The problem: we once knew, but have forgotten, how to be healthy. Our doctors have us thinking they have a monopoly on health solutions, when in reality, it’s the hidden power of our good cells that makes us healthy. How can you “turn on” the good cells inside you and beat cancer and disease? It’s easy with this evidence-based guide to health!
Don’t miss out on a riveting health story loaded with cutting-edge health research. Buy on Amazon, or read here for free.
What are Benelles?
Inside your cells, you have special genes that are able to fight all forms of virus, disease and cancer. These good genes participate in a greater network called your immune system. In the greater network, there is complex communication where all parts of your body communicate with one another to provide a defense against maladies and depression, and a supply of energy and vitality.
“Benelles” are cells with healthy, highly-active copies of good genes. Benelle comes from Latin bene and cell, or “good cell”. You are born with a stock of benelles; they protect you as you pass through life. Anything that slows down, tires, irritates, blocks or damages your benelles damages your ability to be healthy, happy, and cancer-free.
Doctors have a 20% chance of being wrong about your health. That’s what Dr. Alejandro Arroliga and his team at the Cleveland Clinic found after comparing autopsy reports against patients’ previous medical records. The doctors had misdiagnosed 20% of patients.
And when these doctors were off, they were really off. Of the misdiagnosed, 44% were major misdiagnoses, resulting in incomplete or inadequate treatment. Keep in mind, Arroliga’s study was conducted at the Cleveland Clinic, where some of the finest doctors in the world practice.
But doctors are more accurate than in the old days, right? No, not really. In 2006, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that the rate of misdiagnoses today equals the rate of misdiagnoses in the 1930s. Blood tests, MRIs, endoscopes, and the Internet have not made doctors any more accurate. We’ve advanced medical technology in the last eighty years, and it’s not making any difference.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are 956 million physician office visits a year in the United States. If even half of these visits involved a diagnosis, that would mean over 95 million misdiagnoses a year. That means many of us are being treated for sicknesses we don’t have.
A national total of 956 million physician office visits also shows that people want health and are willing to pay good money for it. The brick and mortar of our health fixation is all around: hospitals, medical centers, doctor offices, specialist offices, dentist offices, chiropractic offices, pharmacies, and vitamin shops. There are all kinds of health media, too—best-selling books, Internet sites, mail-order treatments, and infomercials. There’s a lot of people selling health. As consumers, we face the stress of obtaining a health insurance plan, keeping our jobs, not being disqualified by a preexisting condition, paying ever-higher deductibles, and finding enough time away from work to even see a doctor. Many of us wonder if we’ll be able to afford to get well. Yet deep down, we feel we have the best healthcare system in the world and take great pride in it. We think if we can just get the right job, the right insurance plan, the right doctor, the right drug, or the right miracle diet plan, we’ll be healthy.
But we won’t. Good health doesn’t come from hitting the jackpot of just the right employer, just the right health plan, just the right doctor, and just the right drug. There’s more to it. We’ve forgotten one important detail. We’ve forgotten how to be healthy.
$3 Trillion Unfunded Obligation
According to a 2011 annual report on US medical insurance delivered to congress, there is a $3.0 trillion 75-year “unfunded obligation” of the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund, which funds Medicare.* This means US public healthcare is bankrupt by a wide margin, and many people are at risk of losing their healthcare.
The reality of US healthcare bankruptcy strikes fear in the heart of many people. Americans have been conditioned to think they need lots of healthcare in order to be healthy. This idea of needing lots of healthcare is based on fear, not evidence.
There is a large and growing body of evidence that illustrates we are healthier with less medical care that we are receiving today. The bankruptcy of Medicare may make the US a healthier nation.
* 2011 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund. http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2011.pdf
Too Much Medical Care
42% of all US primary care physicians think that their own patients are receiving too much medical care, and 28% believe that they themselves are practicing too aggressively.* Why would doctors give too much medical care and treat too aggressively? The physicians in the survey listed malpractice concerns and inadequate time to spend with patients as two reasons. Basically, doctors don’t have enough time and are worried about being sued.
Physicians are over-treating. Patients are over-asking. Big pharma and marketing companies are over-charging. It’s a harmonious business relationship for all, except for one small detail: it’s making us sick.
* Sirovich B, Woloshin S, Schwartz L “Too Little? Too Much? Primary Care Physicians’ Views on US Health Care” Arch Intern Med 2011;171(17):1582-1585. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.437
According to the National Cancer Institute, researchers estimate that as many as 2 in 3 cases of cancer are linked to some type of environmental factor.* That means what’s going into our bodies has an impact on the health of our cells. Specifically, many chemicals have poisonous effects. This means if we voluntarily introduce exotic chemicals into our bodies, the science behind the chemicals should be reproducible so we know what kind of risk we’re taking.
The science behind prescription chemicals should be reproducible, but it’s not. We know chemotherapy damages healthy cells, causing severe poisoning, and that it can even cause heart and brain damage. Heart and brain damage are big risks that people are willing to take because they trust today’s cancer research. What most of us don’t know is that almost 90% of cancer research findings can’t be reproduced.** Why would good science not be able to be reproduced? Well, good science should be able to be. Science-for-hire may fall short. The implication: many people trust their health to corporate-sponsored science with unknown results.
** Begley G, Ellis L “Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research” Nature 2012; 483,531-533. doi: 10.1038/483531a
Fast Food Health
We have become so compartmentalized in our advanced society that we are overestimating what popular medicine can do for us. Yes, prescription chemicals can force our cells to perform certain functions. They can force down cholesterol or acid reflux. They can mask pain or juice brain chemicals. They can grow hair or shrink nausea. They can play us like a fiddle, but they can’t make us well.
Popular medicine does not see you as a person to keep well. It sees you as a patient with a problem to fix fast. In most cases, you have about a ten- to fifteen-minute window with the doctor, at the end of which he will be judged on whether he can successfully treat your problem. We have turned our health into something like driving through a fast food window for lunch or dinner.
