We live in a rotten world powered by Human Greed. We are all trapped in a web of Lies, Falsehoods and Deceits spun by Corporations with Vested Interests in collusion with the Powers-That-Be, the very organizations we elected, directly or indirectly, into office to protect us. The only way out of this trap is to be empowered with knowledge. Read widely and know the truth. Truth will set you free.
Goh (not real name, H438) was a 36-year-old male. In June 2010 he had diarrhea and his blood pressure was low. He was admitted into a private hospital in his home town. An USG was done and he was told that his liver was not good. After three days he was discharged from the hospital. Health returned to normal. Two weeks later his abdomen became hard. He went back to the hospital again and a CT scan done indicated hepatoma – or liver cancer.
Goh came to a private hospital in Penang. He was asked to undergo surgery, to remove half of his liver. An operation was done but was later aborted. This open-close surgery cost him RM 10,000.
Not knowing what else to do, Goh and his family came to seek our advice on 24 October 2010. His CT scan report dated 15 October 2010 stated: “Both lobes of liver are enlarged and studded with multiple ill-defined heterogeneously enhancing lesions. The largest lesion located in segment 4b measures 15 x 20 x 15.6 cm. Impression: Multicentric hepatoma with minimal ascites and dilated left intrahepatic duct.”
Blood test results elevated liver enzymes. SGOT = 203, SGPT = 56, Alkaline phosphatase = 736 and Alpha-fetoprotein = 213.73.
Goh presented with pains in the shoulder area. These pains only appeared after the surgery. Before that there was no pain. He was not able to sleep. His eyes were blood shot. His abdomen was extended with both legs swollen. His breathing was difficult.
Unfortunately, Goh died not long after seeing us.
Comments: I don’t think it is necessary for me to give any comment on this case. The fact speaks for itself. Goh died barely two months after this aborted surgery. What do you think – would he have died earlier or later if he did not undergo that surgery?
This is one book which I believe everyone should read - Confession of a Medical Heretic by Robert Mendelsohn. The author is not an ordinary man. In the US, he wrote a syndicated column called “The People’s Doctor”. He was an associate professor at the University of Illinois Medical School and a director of Chicago’s Michael Reese Hospital. He was also chairman of the Medical Licensure Committee for the state of Illinois. In Chapter 3 of his book, Dr. Medelsohn wrote:
I believe that my generation of doctors will be remembered for … the millions of mutilations which are ceremoniously carried out every year in operating rooms.
Conservative estimates … say that about 2.4 million operations performed every year are unnecessary.
My feeling is that somewhere around ninety percent of surgery is a waste of time, energy, money and life.
Modern cancer surgery someday will be regarded with the same kind of horror that we now regard the use of leeches in George Washington’s time.
Greed plays a role in causing unnecessary surgery … there’s no doubt that if you eliminated all unnecessary surgery, most surgeons would go out of business.
Ignorance plays a part in a lot of unnecessary surgery.
Greed and ignorance aren’t the most important reasons why there is so much unnecessary surgery. It’s basically a problem of belief: doctors believe in surgery. There is a certain fascination in “going under the knife” … that (surgeon) can overcome anything because he can operate you … “You don’t have to take care of yourself, we can fix you if you go wrong.”
To protect yourself … your first step is to educate yourself. Get a second opinion. If you decide that surgery isn’t the answer, do whatever you have to do to detach yourself from the situation. In any situation short of an emergency, you’ve got plenty of time not only to decide whether or not you need the surgery but also who should perform the operation.
Wang (not real name, M872), 48-year-old male from Medan had been living with “blood-in-his-stools” for the past ten over years. This problem was attributed to piles. In November 2010 he came to a private hospital in Penang for a medical checkup. A scope of his colon did not show anything wrong. However, an ultrasound of his abdomen showed an ill defined, 7 x 9.2 cm mass in the right lobe of his liver.
Blood test was positive for Hepatitis B. Liver function test indicated elevated liver enzymes – ALT = 101, AST = 43 and GGT = 107. Alpha-fetoprotein was normal at 4.84.
CT scan done on 12 November 2010 indicated a 8.2 x 7.2 cm mass suggestive of hepatoma in segment 8 of his liver. A small solid lesion is also found in segment 7 measuring 1.8 x 1.2 cm. This may represent a satellite lesion of hepatoma. A simple cyst is noted at segment 8 below the right hemidiaphragm.
Wang went to see another doctor in another hospital. A repeat CT scan was done on 13 November 2010. The results were similar to the one done a day earlier.
he surgeon suggested that Wang undergo surgery to remove the tumour. The operation would cost RM 40,000. After the operation, Wang would have to undergo chemotherapy. The cost of each chemo is around RM 4,000 to RM 5,000.
Wang and his wife were disappointed and decided to go back to Medan without doing any surgery or chemotherapy. Someone learnt about their predicament and suggested that they come to CA Care for advice. We spent more than an hour with them. Below is a video recording of a part of our conversation that day.
