Search Results

New Agendas in American Dentistry

October 20th, 2017

With the ascension of managed health care in the 1990s, both medicine and dentistry have taken an invidious turn in this country. The fundamental reason is that medicine is no longer run by doctors and dentistry is no longer run by dentists. Or even by the AMA or the ADA. Now both professions have prostituted themselves to a higher entity – the insurance cartels, which are run today not by doctors, but by MBAs – corporate financiers.

All policies, billing procedures, all medical and dental decisions answer to one prime directive: profit. It’s certainly not a hidden conspiracy. These businesses enjoy success today because they do what corporations are designed to do: make money for their shareholders.

And it’s still growing: in 1992, 36% of Americans were under managed care. By 1996, it was up to 60%. (American Association of Health Plans) And today the figure is about 85%. (Singing the HMO Blues) As we all know, the new profit-driven industry has given birth to concepts like:

    * lack of medical necessity
    * the “experimental” label, which means it’s not covered under your plan

to keep services rendered to a minimum. In this way, HMOs can continue to pay their CEOs average salaries of $2 million per year, with some, like Steve Williams of Oxford Health, pulling down over $30 million per year. (Rose, also Fisher)

You may have noticed that HMOs filled the vacuum left by the failure of Bill and Hillary’s 1994 ‘health plan.’ Providing a very low level of doctor services to a large number of people, HMOs commonly

    * deny expensive drugs
    * deny expensive procedures
    * force doctors and hospitals to accept lower and lower fees
    * make every medical decision subject to approval by non-medical personnel

With all these problems, HMOs actually helped stem the double digit rise of yearly medical costs – for a few years. But with HMO premiums now going up at the rate of at least 9% per year, that honeymoon is over. (Lemov) We’re right back where we were before, with much lower standards of care.

In Conventional Medicine vs. Holistic, we have already seen how managed care has affected the overall health index of American people. The present chapter will briefly explore the implications of this same set-up for the ordinary American dental patient. We will concentrate on three topics:

    * Dental amalgams
    * Routine antibiotics
    * Fluoridation


Remember when you were a child and you went to the dentist, and you learned a new word: cavities. A hole had rotted its way into the enamel, and must now be drilled out and made better. And the answer to the problem was called a filling. And you may have begun to look in the mouths of your family and friends to see their fillings, and were thus reassured that this was normal because everyone had them done. And the metal used for fillings was silver in color and was generally referred to as silver. And the fact that silver is a precious metal was some small compensation for the discomfort of the drilling, because now you would be carrying around this precious metal permanently in your teeth.

And about this same time period perhaps you also were visited by the Tooth Fairy?

By definition, amalgam means alloy of two or more metals, one of which is mercury. (Dorland’s) In reality, dental amalgams are an alloy of several metals including silver, zinc, copper, tin, and mercury. Since mercury is the most volatile, being liquid at room temperature, it is an excellent binder for the entire amalgam. In most dental amalgams, mercury makes up about 50% of the material, while silver is only 30%. (Lorscheider) So you see, silver fillings are really mercury fillings.

The problem with mercury is its toxicity to human cells, especially the brain cells, the gut cells, and the liver. By itself, mercury is classified as a Hazardous Substance by the EPA, and is considered a powerful poison, 5000 times more toxic than lead. (Basciano) If your kid drops a mercury thermometer at school, the room has to be evacuated and the Biohazards Team has to be called in. (Hansen) Mercury is the most toxic metal there is that is not radioactive. (Ziff) Doctors and researchers have known about mercury toxicity since the early 1800s.

All systems of the body operate through the actions of two complex protein substances: enzymes and hormones. Unfortunately, mercury has a special affinity for both because of their component sulfhydryl groups. Mercury can denature enzymes and inactivate hormones, causing dysfunction of any system in an unpredictable and untraceable manner. The Great Masquerader.

We reviewed mercury toxicity in some detail in the chapter on autism and vaccines. ( ) You may remember some of the effects of mercury toxicity –

    Immune suppression— bleeding gums— irregular heartbeat—
    Chest pain— emphysema— allergies—
    Sinusitis— colitis — muscle weakness—
    Stomach cramps— loose teeth— double vision—
    Anorexia — weight loss — depression—
    Hallucinations— numbness in hands — speech disorders—
    Memory loss — emotional instability — rash —
    Kidney damage — CNS dysfunction — manic depression —
    Lung damage — liver damage — brain damage —
    Learning disability

    — Sallie Bernard

Since it affects so many systems, often with a delayed reaction of 10 or 20 years because of its 25-year half life, mercury poisoning is known as the Great Masquerader. (Ziff, p 41) If these problems appear later in life, the physician will have no clue as to the true cause.

Other fun facts about mercury poisoning are

    (1) that it crosses the placenta to toxify the blood of the fetus,
    (2) that mercury causes intestinal bacteria to be resistant to antibiotics, and
    (3) that mercury crosses the blood-brain barrier, lodging in brain cells, especially those involving memory and cognition.


Looking into the history of amalgams is most illuminating. In the 1830s there were two groups of dentists in America: those favoring mercury amalgams and those opposed to it. Those not in favor of amalgam – the American Society of Dental Surgeons – disliked amalgam’s tendency to fracture teeth as it expanded in fillings. Nor were they happy with the idea of mercury’s side effects, like insanity (Mad Hatter’s Disease) and loss of motor function from nerve damage. (Bernard)

So the Society pledged never to use amalgam for fillings. (Lorscheider) The Society actually referred to those dentists who used mercury as ‘quacks’ – short for quackenslaver – the German word for mercury. And that is the origin of this derogatory medical term. (Hansen, p. 40) The name of that other group, the one using mercury? The American Dental Association.

From the 1830s till the 1850s, the controversy continued. Membership in the Society slowly declined as amalgam became more popular, since it was cheaper and easier to use than other filling materials. Mercury amalgam fillings could be offered at an affordable price for the largest number of people.

By 1859, the Society of American Dental Surgeons had faded out, edged out by the champion of mercury fillings: the American Dental Association. It is worth noting that the ADA’s original unifying principle was that amalgam was safe and effective – the idea is in the ADA’s collective DNA. When it was discovered that adding tin solved the expansion problem, that was all she wrote. Since that time, the composition of the amalgam alloy has remained almost exactly the same.

No opposition. This must be why in its 125-year existence, the ADA has never funded one single human safety study of mercury amalgams. They never even tried to find out! (Ziff, p 24) But the ADA’s members are pledged never to mention anything about mercury toxicity to patients. And in an ironic reversal, by the 1980s the ADA had worked up the temerity to refer to any dentist who would suggest amalgam removal as a “quack.” (Hansen, p 42)

Then in 1990, a very thorough scientific study was completed by F.L. Lorscheider and colleagues. (Hansen, p 46) In their meticulously designed experiment using sheep as subjects, they measured kidney concentrations of mercury following amalgam placement in teeth. A few of their findings:

    * Each amalgam filling releases about 10 mcg of mercury per day into the body

    * Mercury crosses the placenta

    * Mercury causes autoimmunity

    * Mercury can make bacteria resistant to antibiotics

    * Mercury can impair fertility

    * 12 amalgam fillings impaired kidney function by 50%

    * Some 70,000 kg of amalgams are placed into the mouths of Americans each year. That’s enough for over 100 million fillings.

This landmark experiment laid to rest the ADA’s long-standing contention that mercury was somehow magically stable once placed in a filling, and could not leach into the body. Amazingly however, such a claim is still sometimes heard even these days. Their proof? 150 years of use. That’s it! Incredibly, they’ve never made any clinical toxicity studies of mercury amalgams in all that time.

The National Institute for Science, Law, and Public Policy now has an extensive and well researched website in which scientific journal articles have provided abundant research that:

    – Mercury amalgams can impair kidney function (Boyd)
    – Mercury amalgams promote abnormal bacteria in the mouth and in the colon (Summers)
    – Mercury amalgams can promote cardiac dysfunction (Frustaci)

So if mercury can do all this damage, the question then becomes


Mercury comes to humans through seafood, the air, accidental environmental exposure, through vaccines and through mercury amalgams. Fully two-thirds of all that exposure is due to mercury amalgams. (Aposhian)

The World Health Organization came to the same conclusion in Geneva, Switzerland meetings in 1991: mercury from amalgams is the #1 source for human contamination:

    source ……. micrograms per day

    Amalgams ____ 3 – 17

    Seafood ______ 2.3
    Other food ____ 0.3
    Air ________ traces
    Water _______ traces

    – Environmental Health Criteria 118

Although mercury from vaccines can reach as high as 78 micrograms per day, that’s only on the day of the shot. (Bernard) This puts dental amalgams way out ahead for overall lifetime mercury exposure.

The New England Journal of Medicine agreed. In its 18 Oct 90 issue, mercury in amalgams was described as

“the chief source of exposure [to mercury] of a large segment of the US population.”

These are standard findings corroborated by dozens of other researchers. It is impossible to do the most cursory investigation into mercury without repeatedly running across these same facts. That is why the current stated position on mercury amalgams by the ADA is so fantastically extravagant, and evasive:

    “There is no evidence in the scientific literature that minute amounts of mercury vapor that may be released from amalgam restorations cause mercury poisoning. Dental amalgam, which has been used extensively for more than 100 years, has an exemplary record of safety and benefit to the dental patient.”

    Journal of the American Dental Association Dec 1987

    “The strongest and most convincing support we have for the safety of dental amalgam is the fact that each year more than 100 million amalgam fillings are placed in the United States. And since amalgam has been used for more than 150 years, literally billions of amalgam fillings have been successfully used to restore decayed teeth.”

    Journal of the American Dental Association April 1990

Hard to argue with scientific data like that. That’s the same line that’s been used with every fatal medical drug or procedure that’s ever been recalled from use, right up until the day they pulled it. Although they constantly refer to “research” proving the safety of mercury amalgams without ever citing any, the ADA now contents itself with the old “that’s the way we’ve always done it” defense. They ignore all current research on mercury toxicity from hundreds of scientific sources, and try to assure patients that mercury is safe and harmless.

It is equally incomprehensible that the EPA has ruled that mercury and all its compounds are not safe and may not be sold in OTC drugs, and are to regarded as Hazardous Materials, with the single exception of dental amalgams! In this application, inches from the human brain, mercury is supposedly harmless! (Ziff p 37) What’s wrong with this picture?

In congressional hearings in the spring of 00, Representative Dan Burton wants to know why, if mercury is such a hazardous material that special cleanup crews are summoned when any is spilled, why do we think it’s safe to put in our mouths? (Burton)

Even when they admit the ‘rare’ cases of damage from mercury amalgams, the ADA employs Orwellian phrasing about ‘sensitivity’ rather than calling it toxicity or poisoning. See how languaging is everything? If the issue is sensitivity, then the damage or illness is due to some weakness of the patient. It’s his fault; it’s not that he’s being poisoned. Nothing to do with the ADA’s responsibilities as guardians of the patient’s health.


In their carefully packaged PR image, the ADA routinely tries to pawn itself off as the defender of American people’s dental health. But when pushed in a court of law to state the parameters of their own professional and ethical obligations to patients, the ADA showed its true colors:

“The ADA owes no legal duty of care to protect the public from allegedly dangerous products used by dentists. The ADA did not manufacture, design, supply or install the mercury-containing amalgams. The ADA does not control those who do. The ADA’s only alleged involvement in the product was to provide information regarding its use. Dissemination of information relating to the practice of dentistry does not create a duty of care to protect the public from potential injury.”

Source: Legal brief filed in 1995 by attorneys for the ADA in W.H. Tolhurst vs. Johnson and Johnson Consumer Products, Inc.; Engelhard Corporation; ABE Dental, Inc.; the American Dental Association, et al., in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Santa Clara, CA, Case No. 718228.

Thanks, guys. Always looking out for our best interests, right? They refuse to investigate mercury toxicity because it’s been used for so long, and then they state that they really have no responsibility to protect patients from poisons! Very progressive attitude – really lends itself to a high standard of ethical research, don’t you think? Is it really asking too much for the profession who has the legal right to drill and cut in people’s mouths to try and keep current on the safest, most up to date information about the materials they place in the mouth?

No matter what you may hear from your dentist or anyone else, the scientific literature shows over and over that mercury amalgams are not stable once a filling is set. Instead, mercury

“is constantly released from amalgams, mainly as mercury vapour, which is inhaled, absorbed, metabolized to ionic mercury, and distributed throughout the body.”

    “Dental amalgam is the major source of the body mercury burden. Toxicological research on amalgam mercury has indicated deleterious effects on the immune, renal, reproductive and central nervous systems, and oral and intestinal bacteria. Research does not indicate that amalgam fillings are safe.”

    – AR Hibberd, Journal of Natural and Environmental Medicine Sep 98

In his study of chelating agents for removal of mercury from the body, Hibberd summarizes several decades of research. Among his findings:

    * It has been erroneously taught in dental school that amalgam was a stable alloy which did not release mercury in the mouth.

    * A person with 8 fillings releases 120 Mug of mercury into the mouth every day. As much as 17 Mug of that gets absorbed into the body. In its vapor form the mercury is fat soluble, and favors lungs and mucus membranes at first. Then it crosses tissue barriers, including the blood brain barrier ands also the placenta. Mercury then accumulates in the brain, the gut, and the liver.

The ADA cites a few studies that show the absence of mercury in the blood and urine, and therefore conclude that amalgams are safe and do not leak mercury. Hibberd explains how blood and urine are poor indicators of mercury poisoning, because of accumulation in target tissues.

The areas of the brain that mercury favors are those involved with memory (amygdala and hippocampus). So here we see it’s not just aluminum that is implicated in Alzheimer’s, like we’re always hearing. Hibberd goes on to show the dangers of accumulating mercury with respect to

    * immune system
    * reproductive organs
    * kidneys
    * central nervous system
    * intestines

The largest study of amalgam toxicity ever done took place at the University of Tübingen in Germany in 1995. With over 20,000 subjects, this study showed conclusively that mercury from amalgams is continually released in quantities large enough to be identified in the saliva. The designer of the study, Dr. Peter Krauss, noted that in some patients the amount of mercury in saliva could be as high as 100 times the WHO ‘safe’ level. (Krauss)

Citing studies proving toxicity from dental amalgams could go on all day. To find more, an easy reference is Ziff’s book Dentistry Without Mercury in which dozens of studies are listed. Also Hansen’s The Key to Ultimate Health is loaded with studies of mercury toxicity. For the average reader, the point has been made: abundant scientific proof exists that mercury vapors are slowly emitted from dental amalgams for years, and are inhaled and ingested into the body. They are bioaccumulative within the cells of many tissues. Many diseases and disorders have been positively correlated with these levels of mercury.

One of these is Multiple Sclerosis. There was a 1987 study showing that the levels of mercury in the spinal fluid of MS patients was 8 times higher than normal. (Silberod) Mercury has long been linked to autoimmune diseases like MS because of its affinity to attach to collagen tissue, which is the most common protein in the body. Polluted by mercury infiltration, the collagen is seen by the immune system as ‘not self.’

A study appeared in 1994 proving that mercury from amalgams could cross the placental barrier, toxifying unborn infants from the mercury in their mothers’ own mouths. (Sehnert)

After all this research in the early 1990s, many countries in Europe now forbid dental amalgams. Sweden outlawed their use in 1997. Denmark, Austria, and Germany followed soon thereafter. (Hansen, p 49)

California dentists are now required by law to inform their patients about the toxicity of mercury amalgams. (Hansen p 50 )

We saw the overwhelming medical research on the toxicity of mercury in the chapters titled: Autism and Vaccines, and also in Autism and Mercury: The San Diego Conference. ( As cited therein, mercury from vaccines has devastating effects on the central nervous system. But the amount of toxic mercury absorbed from amalgam fillings is much greater, due primarily to the constant breathing in of the vapors of mercury arising from the amalgams fillings in the mouth.


The 1980s saw the rise of a small industry specializing in the treatment of cancer by natural means, excluding the traditional chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. ( The alternative or holistic approaches to cancer treatment have included a wide variety of methods, with varying degrees of success and superstition. But one commonality among these natural cancer cures is an emphasis on detoxification: the clearing out of toxic materials that may have been stored in the body for years in

    the intestines
    the stomach
    the blood
    the arteries
    the joints
    the liver
    the gall bladder
    the bones
    the teeth

Many effective holistic methods have been brought forth over the years for accomplishing detox in each of these locations, along with many ineffective or even harmful remedies. But one method of detox that is always cited in the majority of holistic protocols for whole body cleansing is the removal of amalgam fillings.


Programs of holistic detoxification worldwide for years have been recommending amalgam removal for total body detox. Recognizing this as an economic threat, the ADA’s official stance has not changed since Sept 1984:

    “The Association wishes to emphasize that there is no reason why a patient should seek to have amalgam restorations (silver fillings) removed. Indeed, the effect of such a procedure could be detrimental to the patient’s oral health, including the unnecessary loss of teeth, and cannot be justified.” (NIDR, JADA, 1984)

See the trick? “Silver fillings.” Pretty slick, huh? And the posturing about being the guardian of American dental health. The art of persuasion and image-making. Is anyone noticing that dentists remove amalgams every single day and replace them with more amalgam? But that’s not dangerous, right? It’s only dangerous if they replace the old mercury filling with white composite? Come on!

Many dentists will remove amalgam if the patient requests it. The problem is that not all are qualified. As Dr. Hansen explains in some detail, the dangers of inhaling and ingesting old mercury during the amalgam removal process can cause extremely serious complications if attempted by a neophyte. In his book The Key To Ultimate Health, Hansen also outlines the other services a holistic or ‘biologic’ dentist can provide:

    * using lasers instead of drills to remove decay
    * cleaning and disinfecting cavitations and roots by laser
    * the use of new biocompatible filling materials which do not shrink or expand, nor crack teeth
    * the importance of permanent materials which can actually bond to living bone as well as to dentin and enamel

In the burgeoning field of holistic dentistry, Hansen modernizes the pioneering ideas of Weston Price and Hal Huggins. One idea is to minimize or eliminate drilling. Hansen explains very thoroughly the anatomy of teeth and the unnecessary long-term destruction that is afforded by excessive drilling. Even small cavities often involve a great portion of the tooth to be ground away in order to provide a large enough surface for the amalgam or adhesive to stick to. Instead of working wherever possible to preserve the structural integrity of the teeth and jaw, standard dentistry seems to have focused more on maximizing the invasiveness of the procedure.

The idea that most root canals are unnecessary and that an inflamed nerve should be cleaned and given a chance to heal – these notions seem revolutionary, but have really been around for decades. Hansen explains that most adult dental work is not the result of tooth decay from refined carbohydrates, but rather is necessitated by cracked and broken and leaking amalgams which have broken the teeth down and provided places for pockets of bacterial fermentation to take place.

Hansen’s alternative to drilling is largely the use of special lasers which can vaporize decay with “pinpoint accuracy” and sterilize the area at the same time, without massive destruction by drilling. Instead of toxic amalgam filling materials, Hansen employs biocompatible glass filler, which permits overgrowth of original dentin and bone, thereby providing a stable, permanent seal. Using an argon laser, the tooth and the glass filling material are then bonded permanently together. As for root canals, Hansen explains that they can usually be avoided, again with the use of laser disinfection and bio-friendly injected glass fillings.

It’s amazing reading a book like Hansen’s for the first time, and to learn how little most people know about their teeth or about standard dental procedures to which they have been submitting all their lives. Though still in its infancy, holistic dentistry seems to be opening up a level of awareness from which there can be no return.

No more crowns or root canals? No more amalgams? I’m sure the ADA is gonna love these new holistic cowboys. Imagine the economic considerations. Yet for the first time perhaps, the focus is on the long-term health of the patient rather than following the doctrinaire pronouncements of a pseudo-religious trade union that has been posing as a regulatory agency for the past century. Hansen reminds us that all professions exist primarily for the clients they serve, and not vice versa.

For a reality check, such innovations are not just going to suddenly replace traditional dental procedures overnight. There will be a lot of variability of insurance coverage for these new procedures. Many of them will have to be paid for directly those patients who have been sufficiently educated to appreciate their value long term. It is the enlightened patient who will elect to pay for a procedure which his policy doesn’t cover, one who sees the paramount importance of trying to save his teeth, omit excess drilling and root canals, and avoid amalgams.


The second area where we discover a serious problem with modern American dentistry is the profligate use of antibiotics.

Remember that in the chapter entitled The Post-Antibiotic Age ( we learned that the biggest medical problem in this century, according to many mainstream medical authorities, may well be antibiotic resistance. Because of decades of overprescription and overuse of antibiotics for every little cold and sniffle, we have created hundreds of species of Superbugs – bacteria that can’t be killed by any known antibiotics. We have molded bacteria into those resistant mutations, because the only ones that survived were the ones the drugs couldn’t kill. Ten of thousands of Americans are dying in hospitals every year because they have some infection that doesn’t respond to any known antibiotic. One reason the future doesn’t look bright is that in the past 15 years, no truly new antibiotics have been invented. The new ones that have come out are just derivations or modifications of the ones we’ve had for years and years.

But most people don’t know this. Most mothers don’t know it. That’s why they keep taking their children to the doctor at the first sign of the slightest sniffle or redness of ears. And if the doctor doesn’t prescribe antibiotics, the parent thinks the doctor’s not doing his job. So the parent takes the kid next door to whatever doctor will give the prescription. And most parents don’t even know that antibiotics don’t work on viral infections, which is what most colds involve.

Into this whole mess, enter the dentist. It is an odd fact that as much as 30% of dental patients are given a single ‘bombing’ dose of amoxicillin before any routine dental work. Why? Politics and money. The big scare is – we have the American Heart Association’s proclamation that there is a “risk” of a dental patient picking up bacteria that may cause a rare heart disease called Subacute Bacterial Endocarditis when the gums are made to bleed during the dental procedures. In reality, catching the disease following dental work is not quite that simple.

The first problem is that the bleeding gums are not sufficient themselves to cause SBE. Most damage to gums following dental work is in the form of a mild, self-limiting inflammation, possibly with a little momentary bleeding. To cause SBE, the gums must become infected from the dental work, and that is rare. Secondly, the infective bacteria must travel through the blood and decide to set up shop on the heart valves. For this to happen, the valves generally must be abnormal to begin with. (Merck Manual, p. 1763) Not a very likely scenario, but possible.

Such bacteria could also come from gastric or urinary infections; the dental trauma is just one possibility.

So to prevent this one-in-a-million occurrence, the AHA and the malpractice insurance people have got the American Dental Association to proclaim that it’s a good idea for the patient to get a “precautionary” dose of antibiotics “just in case.” So they make out a list of “risk” patients who should be given the antibiotic. These include patients with

    * Valve replacements
    * History of SBE
    * Surgical shunts in heart
    * Rheumatic heart disease
    * Mitral valve prolapse
    * Enlarged heart
    * Any heart irregularity

    – American Heart Association, June 1997

In addition, anyone who has had any joint replacements, pins, or plates surgically implanted is also given the single dose of amoxicillin prior to dental procedures. Even though the ADA’s own Guide to Dental Therapeutics, Appendix E states that such implants are not an indication for single dose of “just in case” antibiotics, in actual practice, these patients are routinely given the antibiotic. Ask your dentist if this is true. And in most cases patients have come to expect it. So even those dentists who think it’s a bad idea to pass out all these antibiotics, usually just cave in and go along with what the patients expect. This insane state of affairs persists even though everyone knows that a single dose of amoxicillin couldn’t possibly prevent or cure either SBE or infection from a prosthetic implant.

Why not? Because according to Merck, standard courses of antibiotics for SBE range from 2 to 6 weeks. (17th Edition, p. 1767) Much worse than a placebo, these single ‘bomb’ doses do nothing except contribute to antibiotic resistance:

    “Inadequate doses promote the development of resistance; thereafter, even greatly increased doses may fail to control the infection.”

    – Merck, p 1103

What’s happening here is that because of politics and insurance guidelines, which are set up by non-medical people, dentists are indiscriminately prescribing antibiotics far in excess of the recommendations of the antibiotic manufacturers themselves. That’s what the Merck Manual is – manufacturer guidelines. Like the medical doctor, struggling to keep abreast of HMO commandments for prescribing drugs, dentists too have been cast into this role of drug rep for the Big Boys.

People are brainwashed. Even when the dentist is not inclined to give the antibiotic because he knows it won’t have any possible benefit, the patients are so used to getting their pill, that they’ll expect it. And they’ll probably think the dentist is being remiss if he forgets to offer it. Easier for the dentist to just go along with the program. Nobody’s going to object.

The discoverer of penicillin, the first antibiotic, was Alexander Fleming. From the very beginning, Fleming saw immediately the danger of abuse and overprescription of penicillin. (The Post Antibiotic Age) Fleming saw the that these powerful antibiotic drugs were for one thing only: life-threatening bacterial infections. Though largely ignored, this principle still holds true today.


In the Water chapter we saw tons of referenced information on the stupidity of adding fluoride to city water systems. We also uncovered the important role played by the American Dental Association in promoting the lie that fluoride protects teeth.

In that chapter, meticulous documentation is offered to support these facts:

– the fluoride added to city water is a chemical byproduct of aluminum, steel, cement, phosphate, and nuclear weapons manufacturing

– fluoride is the active toxin in rat poison

– fluoride ages humans and destroys organ systems be tearing down enzymes which are essential for these systems to operate:

    * the immune system
    * the digestive system
    * the respiratory system
    * blood circulation
    * kidney function
    * liver function
    * brain function
    * thyroid function

    – fluoride can turn normal human cells into foreign protein, triggering the autoimmune response, causing things like lupus, arthritis, asthma, and arteriosclerosis

    – fluoride is more poisonous than lead and just less poisonous than arsenic

    – a seven ounce tube of toothpaste contains enough fluoride to theoretically kill a small child

    – city water is fluoridated at 1 Part per million. This is enough to destroy the DNA in human enzymes by 50%

    – fluoride ages people by collagen breakdown

    – fluoride confuses mineralization, putting minerals where they don’t belong, in ligaments tendons and muscles, and pulling minerals out of where they do belong, like bones and teeth

    – the reason most people don’t know these scientifically indisputable facts is because of decades of disinformation from the EPA and the USPHS, whose members have close ties with the aluminum industry.

When teeth are demineralized, for whatever reason, doctors call this dental fluorosis. Teeth get that mottled, spotted look and are prone to crumble. The odd truth is that there is far more scientific documentation proving that fluoride causes dental fluorosis than there is proving it protects teeth. Before 1950, the ADA’s own research documented the hazards of fluoride exposure. One example from Journal of the American Dental Association 1 Oct 44:

“the potentialities for harm far outweigh those for good”

and the article clearly associated fluoridated water with osteoporosis, goiter, and spinal disease.

Also in the 1940s, an attorney named Oscar Ewing was hired by ALCOA, the world’s biggest manufacturer of aluminum. Remember, fluoride is a toxic byproduct in that industry. OK. Now follow this: the United States Public Health Service was a branch of the government agency known as the Federal Security Administration. The USPHS made policies about water safety. So guess who was suddenly promoted to the Federal Security Administration? Oscar Ewing! This is how ALCOA came to dictate water safety policy in the US.

But they needed a spin doctor to get the AMA, the American Dental Association, and the general public to believe that a dangerous industrial poison like fluoride could actually have a health benefit. So whom did Ewing appoint in charge of PR, to help him persuade people? Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud!

Bernays’ propaganda machine now went into full swing – ads with smiling children with beautiful teeth flooded the country’s media. All anti-fluoride studies and articles were systematically suppressed because they weren’t sanctioned by the big lobbyists for the aluminum and fertilizer industries. Tons of new literature written not by doctors and scientists but by PR people and psychologists portrayed those opposing the sacred fluoridation as right-wing wackos. (Miller)

Dovetailing contemporaneously into all the above activity is some mind-blowing information that was uncovered in 1998 by two reporters commissioned to write an article for the Christian Science Monitor. Working from secret government documents that had just become declassified, Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson have illuminated another very scary liaison: fluoride and the Manhattan Project.

As we all remember, the Manhattan Project was the WWII secret program which brought the atomic bomb into existence: Fat Man and Little Boy. Turns out fluoride was a key component in the production of this bomb, in two main applications: in the uranium complex itself, and also as a toxic waste material. (Fluoride & Brain Damage)

No one can intelligently discuss the fluoridation of American water without coming to grips with the research of John Yiamouyiannis, PhD. His book Fluoride the Aging Factor is a history of all pertinent literature about the politics and science of fluoridation up until 1993. Dr Y uncovered virtually every scientific study of fluoride ever undertaken and patiently shows how the huge aluminum companies like ALCOA as well as the nuclear arms manufacturers used political influence to legislate a toxic waste into our water supply, disguised as a health supplement.

Dr Y points out that the US fluoridation is the highest in the world, at 62% of all cities. Few other countries are this stupid; in Europe fluoridation is less than 2%.

Dr Y explains how scientists discovered that fluoride causes osteoporosis the same way it causes dental fluorosis, or crumbling of the teeth. Fluoride destroys the enzymes necessary to build bones and teeth. In addition, fluoride precipitates calcium out of solution, robbing the bones and teeth to get it, thereby creating a true calcium deficiency. (Riggs)

Extensive research has also proven beyond a doubt that fluoride in water is a carcinogen, with studies form 19 major universities showing the connection. (Dr Y, p 65)

Dr Y is not alone. Chief chemist of the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Dean Burk, when confronted with mountains of the same data, stated before Congress:

    “In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster than any other chemical.”

    Congressional Record 21 July 1976

Together Burk and Dr Y completed a national research project on fluoride and cancer. They found that:

    “30,000 to 50,000 deaths each year from various causes may now be attributable to fluoridation. This total includes 10,000 to 20,000 deaths attributable to fluoride-induced cancer every year.”

    – Yiamouyiannis. p 90

So where does the American Dental Association come in? Is it possible they don’t know any of this? Of course they do. Again, don’t be deluded into believing that the ADA accepts responsibility for American dental health. Always remember – the ADA is a trade union, a lobby whose main purpose is furthering the economic advancement of its members. It doesn’t represent dental health. And in many cases the ADA doesn’t represent the dentists themselves. This is especially true in the class action suit filed by some 40 dentists against the ADA in a DC Superior Court. The charges? Ethical breach of the public trust for recommending fluoridation while failing to inform its members and the public of the widespread available literature proving toxicity. (Foulkes)

The American Dental Association has a website which is a masterpiece of disinformation: At the beginning of the Fluoridation Questions section, we find the standard fluoridiot disinformation posture in which natural fluoride compounds that exist in many places in nature are presented as the same fluoride which is added to municipal water. This is unmitigated, deliberate, fraudulent misrepresentation. The fluoride added to water is a toxic industrial byproduct in a form nature could never have come up with. Once you realize this simple fact, you will be able to see the rest of the Website Whitewash in its proper light.

While you are reading the sections of this website, just remember that the ADA is a trade lobby, whose mission is to assure people of the safety and efficacy of a drug that is not safe and not effective, so that the interests of its fellow trade lobbies from the chemical industry are best served. The ADA is a mouthpiece for a huge constituency. Their website is the modern manifestation of Edward L. Bernays’ program of disinformation and crowd control.


    “When historians come to write about this period, they will single out [fluoridation] as the single biggest mistake in public policy that we’ve ever had.”
    – Paul Connett, PhD, Biochemistry

    “Water fluoridation is the single largest case of scientific fraud, promoted by the government, supported by taxpayer dollars, aided and abetted by the ADA and the AMA, in the history of the planet.”
    – David Kennedy, DDS President International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology

    “Sodium fluoride is a registered rat poison and roach poison. It has been a protected pollutant for a very long time.”
    – William Hirzy, PhD President of the Union of Professional Employees of the EPA

    “Sodium fluoride is a very toxic chemical, acting as an enzyme poison, direct irritant and calcium inactivator. It reacts with growing tooth enamel and with bones to produce irreversible damage.”
    – Granville Knight, MD president of the American Academy of Nutrition
    Congressional Record, 31 July 56 (Robotry, p. 22)

    “I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable.”
    – Charles Gordon Heyd, MD, president, AMA

    “No physician in his right mind would hand to his patient a bottled filled with a dangerous drug with instructions to take as much or as little of it as he wished. And yet, the Public Health Service is engaged upon a widespread propaganda program to insist that communities do exactly that. The purpose of administering fluoride is not to render the water supply pure and potable but to contaminate it with a dangerous, toxic drug for the purpose of administering mass medication to the consumer, without regard to age or physical condition.”
    – L. Alesen, MD, president of the California Medical Association
    Robotry, p14

    “Fluoridation is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it has been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has.”
    – Albert Schatz, PhD Nobel Laureate for discovering streptomycin
    quoted in Sutton’s Fluoridation: The Greatest Fraud

    “More people have died in the last 30 years from cancer connected with fluoridation than all the military deaths in the entire history of the United States.”
    – Dean Burk, PhD National Cancer Institute
    Fluoridation: A Burning Controversy

    “Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time.”
    – EPA scientist, Dr. Robert Carton (Downey, 2 May 99


Although the ADA knows the above information very well, as a political machine, it is dissuaded from publicly changing its mind for two reasons:

    * credibility
    * liability

If the ADA came out with a statement today that said, oh yeah, fluoride actually is a dangerous poison, the cause of many diseases – what would that mean with reference to their sacred contentions over the past several decades about fluoride’s safety and benefit for dental health? Admit they were wrong? See how the ADA is in the ridiculous position of being locked into a grave scientific error, because of lawyers and insurance companies? Once the reader comes to grips with this fact, pronouncements from this trade lobby may be seen in their proper perspective.


As with most of the chapters from, the above information is just a cursory look at some practices in modern American dentistry, which are not apparent in Canada or in Europe. True advances in science and in dentistry would be shared across international boundaries, one would hope. But current dental policies in this country regarding the above three topics – amalgams, antibiotics, and fluoride – are not grounded or directed by science.

It’s the same behavior pattern that locked Galileo in the Tower of Pisa for discovering that the earth went around the sun, or that buried the work of Bechamp in favor of the theories of Pasteur, or that force holistic cancer clinics to operate in Tijuana, or that prevents your dentist from discussing these issues openly with you – it’s all about big money and government and keeping the truth from people in a systematic fashion. Create the Conventional Wisdom, and then maintain it by endless repetition in every media source possible.

The other side of the coin is that small groups of dentists are quietly coming together and beginning to offer a range of services which are non-toxic and natural. As the average patient becomes more informed about mercury toxicity, unnecessary root canals and extractions, and the dangers of single dose antibiotics, such groups of holistically minded dentists are going to be strategically poised for that next little evolution in dental health – throwing off the oppressive sludge of systematic poisoning that has enslaved the American ‘consciousness’ for the past century.


Copyright 2015 New West


Rose, J—- Another bonanza–but not for the shareholder — Medical Economics 4 Sep 00

Benko, L—- New leaders drive managed care — Modern Healthcare 13 Mar 00

Fisher, MJ—- Analysis of CEO pay released — National Underwriter 5 Oct 98

Lemov, P —-The HMO laid low — Governing vol 13 no 9, p 32 Jun 00

Editor —-Singing the HMO blues — Canada and the World Backgrounder vol 65 no 4 26 Jan 00

Bernard, S et al —- Autism: A Unique Type of Mercury Poisoning — ARC Research April 3, 2000

Aposhian, H.V et al. —- “Urinary Mercury after Administration of 2, 3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonic acid: Correlation with Dental Amalgam Score” Federation of American Societies for Experimental biology Journal. 6: 2472-2476; (1992).

Lorscheider, FL et al. —-Mercury exposure from silver tooth fillings: emerging evidence questions a traditional dental paradigm — FASEB Journal Apr 1995

ADA —- When your patients ask about mercury in amalgam
Journal of the American Dental Association vol 120 p 395 April, 1990

Krauss, P MD —- Field study on the mercury content of saliva University of Tübingen 1995.

Basciano, M DDS —- Lecture: IAOMT convention, San Diego 1994

O’Shea, T —- Autism and Vaccines ICA Review Sep 00

Vimy, MJ et al. —- Maternal-fetal distribution of mercury 203 released from dental amalgam fillings
Journal of American Physiology Apr 1990

WHO —- Environmental Health Criteria 118 Inorganic Mercury, Geneva Switzerland, 1991.

Ziff, S —- Dentistry Without Mercury Bio-Probe Inc. 2000.

Boyd, N.D. et al—-. “Mercury From Dental “Silver” Tooth Fillings Impairs Sheep Kidney Function”, Am.J. Physiol. 261, Regulatory Integrative Comp. Physiol. 30: R1010-R1014, (1991).

Frustaci A, et al. —- Department of Cardiology, Catholic University, Rome, Italy. “Marked elevation of myocardial trace elements in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy compared with secondary cardiac dysfunction.” J Am Coll Cardiol 1999 May;33(6):1578-83

Summers, A.O, et al. —- “Mercury Released from Dental “Silver” Fillings Provokes an Increase in Mercury and Antibiotic – Resistant Bacteria in Oral and Intestinal Flora of Primates” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy April 1993 p 825 – 834.

NIDR —- Workshop: biocompatibility of metals in dentistry Journal of the American Dental Association
Vol109(3) p469, 1984.

Editorial —- New England Journal of Medicine 18 Oct 90

Griffiths, J and Bryson, C —- Fluoride, Teeth, and the A-bomb
Earth Island Journal Winter 1997-98 p. 38

Burton, D Rep —- Office of Government Reform — Washington, DC (202) 225- 2276
Videotape available from 6 April 00
House of Representatives Conference on Autism and Vaccines

Burton, D —- Mercury in medicine are we taking unnecessary risks?
Government Reform Committee hearing 18 July 00

Silberod, R —- A comparison of mental health of multiple sclerosis patients with silver/mercury dental fillings
Psychological Reports 70:1139-51 1992.

Sehnert K, MD —- Is mercury toxicity an autoimmune disorder? Townsend Letter for Doctors Oct 1995 p134

DAMS Inc —– Mercury Free and Healthy: The Dental Amalgam Issue
Prepared July 2000 Consumers for Dental Choice A Project of the National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy 1424 16th Street, NW Suite 105 Washington, D.C. 20036

UK Amalgam page —-

Wynn R PhD —- Drug Information Handbook for Dentists Lex-Comp Inc 1997.

ADA —- ADA Guide to Dental Therapeutics
ADA Publishing Company Chicago 1998


Yiamouyiannis, J PhD —- Fluoride the Aging Factor Health Action Press 1993.

Tye L —- The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays & the Birth of Public Relations”

Hansen, R DDS —- The Key to Ultimate Health —— 2000

Newsletter May 2011

March 13th, 2017

In this issue:

1. The Survival of the Informed
2. Upcoming Seminars
4. Children’s book
5. Excerpt from Vaccination Is Not Immunization: HPV Vaccine
6. Chemotherapy



This is no longer the Information Age. Since ghost written op-ed cut-and-paste techniques took over the arena of the written word more than a decade ago, we now live in the Information Overload Age. The

Public Relations empire described in The Doors of Perception has perfected the inculcation of assigned opinions onto the public consciousness.

Their clients – the global corporations – maintain entire divisions of staff whose task it is to flood the information superhighway with one neatly written prêt-a-manger piece after another, one false ‘grassroots’ site after another, one subsidized op-ed junk science article after another, all with the unified purpose of creating conventional wisdom in any area involving huge economics.

Wikipedia is one small example, posing as a public forum with its “open editing” but in reality strictly censored by editors hired to ensure that the public is properly guided. Such sites are obviously unreliable as sources.

The phony sites are not that hard to spot if one just takes a second look. Things to look for include slick-looking homepage, no depth to the site, articles all very short and to the point, written in the same monodimensional style, absolutely no references, no contact info, with predictably uniform points of view on any subject relating to the

Big Four:

    – health and medicine

    – oil

    – war and national security

    – food and nutrition

Same thing in the ‘news’ media. The flood of newsready articles coming in daily from the corporate thinktanks is so tempting — an article may appear under a nonexistent author’s name as hard news, or else a columnist can just easily pop one of them in and submit it under his byline. I’m a little busy today… plus it’s as good as what I would have written anyway, so…

Happens every day. V for Vendetta wasn’t even close.

More than $12 billion annually is spent in this PR industry – the Science of Misdirection. For a more complete look at how organized media really works, refer to The Doors of Perception.

This is the sea of mud in place today that we all face when trying to obtain accurate knowledge in any area of vital importance. The bias of academics, the cleverly posed slogans and mantras that pass for information – a websearch turns up hundreds of articles that share the same homogeneous opinion, each claiming authority.

It is working better than great.


The power of such a system is exemplified very clearly in the field of vaccines, and ‘what everybody thinks’ about them. In the past year, the industry’s efforts seem to have redoubled, for no apparent reason. We can think of it as the result of a typical marketing blitz, a periodic surge. Organized medicine can always use a few more billions.

Here are some of the common falsehoods which most people believe, which can easily be unseated, and which are manifestly detrimental to human health and immunity:

    The child must be vaccinated to attend school
    Outbreaks of old fashioned diseases occur mainly in the unvaccinated
    Vaccines promote immunity in the child
    Vaccines are safe
    Vaccine do not cause brain injury
    If we stop vaccinating, old diseases will return
    Germs cause disease
    The unvaccinated are a reservoir for disease
    The unvaccinated do not contribute to herd immunity
    Herd immunity is conferred by vaccines
    The unvaccinated are getting a free ride
    Vaccine exemption laws weaken the society

Because of ceaseless programming, not only do most people – even semi-intelligent ones – subscribe to the above myths, but worse, they seem willing to have laws passed which will legislate these scientifically untenable positions onto the rest of us.

Case in point: the recent legal catastrophe in Washington state, where the governor just rammed a bill through the state legislature that has eliminated the philosophical exemption in that state. The real issue wasn’t even the debate over whether or not vaccines are safe. Rather, it’s a constitutional right that the citizens of Washington just lost, and most of them are happy about it!

Ever since vaccines have been mandated in the US, it is the parents who have always had the right to decide whether or not their child will participate. It takes months of agonizing research in most cases to de-program oneself of a lifetime of conditioning, and then a modest amount of moral fibre to actually take the initiative to sign the exemption paper and free up the child’s formative immune system from being an experimental petri dish for whatever neurotoxins the FDA decides to mandate that year.

And now people want to say – no, parents don’t have that right. It is the government who should have total jurisdiction over the bloodstream of its citizens. Even though the vaccine decisions are made by bureaucrats, not doctors. This is not a dramatization, but an accurate account of what just took place in WA state. [4] Sailing through with such little opposition, it is likely other states will follow suit in the near future.


With such enormous effort required to break free of the common conditioning, the chances for the infant’s unmodified immune system to be allowed to develop are becoming slimmer as time goes by. People don’t read – really read, at the level of rational discourse and abstract thought, enough to find out the facts. Vaccines alter DNA. That is incontrovertible; the manufacturers state it. And vaccines are also immunosuppressive and neurotoxic in the infant, who is not born with an intact immune system, or a complete central nervous system.

Deficiencies of immunity and neurological formation, as well as DNA alteration will certainly handicap vaccinated humans in the long term, preventing them from replicating the strongest progeny possible. Multiply that trend by a dozen generations: epigenetic de-evolution.

Social Darwinism.

Or looking at it through the other end of the telescope, Natural Selection will now favor the Survival of the Informed. Nature will be obeyed.


2. Two New Seminars for 2011

The Chiropractic Seminar

Las Vegas, NV – 21 May

Denver, CO – 20 Aug

Barcelona Spain – 10 Sep

No more equivocation, OK? What are they trying to do to our profession? Either chiropractic is a real and vital profession or it isn’t. What special skill does the chiropractor have to offer that no other profession can provide? Why do we seem afraid to talk about it?

This nuts and bolts seminar will give the doctor a useful and defensible understanding of chiropractic not readily available to the profession today, with a focus on the communication of these ideas to those who have failed to be cured by other doctors. Looking at the biology of the adjustment, neuroplasticity, and issues of genetics and epigenetics in the replicating organism. Chiropractic at the top of the healing arts. Why the ‘leaders’ don’t know it. The sequence must be knowledge, skill, intention, results.