Of course, the medical system’s drive-thru is very clean and convincing. Instead of a pimpled teenager handing you a bag of food, you have a medically-licensed, well-groomed doctor with a good golf game and streaks of gray handing you a prescription. Strip away the facade, and the doctor is really serving you in the same capacity as the teenager. He’s giving you what you want in minutes, so you can feel better.
Here’s some bad news. You’re not going to get better in fifteen minutes, nor as soon as you start a prescription chemical. Good health requires more than junk ingredients, and unfortunately, prescription chemicals are the fast food of health. They are cheap, easy, commonplace, and they reduce you in the long run. Just like fast food, they can cause many health problems.
If we eat a bunch of fast food and put on weight or suffer indigestion, we automatically know what to do. It’s not rocket science. We change our diets. But if we start having a symptom like back pain or depression or erectile dysfunction, we treat the problem as if it is rocket science. Suddenly, common sense no longer applies, and we adhere to whatever the doctor says, including having magnetic scans and consuming prescription chemicals containing compounds we know nothing about, and which the doctors know little to nothing about. We do this under the authority of the doctor, usually without asking questions for fear of being labeled difficult.
You can usually find a news story a day about the risk of an established prescription chemical that is already in wide use. This is not surprising. Doctors don’t really know what they are prescribing, nor do they know how it reacts with any other prescription chemicals you are already on. Most doctors don’t read medical research or studies. They count on business relationships with pharma salespeople to supply them with whatever’s cutting edge. Plus, they diagnose wrong 20% of the time. Despite these details, the line to see the doctor just keeps getting longer and longer. As the fast food industry knows, the solution is to increase turnover.
Here’s some good news. We have a remarkable ability to get well on our own, especially when we start treating our health as something more than a fast food drive-thru. Stop trusting companies—and doctors of popular medicine—to be our number-one guardians, and learn to see health as connected to diet, physical activity, relationships, sunlight and clean air, and good sleep. Increasing your health is not rocket science; it’s common sense, and it’s also scientific.
We have confused the potential of corporate-sponsored science with real-life good scientific outcomes. Scientifically, a drug may be shown to operate on the cells of our pancreas in a way that controls diabetes in a statistically predictable manner—if we take the drug for the rest of our lives.* But science shows you could also reduce calories and your pancreas would solve diabetes. Scientifically, removing a disk in your back may be able to improve a textbook spinal concern. But science also shows that stress has a stronger association with back pain than disk irregularities. Scientifically, a nuclear bomb may eliminate a major section of the enemy, but the nuclear winds that will blow back on your own people will also make them sick. Just because science creates an option doesn’t mean it’s the smartest option. Science creates many options that should be compared for highest quality.
Using science to go after a wise outcome is the best goal. Yes, you could treat diabetes with lifelong medication, but it’s wiser to let your pancreas solve diabetes naturally. Yes, you could pursue back surgery, but it’s wiser to see if controlling stress makes your back pain disappear. It’s not a guessing game. We can look to a large body of emerging scientific evidence to find the best possible health outcomes.
Doctors of popular medicine don’t think in terms of what’s wise. They are in the business of health, and they don’t have the time. They are paid big money to hurry through an endless array of patient drive-thrus. They are not going to present you with academic research about cholesterol, back pain, or arthritis. Fifteen minutes isn’t enough for that. Fifteen minutes is enough to launch an attempt at forcible chemical control, or cover-up, of an underlying health problem. In fifteen minutes, you can plunge into a prescription chemical for swelling, plus a prescription chemical for pain, and if neither works, they can also schedule you for an MRI and surgery to remove a bum disk in your back, which you will later find wasn’t the source of your back pain. All of this can happen very fast with a minimum of academic research and without attention to root causes.
In the western world, we have developed popular science with gusto. Popular science has yielded immense capabilities and a long list of options covered by health insurance. Yet the popular medicine system lacks wisdom. It goes for short-term victories, ignores side effects and feedback, and does not see the parts of the body as a greater system.
The idea of applying science with wisdom is like using common sense. When we take ownership of our health, we achieve better outcomes. When we become physically active, we get well and start feeling good. Feeling good is an important sign of health. Conversely, feeling bad can directly hurt your health. Within the first week of being diagnosed with cancer, patients are 12.6 times more likely to commit suicide and 5.6 times more likely to die of a heart attack.** Don’t let your cells be swept into dust by fear and negative feelings. When you feel there is no hope, your body shuts off the cells that give life and health. Conversely, faith in your immune system creates life and health.
There are many popular medical recommendations that go against common sense. Many people feel bad after going on a certain medication, but they are told to stay on the medication. It is unclear if this recommendation stems from profit motive, fear of lawsuits, or pedantry, but it is a direct expression of how our medical system sees patients as units. Popular medicine isn’t about connecting the dots. Treatments that make you feel bad are not increasing your health and are probably putting you at risk. Your doctor has a medical license, but not a gambling license. Don’t gamble with your health; listen to your body.
* Lim E, Hollingsworth K, Aribisala B, Chen M, Mathers J, Taylor R “Reversal of type 2 diabetes: normalisation of beta cell function in association with decreased pancreas and liver triacylglycerol” Diabetologia 2011; 54(10): 2506-2514. doi: 10.1007/s00125-011-2204-7
** Fang F, Fall K, Mittleman M, Sparen P, Ye W, Adami H, Valdimarsdottir U “Suicide and Cardiovascular Death after a Cancer Diagnosis” N Engl J Med 2012; 366:1310-1318
Popular Medicine versus Medical Research
Popular medicine and academic medical research are different animals, and they are coming to increasingly different conclusions. Popular medicine is geared toward selling you product; medical research is oriented toward making associations based upon databases. Popular medicine heads for the solution that can be sold, even if that solution is only a few points better than a placebo and a few points lower than following academic medical research. Medical research heads for whatever solution the data points to.