Comments:
1.Most of the story-telling was done by Wang’s wife. She only talks Chinese! It appears to me that she is a “smart and wise” lady even though she is not educated.
2.She said: “When the doctor (surgeon) said that my husband had to undergo surgery and chemotherapy, I knew that this is a serious case”. This shows that she is not a dumb, naïve village girl – never mind if she does not know how to read the CT scan report or figure out what the blood test shows.
3.I asked her: “Did you ask the doctor if surgery can cure his cancer.” She replied yes. Most patients who come to us did not do that! How could that be? They don’t even want to find out what the prognosis is like! Not this lady.
4.She even asked the doctor: “What if we do not do the chemotherapy?”. The surgeon replied: “It is like cutting the lallang. You need to apply chemical after you mow it down. Only then can it be eliminated.” The answer was right on spot because this lady works in the farm – she understood it well. To kill off the lallang you need to apply chemical poison. Sometimes the land had to be dug up or overturned to get rid of the rhizome. So she said: “Then what would that do to my husband?” The implication is – what would happen to the patient if you poison him like you poison the lallang?
5.She also asked the surgeon: “When you cut up my husband, what are the chances that his cancer is cured?” Again this kind of question is never asked by most patients before they undergo an operation. The surgeon replied: “More than 80 percentage success rate.”
6.I asked the lady: “The doctor said 80 percent success – did you believe him?” She replied NO. I asked her why. She said: “There is one statement that the doctor made which got stuck in my head. Earlier I asked the doctor about the risk involved – how certain was he that everything would turn out right.” The doctor replied this lady: “The same case like you flying in from Medan to Penang. The airline does not guarantee that you are risk free.” Though the doctor did not admit outright that the treatment has risk, his reply very much implies that there is risk – the lady got the answer.
7.Later in our conversation, I came to know that Wang’s sister also had liver cancer. She received chemotherapy. She died after four cycles. While many patients or their loved ones appear naïve – don’t under estimate them! They have gone through some bitter experiences in life and they are not about ready to forget them. For such people, doctors need to do a lot of convincing to make them accept chemotherapy again.
8.I feel sorry for this couple. They came all the way to Penang and had to spend so much money. They can do the treatment – no problem about that for as long as they can pay the hospital bills – but cure appears to be elusive.
There is one important lesson we can learn from this story. How reliable or true are statements made by a doctor? Is it backed by good statistics and good research? At this point I am reminded of what some doctors wrote. Let me quote.
Dr. Block, herself a doctor, wrote in the foreword of Fight for Your Health:“Don’t just blindly follow what your doctors say. Find out the truth for yourself.”
Dr. Mendelsohn, in his book Confessions of a Medical Heretic wrote: “Doctors in general should be treated with about the same degree of trust as used car salesmen. Whatever your doctor says or recommends, you have to first consider how it will benefit him … because surgeon gets paid when he performs surgery on you, not when you’re treated some other way.”
Dr. Chestnut in his book, Lying With Authority wrote: “Somebody has got be lying – lying with an air of authority. The vast majority of surgery and drugs, including chemotherapy, does not treat or cure disease; it treats symptoms – often with devastating side effects.”
Dr. Hamilton in his book, The Scalpel and the Soul wrote: “As doctors, we generally don’t tell outright lies. We just don’t speak the truth fully.”
It is not nice to say that doctors tell lies – but the above quotations seem to say that some do, though they represent a minority. But I must say I like what Dr. Hamilton said: “We generally don’t tell outright lies. We just don’t speak the truth fully.” In this story, the surgeon told Wang and his wife that the treatment has more than 80 percent success.” His answer can be dead right or dead wrong! Let me explain.
From the perspective of this surgeon he is absolutely right to claim that the treatment has more than 80 percent success rate. A surgeon’s job is to cut up patients. After that he passes the patient to the oncologist or someone else. As far as he is concern his part of the cancer war is done. With the present state of the art technology, surgery carries minimal risk – like us flying in an air plane. The possibility of a crash is there but it is not likely (yes, it can happen!). Dying from surgery does occur although it is not likely.
But is that what the patient is looking for – just not dying from surgery? From the perspective of Wang and his wife, they are looking for a cure of his cancer! To them, the answer of 80 percent success takes an entirely different meaning. Cure means completely elimination of the cancer and it will not come back. That is what all patients ask for. Therefore, if patients are made to believe that they can attain an 80 percent chance of cure if they undergo surgery or chemotherapy is definitely false.
Let me repeat what Dr. Hamilton said: “we just don’t speak the truth fully.” Does this mean that doctors intentionally withhold some vital information which patients should know? If so, is that fair? I think the most vital information not told to patients is that though surgery is safe it will NOT cure the cancer. The chances of recurrence after an apparent successful surgery are very high. If you follow the case studies presented in this website, you will know that some patients die not long after their liver surgery.
Perhaps is this the reason why Dr. Mendelsohn said we should regard doctors in general “with about the same degree of trust as used car salesmen”?