The Chiropractic Seminar is new this year. Nothing like it is offered anywhere. The focus is to take an unflinching look at what is really happening with our profession today, and to underscore the value of chiropractic care, now more than ever before. Why are there some docs with a hobby practice and others with rocking practices both in the same town?

Other lecturers offer the pieces of the puzzle, but here we connect the dots. I will say what others are afraid to say. Correct me!

Did a certain school just go out of business recently because its graduates were never introduced to the idea of subluxation because the teachers weren’t allowed to present anything other than Core Strengthening as chiropractic technique? Tell me that didn’t just happen.

We’ll learn how today’s best science is validating chiropractic’s traditional principles, fundamentals which are being vilified by many voices within the profession. How the adjustment can affect a higher order of biology than just the mechanical.

Learn that there is a story. Learn how to tell the story.

We will also review some related health areas, especially in the field of nutrition.

Read More

The Immunization Detox Seminar
Akron, OH – 30 April
Pittsburgh, PA – 5 May
Philadelphia, PA – 7 May
Ventura, CA – 9 July

In Pittsburgh, the 8 hour seminar on vaccines is split into two sessions: 1PM and 7PM. Each part is $10! Each session is about 4 hours. It will be held at the Clarion Hotel (formerly the Green Tree Holiday Inn). Call 412-922-9355 or go

A survey course of the full day Vaccine and Nutrition seminars:

– Complete autism chelation protocol
– Vaccine exemption laws
– Immunosuppression and vaccines
– Exemption laws in your state
– 2011 Schedule: 68 vaccines by age 18
– The new flu shot: with H1N1
– Mercury and aluminum in vaccines
– Germ theory of disease
– HPV vaccine for 12 year olds
– Nutrition and chiropractic practice
– The 60 day program
– Learning disability and hydrogenation
– DNA transcription: creating the immune system
– Colon revitalization
– Processed foods and genetic modification
– Collagen: Cell reconstruction
– Detoxification from dental amalgams, thimerosal, aluminum,
– hydrogenated oils, vaccines

Today it’s getting harder and harder to cover up the truth about vaccines. Now in its 10th year, this is the only full seminar in the profession that takes a reliable look at vaccine problems.

“A careful collection of irrefutable facts.” Hans Raible Esq.

“You are right about pure blood; that is the key.” Ted H. Spence, DDS

“Annihilated so many myths about nutrition…info I can really use in my practice.” Dr Fred, Seattle

“Had to take 204 CE hours all in one year…your Nutrition Seminar was the best by far.” Dr. MM

“First time I’ve ever been glad the state board required CE.” Dr. AC, Las Vegas

“In 20 years, the best seminar I’ve ever seen…should be mandatory for ALL doctors!” Dr AR

Read More



Wow was I stupid! I thought the CCE had back-burnered the whole down-with-subluxation campaign because of the flood of adverse response from the profession, most notably in the laserlike dissection evident in literate articles by Gerry Clum and Chris Kent and James Edwards, etc.

But hey, they’re just getting started. Looks like this is gonna be a fight to the death. So be it.

In the headliner in DC 9 April 11 – CCE Revisions Finalized… they just rode roughshod over the best minds of the profession. What they are proposing runs diametrically contrary to positions in which all of the major chiropractic organizations, regulating bodies, and even the schools have been in agreement on for the past decade regarding the definition, nature, scope, and application of chiropractic.

OK, so this tiny group of extreme voices representing some very focused pro-medical agenda suddenly has these radical new ideas about the chiropractic profession, makes a show of a public suggestion of the new ideas by calling them “proposals,” pretends to ask for feedback, cuts off the channels for any opposition to reach them directly, pays lip service to the feedback that is voiced in mainstream chiropractic venues which they cannot silence, and proceeds then to jackboot their new pronouncements into reality starting in 2012. The Nietzsche/Schwarzenegger will to power, is that it? …We have the power to do this, and we shall do it…

Getting the picture.

Somebody tell me I’m exaggerating here, overstating, hysterical. Go ahead.

So now as of 2012, chiropractic accreditation will be radically altered by the new revisions, without appearing so. That is classic Edward L. Bernays/ Josef Goebbels orthodoxy – state that radical degradations of original principles are nothing more than necessary, routine improvements:

“… essential responsibility of an accrediting body to continually monitor and improve its effectiveness and thereby provide a means to ensure continuous quality improvements in its accredited programs and institutions.”

Huh? Anyone want to diagram that sentence?

Responsibility? To aggrandize their own position above all else? Wherefrom does that proceed?

So by now I guess we all know that there’s an effort afoot to polarize the profession into a medical- subspecialty type of position. Kind of the opposite thing that was happening back in the Chester Wilk days when they were out to just plain annihilate us. Remember any of that? But is what they’re trying to do now really so different — a kind of annihilation by dilution..?

In the new accredited seminar (The Chiropractic Seminar) we take an unflinching look at the essence of chiropractic, from a historical, legal, and philosophical point of view. DCs who already got the message long ago will benefit from re-affirming those principles, by being forced to define them, in light of the current attacks from so many sources. Recent graduates may be hearing the information for the first time – finally perceiving that they have been licensed in a profession that actually has value. And if they really pay attention, a profession that saves people enormous amounts of money, resolves entrenched physical afflictions, cures the incurable, and many times, saves lives.

Now before we start pitching the bigtop here and breaking out the kool-aid, let’s have a story. This just happened this week, in my office. But it happens every week, in offices all over the world. Coulda been your office.

Patient comes in, let’s call her Lisette. Computer profession: IT. And 10 years ago her right shoulder locked up after the tension in the upper back became unbearable from mousing and keyboarding 12 hours a day. Developed a true frozen shoulder syndrome.

So the orthopods ran their usual game on her, ignoring the basic anatomy and biodynamics of the joint capsule – drugs, then steroids, then surgery, followed by “rehab.” Then apparently one of the PTs in “rehab” was feeling peculiarly Cro-Magnon one morning because the fibrosis of repair wasn’t jiving with his Powerbars or whatever, things were just moving a little too slow, no pain no gain, and this monkey ripped the inflamed biceps tendon. Traumatizing the healing post-surgical condition, that little maneuver worsened the condition to a new low — much more painful and restricted than the original injury, obviously.

So after a few months more of shake-and-bake, the shoulder is twice as frozen as originally except that now the pain is constant, even when the joint is at rest. Drugs have no effect. Predictably, the geniuses then pull their remaining rabbit out of the hat and decide that a second surgery is necessary. They go in, find the biceps tendon avulsed, staple it back together, clean out some incipient arthritic spurs and sew her back up. Ignored the joint restriction altogether, which by now was exponentially exacerbated by all this overlying iatrogenic trauma.

A year passes. Perhaps a 5% improvement since the time of surgery, which is still a much worse condition than her original complaint before the first surgery. And now the geniuses are reading their next lines in the standard script: psychological evaluation. Because after all her pain really couldn’t be that bad after she’s had the best medical care possible, right? Let’s be realistic…

So Lisette comes in and tells me the history. Unshocked by the too-typical story, I do the standard workup and X-rays of the spine and shoulder. Lisette could not raise her arm above 45 degrees. Extreme reverse curve with scoliosis at C5, rotated C2, involved shoulder an inch and a half higher than the other one – you can imagine the rest. Cervical rotation was 25% of normal, bilaterally.

After 3 weeks of adjustments to the neck and shoulder, her cervical ROM was normal in all arcs. Pain was intermittent slight to moderate. The remaining problem was shoulder mobility. Now I’m not great at frozen shoulder, but I’m good. I’ve seen some DCS fix a longstanding frozen shoulder in one visit. I’m just a plodder, in that regard. Nevertheless, the shoulder improvement was like this: when Lisette first came in, she could not raise her arm above 45 degrees in any arc.

After 3 weeks of adjustments and joint mobilization, she was able to raise her hand on the injured side over her head to 90% of normal. The two failed surgeries slowed us down a bit. I think we can still improve even more. Recovery might have been faster but I forgot to mention, Lisette was only able to come in twice a week.

Such a story is certainly nothing special in our profession. Each of us has any number of similar tales to tell, and these patients come in so often that we don’t have time to keep track of them and document the recoveries, right? So it mostly falls into the area of anecdotal. But the point here is – is this patient grateful? Has she gotten her life back?

Has chiropractic treatment demonstrated its vital importance? And empirically, what percentage of cases like this find their way into the office of a competent DC who knows that whatever techniques he employs will likely be logarithmically better than the alternative? Very few, very very few. What happens to the majority? They never learn of a competent DC, or even about chiropractic at all, and they disconsolately chalk it up to “the hand that I was dealt” or some other such nonsense and accept a lowered quality of life for the duration.

It’s the tragedy of our time, is it not: at the one moment in history the need for traditional chiropractic is the greatest, our flame seems to burn the faintest. If words like universal intelligence and innate intelligence frighten you, then call it reducing the functional spinal lesion, or restoring neuromuscular and biophysiological integrity, or correcting the afferent data from aberrant mechanoreceptor feedback normalizing cortical neuroplasticity… – hey, call it Bob for all I care. Let’s just not pretend like it doesn’t exist because some group of boy scouts somewhere wants some new merit badges to hang on their walls, and be able to say in their little private victory parties – look what we had the power to make them do.

Is this paranoia? I think of that one line out of Strange Days: Paranoia is just reality on a finer scale.

This is an example of the issues that come up in The Chiropractic Seminar, an accredited full day course, itinerary seen at


5. Excerpts from the vaccine text

Vaccination Is Not Immunization


It was inevitable. In the post 9/11 marketing frenzy questing for more and more bugs and diseases to make vaccines against, what could be a more promising candidate than the second highest cause of death in the US?

Cancer of the cervix has been on a gradual upswing during the past 3 decades, now affecting some 12,000 American women, 4,000 of whom die each year. In the 1970s, herpes simplex virus was proposed as a possible cause, but that hypothesis was soon abandoned after epidemiological studies proved inconclusive. In the 1980s the next candidate suggested as the missing link was human papilloma virus. [279]


Now in any cancer, we’re talking about a normal cell that mutated and then began to make copies of itself, unchecked.

The creators of the HVP/cancer mythology are pretending that the HPV came along, attacked some normal cells and mutated those cells and caused them to begin replicating themselves out of control – cancer. And that this is happening on a mass scale even though we just discovered it. And worse, that a vaccine can neutralize that type of attack on normal cervix cells.

Scientifically, what they’re proposing is ludicrous.

Few scientists have a better grasp of the proposed virus/cancer model than Berkeley’s Peter Duesberg PhD. In tracing the history of the HPV/ cervical cancer story, Duesberg explains why HPV is such an unlikely cause of any cancer:

“no set of viral genes is consistently present or expressed in human cervical cancers. [279] … HPV does not replicate in the cancer cells.“

So if the mutated cervical cancer cells are not mutating because of abnormal viral genes being spliced into a normal cell, how could HPV be causing this cancer? Duesberg again:

“the “hit-and-run” mechanism of viral carcinogenesis was proposed. It holds that neither the complete [virus], nor even a

part of it, needs to be present in the tumor. Obviously, this is an unfalsifiable, but also an unprovable, hypothesis. [279]

All that has ever been shown is that HPV is sometimes present in cervical cancer tissue, but it’s also present in half the normal population.

There is a total lack of evidence that cervical cancer appears in women with HPV more often than in women without it. [279]

And yet this will be the focus of the vaccine: to pretend to eliminate this ubiquitous virus from the body.


The HPV vaccine had been in the Merck pipeline for years, finally getting FDA approval in 2006. [50] Merck’s HPV vaccine is called Gardasil.

What’s in it? According to Merck’s own data, the vaccine is made from “virus-like particles” from four strains of HPV. ([213] p1984.) With no clinical studies proving it, HPV is cited by Merck in the Physicians Desk Reference as the cause of “over 70%” of cervical cancer cases.

The market that Merck decided on was 12 year old girls, the thinking being that since HPV is sexually transmissible, might as well get it at the start. It may be given now to 9 year olds. [278]


With other vaccines for viral diseases, such as MMR, hepatitis B, and polio, what has never made sense scientifically is that the vaccines do not contain the original wild virus that occurs in nature and supposedly causes the disease. Instead the vaccine contains a manmade mutation of the natural virus that is claimed to be able to confer immunity by triggering the body to produce antibodies to the original disease. So that was bad enough. But what they’re asking us to believe about HPV is simply a flight of fancy. [58]

The vaccine’s “safety and efficacy not been evaluated over 26” years of age. (2007 PDR [213] p 1987)

Oh, OK. Well, guess we better give it to the young girls then…

So why is the shot routinely given also to boys?


Let’s start with the ones cited by the manufacturer:

    upper respiratory infection

– 2007 Physicians Desk Reference [213]

Additional side effects discovered later include loss of consciousness, loss of vision and seizures. (Lopes, [49]) And oh yes, paralysis.

The British media began to report still other effects of Gardasil, like the 30 deaths, which American media never mention. [56]

An additional symptom from the HPV shot is Guillain Barre syndrome, an autoimmune condition resulting in paralysis. There have been several such cases both in the UK and the US, including a high profile case in Oct 2008 of a 12 year old British girl who collapsed 2 days after the HPV shot and was subsequently paralyzed from the waist down. [56] Her first symptoms came on within 30 minutes.


Can the vaccine itself cause cancer? That’s a fair question – we’re talking about a vaccine that they’re claiming prevents cancer by imitating a pathogen that itself causes cancer, right? So wouldn’t we want to be fairly secure that this vaccine wouldn’t cause cancer? Here’s what the manufacturer states:

Gardasil .. “… not been evaluated for carcinogenicity or impairment of fertility. (2007 [213] p1986 )

Wonderful. They want to vaccinate all American 12 year olds with a vaccine for cancer and they don’t even know for sure whether or not it causes cancer, or makes the recipients infertile.

Yeah, sign my kids up for that one, both boys and girls.

Curiously, the HPV vaccine is not recommended for pregnancy because of its effects on the fetus [213], but menarche is no problem…?


Again, the whole story of HPV vaccine is much more twisted than we’re representing here. The reader is invited to follow up the above cited sources. [79] Rarely has such a calculated, systematic misrepresentation of fact been attempted in which data is so obviously manipulated, issues so deliberately obscured, and financial interests so obsequiously served.

With the uncertainty about the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccine, the certainty of the side effects, the prodigious economic upside to global dissemination irrespective of its scientific merits, the absence of long-term studies, and the ludicrous “religious/ethical” smokescreen designed to distract us from the underlying scientific issues, is this really a vaccine youwant to try out on your little 12 yr old girl?

More info on text:


6. Excerpts from chapter To The Cancer Patient: Natural Cures Vs. Traditional


It is startling to discover what chemotherapy drugs are made from. The first ones were made from mustard gas contained in the weapons that killed so many soldiers in WW I, eventually outlawed by the Geneva Convention. In the 1930s, Memorial Sloan-Kettering quietly began to treat breast cancer with these mustard gas derivatives. No one was cured. More Nitrogen mustard chemotherapy trials were conducted at Yale around 1943. 160 patients were treated. No one was cured. Despite this track record, the major derivative – methotrexate gradually gained popularity over the decades.

Methotrexate has been one of the most common chemotherapy drugs for the past 25 years. The fact that it’s still at the top of the list and that cancer survival has not improved during that period tells the story.

As Methotrexate begins to kill the body’s cells, it causes bleeding ulcers, bone marrow suppression, lung damage, and kidney damage. (HSI Newsletter Apr 1999 p. 5) [37] It also causes “severe anemia, and has triggered or intensified cancerous tumors.” (Ruesch, p. 18)

Other common effects are permanent sclerosing (hardening) of the veins, blood clotting, and destruction of skin and mucous membranes.

Cytoxan is another of the most common chemo drugs. Besides the “normal” side effects, it causes urinary bleeding, lung disease, and heart damage.

This preposterous sentence actually appears at as a rationale for Cytoxan:

“Cytoxan also works by decreasing your immune system’s response to various diseases.”

And decreasing response to disease is going to benefit any patient exactly how..??? They can print ridiculous sentences like this largely because nobody reads them. Most patients sheepishly accept whatever drugs the doctor dreams up, without question. It’s truly marketing from heaven – unquestioned compliance, even if ordered to suicide.


Appearing in the 1980s, one of the newer chemo agents is Cisplatin, which has as its base one of the most toxic heavy metals known to man: platinum. The way this horror works is that the platinum rings clog up the cell DNA so forcefully that the cell initiates its own early death sequence (apoptosis.) Despite this level of toxicity and long term side effects from the permanent bioaccumulation of the heavy metal, cisplatin remains the drug of choice for most cases of sarcoma, small cell lung cancer, germ cell tumors, lymphoma, and ovarian cancer. Cisplatin all but destroys the immune system.

Another popular chemo drug is a sheep-deworming agent known as Levamisole.

It has been around for 60 years. With no major clinical trial ever showing significant increased long term survival with Levamisole, it is still a standard chemotherapy agent even today! The weirdness is, Levamisole was included for its “immune system modulation” properties. However, its major actions include:

– decreased white cell count (!)

– flu symptoms

– nausea

– abdominal cramps

– dizziness

Some immune booster!

A 1994 major study of Levamisole written up in the British Journal of Cancer [53] showed almost double the survival rate using a placebo instead of Levamisole! The utter mystification over why this poison continues to be used as a standard component of chemo cocktails can be cleared up by considering one simple fact: when Levamisole was still a sheep de-wormer, it cost $1 per year. When the same amount was suddenly relabeled as a cancer drug given to humans, it cost $1200 per year. (Los Angeles Times 11 Sep 93.) [24]

Today Levamisole is also used to cut cocaine, as much as 70% of the US supply. (SF Chronicle 29 Dec 09 [54]). It is still used as a veterinary deworming drug for sheep and horses, and continues to be one of the most popular chemotherapy drugs, especially with colon cancer.

You say you’d rather try the coke?


is another colossal failure. When the oncologist starts talking about interleukin-2, it’s usually time to start thinking about where you put all those Neptune Society papers, because by then the big stuff has been pretty much tried and met with its usual failure.

The brilliant sales job behind interleukin-2 and other ‘vaccine’-type cytokine agents is that now we’re gonna transform the patient’s lymphocytes into an army of killer T-cells, which will then descend on those troublesome cancer cells and “root them out of there.”

Just one problem with this theory: no foreign antigens have ever been identified in tumor cells.

And that’s the only way that lymphocytes work – destroying foreign antigens – the not-self cells. So even if the T-cell count can be boosted, there is simply no way these lymphocytes can be directed at cancer cells, because the cancer cells don’t appear that different from normal cells. That’s why they were able to grow in the first place.

The other vexatious feature of interleukin-2 therapy is that because of its last-ditch status, the patient’s immune system is generally so depressed there’s simply not much of it left to work with. Once your immune system’s gone, so are you. And interleukin’s side effects are often the worst of any cancer drug. The list is too long to include here.

Professor George Annas, a medical ethicist, who analyzed the original controlled clinical trails done at the National Cancer Institute on interleukin-2 was slightly less than festive about interleukin-2 for patients:

“more than 80% of the patients did not do any better and they actually did worse. They died harder. That’s not irrelevant. We always tend to concentrate on the survivors, but we’ve got to make the point that 80 per cent had terrific side effects and didn’t get any measurable increase in longevity.”

– New York Times 3 Mar 94

Dr. Martin Shapiro agreed:

“revelations about the apparent ineffectiveness of the experimental cancer drug interleukin-2 are but the tip of an iceberg of misrepresentation and misunderstanding about cancer drug treatments in general.” [21]

– Los Angeles Times 9 Jan 87

The same interleukin-2 is still used today, all over the country.


In a desperate attempt for new revenues, a brilliant new marketing technique for chemo emerged in the 2000s: prescribing chemo drugs for non-cancer cases. This off-label prescribing is now so rampant that it is impossible to track or even estimate its extent. By virtue of his license, any MD can prescribe most drugs for any diagnosis he chooses. Laws absolutely protect him from being sued, no matter what happens to the patient. So for the past 10 years we are now seeing these very expensive chemotherapy drugs being routinely prescribed for many other untested unrelated conditions. To list just a few:

    * endometriosis

    * infertility

    * benign prostatic hypertrophy

    * pneumonitis

    * vasculitis

    * lupus

    * dermatomyositis

(Intravenous Cyclophosphamide for Non-Cancer [7])

Copyright MMXI

see entire chapter at

To the Cancer Patient: Natural Cures vs. Traditional

Newsletter April 2015

March 8th, 2017


Vaximmunology Seminar

27 May
Foothill College – Sound Therapy:
Pythagoras to DD Palmer

July 17 Oklahoma City —
Evening Vaccine Lecture

Sept 18-19 ChiroFest – Seattle

3 Oct – Edinburgh, Scotland –
The Fading Art of Osseous Adjusting,
with Dr Tim Young

10 Oct – Windsor, England
The Fading Art of Osseous Adjusting,
with Dr Tim Young



It is said that we’re really not dead until the last time a human voice speaks our name out loud on earth. So here’s my contribution: Dr JR Weltch.

Really hate doing these things. But don’t see anyone else doing it, as our old soldiers fade away.

First met Dr J. Ray Weltch back at time when you actually had to demonstrate some qualification for being a CE provider, other than just writing a check for 50 bucks.

You had to do a 5 year apprenticeship program, where your mentor reviewed all your paperwork and records keeping, as well as the details of the way you advertised and presented your seminar. Obviously I’m talking ancient history here. Today pretty much anything goes. Dr Weltch was my mentor.

First thing I noticed about Dr Weltch was that he was the genuine article – he lived and breathed the history and traditions of chiropractic, and could actually adjust. Moreover, his passion was in sharing that knowledge as much as possible.

Many of you probably took his technique seminar, which was a valuable collection of shared information on a whole spectrum of techniques. No fluff or colored balloons, or the whole time doing email in the back of the room — you came home with useful tips on how to be a better adjustor.

How many seminars can you say that about?

I think Dr Weltch was in Korea – he was a veteran and had very definite political ideas. This awareness spilled over into chiropractic politics in Sacramento where for many years he was a voice of reason, often amid a floodtide of babble. I saw it firsthand, more than once.

Dr Weltch saw the transformation of chiropractic in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s to something smaller and more vague than what BJ originally had in mind. Unlike most people, he wasn’t afraid to voice those opinions at the risk of bucking the lowest common denominator mentality, which reigns virtually unchallenged today.

After the apprenticeship was over, I kept in touch with Dr Weltch, especially when some crisis or other popped up, in order to gauge how far overboard my opinions were, as I felt the deterioration of some classic principle or other. I knew his phone number by heart. I always thought he and Clum were the true north for the profession, the reliable bellwether you could count on.

Don’t really see many like that any more. Mostly now it’s just the angle, you know?

When I lectured in Sacramento, we used to end up at Harry’s Hofbrau, his favorite. Most people didn’t know that Dr Weltch always carried a gun, even into restaurants. You would never know it about him – he was the most polite, non-confrontational, sane individual. But it was reassuring to know that no one was going to get the upper hand on him if things went ghetto all of a sudden. Obviously he had known violence at some point, and had learned something about preparedness.

Why everybody loved the guy is that Dr Weltch was proud to be a chiropractor, and he thought that was the greatest accomplishment of his life. He had no doubts about the power and extent of what chiropractic adjustments could achieve, having witnessed it first hand, as well as through countless stories from his students over the years.

In the last few years, after he became debilitated, I kept telling him to take off, leave everything behind and take advantage of an invitation to stay with his friend down on the beach in South Carolina or somewhere, and just leave his troubles behind. Sorry he never did that. He kept such a low profile that I didn’t find out he was dead until 5 months later.

One of the last conversations I had with Dr Weltch, I remember asking him what was going to happen to chiropractic in the future. The context was – after what we had just seen the profession go through in the past 25 years— what next?

His answer was that we were going to see chiropractic change significantly. He said it was going to be smaller and more confined, mostly because the schools and the profession were not telling the traditional chiropractic story. Because most really didn’t believe it in their hearts, having never experienced it. It was becoming all about sales and marketing – the aimless pandering to the Career Market, and all too little about the universal connection and the vitalistic paradigm and the sovereignty of the wisdom of the body.

Wish he wasn’t right. But he was. Except for a few pockets of awareness scattered here and there throughout the world.

Often it’s not the loud famous guys you see at all the conventions, but the little guy in the trenches doing heroic work that makes all the difference.

Sayonara, Dr Weltch. Thank you for influencing so many of us and showing us the path, now so overgrown.

Give our regards to BJ and DD. And Fred and Clarence and Michael…. Guess by now you pretty much found out one way or another if they were right about the whole universal intelligence thing, right?

Can you text us, then?



So as we drive up to Sacramento – again – to try and remind these ‘representatives’ about the voice of reason, there are a few points to keep in mind:

1. State legislatures are not the forum to debate the science of vaccines. That is a complete waste of energy, but worse, it’s a distraction from the vital present issue: medical freedom in this country.

Now is the time we are deciding as a nation whether or not we are going to go completely off the reservation from the original letter and intent of the Constitution and allow one part of the population to force their views on drugs and medicine on the rest of it. All the name calling, ad personam attacks, the invocation of false science, and the invocation of true science — all this is peripheral to the present discussion.

2. The fourth Amendment states clearly:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,…. shall not be violated……

What worse imaginable violation of one’s person could there be – one that would force the drug preference of one part of the population upon the entire group? Especially when it is an opinion so aggressively and historically supported by the mercantile interests of the most powerful lobby in Washington – the drug industry.

For the good of the people? That’s the whole breakthrough of the American Constitution, wasn’t it? – the people can choose their own good, especially when it involves something as fundamental and personal as the right over their own bodies, and that of their children..

3. Of the 14 states that have introduced abolition of the 50 year old personal beliefs exemption, no one has passed it yet. Are we to be the first?

In the desperation to force vaccines on the entire population, after the Disneyland measles hoax, momentum has spilled over into state legislatures. These assemblies always seem to be looking for pop media emergencies to distract the public from all the critical issues they’ve been ignoring, all the obvious corruption and monkey business that is daily being swept under the carpet in most states.

Oh, but here’s an issue where we can take a stand and be seen as real protectors of our constituency — legislating vaccines into the blood of the population. A slam dunk to convince them we’re doing out job and looking out for their interests … Effective mainly because the majority of the unlettered have been media conditioned to believe in the false science slogans they substitute for education.

So irrespective of the vaccine debate, the critical issue is that there IS a debate at all. Any debate. Now we’re talking First Amendment.

Because to silence all opposition in any controversy by imposing new laws signals the de facto end of even the pretense of democracy.

4. Informed Consent

Nothing even close to this current proposal to abolish vaccine exemptions has ever been attempted by any state in this nation’s history. With other countries, the closest thing was Nazi Germany.

We learned at the Nuremberg trials where the Nazi doctors were on trial for their unspeakable medical experiments conducted throughout the death camps. And what defense did their lawyers use? They said, these experiments were done for the Greater Good. For the good of all Germany.

But the judges didn’t buy it. What was the missing criterion? Informed Consent. If you’re going to do medical experiments on a population, you need informed consent.

Otherwise, it’s just … genocide.

Sound familiar? So why do we now suddenly need to abolish exemption laws that have been around for 50 years? Throw out Informed Consent. For the greater good?

So just a hint to the people voicing their opinions to legislators about this issue – stay on track. Don’t try to win the vaccine science debate. That’s not the new threat here – the threat is the whole debate process may be thrown out completely. Medical freedom of choice, over your own person, and that of your children.

And the implications for the future — if forced vaccines begin to become state law, what’s next?

Gag rules about even discussing vaccines, like in Australia? Forced chemotherapy? Forced hospital birth? How about forced surgeries? Forced courses of drug treatment.

Don’t say That could never happen. That’s what we would have said 5 years ago about these new proposed laws right now.

With the slippery slope introduced by the new state proposals, it’s all doable.



Coming to San Jose and Santa Cruz

Trace Amounts is the groundbreaking documentary that the Centers For Disease Control does not want you to see.

Trace Amounts explores the connection between mercury in vaccines and the rise of Autism in America. Autism a few decades ago existed in about 1 in 10,000 children. Today, 1 in 50 children are diagnosed with autism.

This film shows the evidence that mercury is a serious neurotoxin, even in trace amounts. It also reveals that the CDC is fully aware of the dangers of mercury in vaccines, yet covered up research findings and diluted a major scientific study in order to downplay concerns over mercury in vaccines. Mercury remains in vaccines today, regardless of what you hear on the news. Mercury has not been banned.

This film is a must see for parents or anyone concerned about the health of Americans, and makes a strong case to get mercury out of vaccines once and for all!

After recovering from a sickness that would bring him to the edge of despair, Eric Gladen began researching the science behind what had made him so sick. His research led him straight into one of the biggest medical debates of all time, the question of whether or not childhood vaccines are causing Autism. He would end up quitting his career, moving into an RV, and traveling the country interviewing experts and piecing together thousands of studies and leaked documents. But Eric wasn’t focused on the vaccines themselves. He was focused on something that belongs nowhere near vaccines – mercury.

From the Mad Hatter Syndrome in the late 1800’s, to Pink Disease in the first half of the 20th to the Iraqi Grain Incident in the early 1970’s, humans have learned time and again of the debilitating neurological damage that mercury can cause.

Then why did it end up in our childhood vaccines? Trace Amounts explores the origin of the use of mercury in the vaccines and exposes the continued greed based decision to keep mercury in the vaccines through several decades.

Trace Amounts is the result of nearly a decade of research and travel, in which top scientists, government officials, parents of children with Autism, and the average Joe unravel the truths, secrets, and tragedies, of the skyrocketing Autism phenomenon.

Could a tragedy, which brought one of the greatest nations to its knees and stole a generation of children, have been avoided? Watch Trace Amounts and you decide.


5. Radio Interview
Dr O’Shea : Measles Vaccine – The Lies We Tell Each Other
11 Apr


If you remember it, you weren’t there. No, that’s not really true – it was eminently memorable. There was so much going on in so many different locations all at the same time it was impossible to take it all in.

I’m always critical of reviews that are overly effusive, tripping over their own superlatives. Wrong newsletter for that, as you may have gathered.

CalJam is more or less obligatory by now. Even for the critics, they’re fascinated by its success. And even if you’re less than enchanted with some of the speakers, there’s still going to be plenty for you to see and do– re-connecting with all those friends and enemies and rivals from your past. Making new connections. Filling in some of the more glaring gaps in your intelligence files. Re-igniting your awareness of the power of the adjustment. Realizing how clueless organized medicine really is, and the extent to which they will go to cover up their desperation, as they unravel.

Alex Jones, I must admit was very powerful and articulate. Never having been much of a fan of his KMart approach to merchandising, or the lack of evidence for many of his extreme online contentions, still to see him live gives an indication that fundamentally he’s a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian who honors and defends the original ideas of the Constitution. And that he will not sit quietly by and watch as that dream is eroded and sold out by a Washington full of lily-livered opportunists, daily chasing the shifting winds of popular opinion.

We need more people like Alex Jones today, not afraid to state the obvious. So that speech is worth tracking down and watching.

But the guy who went home with the blue ribbon was certainly Andy Wakefield. Before he said one word, he got a standing ovation worthy of John Lennon – it just went on and on. But Wakefield wasn’t having any of that. He just looked at the floor, pacing till it died down, and then started with Macbeth –

“All our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death …. ”

Not exactly a line Mick Jagger would open with. It was clear that Wakefield wasn’t looking to tap into the party spirit of CalJam or trade in any of the rockstar currency so obviously available to him, as much as he was trying to convey the urgency of our current situation, where 14 states have introduced legislation to abolish vaccine exemption laws that have been around for … days uncounted.

And he went on to describe some of the actual stories of children who are daily being crushed beneath the wheels of the New Agenda of un-exempted vaccines. And to offer an opinion of the future if these laws that abolish personal beliefs exemption are actually passed. What doors that opens, etc.

As you watch Wakefield, you realize that this is not just another lit searcher, to use Murphy’s term, but a guy who laid down everything he had – his fortune, his career, his reputation, – all in the name of true science. He found a reasonable hypothesis that was being aggressively ignored, because of its political implications.

What if a connection between MMR and autism were to be proven by true science, irrespective of partisan and drug industry politics, and of all the implications for the past century of the floodtide of vaccines? What then? How far would they go to cover it up?

And here was a guy with the unquestioned scientific and academic gravitas, who was finally willing to stand up in the light of day and say Let’s look at this. No matter what.

So to see someone representing this level of integrity and original science in person was obviously a very transformational experience for many.

No wonder pop media is so afraid of this guy, and the power that he commands, merely by insisting on following the science wherever it may go, always with the prime intent – for the survival and well-being of the child.

Wakefield is something you never see today – a man of principle who cannot be bought. And the educated and semi-educated alike recognize that, instinctively.

Here’s a very poor cellphone dropbox audio of the talk – find a better one:

Wakefield is almost finished with his documentary, which is certain to be profoundly valuable. A more worthwhile cause for donations could scarcely be found, to help get it rolling.

Another presenter, Dane Wigington from deserves evaluation.

If you didn’t see him, at least get hold of his free DVD from his site.

Are you watching the skies, especially in California every day? Are you really going to pretend that all those “cloud formations” are natural?

The little girl on the front of the vaccine book is 7 now. And she can distinguish between natural cloud formations and chemtrails. What a world – where that’s a skill we have to teach our children. What kind of legacy are we leaving?

My own talk on Hydrolyzed Collagen quickly got sidetracked into the vaccine controversy. I was going for that same idea of urgency Andy was alluding to – this brave new world we are allowing to unfold right in front of us. A studio version of that same talk will soon be available at under Videos. Measles :The Lies We Tell Each Other

Countless other valuable experiences could be found at the various cheesy hotels bars surrounding the performing arts center, CalJam’s real motherlode: at the Wyndham, the Westin, the Marriott, and the Sports Bar. Loaded with DCs all the time.

Make the rounds. Hit a dry hole on one, just move on to the next one. Pubcrawlers will excel at these life-changing encounters. Destiny awaits you. Be disciplined – don’t get captured. You’re on a mission from God.


7. fourth edition of
Vaccination Is Not Immunization

This is not a reprint of the third edition, which was recently sold out, but rather a complete re-write.

Here are some of the topics covered in the new edition:

– the fundamentals of the new measles marketing explosion
– why the 2014 Ebola hype came and went so quickly
– what happens when the federal government takes over vaccine
research from actual scientists
– the new US schedule of 69 vaccines for kids
– evidence why 54% of US children already have a chronic disease
– reservoirs for disease: the vaccinated or the unvaccinated?
– motivated vaccine investors: Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg
– the science behind individual vaccines

– much more

210 pages, almost 300 references. Every fact verified, every statistic sourced. Open challenge for debate.

Vaccination Is Not Immunization – now in 6 languages

The most reliable vaccine resource for parents about to make the most important decision of the child’s life.

Excerpt from Vaccination Is Not Immunization,


Polio no longer exists in the Western world in its wild state. The only cases of poliomyelitis since 1979 have been from the polio vaccine. (Vaccine Guide p 108 [188]) The risk of acquiring wild polio in the US is zero.

A viral infection of the grey matter of the spinal cord, poliomyelitis in its natural state was never such a killer, even before vaccines came out. 90% of those who carried the polio virus never had any symptoms. (Burnet, p 93) [176] And only a fraction of 1% of cases ended up with long term paralysis. [188], p 108]

It is very doubtful that the polio vaccine was itself responsible for the decline of polio in the U.S. As we saw above in Figure 2, many researchers show how that decline was happening anyway. [186]

The sharp drop-off in polio cases reported on Alderson’s statistics chart above is due to the radical change in the way polio cases were reported rather than to the effect of the vaccine. A complete explanation of this trick reporting can be found on p.109 of Neustaedter’s The Vaccine Guide, [188] where the testimony of Dr. Bernard Greenberg, a government biostatistician, is quoted.

To make a long story short, doctors over-reported polio before 1954, and under-reported it afterwards. Politics. They were motivated to show that the vaccine worked. Vaccination Fever, following on the coattails of the Golden Age of Antibiotics in the 1950s. Better living through chemistry.

From Dr Herbert Shelton, (Hygienic Care of Children) [202] :

“The apparent disappearance of polio was brought about by clever juggling. Before the Salk vaccine was introduced, thousands of cases of polio were diagnosed each year in children who had no polio.

“After the introduction of the vaccine, these cases were no longer diagnosed as polio. This automatically appeared to reduce the cases to a near vanishing point.”

A little problem occurred in 1955 with some of the early lots of Salk polio vaccine. Some 8o children immediately got polio from the vaccine, and they spread it to at least another 120 kids. Three of the victims died and 75% were paralyzed. ([216], p 487)

What is certain is that polio virtually disappeared, but not because of the polio vaccine. The inventor of the vaccine, Jonas Salk himself testified in 1977 that the few cases of polio we now see in the U.S. are the result of using the polio vaccine rather than the result of the disease itself. (Science Abstracts 4 Apr 1977) [227]

Even the CDC also admits that all cases of polio in the U.S. after 1979 have been caused by the vaccine, not the disease!


[185] p 568.

You parents checking this out? If the only cases of polio in America in the past 40 years are caused by the vaccine itself, why are we still vaccinating? With 4 shots?

Wouldn’t be so bad if the vaccine were harmless. But there are two little complications that came with this harmless vaccine:

– the polio vaccine was stabilized with neurotoxins like
mercury and formaldehyde

– the original polio vaccine contained SV-40 monkey virus

The first of these is beyond controversy. The manufacturers admitted it. ( Physicians Desk Reference [213] )

Mercury, as we all know, is a metabolic poison, damaging brain, kidneys, and bone marrow. (Widmans, p.691; Bernard [181, 163]) Formaldehyde, used in embalming, is a known carcinogen.

The second of these complications, the contamination of polio vaccine with SV-40, bears elaboration.

50,000 MONKEYS

were slaughtered in the 60s in order to make the Salk vaccine for polio. (James, p166) [174] Tens of thousands of rhesus monkeys had been killed since 1952 to provide kidneys on which to culture the vaccine. (PDR, 1998 p 2131) [213]

Looking at the statistics of polio during the past century (Figure 2 above), many researchers, including the inventor himself, later felt the polio vaccine was unnecessary, because by 1954 the disease was obviously winding itself down throughout our species. Herd immunity.

Looking at a 1963 issue of Science Digest shows that in the 1950s a monkey virus named SV-40 was unwittingly put into hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of doses of Salk vaccine. (Snider) [191] And where did this happen? Africa. The favorite testing ground. (Curtis, p1259) [192]

Some 98 million doses of the SV contaminated polio vaccine were given to American children between 1955 and 1963. [159]

Horowitz shows why anyone who got polio vaccine prior to 1964 is probably carrying SV-40. ([216] p. 493)

Later research linked SV-40 with cancer as well. In Mar 02, scientists at University of Texas and at Baylor independently found the same high correlation (43%) between SV-40 and non-Hodgkins lymphoma, the eighth most common cancer in the US. (ACS) [155]

Leading scientist Michele Carbone MD: “… there are more
than 70 papers from 60 different laboratories that have confirmed the association of SV-40 with human … bone and brain tumors.” [131]

Jonas Salk’s polio vaccine only lasted for 17 months because of all the deaths and paralysis it caused. Its replacement was the Sabin oral vaccine.

Here’s what Albert Sabin, MD, the inventor of that vaccine, had to say 30 years later [230] :

“Official data has shown that the large scale vaccinations undertaken in the US have failed to obtain any significant improvement of the diseases for which they were supposed to provide immunization. In essence it was and is a failure.”


Polio vaccine is still unsafe today. In the Caribbean during 2002 there were 21 cases of polio and 2 deaths caused by the oral polio vaccine. [147, 143] The vaccine itself has created a new disease, capable of spreading from patient to patient, according to the CDC. [162]

A CDC scientist, Olin Kew tells us that in this case:

“…the virus, originating in the vaccine …had undergone a series of genetic mutations .., had reverted to a virulent form and caused the very disease it was meant to prevent.” [143]

The Wall Street Journal [147] reported:

“Scientists had long speculated that the virus contained in the vaccine might re-emerge … in a virulent form. But this had never been seen until Kew analyzed the changes in the Hispaniola bug….they saw the alarming manner in which the virus had ‘back-mutated.’ ”


Hostility against US vaccine programs is becoming more and more evident in Third World places, who grasp the true politics of being the market for the First World’s drug throwaways. [126]

In Pakistan during much of 2008, fighting broke out among groups who were resisting mandatory polio shots from UNICEF [91], seeing vaccination as a genocidal effort.

Difficult to justify trying to vaccinate half a million people in an area with only 32 cases of polio in all of 2007, especially with the vaccine’s track record of fatal reactions.

Polio vaccine is clearly perpetuating a disease that would have disappeared completely on its own by now.”


“The most provocative, well-researched, blood-boiling text EVER written on vaccines.. Dr Tim’s style mixing pure science and his relentless wit make this one of my FAVORITE reads of all time. read this book and you will want to start a revolution.” – Dr Bill DeMoss, Newport Beach

“This history of the vaccination industry is vastly more thorough than that taught in medical schools and decisively more balanced.” – David Ayoub, MD

“The only book more important than this one is the Bible.”
– Dr Tim Young

Newsletter September 2015

March 6th, 2017


1. Sept 18-19 ChiroFest – Seattle
3 Oct – Fading Art: – Edinburgh; 10 Oct – Windsor UK



4. Whooping Cough Cure


Sept 18-19 ChiroFest – Seattle

October 3 Edinburgh, Scotland
The Fading Art of Osseous Chiropractic Adjusting

October 10 Windsor UK –The Fading Art of Osseous Chiropractic Adjusting
Dr Tim O’Shea ………. Dr Tim Young

Norton House Hotel, Ingliston, near Edinburgh – 3 Oct

This is a hands on, step by step, detailed course on the fundamentals of moving bones. A great adjustment is accomplished fluidly and painlessly with speed, finesse, and confidence. Usually half of attendees are doctors and half are students. For the students, many were thrilled to have made their first actual adjustment, since so many are discouraged from doing so at school these days. For the doctors, they were happy to tune up their skills, and get new ideas in the pursuit of mastery of this elusive art.

The objective of this one day symposium is either entry level proficiency, or else advancement to an improved level of competence. Attendees will receive individual critiquing on all details of the masterful adjustment of bones: assessment, set-up, pre-stress, line of drive, delivery, etc.
Attendees will also have the password to the online archive of Fading Art seminars everywhere.

“Great to finally hear pure unadulterated chiropractic, to be reminded of the simplicity of its philosophy. Great passion, and stories!” – Dr Lance Z., Boulder
“You and Tim Young are a gift to the profession.” – Dr Sara Kersten
“…Learned some great material I can implement immediately… changed the course of my practice forever!”
– Guy Coberly, DC, Loveland
“I have learned more about adjusting today than in my entire time at Cleveland. Thanks a million!” – AB
“Nothing like it anywhere. Completely hands on. Something you can’t get anywhere else. The whole seminar was fast-paced and fun. Refreshing to see it can truly be as simple as this. Well worth the time and money.”
– DK
“Both instructors were full of wisdom and knowhow. Loved learning all the things we don’t get in school. You guys will save the profession!” -JSM
…”I learned more at this seminar than in all of school. Should do one of these seminars each tri…. Showed me why I wanted to be a chiropractor all over again.” – KC

“Wish it was a little longer – would definitely do it again. Make it 2 days. Glad of the video archive! Learned much more than I have in any technique class.” -TB
“Good to see how actually to adjust and get hands on. …we don’t get this at school… thought both DCs were exceptional. Their passion was infectious. Great to have focused personal instruction like this.”