Technically, popular medicine is scientific. Corporations pay for large-scale studies performed by scientists, but historically, corporations simply repeat the studies and tweak variables until they get a result they like—and then don’t publish the previous studies. To help address this publication bias, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA 801) was passed in 2007, requiring basic results to be reported to a central government database.* But a study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine found that over 38% of studies investigating drug treatments have authors with a conflict of interest.** In meeting governmental reporting requirements, stacking your hand with aces makes for an easier pot.
The people behind popular medicine and academic medical research are not the same. In 2004, Drs Thomas Finucane and Chad Boult of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine published a study which showed 100% of drug studies favored the drug when the pharmaceutical companies were paying for the research.
In drug studies not being funded by pharmaceutical companies, the drug was only favored 67% of the time.*** Through paying
scientific mercenaries scientists, big business the medical industry popular medicine is able to achieve perfect results. You would think that popular medicine would occasionally allow an unfavorable result, just to appear honest overall, but it doesn’t. There’s really no need, since the FDA and the public haven’t caught on.
Popular medicine likes to convince us that we are outsiders when it comes to our own health. If we have a health problem, we feel the solution is access to patented pharmaceutical products. In the popular medical view, pharmaceutical companies, doctors, health insurance companies, and our employers control access to our health. If you can’t land the right job, it may be “game over.” Popular medicine is a big, convincing machine—especially when you are sick and feeling desperate. Popular medicine loves playing off our fears to create a perceived healthcare monopoly.
Academic medical research often suggests that our bodies inherently do a great job fighting disease, or that natural inputs match or beat expensive drugs in producing health. Academic medical research looks for associations that give us clues about health—and which may be inadvertently disruptive to powerful business interests. For instance, the father of epidemiological association studies was Richard Doll. Richard Doll’s 1956 British doctors’ study showed an association between smoking and lung cancer and heart attacks.
This was a case of science connecting the dots at the expense of the tobacco industry. Most importantly, the study showed that people could become dynamically healthier just by cutting a single common ingredient that the public wrongly thought was healthy. The message was one of faith: cut pollution, and trust your body to do the rest.
* Tse T, Williams J, Zarin D “Reporting “Basic Results” in ClinicalTrials.gov.” CHEST 2009;136(1):295-303. doi: 10.1378/chest.08-3022
** Friedman L, Richter E “Relationship Between Conflicts of Interest and Research Results” JGIM 2004. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30617.x
*** Finucane T, Boult C “Association of funding and findings of pharmaceutical research at a meeting of a medical professional society” Am J Med 2004 Dec 1;117(11):842-5.
Evolution of Healthcare
There are plenty of embarrassing moments in the history of human healthcare. The fact that bloodletting was a common medical practice performed by doctors until the late 19th century is a case study in the origin and inertia of bad ideas.
There were plenty of other bad ideas, too—taking mercury for health problems, getting lobotomies for depression and anxiety, drinking urine for health, taking tapeworm egg diet pills, and using heroin-based cough syrup. Perhaps because we are gullible or perhaps because the human body is so complicated, medical technology has been slow to bloom.
Healthcare has come a long way in the last hundred years. In 1903, Pfizer had sales of $3 million, primarily based on sales of citric acid, a weak organic acid. In 2008, Pfizer had sales of $67,809 million, sporting an arsenal of blockbusters for everything from chapped lips to Alzheimer’s to erectile dysfunction.
The explosion of revenues in the medical industry highlights the recent shift in how people think about health. Health doesn’t come from inside us; it is “out there,” in the hands of the popular medicine industry. We have to compete for access to healthcare, which is in the control of employers and doctors and bureaucrats. We’re so afraid of losing healthcare benefits that we’ll stick with an abusive employer just to protect them.
Today, we think if we have colds or flus, we need immediate relief. We need special, over-the-counter pills for the daytime effects of the cold, different over-the-counter pills for the nighttime effects of the cold, and usually secondary pills for cough and pain. Quite possibly, we need trips to the doctor for preemptive antibiotics and prescription-strength chemicals for coughing. Few people know what a common cold feels like from beginning to end because they are more used to the sensations of over-the-counter and prescription chemicals than a common virus. With modern drugs, there’s no need to feel sick or even be sick. We think science knows better than our benelles, and if we just take stuff, we can move forward with our jobs, pay bills, and seek entertainment without interruption.
Our great grandparents didn’t react the same way we do to minor sickness. When your great grandmother got sick, she didn’t need science funded by corporations, super-mega vitamins, or even the Internet. She knew what being sick felt like, she knew how her body was going to get well, and she used common sense, like sleeping a little more.
The fact that we’ve left behind mercury treatments and lobotomies is great. The fact that we have excellent diagnostic medical technology is good. The fact that we think we can buy health is bad. Buying health is at odds with modern academic research, which you will see in the studies ahead.
The Safe Choice
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an estimated 71,000 children were seen in emergency rooms from 2004 to 2005 because of medication poisonings. And in 2008, prescription painkillers led in poisoning deaths.*
If there was a new single-celled amoeba from the rainforests of Brazil that ate holes in the brain cells of humans and was responsible for the deaths of over 20,000 Americans a year, there would be a public panic. Every newspaper in the world would declare a pandemic, and governments would unite to fight the evil of the brain-munching, single-celled amoeba.
We have a double standard. One death caused by amoebas, worms, or flesh-eating bacteria makes national news. 28,000 deaths from drugs is no big deal. What’s safer here: amoebas and flesh-eating bacteria, or prescription drugs? We have an unnatural fear of snakes and amoebas, but we think prescription chemicals are safe, no matter what, because they’re scientific.
Prescription chemicals are largely untested, which is why so many are pulled from the market after people get hurt by them. They are tested by paid scientists, and there are quality control systems, but they are still human-based quality control systems being tended to by people who intimately understand who is signing their paycheck.
On the other hand, what’s really old fashioned, reliable, and safe is your immune system. Your immune system has been undergoing quality assurance testing for millions of years. If there were any recalls, they were made before you were born.