In this article I have refrained from commenting if indeed the advice to operate is appropriate or otherwise. I would like to believe that the doctor has recommended this path with the best of intention. Even that, we need to be reminded that according to liver experts only 10 % to 30% of those who present with HCC are candidates for surgery. Meaning surgery is not the answer for all cases of liver cancer. Also surgery is good for only small tumours. Again, Dr. Mendelsohn’s words come to mind, they do this “because surgeon gets paid when he performs surgery on you”.
Let me conclude this article by trying to answer my earlier question: to what extent is the statement “after surgery there is a more than 80 percent success” true. I spent time reading my oncology books again. Below are the scientific facts written by liver experts. Read them carefully and come to your own conclusions.
Review of Medical Literature on Liver Cancer (Hepatocellular Carcinoma – HCC)
Research Reports
Ikeda et al., Cancer, 71:19-251993, reported: Eighty-three patients with HCC were treated with curative surgical resection during the past 8 years. No operative deaths occurred. Recurrence rates after resection at the ends of years 1, 2, and 3 were 37.0%, 57.1%, and 71.6%, respectively.
Iwatsuki et al., Ann Surg. 1991 September; 214(3): 221–229, reported: From 1980 to 1989, 76 patients with HCC underwent subtotal hepatic resection. Only 12 patients lived more than 5 years.
Vauthey, et al., American J of Surgery; Vol: 169, pg. 28-35, 1995, reported: Between 1970 and 1992, 106 patients underwent hepatic resection for HCC at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Overall survival was 41% and 32% at 5 and 10 years, respectively.
Nagao et al., Ann Surg.205(1): 33–40; 1987 reported: Ninety-four patients underwent hepatic resections from 1963 to 1985.One-, 3 and 5-year survival rates were 73%, 42% and 25% respectively. The recurrence of carcinoma was the main cause of death in 56% (42 patients) who died after discharge from the hospital. Prognostic factors that influenced the long-term prognosis were: preoperative alpha-fetoprotein level (less than or equal to 200 vs. greater than 200 ng/mL), tumor size (less than or equal to 5 vs. greater than 5 cm), and tumor capsule.
Shyh-Chuan Jwo, et al. Hepatology , Vol. 1367–1371; 1992 reported: A total of 238 patients who received curative hepatic resections during the last 10 years were observed. The results revealed that tumor size, tumor appearance and DNA ploidy were the factors in predicting tumor recurrence after resection for HCC. Patients with a tumor size less than or equal to 5 cm or a tumor appearance of the solitary type had better disease-free survival than did those with a tumor size greater than 5 cm or a tumor appearance of multiple/daughter nodule types.
Poon et al. of the Centre for the Study of Liver Disease, University of Hong Kong Medical Center, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong,, Ann Surg. 234(1): 63–702001, wrote:
·HCC is notorious for poor prognosis because of its invasiveness and frequent association with cirrhosis.
·Hepatic resection remains the treatment of choice for HCC.
·During the past decade, hepatic surgeons have focused much effort on improving the surgical techniques and perioperative management for resection of HCC, resulting in greatly improved perioperative outcomes. By the end of the 1990s, studies from our institution and others have demonstrated that a zero hospital or surgical death rate could be achieved in large series of patients.
·Long-term prognosis after resection of HCC remains unsatisfactory. Disease-free survival has been poor because of a high incidence of recurrence. A 5-year cumulative recurrence rate of 80% to 100% has been reported.
·Reports in the 1990s from Eastern and Western centers have documented a 5-year overall survival rate of 26% to 44% after resection of HCC.
Oncology Textbooks
Harrison’sPrinciples of Internal Medicine 15th Ed., pg.589.
·Staging of HCC is based on tumour size, ascites (present or absent), bilirubin and albumin.
·If untreated, most patients die within 3 to 6 months of diagnosis.
·If detected very early, survival is 1 to 2 years after resection.
·Surgical resection offers the only chance for cure, however, few patients have a resectable tumour at the time of presentation because of underlying cirrhosis or distant metastases.
·Radomised trials have not shown a survival advantage after chemoembolization.
·Liver cannot tolerate high doses of radiation.
·The disease is not responsive to chemotherapy.
The American Cancer Society’s Clinical Oncology, 3rd Ed., pg. 399-401.
·Only 15% to 30% of patients with HCC are candidates for surgery.
·Conditions that render HCC unresectable are extensive disease within the organ itself and metastases.
·Large tumour size, bilobar involvement and presence of cirrhosis do not necessary preclude resection but adversely affect mortality and prognosis.
·Resection generally is limited to patients with small peripheral lesions and preserved hepatic function.
·Five-year cure rate for all HCC who have undergone hepatic resection is approximately 30%.
·The value of radiotherapy is limited in treating HCC.
·Chemotherapy is palliative. Patients who respond to chemotherapy will survive 9 to 12 months longer.