Traditional osseous adjusting is becoming rarer each year. If the student is not exposed to the essentials of adjusting before graduation, there may be limited opportunities afterward to see exactly how it’s done, up close and personal, by an experienced proficient. Many simply give up. This course will accelerate that learning curve exponentially … the fast track for those who know they can do it better, whether you just graduated or have practiced for 20 years
Tired of hearing people tell you what chiropractic is not? Here’s a course in what it is!
To register Edinburgh: Morag Cairns at



With ongoing programs in 190 countries, systematic chemical spraying of the sky is not likely to disappear any time soon. Here in the Bay Area we had a magnanimous reprieve all summer from the Controllers – almost no chemtrails since early June. This made for one of the most glorious summers here. While the rest of the country was sweltering under 100 degree skies, with storms and floods tossed in, out here in Silicon Valley we generally had 70s and 80s weather, many days festooned to the horizon with old-fashioned high cumulus panoramas. Couple of brief scorchers, but for the most part it was room temperature. And not a trail in the sky.

We can whine about crushing taxes, all our social ills, irresponsible legislators, engineered drought, epidemic degenerative illness, etc – all the things that have annihilated the California dream in recent years. But two treasures we still have in abundance are spectacular natural beauty, and the best weather on earth.

You can check back to the ___ newsletter for an intro to chemtrails a la Dane Wigington ( Whatever degree of awareness you may have about what’s being sprayed into our skies – and why – one thing is empirically evident just by looking up every day: something is being deliberately aerosolized into the atmosphere on a very defined schedule. Dane does provide enough witnesses and evidence to demonstrate fairly strongly that the trails are primarily nanoparticulate aluminum oxide.

The why of it – the agenda – well, that’s the big puzzle, isn’t it? Since no official word is ever pronounced about the current program – a conspicuous absence of comment on what anyone can observe almost every day – well that’s subject material for another newsletter. For now, we’ll be deliriously content if just a fair percentage of our bovine population begins to look up every day and observe that these are not normal condensation trails that follow commercial aircraft. No, those actual con trails dissipate in about a minute.

If it goes horizon to horizon and widens over a period of four hours, well that’s military-industrial, my friend. And it’s chemical.

What might account for the exponential rise of Alzheimers today? Aluminum has long been cited in the literature as a neurotoxin that can accelerate senile neurodegeneration, even among the not-yet senile. The heavy metal nanoparticles are inhaled by all mammals, and enter the bloodstream. In child brains, aluminum inhibits neuron development, and myelin formation. In adults, it tears these structures down.

Aluminum is a primary heavy metal, toxic to all mammalian physiology.

It is bioaccumulative in humans – meaning once it’s in your body, aluminum particles can take up residence in virtually any organ or tissue, and remain there. Forever. Just like plaque in your arteries – it’s more or less permanent.

And it’s not just brain cells that are damaged – aluminum can inhibit virtually every metabolic system in the human body – digestion, reproduction, respiration, cell repair, endocrine, bone synthesis, cognitive, immune, circulatory – name it. Russell Blaylock is the real expert in this field of course, with his classic book Excitotoxins.

Even before the recent chemtrails campaign was ignited, aluminum toxicity has been skyrocketing in the US for years. What’s going on now is pouring gasoline on the fire.

Worse yet, with the vaccine hysteria sweeping the country this past year, far fewer parents are opting out of vaccines. The fear of aluminum in vaccines never achieved the same fad status as mercury. But it’s present in every shot. So California toddlers are saddled with a double handicap, right out of the gate – chemtrails and vaccines. Both straight to the blood.

Don’t take the word of this little article – do your follow-up in the both Blaylock’s book and your vaccine text.

You can’t stop your child from breathing, but you can stop vaccinating him. Although after years of writing new editions of the vaccine text, it’s clear that fewer and fewer people are making that choice.

The two main obstacles to an informed decision are

    1. Inertia – who wants to learn anything these days? Especially something as unpopular as vaccine exemption.

    2. Draconian new laws that effectively force vaccines on children

The overall consequence of all this is that the future health of the American child does not seem optimistic. Exponential growth curves for both infectious and degenerative disease among children will not only continue, but will be exacerbated by the new laws, the new vaccines, and the ongoing trails.

Any way out of this real-life Inferno?

Most obvious is leave California. It’s the only state in 14 that has actually passed the law eliminating vaccine exemptions. Effectively the most educated state in the US now has a more oppressive vaccine policy than the least educated.

Of course most people these days vaccinate, no matter what state they’re in. And there’s nothing to indicate a change in that trend any time soon. Except an increase, perhaps, as more vaccines are added to the schedule. To educate the doubtful to a point where they’re willing to resist the floodtide of invective that awaits their decision not to vaccinate – well, it takes a little reading. At least one or two books. And perhaps a seminar or two.

This is asking a bit much of today’s twitter/google/wiki/iphone cult, who have 24 hour access to omniscience, without any study, abstract or analytic thought necessary. Just give me the answer – not interested in the politics, economics, or epistemology behind it.

So the unchallenged fact is that aluminum is being loaded into everyone’s blood by two unrelenting toxifying programs – vaccines and chemtrails. This is not even mentioning the hundreds of other industrial and environmental pathways that daily ramjet aluminum into the human body. But our race is loading up on heavy metals, the US exponentially faster than perhaps anywhere on earth.

Believing it or not believing has nothing to do with it – it’s undisputed. So if you think it’s too difficult to avoid vaccines, and you don’t feel like filing a billion dollar class action suit against your local airport for participating in genocidal aerosolizing, you do have some small recourse. Chelation. It’s really the least you can do, in order to reduce low grade heavy metal poisoning just a little.

For the whole story of chelation look at the chapter

The short version is that we’ve known for years about natural, nontoxic ways to remove heavy metals from the cells and tissues. There are very fast chelators, which can be very destructive to liver and kidneys. And there is a slower, just as effective supplemental remedy, with no side effects at all. Oral chelation – holistic science.

So then the question becomes – how important are your kids to you? Are you going to believe every single thing the vaccine salesmen tell you? You’re too busy to do the smallest amount of reading that challenges their uncited science? Even if your child are said to be at risk – you don’t want to decide for yourself? You’re going to bet that the pediatricians and vax industry put the health of the child above their own mercenary concerns? OK, or you’re too busy to actually look up into the sky every day and see if the formations look natural or manmade?


Thousands of supplements out there – GNC, grocery stores, internet, MLM cults – each claiming to be the magic bullet that will explode years of self indulgence and cure your chronic illness and fatigue.

Newsletter March 2017

March 6th, 2017

1. UPCOMING Events








FOCUS OKC – OklahomaCity . . .17 JULY 17




As many of us may remember from school, Dupuytrens contracture is a genetic predisposition whereby the palm of the hand becomes forced into an increasingly flexed position. This is caused by the contracture, or bunching up, of the palmar fascia – usually bilaterally. Likely to appear in the 40s.

Had a patient a few months ago, with this condition. The contracture is found most commonly among UK races, and is often accompanied by gapped teeth, from childhood. The standard surgery for Dupuytrens is quick and simple and rarely involves complications, if performed by a conscientious surgeon who knows enough to avoid the median nerve.

Under general anesthesia, an incision is made along one of the creases in the involved palm, about 3 or 4 inches long. The opening is stretched, and the defective, corded up fascia is then cut out. The crease is sewn back up with about 10 or 12 stitches. Usually takes less than an hour.

Improvement would be almost immediate, except for the sore, healing stitches. The patient has a tendency not to open the hand all the way because the sutures would be stretched. If it heals that way, the relaxed hand will still tend towards being slightly closed. But with a few months of daily palm-flattening exercise, the hand will return to its original pre-Dupuytrens condition: full extension.

Left untreated, the gathered-in palmar fascia may resorb after several years, and the knots under the skin of the palm may begin to disappear. The condition often progresses only to a certain point and then actually may become less pronounced. The problem is that the metacarpal bones may remain in the abnormal position, causing the relaxed hand to be slightly flexed closed. This is the result of the years of the contracting fascia pulling the bones of out of place.

Did somebody say bones out of place? It is at this stage where chiropractic adjustment may reverse the contracture simply by restoring motion and position to the displaced carpals. The distal metacarpals are most often at the center of the compound misalignments, and would be the focus of the initial adjustment.

There may be some pain with the adjustments, especially at first. Remember these bones have been locked out of place for some years. But the discomfort is minor compared with the trouble and recovery time required by surgery.

Adjustments may not work in every case, and are most effective in the patient who has had the condition the longest, untreated. As with most imbalances in the body, we always go from least invasive to most invasive. Chiropractic first!



Last month’s Vaccine Awareness Symposium in the far north went off extremely well.

First of all, if you’ve never been west of the 101 up there past Cloverdale, etc, you’re missing some of the most magnificent, panoramic landscapes in the USA. The roller coaster ride across the coastal range through the redwoods will be fun for everyone except the driver. A ride through a magical Hobbit Land.

And then the cruise along US 1 at the coast through Mendocino County is even more spellbinding, one breathtaking panorama after another, surpassing those at Devils Slide and Big Sur.

You’ll be jealous of people who get to live in such natural settings like these, who don’t seem to miss that there’s not a Costco or a Taco Bell on every street corner. Once outside the little towns, it’s back to the original California.

These are the folks who hosted the vaccine awareness symposium. Moderately attended but streamed live, the people got a full day’s nonstop adrenaline rush of the actual science and politics behind the vaccine industry.

Most people seemed to be aware of parts of the discussion, but taken together the symposium gathered this synergistic momentum, first with my presentation on the essential science of vaccines, then with the legal issues brought up attorney Gregg Glaser.

In the afternoon, there were some brilliant spontaneous insights from Robert Rowen, MD, who is in favor of vaccines, but is appalled at the draconian legislation now afoot in our state to force them on 100% of the population, with no right of refusal.

We had dinner the night before the lecture at the best restaurant in Mendocino County – in the Little River Hotel. I had a lot of questions for Del about Vaxxed – things that you just don’t hear about. For example, in addition to Vaxxed being far and away the most powerful, most authoritative vaccine film ever made, because of its true science content, there were two other attributes which set it up as an instant classic.

1. Editing

For this 90 minute film, they shot much more than 100 hours of footage. From all that, you could make dozens of different movies. This is where the art of moviemaking comes in – to see that the chaff gets left on the floor and the wheat on the screen. The story must drive the film. Fascinating footage, however exciting in itself, which doesn’t drive the story must be cut.

So what it takes here is an unswerving commitment to the power of the narrative, that takes the viewer from beginning to end, in the most spellbinding way possible. The writer of the narrative creates the movie, but the editor is the one who makes it breathe, and jump right off the screen, with nobody leaving for popcorn or anything else.

Of the dozens of ordinary films that could have been made from all that raw footage, there was only one golden child hiding within, which the editor has to sweat blood for months on end to bring to life.

And for Vaxxed, that guy was Del.

2. Postproduction

Most documentaries, even if well-edited, look amateurish, for several reasons

    – sound levels jumping all over the place with each shot

    – sound EQ and contours all over the place

    – uneven video contrast across various scenes

plus a couple dozen other very technical parameters which take many different clips shot in a variety of environments, with all different cameras, that now have to be crafted and molded into one integral, cohesive viewing event: a movie.

If it’s done right, you don’t notice it. You can’t point to it. But subconsciously, high-end postproduction carries the unmistakable emblem of professionalism, authenticity, and credibility. If the content is there, the flawless editing, and the superb postproduction: these are the 3 ingredients necessary for a classic.

The devil’s in the details. This level of finishing is invisible. Where you feel it is in your gut – one of these you know-you know experiences.

And again, it was Del’s contacts who were responsible for the final cut to be fired in the celestial kiln of first rate Hollywood postproduction, resulting in this unique masterpiece.

Another thing I learned from that interview is this: Remember when Vaxxed first came out last June, and actually for a couple weeks before it came out you saw where every two-bit movie reviewer from Peoria to Peking all wrote reviews warning people to stay away, that it was done by discredited people, that it was dangerous, unscientific, etc. Almost 100% negative. And all this BEFORE THEY EVER SAW IT! It wasn’t even out yet!

That never happens. But like Sid used to say – there’s no such thing as bad press. The crowning promo was when DeNire axed Vaxxed from the pretigious (but politically controlled) Tribeca Film Festival. Del has a friend – a top Hollywood publicist – who told him that he could not have bought that type of publicity for at any price! If it weren’t for all that negative press, this movie would have come and gone in 2 weeks, like Doctored or Trace Amounts or those other forgettable amateur outings that will never be heard of again.

No comparison.

So anyway if you haven’t seen Vaxxed by now, will you please just go out to the back yard and blow your brains out? The rest of us thank you. You’re just not interested in the human condition. The unexamined life is not worth living, remember?

Back to Mendocino now – By the time Del stepped up to finish the day, there was no one in that seminar room who was unaware of the repressive vaccine juggernaut now under way in California, whose ultimate mission is to systematically deprive parents of the right to make health choices for their own children. Led by lowborn Pan-derers, it is the State that is now assuming its jurisdiction not just over the blood of the children, as with vaccines, but now over their entire beings.

Del talked about the Next Step: the landmark SB18, now in the works in California, (see Jan Newsletter) the Orwellian Child’s Bill of Rights. This law would permit any judge to arbitrarily decide that an unvaccinated child was not being provided with his right to “appropriate” health care (vaccination), and could be therefore taken from the parents and forcibly vaccinated.

As if that weren’t the extent of their malevolent design, Del then cited the next bill slated after SB18, which is called SB426 – the Home Visitation Bill. This law would specifically provide that police could break into the homes of anyone who had been judged as being deprived of “appropriate” medical care, who could then be taken away and forcibly given their “rightful” treatment.

Just like the Warsaw ghetto. It’s all coming.

I used to think slated bills like this were ridiculous and didn’t possibly stand a chance. But after seeing how easily AB2109 and SB277 breezed through the irresponsible CA legislature, stripping parents of the rights over their own children – nothing is beyond imagination with this state legislature. Not making this up here – I couldn’t imagine anything this dark for the USA in 2017. This is really what they are planning.

Laws like these are passed because the people aren’t paying attention. Or worse, because California has become a cesspool for the mentality that applauds such freedom-annihilating laws as these.

Stop Facebooking pictures of your dinners, and instead start sending these videos!

Del is a most eloquent spokesman for vaccine rights. Watch this video of his recent appearance at CalJam.

The entire Mendocino Symposium videos can be watched at



Imagine you want to see a medical doctor for some particular reason – high blood pressure, kidney, liver, respiratory, arthritis, diabetes, cancer, dental, etc. But you dread making that appointment where you’re gonna be in that crowded waiting room for 3 or 4 hours, until you finally get your 5 minutes, probably with a nurse, who’ll be talking to somebody else on her cellphone, not even listening to you – then maybe referring you for some test or other, or prescription, after waiting another 4 hours…etc.

You know the drill. You walk out the door wondering why you even bothered…

But what if, instead of worrying about co-pays, deductibles, drug costs, waiting rooms, cancelled appointments etc. you could walk into the best hospital in the country without an appointment, pay $30, and within 30 minutes be sitting in front of a specialist for a private consult. Not some nurse practitioner brushoff – the specialists themselves.

Science fiction? Nope, everyday business at the Bangkok Hospitals throughout Thailand. Seven days a week. Then if it turned out you wanted to follow their recommended course of treatment, whether it involved drugs, surgery, or rehab, and decided to pay for it out of pocket, it would most likely cost you less than 25% of the equivalent recommended treatment in the US.

And you could begin treatment right then and there, or else the next day.

This is no exaggeration, and is experienced by the tens of thousands of medical tourists who flock to Thailand every year to take advantage of what is probably the most advanced medical system in the world. Not crowded, so much cleaner than these Kaiser temples to bait-and-switch we have here. Even the decor itself represents professionalism, rather than the cheap prison/industrial interior design motif that has somehow become de rigeuer in American hospitals.

Many believe that Thai doctors’ training is far advanced from that of their American counterparts, for several reasons. Foremost would be that the treatment recommendations and protocols are coming from the doctor himself, and not primarily from the MBA-spawned insurance regimens from the guys upstairs, as in all rigidly scripted Obamacare and American systems.

Probably explains why we have the worst health of any industrialized nation, by any index you can name.

So to improve on the American system was not much of a challenge, since in most cases doing nothing at all would be better. But to raise medicine to its highest level, conservatively deriving every advantage from modern technology, but always with the best interests of the patient first and foremost, instead of the billing bottom line — these are the considerations that now attract people from all over the world willing to pay for the best health care out of pocket.

The entire disposition of the Thai MD is completely something an American is not prepared for. They actually listen to you, without being on their computer at the same time, interrupting you after 5 seconds to tell you your options– usually to shut up and fill this scrip, or make this or that appointment 3 weeks later….

Not like that in Thailand. No big hurry – just tell them what you have, and they’ll calmly and completely explain to you your options. Many of which are available either that day, right then and there, or else the next day. It’s shocking!

The whole condescension thing is conspicuously absent – none of this stupid “I’m a doctor” response as an answer to any question they don’t understand. They don’t make the disproportionately huge salaries commanded about American MDs, and even the specialists in practice are often working 12 hour shifts. It’s so shocking to see an advanced specialist actually in service of patients, instead of the assembly line 5 min

Then there’s the quality of the diagnostic and therapeutic technology, hospital hygiene, outcomes, etc– all far beyond what is available at the majority of US facilities. A Thai doctor told me that many of the medical machines in Thailand are not allowed to be sold in the US because they’re too good– the global politics of medical technology outside Thailand is always pre-eminent over the best interests of the patient.

This is a very superficial description here – the reality is far better than this characterization. So for patients who have some problem beyond chiropractic and the 60 Day Program, here’s the next step. The only downside is the flight– it’s a long way.



There is an essential flaw in the Trump/Kennedy proposal to establish a Vaccine Commission – a forum for examining the science behind vaccines, with the presumption that such evaluation would be logical, unbiased and objective.

Even if such a commission could exist, in the politically drenched environment of modern medical science, a more fundamental impediment presents:

The Vaccinators are incapable of listening to the slightest criticism.

Who are we kidding? The vaccine religion is the most aggressively defended orthodoxy the world has ever seen – the most precious and sacrosanct ideology. It is the rock on which is built the entire infrastructure of the global medical and pharmaceutical industry. There can be no chipping away at this granite underlayment, not even one fragment, that might make a crack, followed then by a chunk falling off of the sacred integral substratum.

It is not just that a close look at immunological science might be an economic threat to organized medicine’s monopoly on “health care.” No, not just economically, but epistemologically they cannot even imagine that any part of their cosmology, their religion, might be in error. To admit just one error would threaten the entirety.

Touch one strand and the whole web trembles…

This is why after 2 1/2 years, someone like Wm Thompson, remains unsubpoenaed.

Vaxxed‘s Thompson, CDC senior scientist, having turned over to Congress the documentation that proved a massive cover-up by CDC of an incontrovertible, causal relationship between vaccines and autism, and then demanding to be subpoenaed so that his testimony would be on record… To this day he has been officially ignored. And will likely continue to be: touch one strand and the whole web trembles.

Here is modern medical science – not science at all, but religion. Unwavering belief in that which cannot be proven. The vaccine religion specifically – it’s the most severe, unyielding superstition the world has ever seen. Not one tenet, not one jot or tittle has ever been conceded to be in error. Quintessential dogmatism.

Dialog? A Commission for the objective review of vaccines and the scientific integrity that underpins them? Who could be on it? Who would have the credentials in science and medicine today who is not completely in the thrall of the pharmaceutical behemoth?

Dream team: how about Russell Blaylock, Andy Wakefield, David Ayoub, … Anti- vaxers? Nope. Pro- science; not the usual take-out order-to-go variety, but classic legit unaffiliated third party science.

Look at the hundreds of scientific references cited in the various editions of Vaccination Is Not Immunization in the past 15 years. Add to them the references cited by Wakefield and now Bobby Kennedy Jr.

Pile them high, from floor to ceiling. What good does it do to go deeper and deeper down the scientific rabbit hole? All the evidence is there in abundance, debunking the vaccine mythology, for anyone to look at. It has been there all along, even before we started compiling it.

So what? Who will look at it? This is their own science, which they pretend does not exist. Which most of them refuse to read.

Vaccine orthodoxy has not advanced to the stranglehold position it now holds by open and transparent submission of provable independent clinical studies that follow the scientific method. Just the opposite, in fact: their strength lies in covering up legitimate science and replacing it with rhetoric, simplistic op ed media, and a few sham studies.

These soundbytes are what everyday press, and particularly the California legislature, cites and relies on. Much easier to offer excuses for not doing the essential research than actually doing the work.

In the end, what the Vaccine Commission finally would promise is transparency. For the first time, let’s bring it all to light. Instead of the constant mantra of medicine about how the science is clear, etc, science which they refuse ever to cite. OK here’s their opportunity. Cite, it.

Even Bobby is eloquently citing science that focuses on the lack of science, [watch this video] putting it all together in a most impassioned, compelling body of evidence – but who’s watching it? This video is effectively banned from mainstream press, popular only among social media and secondary sites, like thedoctorwithin, etc…

Is the Vaccine Commission going to be just another well-intentioned, first 100 Days myth, an empty promise to save us from the various self-destructive paths that past administrations have left us walking down?

And that’s why medicine is frightened to death. Because now the world will know– anyone who takes the time to read can see – not only did they miss this opportunity to present legitimate vaccine science – they spent all their efforts making sure such a Vaccine Commission would never be created.

But since that first announcement, what word has there been about progress towards the actual formation of this Vaccine Commission?

Tell me. I’ll settle for a hint of optimism.


The Magic Bean

January 5th, 2017


    – Tim O’Shea

In This Chapter:

    Not a complete protein
    Not a natural food
    Many contaminants
    Extreme processing
    Soy protein isolate
    Genetic modification: DNA roulette
    No soy for infants
    RoundUp and the international herbicide market
    Europe’s stance on genetic engineering
    The end of biodiversity
    What the real experts say
    Who really runs the FDA and EPA

Conventional Wisdom – what everybody thinks. In today’s world of controlled information, people think what they’re told to think – over and over and over and over. Mass opinion on most topics is a commodity that is bought and paid for. We don’t even know that we don’t know.

Abstract? OK. Soy. Conventional wisdom says that soy is a natural protein substitute which can supply our complete protein requirements without the nasty drawbacks of contaminated, high food chain, cholesterol-laden animal protein. Championed by vegetarians, sanctified by Orientals, venerated by health food stores, spotlighted by Madison Avenue with a hint of New Age, soy now rules as the “perfect protein.”

Same with margarine. We’re programmed to think of cholesterol as bad and the cause of heart disease, etc., so that we’re afraid to eat butter. Then we’re programmed to see margarine as our savior because it’s made from “pure cholesterol-free vegetable oil,” the vegetable being soybeans. OK, great. And then we have millions of pounds of soybean oil separated from the bean, which leaves as a by-product a mountain of what? Right – soy protein. Now, instead of throwing it out or just feeding it to the pigs, Madison Avenue steps in. What if we could program people to think that this artificial food was actually a complete food in itself, and even better, make them think it was a superior form of natural, complete protein? Wow!

And that’s just what happened. The ads were everywhere:

    “No Saturated Fat or Cholesterol!”
    “Eat Better – Live Better”
    “Great-tasting meatless alternative”

Not just dairy products, like soy milk, soy butter, soy cheese. No, now we have soy yoghurt, soy ice cream, soy flour, soy baby formula, soy sloppy joes, soy tacos, soy chili, soy cereals, soy falafel, soyburgers, etc. ( What’s next? Soy Pepsi?

Hopping on the flailing Vegetarian bandwagon, soy is hawked as a complete meat substitute, as well as a dairy substitute. This is a marketing masterpiece. Who do you think is directing the show? Nutritionists? Dieticians? Doctors? Try MBAs and CEOs of the world’s top chemical cartels, together with the country’s top ad and marketing people. What do you think their focus is? Your health? Your child’s well-being? Will they blatantly deceive you, compromise your children’s heath, whip up endless “scientific” reports from their junk science research masters, pervade the popular press with unsupportable claims about soy’s health value and tasty ‘healthful’ recipes? Well, ask yourself – did they go to business school to learn how to improve our nation’s health?

Doesn’t it seem odd how we all became so wise about soy in just a few years? Subconsciously we congratulate ourselves on having the wit to have discovered this perfect food that was right under our noses the whole time.

That’s not even mentioning Genetically Modified hydrogenated soybean oil, now present in over 60% of food items on the shelves of American supermarkets. It’s the main ingredient in most commercial pies, cakes, ice cream, chocolate candy, donuts, pastries, cookies, salad dressings and a hidden ingredient in practically everything else. How did all this happen in just a few years, and how come most of us don’t know a thing about it?


Let’s back up a little. The slightest bit of collateral research shows that the prom queen is pregnant. Even at the outset, there are a lot of problems with soy:

    Soy is not a complete protein
    Soy is not a natural food
    Soy has many contaminants
    Soy is among the most processed of commercial foods
    Most US soybeans are genetically modified

Let’s just look at these simple points one at a time.


What does that mean? Why is it an issue?

Most of us know that humans require food in 3 main forms: fats, protein, and carbohydrates. Because that’s what our bodies are made of. And we also know that humans require certain forms of these three substances. Snake venom is loaded with protein, for example. So is sewage, and so is your desk. The idea is that humans require a certain type of protein for survival. And that type is described as complete protein.

What are proteins made of? Right, amino acids. Complete proteins are those that can supply the essential amino acids necessary for building and maintaining human cells. In this context, essential means those we must get from our diet. So if a given protein can be broken down into the 10 essential amino acids that we must get from our diet, it’s a keeper. ([1]Erasmus, p. 82)

All cultures have combinations of food staples that yield complete protein: beans and rice, beans and corn, beans and wheat, etc. The point is, no bean is a complete protein because beans lack two of the most important essential amino acids – cysteine and methionine – the only ones that contain sulfur. (Erasmus) Corn and rice supply these two. But a diet in which beans are the only protein source causes an abundance of health problems from the ensuing protein deficiency.

In his classic work, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Weston Price proved 80 years ago that raw dairy can well provide the complete protein requirements for human nutrition. He traveled around the world studying culture after culture, looking for the perfect diets. In isolated villages of the Swiss Alps, Price found the healthiest people in Europe – those with the finest physiques and least incidence of degenerative disease. Their total diet: raw dairy and rye cakes. That’s it.

Raw milk is not only a complete protein – it also provides fat soluble vitamins A and D in their most perfect form. So these Swiss were getting their total requirements of essential amino acids from this complete protein source, as well as their fat soluble vitamins. They had no tooth decay, cancer, arthritis, or diabetes.

None of this applies, of course, when pasteurized milk took over. Just the opposite, in fact. As we saw in the Enzymes chapter ( when enzymes are artificially removed from milk by pasteurization, the result is a non-food. Dairy products then become indigestible foreign proteins, sensitizing allergens, and the cause of chronic arthritis, osteoporosis, colitis, arteriosclerosis, heart disease, and asthma. And this is why milk is no longer a complete protein and is just another junkfood. ([33, 10, 34, 35] Robbins, Twogood, Douglas, McDougall)

At least with milk, the original substance before processing was a complete protein. With soy, it was not.


Soybeans are not like other beans, like lima beans and pinto beans, that people can just cook and eat.

In ancient times, soy was used only in crop rotation as a nitrogen fixer. That means that certain bacteria on the rootlets of the soybean plant are able to restore nitrogen to the soil. Soy was planted in fields in alternating seasons for this purpose, because most crops use up the nitrogen in the soil during their growing season. Nitrogen depletion = soil depletion. Originally soy wasn’t a food crop itself. This was before Baron von Leibig [13] came up with the idea of adding NPK (Nitrogen- Phosphorus-Potassium) to the soil instead of rotating the crops. (See Minerals)

After the harvest, the soybeans were then fed to the domestic animals, or else just turned under for the next crop.

Later, people found that if soybeans were fermented for awhile, they were humanly digestible. Examples are tempeh, miso soup, and soy sauce. Later still, the farmers learned that if the soybeans were precipitated into curd form, the result was edible as tofu. The point is, soybeans alone are not a natural food. Unlike other vegetables, soybeans take a lot of time and changing in order to be digestible at all by humans. It is only through mass advertising and marketing that we have forgotten that before modern processing methods, soybeans were never a staple food.

The main reason for this is that soybeans contain so


First off, soybeans contain high amounts of enzyme inhibitors, particularly blocking trypsin and other human digestive enzymes. (Erasmus) We saw the importance of digestive enzymes in the Enzymes chapter. These enzyme inhibitors are not removed by cooking. They interfere not only with their own digestion, but with digestion of other foods in the tract that happen to be present. How can a food that blocks digestion be beneficial?

The second main contaminant is soy’s extremely high content of phytic acid. Present to some degree in all types of beans, phytic acid blocks mineral uptake — iron, magnesium, calcium, and especially zinc. These minerals are necessary for dozens of cell life functions, and deficiencies of any of them can cause several diseases (See Minerals – ) Soybeans have the highest levels of phytic acid of any legume, and as such have an extraordinary ability to cause mineral deficiencies. (Leviton) For this reason, even the high temperature cooking that is the first step in soybean processing does not completely remove the phytic acids from soybeans. (Finucan)[2]

Researchers have known for years that phytic acid blocks mineral absorption. (Keen)[3] This is especially bad news for infants, because soy chelates all zinc from the baby’s system. Zinc controls iron uptake. Without it, abnormally high iron levels are allowed. Excess iron harms the liver.

Zinc is also critical for growth and brain and nervous system development, as well as protein digestion. (Guyton, p 900)[5]. Neurological development retardation is exemplified today in the unprecedented rise of learning disabilities, attention deficit, Guillain Barre, and autism. (

Zinc is also necessary for normal insulin function and for immune system development. These are just some of the reason why no baby should be given refined soy as soy milk. Nor should an adult who doesn’t want zinc deficiency, which in the US runs as high as 60%. (Erasmus, p 75)[1]

Even the American Academy of Pediatrics admits that early exposure to soy through commercial infant formulas may be a leading cause of allergies among older children and adults. (Finucan)[2] So if your baby has any allergies or asthma whatsoever, soy is the last thing you want to use as formula.

Difficulties in the chemistry encountered in attempting to remove the phytic acid is the main reason why the processing of soybeans is so harsh, as we will see. Enough phytic acid remains in the final soy products to cause mineral deficiencies.

A less commonly known contaminant of soy is hemaglutin –a clot-causing agent (Finucan)[2] As the red cells are made to clump together, the oxygen supply to the entire body is thus diminished. Such circulatory disruption is hardly an attribute of a perfect food. The dangers of soy in the diet of those who already have a history of heart problems should thus be apparent. High temperature cooking during soybean processing does not remove hemaglutin from soybeans.

Fallon also points out that soy has an aluminum content 10x higher than pasteurized milk. An established cause of Alzheimer’s in adults, aluminum damages the newly forming kidneys of an infant when they drink soy ‘formula.’ ( p 4) Worse yet, aluminum directly damages the infant brain, because the blood brain barrier has not formed yet. (Blaylock)[28] Aluminum content is increased even more if the product has been hydrogenated, like it usually is. (See below.)

Finally, a by-product of one of the steps in soybean processing –alkaline soaking – is a known carcinogen: lysinealine. (Finucan)[2]

Some ‘perfect food.’ Maybe there’s a reason nature didn’t intend this food for humans.


Finucan illustrates the paradox that the same processes used to render soy edible are the very processes which render soy inedible.

Soybeans are processed into oil, protein isolate, and protein concentrate. Extreme methods are employed because of the necessity for trying to get rid of the phytic acid and enzyme inhibitors. Unfortunately, all the enzymes, minerals, fiber, vitamins, and nutrients are also lost along the way. At each step towards the end products of soybean oil or soy protein, more of these natural nutrients are lost. The end products – commercial soybean oil and soy protein isolate – are totally artificial, devitalized commercial foods.

An excellent chart of the steps involved in oil processing is found on p.94 of Fats That Heal.[1] The following few paragraphs summarize those steps.


The first of these methods is high temperature cooking. The purpose is to try and get rid of some of the phytic acid. As we know, high temperatures above 118°F denature the natural enzymes of the bean. (Howell)[14] Soybeans are first heated to temperatures up to 248° F! (Erasmus, p 95)[1] Without enzymes, any plant becomes a devitalized food, very difficult to digest in the human tract. In addition to interfering with breakdown of the food, enzyme depletion also interferes with mineral absorption as well as vitamin activity.

Remember that enzymes, vitamins, and minerals are three legs of the tripod of metabolic activity. That means cell and tissue function. Take away any one and the other two are stumped. Mineral activity was already a problem with soy, because of the phytic acid. Superheating and enzyme loss compound this deficiency.

In addition, a constant problem with oil processing is rancidity, which means oxidizing when exposed to air and light. Oxidation produces the dread trans-fatty acids and a boatload of free radicals. There are two chemical terms: cis and trans, used to describe the shape of a fatty acid. Humans require natural fatty acids, which are in the cis form. Processing changes the cis forms to the unnatural trans configuration.

Trans fatty acids are manmade – something nature would never have dreamed up. Trans fatty acids cannot be broken down by human fat enzymes. They cool down to hard fat, just like bacon grease in that unwashed skillet left in the sink overnight. Imagine the implications in the arteries and in the intestines, to be eating foods that can’t be broken down. Erasmus explains how superheated oils are 100x more reactive to oxygen (p. 95), thus becoming a potent vehicle for free radical introduction into the consumer’s body. We have seen how free radicals are the direct cause of aging, heart disease, and cancer. That’s why products containing trans fatty acids are actually illegal in Holland.

After the cooking, one of two paths is chosen for removing oil: pressing or solvent extraction.


After cooking, the beans may be extruded through a press for maximum oil extraction. Shallow conventional wisdom says that as long as the oil is cold-pressed, everything is fine. This idea is false, as we shall see.

Erasmus explains why the term cold-pressed is meaningless. People think that cold-pressed insures that the nutrients will remain in the oil because heat wasn’t involved in the processing. The first problem is that what they don’t tell you is that the beans were already cooked at these superhigh temperatures before being put into the press. As long as no heat is added in the actual press, they can call it cold-pressed.

Huge oxidation already took place at the cooking step. Much worse than the heat, the main problem however is the free radical production from exposure to light and air during the pressing process. This is where rancidity and trans fatty acids come in. To have a true unrefined wholesome food-grade oil, it is critical that air and light be meticulously excluded throughout the pressing step. The oil must then be put immediately into amber bottles. A very small percentage of soybean oil is processed in this way.

Unrefined oils of any kind must come in amber or opaque bottles.

    Solvent extraction

Besides pressing, an easier but more toxic method of oil extraction is the use of solvents. Several are used in the soybean oil processing.

The first solvent used on soybeans is an alkaline solution which will attempt to get rid of the trypsin inhibitors. (Fallon, p 3) Even though the solution is thoroughly rinsed out of the beans, a carcinogenic by-product results from the interaction of the soybeans with the alkaline soak: lysinealine, as we saw above.

Next, for oil to be extracted, an organic solvent – hexane is the standard chemical employed. (1997 Soy Stats)[4] Like gasoline, hexane is a petroleum distillate! (Dorland’s p322) Temperatures of up to 149°F are applied. In the rinsing process, traces of this carcinogenic solvent are left behind in the finished products, both in the oil and in the protein isolate.


The next step in the refining process is the removal of residual fiber, or gum, from the oil. Water, phosphoric acid, and heat (up to 140°F) are used. This is the same step in which lecithin is separated from the oil. The problem is that valuable trace minerals like calcium, copper, magnesium, and iron, as well as chlorophyll are all removed at this step. (Erasmus p96)[1]

Lecithin is a common ingredient in foods and supplements. The majority of it is derived from soybeans during this step. Note all the preceding steps – some health supplement.


This one I didn’t believe, but it’s true. The next step is that the refined oil is mixed with sodium hydroxide – NaOH – which most of us know as Drano, at a temperature of 167° F. That’s right – the exact same corrosive lye you pour down your drain when it’s clogged. (Erasmus, p 96) The purpose of adding this corrosive is to remove any free fatty acids which may be ‘contaminating’ the ‘pure’ refined oil. Anyone for a Dranoburger?


By this stage the oil still retains some pigments, giving it a reddish brown appearance. Since that’s not the desired ‘pure’ look that customers have been trained to expect, clay is added, heated to 230° F, then filtered out. This high heat again causes the formation of the toxic free radicals, called peroxides. In the presence of air or light, their formation is increased geometrically.


Next the oil is steam-distilled at 518°F for 30 minutes, to destroy any natural aromatics from the dead, refined oil. Note the incredibly high temperature. At 302°F trans fatty acids begin forming. These weird, manmade molecules are mutagenic to human DNA – they can alter human DNA. Trans fatty acids exist nowhere else in nature – man has created them. As the temperature is raised higher, trans fatty acid production increases geometrically.

After deodorizing, the oil is absolutely tasteless, and cannot be distinguished from any other processed seed oil. The oil is now devoid of any vitamin, mineral, enzyme or nutrient content whatsoever. And even though it has undergone extreme high temperatures at several steps, as long as no external heat was added during the pressing step, the oil can still be sold as “cold-pressed”!

Sometimes mixtures of pressed oil and solvent-extracted oil are sold as “unrefined” oil. These types of labels are simply unregulated. (Erasmus)[1]

Reviewing this summary of processing steps, it is a wonder that processed soybean oil is allowed to be sold at all or to be made into margarine and cooking oil, let alone for claims to be made about its nutritional superiority. But this is still not the worst of it. The real bad news is


As if no further biological indignity could be levied against the already lifeless processed oil, way back in the 1930s, the boys at Dupont figured out a way to harden the oil into a perfectly engineered non-food: margarine. Their only two criteria: spreadability and shelflife.

At least 80% of margarine made in the US comes from refined soybean oil. (Erasmus). Scientists found out that if they subjected the refined oil to yet another round of infernal temperatures – up to 410°F – and forced hydrogen gas in the presence of a metallic catalyst through the oil for five or six hours, the result was a substance possessing the desired spreadability, as well as a shelflife that can be described as ‘From Now On.’

That’s what hydrogenated means.

Margarine is another quantum level removed from anything resembling human food, and actually is closer to the category of plastics. Since all the Essential Fatty Acids (usable fats) have been destroyed, and all the enzymes are long gone, there is nothing left to ‘go bad’ – it can’t spoil.

Guess what their favorite metal catalyst contains. Right – it’s usually 50% aluminum. Neurological disorders, Alzheimer’s, cancer…

There are two types of hydrogenation:


With partial hydrogenation, weird unpredictable ‘intermediate compounds’ are formed from the surviving fatty acids. These include the mutagenic (gene-altering) trans fatty acids. But scientists themselves don’t even know what kinds of molecules are being created by the hydrogenation of fatty acids. They vary completely from batch to batch, and with different temperatures and catalysts. These molecules should be thought of as random toxic additives.

The only reason hydrogenation is legal is that it has been around for so long. When it was invented, the effects weren’t well understood. Now decades later, with billions in lobbying money in place, a few details like cancer and Alzheimers aren’t going to get in the way. Who controls which ‘scientists’ get published?

The commercial value of partial hydrogenation is that the density of the desired final product can be precisely controlled: semi-liquid, margarine, shortening, hard (for chocolate), or anything in between.

Here’s a good way to think of hydrogenation. In the old days of potato chips, if you left the bag open all night, next day the chips would be limp and soggy. Today we have potato chips that are crispy to perfection. You can leave them out on the counter for days and they’ll still be perfectly crisp. Sealed potato chips in those round, perfectly stacked tubes will last a year or more! This phenomenon has nothing to do with food or nutrition. It is a masterful feat of plastics engineering. The potato chip has been completely soaked in hydrogenated oil, protected from the external environment – kind of like dry mounting a photograph, or polymerizing a marlin you’re going to hang over the fireplace. Once inside the stomach, the chips continue to do what they were designed to do: resist breakdown. The food value for humans is in the negative.

And pasta. In the body, hydrogenated foods contribute to

    tissue breakdown
    digestive disease
    clogged arteries
    neurological diseases

The fiction that hydrogenated margarine is superior to butter can be seen for what it is: marketing hype – Madison Avenue on Ecstasy. And the reason is what – no cholesterol? Please! Of course margarine contains no cholesterol – it’s closer to a plastic than to a food. That’s why soybean oil is also used as the base for paint, varnish, and linoleum! (Bernard) [9]

Without artificial flavoring, margarine would taste like a formica desktop.

Start looking at labels. You’ll see why they’re printed in micro-fonts. When you see the word ‘hydrogenated’ think plastic. When you see the words “partially-hydrogenated” think plastic and free radicals.

It’s not only margarine, salad oil, and cooking oil. Hydrogenated oil is a mega industry. What is the #1 oil in the food industry? Soybean oil! Soybeans account for 82 percent of the edible consumption of fats and oils in the United States Some 6 million tons of soybean oil are produced every year. . (Soybeans Stats Reference Guide) And 60% of all foods on the shelves of America’s supermarkets contain soy in some form or other. (Wolfson)[2]


The phenomenon surrounding the soy protein fad is more recent. With 10 million tons of soybeans being made into oil every year, [36] there was a lot of product waste. After the oil was removed, what was the waste made of? What was left? Protein. So again, who is trained to see an angle in every situation – Madison Avenue. Advertising steps in and sets it up: what are two things that Americans are obsessed with? Obesity and cholesterol.

The latest fad in weight loss is the high protein diet. Skip all those nasty carbs and fats – just eat meat and fish. Then watch the poundage melt away. But wait! What about all that cholesterol? Oh yeah, that’s bad for the heart, isn’t it? Hey, isn’t that soy stuff supposed to be the best healthy protein for you these days? Yeah, think I’ll try those soyburgers – get all my protein requirements with none of the cholesterol downside.

This thought conditioning didn’t just happen. It’s been coming on for years, with persistence and saturation. It costs millions, and we can see it every day: in newspapers, magazines, TV, in supermarkets, on the internet, in junk science articles – anywhere there’s advertising.

A few problems right off the bat. Soy protein is a by-product of oil processing. Originally it was either thrown out or used as animal feed. Fact is, soy protein has already been through all the oil processing steps before beginning the additional processing for protein. That means we’re starting with a dead substance.

A summary of how protein is derived from soybeans can be found at [12] Here’s an excerpt:

Soy Protein Isolates

    “Isolates are the most highly refined soy protein products commercially available. They represent the major proteinaceous fraction of the soybean. Soy isolates are prepared from dehulled and defatted soybeans by removing most of the non-protein components as summarized in the accompanying chart.
    . ..The protein is extracted from defatted soybean flakes with water or mild alkali in a pH range of 8 to 9 followed by centrifuging to remove insoluble fibrous residue; adjusting resulting extract to pH 4.5 where most of the protein precipitates as a curd; separating curd by centrifugation from the soluble oligosaccharides, followed by multiple washings, and then spray-drying to yield an ‘isoelectric’ isolate.”

Like with most grains, the majority of vitamins and minerals are in the hulls. De-hulled and de-fatted. This simply means that after all the fats have been burned away by heat and solvents, the carbohydrates are soaked and spun out of the remaining residue. What’s left over is technically protein, but again protein which has no remaining food value. The con here is it’s protein derived from a bean, so therefore it must be natural. But three big problems persist:

    1. As we have seen, this particular bean has some properties which do not make it suitable for human nutrition.
    2. And we also remember that no beans contain complete protein
    3. And this protein is already the by-product of some of the harshest most life-destroying food processes ever devised, containing no surviving nutrients

Soy protein isolate is big business. One of the biggest producers of soy protein is Protein Technologies International of St. Louis, a DuPont subsidiary. (Finucan)[2] We must appreciate the brilliance of taking a waste product from an already extremely processed food source and getting the majority of the population to think of this dead by-product as a food staple.

In general, the vast majority of soy products today are examples of a super-refined artificial food, devitalized, and devoid of nutritional value. It is a true food of commerce, as Royal Lee would have said.


Why doesn’t anyone know about all this? How can we go from a perfect food to a non-food and have 99% of the population know nothing about it? When this familiar scenario appears, it always means one thing: time to follow the money.