Your immune system has been keeping you healthy since the day you were born. Just as your heart beats without asking for a break, so your immune system is a relentless factory of health, but many of us are slowing down our factories. Like bad managers in a workplace, we get in the way of the work instead of letting the work race forward. We have been trained not to trust the quality of our immune systems. We have been carefully trained to trust the authorities of popular medicine. We have been trained to believe that the science of our immune systems is weak and incomplete and needs improvement by pharma under the authority of doctors because in one generation’s time, popular medicine suddenly knows more than millions of years of scientific development!
* Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Poisoning in the United States: Fact Sheet. http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Poisoning/poisoning-factsheet.htm
** Wang B, Gagne J, Choudhry N “The Epidemiology of Drug Recalls in the United States” Arch Intern Med 2012;():1-2. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.2013
Health Benefits Buffet
The fear we have about losing our health benefits is a sign we think our health benefits are the most important element of our health. A 2007 Kaiser Family Foundation poll found Americans worry more about being priced out of their health insurance than losing their jobs, their houses, or being in a terrorist attack.*
The Kaiser poll is a clear sign we’re over-rating health insurance. Health insurance is the access card to the fast food health industry. Health insurance does help reduce financial risk, but health insurance isn’t as valuable as living healthy. Remember, 42% of physicians feel patients are receiving too much care. We’re at the medical all-you-can buffet, and we’re stuffing ourselves because our medical insurance is picking up the tab. We are so excited about the free buffet that we’re not considering the unwelcome after-effects. Another problem: it’s hard to stop junk food if you have a McDonald’s at every corner. Instead of helping ourselves to health, our mantras seem to be “if it’s there, help yourself,” with the important corollary, “especially if someone else is paying!”
Health insurance saves lives statistically, which is a solid rationale for its first-place status as our first line of defense. The health insurance link to good health was proven by the 2008 report from the Urban Institute that estimated that about 20,000 Americans die every year for lack of health insurance. Or was it proven? Megan McArdle of The Atlantic introduces common sense into the equation: “The bigger problem is that the uninsured generally have more health risks than the rest of the population. They are poorer, more likely to smoke, less educated, more likely to be unemployed, more likely to be obese, and so forth. All these things are known to increase your risk of dying, independent of your insurance status.” **
There’s evidence that health insurance isn’t tied to mortality rates at all. Richard Kronick’s study, published in 2009 in Health Services Research Journal, came to the striking conclusion that there is no link between having health insurance and living longer.*** Unlike the Urban Institute’s work, Kronick’s study controlled for standard factors, such as smoking, income, education, and race. Kronick, a supporter of universal healthcare, described his own results as counterintuitive. He was apologetic but direct in writing that he felt there would “not be much change in the number of deaths in the United States as a result of universal coverage.” In other words, even if everybody had healthcare, we wouldn’t live longer lives.
Kronick’s study is an indictment of our approach of putting health insurance ahead of health. Oh, sure, health insurance can be handy if you’re at a critical failure point. Like if you have a raging health problem that needs potent chemical treatment just to keep you from keeling over. But such a raging condition is rarely an overnight happening; there is more often a long and predictable buildup with many warning signs. Somehow the norm has become using health insurance as a crutch so we can keep walking on broken legs forever, but when you walk on a hurt leg, you end up hurting your other leg by overcompensating. The problem is that many of our symptoms aren’t quite as obvious as a broken leg, so it’s convenient to bury the symptoms with prescription chemicals. Symptoms and side effects have meanings, such as “Hey, I’m being poisoned here,” or “Buddy, you’re missing one ingredient I must have.”
That we fear losing health insurance coverage more than losing our homes is certainly an expression of the persuasive powers of the popular medical system and our employers, or at least of health values cooked up in haste: “Oh, no, we’ll starve if we can’t get to fast food!” Fear of losing healthcare plans is probably causing more stress-borne illness than healthcare plans prevent. A healthcare plan is a false sense of security which is unlikely to prevent illness anyway. Popular healthcare is nearly 100% reactive, which means it doesn’t take illness prevention seriously in the first place. We’ve come to think that our health insurance plans are our first line of defense when they should be considered our second or third lines.
What if you wake up one day and all employers and health insurance companies consider you uninsurable? Are you going to lie down and quit? Don’t, and don’t fear. Your cells will not lie down and quit. The strength, loyalty, and IQ of your immune system, even at the brink of a health catastrophe, means you are still insured by your immune system.
* Kaiser Health Security Watch (2007) http://www.kff.org/healthpollreport/currentedition/security/upload/hsw1207.pdf
** Mcardle, M “Myth Diagnosis: Everyone knows that people without health insurance are more likely to die. But are they?” the Atlantic 2010; Mar
*** Kronick, R “Health Insurance Coverage and Mortality Revisited” HSR 2009.
Looks and Smells Like Health
We’ve gotten used to the look and feel of the popular medicine system. There are experts called doctors who have memorized swathes of medical terminology. They say “abscess,” instead of pus. They say “acute myocardial infarction,” instead of heart attack. They say “macrophage,” instead of white blood cell. There are sterile-looking offices with scales and sinks and waiting rooms. There are nurses who take your vital signs with special instruments. There are administrative assistants who interface with your insurance company.
We have formalized health into a process, a system, a transaction. We see health as a sanitary interaction backed by lots of paperwork and a credit card swipe. Like a “true story” Hollywood movie, the popular medicine system is based on science, but designed so that the masses enjoy the look and feel of the health they are buying. So we, the hoi polloi, feel we’ve gotten our money’s worth and remain satisfied customers.
Like the water that covers the road far ahead and can never be reached, the popular medicine system is a mirage of health. The system looks and feels like it has the power to make us well, but it does not. We can’t arrive with wrecked health and expect fast food chemicals to cure. There is an inconvenient reality: the health produced by your benelles doesn’t look and feel like medical science in the way we like. We keep falling for the attractive blonde when she has nothing to offer but a nice outside. We can’t figure out why the relationship is empty and unproductive. We don’t see that we’re letting our eyes do all the thinking.
