" — the breakdown in your insulin system that leads to heart disease, diabetes, hypertension — and cancer.
Glucose good (sort of), fructose bad (definitely)
If you eat "good" glucose-generating carbs, only one calorie out of five is stored in the liver. What's more, it's stored in a harmless form called glycogen. Your liver can store any amount of glycogen without getting sick.
When you eat fructose, three calories out of five are stored in the liver — three times as many as when you eat glucose. And the fructose calories are stored in the liver as a highly toxic fat.
The researchers in the field believe this accumulation of toxic fat in the liver is THE cause of the chronic degenerative diseases such as cancer and heart disease.
Fructose is a dietary catastrophe
According to Dr. Lustig, eating a high-fructose diet is effectively like eating a high-fat diet. That means you can think you're following a so-called low-fat diet when you really aren't at all. For more than 30 years, conventional medicine has told us to cut way back on fats for a healthy heart. Eat all the carbs you want, they've told us, eat all the pasta you want, but give up fats, especially saturated fats like those found in beef or butter or even guacamole.
In his lecture, Dr. Lustig provides persuasive evidence that this advice is all nonsense. You can eat a very low fat diet, but if you eat a lot of sugar — and Americans eat MASSIVE amounts of it — you'll still get fat. You'll still have an unhealthy heart and unhealthy arteries, you'll have hypertension, and very likely you'll get diabetes or cancer.
You can eat and eat and still feel hungry
Fructose has another oddity: You can eat a huge amount of calories and still feel hungry. Dr. Lustig says a kid can drink a Coke containing 200 calories and still go into McDonald's raving hungry and eat a heaping plate of food. The reason is that fructose does not suppress ghrelin, the "hunger hormone."
When you're hungry, your stomach and pancreas secrete ghrelin, and this hormone signals your brain that you need to eat. You feel hungry. Once you've eaten, ghrelin production falls off and you don't feel hungry anymore. Unless you've eaten fructose.
Ghrelin levels don't go down after consuming fructose, according to Dr. Lustig. You still feel hungry even though you've taken on board a huge dose of calories.
It gets worse. Most food stimulates the body to produce leptin, a chemical that signals the brain you've had something to eat. According to Dr. Lustig, this response fails to occur if the food is high in fructose. Your brain never gets the message you're full.
Fructose literally changes the way your brain perceives what you've eaten. You don't know whether you're hungry or not, you don't know whether you've eaten or not. Sometimes a new-agey alternative doctor will tell a sick person, "You're out of touch with your body." I"ll say!
Now you know why you're sick. . .
Fructose is a likely answer if not THE answer. There are other factors involved — certainly toxic chemicals and heavy metals, in the case of cancer. But fructose looks more and more like a major explanation for our problems. I'm convinced we'd see a rapid increase in health and well-being in our society if every gram of sugar disappeared tomorrow, for good.
Instead, we eat five times the amount of fructose people ate a hundred years ago. And most of their fructose calories were from fruit. Most of ours are from the pure junk, like mainlining heroin.
Here's a thought form the New York Times article: "One of the diseases that increases in incidence with obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome is cancer. . .The connection between obesity, diabetes and cancer was first reported in 2004 in large population studies by researchers from the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer. It is not controversial." (We wrote about the diabetes-cancer connection in issue #35.)
The Times also quotes Craig Thompson, President of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. While the article does the usual song and dance that we need more studies (and it's true; we do), Dr. Thompson dropped this bombshell:
"I have eliminated refined sugar from my diet and eat as little as I possibly can, because I believe that ultimately it's something I can do to decrease my risk of cancer."
This comes from the very heart of America's cancer establishment. If the world's leading enemies of alternative medicine are saying this. . .well, you do the math.
You're an addict even if you don't know
In his lecture, Dr. Lustig draws a fascinating comparison between alcoholism and a high level of fructose consumption. Fructose generates eight of the 12 health problems associated with alcoholism: hypertension, heart disease, chronic inflamed pancreas, liver dysfunction. . .and eight other diseases, including addiction.
I'll testify to the addiction bit, based on personal experience. Sugar is incredibly hard to give up. My own weakness is pastries, not candy or sodas. But when I was a child, I did drink soda by the gallon. Popcorn or pizza were unthinkable without a soft drink. To this day, I find sweets the most satisfying foods.
But don't look for the FDA or other authorities to get excited about the addiction problem. They don't have a long-term orientation. And warning the public about sugar would be like admitting that nutrition matters — that alternative health experts have been right all along.
Everyone knows alcohol is a toxin because it immediately affects the brain. There's no mistaking it. It's an "acute toxin." When you've had a drink you feel it within minutes, and hopefully you have enough sense not to drive. But fructose is what Dr. Lustig calls a "chronic toxin," and the FDA and other authorities have no interest in those. They don't look at long-term effects.
Most people know that excessive, long-term use of alcohol damages your liver. But that's not the reason it's so heavily regulated. The government is all over alcohol because of what it does to you within 20 minutes, not 20 years. But, says Dr. Lustig, a can of Coke is as bad for your liver as a can of beer in terms of the number of calories that hit your liver, and the stress the beverage puts on the organ. Soda belly, he says, equals beer belly.
The difference between an "acute toxin" and a "chronic toxin" is crucial. If you cut fructose out of your life, I'm confident you WILL see results, but not overnight results. This is a long-term issue. Most of us have been wrecking our health for as long as we've been on the planet — starting with sugary baby formulas and going on from there.
You have to give a sugar-free diet several months at least — and no "little treats" to reward yourself (you know what I'm talking about.) I'd say give it six months or a year. And better yet, combine it with a good supplement plan and a big increase in healthy vegetables (preferably uncooked) and oils.
Sunday was a great day at New Life, as we enjoyed the ministry of several Bishops from across the USA, Africa and England. My husband the Archbishop, Gregory Holley, spoke on a subject that held us all in awe. I am amazed at the word of grace he spoke! 'The Shape in Your Head'. It was unforgettable.
And when the wonderful outpouring was over....
We took our special guests to lunch...