In that regard, here’s some interesting statistics:

Today, the soybean is America’s third largest crop (harvesting 58 million acres in 1998), supplying more than 60 percent of the world’s soybean demand. (Soy Stats Reference Guide 1999, Bernard)

US Soybean production – 2016 – over 4 billion bushels [37]

US soybean oil production is now over 10 million tons. [36]

US Soybean Crop Value

$ 3.56 billion

1998 $17.3 billion

– source: 1999 Soy Stats Reference Guide

By 2000, crop value is close to $20 billion per year. Keep in mind, this figure does not take into account the retail market of the dozens of finished soy food products sold in supermarkets. That total probably approaches $100 billion. But it’s not just the soyburgers and margarine and cooking oil and soy milk. We often get a


Now present in 60% of America’s foods, soy turns up in a lot of places where it’s not even listed as soy. Names like
“vegetable flavoring”
“natural flavoring”
“vegetable shortening”
“hydrolyzed protein”
“textured vegetable protein”

are all that is required by the FDA. Generally these terms indicate that the product contains hydrogenated soybean oil, probably from GM plants.

Wait, there’s more! Just when you think the picture couldn’t possibly get any worse, we descend to a new rock level of political and economic depravity: genetic modification. More than 58 million acres in the US are now planted with GM crops. (Teitel, p 17) In 1996, the figure was only 6 million! Most, if not all soybeans now produced in this country have been genetically modified. (Lappe)

Also called biotech, agritech, transgenics, genetic engineering, and agriscience, this topic is undergoing the usual media whitewash. It’s one of those subjects everyone thinks he knows about when it’s brought up – the popular press rarely feels the need to explain the term. In actuality, very little is commonly known about the specifics of this horror unleashed.

Exactly what is genetic engineering?

“Genetic engineering is the process of modifying cell information, particularly by artificially transferring the genes of one organism into another. While traditional breeding techniques can exchange genes between similar species, genetic engineering allows the insertion of genes from any plant or animal into any other organism. “

– R. Wolfson, PhD

From any plant or animal into any other organism. Bacteria into tomatoes. Virus into soybeans. Scorpion into virus. Iguana into an oak tree. It’s all doable. But what would be the advantages? Why would the agribusiness giants go to all this trouble?

Many reasons, all of them ultimately economic, most having to do with selling herbicides. [From here on out ‘GM’ will indicate genetically modified.] A GM tomato – New Leaf – has been engineered to splice a gene into its DNA from a bacterium, in order to produce a plant that is its own pesticide. (Pollan) A bug takes a bite of the plant and drops dead. Farming efficiency – no pesticides. Is it safe for humans? Who knows? It was never tested before being marketed. And when distrustful American consumers rejected the New Leaf tomato causing it to be pulled off the market, Monsanto just changed its name to McGregor and reintroduced it the following year. Only this time they were smarter: this time there was no GM label. (Lappe, p. 117)

Many other crops, like soybeans, have had a gene inserted that makes them resistant to herbicides. (Wolfson) In this way, they can withstand more herbicides being sprayed around them to kill weeds and other plants. Nice clean fields, with only soybeans. Farming efficiency – less weeding. But isn’t there a toxic buildup of herbicides within the GM soybean plant itself, known as bioaccumulation? Or increased pollution of soil and water? How about unpredictable effects in the soybean DNA? Of course, but these aren’t the scientists’ problem.


Don’t be so impressed: genetic engineering is really not that scientific, as true scientists will tell you. Beginning to study GM, one is struck by the inexactness of the “science.”

The isolated gene is shot or inserted into the host DNA completely at random – they have no idea where the novel gene will end up in the gene sequence. This also means that the “engineers” don’t know how the new gene will be expressed – what it will do. That why it takes thousands of tries before they get a plant with the desired trait.

Once a plant has the desired trait, it’s a keeper. Its seeds are replanted and saved, and often even marketed after one single generation. Such a method ignores the entire principle of the recessive gene – some traits aren’t expressed right away – they may be latent for a dozen generations. And those traits may be harmful to humans.


With soybeans, the GM version is called Roundup Ready soybeans. RoundUp is one of the most powerful herbicides ever invented. Roundup Ready soybeans have been genetically modified so that they can take up to 10 times the amount of RoundUp as natural soybeans can. The idea is that the herbicide will kill the surrounding weeds but not the soybeans. Everyone seems to ignore the fact that the soybeans are assimilating 10x more herbicide than before.

The other main thing that nobody seems to know is that after just a few short years, by 2000, almost all commercial soybeans grown in the US were GM! (Lappe, p 58) [31]Today it’s 100%.

It’s all economics: the inventor of RoundUp Ready soybeans is the same as the inventor of RoundUp: Monsanto. Monsanto owns the patent on the GM soybean as well as the patent on the herbicide. (Benbrook) Monsanto sells over $2 billion of RoundUp each year. (Teitel, p. 77)[30]

You probably missed that, so here it is again. Monsanto owns the patent on a GM soybean called RoundUpReady. Owning the patent means that the farmers can’t save the seeds each season for the next planting, the way they’ve been doing for the past 10,000 years. Nor can they exchange seeds with their neighbors. Instead, they have to buy new seeds each year from Monsanto, which cost 3x as much as normal soybean seed. And the reason the farmers do this is so that they can save money on labor and herbicide – they only have to spray twice a year, because the herbicide RoundUp kills all the weeds but not the soybeans.

Are you following this? Monsanto owns patents on both the seed and the herbicide. They make money both ways, and they control the farmers’ future. Small farmers are being edged out – by 1998, 2.2% of America’s farms accounted for more than 40% of total farm income. (Lappe, p. 99)[31]

Are RoundUp Ready soybeans in any way better than natural? No. Actually they’re worse. All this talk about “feeding the world” is slick PR. Monsanto has never proven its claims of increased productivity. In fact most independent studies have shown that RoundUp Ready GM soybeans actually decrease productivity, acre for acre. (Against the Grain, p. 82) [31]

Funny thing that the only crops being developed by the biotech corporations to “end world hunger” are coincidentally those for which those companies already own the patents on the herbicides.

Another downer is that the original value of soybeans was as a nitrogen fixer in the soil, remember? RoundUp destroys this power.

An even worse problem is that RoundUp makes agricultural workers sick: it is now the third most common cause of illness in California agriculture workers. (Teitel p. 30) Nine verified deaths happened in Japan from accidental ingestion of RoundUp. (Lappe, p. 54) [31]

Another huge problem that is being ignored is herbicide drift. That means that nearby non-GM crops get contaminated or killed by RoundUp that the wind blew over to them. There are many unresolved lawsuits currently in the courts from affected farmers.

Like two thirds of all GM plants, soybeans have not been altered for any demonstrated nutritional reason whatsoever. (Against the Grain, p. 55) Despite the unsupported claims of increased productivity and nutrition, the reality is that GM is just a complex marketing tool to sell herbicides. The grand design for corporate dominance over entire crops is the reason why Dupont, Monsanto, and Dow are buying up the world’s biggest seed companies:

    Delta & Pineland
    Stoneville Pedigreed

Against the Grain, p 39 [31]

Whoever controls the seed controls the crop.


One reason that organizations like Greenpeace are opposed to GM farming is that it disrupts what is known as sustainable agriculture. There is an ecological continuity in agriculture from one year to the next, a dependence. So many factors in this year’s soybean crop affect next year’s. Any weaknesses – or strengths – will be felt next year.

With GM, when the inevitable failures become apparent down the road, the weaknesses may be profound enough to cause a gap in the yearly chain – no crops.

Even Monsanto knows that weeds will soon learn to be resistant to RoundUp. Probably within 10 years, it won’t work any more. By that time, however, most soybean farmers will be committed to Monsanto, having signed technology agreements. If farmers try to go back to planting nonGM soybeans, they will be years behind in catching up with natural evolution of the plants. The soil will be much weaker from having gone all those years without the classic soybean benefit of nitrogen fixing. It is likely that everyone will learn the meaning of short term thinking.

Using any single herbicide or pesticide year after year will encourage weeds and pests to become resistant, so it’s ultimately a self- defeating process. It’s great for the manufacturers of these poisons, however, because new ones are always waiting to be tried. But not only are we poisoning ourselves and our animals in the process; we are also destroying the natural flora (microorganisms) in the soil. Good soil must be living soil, full of microorganisms. Much of our soil is almost dead.

Herbicides and pesticides are themselves a disease. As their use grows, we lose a greater percentage of crops every year. How does that help world hunger?

“In the past 40 years, the percentage of annual crop loss to insects and disease has doubled.”
Lappe p. 102 [31]

During that same period, US pesticide use has gone from 200 million pounds in 1945 to over 2000 million pounds.

This whole GM business is about one thing: the sale of herbicides and pesticides. If the huge agritech companies were really interested in increasing world crop production, why have they spent no money experimenting with existing seeds banks to try to alter genetics in a natural way? All efforts are in the area of herbicide resistance.

The goal of GM is uniqueness: patentability. The developer wants to claim ownership of the new plants, the same way he owns the herbicide. And soon the farmer.


Taken together, the sale of soybeans, hydrogenated soybean oil, and retail sales of finished soy products, it’s a very big picture, now exceeding $100 billion per year. Remember, soy now appears in some form or other in 60% of the foods on the shelves in American supermarkets. (Gerson Newsletter, also Wolfson) [20]

This huge market orchestrates the enormous outflow of ‘information’ about soy that is visible in the popular press, advertising venues, and the Internet.

So then, who are the


The three biggest US companies involved in genetic engineering of soybeans are:

    Dow Chemical

– Teitel

Aren’t these the same gentlemen who brought us saccharin, aspartame, Agent Orange, dioxin, fluoridation, napalm, bovine growth hormone, RoundUp, Chlordane, and a host of carcinogenic industrial solvents including

    vinyl chloride

    – “Silicon to Soybeans,” p 26 [19]

So from the outset we can expect the highest in ethics and environmental consciousness, right?

Aside from the huge profits in retail sales of finished soy products, a separate fortune emerged with genetic modification: the Terminator plant. As we saw above, this new hybrid plant produces sterile seeds. With most crops, farmers collect the seeds, to be used for the next planting. But Terminator seeds don’t grow. Therefore the farmers are forced to go back to Monsanto every year to buy more seed, thus putting control of agribusiness in the hands of the GM giants. Farmers who can’t save seeds year after year, like they’ve been doing since the dawn of agriculture, can be made into compliant serf robots. (Teitel, p. 99) [30]

By the way, guess how the seeds get sterilized. They’re soaked in tetracycline, a powerful antibiotic. (GM Foods, p. 40)


Like Japan and most of Europe, many countries, are opposed to the sale of GM produce. England is a prime example:

    “Monsanto claims in its letter to me that there is no difference between
ordinary soya beans and what it calls round-up soya beans, and therefore
that they should not be segregated. I maintain that members of the public
who notice what is going on simply do not believe that, and will
increasingly demand to know what is in the food they eat – roundup or
otherwise… the Government and the EU should resist the power of the giant
food companies in the United States, which are effectively dictating what
we must eat, without giving any convincing estimates of the long-term
 – Colin Pickthall, Member of Parliament for West Lancashire, speaking in
    the House of Commons, 13th December 1996
Canadian Government report on toxic effects of BST [15]

Some of Europe’s reactions to GM:

    The Austrians are really against GM foods. Fully 20% of their population signed a petition, not just to label, but to ban GM foods from their country. Biggest petition in history.

    Denmark requires full labeling of all GM foods.

    Switzerland destroyed 500 tons of chocolate when they learned it contain GM soy lecithin.

    Luxembourg, Italy, and Austria have banned importation of GM corn.

    All GM foods sold in the European Union must be labeled.

    – Lappe, 121 [31]

The entire EU and India have now stopped allowing experimentation with GM foods in the field until more is know about long term effects of genetic manipulation. (Teitel p.72) [30] Japan also has strict labeling requirements for GM foods.

Even we normally complacent, sheeplike Americans were starting to speak up. 500,000 signatures were on a petition that was presented in Washington at a summit meeting in June 1999 on GM food demanding that Congress and the FDA now require labeling on GM foods. (Allen) [25]


Despite strict labeling requirements for GM foods in most other countries, especially in England and the EU, as well as all the worldwide opposition, at the present time the FDA requires no GM label either on produce or on finished retail products. Therefore American consumers have no idea if the foods they are buying at the supermarket contain GM soy. With heavy interconnections with the Big Three GM companies, both the FDA and the EPA are playing Spin the Bottle, each coming up with semantic technicalities about why it’s not their job to regulate or require reporting of GM ingredients.

Clinton’s FDA appointees had so many connections with Monsanto, before, during and after their FDA tenures, that the Toronto Globe went so far as to refer to Monsanto as a “retirement home for members of the Clinton Administration.” (Teitel, p 64) [30] With million-dollar positions waiting for them after they leave the FDA, the officers will not be disposed to bite the hand that feeds them, during their tenure.

Lobbying has scored big: the agri-tech corporations have even figured out how to get the government to pay for research on products which will then be patented by the corporations! For example, over $10.5 million in government grants per year are given to the biotech companies to develop herbicide resistant crops. (Against the Grain, p88) [31]

A huge problem with labeling is a legal twisting of the First Amendment by lawyers representing GM giants. First Amendment is supposed to be freedom of speech, right? Well, these EPA lawyers have taken the position that it violates free speech for an organic farmer to label his produce “non-GM,” the reason being that this may suggest that GM products are somehow inferior.

With no scientific data whatsoever, the FDA’s stated position is that GM foods and non-GM foods have an “equivalence.”(Lappe, p. 76) [31] And that’s their basis for denying American consumers the benefit of identifying labels.

When you consider the stringent labeling requirements now on all foods and packaged products of any kind, especially in California with Prop 65, it’s shocking to think that the consumer is not allowed to know whether a food is GM or not. That is a most fundamental item of information. This is the first time since the FDA required disclosure of food ingredients at all that the consumer is being kept in the dark on such a large scale. The fact that soon almost all food will contain GM components is not really an argument. We have a right to know what we’re eating. Deeper investigation into the subject of labeling is beyond the scope of this chapter.

Labeling has become an area of big politics and big deceptions, having as much to do with the prevention of consumer awareness as with adding to it.


Not yet, but almost. The US Dept. of Agriculture met in March 2000 to redefine the term organic. Despite huge lobbying efforts from the GM giants to allow GM foods to be included under the organic umbrella, it didn’t work. Not yet, anyway. At this time genetic modification still prevents a food from being labeled organic. But with the FDA’s current stance that GM and nonGM foods are “equivalent,” as well as the millions of lobbying dollars floating around Washington, the future does not look particularly bright for the nonGM status of organic foods.


Since 1987, the EPA and Congress both showed that they understood which side their bread was buttered on, in three separate acts:

    In 1987, immediately prior to RoundUp’s debut, without any study or proof whatsoever, the EPA arbitrarily raised the toxicity limits of RoundUp from 6 parts per million to 20 parts per million, simply because Monsanto requested it! (p.75, Against The Grain) [31]

    After repeated requests from Monsanto for “…exemption from further review or tracking” of RoundUp Ready soybeans, the EPA granted its approval! (p79) [31]

    – Buckling under industry pressure, Congress scrapped the proposals for creating a Biotechnology Commission, whose job would be monitoring long-term biological effects of GM foods (p 130)

At present, there is no tracking system or government agency in place to even study human toxicity from GM foods! We’re being forced to rely on the word of the manufacturers, who continue to insist that these foods are safe, even though no long term studies have ever been done

Another area in which lawmakers have quietly betrayed the people is the recent introduction of environmental audit privilege laws. In a show of astounding and blatant patronage, the FDA has granted the giant agritech corporations the right of self policing.

The way this fantasy works is that in exchange for keeping their toxicity research secret from the public, the company has to promise to conduct “self-inspections” and to voluntarily report any “alleged misconduct.” (Lappe. p. 74) [31] The honor system! Assigned to those companies who have demonstrated a century of systematic poisoning of the global environment.

At present, no matter how shaky the scientific basis for its safety, once a GM plant is released for full-scale commercialization, it is no longer subject to regulation!


Don’t fall for this one. We’ve all heard the claims about soy being great for women approaching menopause because it adds a safe level of “natural” estrogen, preventing osteoporosis, etc. Isoflavones – the supposed magic ingredient – you’ve seen the ads. All that is known for sure is that RoundUp raises the levels of isoflavones in the soybean. The advertisers have made the incredibly brash assumption that increase in phytoestrogens is desirable. For one thing, having come from a GM plant, isoflavones are definitely not natural. Moreover, the amount of increase may well be pathological – it’s never been studied. Infants have been shown to have their phytoestrogen levels raised from 13,000 to 22,00 times the normal blood levels of estrogen from taking soy! High levels of some estrogens can promote sex organ malformation, organic tumors, and menstrual disruption.

For a thorough summary of the HRT hoax, read the whole Hormones chapter.

The fact is, these possibilities have never been ruled out by scientific studies before promoting soy milk for infants. Or for menopausal women. It’s unsubstantiated marketing hype. The consumer is the experiment.

    “…we are eating our own genetic experiments.” – Against the Grain, p 148 [31]


If you’re giving your baby soy milk or soy products, except for advertising, where are your sources of information that soy is OK? Throughout this chapter several referenced sources have been cited that point our the following likely toxicities of soy products for infants:

    increase of blood estrogen levels to 22,000 times normal
    blocks absorption of zinc, which is necessary for brain formation
    introduces free radicals into system, which can retard any formative tissue
    blocks stomach enzymes, promoting chronic indigestion
    cannot itself be digested, promoting chronic indigestion and allergies
    lack of fat soluble vitamins available in unprocessed animal products
    high levels of aluminum, preventing normal brain and intestinal formation

Disagree? Cite your sources. Journal articles in slick Alternative Lite magazines don’t count. They tend to favor contributions from their own advertisers’ junk science writers.


By 1859, Charles Darwin had discovered the phenomenon of natural selection, outlined in his masterwork Origin of the Species. [8] Darwin showed how all species evolve through the centuries by minute little changes made in their physiology, which better adapt them to their environment. The ones who adapt best, survive. This has been nature’s design, from the beginning of life on earth. Much later, in the 1950s, this adaptation to surroundings was related to genetic structure, when Watson and Crick discovered the shape of DNA.

Now in the 21st century science has come up with a technology that can theoretically splice genes from any plant or animal into the DNA of any other plant or animal. Genetic changes that would have taken 10,000 generations, and many that would never have occurred at all – suddenly these artificial hybrids are brought into being, at random, practically overnight.

The huge difference with GM is that instead of evolution, we have this random game of genetic cut-and-paste. The technicians ram the selected gene into a random location within the host’s DNA, and then they see what happens. After thousands of times, one favorable plant may result, and that’s the keeper.

But the DNA is the genetic code – the blueprint for future generations. Many alterations don’t appear immediately. Those that do may also have other unpredictable effects on the offspring. Teitel talks about the GM salmon who were “engineered” to grow larger, which they did, but not without turning green. (p. 11) [30]

Another scary issue is the experimentation with virus and bacterial genes spliced into plants. We are introducing the possibility of creating superviruses and superbugs that have never existed before, some of which may be resistant to any known form of control.


Nature’s way is for any given crop to be as genetically diverse as possible. This will allow for survival of the species in the event of pests, toxins, or natural disasters like heatwaves, droughts, floods, and freezes. If all the plants are genetically identical, any stressor that can kill one of them can kill them all. This is the real danger with biotechnology that the big corporations are doing their best to keep from public awareness: genetic uniformity means the end of biodiversity. Biodiversity is the strength of the evolutionary process that has allowed all life forms to develop to their current versions.

In 1845, two million Irish died from starvation in the Great Potato Famine. The reason: there were only two genotypes of potatoes in all of Europe, and both were susceptible to the same blight. That was a lesson in biodiversity. ([31], p99)

Lesson # 666: Mother Nature Bats Last. Repeat until learned.


Many of the world’s highest ranking biologists, like Harvard’s George Wald, see the connection between Darwin and GM:

    “Recombinant DNA technology [genetic engineering] faces our society with 
problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on Earth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living 
organisms, the products of some three billion years of evolution…

    Such intervention must not be confused with previous intrusions upon the
 natural order of living organisms; animal and plant breeding, for example; 
or the artificial induction of mutations, as with X-rays. All such earlier 
procedures worked within single or closely related species. The hub of the 
new technology is to move genes back and forth, not only across species 
lines, but across any boundaries that now divide living organisms.

results will be essentially new organisms. Self-perpetuating and 
permanent. Once created, they cannot be recalled. 

Up to now living organisms have evolved very slowly, and new forms have had 
plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will be transposed
 overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can 
foretell, either for the host organism or their neighbors.

    So this, the central problem, remains almost 
unconsidered. It presents probably the largest ethical problem that science 
has ever had to face. Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without
 restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was 
not part of the bargain. … going ahead in this direction may be not only 
unwise but dangerous. … it could breed new animal and plant 
diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics.”

    Dr. George Wald, professor emeritus from Harvard, Nobel laureate

Once created, they cannot be recalled. That’s just great. Genetically modified crops spread their assault on nature in a totally unpredictable manner. With today’s 440 million acres of GM plants, by 2015 [38] consider the effect of cross-pollination alone, just from bees flying between GM and non-GM crops.

The father of molecular biology, Erwin Chargoff refers to genetic modification as a “molecular Auschwitz.” He see GM of life as a bigger threat to human survival than nuclear war.

“I have the feeling that science has transgressed a barrier that should have
remained inviolate… you cannot recall a new form of life…It will survive you and your children and your children’s children. An irreversible attack on the biosphere is something so unheard of, so unthinkable to previous generations, that I could only wish that mine had not been guilty of it.” – Heraclitean Fire [23]
Guess Dr.Chargoff won’t be invited on any Monsanto junkets to Cabo any time soon soon.

There is a long list of quotes from world class scientists on the dangers of GM, available at

We have seen how genetic engineering was responsible for bringing AIDS to the world (Horowitz, [27]) Many scientists, like Dr. Joseph Cummings foresee the creation of new diseases as a result of GM of plants:

    “Probably the greatest threat from genetically altered crops is the
insertion of modified virus and insect virus genes into crops. It has been
shown in the laboratory that genetic recombination will create highly
 virulent new viruses from such constructions. Certainly the widely used
cauliflower mosaic virus is a potentially dangerous gene… it multiplies by making DNA from RNA messages. It is very similar to the Hepatitis B virus
    and related to HIV.”
 – Cummins[26]

Most soybeans are GM. Is this really the kind of food you want to put into your baby’s formula as a replacement for mother’s milk?


Way back in the 70s, Charleton Heston made a science fiction movie called Soylent Green. The story was set in the apocalyptic future, with a totalitarian Big Brother government, similar to the one in The Matrix. In Soylent Green, fruit and vegetable crops, as well as meat and dairy, are things of the distant past. Food is totally controlled and provided by the government – everyone eats these green biscuits called soylent green, which are supposed to be complete nutrition sources. The movie uncovers the typical operations of a sinister government which has succeeded in controlling all aspects of human life. Then at the end, the shocker is when Charleton finds out that soylent green is actually made from people!

The similarities of this movie to our present situation are remarkable indeed, considering that it was made almost 40 years ago. The fact that the biscuits were soy-based was prescient, considering what we now know from the above chapter about the widespread presence of soy in our processed foods.

Our food choices are increasingly being controlled and limited by the government, through agencies like the FDA and the EPA. It is no secret that the directors of these agencies have close ties to the giant food and chemical corporations. Legislation about the safety and content of our food is dictated not from the standpoint of health, but from a position of economics and control.

It’s not only that we’re losing control of our choices, but that through mass advertising the toxic realities of processed foods are being systematically hidden. Animal crackers are so cute, but they contain partially hydrogenated soybean oil, which is loaded with free radicals, and has no food value. It’s not really a conspiracy; it’s simply the nature of corporate control. Corporations have one fundamental purpose – to make money for their investors. The problem here is the written contract that we have with agencies of the government. Their stated purpose is to protect our health and well-being from rampant, wholesale exploitation from powerful special interest groups. Instead, the people in the regulating agencies have joined forces with the exploiters, for their mutual benefit.


Lappe has a partial list of verified products using genetically altered soybeans:

    Kraft salad dressings
    Nestle’s chocolate
    Parkay margarine
    Isomil and Prosobee infant formula
    Wesson oils
    McDonald’s French fries
    Pillsbury foods
    Similac infant formula

    p. 92, 119, 124 [31]

Today’s list would be much more extensive since by now the vast majority of soybeans grown in the US are genetically engineered. So if the label mentions soybeans, it’s probably GM.


Soy products are not substitutes for human protein requirements. Processed soy products are devitalized, enzymeless non-foods, devoid of nutrient content. Moreover, the aluminum, free radicals, and other contaminants make soy products toxic to human metabolism, giving them an overall negative nutrient value.

Armed with your new knowledge, the following experiment will blow you away. Go to your local supermarket with a magnifying glass, without being in a hurry. Start anywhere and just read all the fine print on food labels. Check out the frozen dessert section – you know, all those boxes with the beautiful pictures of homemade pies and cakes and turnovers. You’ll be amazed to see that hydrogenated soybean oil is not simply an ingredient in many of these desserts, but that it is the main ingredient.

Next try the salad dressing aisle. Start with the creamies – bleu cheese, Ranch, etc. Partially hydrogenated soybean oil – the main ingredient. Next go to the commercial bread and pastries section. Most breads have the ingredients printed in orange microfonts so that you can’t make them out with the bread as the background. This is no accident. Here you’ll see not only a ton of hydrogenated soybean oil – you’ll also see beaucoup high fructose corn syrup – another neurotoxic non-food. ( See SUGAR – -The Sweet Thief of Life)

Next try the soup section – read every word. Now try all your favorite cereals. With the exception of shredded wheat, these famous cereals you grew up with are just vehicles for more hydrogenated soybean oil. Then cruise on over to the pasta section. Don’t forget the commercial cookies section – whatever’s wrapped in cellophane. Read the labels. Soon it will dawn on you, like it dawned on Charleton Heston – we are becoming partially hydrogenated soybean oil!

From your surveillance post on a bench in any mall concourse in the US, watch the gender-nonspecific soybean units trudge by.

What can we do? Stay informed. Follow the sources in the Reference list below. Make choices for our children that are not determined by ads we saw on TV, or read in some junk science flyer that came in the mail.

And try to keep ourselves and our children away from the 60% of the foods on our shelves that contain processed soy products.

Now you’re ready for the sequel to this chapter: GM Foods: A Short Introduction.


1. Erasmus, U Fats That Heal, Fats That Kill Alive 1993.
2. Finucan, B Gerson Healing Newsletter Part I 1999
3. Keen, CL Studies of marginal zinc deprivation in rhesus monkeys. Am J Clin Nutr 1988 Jun;47(6):1041-5
4. Soy Statistics Reference Guide, 1997
5. Guyton, A, MD Textbook of Medical Physiology Ninth edition Saunders 1996.
6. Leviton, R Tofu, Tempeh, Miso, and Other Soyfoods p.12 Keats Publishing, 1982.
7. Price, W DDS Nutrition and Physical Degeneration Keats 1939.
8. Darwin,C Origin of Species John Murray, Abermarle Street, London 1859.
9. Bernard, R PhD Soybean Microsoft Encarta online 2000.
10. Twogood, D No Milk Wilhelmina Press 1992.
11. Heated Battle Over GE Soybeans in Brazil The Guardian (UK) June 1999. http://www.pureecology/ge/
12. Soy Protein Council
13. Von Leibig, Baron Justus The Natural Laws of Husbandry

14.Howell, E, MD Enzyme Nutrition Avery 1985.

15.Pickthall, C Member of Parliament for West Lancashire, speaking in the House of Commons, 13th December 1996
16. Canadian Government report on toxic effects of BST
17. Mother Jones May 2000 inside back cover
18. Pollan, M Playing God in the Garden NY Times Sunday Magazine 25 Oct 98

19. Spicuzza, M Silicon to Soybeans Metro 11 May 00 p 21

20. Wolfson, R PhD Biotech Food – What’s on Our Shelves? Alive: Canadian Journal of Health and Nutrition Nov 1996.

21. RAFI Geno-Types Profile of the Gene Giants 7 Jan 2000

22. Benbrook, C Monsanto’s Big Lie Exposed: Roundup Ready Soybeans Use 2-5 Times More Herbicides Than Non-GE Varieties

23. Chargoff, E Heraclitean Fire: Sketches from a Life Before Nature Paul & Company June 1978.

24. Regal, P PhD Biosafety Risks from GEOs Univ of Minnesota 1999.

25. Allen, S Group Lobbies for Labeling Genetically Altered Foods Boston Globe p. A5 18 Jun 99

26. Cummins, J PhD The Use of Cauliflower Mosaic Virus/ Genetically Engineered Crops in Progress –University of Western Ontario 1997.

27.Horowitz, L Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola Tetrahedron 1999.

28.Blaylock, R MD Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills Health Press 1997.


30. Teitel, M PhD, Wilson Genetically Engineered Foods: Changing the Nature of Nature Park Street Press — 1999.

31. Lappe, M PhD Against the Grain Common Courage 1998
32. O’Shea, T – GM Foods: A Short Introduction
33. Robbins, J – Diet For a New America
34. Douglas, Wm C – The Milk Book
35. McDougall, J MD – McDougall’s Medicine—A Challenging Second Opinion
36. Index Mundi -Soybean Oil Production –
37. United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service 2016 –
38. Pollack, A – Acreage for Genetically Modified Crops APRIL 13, 2016 New York Times


January 4th, 2017

– Tim O’Shea

In This Chapter:

    Disease or dehydration?
    Tap water

Some years before he was cryogenically preserved, Walt Disney made an educational animated movie with Bell Science Labs called Hemo the Magnificent. It wasn’t shown at movie theaters; it appeared in schools. Hemo the Magnificent was the story of human blood, a science film for kids. It was definitely ahead of its time and today would probably never be shown in schools, kids being dumbed down as they are today.

At the beginning of the film the question is asked – What substance on earth does human blood most resemble? We are surprised at the answer:

    sea water


And the story is told about how all life evolved from the ocean, and then they show primitive life forms like one-celled creatures, up to the jellyfish, who have sort of a primitive in-and-out flushing as a precursor of a circulatory system, then gradually getting into more complex forms who began to have a primitive heart and some blood vessels … And all this evolves to the mammalian circulatory system.

Aeons later, our blood is still over 90% water – though not salt water, of course. Even though it’s the other 10% that makes us human and has taken ages to evolve, we are still an H2O unit. I think it was Tom Robbins who said

“Humans were invented by water as a means of transporting itself from place to place”



Without food, most humans will die in a month, if they have water. Without water, 10 days is about it. Water makes up 75% of the body, 90% of the blood, and 85% of the brain.

An odd little book was published in 1994 that made quite a stir: The Body’s Many Cries for Water, by an MD named Batmanghelidj. A claim is made by this doctor that the cause of most diseases is simply dehydration. Dr. B provides the science as well as dozens of case studies to support the cure for a variety of illnesses by simply drinking between two and three liters of water per day.

Doubting such a theory because of its overwhelming simplicity, the reader is shown that physiologically, it makes perfect sense. As Dr B points out, dry mouth is a late sign of thirst. Saliva is produced even in chronic dehydration, because it is a digestive enzyme. Thirst, or the need for water on the cellular level is something entirely different. Chronic dehydration brings its own symptoms, which we have been conditioned to cover up, either with food or with drugs. Here are a few examples of dehydration signals:


    peptic ulcer . . . . antacids

    craving sweets . . . . sugar

    depression . . . . antidepressant drugs

    allergies . . antihistamines

. .

Dr B reports his successful treatment of 3000 peptic ulcer patients using water alone. Anecdotal? He explains how ulcer pain is really a thirst signal. It actually makes sense: if the intestine is too dehydrated to adequately refresh its mucus lining every time after the acidic products of digestion have passed by, the lining will become irritated and painful. The intestine is not protected from digestive acid like the stomach is. Antacids will only temporarily cover up the problem. Rehydrating the tract will enable to intestine to form adequate mucous lining, thus reducing acid irritation. (p31)

Similarly with depression, allergies, asthma, arthritis, diabetes, and addiction to sweets, Dr. Batmanghelidj shows how balancing the extracellular fluids and lowering the concentration of the blood to a more normal dilution can bring consistent resolution to these and many other illnesses.

It’s almost too simple. But Dr. B takes the reader through the physiology of each illness. His premise is hard to deny.

Obviously such an approach is not going to gain the favor of the drug cartels; here’s a guy telling people they don’t need heart medication and diuretics and insulin and Prozac and Viagra and pain drugs any more. All they really need is two liters of water per day. What if he’s right and people find out about it? The drug business is the foundation our $1.5 trillion medical budget. See the dangers?

So of course the good doctor ran into some formidable stone walls when he tried to get attention and funding from the AMA and other mainstream institutions for researching his theories. He was politely ignored. But a lot of people are buying the book.


People don’t seem to know the word diuretic; but they know what a blood thinner is.

Batmanghelidj’s views on treating high blood pressure with diuretics can’t really be argued. He explains that the whole mainstream theory is based on a false premise: doctors say Oh, you have high blood pressure? Too much blood, too much fluid in the body. Take these drugs to make you get rid of water, thin out the blood a little. That’ll take the strain off your heart so it won’t have to work so hard.

Amazingly most people believe this distortion of physiological reality and take their pills like good little robots. Then they have their heart attacks on schedule and go in for bypass, like obedient little lemmings, keeping heart disease as the #1 killer of Americans for the past three decades.

Batmanghelidj points out the obvious: diuretics increase dehydration. They make you lose more water. But the original cause of the high blood pressure in the first place was loss of fluids. The less fluids, the more the blood vessels close up. Survival. Obviously the blood vessels can’t leave room for gas when blood volume is decreased. So the blood vessels naturally constrict, or close up, with less blood volume. The constriction is what causes high blood pressure – it’s harder to push water through a thin garden hose than a thick one.

Also the less fluids, the more concentrated the blood becomes. And this triggers the blood vessels to close down a little more, in order to prevent what? Water loss.

By adding more water to the system, the heart won’t be so desperate to hang on to both sodium and water. Increased blood volume, and also making the blood more dilute, will relax the vessels and open them up wider. Such a simple method consistently lowers blood pressure, on a long-term basis.

The amazing thing is not that this is so absurdly simple; it’s that the people we entrust our health to could possibly miss something as fundamental as hydration. What about the complicated stuff?

Either Batmanghelidj is right or the Obamacare doctors pushing Lopressor and Cardizem are right. Can’t be both.


We know that cholesterol has many important jobs. It is necessary for making hormones, insulation for nerves, and the membranes of all our cells.

But in a condition of chronic dehydration, water is constantly being pulled out of our cells, for the body’s many operations. To protect the cells from losing too much water, cholesterol is poured between the cracks of the cells, as a sort of protective sealant between cell membranes. (Batmanghieldj, p 83) Many people who eat a lot of eggs can still have normal blood cholesterol, as long as they always have plenty of water. The body only feels the need to seal off the cell membranes with cholesterol if there’s a reason to conserve water. Thus high cholesterol. In the hydrated body, there’s no excess cholesterol production.


When we’re thirsty, we don’t drink water. We drink coffee and Coke and diet Dr. Pepper and ice tea and beer and milk and anything else we’ve been conditioned to buy. And we tell ourselves we don’t need to drink water because all these beverages have water in them. Right?

Wrong. It’s a long story, but the punchline is this: all these drinks are actually diuretics – they make the cells and the body lose water. The sugar and caffeine in those drinks pull water out of the cells in order to maintain the delicate pH and electrolyte balance in the blood. Result: cell dehydration. Cell dehydration is the #1 cause of aging. Also a big contributor to degenerative diseases, like arthritis, hypertension, and diabetes.

One way to tell if you’re dehydrated is to check the color of the urine. If it’s dark all the time, you’re probably dehydrated. It’s a good bet that one of the above drinks is your beverage of choice.

Only one solution:


It’s no picnic. Unless you already have this custom, drinking two liters of water a day takes effort. That’s a least eight large glasses. Every day. It takes planning and discipline. But it’s cheap and harmless, and if you have any health problem whatsoever, including premature crowsfeet, you owe it to yourself to give this self-evident shotgun approach a try. In the unlikely event that it ‘doesn’t work’ after two months, something else needs to be tweaked. Probably in the dairy or sugar category. But read some of the testimonials in Dr B’s book, and you’ll likely find people with much more serious problems than yours who totally recovered. Many were on multiple medications.

I know – you’re thinking you’ll be spending your life in the bathroom if you drink 2 liters a day, right? Funny thing is, the bladder is a muscular organ. Like any other muscle, it weakens with inactivity and strengthens with use. The more water you drink, the more the strength and capacity of the bladder will increase. So very soon you won’t have to make extra trips to the bathroom, even though you’ll be drinking more water.

Think of all the people who dehydrate themselves just because they wish to avoid the bathroom. Where are our priorities? Where is our education? Water is cell life.

Two liters is the intake necessary to maintain normal good health, and prevent anti-aging. For most, this is something you have to work up to. But for maximum hydration of skin cells, this is the target.


Everyone has a general idea of pH: acidic means stuff like vinegar, and Coke, battery acid, and citrus. Basic, or alkaline, means stuff like soap, and milk, and bran.

Acid/base – that’s a scale we call pH. The scale goes from 1 to 14. It’s a log scale: that means that pH 6 is 10x more acid than pH 7. The lower the number, the more acid; the higher the number, the more basic:

. . . . . . ACIDIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BASIC

All living substances have a pH, and also an optimum range of pH.

Any standard physiology text, like Guyton’s for example, will state that the range of blood pH is 7.3 – 7.45 for human life. More acidic than 7.3, we die. More basic than 7.45, we die.

Here’s an example to show how inventive the body is at protecting itself. If you pour a bottle of Coke into 10 gallons of water, the pH will drop from 7.8 to 4.6 immediately. (Whang, p 22)

Now, we have way less than half that much blood: only 5 liters. So what prevents one glass of Coke from killing us by lowering our blood pH below the 7.3 limit? A little trick the mammalian body evolved over millions of years: buffering. Buffering is how the body changes the acidic foods we eat in order to keep the blood pH always about the same. Two main kinds of buffering, and you can look them up the next time you decide to get a medical degree.

For now, the point here is that this constant burden we place on the body to keep buffering all these Cokes, Johnnie Walker Black, burgers, tacos, and white sugar treats – uses up the body’s stores of minerals, enzymes, and vitamins. Actually, it wastes them, thereby making the person age faster. Those stores were supposed to be used for normal life functions, not for ridding the body of manmade indigestible chemicals mistakenly called food.

Buffering also uses up free oxygen and breaks down cells and tissues by means of oxidation. And now we’re talking about free radicals again. And aging.

When we drink water, we’re taking some of the stress off the body by helping to make the blood more basic (higher number). The pH of most tap water is about 8.4, and of bottled water about 7.8 or so. The more we can keep the blood closer to the higher number, the 7.45, the slower we age. Turns out there is a big difference between blood that is pH 7.3 and blood that is pH 7.45. The higher number blood has 64% more free oxygen than the lower number (Whang, p 21). That’s a lot. Over the years, such a difference in daily stress definitely adds up.

Reducing the amount of buffering we require the body to do is another big reason for drinking a ton of water every day.

OK, the importance of water is pretty obvious. The next question is – does it make any difference what kind of water we drink? Tap water, spring water, bottled water, filtered water, distilled water, mineral water, what?


City water, municipal water, tap water – no argument that one of the main reasons for the eradication of infectious diseases, as we saw in the Vaccinations chapters, was a controlled water supply. After all those centuries, it finally dawned on people that they wouldn’t die quite so fast if the water they drank could be uncontaminated with sewage.

So in the 1800s, the hallmark of the civilized city, both in Europe and in America, was a municipal water supply and a sewage system. This one development was the single biggest health advancement in man’s history, preventing more disease than all the drugs and vaccines ever invented.

Then politics saw an angle. What if we could convince people that industrial wastes needed to be added to the water in order to make it “safe”? To the tune of billions of dollars per year? The money would change hands between the local governments and the chemical industry, not to mention state and federal government, who would need to pass laws to keep the show on the road…

First contestant:


Chlorine as it exists in nature is an element, a raw mineral that is actually an essential mineral in human nutrition, as we saw in the Minerals chapter. We evolved from the salt water of the ocean, which is natural sodium chloride.

Industrial chlorine, by contrast, is another thing altogether. Industrial chlorine is not a natural compound. It must be manufactured, by passing an electric current through regular salt (sodium chloride) The result is a toxic gas which can then be complexed to form many industrial products. Examples are medicines, plastics, solvents, sealants, bleach, computer chips, paints, and disinfectants. (Chlorophiles)

From here on out, ‘chlorine’ means the industrial type.

Chlorine gas was a weapon used in WWI. This powerful neurotoxin is so poisonous that it was outlawed by international war codes. Chlorine gas cannot be screened out by our lungs – it goes in faster than oxygen, and is immediately absorbed into the bloodstream when it is inhaled. If the concentration is adequate, death is instantaneous.

Europeans remember all this – that’s where WWI happened. Swimming pools in most of Europe are not chlorinated. When European athletes come to the U.S. to compete in swimming events, they have forfeited events rather than swim in our chlorinated pools.

The problem is that chlorine gas is formed where chlorinated water comes in contact with air. That’s why your nose burns when your put your face close to the surface of a chlorinated pool. Same thing happens with tap water, although to a lesser degree.


Chlorine has been used in the U.S. as a treatment for water purification for most of the past century.

When added to our water supply, chlorine complexes with free contaminants like iron, manganese, and hydrogen sulfide. Any chlorine left over can kill most bacterials and microorganisms. Chlorine was definitely responsible for a radical drop in cases of typhoid early in the century. (Water Review) Same with cholera and amoebic dysentery. (Rathburn)

Cryptosporidium and giardia are two biologicals resistant to chlorine, because they form protective cysts. But most other living microbes in the water supply are killed by adding chlorine.

Now obviously we don’t want microbugs in our drinking water, so it seems chlorine has some benefit. The problem comes in with:

    • the amounts of chlorine added

    • carcinogenic chlorine by-products (organochlorines)

Chemicals are measured in water in units called PPM, or parts per million. The standard amount of chlorine sufficient to kill biologicals is 0.5 PPM, as agreed by most scientists. This is the recommended dose for municipal water supplies.

The problem arises when scientists don’t have control of the input. Usually it’s the local water guy. And this guy is all over the place as far as consistent levels are concerned. Some cities have been found to have levels as high as 50 PPM.

The second problem is by-products. Chlorine has an annoying habit of reacting with hydrocarbons (organic matter) to form little devils like trihalomethanes — THMs. Definitely carcinogenic (Simmon), THM levels have been set by the EPA as not to exceed 80 PPB. That’s billion, son. But that figure is really just a guess. Nobody really knows for sure how much THM is necessary to be taken in with daily tap water in order to eventually cause a single cell to mutate. All we know for sure is that some amount of THM can cause cancer.

Predictably, 99% of websites about chlorine present it as a safe but necessary evil. They always say that it’s an economic necessity and that the risk of cancer is dwarfed by the importance of disinfecting the nation’s drinking water, etc.

But other people aren’t so sure. When you search the word “organochlorines” a whole different angle emerges.


For the past century, industry has benefited from the weird reaction between chlorine and organic matter. So far about 11,000 different organochlorines have been created by the chemical industry. Some of them have great industrial value because they are so stable. They degrade very slowly. One obvious example is PVC pipe, which has revolutionized the plumbing industry in the past 20 years. Plastic pipes – easier to work with than soldering all that old copper stuff. PVC plastic is the single biggest application of industrial chlorine products, accounting for about 50% of the total. (How Chlorine Chemicals Are Made). Really stable.