·Mean survival for patients receiving chemotherapy is approximately 5 months (1- year survival is 27%, 2-year is 8%).
·Cure and long-term survival are possible only when tumours can be resected completely.
Martin Abeloff, et al. Clinical Oncology, Vol: 2, pg. 1697, 1703-1721.
·Median survival of Hong Kong patients with inoperable HCC – tumour larger than 6 cm in diameter and receiving no treatment – was 3.5 weeks.
·Tumour size at diagnosis is an important prognostic variable.
·Tumour doubling time ranged from 1 to 19.5 months, with an average of 6.5 months.
·Study in Japan showed that for patients with cirrhosis and HCC less than 3 cm in diameter and without treatment, 1-year survival rate was 90.7%; 2-year was 55.0%; and 3-year was 12.8%.
·Unfortunately only 10 to 15% of newly diagnosed HCC patients are candidate for resection.
·Presence of cirrhosis is a negative prognostic indicator.
·Operative mortality rate of liver resections for HCC is les than 10%, but post-operative morbidity rate remains high – between 40 to 60%.
·85% of hepatic recurrences develop within 2 years of resection.
·There is little evidence of significant therapeutic activity for any single chemo-agent. There is also no evidence to support the routine use of combination chemotherapy.
Liver resection is the operation of choice for patients with tumors less than 5 cm in the absence of cirrhosis. In these patients, an operative mortality rate of less than 2% can be expected in experienced centers.Following liver resection, up to 75% of patients will develop intrahepatic recurrence within 5 years. Source: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/197319-treatment
Dr Lim Thuang Seng, an immunologist appeals to the government to seriously reconsider their intention to release genetically modified mosquitoes in Pahang and Malacca. According to him, GM mosquitoes will fail, and incur heavy costs.
Let me highlight two comments from readers who read this report.
Read X wrote: Firstly, how much does an immunologist know about mosquitoes. That is best left to the entomologists. Although it is quite rightly pointed out that this is likely going to be a short term measure, it may be important to halt the epidemic scourge at this moment. Therefore it is of paramount importance to stress on basic cleanliness of our environment, in tandem with this exercise. Only in this way can we ensure longer term success with dengue. Dr Lim, as an immunologists, what are your solutions? It is easy to say what will fail, but what we need is for bright brains like yourself to tell the nation about what measures that might work.
My comment: You cannot solve human problems with Ph.D. certificates. Only commonsense and wisdom which comes from experience devoid of hidden “greed” can help. First, let us understand what this whole thing about Genetically Modified Organism is all about.
Reader Y wrote: The writer had pointed out GM mosquitoes are not feasible. Not only that, it is also potentially dangerous and harmful. So why should we go ahead with something that will not produce results and pose a danger at the same time. To do so is completely stupid! Like Anon said earlier, money must have changed hands and cannot tarik balik!
Excitotoxins have been found to dramatically promote cancer growth and metastasis. In fact, one aspartame researcher noticed that, when cancer cells were exposed to aspartame, they became more mobile, and you see the same effect with MSG. It also causes a cancer cell to become more mobile, and that enhances metastasis, or spread. These MSG-exposed cancer cells developed all of these pseudopodians and started moving through tissues, which is one of the earlier observations from cancer.
When you increase the glutamate level, cancer just grows like wildfire, and then when you block glutamate, it dramatically slows the growth of the cancer.
As discussed previously, the glutamate (MSG) manufacturers and the processed food industries are always on a quest to disguise the MSG added to food. Below is a partial list of the most common names for disguised MSG. Remember, the powerful excitotoxins, aspartate and L-cystine, are also frequently added to foods. According to FDA rules these require NO LABELING AT ALL.
Food Additives that ALWAYS contain MSG
Monosodium Glutamate
Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein
Hydrolyzed Protein
Hydrolyzed Plant Protein
Plant Protein Extract
Sodium Caseinate
Calcium Caseinate
Yeast Extract
Textured Protein (Including TVP)
Autolyzed Yeast
Hydrolyzed Oat Flour
Corn Oil
Food Additives That MAY Contain MSG Or Excitotoxins
Carrageenan
Enzymes
Soy Protein Concentrate
Soy Protein Isolate
Whey Protein Concentrate
Protease Enzymes of various sources can release excitotoxin amino acids from food proteins.
Aspartame
Aspartame is a sweetener made from two amino acids, phenylalanine and the excitotoxin aspartate. It should be avoided at all costs. It is implicated in everything from blindness to headaches to convulsions. Sold under dozens of brand names such as NutraSweet and Equal, aspartame breaks down within 20 minutes at room temperature into several primary toxic and dangerous ingredients:
1. DKP (diketopiperazine) (When ingested, converts to a near duplicate of
a powerful brain tumor causing agent)
2. Formic Acid (ant venom)
3. Formaldehyde (embalming fluid)
4. Methanol (causes blindness...extremely dangerous substance)
Common Examples
Diet soft drinks, sugar free gums, sugar free Kool Aid, Crystal Light, childrens' medications, and thousands of other products claiming to be 'low calorie', 'diet', or 'sugar free'.