There are many intangibles in the popular medical system: the rich-looking office furniture, the doctors’ luxury cars all in a row, the free drug samples. The social and financial authority of the doctors—the gatekeepers of the system—fixes us in place as subordinates. It is well documented that people are subservient to authority. In Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram’s famous experiment, 65% of people administered what they thought was a lethal electrical shock to another person simply because they were ordered to by an authority figure.
Doctors mostly work hard and dress nicely. Doctors have a lot of nice points, really. But they see your health problem as something to solve in ten minutes or less. They are hired hands who are paid to work inside a big, complicated system that is impervious and self-concerned. They are professionals with the power and social currency to distribute mass amounts of chemicals with countless side effects. They base their success in transaction counts and they misjudge and mistrust your benelles and will never, except in rare cases, guide you toward health. They are good managers of their healthcare system and bad managers of your system: your health. Yet you have a difficult time trusting yourselves with your health. You think you’re not qualified. Well, here’s some news. Not only are you qualified, it’s scientific and easy. You supply quality inputs then stand aside while your benelles produce health.
When you slow down and trust your instincts, you improve your chances for health. See yourselves as owners of health, instead of five cars back in the drive-thru line, waiting for your turn to be given something to fix you. Here’s a memo for you: they don’t have the fix. Health isn’t handed out in a bag. Our eyes and sense of touch have been played upon by lesser health science with a glittery look and feel. Wake up: it’s time for a cup of coffee and a journey past the mirage. We have to get up and bring forward health. We have a role and a tremendous degree of control. We are the first line.
We are made up of the directions of the code in our chromosomes. Just like the mighty river of the system, we are often swept in the direction of a few dominant genes. When we fall sick, we think there is one direction and believe there is one direction, even though there are powerful sub-currents in our recessive genes, ready to carry us in a new direction.
Whenever you are sick or weak, there is an alternate code inside you that is ready to make you well. The alter-code is recessive, quietly carrying the blueprints to solve your health problems. The blueprints are like eggs, waiting to hatch and heal. Tend to the eggs and they will hatch; trample them and they will never see the light.
Because your alter-code is recessive, it must be coaxed. Have faith; what is hidden away in your genes is more powerful than the strongest medicines of the popular medical system. Just because you are not familiar with the sub-current does not mean it is not there.
When you reach out and grow your health by activating latent genes, you create a bridge that takes you past infirmity. What is invisible to you now will become a bridge that takes your breath away. The miracle of becoming well and feeling good is within your reach, because it is written in the code inside you. It is a code that cannot be accessed by the popular medical system, but which can be weakened or wiped out if not well cared for.
Science is showing how some of the poorest people in the world possess world-class health secrets. Harvard professor Norman Hollenberg, M.D., PhD, looked to the Kuna Indians, a native population that lives on islands off the coast of Panama.
Hollenberg’s analysis revealed that the Kuna possess an elixir that reduces mortality from stroke, heart failure, cancer, and diabetes to less than 10%.* With this special drink, the “uncivilized” Kuna have essentially solved four of the five most common killer diseases plaguing the western world.
Every pharmaceutical company on the stock exchange would go gaga over a new drug that could cure strokes, heart failure, cancer, and diabetes with no side effects. Right? No, not really. Nor did the public fall in love with this super-medicine when Hollenberg’s story made the news in 2007. Why? Because the Kuna were drinking cocoa.
An uneducated bunch of Central American natives drinking cocoa does not fit with our fixed idea of civilized, scientific, doctor-endorsed, government-backed healthcare. Without the right fit, no story sells well. The Kuna’s solution is too practical. Their solution is a low-grade commodity with low profit margins.
Even though cocoa naturally solves four of the five most common diseases, we just can’t think of it as medicine. We have our evidence, and we’re not waiting for the jury. Exhibit A: you don’t need health insurance for cocoa, proving cocoa isn’t medicine. Exhibit B: the GDP of Panama is $27 billion, and the GDP of the U.S. is $14,527 billion (2010), proving U.S. healthcare, not some brown powder out of Panama, is the proper way.
The innocent victim of “civilized” thinking: your benelles. Your benelles don’t care if the best health science is a low-cost commodity. Your benelles don’t care about what’s covered by a medical insurance plan. Your benelles care about what works. To your cells, whatever works best is the best science.
That certain foods might act as medicine is an eastern “green tea is healthy” meme. Hollenberg is part of today’s renaissance; he’s Harvard having a beer with Moctezuma II. Academic studies from the finest western universities tell us we’re not doing the right thing for our health, and we’re not listening.
Unfortunately, today’s renaissance threatens the medical industry, just as iTunes shook up the old guard of the music industry, or Google News the newspaper industry. Old guards want status quo, even when it’s bad for people. Although the public rapidly adopted iTunes and Google News, for some reason they stick by the old guard of the medical industry.
The barrier we face in terms of our medical metamorphosis is our faith in the authority of old school doctors who don’t read new studies. We blithely ignore great medical research artists like Hollenberg while we honor a deadwood status quo. “You should see a doctor about that problem,” is the everyday comment that slips 100% authority to professionals who don’t read new studies.
With the wealth of scientific data flowing in, it’s amazing that people from wealthy nations don’t demand products based on the best science. Then again, many of us jump through hoops all day to make money, and thus run out of time to think or evaluate. It’s easier to trust doctors who say not to trust the Internet, the single largest open source of information in the history of the world.
Scientific results regarding powerful health secrets are announced every week. For instance, have you heard about the recent study associating caffeine consumption and physical activity with an over 60% reduced risk of skin cancer?** Probably not; yet you’ve heard a million times that the determinants of skin cancer are how much sun you get and how much sunscreen you apply.
The sunscreen industry advertises and markets its product as cancer-preventing. This money shapes doctors’ pockets and the ideas of the public. The study showing caffeine/activity offer the best chance against skin cancer is free content on the Internet, but there is no supply of money for this truth to shape doctors’ pockets or the ideas of the public. It’s not a cover-up of truth by the sunscreen industry; it’s just the natural effect of money on people and people’s health.