But it is precisely the idea of stability that makes chlorine by-products so dangerous. Want to learn a new word? Here it is: bioaccumulative. When these plastics do degrade, the products of that breakdown last even longer – for decades. That means cumulative buildup in fatty tissues of living things that are exposed to the same water or air. In the cells, this can mean trouble:

    genetic mutation
    hormone disruption
    birth defects
    low sperm counts
    neurological damage
    – Fackelman, p. 142

Bioaccumulative means that these chlorine by-products keep going through the food chain time after time. The individual living carrier species die, but the chemicals persist unchanged, decade after decade. The result is that the levels of PCBs and dioxins found in meat and fish can today be millions of times greater than the amounts found in nature. (Chlorine Crisis)

Slow breakdown of PVC plumbing, year after year, is one big stand-alone reason why it’s bad to drink tap water, irrespective of the quality of the water itself. At least copper was an essential trace mineral nutrient for humans.

For extra fun, organochlorines mimic estrogen, and are therefore included in the xenoestrogens we saw in the HRT chapter. Refer to it for a discussion of reproductive and hormonal chaos caused by chemical pollution.

Bleaching paper is another big market for chlorine. America uses a lot of paper, most of it white. Chlorine is the most popular method of bleaching. Problem is, 300 different organochlorines are the result. Guess how much of them gets dumped into lakes, rivers, and oceans of the world each year. Go ahead, guess. 4 million tons! (Pulp and Paper)

Not to mislead, you know those 300 organochlorines being released into the water? Those are only the ones we have identified! There are literally thousands of others whose actions are totally unknown to us.

Once in the body, organochlorines are protectively encapsulated in fat cells – the site most conducive to long-term storage and accumulation.


Chlorine bound to carbon is really a good combination for killing pests. Consider the tons of chlordane, DDT, dioxin, and atrazine that have been produced over the past 50 years and dumped into our soil and water, both intentionally and accidentally. No doubt about it: the stuff kills bugs.

Two Israeli researchers documented a 50% drop in breast cancer incidence after a ban on chlorine-based pesticides went into effect. (Richter) They traced it to feed for cows, which then was carried into the milk. The authors explained the dramatic effect in cancer incidence by the idea of an organochlorine as a complete carcinogen.

That means a toxin that is capable of both initiating a tumor and accelerating an established tumor.

That was in Israel. We never had such a ban.


Also pesticides, epoxy, neoprene, and many other plastics have a chlorine base. Same reason: slow breakdown. Turns out that only about 1% of the chlorine produced is used in drinking water treatment.(Chlorine Crisis)

Remember the defoliant Agent Orange in Vietnam? Dioxin was the killer in Agent Orange. (What Is Dioxin?) Dioxin is a chlorine by-product that is so indestructible and pervasive that it is even found in the bodies of whales and polar bears at the North Pole.

Always remember that ‘economic necessity’ often means a situation favorable to big money. With a production of some 40 million tons per year, as of 1990 chlorine is big business. Players like Dow, Bayer, Olin, and Alezo may not be that concerned with the health effects resulting from mass chlorination. (Chlorine Crisis)


In 1990, a medical doctor named J.M. Price came out with a book called Cholesterol, Coronaries, and Chlorine. The book is hard to find today, but was promoted and disseminated by Greenpeace. This doctor paints a noteworthy picture of the physiology and the politics of chlorine.

Heart disease has been the number one killer of Americans for decades, and it certainly doesn’t look like that’s going to change any time soon. Many patients have had heart problems during a great portion of their lives, with medication and years of diminished physical capacity. But it seems that there are more culprits besides just a high fat diet.

Heart attacks kill hundreds of thousands per year. For about 40%, their very first symptom is death. Such a weakening of the heart didn’t happen overnight. It may have taken 20 years to evolve. As the arteries that feed the heart get clogged with cholesterol cement, the same thing is going on everywhere else in the body, including the brain. If a small blood vessel in the brain breaks because it is stuffed with deposits, the person suffers a stroke. Some are mild and hardly noticeable; others are instantly fatal. The point here is, heart attacks and strokes are two versions of the same thing: arterial cholesterol buildup.

What’s that got to do with chlorine? Hang in there – it’s coming. A hundred years ago the term heart attack didn’t even exist. The first clinical description of a heart attack was not made until 1912. (Joseph, p37) In the 1930s and 1940s, the incidence of heart disease increased dramatically, until by the 1980s, it was the #1 killer of Americans. Dr. Joseph makes the point that there is no evidence of atherosclerosis (clogged arteries) prior to the 20th century, even though many cultures favored high fat diets.

Not until chlorination of municipal drinking water became common did heart disease begin to skyrocket. (p51). Actually there is a lag of 10-20 years for the progression of clogging arteries that coincides well enough with increasing chlorination across the U.S. during that same time period.

In both the Korean and the Vietnam Wars, many 20 year-olds undergoing surgery on the battlefields were found to have advanced atherosclerosis (cholesterol-clogged arteries) near the heart. (Joseph, p54) The cause was unmistakable: the drinking water we transshipped contained 10 times the amount of chlorine that is determined a safe level by the FDA. The reasoning behind it was characteristically military: our boys needed protection from all those foreign germs, Vern. They deserve 10x the protection.

The mechanism for artery breakdown from chlorine is no theory. It has been very solidly established that chlorine nicks the inner lining in the arteries and thereby provides a place for excess cholesterol matrix to begin its process of stuccoing up the arteries.

Joseph ends up by positing that progressive clogging of the arteries cannot exist unless chlorine is consumed in some excess. He describes in detail his controlled experiment inducing atherosclerosis in birds, with the only variable being the presence of chlorinated drinking water – plain tap water. (p.65) The aortas of 95% of the chlorine group were all plaqued up with cholesterol in just a few weeks! The birds were withering and sickly.

The popular press goes round and round about cholesterol. One week it’s high fat is not so bad, the next week eggs are definitely out, the next week butter’s in…. Why is everybody guessing about the #1 cause of death in the U.S.?


One thing’s for sure — chlorine kills bacteria. Only problem with that is the three pounds of friendly bacteria that are supposed to be populating our colon. Their job: the final stages of digestion, as well as vitamin synthesis. Chlorine is in the same category with antibiotics – knocks out all bacteria, the good and the bad.

The same killing power that makes chlorine a good disinfectant for drinking water also makes it a harmful additive. We need our good bacteria, called probiotics. Many researchers refer to them as our Second Immune System. Although we can live without probiotics, the digestive system is forced to operate in a diminished fashion. Over time, our health suffers as a result of chlorine’s attack on probiotics.

Today about three-fourths of American cities chlorinate the drinking water. That’s big money. Very hard to rock that boat. Some cities, such as parts of Los Angeles, have found that ozone purification is cheaper and non-toxic. Other cities are experimenting with a combination of titanium cylinders and UV light. (Popular Science) But decades of payouts, and legislated chlorination – that’s an entrenched set-up. Greenpeace and the chlorine activists certainly are not widely read. Even the introductory information in this chapter is not commonly apprehended, though it can be discovered with a little research.


At least chlorine will evaporate from a glass of water if you let it sit for an hour or so. No such luck with fluoride. Even cooking, food processing, filtration, or digestion doesn’t remove fluoride. Goes right up the food chain. Accumulates in fat cells.

Fluoride is added to the water supply of most American cities for the ostensible purpose of dental hygiene. The reader will be amazed to find out that such a thing is not only unlikely, but actually the reverse of the ongoing reality.

The U.S. has been fluoridating drinking water for so many decades that we hardly think about it. Very few articles appear about fluoridation in newspapers and magazines any more.

This is no accident.

What would you do if you suddenly found out that fluoride was not safe at all, but was actually a carcinogenic industrial waste? What would you think if you suddenly found out that fluoride doesn’t stop tooth decay at all, but actually causes teeth to rot and crumble, and by the same mechanism also causes osteoporosis? And after you found out all this, would it surprise you that all federal health agencies have known these facts for years, but have been controlled by the political interests of the

    nuclear arms
    aluminum and
    phosphate manufacturers

to keep it a secret? Why would they do that? So that, in the total absence of scientific proofs, a toxic industrial waste could be passed off on the public as a nutrient with necessary health benefits, to the tune of $10 billion per year. Or more.

Is a deception of this magnitude possible for the sophisticated, discerning American public?

Let’s start at the beginning.


Fluorine is an element. It is a gas, never occurring in its free state. In microscopic amounts, complexed with other minerals, it is often listed as a trace mineral, a nutrient for human nutrition. Other sources disagree, holding that “no experimental work or clinical observations have proved that fluorine is in any manner essential for animals or man.” (Alesen, p.5)

This has nothing to do with fluoride or fluoridation. The fluoride added to drinking water is a compound of fluorine that is a chemical byproduct of aluminum, steel, cement, phosphate, and nuclear weapons manufacturing. Such fluoride is manmade. In this form, fluoride has no nutrient value whatsoever. It is one of the most caustic of industrial chemicals. Fluoride is the active toxin in rat poisons and cockroach powder. (Dustrude)

    “Hydrofluoric acid is used to refine high octane gasoline, to make fluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons for freezers and air conditioners, and to manufacture computer screens, fluorescent light bulbs, semiconductors, plastics, herbicides, — and toothpaste. It also has the ability to burn flesh to the bone, destroy eyes, and sear lungs so that victims drown in their own body fluids. – Foulkes

Once in the body, fluoride is a destroyer of human enzymes. It does this by changing their shapes. You’ll remember from the Enzymes chapter that in human biochemistry, thousands of enzymes are necessary for various essential cell reactions that take place every second we’re alive. (Howell) Without enzymes, we’d die instantaneously.


Enzymes trigger specific reactions in the body. One way they do this is by having the exact shape necessary, like a key in a lock. Fluoride changes the shape of the enzymes so that they no longer fit. Since enzymes are proteins, once they’ve been changed, they’re now foreign-looking. The body now treats them as invaders, even though they’re part of that body. This is known as an autoimmune situation – the body attacks itself.

Another way to look at it: enzymes are long-chain proteins held in certain shapes. Hydrogen bonds are the velcro strips that hold the enzyme in a certain shape. Fluoride comes along and hydrolyzes the enzyme: cuts the velcro strips away. The shape collapses. No more enzyme; now just a foreign protein.


The most thorough explanation of the origin, action, diseases, and politics of fluoride was presented in a book called Fluoride the Aging Factor by John Yiamouyiannis, PhD. This book is the result of 25 years of research and working behind the scenes of the fluoride phenomenon.

Big money generally means big monkey business, you may have noticed by now, and fluoride is right up there. Dr. Yiamouyiannis was the science director of the National Health Federation. He then went on to head the Safe Water Foundation. Dr Y can tell you all about monkey business. No one can comment intelligently about fluoride in the U.S. without dealing with the issues raised in his pivotal book. It is simply a review of the literature on fluoride up to 1994. This chapter quotes freely from Dr Y’s book.

Dr. Y starts by citing hundreds of international studies of fluoridation that have been conducted all over the world since the 1930s. After awhile, there seem to be just two types:

    • the studies that were really looking to find out about fluoride

    • the studies that were trying to cover up what had already been discovered

A few examples of the former:

    Taylor Study, University of Austin: fluoride concentration of 1PPM (parts per million) increases tumor
    growth rate by 25%

    Fluoride is more poisonous than lead, and just less poisonous than arsenic
    – Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products 1984

    “A seven ounce tube of toothpaste, theoretically at least, contains enough fluoride to kill a small child.”
    – Procter&Gamble, quoted in Fluoride the Aging Factor p14

    Fluoride supplements should not be given to children under three years old
    – 1992 Canadian Dental Association Proposed Fluoride Guidelines, Dr. Limeback


Austrian researchers proved in the 1970s that as little as 1 ppm fluoride concentration can disrupt DNA repair enzymes by 50%. When DNA can’t repair damaged cells, we get old fast. (Klein)

Fluoride prematurely ages the body, mainly by distortion of enzyme shape. Again, when enzymes get twisted out of shape, they can’t do their jobs. This results in collagen breakdown, eczema, tissue damage, skin wrinkling, genetic damage, and immune suppression. Practically any disease you can name may then be caused. (Yiamouyiannis, Ch.3)

All systems of the body are dependent upon enzymes. When fluoride changes the enzymes, this can damage:

    • the immune system
    • the digestive system
    • the respiratory system
    • blood circulation
    • kidney function
    • liver function
    • brain function
    • thyroid function

Things wear out too fast – the young body becomes old.

The distorted enzymes are proteins, but now they have become foreign protein, which we know is the exact cause of autoimmune diseases, such as lupus, arthritis, asthma, and arteriosclerosis.

Collagen is the body’s glue. That’s not just a metaphor; when collagen breaks down, tissues simply lose their substance, their framework. As we saw in the Collagen chapter, this is exactly how we get an enlarged heart, osteoporosis, atrophy and drooping of muscles, joint destruction, kidney and liver disease, falling organs, and bad teeth. Fluoride dissolves the body’s glue simply by preventing new collagen from being formed. (Ishida)

Dr Y gives a masterful explanation of fluoride’s disruption of collagen. Not only is the collagen incorrectly formed, it is wrongly mineralized.

Some collagen, like bones and teeth, should be mineralized in order to give it hardness. Other collagen structures, like ligaments, tendons and, and muscles, should not be mineralized, in order to keep them flexible and resilient. Fluoride confuses the two types. Fluoride mineralizes the tendons, and muscles and ligaments, making them crackly and painful and inflexible. At the same time fluoride interferes with mineralization of bones and teeth, causing osteoporosis and mottling or dental fluorosis.


Wait a second here! I thought that was the whole reason why we fluoridated water in the first place – to prevent cavities and build strong teeth, right?

Wrong again. And this is where politics and dog-wagging have eclipsed science. Dr Y gives an exhaustive review of the scientific literature of the previous 40 years, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that fluoride interferes with tooth formation, causes permanent discoloration and actual crumbling. The reader is referred to Chapter 5 of Fluoride The Aging Factor. A few excerpts:

    Tooth enamel is laid down by special cells called ameloblasts. Dutch researchers found that fluoride
    at as little as 1 PPM caused these ameloblasts to malfunction so that they laid down irregular chalky enamel.
    – (Bronkers)

    The process whereby teeth are discolored and crumble from fluoridation is know as dental fluorosis.

    The U.S. Public Health service has known since the research of its own Dr. HT Dean in 1937 that as fluoride
    levels rose, so did the percentage of children with dental fluorosis, in a study of 15 major American
    cities. – (Dean)

    The same findings were evident in a University of Texas study comparing dental fluorosis in children who
    lived in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas of Texas. Dr. Segretto found a 35% higher incidence of fluorosis in children who drank water with fluorine concentration of 1-1.4 PPM, compared with those whose water was in the .3 PPM range. This little study was written up in the Journal of the American Dental Association. – (Segretto)

Yiamouyiannis goes on and on, citing one peer-reviewed study after another, all coming to the same inescapable conclusion: the more fluoride in the water, the more tooth malformation and discoloration. It’s beyond controversy, when you view these studies from all over the world – New Zealand, India, Denmark, England, Ireland, Italy, Illinois – same finding. Even with this consistent finding across the board, the standard level of fluoridation recommended for dental health in the U.S. is 1 part per million. How is this possible?

A major gain for antifluoridation happened in the past few years, which most people haven’t even noticed. The FDA required all toothpaste manufacturers to print a warning on the label that if more than a pea-sized amount of toothpaste is swallowed, the local Poison Control Center should be notified. Check it out! Did we see that on CNN?

The American Dental Association and other defenders of fluoride have testified and continue to insist that dental fluorosis is a “cosmetic condition” and is not a health issue! You hear it all the time from the fluoridiots. Permanent malformation of the teeth is a little more serious than cosmetic – but even if it weren’t, how can an additive whose only alleged purpose is to benefit teeth destroy teeth?? In their current website, the ADA actually challenges this FDA warning on toothpaste labels, saying that it is unnecessarily strict.

In the words of Canadian fluoridation expert, leading consultant to the Canadian Dental Association, Dr. Hardy Limeback, a University of Toronto biochemist and dentist:

“Since when is a cosmetic problem not a problem when the patient must seek dental treatment to fix it?”

Toronto Star 25 Apr. 99

Paul Connett, PhD explains that spots on the teeth and dental fluorosis are just an indication of damage to other parts of the body:

“The teeth are windows to what’s happening in the bones.” – Griffiths, p 39

And that brings us to


Bone is collagen. We already saw how fluoride disrupts the formation of enzymes necessary for collagen production. So it’s no wonder then that the thin brittle bones characteristic of osteoporosis are the result of fluoridation. This is no false claim. Dr Y cites the 1990 study of 541,000 cases of osteoporosis that found a definite connection between hip fractures in women over 65 and fluoride levels. The study was written up in JAMA. (Jacobsen)

Several other major studies are cited, massive amounts of research, again all reaching the same conclusion – the undeniable correlation of fluoridation with osteoporosis and hip fracture in the elderly.

Bone is living tissue. It is constantly being replaced with new cells, and having old cells removed. Bone building is a finely balanced, complicated process. Fluoride has been known to disrupt this process since the 1930s. Dr. Alesen, who was the president of the California Medical Association, clearly explains what fluoride does to bone formation. He cites dozens of international scientific studies proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that fluoride has caused thousands of cases of osteoporosis, skeletal thinning, fractures, “rubber bones,” anemia, and rickets. (Robotry and Water)

Fluoride also causes osteoporosis by creating a calcium deficiency situation. Fluoride precipitates calcium out of solution, causing low blood calcium, as well as the buildup of calcium stones and crystals in the joints and organs. (Waldbott)

Dozens of other studies, like the Riggs study in the 1990 New England Journal of Medicine, showed that fluoride treatment of osteoporosis in the elderly actually increases skeletal fragility, i.e., more fractures. (Riggs) It’s the same mechanism at work: incorrect mineralization, as we saw above. Thin old bones lose calcium; young bones age too rapidly by over-mineralization. (Aksyuk)

Using fluoride as a treatment for diseases like osteoporosis has always been a particularly dumb idea, because of side effects known beforehand:

    general arthritis
    stomach pain
    bone spurs
    bone inflammation
    kidney fibrosis
    dental fluorosis

Other mineral contaminants like lead and strontium-90 are damaging to human bone just by means of their occupying space where they don’t belong. They are inert. The difference with fluoride is that it is biochemically active. With all the diseases caused by fluoride, the common thread is

    “…virtually all these ill effects can be traced to the effect of fluoride on enzymes or proteins, as well as a possible direct effect on the DNA molecule itself.” – Fluoride the Aging Factor, p57, 99

Above we saw how fluoride changes the all-important shape of enzymes, thereby rendering them not only useless, but actually foreign.


By now we all know how cancer begins with one cell whose inner blueprint – its DNA – has been screwed with. Remember those velcro hydrogen bonds? Guess what other shape they hold together. The double helix – DNA. This turns out to be the exact mechanism of fluoride as a carcinogen.

Austrian and Japanese researchers both found that a concentration of 1 PPM fluoride causes disruption of the body’s ability to repair its own DNA. Without this most basic cell function, cancer is promoted, and tumor growth is accelerated. (Klein) (Tsutsui)

That’s standard fluoride level in U.S. city water: one part per million.

On p. 65 of his book, Dr. Yiamouyiannis provides an amazing chart of some 19 major scientific studies conducted in universities all over the world, together proving beyond a doubt that fluoride causes genetic damage. End of story. Except that on p 68, there is another list of world studies proving the same thing with plants and insects – genetic alteration from fluoride.

Chief chemist of the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Dean Burk when confronted with mountains of data, stated before Congress:

“In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster than any other chemical.”

Congressional Record 21 July 1976

Can that be misconstrued?

Burk and Yiamouyiannis completed a monumental research project in 1977 in which they compared cancer death rates in 10 fluoridated and 10 non-fluoridated U.S. cities between 1940 and 1970. The results are on p75 of Fluoride the Aging Factor. The unmistakable fact is that the graph shows that for the first ten years (1940-1950), when none of the 20 cities fluoridated, the average cancer deaths were virtually identical. But after 1950, there is a major increase in cancer deaths in every single one of the fluoridated cities, while the nonfluoridated cities remain clustered together at a much lower level of death. [SCATTER CHART]

They actually put a number on it:

    “…30,000 to 50,000 deaths each year from various causes may now be attributable to fluoridation. This total includes 10,000 to 20,000 deaths attributable to fluoride-induced cancer every year.” – Yiamouyiannis. p 90

These findings were first confirmed, then denied by the National Cancer Institute (what a surprise). Finally the research was upheld as valid in two separate state courts, Pennsylvania and Illinois. Ask yourself, why are findings of a scientific study being disputed in court? The usual pattern whenever valid research threatens big money.

Another study by the New Jersey Health Dept., cited by Dr. Y, found a 50% increase in bone cancer among young men in fluoridated areas. (Cohn)

Dr. William Hirzy, an officer in the EPA explains:

“Fluoride is a broad-spectrum mutagen. It can cause genetic damage in both plant and animal cells.”

Once again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Hundreds of scientific studies conducted and reported in the most credible universities and agencies throughout the world for the past 25 years have found an unmistakable correlation between fluoridation and cancer deaths. Even the professional opinion makers can’t just make all this data vanish.

All they can do is what they’re trained to do: change the subject. And keep repeating how safe and effective fluoride is.


Penetrating observation. The earliest reference to brain disruption from fluoride exposure is found in a recently declassified secret Manhattan Project memo (1944):

    “Clinical evidence suggests that C616 [uranium hydrofluoride] may have a rather marked central nervous system effect with mental confusion, drowsiness and lassitude…”

    – Ferry, 29 Apr 44

Dozens of scientific studies from all over the world have come to the same conclusion. Just a few examples:

    Popov, L et al Nervous System Damage in Occupational Fluorosis
    Chemical Abstracts vol.14, 7 Oct 74

    Guan, Z et al. Influence of Chronic Fluorosis on Membrane Lipids in Rat Brain
    Neurotoxicology and Teratology, vol. 20 no.5 pp.537

How can all these studies be dismissed and ignored? Many of them are from the most prestigious of scientific journals. And the message has been consistent for the past 50 years – fluoride is a poison.. What kind of power can contradict such a cogent, overwhelming body of work? Only one thing – very good –$$$$$$$$! Got it on your first guess!


Unrestricted research into almost any area involving health care is really a tiresome business – it’s the same boring story over and over: A Toxin in Search of A Market.

First a chemical is created, then an angle is figured out on how to mass market it. Then a disinformation program is put into place to create a permanent smokescreen for the actual scientific data. As we saw with ADD, antibiotics, the history of pharmaceuticals, HRT, heart drugs, chlorination, and now fluoridation – the pattern is consistent. With billions of dollars in play, the chemical industry can afford to choreograph its two most willing marionettes: the media and the medical profession. I didn’t make this up; I wish it were otherwise. It’s embarrassing to be a human when you find out what’s been going on.

But we digress. Fluoridation. A certified poison, by all the government agencies and scientific agencies cited above. Where does the money come in? Toxic disposal. The rise of the EPA since the 1970s. The increase in environmental consciousness as a political tool for creating the illusion of safety in recent decades.

Here’s the short version: fluoride is a toxic byproduct in the manufacture of nuclear arms, aluminum, cement, steel, and phosphates. Millions of tons of this poison are produced by these industries every year. Imagine the cost of containing and disposing of those mountains of waste every year. It’s in the billions. But what if lobbyists from these industries could present “scientific studies” paid for by the industries, and provide for a continual stream of media presentations about the health benefits of fluoride, and create unimaginably lucrative positions for “research” and “education” within the American Dental Association and the AMA, and do all these things in a consistent and unending way, year after year? What are the economic advantages of that? Simple: instead of paying money to dispose of toxic waste, money could now be made by selling fluoride to the municipal water companies of the nation. They’ll use the public water supply as a sewer for industrial wastes. And now with these new billions added instead of subtracted, there’s plenty to go around, for everyone involved. Out of the Red, into the Black.

Somewhere Machiavelli smiles.


Up until 1931, the American Dental Association and the US Public Health Service recognized that fluoride caused dental problems, and that every effort should be made to remove such contamination from drinking water. (Fluoride the Aging Factor, p 140)

By 1980, the ADA’s tune had changed a little:

“…there is no evidence implicating naturally occurring fluorides as a health hazard even at eight parts per million.” – ADA News 24 Mar 1980

Following this? In the face of decades of our best research, this arrogant and groundless pronouncement, by the profession to whom we have entrusted our teeth, is saying that our water could have 8 times as much fluoride as it has now, and still be perfectly safe! That is power, Sonny Jim.

The Players: ALCOA Aluminum, mega-giant producer of aluminum, was founded by Andrew Mellon, who was also appointed Secretary of Treasury, since he seemed to know something about money. ALCOA funded a top research facility known as the Mellon Institute. In 1931, a Mellon Institute report by Gerald Cox suggested that 1 PPM fluoride added to drinking water would be good for the teeth. That was it. No studies, no comparisons, no data. All previous research studies had shown that fluoride was toxic.

Stay with me now. The US Public Health Service (USPHS) at that time was under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Treasury – Andrew Mellon, who also owned ALCOA. The USPHS sponsored some research put out by their own Dr. HT Dean, manipulating data so that it “proved” that this same figure of 1 PPM resulted in reduction of tooth decay. So now there were two studies, one by Cox and one by Dean, both funded by agencies controlled by ALCOA, both supporting this arbitrary figure of 1 PPM fluoride that should be added to the water to lower tooth decay.

Next problem: sell it to the American Medical Association and the American Dental Association. This took years. Even in 1943, an article in JAMA described fluoride as a poison which damaged enzyme systems even at a concentration of 1 PPM. The article showed concern about 25,000 tons of fluorine released into the atmosphere every year from the phosphate fertilizer industry. (JAMA, Sept 18, 1943).

The following year Journal of the American Dental Association ran another article warning that fluoridated water caused osteoporosis, goiter, and spinal disease. They stated that “the potentialities for harm far outweigh those for good.” (JADA, 1 Oct 1944)

So how did fluoridation get started then, with all this information – thousands of negative scientific papers and only two favorable studies? ALCOA money, that’s how. In 1944, ALCOA hired an attorney named Oscar Ewing at a salary of $750,000 per year. That same year Ewing was appointed to the Federal Security Adminisrration. The USPHS was a division of the Federal Security Association. So now ALCOA’s boy was in a position to control the policies of the Public Health Service. Ewing chose his PR man for fluoridation: Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud! See chapter.


Edward L. Bernays, described by the Washington Post as the ‘original spin doctor,” was responsible for evolving the pro-fluoridation propaganda and disinformation machine. How anxious he was to put his uncle’s ideas and methods of persuasion into action. ( Dr. Y, p143)

    “…those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country…our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…”

– Bernays (Propaganda)

Using classical Freudian principles, Bernays maintained that a well-oiled propaganda machine could make the public believe practically anything, even the exact opposite of what had been already proven by all existing scientific research. And this is exactly what Ewing needed in the case of fluoridation.

With help from “experts” of the Manhattan Project, like Harold Hodge, New York State politicians quickly learned which side their bread was buttered on. In May of 1945, the city of Newburgh, NY was the first to “try” fluoridation. The residents were supposed to be monitored by the state Health Department for ten years. That became the pattern – fluoride is the first drug in history to be tested on the general population with no previous research. (Griffiths) Except of course for vaccines. (Vaccination Is Not Immunization)

One of the next cities to fall was Grand Rapids, Michigan. In July 1945, in the face of persistent warnings from the AMA, Grand Rapids succumbed to Bernays’ propaganda machine and began a ten year “test period” of fluoridation in which tooth decay rates would be monitored. No one asked the question why the testing was being done on humans in an entire city. The project was run by ALCOA’s HT Dean, using the statistics of Cox’s original 1931 paper that arbitrarily claimed that 1 PPM fluoride was a safe level to prevent tooth decay, with no research to back it up.

Dr. Dean almost single-handedly developed the fiction that fluoride could prevent cavities. He is “the father of fluoridation.” Dean did no research on his own, and in later years, twice admitted in court that Cox’s original statistics were incorrect! (Foulkes, 1992) But the entire system of fluoridation of US city water is based on the admittedly unscientific “findings” of Dean and Cox.

Bernays’ propaganda machine now went into full swing – ads with smiling children with beautiful teeth flooded the country’s media. All anti-fluoride studies and articles were systematically suppressed because they weren’t sanctioned by the big lobbyists for the aluminum and fertilizer industries. Tons of new literature written not by doctors and scientists but by PR people and psychologists portrayed those opposing the sacred fluoridation as right- wing wackos. Just like in Orwell’s book 1984, they tried to re-write history, to go back and change the findings of valid research, not by doing new research, but simply by new PR. (Miller)

    “I sometimes wonder if the Aluminum Co. of America…might not have a deep interest in getting rid of its waste products from the manufacture of aluminum because these products contain a large amount of fluoride. …it is interesting to note that Oscar Ewing who now heads up the FSA, the parent organization of the US Public Health Service, and the firm of attorneys he deals with…represents the Aluminum Co. of America.” – Congressman A.L. Miller


It gets darker. You may want to go for popcorn here. Dovetailing contemporaneously into all the above activity is some mind-blowing information that was recently uncovered by two reporters commissioned to write an article for the Christian Science Monitor. Working from secret government documents that have just become declassified in the last few years, Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson have illuminated a very scary liaison: fluoride and the Manhattan Project.

As we all remember, the Manhattan Project was the WWII secret program which brought the atomic bomb into existence: Fat Man and Little Boy. Turns out fluoride was a key component in the production of this bomb, in two main applications: in the uranium complex itself, and also as a toxic waste material. (Fluoride & Brain Damage)

There was an accident in 1943 that had to be covered up, big time. DuPont was the chemical company charged with producing millions of gallons of fluoride for the Manhattan Project. A DuPont facility in Deepwater, New Jersey dumped so much fluoride into the air and water that things they couldn’t hide started happening in the towns downwind:

    poultry died
     horses got sick and couldn’t work
     cows became so crippled they could only crawl on their bellies to graze
     the peach crop was destroyed
     fluoride content of local vegetables was off the charts
     abnormally high level of fluoride in the blood of the local people
     even the workers at DuPont began to get sick

Now all this may not seem like a big deal compared with the development of the most top secret weapon in history, but the farmers in those towns didn’t know nothing ‘bout no atomic bomb. Hiroshima hadn’t happened yet. All these farmers knew was that the chemical company was poisoning the air and the water.

The chief toxicologist for the Manhattan Project was a guy named Harold Hodge. Hodge was the first to notice the horrific effects of fluoride pollution on the local environment, and alerted his superiors in several memos, which have now been declassified. In true military fashion, Hodges’ superiors took the warnings seriously and thought them worthy of investigation, not because of the dangers to human and animal life, but because of the legal liability to DuPont and the government if the farmers were successful in a lawsuit. So the head of the Manhattan Project, Gen. Groves, directed Harold Hodge to research the toxicity of fluoride spills for one reason: their own legal defense against the farmers. (Griffiths)

Why was this never a movie? Oliver …?

Hodge was granted funding to study the nerve effects of fluoride way back in 1944. (Ferry) It is likely that the research was carried out, but it is missing from the declassified papers. What a surprise. Not until 1991 was the there any published research on the neurological effects of fluoride, when it was discovered that fluoride was a powerful neuro-toxin that could affect human brain development and functioning, even at low levels. (Mullenix) Even though Hodge collaborated on Mullenix’s research some 50 years after the Manhattan Project, and it is almost certain that Hodge was the one who conducted the missing research in 1944, Hodge maintained a strict silence on the subject.

These guys know how to keep a secret.

Here’s just one example of the difference between old published versions of fluoride research documents and secret versions of those same documents that have recently been declassified:

    old version, published in Journal of the American Dental Association, Aug 1948:

    “…the men who used experimental fluoride had fewer cavities…”

    secret version, recently de-classified:

    “…most of the men had no teeth left.”

    – Griffiths & Bryson, p 41

Remember, this was the beginning of the Atomic Age. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just the opening act. The game was not world destruction, but rather atomic bomb production. By 1946 the government and industry were out to arm the world with atomic, and eventually nuclear, weaponry. The billions of dollars all that represented, not to mention the balance of world power (America first) – all this was not going to be derailed just because a few horses died and the peaches didn’t come in one year.


So here’s what they did. You’ve probably guessed it. Whom do you call when you want to turn water into wine, night into day, black into white? That’s right. Lawyers. But not the local variety. These guys were from Washington. They knew that if the farmers won the lawsuits, it would open the door to a whole storm of lawsuits, and that could seriously interfere with bomb production. Fluoride was essential. Bomb production was essential. So they did the only thing a red-blooded American could do. They lied their heads off. They proved that fluoride

    • was not the cause of all this destruction
    • was totally safe, indeed so safe that –
    • it should be added to the drinking water as a nutrient

This took some doing. Not only did they have the local farmers to bamboozle; the FDA started sniffing around. After some masterful negotiating by Dupont’s FDA lawyers, everyone came to realize that the tremendous liability to which DuPont and the government were both open could be swept away, delayed, and sidetracked by agreeing that the fluoride problem needed “research.” And who was charged with doing that research? The US Army! That should be an unbiased scientific outcome, right?

Ultimately DuPont got away with it. They avoided copping to any serious liability by claiming that to admit how much fluoride had been released into the New Jersey environment was a matter of national security! Without that information, the farmers’ case fell apart, and most of them settled for token sums of a few hundred dollars.

One way the bomb-makers diverted attention from the lawsuits was to take the hint from Harold Hodge’s memo:

    “Would there be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of the residents … through lectures on F [fluoride] toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of F in tooth health?” – Hodge

And this is where the bomb-makers found willing allies in industry and medicine who saw an angle in using public drinking water as a dumping ground for industrial and military toxic waste.

For the whole detonating story, check out Griffith and Bryson’s well-researched “Fluoride, Teeth, and the A-Bomb.”


Fluoridation gathered momentum, supported by the billions that could be made from selling a toxic waste to city water providers and the untold billions behind the arms manufacturers outfitting the world with nuclear weapons. Gradually, the AMA and the ADA, began to soften their views toward fluoridation, until they had made a complete 180-degree shift in their opinion, as cited above.

In 1951 a huge pep rally was held for all the state dental directors. The focus was not to present research pro and con on fluoridation, but rather, how to get the public to accept the policy from above, the new religion of fluoridation. (4th Annual Conference, 1951)

By 1952, the American Dental Association had turned completely, publishing the articles of radical fluoridiot Frank Bull in the JADA. Bull’s whole focus was disinformation; avoiding confrontation with actual studies. As the B in BS, Bull put the propaganda theories of Bernays into actual practice.

Next, Procter and Gamble scored big when they got the ADA to endorse fluoride in toothpaste. Any dentists who spoke out against this ADA decision were censured, lost grant funding, or were thrown out of the ADA. (Fluoride the Aging Factor, p147)

By 1960 the alliance was formed: ALCOA, the US Public Health Service, the Federal Security Administration, the American Dental Association, and Procter&Gamble. It was like all the decades of research showing fluoride as a poison had never existed. Anyone bringing it up was subject to attack and persecution on any level possible.


You bet it does. Many articles in their main journals, JADA and the Journal of Dental Research, have proven for years that fluoride causes dental fluorosis. (JADA, vol 96 p78 (1978); vol.80, p777(1970) and JDR, vol.17, p.393 (1938); vol 67 p318 ( 1988); vol 96 p1158, (1978), to cite just a few from Fluoride The Aging Factor.

But despite all the pertinent studies and years of research, the American Dental Association is formally in favor of fluoridation! This position has never changed since its 1979 White Paper on Fluoridation. Politics eclipses science, as we see in excerpts like this:

    “…opponents of fluoridation are uninformed or misinformed” or “self-styled experts whose qualifications for speaking out on such a scientific issue as fluoridation were practically non-existent or whose motivations are self-serving..”

    or the amazing “… individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports on fluoridation…”

    or the ever-present non-sequitur “…what kind of mentality would reject the opinion of those who are qualified by education, training, experience….” and blah, blah, woof woof..

    or the old stand-by “…numerous studies have shown…” although none are ever named.

    or the Orwellian “…the advice of behavioral scientists should be sought with regard to realistic, convincing rebuttals…”

Rebuttals? This isn’t a high school debate. What about presenting research?

Always remember – the ADA is a trade union, a lobby whose main purpose is furthering the economic advancement of the dental profession. It doesn’t represent dental health. And in many cases the ADA doesn’t represent the dentists themselves. This is especially true in the class action suit filed by some 40 dentists against the ADA in a DC Superior Court. The charges? Ethical breach of the public trust for recommending fluoridation while failing to inform its members and the public of the widespread available literature proving toxicity. (Foulkes)

The American Dental Association has a website which is a masterpiece of disinformation: At the beginning of the Fluoridation Questions section, we find the standard fluoridiot disinformation posture in which natural fluoride compounds that exist in many places in nature are presented as the same fluoride which is added to municipal water. This is unmitigated, deliberate, fraudulent misrepresentation. The fluoride added to water is a toxic industrial byproduct in a form nature could never have come up with. Once you realize this simple fact, you will be able to see the rest of the Website Whitewash in its proper light.

Keep in mind that the ADA is a trade lobby, whose mission is to assure people of the safety and efficacy of a drug that is not safe and not effective, so that the interests of its fellow trade lobbies from the chemical industry are best served. The ADA is a mouthpiece for a huge constituency. Their website is the modern manifestation of Edward L. Bernays program of disinformation and crowd control, carrying the dogma of Cox, Dean, and Bull into the 21st century

Dr Y gives a good summary of the liaison between the US Public Health Service and the American Dental Association, and their control by salaried employees of the aluminum and phosphate industries, in his Chapter 17. It’s the predictable unholy alliance between big money, lobbyists, and government agencies who determine policies. Just a quick glance:


In 1974, Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act. Political forces cited in the above paragraph caused safe fluoride levels to be set by the EPA at 1.4 to 2.4 PPM! This is after decades of research showing all the above diseases could be caused by less than 1 PPM.

The American Dental Association’s reaction to these new levels? With no new research whatsoever, the ADA began pressuring the EPA to raise the maximum level to 8 PPM! Their reasoning? For the past 20 years the ADA had been using 1 PPM as the recommended level. Now they didn’t like the idea of the EPA doubling the ADA’s old recommendation without consulting them. The ADA wanted to be in control, no matter what the effect on the public health.

The ADA was immediately backed by the entire Fluoridiot Underworld, because higher levels meant the polluting industries could sell even more toxic fluoride wastes to municipal water suppliers.

Note that the entire controversy for setting the levels of toxicity for fluoride in US drinking water was not based at all on science, but entirely on politics. The EPA was maneuvered into contracting a “new study” of fluoride toxicity to a research group called ICAIR Life Systems in 1985. Dr. Y cites a few of ICAIR’s “findings”:

    • “dental fluorosis was not an adverse health effect”

    • “teeth with fluorosis are desirable”

    • skeletal fluorosis has not been found below 4 PPM

    • there is no data on fluoride and genetic damage

    • there is no data on fluoride as a carcinogen

    Fluoride The Aging Factor, p159

This is the kind of shenanigans tax dollars are spent on: lies and disregard for decades of important scientific research. But the waste of time and money is secondary to the real issue: these lower primates are endangering public health for their own political advantage and power tripping.

The result of all the hearings, fraudulent reports, and maneuvering was that in 1989 the EPA tried to raise the maximum allowable level of fluoride to 4 PPM! (Yiamouyiannis, p 161)
Today, the recommended level remains at 1 – 1.2 PPM, with the maximum allowable level set at 4 PPM by the EPA.

Now check this out: 4 parts per million is 4000 parts per billion, right, math wizards? OK. 4000 parts per billion of fluoride are allowed in drinking water, according to the EPA. Compare that with the allowable levels of Arsenic, Lead, and Mercury:



source: EPA National Primary Drinking Water Standards ( July 1987)

Remember this citation: “Fluoride is more poisonous than lead, and just less poisonous than arsenic.”
Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products 1984

What’s wrong with this picture?


As California Medical Association president Dr. Alesen points out, concentration in parts per million sidesteps the issue, regarding something that accumulates in the body year after year. The EPA is comparing fluorine to vitamins, for which there are minimum daily requirements. But vitamins are completely used up in a day or less. They don’t accumulate. In addition, setting an arbitrary level of 1 PPM fluoride in the drinking water provides for a wide variation in toxicity: some people drink half a glass of water per day, while others drink two liters. This idea is a very big deal when you’re talking about something that never goes away in the body.

“It is obvious that the important factor is not the concentration of the fluoride in the water supply, but the total amount consumed.”
– Alesen, p.6

That is why fluoride poisoning can be disguised – diseases like skeletal fluorosis may take 25 or 30 years to appear, since accumulation of fluoride in the bones is slow and gradual. (Shortt)


    “When historians come to write about this period, they will single out [fluoridation] as the single biggest mistake in public policy that we’ve ever had.”

    – Paul Connett, PhD, Biochemistry

    “Water fluoridation is the single largest case of scientific fraud, promoted by the government, supported by taxpayer dollars, aided and abetted by the ADA and the AMA, in the history of the planet.”

    – David Kennedy, DDS President International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology

    “Sodium fluoride is a registered rat poison and roach poison. It has been a protected pollutant for a very long time.”
    – William Hirzy, PhD President of the Union of Professional Employees of the EPA

    “sodium fluoride is a very toxic chemical, acting as an enzyme poison, direct irritant and calcium inactivator….It reacts with growing tooth enamel and with bones to produce irreversible damage.”

    – Granville Knight, MD president of the American Academy of Nutrition
    Congressional Record, 31 July 56 (Robotry, p. 22)

    “I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable.”

    – Charles Gordon Heyd, MD, president, AMA

    “no physician in his right mind would hand to his patient a bottled filled with a dangerous drug with instructions to take as much or as little of it as he wished… And yet, the Public Health Service is engaged upon a widespread propaganda program to insist that communities do exactly that…The purpose of administering fluoride is not to render the water supply pure and potable but to contaminate it with a dangerous, toxic drug for the purpose of administering mass medication to the consumer, without regard to age or physical condition.”

    – L. Alesen, MD, president of the California Medical Association
    Robotry, p14

    “Fluoridation is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it has been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has.”

    – Albert Schatz, PhD Nobel Laureate for discovering streptomycin
    quoted in Sutton’s Fluoridation:The Greatest Fraud

    “More people have died in the last 30 years from cancer connected with fluoridation than all the military deaths in the entire history of the United States.”

    – Dean Burk, PhD National Cancer Institute – Fluoridation:A Burning Controversy

    “Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time.”

    – EPA scientist, Dr. Robert Carton (Downey, 2 May 99)


Adding fluoride to the drinking water causes bioaccumulation in our cells, year after year. If fluoride is in the water, it’s everywhere:

    growing vegetables and fruit
    washing vegetables and fruit
    in the meat of animals who have drunk fluoridated water
    in toothpaste
    in canned foods
    in processed foods
    in soft drinks
    in beer

A 1998 laboratory analysis done at Sequoia Analytical Labs in California showed very high concentrations of fluoride in the following foods:

    • Dole pineapple, canned
    • Snapple
    • Coke Classic
    • Hansen’s soda
    • Minute Maid orange juice
    • Gerber strawberry juice for babies
    • Amstel Lite beer
    • Rice Dream
    • Sunny Delight orange drink
    • Pepsi

Another analysis done in 1998 by Jupiter Environmental Labs in Florida showed similar findings:

    food . . . fluoride in PPM (parts per million)

    Gerber White Grape juice. 3.5
    Gatorade . . .44
    Diet Coke . . 1.12
    Lipton Ice Tea . . .58
    Sprite . . .73
    Hawaiian Punch . . .85

Last one for now. A study in the Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry:

. . . food . . . fluoride in PPM (parts per million)

    Welch’s 100% Grape juice . 2.6
    Ocean Spray Crabapple . . 1.8
    Hi-C Apple-grape . . 1.16
    Minute Maid Grape. . 1.25
    Minute Maid White Grape . . 3.0
    Gerber’s White Grape . . 6.8

And it’s not just the juices: Froot Loops cereal was found to have 2.1 ppm by Expert Chemical Analysis of San Diego.