A Final Note...
Dr. Blaylock recounted a meeting with a senior executive in the food additive industry who told him point blank that these excitotoxins are going to be in our food no matter how many name changes are necessary.
Excitotoxins are a terrible threat to our health, yet the government allows these known (proven) toxins to be added to our food.
What are excitotoxins? The word excitotoxin is derived from two words, excite and toxin. A 'toxin' is a poison. So excitotoxin is a poison that excites any brain cell it encounters until it dies. These substances are usually amino acids – sounds rather natural and harmless but when these react with specialized receptors in the brain in such a way as to lead to destruction of certain types of brain cells.
Do you really need excitotoxins in foods? No! They are all used to alter the taste of food. MSG or sodium salt of glutamate, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, and natural flavoring are used to enhance the taste of food so that it tastes better. Aspartame is an artificial sweetener – more popularly recognized by its trade names Nutrasweet and Equal.
Why are they toxic? This amino acid is a normal neurotransmitter in the brain. In fact, it is the most commonly used neurotransmitter by the brain. Defenders of MSG and aspartame use, usually say: How could a substance that is used normally by the brain cause harm? This is because, glutamate, as a neurotransmitter, exists in the extracellular fluid only in very, very small concentrations - no more than 8 to 12uM. When the concentration of this transmitter rises above this level the neurons begin to fire abnormally. At higher concentrations, the cells undergo a specialized process of delayed cell death known as excitotoxicity, that is, they are excited to death.
It should also be appreciated that the effects of excitotoxin food additives generally are not dramatic. Some individuals may be especially sensitive and develop severe symptoms and even sudden death from cardiac irritability, but in most instances the effects are subtle and develop over a long period of time. A survey conducted in 1976 found that 25 percent of the public had adverse reactions after having eaten at a Chinese restaurant. This became known as the Chinese Restaurant Syndrome.
Why Are Exitotoxins – often called "flavor enhancers" – Added ton Food? There is only one answer to that question - Money. If you think a food tastes particularly good, you will tend to eat more of it, right? MSG makes food taste shockingly better than it would without it is why it is added to substandard, cheap foods. All processed children's foods have excitotoxins among the ingredients.
Hidden Excitotoxins in Foods: Excitotoxins are not present in just a few foods, but rather in almost all processed foods. In many cases they are being added in disguised forms, such as natural flavoring, spices, yeast extract, textured protein, soy protein extract, etc. Also, liquid forms of excitotoxins, as occurs in soups, gravies and diet soft drinks are more toxic than that added to solid foods. This is because they are more rapidly absorbed and reach higher blood levels.
If These are Toxic, Why Are Allowed in Foods? Dr. George Schwartz in the foreword of the book wrote: “Our watchdogs have become industry pussy cats and the “research” supposedly demonstrating safety is deeply flawed.”
“Food politics underlie all politics in the United States. There is no industry more important – more fundamentally linked to our well-being and future well-being of our children. Like manufacturing cigarettes or building weapons, making food is very big business”.
This book is written by Dr. Marion Nestle, professor and chair of the Department of Nutrition & Food Studies, New York University. She has served as a nutrition policy advisor to the Department of Health and Human Services and Science Advisory Committees to the Department of Agriculture and FDA.
In this book, Dr. Nestle revealed that:
The “food industry must do everything possible to persuade people to eat more – more food, more often and in larger portions “ – no matter what it does to our well being.
“I eventually came to the conclusion that food companies – just like companies that sell cigarettes, pharmaceuticals or any other commodity – routinely place the needs of stockholders over considerations of public health.”
“Food companies will make and market any product that sells, regardless of its nutritional value or its effects on health.”
“Health companies are not health or social service agencies and nutrition becomes a factor in corporate thinking only when it can help sell food.”
Under the guise of “objective” scientific research, food companies suggest to us that their products are healthy. But according to Dr. Nestle, “when it comes to the mass production and consumption of food … decisions made are driven by economics – not science, not common sense and certainly not health.”
“They expand sales by marketing directly to children, members of minority groups and people in developing countries – whether or not the products are likely to improve people’s diets.”
“Like cigarette companies, food companies co-opt food and nutrition experts by supporting professional organizations and research."
“It is in the interest of food companies to have people believe that there is no such thing as a “good” food (except when it is theirs); that there is no such thing as “bad” food; that all foods (especially theirs) can be incorporated into healthful diets; and that balance, variety and moderation are the keys to healthful diets – which means that no advice to restrict intake of their particular product is appropriate … If people are confused about nutrition, they will more likely accept such claims at face value”.
“They lobby Congress to eliminate regulations perceived as unfavourable, they pressed federal regulatory agencies not to enforce such regulations and when they don’t like regulatory decisions, they file lawsuits.”
This book is written by Michele Simon, a public health attorney specializing in nutrition policy and food industry tactics. She teaches health policy at the University of California, Hasting College of the Law.