The caffeine/activity study illustrates that the body is a complex system where good inputs have far-reaching, unexpected impacts. It also means that drinking coffee and going for a walk solves cancer in ways the medical industry can’t. The question: can you accept new data and change old thinking?
* Bayard V, Chamorro F, Motta J, Hollenberg N “Does flavanol intake influence mortality from nitric oxide-dependent processes? Ischemic heart disease, stroke, diabetes mellitus, and cancer in Panama” Int J Med Sci 2007;4:53-58. doi:10.7150/ijms.4.53
** Dr Yao-Ping Lu and colleges of the Rutgers Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy presented to the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2012 in Chicago
Get Past the “Look and Feel” Trap
Again and again, our benelles do better doctors than doctors. Despite this, we’re stuck with the thought that doctors know best. Why? Because doctors look and feel like they know best. This “look and feel trap” limits our health to stale mantras and yet-to-come recalls and revisions.
When we’re sick, we can’t seem to resist going to see an “expert,” someone who has authority over us and our sickness. The authority of doctors over us is real because we give it, but a nicely-staged look and feel—a white smock, a stethoscope, a clipboard, a doctor’s table with butcher paper—doesn’t give doctors authority over sickness. The real question: why are we agreeing to be butchered? Is it some clause in our health insurance plan?
There is a gap like that between the sun and Jupiter as to what looks and feels like science and what actually is. The popular medicine industry is akin to an expanded Hollywood set, in which doctors get away with poor acting just because they have the right costume and props. We’re sucked into soap opera science instead of fact-based science. We put more value on what a doctor and his office looks and feels like than we do on getting well.
The solution: don’t put science that “looks and feels” like science ahead of fact-based science. If the Kuna Indians hit upon a four-in-one scientific super-medicine for stroke, heart failure, cancer, and diabetes, take the Kuna’s solution instead of a cocktail of Lipitor, Accupril, Cytoxan, and Avandia.
Even if you don’t respect Harvard-based science showing cocoa’s superiority as a medicine, respect the risk of a Lipitor, Accupril, Cytoxan, and Avandia cocktail. There’s not even a study on the cocktail risk; those drugs were tested and approved individually. Ironically, the common man can now easily afford cocoa but trusts the cocktail instead.
If a pharma company developed a drug that allowed a nearly 50% reduction of coronary disease with no side effects and a pleasant taste, that company’s stock would shoot to the top of the stock market, and the company would be hailed as the moral savior of our times. That company would walk on water. Yet that medicine already exists in the supermarket. It’s called tea.
Scientific research confirms tea’s immense coronary benefits, but since sipping tea doesn’t seem like science, we don’t acknowledge its life-giving powers. The thinking of the well-insured seems to be: medicine doesn’t grow on trees. If it did, even a poor person could obtain it.
What if the best medicine does grow on trees? Research shows that people who drink three to six cups of tea per day have a 45% lower risk of death from heart disease.*
You might also be interested in knowing that the Merck-sponsored study on Zocor lists no authors. Apparently, no scientist wanted their name attached to the Zocor study. Anonymous studies are suggestive of integrity concern, which means tea is likely beating Zocor by a lot more than three points.
There’s no magic in tea, but there’s magic in what your benelles do with tea. Our benelles use tea to operate at a higher level. Research shows tea protects our health yet tea’s health benefit was predictable, even before we had a body of evidence. This is because: 1) many people feel a rush of energy after drinking tea, and 2) there are no serious side effects from tea.
We have gone too far with “scientific” medical thinking. It is intelligent to trust positive feedback from benelles, like an energy rush from tea. It is also intelligent to trust negative feedback, such as side effects. Side effects are sign that benelles are being attacked or damaged. The big picture: tea nourishes your benelles and prescription chemicals punish your benelles.
Still on the fence about putting tea ahead of a blockbuster prescription chemical? Let’s compare the science of known possible side effects of the two items.
Zocor side effects, as listed on Drugs.com: constipation, headache, mild stomach pain, nausea, rash, hives, itching, difficulty breathing, tightness in the chest, swelling of the mouth, swelling of the face, swelling of the lips, swelling of the tongue, unusual hoarseness, burning, numbness, tingling, change in the amount of urine produced, dark or red-colored urine, decreased sexual ability, depression, dizziness, fast or irregular heartbeat, fever, chills, persistent sore throat, joint pain, loss of appetite, memory problems, muscle pain, tenderness, weakness, pale stools, red/swollen/blistered/peeling skin, severe or persistent nausea or stomach or back pain, shortness of breath, trouble sleeping, unusual bruising or bleeding, unusual tiredness or weakness, vomiting, and yellowing of the skin or eyes.
Tea side effects as listed on WebMD.com: Headaches, nervousness, sleep problems, vomiting, diarrhea, irritability, irregular heartbeat, tremor, heartburn, dizziness, ringing in the ears, convulsions, and confusion.
Zocor has forty side effects; tea has thirteen. According to an anonymous study, you can risk forty side effects to reduce your risk of death by heart attack by 42%. Or, you can risk tea’s side effects and reduce your risk of death by heart disease by 45%.
There’s a strong chance that your doctor would instruct you, by his authority, to choose Zocor over tea. Actually, tea probably won’t come up in a conversation at a doctor’s office because your doctor sees tea as a drink and possibly a bad habit, certainly not a health solution. Doctors are paid to prescribe drugs, not to read studies or see the big picture. You can accept whatever your doctor says, or you can use facts and risk analyses to choose the best health science.
It takes a genuine person of science to publish research about tea. Popular medicine is surrounded by the opposite type of scientists—the type that adheres to musty textbooks and large paychecks. Sure, large-paycheck-types are smart, but so were the men who knew scientifically that the earth was flat.