These are just a few examples of fluoride levels in some common grocery store items consumed by most Americans. The point is that there’s an notable fluoride content in many, if not the majority of processed foods in our refrigerators and pantries. That’s not mentioning our fruits and vegetables, even if they’re ‘organic’ but grown with city water. We’re taking in a ton of fluoride from ubiquitous sources. It accumulates over the years in our collagen, bones, and teeth.


In 1973, British Columbia was considering mandatory fluoridation. They gave the job of researching and reporting the topic to Richard Foulkes, MD. Foulkes then wrote a 2000 page report and recommended that legislation begin to make fluoride mandatory in Canada. Based on that work, Canada began to fluoridate.

Then something happened. Little by little, Foulkes found out that the statistics that his researchers had based their findings on were largely falsified. It took Foulkes years to run down the truth, but by 1992, he shocked the country by backing down from his original recommendation:

    “I now hold a different view. …the fluoridation of community water supplies can no longer be held to be either safe or effective in the reduction of dental caries….Therefore, the practice should be abandoned.” – Foulkes, 1992

Foulkes is not some tree-hugger from Santa Cruz. He is one of Canada’s top scientific researchers. Many areas of Canada listened and stopped fluoridating. Want to read a first-hand story about lies and greed and disregard for human health and crooked deals between government and industry? Read Dr. Foulkes stuff.

Another pro-fluoride Canadian scientist, Dr. Hardy Limeback, changed his tune when he learned that 30-65% of Canadian children now have visible signs of overexposure to fluoride: dental fluorosis. Limeback:

    “Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste. Or drink fluoridated water.”

    – Toronto Star, Michael Downey interview with Limeback

Such research also prompted the Canadian Dental Association in 1992 to keep fluoride supplements from children of three and under. But attacking fluoride supplement pills is just a smokescreen to protect fluoridation of drinking water. Most research has found all the above ill effects at concentrations even less than the standard 1 PPM that is in most city water. It’s not the supplements that are killing us; it’s the fluoridated water.


If fluoridation is as safe and effective as the American Dental Association says it is, why don’t other countries do it? The U.S. is nowhere near the top of any health list which compares other countries of the worlD. So what are the healthy countries doing?

If fluoride is so great, why have the following countries either never fluoridated or else stopped when they found out how bad it was?:

    West Germany
    The Netherlands
    – Smith, G. – Foulkes (1992)

Only about 2% of the population of Europe is subjected to fluoridated water. – Yiamouyiannis, p.208


Three reasons why we’re so far down the road of toxic fluoridation it’s hard to come back:

    • To reverse the policy of fluoridation now would be for the ADA, the EPA, the FDA, and the USPHS, Congress, and all the municipal water polluters in the US to admit that they made a mistake. Not a good move for re-election. Or liability.

    • To criticize fluoridation as a policy would challenge the billions of tons of fluoride being released into the air and water by the nuclear, aluminum, phosphate, steel, glass, cement, and petrochemical industries.

    • If fluoridation stopped, a multi-million dollar gravy train of research grants, propaganda contracts, and sweetheart arrangements between government and industry would vaporize overnight.


It may not be a good idea to blind ourselves to the presence of cold-blooded 24-karat Evil as it exists in the world today. But it’s not like some madman in a James Bond movie with terminal acne, dressed in a metallic suit, speaking terrible English from his office in a hollowed-out volcano somewhere, threatening to destroy the world. No, no. These guys are polite and well-groomed, and have impeccable credentials. More like Al Pacino where he’s the devil in that movie with Keanu Reeves – very likable, well-traveled, appreciates a fine wine, knows when to say that one perfect remark to make things work . . … Or even Billy Crystal where he’s the devil in that Woody Allen movie – very charming, urbane. These are not people to be confronted and defeated. No, these individuals advance. Their expertise is in how to get on – pageantry, presentation.

Beneath them, are the ones who do the work. Dr. Y chronicles a group of low-level bureaucrats and opinion makers whose unsupported, semi-literate propaganda gets constant media play. Propaganda can’t be brilliant, and doesn’t have to be true or make sense. It just has to be simple and be repeated over and over every day. These same pretenders and “social scientists” are coincidentally the stable of “experts” who are continually given extensive media space to criticize anything alternative or holistic that threatens organized medicine. Doctors of the evening. Flaccid guns for hire. Their tactics are low-level and powerful, according to the Bernays formula:

    • conduct no research

    • avoid the real issues when possible

    • never engage in any debate where actual research data will be used

    • attack the opponent, not the issue

    • don’t try to instruct, or lead through a process of step-by-step education

    • persuade; do not inform

    • use emotional phrases to distract people from the real issues

    • when confronted, change the subject

    • cover up the real studies; never refer to them

    • pretend there is some favorable research by using phrases like “Numerous studies have shown…” or “Research has proven…” or “Scientific investigators have found….” but then never cite anything

    • always harp on the “superior education and training” of the fluoridation people, pretending that the most educated doctors and professionals favor fluoridation, even though Dr Y thoroughly proves that most of the propaganda has been written by non-science people, generally with public relations or mass-psychology backgrounds

    • keep repeating unfounded falsehoods about the safety and effectiveness of proven poisons

    • remind people how many decades fluoridation has been going on

    • favor mandatory fluoridation legislation, removing all opportunity for free discussion when possible

    • try to keep all opposing evidence from being seen or considered by any policy-making agency

    • omit pertinent data from actual studies

Above all, never stop repeating the same falsehoods, over and over.

Like him or not, we must respect Freud’s grasp of the human mind and what motivates it. Freud is the father of psychoanalysis, and even though that profession has largely fallen by the wayside, diluted by a thousand social servants, and boatloads of antidepressants, his original principles have found a home: the media. Shaping mass opinion in the “proper” mold – the PC lemmings can be guided to practically any cliff the controllers can dream up.


Most people have no opportunity to have the facts of the issues presented to them, because of the virtual blackout of information in the media. That’s why all this seems so odd. With the help of the colossal disinformation machine in operation, according to the American Dental Association probably about 62% of the drinking water in the U.S. is fluoridated. ( But some courts have shown the other side of the picture, and beginning to see through the standard shell-games of the pro-fluoridationists.

In a famous legal battle over fluoridation in the 1950s we find the judge letting us have it:

    “By [fluoridating the water] the municipal authorities…arrogate to themselves the sole right to decide what medicine is good for the health of the water consumers, and thereby the municipal water system becomes a direct conduit for the transportation of medicine from the apothecary’s pestle to the patient, without the latter’s consent. Thus will the people be deprived of a very important part of their constitutional liberty under our republican form of government and the police state will be substituted for the police power of the state.”

    – Justice Donworth in KAUL vs. CITY OF CHEHALIS – from Robotry, p 18

Two decades later a Pennsylvania Supreme Court judge made a meticulous review of all available research, both pro and con, before entering his 1979 injunction against fluoridation. His Honor was less than impressed with the wit of the fluoridationists:

    “The proponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impugn the objectivity of those who oppose fluoridation.”

    Judge John Flaherty
    Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Judge Flaherty wrote a letter to the Mayor of Auckland, New Zealand stating:

    “…In my view the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and…there is no convincing evidence to the contrary.” – The Arthritis Trust, 1994


Fluoridation is a totally new idea, from a Constitutional point of view. It’s nothing like adding chlorine. Although chlorine has toxic side effects, it actually does something beneficial to the water – chlorine purifies the water. Fluoride does no such thing. Fluoride is a drug, a medication that supposedly has beneficial effects for a small percentage of the population.

    “The purpose of administering fluoride is not to render the water supply pure and potable but to contaminate it with a dangerous toxic drug for the purpose of administering mass medication to the consumer without regard to age or physical condition.” – Alesen, p 16

In other words, without consent. And giving drugs without consent is in direct violation of international codes of war behavior, like Nuremberg and the Geneva Accords. Commenting on the famous KAUL case above, Judge Hamley had this to say:

    “What future proposals may be made to treat noncontagious disease by adding ingredients to our water supply, or food or air, only time will tell. When that day arrives, those who treasure their personal liberty will look in vain for a constitutional safeguard. The answer will be : ‘You gave the Constitution away in the Kaul case.” – Robotry, p. 18


Want to stop a fluoridation advocate in his tracks? Ask him to cite exact legitimate studies that prove fluoridation prevents tooth decay. Then find them. Besides the few bogus political documents by Dean and Cox, cited above, there aren’t any. Fluoride research is a huge area. The fact that most studies have been almost completely suppressed for the past 50 years mars many illusions about the democratic process.

If people want fluoride in their drinking water, let them buy supplements. Fluoridation of municipal water has nothing to do with health. It’s just politics.


The fluoridation battle is being waged back and forth in the individual cities and towns across America. Many districts have never fluoridated. Many others have recently decided to begin fluoridation. Still another group of 63 cities, since 1900, which had fluoridated for a long time, have voted to stop. (Jones) It’s an ongoing struggle, with million of dollars of fluoridiot funding available for presentations, flyers, and media ads in any community where the issue is coming up for a vote. If fluoridation is defeated this year, it may appear on the ballot again the following year if the city is on the Priority Schedule.

California’s Priority Schedule is a list of 167 communities in California which are being targeted by the formidable alliance of fluoridation interests. (Table 64434-A) Doesn’t look like they’ll run out of cash any time in this life: support comes from the slush funds and lobbyists of the mega industrial polluters who wish to maintain the public water works as their private sewer. They want to keep this 50-year gravy train rolling, and the best way to do that is marketing and promotion. Here are the Top Ten of the 1999 Priority Schedule in California:

    Helix Water District
    Ventura, CA
    Daly City, CA
    Escondido, CA
    Santa Maria CA
    Fair Oaks Water District
    Manhattan Beach, CA
    Sweetwater Authority
    Santa Barbara, CA
    El Dorado Irrigation District

It floors you to realize the immense amount of scientific research and legal opinion proving the toxicity of fluoride since the 1930s, that has been ignored and suppressed. Why did all those people do all that work? With every new city that places fluoridation on the ballot, all the old arguments are dragged out, as if it’s from scratch every time, without the benefit of input from all the other hundreds of communities that have gone through this same battle. Divide and conquer – worked for the Romans.

Antifluoridationist information programs are often privately funded grassroots little organizations, but their influence is being felt across the nation. With the rise of the Internet, it is getting harder to keep people from learning the real effects about fluoride. For these reasons, clean water is very slowing making progress against the totalitarian forces of mass medications. But the struggle never ends.


Chlorine and fluoride are added on purpose to the water. We haven’t even mentioned the millions of tons of industrial pollutants that sneak into the earth’s water supply every year. To give just one small example, Congress did a study in 1979 of the extent of industrial pollution between 1950 and 1970. They verified just a part of what was actually dumped into America’s water supply: the top 14% of industrial polluters discharged 1.5 trillion pounds of industrial wastes into the water supply in that 20 year period.

What about the other 86%?

Think it’s improved since 1970? Consider this:

The only federal agency for ensuring clean drinking water is the EPA. In 1997, after the cryptosporidium deaths in Milwaukee and Las Vegas, Clinton tried to upgrade the provisions of the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act. But the EPA only regulates some 60 chemicals—there are thousands of chemical pollutants in the water! And the states are individually claiming that complying with the restrictions on just those 60 are “too expensive” because they just don’t have the money. Most water systems are operating on very old designs with inadequate capacity. (Kupua A’o, p16)

As a result, in 1991-1992 alone, the EPA reported over 250,000 violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act, affecting more than 100 million Americans. (Natural Resources Defense Council) For those 250,000 violations, guess on how many the EPA took enforcement action. Just guess. About 600.

We’re on our own out here.


The tap water in this country seems to have a few problems:

    heavy metals
    resistant biologicals

You’d think that since we created the problem, we could fix it. But even if Greenpeace or someone took over the government of the world tomorrow and stopped all further pollution tonnage, it would be years, decades before the water would be like it was before the Industrial Revolution. These contaminants will be around for centuries. By now everyone knows what the concept of half-life means. Different data sources, different time frames, but one thing is certain: the water cannot be cleaned up in our lifetime, no matter what is done. Writing a sentence like that is a shocker. Where is my ninja team?

So what can we do?

Don’t drink the tap water for starters. But does that also mean don’t wash vegetables, make ice cubes, or cook with tap water? Yes, it does, because heat doesn’t destroy fluoride, heavy metals, or other contaminants. Remember the word bioaccumulative.

So the first step is


That’s right – drag it home from the market every week. Or the 5-gallon bottle from the water store. Is that safe enough? Maybe. Who knows? You have to trust two groups of people in order to be sure:

    • the regulating agencies
    • the sellers

Bottled spring water became a billion dollar industry in just a few years. As a result, competition is bringing the cost to the consumer down all the time. Availability is no longer a problem – it’s at 7-11, as well as all grocery stores everywhere. There are 2 obvious categories of bottled spring water: low end and high end:

Black Mountain
Crystal Geyser, etc

Fuji, etc.

Water stores also sell reverse osmosis water – no minerals. Lower grade than natural spring water. Bottled water is only as good as the monitoring system in place. Step right up.


“Buy a filter or be a filter.” That’s one company’s slogan.

Today there is enough grassroots consciousness about the dangers of tap water that cheap carbon filters are now available in any hardware store which attach easily to the kitchen faucet. It is likely that such filters get rid of most of the chlorine – for awhile. But to really get the resistant biologicals, the fluoride, heavy metals, and other contaminants, the customer may consider one of the high-end drinking water filters. These cost between two and four hundred dollars and come in models for both over and under the sink.

Names like Alpine, MultiPure, and Spectrapure, are among the dozens of brand names that have come along during the past 20 years. Everyone claims to be the best, of course, but we can find some important similarities in their advertising. When you begin to compare the better water filters, you notice common concerns:

     THMs
     cloriform
     chloramines
     cryptosporidium and giardia lamblia cysts
     fluoride
     pesticides and toxic chemicals
     heavy metals
     minerals
     MTBEs
     nitrates

Killing microbials is not a big deal since most of that’s been done by chlorine. Most contaminants are removed by the better filters. The problem when choosing a filter seems to come down to four main concerns: fluoride, minerals, THMs, and nitrates. Difficult to find one filter that does everything: many reverse osmosis filters take out fluoride, but also the healthy minerals. Many of the high-end carbon filters will not remove fluoride or nitrates, but leave the healthy minerals.

Fluoride is obviously a biggie. Find out if the filter you are about to buy removes fluoride, and what percentage. After what we’ve learned about fluoride, we should expect a filter to remove it, wouldn’t you say? Problem is: the demand. Due to fluoridiot propaganda, most Americans don’t even realize fluoride is bad, and therefore don’t think about it when considering a water filter.

NSF is a third-party non-profit testing agency that has been rating water filters for the past 50 years. Always ask – is it NSF-certified? For what? Don’t be fooled if they say ‘NSF-tested.’ Big difference.

Minerals is an area of some controversy. You’ve got the hard water / soft water debate. Hard water has more minerals in it, which obviously is better for the bones and teeth, and probably for the heart as well. That makes sense, although as we saw in the Minerals chapter, elemental minerals are the least absorbed of all types. Elemental means from rocks, and that’s the kind that would be in spring water, and therefore in filtered water, except for reverse osmosis. In my opinion, hard water is better than distilled.

Most naturopaths and holistic nutritionists don’t like distilled water because they say it leaches minerals from the bones and teeth. In general, that seems logical, although Dr. Y says it doesn’t make any difference unless the person is extremely malnourished. The truth is, no formal studies comparing distilled with mineral water have been done, so it’s all pretty theoretical. But thinking about the Hunzas and their 120-year lifespan that was attributed to the glacial mineral waters they drank, one can see the value of minerals in drinking water. A high-end water filter should take this discussion into consideration and give reasons about the importance or unimportance of filtering out certain minerals.

Comes down to a choice: reverse osmosis or carbon block. With reverse osmosis you’ve got no fluoride filtration, no minerals, and wasting about 4-9 gallons to get one gallon of pure water. (A’o, p72) With high-end carbon mesh filters, you can get rid of everything but fluoride, and you’ll still have minerals.

These are questions for the filter sales force. Make ‘em dance for you. Caveat emptor – only 5 states have any regulations about what water filter manufacturers can say. On the Internet – it’s a total jungle!

There is one excellent little book which can save a lot of research time: Don’t Drink the Water. The author goes into great detail in comparing the attributes and quality of the basic filter units. He points out the advantages of placing a KDF filter before the carbon filter in order to insure that bacteria won’t begin to grow within the carbon.


Sorry if this chapter got to be Information Overload. The materials cited really only scratch the surface of the research that has been done in these areas. The purpose of the chapter has been to acquaint the reader with some of the basic issues in regard to drinking water, issues which are systematically hidden from the media, for obvious reasons. Prove them wrong, if you can; just don’t pretend like these problems don’t exist. When you read something that proclaims the purity of tap water or the importance of fluoride, maybe now you will notice how studies are claimed but never cited. Look behind what you read and try to see the persuasive tactics of Freud’s nephew. Appreciate the mastery of an art.

The physiological importance of hydration has really been glossed over by doctors and nutritionists, not on purpose, but simply because it’s not taught. The ideas of Dr. Batmanghelidj must be confronted – either he’s right or else there’s a major gap in our health information.

It’s unfortunate that the sludge of politics has to be hauled into a discussion of water purity. But once you discover how and why our water got this way, the political influences are like an elephant in the living room – pretty hard to ignore. Not exactly hot news; politics has been controlling science ever since they locked Galileo in that high-rise jail for discovering the earth went around the sun. Which is why you shouldn’t expect much support if you try to discuss or substantiate what you’ve just learned in this chapter. Lemmings know what lemmings are told.

The rest of the iceberg is left to you. This chapter is just the briefest glimpse of the top part. With a little follow-up, perhaps you won’t make the same mistake the captain of the Titanic made: thinking that there’s nothing in the water that can hurt you.

copyright: MMXVII


Batmandjeld, F MD The Body’s Many Cries for Water 1994
Global Health Solutions

Robbins, T Even Cowgirls Get the Blues Bantam 1990

Guyton, A, MD Textbook of Medical Physiology Saunders 1996

Spangler L Xenoestrogens and Cancer: Nowhere To Run
WomenWise Magazine Winter 1996

Whang, S Reverse Aging 1990

Greenpeace Chlorine Crisis: Time for a Global Phase-out 1990

Fackelman, K Hints of a chlorine-cancer connection Science News, Jul11, 1992, p142

Price, Joseph M MD Coronaries, Cholesterol, Chlorine 1990

Water Review 7,2, 1992 Findings Link Chlorination with Bladder and Rectal Cancer

Rathburn R Potentially Deleterious Effects of Chlorinating Mississippi River Water for Drinking
U.S. Geological Survey – Circ.#1133

Simmon & Tardiff The mutagenic activity of halogenated compounds found in chlorinated drinking water
Water Chlorination, Environmental Impact and Health Effects p 417
Ann Arbor Science

Popular Science June 1996 Water Purity: Chlorine Alternatives

Greenpeace International, website

How Chlorine Chemicals Are Made

What Is Dioxin?

PVC Plastic

Pulp and Paper Briefing 1992

Chlorine in the World

Chlorophiles website:

Howell, E MD Enzyme Nutrition 1985 Avery

Griffiths, J and Bryson, C Fluoride, Teeth, and the A-bomb
Earth Island Journal Winter 1997-98 p. 38

Foulkes, R MD Fluoride & Brain Damage: A Secret Revealed
Canadian Journal of Health and Nutrition Sep 1998, p.67

Foulkes, R MD Fluoridation of Community Water Supplies, 1992 Update
Townsend Letter for Doctors Jun 1992, p 450

Foulkes, R MD “Hydrofluoric Acid” Townsend Letter for Doctors July 1993, p 696

Dustrude, R Letter Health Freedom News Jan 1993, p 36

Ferry, J Capt Request for Animal Experimentation to Determine CNS Effects
Letter 29 Apr 44

Yiamouyiannis, J Fluoride the Aging Factor 1993 Health Action Press

Ishida, K MD The Effects of Fluoride on Bone Metabolism
Koku Kisei Gakkai Zasshi 31, p330 1981
Kanagawa Dental University, Japan

Downey, M A crack appears in the fluoride front
(Interview with Dr. Hardy Limeback)
Toronto Star 25 Apr 99

Downey, M Few answers to support fluoride use
Toronto Star 2 May 99

Bronkers, A et al. A Histological Study of the Short Term Effects of Fluoride on Enamel
Archives of Oral Biology vol 29, p803 1984

Dean, HT MD Further Studies on Minimal Threshold of Chronic Endemic Dental Fluorosis
Public Health Reports vol. 52 p1249 1937

Burk, D PhD Fluoridation: A Burning Issue
Bestways Apr 1982 p 44

Segretto V et al A Current Study of Mottled Enamel in Texas JADA vol.108, p56 1984

Jacobsen, S MD Regional Variations in the Incidence of Hip Fracture
JAMA vol268, p 746 1992

Alesen, L MD Robotry and Water: A Critique of Fluoridation Freedom Club 1960

Waldbott,G, MD Chronic Fluorine Intoxication from Drinking Water
International Archives of Allergy 7:70-74, 1955

Riggs, BL MD Effect of Fluoride Treatment on the Fracture Rate in Postmenopausal Women with
Osteoporosis New England Journal of Medicine vol 322, p802, (1990)

Aksyuk & Bulychev Physiological effects of small amounts of fluoride on the organism
Gigiena I Sanitariya vol 27, no. 12 p7 (1962)

Shortt, H et al. Endemic Fluorosis in the Madras Presidency
Indian Journal of Medical Research 25:553-568 Oct 1937

Klein W et al. DNA repair and environmental substances
Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Bader und Kilmaheilkune
vol.24, no.3, p.218 1976 Austrian Society of Atomic Energy

Tsutsui T, et al. Sodium-fluoride induced morphological and neoplastic transformation
Cancer Research vol 44, pp 938-941

Burk & Yiamouyiannis Fluoride and Cancer Congressional Record p H7173 21 Jul 1975

Shin, M Laboratory Analysis 19 May 98 Sequoia Analytical project # 9805C34

Ross, C Laboratory Analysis 26 May 98
Jupiter Environmental Laboratories, Inc. log# 1478-1490

Polansky, J Analytical Testing Report 17 Jun 98
Expert Chemical Analysis, Inc. San Diego #JPS p.115

Cohn, PD A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of
osteosarcoma among young males New Jersey Dept of Health Nov. 1992.

Armstrong&Brekhus Possible Relationship between the fluorine content of enamel and resistance to dental caries
Journal of Dental Research vol 17 p393 1938

Beiraghi S et al. Low level fluoride in drinking water and caries incidence in rats
Journal of Dental Research vol 67 p318 1988

RHS Editorial. Concern about dietary fluoride supplementation
Journal of Dental Research vol 96 p1158 1978

Editorial Chronic Fluorine Intoxication JAMA 18 Sept 43 vol 123 p. 150

Editorial Effect of fluorine on dental caries JADA 1 Oct 44 p 1360

DiFabio, A et al. Governmentally Approved Poison
The Arthritis Trust of America 1994

Smith, G Fluoride: dental wonder or medical blunder? Explore No.5 1994 p 60

Bernays, E Propaganda 1928

Jones, M Rejection of Water Fluoridation list 1999

Health and Safety Code Table 64434-A Section 40266.7

4th Annual Conference of State Dental Directors with the Public Health Service and the Children’s Bureau, Federal Security
Bldg, Washington, DC 6 Jun 1951

Natural Resources Defense Council Think Before You Drink: The Failure of the Nation’s Drinking Water System to
Protect Public Health Sept. 1993

Clark University Scientific Forum on Water Fluoridation 24 Oct 96 videotape

Preventive Dental Health Association: Fluoride Risk Assessment Press Release videotape

Miller, A MD Fluoridation of Water: Extension of Remarks
Congressional Record 25 Mar 1952 p A1899

Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products 1984
Williams & Wilkins

A’o, L Don’t Drink the Water 1998 Kali

Banik, Allen DDS Hunza Land Whitehorn Publ., Long Beach 1960

Taylor, Renee Hunza Health Secrets Universal Publishing, NY, 1964

Minerals – The Most Overlooked Nutrient

December 18th, 2016

    Dr Tim O’Shea

Minerals is one confusing topic. Inorganic, organic, chelated, elemental, ionic, colloidal, essential, trace – all these claims! What do we really need? Credentials in nutrition apparently mean very little when it comes to minerals. Much of what is written about minerals is speculative, market-oriented, or dead wrong.

A net search on minerals is an overwhelming assault on one’s patience, time and credulity. How could all this stuff be right?

Minerals come from mines. Except when you’re talking about nutrition. Then they come from food. At least they used to. When we still had some viable topsoil.

Four elements compose 96% of the body’s makeup:


The remaining 4% of the body’s composition is mineral.

The following table shows the 21 minerals that have been shown to have nutritive value for humans.

Macro means more than 100mg per day.

Trace usually means either the requirements are measured in micrograms or that the amount required has never been measured.

Essential means the body can’t manufacture it. We must get it from the diet.

Essential Minerals



……..TRACE MINERALS . . . . . . .

– U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
National Research Council

Deficiency amounts have never been determined for many trace minerals, although several diseases have been linked with deficiencies of certain ones.

Beyond this, the marketplace takes over and science bows out. People are out there talking about 88-mineral toddies, minerals from ancient lakes, longevity of 150 years, calcium from pasteurized milk, calcium from coral reefs, mineral doses measured in grams, salubrious doses of silver, “normal” doses of lead, eye of newt, tail of frog, etc., making claims about this or that combination, trumpeting anecdotal cures for everything from cancer to hangnails.

The purpose of this chapter will be to try to sift through the debris and leave behind only the information which can be verified.

For several years, even mainstream medicine acknowledges the incontrovertible importance of mineral supplementation. In an article appearing in JAMA, once the top American medical journal, 24 Dec 1996, a controlled study of selenium use for cancer patients was written up. [24]

Selenium as you remember, effects powerful antioxidant activity, neutralizing free radicals, which are rampant in the presence of cancer. In this study, 1312 subjects were divided into groups. Some were given selenium; others the placebo.

There was a decrease of 63% with prostate cancer, and 46% with lung cancer in the selenium group. The results were so blatant that the designers actually terminated the study early so that everyone could begin to benefit from selenium.

This is just one example of the research on mineral supplementation. The problem is, if the results of studies economically threaten a current drug protocol, like chemotherapy, it is unlikely that an inexpensive natural supplement like selenium would be promoted by oncologists as a replacement any time soon.

There are six nutrient groups:

    – Water
    – Vitamins
    – Minerals
    – Fats
    – Protein
    – Carbohydrate

All are necessary for complete mammalian cellular function.

The necessity for minerals is a recent historical discovery, only about 150 years old. In the 1850s, Pasteur’s contemporary, Claude Bernard, learned about iron. Copper came about 10 years later, and zinc about the turn of the century.

With the discovery of Vitamin A in 1912, minerals were downplayed for about 50 years in favor of vitamin research. By 1950, after about 14 vitamins had been discovered, attention returned once more to minerals when it was shown that they were necessary co-factors in order for vitamins to operate. Minerals are co-factors for most biological reactions. Soon the individual functions of minerals in the body were demonstrated:

    Structural: bones, teeth, ligaments
    Solutes and electrolytes in the blood
    Enzyme actions
    Energy production from food breakdown
    Nerve transmission
    Muscle action

The following is a table of minerals linked with the specific functions most commonly agreed upon today:


    Muscle contraction
    Bone building


    Cell life
    Waste removal
    Osmostic balance


    Nerve transmission
    Cell life
    Normal blood pressure
    Muscle contraction


    Bone formation
    Cell energy


    Muscle contraction
    Nerve transmission
    Calcium metabolism
    Enzyme cofactor


    Normal blood pressure


    Protein synthesis
    Collagen structure
    bone and ligament structure


    Immune system
    Artery strength
    Forms hemoglobin from iron


    Insulin action
    Immune function


    Blood formation
    Immune function


    Immune stimulant
    Reduces free radicals
    Activates Vit E


    Immune regulation
    Brain development
    DNA synthesis


    Thyroid function


    Circulation: capillary integrity
    Sugar metabolism


    Metabolic Enzyme co-factor


    Metabolic Enzyme co-factor
    Connective tissue structure


    Metabolic Enzyme co-factor


    Metabolic Enzyme co-factor


    Teeth enamel

– Larry Berger, PhD and Parris Kidd, PhD [21]

Zinc is necessary for antioxidant production, which prevents aging and cancer. It is also a cofactor for some 80 metabolic enzymes. (Erasmus, p 172) Zinc is necessary for wound healing, fat metabolism, myelin, insulin function, semen production, tissue repair, especially skin, and HCl production. (Erasmus) [30]

Mineral deficiency means that some of these jobs will not get done. The body is capable of prodigious degrees of adaptation, and can operate for long periods of time with deficiencies of many of the above. But someday those checks will have to be cashed. When that happens: premature aging: cell breakdown. Dorian Gray’s portrait matures..

Without minerals, vitamins have little or no effect. Minerals are co-factors – triggers for thousands of essential enzyme reactions in the body. No trigger – no reaction. Without enzyme reactions, caloric intake is meaningless, and the same for protein, fat, and carbohydrate intake. Minerals trigger the vitamins and enzymes to act; not just digestion, but thousands of cell functions.


With the exception of those egregiously uninformed pedants who quack “you should be able to get all the nutrition you need from your food,” a virtually undisputed fact is deficiency. Mineral deficiency is the reason for the titanic output of websites, articles, and supplements visible today. The majority of mineral websites quote a 1936 source – Senate Document #264, as scientific proof that dietary minerals were generally inadequate for optimum health.

    “…most of us are suffering from certain diet deficiencies which cannot be remedied until deplete soils from which our food comes are brought into proper mineral balance.”

    “The alarming fact is that food…now being raised on millions of acres of land that no longer contain enough…minerals are starving us, no matter how much of them we eat.”

    “Lacking vitamins, the system can make use of minerals, but lacking minerals, vitamins are useless.”
    Senate Document 264 – – 74th Congress, 1936 [25]

The same document went on to quantify the extent of mineral deficiency:

    99% of the American people are deficient in minerals, and a marked deficiency in any one of the more important minerals actually results in disease.”

Congressional documents are not generally highly regarded as scientific sources, and other reference texts cite other percentages. The figures quoted by Albion Laboratories, longtime leader in patents on supplemental minerals, are somewhat lower, but the idea begins to come across:

DEFICIENCIES – % of U.S. Population

    Magnesium – 75%
    Iron – 58%
    Copper – 81%
    Manganese – 50%
    Chromium – 90%
    Zinc – 67%
    Selenium – 60%

    sources: Albion Labs, Fats That Heal [30]



Different studies will show different figures, of course, but there is certainly no lack of explanation for mass deficiencies of mineral intake. The most obvious of these is soil depletion and demineralization.

In 1900, forests covered 40% of the earth. By 1992 the figure was below 30%. (Relating Land Use and Global Land Cover, Turner, 1992 [5]). Diminshing steadily since then. {33} Aside from hacking down rainforests in order to raise beef cattle or soy or to build condos, one of the main reasons for the dying forests is mineral depletion.

According to a paper read at the 1994 meeting of the International Society for Systems Sciences, the 20th century was the first time ever that “mineral content available to forest and agricultural root systems is down by 25%-40%.” Less forests means less topsoil.

In the past 200 years, the U.S. has lost as much as 75% of its topsoil, according to John Robbins in his Pulitzer-nominated work Diet for a New America [4]. To replace one inch of topsoil may take anywhere from 200-1000 years, depending on climate. (Utah Teachers Resource Books) [3]

Demineralization of topsoil translates to loss of productive capacity. Contributing further to this trend is the growing of produce that is harvested and shipped far away.

The standard NPK (nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium) fertilizer farmers commonly use is able to restore the soil enough to grow fruits and vegetables which are healthy looking, but may be entirely lacking in vital trace minerals. The inventor of the entire NPK philosophy, Baron von Leibig, recanted his own theories before he died when he saw the deficiencies his methods were fostering as they became the agricultural standard in both Europe and America. [29]

Mineral depletion in topsoil is hardly a controversial issue. The question is not if, but how much. Plants are the primary agents of mineral incorporation into the biosphere. The implication for our position on the food chain is simply: lowered mineral content in produce grown in U.S. topsoil.

You won’t find any source that insists that the mineral content of American topsoil is as good today as it was 50 years ago. Generally, studies talk in terms of how much, if any, minerals are still present.


The second contributor to mineral deficiency within the population is obviously, diet. Even if our produce did contain abundant minerals, less than 4% of the population eats sufficient fruits and vegetables to account for minimal RDAs.

To compound matters, mass amounts of processed food, excess protein, and refined sugars require most of our mineral stores in order to digest it and remove it. The removal process involves enzymes, which break things down. Enzyme activity, remember, is completely dependent on minerals like zinc and copper and chromium. No minerals – no enzyme action.

In addition, milk and dairy products, alcohol, and drugs inhibit the absorption of these minerals, further depleting reserves. So it is cyclical: refined foods inhibit mineral absorption, which then are not themselves efficiently digested because of diminished enzyme activity.

And then we go looking for bugs as the cause of disease?


In the chapter on the COLON we saw how the standard indigestible American diet packs layer upon layer of plaque onto the inner lining of the colon. One of the prime functions of the colon is to resorb water, in order to prevent dehydration. Plaque prevents such a reclamation, and the result is that we lose both water and minerals that normally should be reabsorbed.


The fourth reason for inadequate minerals in the body is a phenomenon known as secondary deficiency. It has been proven that an excess of one mineral may directly cause a deficiency of another, because minerals compete for absorption, compete for the same binding sites, like a molecular Musical Chairs. Secondary deficiency means that an excess of one mineral causes a deficiency of another. (Kidd)

For example, iron, copper, and zinc are competitive in this way. Copper is necessary for the conversion of iron to hemoglobin, but if there is excess zinc, less iron will be available for conversion. This may cause a secondary deficiency of iron, which can manifest itself as iron deficiency anemia. All due simply to excess zinc. Researchers have found that these secondary deficiencies caused by excess of one mineral are almost always due to overdosing on mineral supplements, since the quantities contained in food are so small.


A fourth reason for mineral deficiency in humans is overuse of prescription drugs. It has been known since the 1950s that antibiotics interfere with uptake of minerals, specifically zinc, chromium, and calcium. (The Plague Makers [32]) Tylenol, Advil, Motrin, and aspirin have the same inhibitive effect on mineral absorption. Moreover, when the body has to try and metabolize these drugs to clear the system, its own mineral stores are heavily drawn upon.

Such a waste of energy is used to metabolize laxatives, diuretics, chemotherapy drugs, and NSAIDs out of the body. This is one of the most basic mechanisms in drug-induced immunosuppression: minerals are essential for normal immune function.


Ultimately, the primary characteristic with minerals is bioavailability. Really doesn’t matter what we eat; it only matters what makes it to the body’s cells. Let’s say someone is iron deficient, for example. Can’t he just take a bar of iron and file off some iron filings into a teaspoon, and swallow them? Just took in more iron, didn’t he? Well, yes but here is a major distinction: the difference between elemental minerals and nutrient minerals . Iron filings are in the elemental form; absorption will be 8% or less. [Ashmead]

Same with most store-bought multi supplements.

Food-bound iron, on the other hand, like that contained in raisins or molasses, will have a much higher rate of absorption, since it is complexed with other living, organic forms, and as such is classed as a nutrient mineral. Minerals are not living, though they are necessary for life. Minerals are necessary for cell life and enzyme reactions and hundreds of other reasons. But they must be in a form that can make it as far as the cells. What is not bioavailable passes right through the body, a waste of time and money.

Bioavailability has a precursor, an opening act. It is called absorption. Take a mineral supplement pill. Put it in a glass of water and wait half an hour. If it is unchanged, chances are that the tablet itself would never even dissolve in the stomach or intestine, but pass right out of the body. You would be astounded how many mineral supplements there are in this category.

OK, let’s say the tablet or capsule actually does dissolve in the digestive tract. Then what? In order to do us any good, the mineral must be absorbed into the bloodstream, through the intestinal walls. Elemental (inorganic) minerals are absorbed about 1-8% in this manner. The rest is excreted.

Elemental minerals are those found in the majority of supplements, because they’re very cheap to produce. For the small percentage that actually makes it to the bloodstream, the mineral is available for use by the cells, or as a cofactor in thousands of essential enzyme reactions that keep every cell alive every second. Use at the cellular level is what bioavailability is all about.

With this background in mind we can begin to understand that varying amounts of the seven macrominerals and approximately 14 trace minerals, in a bioavailable form are necessary for optimum cell activity, optimum health and would seem to contribute to longevity. So besides epidemic mineral deficiency, what’s the problem?

In a word,


Mineral deficiency has become such an obvious health concern, causing specific diseases because of a lack of a single mineral, and general immune suppression with a lack of several, that the obvious need for supplementation has spawned an entire industry to the rescue. But in any market-driven industry involving pills, we sometimes find the cures are worse than the original problems. Why?

First off, toxicity. Remember, even macrominerals are only necessary in tiny amounts. Most trace minerals are necessary in amounts too small to be measured, and can only be estimated.

Toxicity is a word that simply means excess. When extra stuff gets put into the body, it’s a big deal. All forces are mobilized for removal of the extra stuff – the antigens, toxins, poisons, reactants, etc. Toxicity results from taking a nonessential non-nutrient mineral into the body.

Take lead poisoning, for example. If lead gets into the blood, the body will try to remove it. Since the metal atoms are so heavy compared with the body’s immune forces, removal may be impossible. Lead can initiate a chronic inflammatory response and can remain in the body permanently, which is why we don’t have lead in paint or gasoline any more.

Most minerals can be toxic if taken to excess. And this excess would not happen from food; only from supplements or the environment.


Well, for starters, any supplement containing more than about 21 minerals, because that’s all that have been proven to be necessary for humans. New toxicities are always being discovered. Aluminum linked to Alzheimer’s is a recent discovery.

Beyond these 21 or so it’s simply anybody’s guess, no matter what they tell you about the 5 civilizations where people live to be 140 years old, etc. People who show dramatic improvements from taking these 60 and 80 mineral drinks generally were likely so depleted that they rapidly absorbed the essential minerals in which they were deficient. But the toxicities from the nonessential, unknown minerals may take a long time to show up. Why take in anything extra?

Here’s an example of an ingredient list from one of these mega-mineral drinks: Calcium, Magnesium, Zinc, Vanadium, Manganese, Potassium, Selenium, Chromium, Phosphate, Iron, Sulfur, Carbon, Sodium, Barium, Strontium, Cesium, Thorium, Molybdenum, Nickel, Cerium, Germanium, Copper, Rubidium, Antimony, Gallium, Neodymium, Lanthanum, Bismuth, Zirconium, Thallium, Tungsten, Ruthenium, Boron, Iodine, Chloride, Bromine, Titanium, Cobalt, Dysprosium, Scandium, Samarium, Fluoride, Niobium, Praseodymium, Erbium, Hafnium, Lithium, Ytterbium, Yttrium, Cadmium, Holmium, Rhenium, Palladium, Gold, Thulium, Terbium, Iridium, Tantalum, Europium, Lutetium, Rhodium, Tin, Indium, Silver, Beryllium, Tellurium, and Platinum.

Any questions?

Amidst all the confusion about minerals, one thing should be made clear: we only need a little. So the mineral supplements we take should be as absorbable and as bioavailable as possible. That way we won’t have to take much. Less chance of toxicity.

So the question then becomes: which mineral supplements are the most absorbable and the most usable, and therefore effective in the smallest amounts possible? Four candidates present themselves, all contending for the title:


Unraveling this puzzle is one area where the internet can actually impede progress. Try it and you’ll see why.

There’s only one answer, but it’s buried deep. To find it, we have to review a little


The digestive tract goes like this: mouth, esophagus, stomach, small intestine, large intestine, and out. Mineral absorption means transferring the mineral from the digestive tract through the wall of the intestine, into the bloodstream. You really have to picture this: the digestive tract is just a long tube, from one end to the other. As long as food and nutrients are inside this tube, they are actually considered to be still outside the body, because they haven’t been absorbed into the bloodstream yet.

This is an essential concept to understanding mineral absorption. Minerals can’t do any good unless they make it into the bloodstream. This is exactly why most minerals bought at the grocery store are almost worthless: they pass right through the body – in one end and out the other. It’s also why many nutritionists’ and dieticians’ advice is valueless; they commonly pretend everything that is eaten is absorbed.

Two main reasons for lack of absorption:

    – the pill never dissolved
    – the mineral was in its elemental form (non-nutrient, e.g., iron filings)

Let’s say these problems are overcome; neither is true. Or let’s say the mineral is contained within some food, such as iron in molasses, or potassium in bananas. Food-bound minerals are attached or complexed to organic molecules. Absorption into the blood is vastly increased, made easy. The mineral is not just a foreign metal that has been ingested; it is part of food.

Fruits and vegetables with high mineral content exemplify the best way to provide the body with adequate nutrition. Food-bound minerals are the original mode. As already cited above, however, sufficient mineral content is an increasingly rare occurrence. Foods simply don’t have it. How little, what portion of normal depends on what studies one finds.

oon the necessity for supplementation becomes obvious: if the food no longer has it, and we need it, pass the supplements, please. At that point, the marketplace assaults one’s awareness and we’re almost back to the days of the tonics, brews, toddies, and snake potions of yesteryear.


Let’s look at the four types one by one. Least beneficial are the supplements containing minerals in the elemental form. That means the mineral is just mentioned on the label. It’s not ionized, it’s not chelated, it’s not complexed with an oxide or a carbonate or a sulfate, or with a food, and it’s not colloidal. Like under “ingredients” it just says “iron” or “copper,” or “calcium,” etc.

Elemental minerals are obviously the cheapest to make. A liquid would only have to be poured over some nails to be said to contain iron. Elemental minerals are the most common in grocery store supplements. They may not be toxic, as long as only the minerals mentioned on the label are included in the supplement. The problem is absorption: it’s between 1 and 8 percent. The rest passes right through. Not only a waste of money; also a waste of energy: it has to be processed out of the body.


Next comes ionic minerals. Usually a step up. Ionic means in the form of ions. Ions are unstable molecules that want to bind with other molecules. An ion is an incomplete molecule. There is a definite pathway for the absorption of ionic minerals through the gut (intestine) into the blood. In fact, any percent of the elemental minerals that actually got absorbed became ions first, by being dissolved in stomach acids.

Ionic minerals are not easily absorbed through the intestine intact.

The model for mineral ion absorption through the intestine is as follows. Ions are absorbed through the gut by a complicated process involving becoming attached or chelated to some special carrier proteins in the intestinal wall. Active transport is involved; meaning, energy is required to bring the ionic mineral from inside the intestine through the lining, to be deposited in the bloodstream on the other side. [7]

Ionic minerals may be a good source of nutrients for the body, depending upon the type of ions, and on how difficult it is for the ion to get free at the appropriate moment and location.

Minerals require an acidic environment for absorption. Remember low pH (less than 7) is acidic; high pH (above 7) is alkaline.

As the stomach contents at pH 2 empty into the small intestine, the first few centimeters of the small intestine is the optimum location for mineral absorption. The acidic state is necessary for ionization of the dissolved minerals. If the pH is too alkaline, the ions won’t disassociate from whatever they’re complexed with, and will simply pass on through to the colon without being absorbed.

As the mineral ions are presented to the lining of the intestine, if all conditions are right, and there are not too much of competing minerals present, the ions will begin to be taken across the intestinal barrier, making their way into the bloodstream. This is a complicated, multi-step process, beyond the scope of this chapter.

Simply, it involves the attachment of the free mineral ion to some carrier proteins within the intestinal membrane, which drag the ion across and free it into the bloodstream. A lot happens during the transfer, and much energy is required for all the steps. Just the right conditions and timing are necessary: proper pH, presence of vitamins for some, and the right section of the small intestine. [7]

Iron, manganese, zinc, copper – these ions are bound to the carrier proteins which are embedded in the intestinal lining. The binding is accomplished by a sort of chelation process, which simply describes the type of binding which holds the ion. The carrier protein or ligand hands off the mineral to another larger carrier protein located deeper within the intestinal wall. After several other steps, if all conditions are favorable, the ion is finally deposited on the other side of the intestinal wall: the bloodstream, and is now usable by the cells.