She wrote:
“We live in a world where fatty, sugary and salty foods – stripped of nutrients during factory processing – are in abundance.”
“Clever manufacturers have made processed food artificially stimulating by isolating particular chemicals that cause pleasure reactions … and ensure that we stay hooked.”
As a result, “the United States is in the middle of a growing epidemic of diet-related health problems, including obesity, heart disease and diabetes.”
“We really cannot expect food companies to be the guardians of public health. I have simply come to realize that under our current economic system, it is not a corporation’s job to protect public health"
.
“Unlike most people – who have conscience and act (we hope) on the basis of some set of moral principles – a corporation is fundamentally amoral institution. Corporations are in business to make money. Profits must be the ultimate measure of all business decisions."
“Why can’t companies just make money selling “healthier products”? This is because companies make more money selling unhealthy food. Truly healthy food doesn’t come in a box. It simply cannot be done and it certainly cannot be done in a way that both maximize profits and benefits public health."
“Food corporations cannot be trusted to protect the public’s health. Accepting this truth will go a long way to a deeper understanding … Once you realize that every move a food company makes, it’s designed to protect its bottom line, you can then more clearly recognize corporate behavior and not let it fool you.”
One of the many forewords of this book was written by Mary Ann Block, D.O. She shared what she had learnt about modern medicine and which most doctors don’t know or would not dare to confess or tell you.
“At the age of 39, I entered medical school. There, I learned what doctors learn but I also learned what doctors don’t learn.”
“I found that doctor s learn what the pharmaceutical companies want them to learn. Almost everything doctors are taught is filtered through the drug companies.”
“Doctors learn to cover up symptoms with drugs instead of trying to find the cause of a health problem and fix it.”
“Doctors learn how to write prescriptions. If all you have is a prescription pad, everyone willget a prescription.”
“Doctors learn little or nothing about nutrition.”
“Every day I see patients who have been hurt by the medical profession … I am thankful that I learned what doctors don’t know so I can take a different approach – to find the cause, fix the problem!”
Dr. Block’s advice to all of us: “Don’t just blindly follow what your doctors say. Find out the truth for yourself.”
JOHN HAMMELL, President, International Advocates of Health Freedom wrote:
“Harvey Wiley, M.D., created the FDA with only the best intentions of safeguarding the public health.”
But in this book, you will learn from Byron Richards that the “FDA has abandoned its public health mission and is acting like a trade association for pharmaceutical interests to protect them from unwanted competition while taking their cues from Wall Street.”
DIANE MILLER, J.O., Director of Law and Public Policy, National Health Freedom Action wrote:
“Americans are dying by the thousands at the hands of drug companies and government regulators. Americans are putting their trust in places they should not be putting their trust.”
“Science that could benefit mankind was converted to an instrument of control and death. It started with moral weakness in the scientists and business executive who place profit above human life.”
“Doctors are challenged in this book to return to their calling of being “thinking doctors” instead of numb and ignorant robots handing pills out that will change a patient on paper but that will damage a patient’s chance of ever regaining true health.”
JONATHAN EMORD, of Emord Associate wrote:
“If there is one lesson that readers should take away from (this book) more than any other, it is to reject the commonly held view that the FDA is a great defender of the public health. Rather, more times than not FDA is a defender of the economic interests of the largest drug companies in the world.
This book is written by Byron J. Richards, a clinical nutritionist and founder of Wellness Resources. Reading this book makes me sick to the stomach. Basically the author exposed the secret world of the (US) FDA and showed how it betrayed the American people. He also exposed the scam of the sickness industry – the collusions of the Power-That-Be with Wall Street (the big businesses) and the drug companies.
·“The FDA has spent the last hundred years boosting the profits of drug companies and eliminating competition to those companies, acting as a misguided police force that has little to do with public safety.”
·In 1992, President Bill Clinton “allowed the FDA to accept millions of dollars in drug company money to help approve drugs.”
·“President George Bush actually turned portions of the FDA itself into a drug company, responding primarily to the interests of Wall Street. He installed a new FDA chief and second-in-command who have multiple connections to drug companies and Wall Street.”
·“Public safety is low on the list. Citizens’ rights are low on the list. Rushing new and expensive unproven drugs onto the market is now the priority.”
·“Under the pretense of public safety the FDA, Bush Administration and various congressional leaders are attacking alternative health care. Drugs, not vitamins, are killing 100,000 Americans a year and sending 1.6 million people to the hospital with adverse reactions.”