Don’t just blame doctors, though. We’ve collectively taken the wrong boat and now we’re too far out to sea to let anyone get off. Our zeitgeist’s insistence that great medical science should look and feel like a Hollywood movie has put us in the Bermuda Triangle of health, with corporate researchers as our lighthouses and CEOs as our fearless captains.
It would be Sisyphean for a doctor to run a fact-based, statistics-driven practice. If your doctor prescribed tea or coffee for a coronary condition, he’d probably lose his medical license. Certainly, he’d be at risk of going out of business, or at the very least be ridiculed out of his country club. Educated people don’t use tea or coffee as medicine, right? That’s right; people educated by the popular medical system don’t.
We have a medical industry that is self-preserving and self-confirming. It sees patents and prescriptions as science and anything grown in a field or off a tree as primitive and uneducated. Popular medicine spends billions of dollars trying to copy and mass produce the natural powers of what grows in the wild, but with less success.
There is a sub-group of researchers who are not on the pharma payroll applying western science to “green tea” Eastern principles. Most of these researchers are employed by Western universities, and they disrupt the security and dominance of pharmaceutical companies worth more than small countries. These researchers are actively showing that physical activity and common supermarket items give better outcomes than prescription chemicals.
* de Koning Gans, J et al “Tea and Coffee Consumption and Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality” Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 2010; 30: 1665-1671. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.109.201939
** [No authors listed] “Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S)” Lancet 1994. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(94)90566-5
Diagnosis: Doctors’ Wrongful Wellspring of Chemical Authority
There is a moment in time when we are at our weakest in terms of making a good decision about our health. It is at this moment that doctors get our pledge to pharma-sponsored science. This is the moment just after diagnosis.
The popular medicine system simultaneously encourages give-up and buy-in. We’ve taken time off from work. We’ve signed in and survived the first waiting room. We’ve stood on a scale, had readings taken, and had a nurse write down our symptoms. We’ve survived the second waiting room. We’ve gone for blood work at the blood lab. Then, finally, the doctor uses medical terminology to reveal clinical results and puts prescriptions in our hands. We’re still trying to figure out what the doctor just said, and he’s got the fix in his hands.
What are we going to do—not fill the prescription? We have to fill it. The doctor has just diagnosed the problem, and he has a solution that will make us better. Plus, the doctor is an authority, as proven by his scientific diagnosis. Not to mention, we have gone through a great deal of buy-in by waiting inside his system in order to reach that diagnosis. Moreover, the doctor told us to take it. It’s the only solution.
There’s a gargantuan difference between diagnostic science and pharmaceutical science. They aren’t kin; they’re different kinds of science. Diagnosis is an amazing, scientific power that frequently leans on facts, statistics, tests, or data points to reach a conclusion such as “your hemoglobin count is low.” On the other hand, pharmaceutical science is mostly proprietary, patent-seeking, product-based, and supportive of research-for-hire and business relationships with government agencies.
Diagnostic science is Aristotle walking around making notes, looking for patterns. Pharmaceutical science is a greedy alchemist trying to turn a cheap metal into gold. You can walk with Aristotle and leave behind the greedy alchemist.
Just because a doctor leverages diagnostic science to figure out what’s wrong doesn’t mean that his prescription is right. A quick prescription tries to turn cheap metal into gold.
Slow down after your diagnosis. Just because the doctor uses advanced technology to make an impressive clinical diagnosis doesn’t mean a quick fix will give you the best chance of getting well. If you have two or more doctors, watch how fast it turns into an arms race of prescriptions. Under authority and social pressure, we let healthier solutions slip away.
The solution: put a gap between diagnosis and treatment. If a car salesman identified an oil leak, would you agree to buy a new car on the spot? Absolutely not, but for some reason we think the doctor’s ability to diagnose means we have to pick up whatever he puts down. Don’t write off your health just because your doctor can read a pathology report.
However confusing or scary your diagnosis is, don’t panic. Don’t immediately accept whatever chemical is handed to you. Your benelles are not soda machines into which you insert coins and colorful cans of sweet liquid come banging down.
Doctors deserve credit for ordering blood work and getting results from the lab, but the doctor is just a middleman. He doesn’t schedule appointments, he doesn’t draw blood, he doesn’t run blood tests, and he doesn’t make the pills he ultimately prescribes. You can buy piecemeal from the middleman. Go ahead and use the lab report to find the root of the problem, but don’t accept a fast, easy solution made by a company on the stock exchange who paid for their own drug study.
Doctors gain power and authority from complex medical speak. After their diagnosis, they seamlessly transition into salesmen of whatever chemical solution is en vogue, as defined by pharmaceutical company scientists. You increase your power and authority when you stop and think about whether you want to buy.
Before you start your chemical prescription under your doctor’s authority, think about the risk/reward. Is the risk worth the reward? If your acid reflux medicine is known to cause headache, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and bone fractures, is it worth partial control of acid reflux? If your statin is causing unusual tiredness, yellowing of your skin, and swelling, is it worth cholesterol reduction?
Prescriptions are short term. They’d be a great fit if we were planning to live for the short term, but many doctors support long-term use. Doctors, hired to solve specific problems, like blood pressure or heartburn, are doing their jobs by indefinitely putting you on blood pressure and heartburn prescriptions. By keeping you on the prescriptions, the doctor delivers exactly the two solutions you’re paying him to solve, despite the fact that the prescriptions inadvertently cause fatigue, weight gain, depression, and sexual problems.
Doctors aren’t paid to think about your total health; they are paid to fix the one problem you’ve brought them. They’ll accept massive collateral damage to quickly “fix” your one problem. The big problem: collateral damage to healthy cells is costly.
There are billions of benelles in your body that work correctly and deliver health. Healthy cells are the source of your remaining health. Doctors will compromise your healthy cells to solve one problem. Doctors measure their risk/reward in dollars, and the result is a caveat emptor approach to your health that is reckless and cavalier.