Ionic mineral supplements do not guarantee absorption by their very nature, although they are certainly more likely to be absorbed than are minerals in the raw, elemental state. However, ionic minerals are at least in the form required for uptake by the carrier proteins that reside in the intestinal wall.

The uncertainties with ionic minerals include how many, how much, and what else are the unstable ions likely to become bound to before the carrier proteins pick them up. All ionic supplements are not created equal. Just because it’s an ion doesn’t mean a supplemental mineral will be absorbed. Too many minerals in a supplement will compete for absorption, some for the smae binding sites. Too much of one mineral will crowd out the others. The idea is to offer the body an opportunity for balance; rather than to overload it with the hope that some will make it through somehow. All we need is a little.


Speaking of overloading, the third type of supplemental minerals is called colloidal. What does colloidal really mean? Colloidal refers to a solution, a dispersion medium in which mineral particles are so well suspended that they never settle out: you never have to shake the bottle.

The other part of the dictionary definition has to do with diffusion through a membrane: “will not diffuse easily through vegetable or animal membrane.” Yet this is supposed to be the whole rationale for taking colloidal minerals – their absorbability.

Colloidal guru Joel Wallach himself continuously claims that it is precisely the colloidal form of the minerals that allows for easy diffusion and absorption across the intestinal membrane, because the particles are so small. Wallach claims 98% absorption, but cites no studies, experiments, journal articles or research of any kind to back up this figure. Why not? Because there aren’t any. The research on colloidal minerals has never been done. It’s not out there. Senate Document 264 doesn’t really cover it.

In reality, colloidal minerals are actually larger than ionic minerals, as discussed by top researcher Max Motyka, MS. [22] Because of the molecular size and suspension in the colloid medium, which Dorland’s Medical dictionary describes as “like glue,” absorption is inhibited, not enhanced.

No less an authority than Dr. Royal Lee, the man responsible for pointing out the distinction between whole food vitamins and synthetic vitamins, stated:

    “A colloidal mineral is one that has been so altered that it will no longer pass through cell walls or other organic membranes.” [2]

Does that sound like easy absorption?

Stedman’s Medical Dictionary talks about colloids “resisting sedimentation, diffusion, and filtration ” Again, resisting diffusion seems to indicate inhibition of absorption, not increased absorption, wouldn’t you think?

As Alexander Schauss and Parris Kidd both explain, colloids are suspensions of minerals in clay and water. [18] Clay often has levels of aluminum as high as 3000 parts per million, with safety levels set at 10 ppm or lower ([21] Kidd). Aluminum has been proven to kill nerve cells, which we now see in Alzheimer’s.

Dr. Schauss characterizes the aluminum content as the big problem with colloidal minerals. He cites a standard geology reference text – Dana’s Manual of Mineralogy – describing clay as primarily aluminum:

    “Clay minerals are essentially hydrous aluminum silicates.”
    – Dana’s Manual, p436 [19]

And another geology text:

    “[clays] are essentially hydrous aluminum silicates and are usually formed from the
    alteration of aluminum silicates.”

    Mineral Recognition p 273 [20]

Schauss finds references as high as 4400 PPM of aluminum in colloidal clay. Schauss states that he has done an exhaustive search for any human studies using colloidal minerals and after searching 2000 journals, like everyone else, has come up with zero.

For a mineral to be well absorbed, it must be either in the ionic state, or else chelated, as explained above. The percentage of colloidal minerals which actually does get absorbed has to have been ionized somehow, due to the acidic conditions in the small intestine. Only then is the mineral capable of being taken up by the carrier proteins in the intestinal membrane, as mentioned above. But why create the extra step? Ionic minerals would be superior to colloidal, because they don’t have to be dissociated from a suspension medium, which is by definition non-diffusable. All this extra work costs the body in energy and reserves.

In an editorial in Am J of Nat Med, Alexander Schauss further points out the error of Wallach’s claims. [18] Wallach states that colloidals are negatively charged, and this enhances intestinal absorption. The problem is his science is 180 degrees backward: Wallach claims the charge of the intestinal mucosa is positive, but all other sources have known for decades that the mucosal charge is negative. ([1] Guyton, p13)

This is why ionic minerals are presented to the intestinal surface as cations (positively charged ions). Opposites attract, like repels like -remember? Another big minus for colloidals.


Consistency of percentages of each mineral from batch to batch. Very simply, there isn’t any with the mega mineral supplements, as the manufacturers will themselves admit.

The ancient lakes and glaciers apparently have not been very accommodating when it comes to percent composition. Such a range of variation might be acceptable in, say, grenade tossing or IQ threshold of congressmen, or other areas where high standards of precision are not crucial. But a nutritional supplement that is supposed to enhance health by drinking it? This is an area in which the details of composition should be fairly visible, verifiable, the same every time.

In these 80-trace-mineral toddies, there is no way of testing the presence or absence of many of the individual minerals. Many established essential trace minerals do not even have an agreed-upon recommended daily allowance, for two reasons:

    – the research has never been done

    – the amounts are too small to be measured.

How much less is known about the amounts and toxicities of those unknown minerals which have never been studied, but are claimed to be present in these miraculous toddies?


Some essential minerals are toxic in excess, but essential in small amounts. Iron, chlorine, sodium, zinc, and copper are in this category. Toxic levels have been established, and resulting pathologies have been identified: we know what diseases are caused by their excesses. How risky is it to take in 40 or 50 minerals for which no toxicity levels have ever been set?

The problem is selective utilization, as explained by Dr. Parris Kidd. [21] Toxic trace minerals may closely resemble the essential minerals in atomic configuration. The result is competition for enzyme sites by two similar minerals only one of which is beneficial:

    “aluminum competes with silicon
    cadmium competes with zinc
    tellurium competes with selenium
    lanthanum competes with calcium ” – Kidd, p42

We also know that zinc competes with iron. (Erasmus) [30]

Beware! A separate hoax is being played out with


used by many as a “natural antibiotic.” Extremely uninformed physicians recommend daily doses of colloidal silver, in order to “prevent” colds, in the absence of any studies or trials whatsoever. As Dr. Kidd points out:

    ” the body is not well-equipped to handle silver. This element can poison the kidneys, become deposited in the brain, and even give to the skin a gunmetal type of gloss.” [21]

Many nutritionists note [6] several minerals which frequently appear on the ingredient labels of certain mega-mineral products they actually admit their supplements contain or “may contain” some of the following: (the phrase “may contain” has always been scary for me. If they’re not sure, then what else is there that this product “may contain” that they don’t know about?)

    Aluminum: Documented since the article in Lancet 14 Jan 1989 to be associated with Alzheimer’s Disease, as well as blocking absorption of essential minerals like calcium, iron, and fluoride.

    Silver: questionable as a single-dose antibiotic, consistent intake of silver accumulates in the blood-forming organs – spleen, liver, and bone marrow, as well as the skin, lungs, and muscles. Serious pathologies have resulted: blood disorders, cirrhosis, pulmonary edema, chronic bronchitis, and a permanent skin condition known as argyria, to name just a few. Silver is better left in the ancient lakes, and in tableware.
    Gold: Manufacturers of mega-minerals hawk that “there’s more gold in a ton of seawater than there is in a ton of ore.” So what? Our blood is not seawater; it evolved from seawater. Gold used to be used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, but has largely been abandoned when they proved that it caused kidney cell destruction, bone marrow suppression, and immune abnormalities.
    Lithium: Rarely used as an antipsychotic medication, lithium definitely can cause blackouts, coma, psychosis, kidney damage, and seizures. Outside of that, it should be fine.

The list goes on and on. These are just a few examples of mineral toxicities about which we have some idea. But for at least half the minerals in the mega toddies, we know nothing at all.


The fourth form of supplemental minerals is the chelated variety. Some clarification of this term is immediately necessary.

Chelated is a general term that describes a certain chemical configuration. When a mineral is bound or stuck to certain carrier molecules, which are known as chelators, or ligands, and a ring-like molecule is the result, we say that a chelate is formed.

Chelate is from the Greek word for claw, suggested by the open v-shape of the two ligands on each side, with the mineral ion in the center.

Chelation occurs in many situations. Many things can be chelated, including minerals, vitamins, and enzymes. Minerals in food may be bound with organic molecules in a chelated state. Many molecules in the body are chelated in normal metabolic processes. The carrier proteins in the intestinal wall discussed above, whose job it is to transport ionic minerals – these chelate the ions.

Another sense of the word chelation as exemplified in a mainstream therapy for removing heavy metals from the blood is called chelation therapy. The toxic metals are bound to a therapeutic amino acid ligand called EDTA. With a Pac-Man action, the metals are thus removed from the blood. (See chapter on Oral Chelation)

Molecular weight is measured in units called daltons. The ligands or binding agents may very small (800 daltons) or very large (500,000 daltons) resulting in a many sizes of chelates. Mineral + ligand = chelate.

Generally the largest chelates are the most stable, but also the most difficult to absorb. Ionic minerals absorbed through the intestine are chelated to the carrier proteins, at least two separate times.

Using the word chelated with respect to mineral supplements refers to a very specific type of chelation. The idea is to bind the mineral ion to ligands that will facilitate absorption of the mineral through the intestine into the bloodstream, bypassing the pathway used for ionic mineral absorption.

After decades of research at Albion Laboratories in Utah, it was learned that small amino acids, especially glycine, are the best ligands for chelating minerals, for three reasons:

    – bypasses the entire process of chelation by the intestine’s own carrier proteins

    – facilitates absorption by an entirely different pathway of intestinal absorption, skipping the intermediate steps which ionic minerals go through

    – the chelate will be the at the most absorbable molecular weight for intestinal transfer: less than 1500 daltons [9]

It has also been established beyond controversy that certain pairs of amino acids (dipeptides) are the easiest of all chelates to be absorbed, often easier than individual amino acids. Proteins are made of amino acids.

Normal digestion presumably breaks down the proteins to its amino acid building blocks so they can be absorbed. But total breakdown is not always necessary. It has long been known that many nutrient chains of two or three or even more amino acids may be absorbed just as easily as single amino acids.

Food-bound copper, vitamin C with hemoglobin molecule, animal protein zinc, are some examples of amino acids chelates that are easily absorbed intact. (Intestinal Absorption of Metal Ions, Chapter 7). [7]

To take another example, in abnormal digestion it is well known that chains of amino acids – dipeptides, tripeptides, even polypeptide proteins – sometimes become absorbed intact in a pathology known to gastroenterologists as Leaky Gut Syndrome. Obviously it is not healthy and has many adverse consequences, but the point is that amino acids chains are frequently absorbed, for many different reasons.

The reason these dipeptide chelates are absorbed faster than ionic minerals is that the chelated mineral was bonded tightly enough so that it did not dissociate in the acidic small intestine and offer itself for capture by the intestinal membrane’s carrier proteins. That whole process was thus avoided. The chelate is absorbed intact. An easier form.

This is a vast oversimplification, and the most concise summary, of why chelated minerals may be superior to ionic, provided it’s the right chelate. Only a specific chelate can resist digestion and maintain its integrity as it is absorbed through the gut. Again, all chelates are not created equal. Inferior chelates, used because they are cheaper to produce, include the following:

    – carbonates
    – citrates
    – oxides
    – sulfates
    – chlorides
    – phosphates

If the label gives one of these chelates, it means the mineral is bound either too strongly or not tightly enough, and may be released at the wrong time and the wrong place. Chelation of minerals in nutrient supplements is a very precise science, yielding chelates superior to those occurring naturally in foods.

Intact absorption is faster, easier, and requires less metabolic energy, provided the chelate is about 1500 daltons.

To compare chelated and ionic minerals, once the research is presented, there is really not much of a dispute about which is absorbed faster, ionic minerals or dipeptide-like amino acid chelates. Meticulous isotope testing has shown the following increases in percent absorption of chelates, as compared with ionic:

    Iron . . 490% greater
    Copper . . 580% greater
    Magnesium. . . 410% greater
    Calcium . . . 421% greater
    Manganese . . . 340% greater

    – Source: Journal of Applied Nutrition 22:42 1970 [31]

Again, this is just the briefest glance at the prodigious amount of research comparing ionic with chelated minerals, but the results are uniform. The hands-down winner of the bioavailability contest is: chelated minerals, provided the chelate was maintained as small as possible, generally using glycine as the amino acid ligands, at a total weight below 1500 daltons.


Often you will hear this or that company claiming that “organic” minerals contained in food are the best, cannot be improved upon, and are superior to all possible types of mineral supplements. This is almost true. The only exception is glycine-chelated minerals, for two reasons:

    – the exact amount of minerals in any food is extremely variable and difficult to measure, even if there is high mineral content of the soil. Pesticides destroy root organisms in the soil. These bugs play a major role in selective mineral absorption.

    (Jensen p 55)

    – the ligands that bind the mineral in the food chelate may be too strong or too weak to dissociate
    at exactly the right time for maximum absorption in the human digestive tract. Glycine chelates are uniform and easily measurable. No question about dosage.


The average lifespan of an American is about 84 years. No one has ever proven that taking mineral supplements will extend life. Many old people never took a mineral or a vitamin in their life. It really comes down to quality of life. Incidence of disease during the lifespan. For how many days or months of the total lifespan was the person ill?

We are the walking petri dishes of Alexis Carrel – remember? Carrel was the French biochemist, a Nobel prize winner, who did the famous experiment in which he kept chicken heart cells alive in a petri dish for 28 years just by changing the solutes every day. Could’ve gone longer, but figured he’d proven his point. Mineral content factors largely in the quality of our solutes: the blood – the milieu interior, the biological terrain.

The U.S. has the highest incidence of degenerative diseases of any developed country on earth. In addition, infectious diseases are coming back; antibiotics are getting less effective every year. Americans’ confidence in prescription drugs is weakening. Please be disabused of any unfounded hopes: cancer and AIDS will never be cured by the discovery of some new drug.

It’s not going to happen. There probably will never be another Alexander Fleming; turns out penicillin was just a brief detour anyway. Bacteria have had 50 billion years to figure out how to adapt. The only way that anyone recovers from any illness is when the immune system overcomes the problem. Allergy shots never cured an allergy; people who take allergy shots always have allergies.

Our only hope of better health is to do everything possible to build up our natural immune system. One of these preventative measures is nutritional supplementation. It may not be dramatic, but daily deposits to the immune system bank account will pay off down the road. Healthy people don’t get sick.

With respect to minerals, then, what are our goals? My opinion is that having once realized the necessity for mineral supplementation, our objectives should be simple:

    – Take only the minerals we absolutely need
    – Take the smallest amounts possible
    – Nothing left over ( no metabolic residue)

Some of the above ideas may seem strange and difficult to understand, on first reading. But it is truly a very simplified version of what actually takes place. Most of the technical details were omitted for the sake of clarity and brevity. However, the correctness of the above basic framework is verifiable. The reader is encouraged to expand a little by consulting the attached reference list.


What mineral supplement should you buy? The reader now has enough background data to be somewhat discriminate. Obviously the chelated minerals should be the first choice.

We have been very happy with our Chelated Minerals for the past 15 years. Patients have been consistently pleased with results, and the Minerals have been part of the 60 Day Program from its inception.

But this past year I began to notice the decline in overall health, as the American diet becomes progessively worse. Processed foods contain more and more fake sugars and hydrogenated fillers than every before. Degenerative diseases – diabetes, allergies, cancer – are all skyrocketing logarithmically..

So it gradually became apparent that we had to re-formulate our Mineral supplement. The results have exceeded all expectations.

Here are the primary improvements in our new formula, as compared with the old one:

    35% more vitamin B12
    33% more iron
    2x as much selenium
    2x as much Potassium Iodide
    65% more Magnesium
    35% more Zinc
    30% more Copper
    3x more Manganese
    25% more Chromium
    2x as much Molybdenum
    10 mg Silicon
    132 mg Phosphorus

Remember, most of these are chelated forms, which means highest bioavailability, compared with the majority of supplements you see.

No need to worry about megadosing – none of these amounts approach double or triple the recommended daily amounts like many self-appointed experts recommend. Often we see as much as 100x the RDA’s being prescribed.

For the detail-minded among you: the DV% value listed after each mineral on the label means the percent Recommended Daily Value. The problem is, there are several different official entities who publish daily values and overall there is a wide spectrum of opinion.

I am not in complete agreement with the DV% values the blending company required us to print on the label. I think most of them are substantially understated. This supplement is likely much better than those values suggest.

Two better sources for setting %DV are:

    The National Academy of Sciences/ NIH the branch of government that controls all medical research


    Lenntech, the group who provides nutritional values for the W.H.O.

These two world authorities were very close in their recommendations. Roughly averaging those two together, I believe a more accurate estimate of the true individual DV% of the new Minerals should read as follows:

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . %DV
    Vitamin B12 . . . 40%
    Calcium . . . . . . .30%
    Iron . . . . . . . . 44%
    Phosphorus . . . 16%
    Iodine . . . . . . . 150%
    Magnesium . . . 80%
    Zinc . . . . . . . . 77%
    Selenium . . . . . 82%
    Copper . . . . . . . 67%
    Manganese . . . . 73%
    Chromium . . . . 88%
    Molybdenum . . .100%
    Vanadium . . . . .100%

See how much better this is than what’s on the label? If I owned the bottling company, these values are what would have been on the label, and they would have been perfectly justified. So we can see where interpretive politics often reaches its long nose into areas in which it has no expertise, i.e., the natural supplements industry.

Despite the significant upgrade, the price has not increased for this Mineral supplement for the past 10 years, as is true actually for all our supplements. After your first month with the new Minerals, I think you will see that it has been worth the wait. There is simply nothing like this mineral product available anywhere today.

Are minerals important? Two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling thought so: “You can trace every sickness, every disease, every ailment to mineral deficiency.”

Healthy people don’t get sick.

copyright MMXVI – Dr Tim O’Shea

To order Minerals


1. Guyton, A.C., MD — Textbook of Medical Physiology, 9th Ed. Saunders 1996

2. Lee, Royal, DDS— The Mineral Elements in Nutrition

3. Anderson, F.— “The Thesis of Body Mineral Balancing”
Utah Teachers Resource Book

4. Robbins, John — Diet for a New America

5. Turner — Relating Land Use and Global Land Cover Change, 1992

6. Grant, Douglas — “The Truth About Colloidal Minerals” 1996

7. Ashmead, H. DeWayne, PhD Intestinal Absorption of Metal Ions and Chelates, 1985—
Charles C. Thomas

8. Fisher, Jeffrey A., MD — The Plague Makers 1996

9. Ashmead, Harvey, PhD— “Tissue Transportation of Organic Trace Minerals”
J Appl Nutr, 22:42 1970

10. Underwood, E — “Trace Elements in Human and Animal Nutrition”
Academy Press, New York 73, 1977

11. Matthews, D — “Final Discussion” in Peptide Transport and Hydrolysis,
Amsterdam: Elselvier, 1977

12. Miller, G.T. — Living in the environment: An introduction to environmental science,
Sixth edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company 1990

13. Banik, Allen— Hunza Land Whitehorn Publ., Long Beach 1960

14. Taylor, Renee— Hunza Health Secrets Universal Publishing, NY, 1964

15 The Merck Manual— 16th ed., 1996

16 Carrel, Alexis MD— Man, The Unknown Dell 1939

17 Tilden, J.H., MD— Toxemia Explained 1926

18 Schauss, A PhD — “Collloid minerals: clinical implications of clay suspension products’
Am J of Nat Med vol4, no.1, Jan-Feb 97 p5

19 Hurlbut, C et al.— Dana’s Manual of Minerology Wiley & Sons NY 18th Edition
p 436

20 Vander & Kerr —- Mineral Recognition Wiley & Sons NY 1967 p 273

21 Kidd, Parris, PhD — “Colloid and Clay Minerals: Latest Nutrition Fad”
Total Health vol 19 no 1 p 41

22 Motyka, Max, MS— “Minerals, Trace Minerals, Ultra Trace Minerals”
Albion Research Notes vol.5 no.2 May 1996

23 Jong, Carol, PhD— Precious Metals 1998
Biomed Publications

24 Journal of the American Medical Association — 24 Dec 1996

25 Senate Document 264 === 74th US Congress, 1936

26 “US CO2 Budget for Atmosphere & Climate Stabilization”—
Presentation, June 1994
International Society for Systems Sciences

27 McDougall, John MD— McDougall’s Medicine: A Challenging Second Opinion

28 Birchall,JD — “Aluminum, Chemical Physiology, And Alzheimer’s Disease”
Lancet 29 Oct 1988

29 Von Leibig, Baron Justus— The Natural Laws of Husbandry

30 Erasmus, U Fats that heal fats that kill Alive 1993.

31 Ashmead H: Tissue transportation of organic trace minerals. J Appl Nutr 22:42–51, 1970.

32 Fisher, J The Plague Makers Simon & Schuster 1994.

33. Forest ARea World bank 2014

Every Woman Needs To Read This Chapter Now

December 16th, 2016

Do you really need hormone replacement therapy?

In this chapter:

Female Hormones
Natural Estrogen – Phytoestrogens
What is Menopause?
Fake Estrogens
Adult Life in a Sea of Estrogen
Aging and Youth
American Females Don’t Ovulate
The Premarin Scam
The Real Dangers of The Pill
Cancer and Estrogen
Osteoporosis and Estrogen
Heart Disease and Estrogen
The Calcium Hoax
Coffee and Death
Chronic Fatigue and Estrogen
Natural Solutions
The Thyroid Hoax

I think I’m picking up a pattern here.

In the chapters on ADD, cancer, and antibiotics we found billion dollar drug industries coupled with millions of sick people, and little or no health upside. So, before researching the topic of estrogen, I admit my initial preconceptions about hormone replacement therapy for menopause were less than brightness and trust. The usual pattern seems to be:

    – research studies funded by the same companies who sell the drugs
    – no conclusive positive results from controlled, randomized clinical trials
    – A Drug In Search of a Market
    – major side effects from the new drug therapy that are chalked up to the “disease” itself

Guess I’m jaded. So sue me.

Trying to prove my presumptions wrong, the research failed me. Anyone can see how the whole thing was set up. Now this chapter is not light reading, even though I tried. But if you are a woman, you need to read the whole thing. After that, you’re on your own.

Drug hoax phenomena are not new. The same thing happened in the Boer War (Hadwen), in the Philippines in 1905 (Hume, p 200), and in Desert Storm. Mass administration of drugs that killed many more people than they saved. The difference here is that today the control of information has become much more sophisticated, the focus being ‘trust your doctor, trust your doctor’ – you really don’t have to understand the details.

The target is the 13 million menopausal American women, and the game is the $1 billion Hormone Replacement Therapy industry, a vertically integrated boom market.

Here’s the basic story. Since the 1930s, American women have been trained and bullied into thinking that a natural normal event in their life – menopause – is a disease condition requiring treatment. Let’s stop with that for a minute. If it’s a disease, how did all the millions of women throughout history up to the present time muddle through it? How do Third World women or non-HMO lifestyles survive the ordeal? Keep those two questions in mind when you read anything mainstream, either advertising or articles.

The “new” “medical condition” requires drug therapy, which coincidentally has just recently been “discovered”: synthetic estrogen – hormone replacement therapy. Does it work? Are women better off now? Does it really prevent osteoporosis? Read on!


Menopause is a period of years in a normal woman’s life in which gradual hormonal changes bring about a shift away from the physical powers of childbearing, in favor of a more mature condition of mental development. The unpleasant symptoms we have come to associate with menopause are common only in a small group of women in history: American and Northern European women in the past 75 years. Outside that group, menopause is not so problematic and is taken more in stride as a natural phase in a woman’s life, with little fanfare. It seems that the more simple the lifestyle, and the more simple the diet – the more effortless the transition.

Throughout history, simple diet has been a function of low income. The most nutritious foods are the least expensive: whole fruits and vegetables, unprocessed dairy, whole grains. As lifestyle became more complex, and incomes grew, expensive, empty, processed, nutrient-deficient foods were popularized by marketing and advertising – the foods of commerce. (Royal Lee) Less need to exercise, more focus on money, greater stress – the basic formula for the rise of the most resistant group of diseases in history: the degenerative diseases. Heart disease, cancer, arthritis, diabetes, osteoporosis – are epidemic in our society, the richest nation in history. Even 100 years ago such diseases were rare. (See ENZYMES)

By now most of us have heard of a Shangri-La place in the Himalayas called Hunza Land, famous for longevity to 120 years old. Two Americans, Dr. Allen Banik and Renee Taylor, visited this isolated mountain civilization, one in 1958 and one in 1962. Both wrote books describing their incredible experiences. Both detail the simple diet as well as the lack of degenerative and infectious diseases. Physically cut off from the world by treacherous mountain passes, the Hunzas developed their own agriculture system of stone terraces, fed by the mineral rich waters of the glaciers. Hunza health is probably unequalled anywhere in the world, or in history. Symptoms of menopause were unheard of in Hunza Land.

In Japan as well as in many other cultures with basic, unrefined diets, there is no word for “hot flashes.” As we shall see, the unpleasant symptoms of menopause are directly related to the amount of estrogen a woman has maintained during her adult life, prior to menopause.

Natural phytoestrogens (plant-estrogens) are found in plants like licorice, soybeans, alfalfa, and many others, in very small amounts. Phytoestrogens are weak estrogens and block the stronger forms. A diet abundant in phytoestrogens before menopause will do much to moderate the day-to-day estrogen level so that when menopause arrives, there will not be such big drop.


The story really begins in 1938 with the discovery of diethylstilbestrol (DES) by Charles Dobbs. DES was supposed to be the first “synthetic estrogen” – an oxymoron, as we shall see. Dobbs first thought DES would solve the problems of menopause, but the AMA immediately began to make extravagant predictions for “preventing miscarriages” and solving all problems of pregnancy as well. (Robbins, p138)

After many years, DES was being prescribed for a “safe pregnancy” and to “prevent miscarriages.” By 1960 it was found that between 60 and 90% of DES daughters had abnormal sex organs, leading to high rates of infertility, miscarriages, and cervical cancer. (Sellman p28). DES sons commonly had testicular dysfunction and were often sterile. As for the mothers who had taken DES, their risk of breast cancer had been increased by 40%. (Meyers p 143) DES was the first drug ever invented that could cause cancer in the offspring when taken by the mother. (Reusch, p 22) But still the drug wasn’t taken off the market until 1971! ( Kamen, p99). By that time the industry didn’t need DES any more for its bottom line, because ERT was off and running.


Public attention was then diverted away from the disasters of DES by a 1966 best seller called Feminine Forever, by Robert Wilson, a New York gynecologist. Wilson’s thesis was that menopause is an estrogen-deficiency disease. All the unpleasant symptoms which accompany menopause were the simple result of too little estrogen. Insufficient estrogen supposedly caused a woman to lose her youth, beauty, cheerful attitude, and bone density all at once, with the onset of menopause.

Not missing a beat, the drug industry immediately donated $1.3 million to set up the Wilson Foundation for the sole purpose of developing and promoting estrogen drugs. The usual story: limited studies with inconclusive results, skewing results to please the company that was paying for the trials, discontinuing studies that weren’t turning out “right.” The primary study that was the basis for vaulting synthetic estrogen into the limelight, originally as a contraceptive, was a small, flawed trial done in Puerto Rico, in which 20% of the 132 women suffered serious side effects. Five of them died.

Negatives were swept under the carpet as irrelevant – the main thing was that the new wonder drug supposedly cancelled the “horrible” symptoms of menopause – hot flashes, vaginal dryness, migraines, etc. FDA approval for synthetic estrogen was given based on this one study! (Marshall) Throughout 1964 and 1965, fueled by the advertising power of the biggest clients, articles appeared in major women’s magazines, like Vogue, Cosmopolitan, and Good Housekeeping proclaiming a breakthrough that would finally set women free from the ravages of the dread menopause. (Lee p24)

Within a few years, with no real proof that Wilson was right, with superficial clinical trials, synthetic estrogen was being popularly prescribed, and a new industry was off and running. They called it Estrogen Replacement Therapy. Better living through chemistry.

A little snag came up in 1975. The New England Journal of Medicine (Dec 1975 p.1199) published its findings after studying the causes of endometrial cancer. They showed that women who took the new estrogen drugs had just increased their risk of endometrial cancer by a factor of five times. Unless they had been using the drugs longer than seven years. Then it was 14 times the normal incidence.

Sales slowed.

Yankee ingenuity to the rescue: it was found, though not conclusively, that rates of endometrial cancer could be reduced if synthetic progesterone were added to the synthetic estrogen. Synthetic progesterones are called progestins. So they changed the name from Estrogen Replacement Therapy to Hormone Replacement Therapy, and the show went on. Sales climbed back up, and then continued to grow. And grow.

20 years later the American Cancer Society conducted a huge 13-year study of some 240,000 postmenopausal women to find the relation between HRT and cancer. Their findings: 40% higher incidence of ovarian cancer. After 11 years of HRT, the figure went to 70%! (Rodriguez)


As the HRT industry gained strength, the manufacturers began to make additional claims about the benefits of HRT, claims that were again unsupported by solid research:

    – HRT could prevent osteoporosis
    – HRT could prevent heart disease

The underlying, and unproven, assumption of this new “therapy” – HRT – was that women’s lives were being improved now that they were spared the horrors of aging, menopause, osteoporosis, and the loss of femininity.

Unfortunately, these promises are rarely kept, and almost never because of a program of synthetic hormones. Worse, the side effects of HRT have proven to be a bigger problem than what they were supposed to cure. It’s sort of like the promise of Heaven that missionaries usually gave the natives down through the ages – unreal reward in exchange for real suffering.

To begin to untangle this giant web of doubletalk and wrong information, we have to look at some basic endocrinology: Can’t tell the hormones without a program. If this gets too complicated for the attention-challenged, just skip to the next section, but at least give it a try.


are chemical compounds that are players in the most sophisticated and exquisitely balanced internet in the entire body: the endocrine system. This group of glands, including the adrenals, the pituitary, the ovaries, the testes, the thyroid, and the hypothalamus are interrelated in impossibly complex ways, about which we’re just beginning to get glimpses of understanding. It’s a swirling universe of chemical elegance and precision, involving millions of refined little molecular firings which wink in and out of existence every second.

“Touch one strand and the whole web trembles,” is the way endocrinologist Deepak Chopra puts it. The endocrine system controls all other systems of the body by means of chemical messengers, who wait for an answer.


Estrogen is a hormone, one of the moving parts of that endocrine system. It is a steroid (made from cholesterol) hormone, occurring in both men and women.

Estrogen’s functions are primarily the growth and development of sex organs and other tissues related to reproduction. (Guyton p1023)

For a basic overview of one little part of the endocrine system, John Lee has a very clear summary, like a recipe, for one group of hormones, those made from cholesterol, the steroid hormones:

[see chart]- Lee, p14

Don’t worry, there’s no quiz. Dr. Lee just wanted to show a little corner of the complex give-and-take between hormones, how a change in any one hormone in this chart can affect many others. Lee and Chopra both speak of the dance of the hormones, the delicately interwoven choreography, about which we have only the most rudimentary knowledge.

We’ve begun fooling around with this highly tuned endocrine system because we’ve discovered a few coarse, synthetic, sledgehammer substances that resemble real estrogen, or real thyroid hormone, or real progesterone. But we really have only the vaguest notion what we’re doing, because of all the overlapping interrelationships. Our ignorance has given rise to a brand new disease: endometrial cancer. (Lee) Plus other big problems.

Back to estrogen. Estrogen is really a general term for three separate hormones:


From here on out in this chapter, “estrogen” as is produced by the body refers to all three of the above hormones.

Estrogen is produced in three main places in a woman’s body:

    the ovaries
    the adrenal glands
    the fat cells

The main purpose of estrogen is to make the uterine lining, the endometrium, ready to implant a fertilized egg in the event fertilization occurs. To aid in this function, estrogen will promote

    – water retention
    – fat storage
    – maturation of the female adolescent

All the above is OK if pregnancy is likely. But excess estrogen throws off the timing. Excess estrogen causes the body to prepare for embryo implantation all the time. This state of over-preparation is the cause of

    – sluggish blood circulation
    – migraines
    – increased clotting
    – high stroke risk
    – disrupted copper/zinc ratios in brain cells/ mood swings
    – fibroids
    – endometriosis

Every system in the body has a feedback loop to keep balance. Estrogen has a sister hormone called progesterone, whose functions are equally important.


Progesterone is the other primary female hormone. It is produced in the ovaries. It is the precursor for both estrogen and testosterone, as well as all other natural steroid hormones (see chart above).

Progesterone’s functions are

    – maintains the endometrium in pregnancy
    – new bone formation
    – regulates blood pressure
    – fat conversion
    – sugar metabolism
    – maintaining myelin (nerve insulation)
    – regulates estrogen production

You’ll remember that an egg is presented once a month from the ovaries, wrapped in an envelope called a follicle. After the follicle lets go of the egg, the egg journeys down the Fallopian tubes on its way to the uterus, where it awaits possible fertilization. The burst follicle still has an important job to do: it begins to produce progesterone, for the next two weeks. Progesterone’s job is to maintain the uterine lining until one of two things happens:

    – pregnancy
    – no pregnancy.

If pregnancy occurs, progesterone production is taken over by the developing lining itself – the placenta. The burst follicle simply can’t make enough progesterone for the demand, since the uterus will expand from the size of a lemon to the size of a basketball during the next nine months.

If no pregnancy occurs, the follicle stops producing progesterone, which triggers the collapse of the blood-rich lining, which is then expelled as the woman’s monthly flow.

So the interplay between these two hormones estrogen and progesterone controls the entire infrastructure of reproduction, on a daily basis, after the onset of menarche (first flow) in adolescence. Estrogen creates the lining each month; progesterone maintains it.

Then what’s the problem?


If estrogen levels get too high, progesterone can no longer keep the dynamic balance. This is exactly what happens in American women, who live their whole adult lives with pathologically high levels of estrogen. Three main reasons for the high levels:

    – overrefined diet
    – no exercise
    – external toxic sources of estrogen: xenoestrogens

Refined carbohydrates, hard fats, empty foods and too much of it all serve to raise estrogen to abnormal levels, as much as twice the normal, which are maintained for the better part of the adult lives of most American women. (See Enzymes chapter)

Second, lack of exercise. Dr. Ellison of Harvard University found that estrogen levels are much lower in women who eat little and perform strenuous physical work, as in locales with non-industrialized lifestyle. The opposite is true for the American woman who eats too much and gets little exercise: abnormally high estrogen levels are the direct result. Dr. Lee points out the obvious corollary: menopause is a much bigger deal in our industrialized countries, because the estrogen decline is so radical – the difference between pre and post estrogen levels is significant. This hormonal rollercoaster dip is very stressful, and is the real cause of the discomforts of menopause.

Third, xenoestrogens. Huh? Xeno- means foreign. So the word xenoestrogen just means estrogens from outside the body. Many external toxins have been found to have estrogenlike effects in the body. Most are petroleum derivatives. Xenoestrogens are found in plastics, computer chips, PVC, pesticides, soap, clothes, DDT and other modern manufactured goods.

There has been extensive zoological research in the area of xenoestrogen effects on animals and the resulting birth defects. In studies of panthers, alligators, birds, turtles, seals, fish, and many other species from diverse parts of the globe, scientists are finding a common theme: feminization of males, decreased sperm counts, low male testosterone, and extremely high levels of estrogen in females, with plummeting numbers of offspring. Though some scientists had known about the problem for several years, public attention was drawn by a series of articles that appeared in three consecutive issues of the LA Times in Oct 1994.

Alligator offspring studied at University of Florida had very high estrogen and low testosterone as a consequence of a large pesticide spill in Lake Apopka near Gainesville. Again, gonad shrinkage was observed in males, leading to a drop in alligator reproduction in the lake estimated at 90% since the spill occurred.

Wild panthers in the Florida Everglades have had their sperm counts reduced by 90%, due to high estrogen levels from years of state dumping of DDT and other toxic pesticides into the swamp waters.

Between 1950 and 1970, some four million pounds of the pesticide DDT, illegal today, was dumped into the ocean in Los Angeles. Examples of eggshell thinning, gonad shrinkage and feminization in males, overdeveloped ovaries in females, and failure to thrive are some of the defects found in seagull studies at UC Davis by Michael Fry. In 1981, Fry published his research in the journal Science. Shrugged off for years by the scientific community, Fry’s work is now being corroborated all over the world in dozens of other species.

Males are also affected. Think of the surfing implications for the L.A. spill — “two girls for every boy”??? Not any more. Declining sperm counts in American males in the past 30 years is well documented. An article in Lancet, May 1993 estimates a drop in sperm count of 50% in the past 30-50 years, and links the decline to environmental estrogen mimickers.

Xenoestrogens, as well as a modern high-fat diet, are lowering the onset of menarche for young girls. In 1900, American girls matured at 14. Today the average age is 12, and for some groups is as early as 8 years old! (Beaton)

The effects of DDT and PCBs are often hidden, and often don’t occur until many years later in the offspring of these exposed animals. Birds are born with twisted bills or deformed reproductive organs. Other animals have physical characteristics of both male and female, but can’t function normally as either one. The reason DDT and PCBs were outlawed was that they don’t break down; they persist unchanged in the environment for years and years, still capable of the same trauma to living cells. These chemicals simply don’t degrade.

The effect of hormone-mimicking pollutants, the xenoestrogens, is being kept under wraps, because of its obvious implications for liability by the chemical manufacturers. Chemical contamination is not limited to a few isolated areas. It is a global problem, beyond the scope of this chapter. The reader is directed to Theo Colburn’s startling book Our Stolen Future for a better look.

The point is, we are in the same ecosystem, the same food chain, the same biosphere as these animals. Human DNA is 98% identical to that of an ape. Our cells and tissues are susceptible to these same distortions. It is no coincidence that the women of the industrialized nations of northern Europe and the United States have two things in common:

    – the highest rates in history of breast cancer, endometrial cancer, and HRT consumption
    – high exposure to plastics, chemicals, computer chips, pesticides and other xenoestrogens.

John Lee talks about the “sea of estrogen” in which we exist as the result of many factors:

    -fat soluble hormones in meat
    -PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls)
    -foaming agents in soap and detergents
    -condom spermicides
    -tons of pesticides, herbicides
    -plastic cookware
    -birth control pills

The pathway of causation is clear: xenoestrogens maintain estrogen levels at double the normal values for the entire adult life of the human female. As the complementary hormone that’s supposed to balance the delicate system of sex hormones, progesterone is simply overwhelmed by the dominant estrogens. Natural hormones are subtle and fragile and transient. Xenoestrogens by contrast are harsh and strong and long-lasting. Progesterone just doesn’t stand a chance. HRT is just another xenoestrogen, making things worse.

Let’s take a look at some of the


As estrogen levels build up to twice the normal level, many systems of the body are adversely affected. Body fat stores increase. Fluids are retained, causing bloating and edema. There are defects in both fat and sugar metabolism, often severe enough to cause diabetes. Risks of endometrial cancer are increased to 5-14 times, as cited in the 1975 NEJM articles above. Promotion of osteoporosis. Slow onset of blood poisoning (toxemia) due to inability of chemical xenoestrogens to be broken down. This in turn obviously contributes to autoimmune disorders like lupus, chronic fatigue, and arthritis, in which the body begins to attack its own cells as they become so toxic that they are unrecognizable as “self.” Alteration of zinc and copper uptake in brain cells causes mood swings, a nice euphemism. Incidence of stroke increases 50% with estrogen, according to an extensive project, known as the Boston Nurses Questionnaire Study, of 121,000 nurses. (Stampfer)

Normal estrogen stimulates breast and endometrial tissue. Excess estrogen causes excess stimulation of breast and endometrial collagen, resulting in fibroids in both locations. (McDougall, p 87)

Another health detriment of estrogen is its destruction of B vitamins. Nutritionist Jean Sumption documents the opposition of estrogen with Vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6 and other B-complex vitamins: Biotin, Choline, Folic Acid, PABA, and Inositol. Most functions of cell metabolism depend on B vitamins. Symptoms of depletion include fatigue, sluggish memory, hair loss, and aging.

This is only a partial list. It should be obvious that effects like these are systemic (everywhere the blood goes) and as such can affect practically any weakened tissue in the body. To say that drugs and chemicals cause a downward spiral of health is not just a metaphor. A growing number of medical researchers (see References) who do not represent the interests of the drug cartels are stepping forward to show that the symptoms of menopause are not caused by too little estrogen, but by too much. To turn popular opinion around 180 degrees from nature and trick American women into thinking that at menopause symptoms and postmenopausal dangers are caused by insufficient estrogen – once again, we are looking at mastery in the control of information. The motivation is simple: $1 billion per year.

Synthetic hormones are not harmless. The side effects of HRT are often the same or worse than the original menopause symptoms they set out to cure.


    -increased risk of breast cancer
    -increased risk of endometrial cancer
    -blood clots
    -high blood pressure
    -vastly increased rate of heart attack
    -skin reactions
    -hair loss or gain
    -fluid retention, bloating
    -vaginal bleeding
    -rash, acne
    -breast tenderness
    -hair loss
    -weight gain


    Depression (Obstet and Gyn, 1992 80:30)
    Breast cancer (NEJM 19 Jun 97; 336:1821)
    Stroke ( NEJM 1991 vol 325p756)
    Lupus (Lee p258)

But wait a minute! I thought everything was supposed to be fine once they added synthetic progesterone to the synthetic estrogen. That’s what everybody was supposed to think. But the real stats don’t show it.

John Lee, MD, a California endocrine researcher, explains why. Simple: HRT’s synthetic progesterone is completely altered after going through the digestive system, when it gets to the liver. The liver changes it into three other metabolites. Any benefits are thus cancelled. So the big change in the 70s from ERT to HRT was largely a change in public perception, due to drug advertising, and its second cousin, peer-reviewed medical journal articles.

Dr. Lee’s view, and that of other proponents of natural progesterone products is that the problems at menopause are not caused by lack of estrogen, but by lack of progesterone. Remember that estrogen production drops 40% at menopause. Well, progesterone drops to 0%. And look at all the things it’s responsible for. The synthetic progesterone in HRT isn’t doing any good, since it’s being changed into something else in the liver. It’s not real progesterone. Therefore the estrogen is still unopposed.


Many American women in their 20s and 30s have monthly cycles in which they don’t ovulate. That is, an egg is not released from the ovary. Such a widespread phenomenon is a new twist in human evolution. There are obvious reasons, as well as serious effects which accompany this unnatural process – the inability to reproduce – now taking place in so many adult females.

The reasons for anovulation are simple: severe biochemical imbalance and stress. The xenoestrogens.

We are in the same biosphere, the same food chain as all the animals mentioned above who have experienced reproductive chaos from chemical pollutants. Why should our species be exempt? It isn’t. We drink the water of the same planet, eat fish and plants and meat laced with the same immortal PCBs and DDTs – it’s a closed system.

Stress obviously promotes biochemical imbalance by overtaxing the adrenals, which then steal progesterone to make more adrenal hormones, which further promotes estrogen dominance. Coffee is a big culprit, as well as soft drinks. A Johns Hopkins study found that

women who take in more than 300 mg of caffeine per day (three cups of coffee, or eight sodas) reduce their chance of conception by 26%. (Hernandez-Avila)

Effects of a female going through adulthood without being physically able to reproduce? Look around you. See any sexual ambivalence in any areas? I’ll spare you my theories on contemporary social phenomena. But the physical effects of anovulation are a very clear result of the disruption of the fragile endocrine balance that has taken aeons to evolve. One obvious ill effect of menstruating without ovulating as well as too much estrogen is the overstimulation of the endometrial lining. After a time, the excessive monthly lining promotes irregular lumps of connective tissue known as fibroids to form.

Too easily and too readily, the buzzword pre-cancerous comes up, with the snap prescription for a completely unnecessary hysterectomy. Between 600 thousand and one million hysterectomies are performed on American women each year, 90% of them unnecessary, according to Stanley West, MD.