1. Become familiar with the most common products (and their derivatives) that are most likely to be genetically modified. Products grown and processed in the United States and Canada are suspects. Avoid these whenever you can.
o Soybeans
o Corn
o Rapeseed/Canola
o Sugar beets
o Rice
o Cotton. The seeds are pressed into cottonseed oil, which is a common ingredient in vegetable oil and margarine.
o Dairy - Cows injected with GE hormone rBGH/rBST; possibly fed GM grains and hay.
o Aspartame/AminoSweet - Addictive and dangerous artificial sweetener commonly found in chewing gum and "diet" beverages.
o Papayas
o Farm Raised Salmon
2. Buy food labeled 100% organic. However, you may find that organic food is more expensive and different in appearance from conventional products. Also, just because something says "organic" on it does not mean that it does not contain GMs. In fact, it can still contain up to 30% GMs, so be sure the labels say 100% organic.. This applies to eggs, as well. Eggs labeled "free-range", "natural", or "cage-free" are not necessarily GE-free; look for eggs to be 100% organic.. ]
3. Purchase beef that is 100% grass-fed. Most cattle in the U.S. are grass-fed, but spend the last portion of their lives in feedlots where they may be given GM corn, the purpose of which is to increase intramuscular fat and marbling. If you're looking to stay away from GMOs, make sure the cattle were 100% grass-fed or pasture-fed (sometimes referred to as grass-finished or pasture-finished). The same applies to meat from other herbivores such as sheep. There is also the slight possibility that the animals were fed GM alfalfa, although this is less likely if you buy meat locally. With non-ruminants like pigs and poultry that cannot be 100% grass-fed, it's better to look for meat that is 100% organic..
4. Seek products that are specifically labeled as non-GM or GMO-free. However, it is rare to find products labeled as such. You can also research websites that list companies and foods that do not use genetically modified foods, but be aware that information is often incomplete and conflicting interests may not be declared.
5. Shop locally. More than half of all GM foods are produced in the US, most of it comes from large, industrial farms. By shopping at farmers' markets, more and more small farms are offering grains and meat directly to customers, in addition to the usual fare (vegetables, fruit, herbs). Shopping locally may also give you the opportunity to speak to the farmer and find out how he or she feels about GMOs and whether or not they use them in their own operation.
6. Buy whole foods. Favor foods that you can cook and prepare yourself, rather than foods that are processed or prepared (e.g. anything that comes in a box or a bag, including fast food).
"History has many records of crimes against humanity, which were also justified by dominant commercial interests and governments of the day. Despite protests from citizens, social justice for the common good was eroded in favour of private profits. Today, patenting of life forms and the genetic engineering which it stimulates, is being justified on the grounds that it will benefit society, especially the poor, by providing better and more food and medicine. But in fact, by monopolising the 'raw' biological materials, the development of other options is deliberately blocked. Farmers therefore, become totally dependent on the corporations for seeds ~ Professor Wangari Mathai.
In the website: Disabled World, Mavis Butcher wrote: It’s virtually impossible to provide a complete list of genetically modified food (GM food) in the United States because there aren’t any laws for genetically modified crops! Some estimates say as many as 30,000 different products on grocery store shelves are "modified."
List of genetically modified foods - watch out and try to avoid them:
1. Soy products - half of North America's soy crop is genetically engineered! Such foods including, soy beverages, tofu, soy oil, soy flour, lecithin. Other products may include breads, pastries, snack foods, baked products, fried products, edible oil products and special purpose foods.
2. Rapeseed in Canada, the crop was renamed "canola" (Canadian oil). Avoid Canola oil! And canola oil may be found in edible oil products, fried foods, and baked products, snack foods.
3. Honey can be produced from GM crops. Some Canadian honey comes from bees collecting nectar from GM canola plants.
4. Cotton. It is also considered a food because the oil can be consumed. Products may include blended vegetable oils, fried foods, baked foods, snack foods, edible oil products, and smallgoods casings.
5. Rice - Genetically modified to contain high amounts of Vitamin A. Rice containing human genes is to be grown in the US.
6. Sugar cane. A large percentage of sweeteners used in processed food actually comes from corn, not sugar cane or beets. Genetically modified sugar cane is regarded so badly by consumers at the present time that it could not be marketed successfully.
7. Tomatoes.
8. Corn and corn products like corn oil, flour, sugar or syrup. May include snack foods, baked goods, fried foods, edible oil products, confectionery, special purpose foods, and soft drinks.
9. Sweet corn. Officials from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have said that thousands of tonnes of genetically engineered sweetcorn have made their way into the human food supply chain, even though the produce has been approved only for use in animal feed. Recently Monsanto, a biotechnology food producer, said that about half of the USA's sweetcorn acreage has been planted with genetically modified seed this year.
10. Potatoes, and may include snack foods, processed potato products and other processed foods containing potatoes.
11. Flax - More and more food products contain flax oil and seed because of their excellent nutritional properties. No genetically modified flax is currently grown. An herbicide-resistant GM flax was introduced in 2001, but was soon taken off the market because European importers refused to buy it.
12. Papaya - The first virus resistant papayas were commercially grown in Hawaii in 1999. Transgenic papayas now cover about one thousand hectares, or three quarters of the total Hawaiian papaya crop. Monsanto, donated technology to Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, for developing a papaya resistant to the ringspot virus in India.
13. Squash - (yellow crookneck) - Some zucchini and yellow crookneck squash are also GM but they are not popular with farmers.
14. Red-hearted chicory - (radicchio) - Chicory (Cichorium intybus var. foliosum) is popular in some regions as a salad green., Today there is no genetically modified chicory on the market.
15. Tobacco -The company Vector has a GMO tobacco being sold under the brand of Quest® cigarettes in the U.S.
16. Meat and dairy products usually come from animals that have eaten GM feed.
17. Peas.
18. Vegetable Oil - Most generic vegetable oils and margarines used in restaurants and in processed foods in North America are made from soy, corn, canola, or cottonseed. Unless these oils specifically say "Non-GMO" or "Organic," it is probably genetically modified.
19. Sugarbeets - May include any processed foods containing sugar.
20. Dairy Products - about 22 percent of cows in the U.S. are injected with recombinant (genetically modified) bovine growth hormone (rbGH).
21. Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is often made from corn, vitamin E is usually made from soy. Vitamins A, B2, B6, and B12 may be derived from GMOs as well as vitamin D and vitamin K may have "carriers" derived from GM corn sources, such as starch, glucose, and maltodextrin.
How can the public make informed decisions about genetically modified (GM) foods when there is so little information about its safety?
Árpád Pusztai, Ph.D., a Hungarian born scientist, has spent many years working for the Rowett Research Institute (RRI) in Aberdeen, Scotland, researching the nutritive values of plant lectins and genetically modified (GM) foods.
Dr. Pusztai lost his job with RRI for expressing his opinions on the safety of genetically modified foods in a TV interview in 1998. Read more about this honest man.
Over his years of extensive research, Pusztai finds that many GM crops have already been approved to be released on the market that may increase the toxicity of allergens in the crop, or contain unpredictable toxins themselves Such carcinogenic and/or mutagenic toxins may be created in GM crops. Many crops have not been properly tested to determine if they are safe for human or animal consumption .
According to Dr. Arpad Pusztai, genetically modified (GM) crops and food are being grown and consumed by the public, even though:
• there is little scientific study about their health risks
• safety test technology is inadequate to assess potential harm
• they can carry unpredictable toxins
• they may increase the risk of allergenic reactions
Jeffrey Smith is one of the world's leading consumer advocate promoting healthier non-GMO choices. He wrote this book: Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating.
Read this book and you will learn that eating such “experimental food” is to gamble with your health and life.
They – the Vested Interests and government agencies said the GMOs are safe for human consumption. Know that this is a big lie based on pseudo-science arguments and bad research.
In this book the author tells you that:
• When a top scientist tried to alert the public about his alarming discoveries, he lost his job and was silenced with threats of a lawsuit.
• Scientists were offered bribes or threatened. Evidence was stolen. Data was omitted or distorted.
• Government employees who complained were harassed, stripped of responsibilities or fired.
• Laboratory rats fed a GM crop developed stomach lesions and 7 out of 40 died within 2 weeks. The crop was approved without further tests.
The report by a panel of experts of the Royal Society of Canada said this:
• It is scientifically unjustifiable to presume that GM foods are safe.
• There is a need for safety testing, looking for short- and long-term human toxicity, allergenicity and other health effects.
• The risks in biotechnology are undeniable, and they stem from the unknowable in science and commerce. It is prudent to recognize and address those risks, not compound them by overly optimistic or fool hardy behavior (Quoting the editors of the UK’s Nature Biotechnology).
On this issue, in the US, the attitude is --- the Government by the Industry, for the Industry. Those with authority turned a blind eye to the whole issue of human safety placing more emphasis on money making by the Vested Interests.
Henry Miller who was in charge of biotechnology at the US-FDA from 1979 to 1994, was quoted to have said: “the US government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do.”
The US government would not require any safety tests or any special labels identifying the foods as genetically engineered.
Geneticist David Suzuki was quoted to have said: “Any politician or scientist who tells you these products are safe is either very stupid or lying. The experiments have simply not been done.”
Safety is, however, a matter of perspective. It depends on which side of the fence you are on. If you are against herbs, you would say that herbs are not scientific, not proven and not approve by the FDA (US-Food & Drug Administration). Therefore herbs are dangerous.
Dr. Ni (in Secrets of Self Healing) said that in the US, less than 50 people died due to herbal medicine. At the same time, more than 100 people died due to allergy as a result of eating peanuts and shell fish, etc. Compare these figures to 140,000 deaths each year in American because of people taking pharmaceutical drugs and medical errors. It is also a well known fact that 2.2 million people are injured each year due adverse drug reactions.
Cause
Deaths / year in USA
Herbal medicine
Less than 50
Allergy to peanuts, shellfish, etc.
More than 100
Pharmaceutical drugs & medical error
140,000
Adverse drug reactions – injury to 2.2 million Americans each year
It seems to me that eating peanuts is more dangerous that taking herbal medicine. And it also appears that going to the hospitals in the US is even more dangerous that going to war in Afghanistan.