That story is beyond the scope of this chapter except to raise the red flag that estrogen dominance sets the stage for most of the “irregularities” which end up with a prescription for hysterectomy. The reader is referred to Dr. West’s book The Hysterectomy Hoax for a dark journey. Also the first half of John Robbins’ Reclaiming Our Health.


The standard line is that menopausal women need estrogen therapy to prevent osteoporosis and other menopause symptoms because the body has stopped making its own estrogen. HRT (synthetic estrogen + synthetic progesterone) will take up the slack. HRT is routinely recommended in practically any situation, physical or mental that can be even remotely tied to menopause.

What the drug industry has conveniently ignored is that at menopause, estrogen output drops only about 40%. (Sellman, p16) Ovary production of estrogen drops way down below the level necessary for reproductive function. But adrenal and fat cell outputs of estrogen keep on going in order to maintain the other important endocrine functions of estrogen, which are not directly related to reproduction:

    -bone building
    -electrolyte balance
    -insulin balance
    -fat and protein metabolism
    -cholesterol synthesis . . . – Guyton, p1024

That 40% figure is only for American and Northern European women, who have the highest estrogen levels in the world. In nonindustrialized countries, the drop is much less, primarily because their normal level of estrogen is so much lower. What is commonly ignored is that progesterone levels drop to 0% at menopause, and progesterone is necessary to keep a balance with estrogen.

So do the math: if an American woman has had estrogen levels that are double the normal for most of her adult life, and at menopause, estrogen only drops 40%, that means she is still operating at 120% of “normal,” compared with an agrarian-type, nonindustrialized woman. But with this estimated 120% of normal estrogen, after menopause, there is NO progesterone to offset it. Estrogen dominance is a new phenomenon in nature, created by modern society, and modern medical politics.


Synthetic estrogen dosage is way too much, and too weird, for the body to deal with. Synthetic hormones have molecular forms that do not occur in nature. They are manmade. The dancing of the hormones in the above chart is seriously disrupted by adding hormone-like chemicals than can mimic some of the functions of real hormones, but cannot maintain their role in the ever changing back and forth swirling biochemical dance that is taking place at every second in the normal body. These fake hormones are insensitive to the body’s requirements for instantaneous alteration into another member of the hormone chart.

Aspirin is made from the bark of the white willow. People have been using white willow bark for centuries as a mild pain reliever. But white willow bark cannot destroy the stomach lining on contact the way aspirin does. In the same way that aspirin is not white willow bark, synthetic estrogen is not estrogen. And synthetic progesterone is not progesterone.

The main problem with synthetic hormones is that they last too long. All the natural hormonal feedback loops, which we do not even completely understand, are disrupted because the synthetics can’t act as precursors to the changing hormonal forms in the same way that the natural hormones know. The hormone system becomes fragmented with millions of one-way orders that are supposed to have return messages. As long as synthetics keep coming in, there’s no way to de-frag the system. The result is loss of proper interplay between the reproductive, adrenal, and thyroid systems. They all suffer.

American women arguably are among the most stressed people in history, emotionally and nutritionally, as well as environmentally. It is well known that stress depletes the adrenal glands. When this happens, progesterone is converted to adrenal hormones, like cortisol, to take up the slack and try to keep up with adrenal demands. Remember, progesterone is their precursor, in the above chart. The result is further depletion of progesterone, again promoting estrogen dominance.

The above list of side effects of HRT is caused by one simple thing:


Too pure and too much. And no progesterone.

So this is why cancer risks with HRT remain much higher than without HRT. The connection between HRT and cancer is really quite logical when you consider the normal functions of estrogen: controlling areas of rapidly dividing cells in preparation for reproduction. Unopposed estrogen, as we’ve known since the 1970s, upsets the normal endocrine balance. And where does the imbalance appear? Rapidly dividing cells of the reproductive tissues: endometrium, ovaries, breast. Perhaps nature did not intend for these tissues to be going wild at this time of life, when the reproductive system is supposed to be going out of business. Wouldn’t a tissue defect like cancer be a natural result of artificially jumpstarting tissues which want to start winding down a little? Especially when the hormones are of the imitation, manmade, designer variety?

Dr. Lee underscores one amazing fact: the only known cause of endometrial cancer is unopposed estrogen!

Unopposed estrogen is actually heightened by giving standard HRT because of the increased ratio of estrogen to progesterone. Research has never proven that estrogen deficiency causes cancer, but many studies have shown that progesterone deficiency does. A Johns Hopkins study of 1000 women showed that progesterone deficient women had a tenfold increased chance of dying from cancer compared with women who have normal levels of progesterone. (Cowan)

Jerilynn Prior, MD a world authority in endocrinology says that describing menopause as an estrogen deficiency disease is the same as describing headache as an “aspirin deficiency disease.” She calls this type of thinking ‘backwards science.’ Illnesses cannot be categorized by which drugs they are missing. That would assume that drugs cure illnesses, which almost never happens. Especially not in the case of HRT. Menopause is not an illness.


Some do. The problem here is that natural sources of progesterone are easy to find and inexpensive to make from many plants sources. As such they cannot be patented. This is a central point to keep in mind, perhaps the most important idea of this chapter. There are inexpensive plant-based phytoestrogens and natural progesterones which can control most estrogen imbalances, especially when incorporated into a detoxifying low-stress diet. Synthetics (drugs) are rarely necessary.

But only drugs can be patented. There is no way to make massive profits from a natural plant source, and you have just heard the primary reason for the organized attack on holistic supplements that is under way in the US today. Natural risk-free products are a threat to the drug trade. Drug concerns develop chemical compounds that are almost like the natural hormone. But almost only counts in grenade-tossing. Maybe the synthetic compound is only different by an atom or two. Perhaps it can mimic some of the activity of the real hormone.

After that, it is only necessary to create a market by control of information, by controlling the outcome and publishing of clinical studies, and by controlling regulating agencies, using political and legal tactics. But that one-atom difference in the shape of the molecule is all the difference in the world, in terms of breakdown, toxicity, and side effects. Understanding this paragraph will go far in explaining many of the contradictions of HRT, the unanswered questions, the indirect answers, the arrogance one encounters.


The most popular synthetic estrogen is a drug called Premarin, made from the urine of pregnant horses! This is no joke. Manufactured by the Philadelphia pharmaceutical giant Wyeth-Ayerth since 1942, an estimated $940 million per year (Sellman p5) worldwide is generated by the sale of this one drug. Most estimates are that at least 75% of HRT drugs contain Premarin. Since 1993, Premarin has been among the top three drugs in the U.S. in gross sales. (National Center for Health Statistics)

In 1992, Wyeth-Ayerth spent $9 million just for advertising Premarin! Their ad execs came up with the brilliant phrase “untreated menopause.” That same year Premarin was the #1 drug prescribed in the U.S. (Robbins, p 140).

This is marketing mastery.

Before we consider the effectiveness of this drug, let’s briefly look at the circumstances involved in its preparation.

Some 700 “horse farms” are set up in remote areas of the United States and Canada. Most of them have extensive security, and with good reason. At any one time, some 80,000 or so horses suffer the slow torture of life as a lab rat. Each mare is strapped into a tiny stall in which there is no room to lie down or even turn around. For seven months of the 11 month pregnancy, the horse is immobilized in the stall, hooked up to a catheter which collects all her urine. She is deprived of sufficient water in order to make the urine more concentrated, thus raising its value to the drug company. Infections frequently occur at the site of the catheter and from the restraining apparatus. Liver and kidney disease are common.

The foals themselves are referred to as “by-products” by the manufacturing company and are generally sold to the slaughterhouse. The mare is immediately impregnated after she has given birth and soon is imprisoned back in the tiny stall for another run. After about 12 years of this horrible life, the mares are themselves slaughtered and sold for dogmeat.

This has been going on for 56 years! Over one million horses have been cruelly abused in this way.

In Canada, the foaling generally takes place on open prairie. Mother and foal are immediately separated, and most of the foals die. The ones that survive are extremely stressed, and with good reason: they are sold to slaughterhouses and shipped to Europe and Japan where certain cuts are regarded as delicacies.

I think you get the point. For more details follow up at Information like this tends to suggest that agencies like the ASPCA are basically PR fronts focusing on self-promotion and making sure dogs in Jack Nicholson movies get enough overtime.

Even if Premarin were the true answer to all of menopause’s annoyances, reviewing the above data should be enough for any sane person to feel some twinge of guilt about contributing to a program of such horrendous cruelty. Menopause can’t be that bad, can it? But the reality is that Premarin and other HRT synthetics do not work, do not do what they’re supposed to do, and have major side effects. If you have any notion whatsoever of universal harmony or equilibrium, it seems logical that we’re not gonna get away with this. And we don’t. The first payback is one of the biggies: cancer.

(I have this great role-reversal premise for a novel, which describes an Afterlife in which the animals owned by humans in this life later are reincarnated into the position of Master themselves, with their former owners as pets. Pretty cool, huh?)

Henry Lemon MD of the University of Nebraska College of Medicine feels that an unnatural imbalance is caused by putting horse estrogens into a woman’s body. The body does not allow two of the three naturally occurring estrogens, estradiol and estrone, to hang around very long. It converts them into the non-carcinogenic estriol, as soon as possible. Such a helpful conversion cannot happen with Premarin because of the amounts involved. So the propensity for cancer is clearly seen: the carcinogenic forms are allowed to persist.

Premarin was approved by the FDA over 50 years ago, when requirements were must less stringent. There are many unknown ingredients in Premarin which may be normal in a horse, but not a human. It is likely that these are instrumental in the abnormally high rates of uterine and breast cancer following HRT, which rates are anywhere from a 30% to a 600% increase above normal, depending on the study. (Lee)

Are women informed? Hardly. Information like the above is very bad for business.

Many phytoestrogens from plants are now available, as well as generic synthetic Premarin substitutes. With clever legal maneuvering however, Wyeth-Ayerth has successfully blocked the generic substitutes from FDA approval by a twist worthy of Johnny Cochran. They have claimed that the generics do not contain one of the unknown elements that Premarin contains, which is true. However it is more likely that the unknown element – 8,9 dehydroestrone sulfate – is toxic, not beneficial! Even the FDA regards 8,9 dehydroestrone sulfate as an “impurity” and yet the FDA will not approve the generics because they don’t have it! As all throughout history, today more than ever, politics controls “science.”


As if cancer risk is not bad enough, let’s look at another of women’s greatest fears: osteoporosis after menopause. Here is a simple topic about which most women have been completely duped. Standard “common sense” inculcated by media, advertising, and their Ob/Gyn-drug reps warns women that they must take estrogen and calcium or else they will experience bone loss. This false notion is one of the truly great masterpieces of modern disinformation.

First of all, there are no valid, randomized clinical studies which demonstrate increased bone mineralization following HRT.

Bone is not what you see left on your plate after you’re done with your medium rare T-bone steak. In the body, bone is living tissue, with rich networks of blood vessels and nerves. Bone is constantly being torn down and replaced by specialized blood cells. Every seven years, your entire skeleton is completely replaced.

Bone has a matrix, or framework, on which calcium is laid down. In America, everyone gets enough calcium. True calcium deficiency results in a disease called kwashiorkor, which is found only in Third World starvation countries, not in America. Osteoporosis is not a disease of calcium deficiency. It’s a disease of matrix deficiency: the framework got flimsier. There isn’t as much matrix to attach the calcium to. There’s plenty of available calcium. Calcium is an inert mineral contained in most foods. The body maintains the blood levels of calcium at a certain level. Anything extra, like in calcium supplements, is spilled out of the body by the kidneys, because it’s over the normal blood levels. If there’s only so much framework, it really doesn’t matter how much calcium is in the blood; the excess is spilled out.

Keep in mind that most calcium supplements don’t even make it into the bloodstream, especially if they’re tablets. They never even dissolved in the digestive tract; they pass right out of the body. This you can prove to yourself by placing a calcium tablet in a glass of water and leaving it there all night. Most of them don’t dissolve.

Even the calcium supplements that do make it into the bloodstream are mostly spilled out, for the above reasons.

In short, calcium supplementation will not increase bone density in premenopausal women, nor prevent it post-menopause. (Ettinger, McDougall) Doesn’t matter what your latest MLM rep tries to tell you.

American women don’t get osteoporosis because they lack calcium, or estrogen. Anybody who does a little research knows this. The countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis on earth are Scandinavia, England, Australia, and the U.S. These are also the places with the highest consumption of dairy products. (McDougall, p176) It is pasteurized milk, cheese, and butter which leach calcium from the body, since these enzymeless, artificial, modern foods cannot be easily metabolized. The processes of removal from the blood takes a lot of calcium stores from the teeth and bones. (Recker).

The definition of pasteurization is removal of all enzymes via heat. One of the enzymes in milk thus denatured is phosphatase. Its purpose? Calcium absorption. Without phosphatase, calcium absorption doesn’t happen.

But wait! What about milk as a source of calcium, building strong bones and good teeth and all that, and you never outgrow your need for it, and all those movie stars with the moustaches? Marketing. Advertising. Promotion.

Who do you think pays for the dietary educational tools used in American schools since the 1950s – you know, the four food groups, and all that? The American Dairy Council and the dairy industry. The whole story is better told in Twogood’s book No Milk, available anywhere.

Processed foods are indigestible. The stomach keeps pouring out the gastric juices, in the form of HCl (hydrochloric acid) but it’s not enough to break down these weird manmade chemically preserved foods. The food just sits there in the stomach and rots. The abundant HCl may get splashed backward into the esophagus, causing reflux (heartburn). What is the medical solution? Prilosec, which does what? Right. Inhibits production of HCl. Does this aid digestion? No. The undigested food still sits there and rots. Worse news: guess what is required for calcium absorption in the stomach. HCl. Prilosec in this way directly contributes to osteoporosis.

Another reason Americans lose calcium from bones and teeth is acid-forming foods: soft drinks, too much meat, white sugar. All these tend to acidify the blood. If the blood gets too acidic, death will result. For self-preservation, the body must neutralize all this acid, maintain blood pH between 7.3 and 7.45. The process is called buffering, and it requires calcium. When there isn’t enough available, the body steals calcium from the bones and teeth. This is why Robert Heaney MD says that eating a high protein diet is like pouring acid rain on your bones. Perhaps a bit overstated, but the point is that a high protein diet is the primary cause of osteoporosis. Not insufficient calcium. (McDougall, p171)

It’s true that Americans have a high rate of osteoporosis, not just women. But this has nothing to do with estrogen.

Do horses gets osteoporosis? Never. What do they eat? Grass. How about cows? Are they taking Cal-Mag? Do they take Premarin? Calcium is in all foods.

Do menopausal horses get osteoporosis? Negative. Do menopausal third world women get osteoporosis? Negative.

So if HRT is not going to reverse osteoporosis, what will? Reducing pasteurized dairy intake, and other artificial foods, like white sugar and soft drinks.

Not only is there no proof to support the fantasy so many doctors offer their patients – HRT will save you from osteoporosis – there is abundant research that shows that synthetic hormones actually have no effect whatsoever on preventing bone loss. One of the most noted of these is the 14 Oct 1993 study in the NEJM, which conclusively shows that the risk of hip fractures for women over 75 is the same whether or not the woman took synthetic estrogen. Hip fractures are the greatest fear of aging people, as well as a prime indicator of osteoporosis. The article goes on to note that most women believe their physicians when they say that HRT will prevent osteoporosis, yet here is proof that it doesn’t. The authors state that estrogen therapy is simply unable to prevent loss of bone density.

Taking synthetic estrogen cannot rebuild bones. It can temporarily slow the rate of bone loss, but when the HRT is stopped, osteoporosis soon catches up like the woman never took HRT at all. Is that temporary benefit worth a 9-14 times greater risk of cancer? Dr. Lee thinks not. (Lee, p152)

In addition, many common drugs cause osteoporosis. Millions have been duped into the thyroid scam – told they were overweight because they were ‘hypothyroid.’ Synthroid to the rescue. What the doctor never tells you is that Synthroid stimulates osteoclasts to resorb bone. (Physicians Desk Reference) Remember how bone is built by living tissue? Well, that happens with the simultaneous action of two complementary types of blood cells: osteoclasts for tearing down old bone, and osteoblasts for building new bone. Obviously an imbalance in either one of these will cause a problem.


Other non-estrogen drugs which are prescribed to supposedly reduce the chance of osteoporosis, have serious side effects. In his video, Dr. James Lee outlines the dangers of a very popular drug named Fosamax. It’s actually quite simple. Again, living healthy bone must go through a constant process of old cells being replaced by new cells, so that every few years we have an entire new skeleton. Osteoclasts are cells that tear down bone; osteoblasts build new cells in those spaces. Got that? OK. The intellects behind Fosamax have decided that if they can stop the osteoclasts from doing their normal job of tearing down bone, this will prevent osteoporosis. How? By the buildup of Fosamax crystals in the bone, which just stay there long after a normal lifespan, which artificially stops the removal system – the osteoclasts. Now there are no spaces in which new bone cells can form. The Fosamax crystals cannot be broken down by the body, and remain in the bone for 15 or 20 years, taking up space, and offering an artificial, plastic-like composition in what should be normal healthy bone. Dr. Lee tells us that modern Fosamax is 1000 times more potent than the original drug.

Even the manufacturers caution against indiscriminate long term use of this drug: on p 1657-8 of the 1998 Physicians Desk Reference we find that:

“bone formation is ultimately reduced. Fosamax decreases the rate of bone resorption [tearing down] directly, which leads to an indirect decrease in bone formation.”

Decreased bone formation? Does that sound like something that’s going to maintain normal bone and prevent osteoporosis in your golden years? Dr. Lee and many others don’t think so.

The PDR also tells us that they have no idea what effects Fosamax may have after four years! (p1661)

Here we have a prime example of the philosophical difference between allopathic and holistic medicine: they forgot that Mother Nature Always Bats Last. You can’t arbitrarily interfere with one half of a complete life process like bone synthesis and expect no adverse consequences. With Fosamax, we have arrogantly overpowered the body’s normal system of bone building which has developed and maintained the skeleton just fine for the person’s whole life, by pretending that one phase of that system exists in isolation from the whole rest of the endocrine Internet, and can be omitted with no consequences.

Doctors trick women by telling them that Fosamax will increase “bone mineral density” but what they don’t tell them is that the new mineral is not calcium and is no longer part of the living dynamic process which has maintained their bones their entire lives.

This is not yet even mentioning the side effects of Fosamax:

    – kidney disease
    – ulcers
    – heartburn
    – joint pain
    – headache
    – rash

Fosamax is a risky, artificial approach to osteoporosis which pretends like the problem can be divided up into separate, distinct unrelated phases, like with a car. Same old idea, over and over: another drug in search of a market.

Same old story. Osteoporosis is big business. Big business to keep it happening, and big business to treat it. The dairy industry, the meat industry, the soft drink industry all keep it happening. The HRT industry, the nursing home industry, and the hospitals gain from the treatment of osteoporosis. John McDougall explains:

“The diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis is so profitable because millions of people unwittingly weaken their bones, making them dependent for the rest of their life on diagnostic tests and drug therapy that slows the disorder but never cures it.”

– The McDougall Plan – p172

Another area of major disinformation with respect to HRT is


Unsupported claims are made actually claiming that HRT will help prevent heart disease. There seems to be no limit to what they’ll say. It’s pretty hard to reconcile such a recommendation with the fact that cardiovascular disease is stated as a clear contraindication for most estrogen drugs. Contraindication means a situation where the drug can’t be prescribed. (Br J of Obs and Gyn Feb 1997;104:163 also, PDR. 1998)

We all know that one in two deaths in the US is from heart disease. What is less commonly known is that heart attack in the premenopausal woman is virtually unheard of. Yet 10 years after menopause, and especially if the woman is on HRT, the rates soon come up equal to men’s rates. Just a little research uncovers the likely reasons behind such a phenomenon. In his videotape What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Menopause, John Lee MD notes that HRT is the number one cause of increased rates of heart attacks in postmenopausal women. Why? In a word, vasospasm. The word means tightening of a blood vessel.

The coronary arteries are the ones that supply the heart with blood. They are also the ones that get blocked in heart attacks, and therefore they are the site of bypass operations. They are what is bypassed. The most popular site is the Anterior Descending Coronary Artery.

In males who are screened for bypass, the Anterior Descending may be 80 to 95% blocked, and surgery will be recommended. If death comes first, on autopsy these high rates of blockage are observed.

In postmenopausal women, however, autopsies frequently showed only a 30-50% blockage of the artery, yet death was due to heart attack. Researchers couldn’t understand what was happening for the longest time. So they began to do angiogram studies with Rhesus monkeys – animal abuse in the classic Pasteurian tradition. Angiogram, you remember, is where they X-ray the arteries after injecting dye into them. Now monkeys don’t go through menopause, so they had to create it for the study. The way they did it was to first remove the ovaries. To induce heart attack they injected Provera, which is a synthetic hormone used for human birth control. The results were “unrelenting” vasospasm of the coronary artery which means that the artery which had as little as a 30% blockage constricted down to complete closure and would not open up again no matter what they tried. Obviously this killed Ms. Monkey in the ensuing heart attack. So the researchers realized that HRT was the missing factor that was responsible for heart attacks in postmenopausal women whose coronary arteries were less than 50% blocked. Did you read that study anywhere in Newsweek or in the Chronicle? Information like this that challenges a billion dollar HRT industry is systematically buried.

If natural progesterone is added to the Provera, the artery does not go into spasm. This data was according to a study done in England at the London Institute of Heart and Lung Research by Peter Collins MD. Again the point here is that natural progesterone is unpatentable. It is not a drug. They can’t make a ton of money from it, so it’s not promoted. Natural progesterone is not routinely recommended, and most ob/gyn’s don’t even bother to learn about it because they can’t make money from it.


It’s the same with estrogen. There are safe, natural sources of estrogen which could be recommended in place of drugs. Many plants have safe, mild estrogen substances called phytoestrogens which are available to the body in minute, physiologic doses, and which can be used to safely supplement a declining estrogen output. Hormones are only needed and used by the body in tiny, very transient amounts. Transient means they only have to be around for a second or two. A physiologic dose would mean a natural hormone like a phytoestrogen or a wild yam-derived progesterone in the same amount as what might be produced by the body for its own needs. Natural hormones can be swiftly broken down after they have performed their function. They don’t just continue hour after hour like the synthetics or the xenoestrogens, which are given in sledgehammer amounts called pharmacologic doses. Big difference.

When the reality of this situation begins to sink in, it may sound a little harsh at first. Can it really be that if it comes to a choice between money and their patients’ well-being, doctors will choose money most of the time? We can’t be too hard on them – they’ve incurred a lot of debt in medical school. John Lee and Lorraine Day, both medical doctors, well-respected in their fields, excuse their colleagues’ ignorance and indifference about the value of natural progesterone by saying that the doctors are too busy with paperwork, hospital duties, and their own lives to have the time to read anything outside the medical library.

Mendelsohn is a little less forgiving.

Since the medical journals in the medical library are very tightly controlled by the pharmaceutical companies, no natural non-drug therapies are allowed to appear, especially one like progesterone which actually does what synthetic estrogen is supposed to do, except with no side effects. So they tell us not to be too hard on doctors, because the doctors just don’t know. So we shouldn’t we be forewarned that doctors are primarily reps for the drug companies, because that’s all they have managed to learn?

It’s frightening that to make an informed decision about embarking on any course of patentable drug therapy, these are the considerations that must be undertaken. The more you learn about it, the more naive you realize you have been to have thought that things have ever been any other way.


Since the beginning of estrogen drugs in the 1960s, the spectre of cancer has always been there, lurking about in the shadows. That’s why progestins (synthetic progesterone) were added in the mid 1970s, changing ERT to HRT. Original studies were shaky, and the majority of modern studies show conclusively that HRT significantly increases the risk of both endometrial and breast cancer. Dr. Lee states flatly that HRT is the only known cause of endometrial cancer! (Lee, p220)

Abstracting ourselves for a moment away from citing 10 medical studies which prove this point, just use your common sense. Let’s go back to the beginning of the chapter. What does natural estrogen do? Prepares for reproduction. What tissues does it affect? Those tissues that what? Right. Are rapidly dividing: endometrium, cervix, breast, ovaries. Now, what is cancer? Very simply, cancer begins when a cell has lost its ability to specialize, but not its ability to multiply, or proliferate. Or divide rapidly. A tumor is a group of cells multiplying rapidly out of control, but unable to perform any life function. So therefore, which tissues do you think have the greatest tendency to become cancerous? Right – those which normally will tend to divide rapidly, like endometrial and breast tissue. So estrogen and cancer have a lot in common from the get-go. Is it really that much of a surprise that dozens of controlled medical studies and research reviews have proven practically beyond dissent that HRT, which is estrogen gone wild, can cause cancer? So would it be too impertinent of me to pose the obvious: why is HRT still out there? Let’s see, it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do – control menopause symptoms, it has no effect on osteoporosis and it’s been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a frequent spark for cancer.

The above-cited Boston Nurses Questionnaire Study involving over 121,000 participants found that taking estrogen therapy alone for at least ten years raised breast cancer risk by 40%. If they took progestins as well (synthetic progesterone) that figure went to 100%! (Australian Doctor, 29 Aug 97, p3)

A meta-analysis is when researchers compare several studies and come up with a conclusion. In 1991 a meta-analysis of 16 separate studies was written up in Journal of the American Medical Association. Their findings:

“After 15 years of estrogen use, we found a 30% increase in the risk of breast cancer.”
– Steinberg p1985 JAMA 1991

Different studies, different numbers. How about this one, in Sweden, from the New England Journal of Medicine, with over 23,000 women in the sample group:

“Overall we noted a 10% increase in the relative risk of breast cancer for 23,334 women for whom estrogens were prescribed for menopause, this risk to increase with increased duration of treatment to an excess risk of 70% in women with more than nine years of use.”

– Bergkvist, p293 NEJM 3 Aug 89

Fairly credible sample size.

There are many other studies, but you can see where this is going. These are the top medical journals in the U.S. Doctors know that HRT causes breast cancer. Why is this happening? Just keep thinking about that $1 billion per year, and things will eventually come into focus. That’s a thousand million per year.


Here are three holistic methods for reducing the incidence of menopause annoyances:

    – clean diet
    – plant-sourced estrogens – Phytoestrogens
    – natural progesterone cream

1. Diet

Eat non-acidifying foods: raw fruits and vegetables, whole grains, good stuff. Acidfying foods, fast foods, processed foods, white sugar, hard fats – the usual culprits in most other disease patterns – once again make their appearance. As explained above, estrogen dominance is promoted by a lifetime diet of these common foods. Stress and nutritional deficiency deplete the adrenals, which deplete progesterone, which promotes estrogen imbalance, which causes symptoms of menopause.

Normally estrogen should just cycle through the body once and then be broken down in the liver. High fat content in the diet prevents such breakdown and allows estrogen to go around a second time, promoting all the above-mentioned imbalances. (McDougall, p87)

2. Phytoestrogens

Raw whole foods, fruits, vegetables contain mild amounts of natural estrogens which circumvent the rollercoaster imbalance most women experience. If phytoestrogens are part of the lifestyle prior to menopause, there will not be such a radical drop when the body begins to downshift away from the demands of always preparing for reproduction. In a study done in Paris in the early 1990s, a physiologist significantly lowered estrogen levels in the sample group simply by changing from a high fat, high sugar diet to a more natural diet of fruits and vegetables. (Vines)

Phytoestrogens also appear in a variety of herbs, including black cohosh, alfalfa, pomegranate, and licorice.

3. Natural Progesterone

By now you should know that progesterone drops to zero at menopause. If estrogen levels have been high all along, problems begin to arise when the sister hormone progesterone is no longer around to keep things in balance.

In the past few years, several doctors have found that natural progesterone cream can take up the slack both before menopause, in the case of the stress-challenged woman, and after menopause, in the case of the less stressed woman who has incorporated natural phytoestrogen foods into her lifestyle. Both can benefit from the regulating influence of natural estrogen in small food-bound doses. Physiologic doses.

Dr. Lee has organized most of the pertinent information about the clinical effects of natural progesterone cream. Osteoporosis, heart disease, breast cancer, endometrial cancer, hot flashes, dryness, skin shrivelling are routinely avoided completely by the daily use of this simple natural lotion. On p 271 of his book, Dr. Lee has a list of products which contain natural progesterone in a usable form. The reader is directed to What You Doctor May Not Tell You About Menopause for the complete story on progesterone. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that if you are a woman you can’t afford to skip his book.

I realize the information in this chapter may be a bit overwhelming, especially if you are hearing it for the first time. This is not light reading. But it’s worth the effort if you are considering a major step like beginning hormone therapy, or birth control pills, to inform yourself. This chapter hopes to point you in the direction of further investigation. The attached references would be your next step in verifying what I have suggested in these few short pages. If you only choose one, I would recommend John Lee’s book, as it is the most comprehensive review of current literature on the topic of natural hormone therapy. We are taught to be too trusting of medicine, to a degree that it doesn’t merit. Almost two hundred prescription drugs come and go every year. Why would that be, if they really worked? What happened to thalidomide, fen-phen, seldane, DES, rotavirus vaccine, and a thousand others? What happened to the people who took them, thinking they were safe?

Misled and misinformed by the forces of big business, American women find themselves far afield of a rational outlook on menopause, in tune with Nature’s intentions. Incessant advertising and mental conditioning has successfully programmed the public’s hard disk into regarding menopause as a disease absolutely requiring treatment, even in the absence of symptoms. Such a perspective is the creation of the marketplace and is not even supported by the most conservative and credible of medical authorities.

    “Menopause is a natural rite of passage and should not be treated as a disease.”
    – Betty Kamen, PhD HRT, p 239

    “Menopause is not a disease. It is a natural biological process that has gone awry in some women because of less than optimum environment.”
    – Lee p 279


The foregoing information also applies for most birth control pills. Most are synthetic steroid hormones which artificially prevent ovulation. The lie is, the Pill will “regulate periods.” The truth is the menstrual flow is artificial, occurring only because the Pill was withheld for one week per month. Normal menstruation is the result of the cyclic dynamic between natural estrogen and natural progesterone. With contraceptives, the flow is just a result of a clumsy, sledgehammer approach to “managing” one small aspect of an imponderably complex bio-system. Long term, such a course is foolish, as it has the same pattern of side effects as listed above: coronary artery disease, breast cancer, endometrial cancer, strokes, high blood pressure, liver dysfunction, respiratory allergies, digestive disorders, depression, blood clots, osteoporosis, and weight gain. (Sellman, p78) This is sexual freedom? Sounds more like slavery to me.


Most people realize that coffee has no real food value, but they figure it won’t kill them. And the idea of getting going in the morning without coffee would be unthinkable after all these years. Many would probably choose death over withdrawal. You might even know someone like that.

So why are we talking about coffee in a chapter about HRT? Simple: it’s in the loop. Both are locked into the biochemical choreography of the swirling hormones which blink in and out of existence every second. Adrenals, thyroid, and ovaries are not three separate and independent entities. They’re more like three instruments in an orchestra, or three ingredients in a cake, or three members of a yacht crew: change any one and the whole outcome is threatened.

Coffee is an adrenal stimulator. So are white sugar, a leopard in your living room, and the morning commute. The adrenal hormones trigger the fight-or-flight thing, a leftover from the earlier days of our species’ evolution. Stress. Like from modern, empty foods, toxic exposure, and emotional worry – you know the list – which send constant messages to the adrenal glands. The message is: either prepare me for battle or get me out of here. Now if you have a friend who calls you on the phone fifty times a day because there’s an emergency, pretty soon you won’t get so worked up about the next call. Same with the adrenals. Only it’s probably closer to several hundred calls a day, if you’re in Silicon Valley, or any metropolitan American city. After awhile the adrenal glands get fried, depleted, out of gas, used up.

As the most evolved system in the universe, the body’s got back-up plans for everything. And the first of the Plan B’s for spent adrenal glands is to convert another hormone into adrenal hormone, thereby taking the burden off the adrenals themselves. Guess which hormone is first on the list for this understudy duty? Right: progesterone. Remember, progesterone is the precursor, or basic raw material, for all the steroid hormones (see above chart).

So for many women who are really stressed and have been for years, they are relying in large measure upon alternative sources of adrenal hormones. With progesterone being the first of the volunteers to be changed into adrenal hormones, this leaves little or no progesterone left to perform its primary function, which was what? Right again, to maintain the dynamic balance with estrogen. The result: further promotion of estrogen dominance, which you know all about, from the above pages.

Sumption, the nutritionist cited above, lists the B-complex vitamins that are depleted by coffee – the same ones that are depleted by estrogen. Without B vitamins, the body is drained of energy.

Coffee does not give you energy; coffee gives you the illusion of energy. Coffee actually drains the body of energy and makes you more tired, because of vitamin and adrenal depletion. What is the number one symptom that the most people have? Give up? Fatigue is the what more Americans have than any other daily complaint. Many people don’t sleep at night as much as collapse from simple exhaustion. A sign of this is when you wake up in the morning exhausted, not refreshed. The body is tired from all that repair work it had to do while you were asleep. There is no feeling of waking refreshed and renewed. So what do we do, to crank it up one more time? Coffee. Decaf? I don’t think so. It’s not the taste that you’re addicted to. Decaf causes the same overwrought cycle of fatigue in a different way. Any coffee is a metabolic burden that has to be dealt with. It contributes nothing to nutrition – no vitamins, no minerals, no enzymes. Beats up the adrenals, uses up progesterone, promotes estrogen dominance. And now you know what that means.

There are at least two different ways that coffee contributes to osteoporosis:

    – promotes estrogen dominance
    – raises the acidity in the blood

We’ve already seen how estrogen dominance leads to osteoporosis. With acidifying of the blood, calcium is pulled from bones and teeth in order to keep the blood from becoming too acid. This is called buffering – a basic survival mechanism.

The increased rate of hip fractures with coffee intake was clearly shown in a 1995 study in New England J Med. (Cummings) Another study in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition of over 85,000 nurses showed three times the rate of hip fractures in the group who drank the most coffee. Promotion of osteoporosis from coffee is not just a theory.


The thyroid, the adrenals, and the ovaries. Closely connected, in a thousand ways. Another award-winning snap misdiagnosis of the 90s has been “hypothyroidism.” To push Synthroid, a powerful thyroid mimicker, many women are told they are thyroid deficient, for the flimsiest of reasons. Fatigue is the usual complaint. Obesity is another. A borderline thyroid level in one blood test is enough to trigger a lifetime of problems, starting with a prescription for Synthroid. Perhaps the thyroid levels were just temporarily low when the blood sample was taken. Perhaps the thyroid was a little sluggish. Doctors have known for years that iodine is necessary for a functioning thyroid. Do doctors recommend that safe mineral supplement first before trying the overpowering drug Synthroid? Never. Most doctors don’t even look at blood levels of thyroid hormones at all; but diagnose hypothyroidism by symptoms only! (Lee, p147) No matter; once Synthroid is served up every day, your thyroid’s going night-night. And your problems are just beginning, because you’re now aboard the Drug Express. To say nothing of the hormonal confusion that is now created when every molecular message that the other glands send to the thyroid system requesting an answer is ignored.

Empirically, who gets diagnosed hypothyroid, women or men? Let’s see, why would that be?

Thyroid and estrogen are natural antagonists: opposite effects. Thyroid builds bone, estrogen stimulates bone loss. Thyroid stimulates metabolism and burns fat; estrogen stores fat. With estrogen dominance, thyroid function is inhibited, causing lower thyroid activity. This doesn’t necessarily mean the thyroid can’t do its job, like the doctor presumes. It just means with all the excess estrogen in the picture, thyroid hormone is kept in the background – another one of the body’s give-and-take feedback loops, about which we know so little. Again the sledgehammer arrogance comes barging onto the scene with the pretense that synthetic thyroid hormone – Synthroid – is going to “fix the problem.”

Check out the psychology here: consider the motivation for being diagnosed hypothyroid situation.

1. The doctor is motivated because the patient is signing up for a life on Synthroid

2. The patient is ready to believe it because her overeating and obesity are not her fault: it’s a hormone imbalance.

Is that what ‘codependent’ means?


– another carnival of disinformation. Chronic fatigue is almost always a result of simple toxemia – blood poisoning – from years of the indigestible, devitalizing American “foods of commerce.” (Tilden) This is self-evident to any holistic healer. Never missing a trick to sell powerful drugs, medicine offers Synthroid to the rescue. Not only does it never work for chronic fatigue, Synthroid whips the condition to a new level of exhaustion by adding a new toxin for the already worn-out liver and blood to try and break down. It’s like putting out a fire with starter fluid.


All the horrific side effects and cancers and infertilities and permanently damaged endocrine systems – all that aside – perhaps the most invidious feature of HRT and its systematic enslavement of women is noted by John Robbins:

“The strategy is to make women feel less confident in themselves, for the more alienated from herself a woman becomes, the more susceptible she is to the lure of the drugs. This is the mass marketing of self-estrangement.”

– Reclaiming Our Health p140

Robbins quotes Christiane Northrup, MD:

“An entire generation of women is being brainwashed. Most women’s trust in their own bodies is almost nonexistent.”

John McDougall, MD agrees:

“By adolescence, a great many young girls have come to believe that their bodies are the problem.”

– The McDougall Program, p17


You won’t find the information in this chapter common knowledge. Your doctor probably won’t be aware of it. It’s unlikely that you will see an ad for natural progesterone in Time or Newsweek any time soon. The devolving literacy in the U.S., the dumbing down of a people, is no accident. Any knowledge that fuels the idea that people can be responsible for their own health is systematically suppressed, in a hundred ways. You are already in the vast minority just by finishing this chapter. It’s not the homogenized “readable” copy you’re used to.

The glossing over of the side effects and the same tired images of HRT as the savior of women from the clutches of wrinkly old age – this pitch is still out there, coming across in hundreds of ways, every day. Those millions in advertising are not being wasted.


This chapter has just skimmed the surface of the topic of hormone therapy. I hope you don’t believe anything you’ve just read. Disprove it, starting with the appended references. The two most organized are Dr. Lee’s book What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Menopause, and Sellman’s book Hormone Heresy. If you’re taking estrogen or birth control pills now or considering it, you can become more informed about the subject than your doctor, by reading what the real experts say. Few women are actually given a choice. Menopause? Oh, time for estrogen pills. End of story. With life-threatening side effects like these, it’s worth the effort to be informed.

The unpleasant side effects of menopause can be minimized or eliminated by diet, herbs, and natural supplementation, as noted above. Dangerous unproven pharmacologics hardly seem worth the risk.

Hormone Replacement Therapy is a phrase right out of Brave New World mentality. Why? Because it’s not hormones, it doesn’t replace anything, and it’s definitely not therapeutic. The only thing getting replaced is the drug trust’s investment.

“The ritualization of the stages of life is nothing new. What is new is their intense medicalization. Lifelong medical supervision turns life into a series of periods of risk.”

– Medical Nemesis p 78

Perhaps life should just be lived, not supervised, risk-analyzed, amortized, or ritualized.

The best way to balance the endocrine system at any age is the natural way. And that dovetails right back to The Last Resort.

Copyright MMXI


    1 Hadwen, Walter, MD— Microbes and War — 1896.

    2 Hume, Edith Douglas— Bechamp or Pasteur? CW Daniel, London 1923.

    3 Lemon, HM MD— “Oestriol and prevention of breast cancer” Lancet 10 Mar 73 p546

    4 Meyers, R— DES: The Bitter Pill NY Seaview/Putnam p143 1983.

    5 Ryan, K MD— “Cancer Risk and Estrogen Use in Menopause” New England J Med Dec1975, vol 293, p1199

    6 Smith DC— “Association of exogenous estrogen and endometrial carcinoma” New England Journal of Medicine Dec 1975;293(23):1164

    7 Banik, Allen— Hunza Land Whitehorn Publ., Long Beach 1960.

    8 Taylor, Renee— Hunza Health Secrets Universal Publishing, NY, 1964.

    9 Vines, Gail— “Oestrogen Overdose” British Vogue Sep 1994.

    10 Beaton, G— Annex 3. Practical population indicators of health and nutrition WHO monograph 62:500, 1976.

    11 Ellison PT et al.— “The ecological context of human ovarian function” Human Reproduction 8 :2248ff 1993.

    12 Wright, Jonathan MD— Natural Hormone Replacement For Women Over 45 Smart Publications; ISBN: 0962741809 April 1997.

    13 Cowan. LD, MD — “Breast cancer incidence in women with a history of progesterone deficiency” J Epidemiol 1981;114 p209

    14 Wagner, Susan— “Premarin: Cycle of Cruelty” 1998 Equine Advocates

    15 Ziel, HK— “Increased risk of endometrial carcinoma among users of conjugated estrogens” NEJM, 1975;293(23):1167

    16 Miller, BA— Cancer Statistics Review 1973-1989 National Cancer Institute 1992. 17 Twogood, Daniel — No Milk —1996.

    18 Lee, John, MD— What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Menopause Warner Books 1996.

    19 Guyton, AC , MD Textbook of Physiology 1996.

    20 Chopra, Deepak, MD — Quantum Healing 1995.

    21 Hernanadez-Avila M— Caffeine, moderate alcohol intake, and risk of fractures of the hip American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 54:157 1991.

    22 McDougall, John MD— McDougall’s Medicine: A Challenging Second Opinion 1986. 23 New England Journal of Medicine 14 Oct 93

    24 Prior, Jerilynn MD— “One Voice on Menopause” JAMWA 49 Jan 1994:p27ff

    25 Ettinger B — “Role of calcium in preserving the skeletal health” Southern Med J 1992 Aug; 85(8) p2822

    26 Recker RR— “The effects of milk supplements in calcium metabolism” Am J of Clin Nutrition 1968 41:254

    27 Marshall, E— “Search for a Killer” 1993, Science, 259: p616

    28 Colborn, Theo— Our Stolen Future 1997 29 Sharp, R— Are oestrogens involved in falling sperm counts and disorders of the male reproductive tract? Lancet 341:1392, 1993.

    30 Reusch, H— N/aked Empress – 1992 Civis Publ.

    31 Stampfer, M— “Postmenopausal estrogen therapy and cardiovascular disease -10 year follow up from the Boston Nurses Questionnaire Study” NEJM 1991 vol 325 p756

    32 Steinberg, K PhD et al. —”A Meta-analysis of the Effect of Estrogen Replacement Therapy on the Risk of Breast Cancer” JAMA 17 Apr 91 vol 265, no15;p1985

    33 Bergkvist, L MD— et al “The Risk of Breast Cancer After Estrogen and Estrogen-Progestin Replacement” New Eng J Med 3 Aug 89 p293

    34 Sumption, Jean — “A Little About Vitamins” ? 1998 International MS Support Foundation International MS Support Foundation P.O. Box 90154 Tucson, Arizona 85752-0154

    35 Collins, Peter MD et al.— The Cardioprotective Role of HRT: A Clinical Update Parthenon 1996.

    36 Sellman, Sherrill— Hormone Heresy GetWell International Honolulu — 1998.

    37 Straton, C— Effects of caffeine consumption on delayed conception Am J Epidemiol 142:1322,1995.

    38 West, Stanley MD— The Hysterectomy Hoax – 2002.

    39 Rodriguez et al.— “Estrogen Replacement Therapy and Fatal Ovarian Cancer” AmJ of Clin Epidemiol 1995;141(9):828ff

    40 Robbins, John—Reclaiming Our Health Kramer 1996.

    41 National Center for Health Statistics — The 20 Drugs Most Frequently Prescribed in Physicians’ Offices, 1993 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services

    42 Cummings, SR et al.— “Risk factors for hip fracture in white women” NEJM 1995; 328:767

    43 Tilden, JH MD— Toxemia Explained Kessinger Publishing 1926.

    44 Illich, Ivan—- Medical Nemesis Pantheon Books 1976.


    46 Kamen, B — Hormone Replacement Therapy – Yes or No? 1996.