Unfortunately, doctors have almost no way of treating us without causing collateral damage to our benelles. In short, your doctor will throw out the baby with the bath water. Doctors and pharma just assume that your good cells will be able to “keep taking the collateral hit,” while they make a living blasting bad cells with ever stronger chemicals. Doctors and pharma take the narrow approach to health and it makes us sick.
Americans take pride in their healthcare system, but lambaste their public schools. Public schools are harangued for teaching to the slowest kid in the class.
We look to doctors to make us well, but they can’t. They band-aid, but the band-aids rip up good cells, too. The destruction of your benelles, which produce your remaining health, is risky. The real solution is to achieve better health without the risk. Amazingly, medical research tells us precisely how to do this: we amplify the health of benelles.
Objective medical studies depict good health as a marathon, not a 200-meter sprint. In fact, approaching health like a sprint appears catastrophic to the supply and quality of our benelles.
Popular medicine thinks in the short-term—like using a stopgap chemical for the rest of your life. Like adding a drug for daytime sleepiness, instead of getting sleep. Popular medicine is like a retailer selling same-day delivery and pitching complimentary products with every inch of margin. Sometimes, popular medicine achieves a rather immediate, pleasant result, at the expense of a plethora of benelles.
Good health is like retirement planning. No one puts enough away for retirement with one paycheck. Years of putting away small sums from hundreds of paychecks leads to a healthy nest egg. Years of saving benelles leads to great health; slow and steady wins the race.
Association and Causation
There’s no objective measure of benelles, allowing popular medicine to play the “innocent until proven guilty” game. Popular medicine loves to say “association isn’t causation: there’s no proof our drug caused any health problem.” In fact, they’re right. There’s no way to know if a patient started with a trillion benelles and subsequently diminished his or her benelle counts by ten million every month by never missing a dose. Science has no way of measuring benelle depletion.
Generally, if you take the stance that manufactured chemicals irritate benelles and deplete them, you’ll have the right association. There have been so many chemicals associated with health problems that a “guilty until proven innocent” stance makes more sense. In general, with chemicals, association with bad health has also meant causation.
It’s only a matter of time before many of today’s drugs are recalled for causing harm, enough time for companies to develop a twist on the same drugs to make them “different.” Allowing a fresh ten years of association isn’t causation protection. It is a shell game that keeps profits moving forward.
Association is causation. We have the association of prescription chemicals causing health damage and being recalled for decades. Drugs approved today will be banned tomorrow.
When chemical manufacturers play the “association is not causation” card, will you wait for some yet-to-be-started twenty-year study to show that the chemical is associated with harm, or will you heed the immediate feedback of side effects? While waiting for the twenty-year study might be “scientific”, you might not be alive to read the results.
Worry Points and Fear
Every time a doctor orders blood work, there are fifty worry points. If you’re off by just a little on any one count, doctors will seek to push forward with treatment. Doctors even preemptively write prescriptions for fear you might go outside normal parameters in the future. The context is, without prescriptions, you should be worried that your health may fail.
Just like grade school tests, we’re afraid to fail. Even if you get a perfect health score, you still have to sweat the next test. Fear in school leads to restricted learning, and fear in a healthcare system leads to restricted health.
Blood work never comes back with results like, “You’ve got six billion healthy cells; no reason to worry, pal!” Doctors don’t say, “Don’t worry about those counts; you look great.” Blood labs, doctors, and medical systems don’t look at the big picture. Our bodies aren’t designed to get a 100% on every test. Perfect grades aren’t necessary; your body has plenty of tricks to keep providing a good result. Don’t encourage the medical industry to look for health problems; go with your benelles.
Fortunately, common sense is an option. The surest way to know if your benelles are being adversely impacted is if your medicine makes you feel bad or causes side effects. Your benelles will always speak up and suggest a course of action. Ignore them at your own risk.
You may have done great damage to your benelles through rough living, even if the roughness was accidental. Maybe you didn’t know a certain prescription chemical or urban pollutant was damaging your benelles for years. Don’t fear.
Keep Good Cells Turned On
Doctors rough up rogue cells, but they rough up benelles in the process. Doctors use a blanket approach that drags down what you really want: energy and health. If you want energy and health, go outside popular medicine. Your body is a highly integrated system; the way the medical system picks it apart in pieces wrecks the integration. The benelles and organs of your body naturally work together for integration, giving you the best in energy and health.
Health turnarounds and miracles are not achieved by harsh treatments that wipe out benelles. Health turnarounds and miracles are achieved by nourishing benelles. Current science is only beginning to understand the power of benelles. Popular science knows just enough about manipulating bad cells to be dangerous. Popular science attempts to quick-fix depression—while it chips away at the brain’s biological ability to be happy.
Turning on your benelles is a simple process that your doctor won’t trust, but which scientific studies confirm. Studies show that activating your benelles is easy and cheap. The biggest barrier to turning on benelles is our own thinking: we trust what looks and feels like medicine over what works best.
How Doctors Clash with Good Cells
What’s an example of the clash between doctors and benelles? Let’s say you are a shift worker and you have been putting on weight and having trouble sleeping. Your doctor diagnoses you as an early-stage diabetic and starts you on prescription chemicals for diabetes and a sleep disorder. You return to work without making any other changes, but with a new lifelong commitment to using chemicals to control your “medical conditions.”
In an alternate scenario, let’s say you are a well-read shift worker and you have been putting on weight and having trouble sleeping. You doctor diagnoses you as an early-stage diabetic and instructs you to begin prescription chemical treatments for diabetes and a sleep disorder. Hearing the diagnosis, you realize two things. First, you are a perfect example of human nature, as illustrated by recent medical research on sleep and diabetes. Second, the doctor is putting your health at risk with sleeping pills. Let’s dig deeper.
Science shows that the combination of insufficient sleep and circadian rhythm disruption that comes with shift work actually causes a marked decrease in our insulin secretion whenever we eat. In a study published in Science Translational Medicine in 2012, the resting metabolic rate of those in a controlled sleep experiment that restricted their sleep fell by 8% on average.* That’s enough to translate into a yearly weight gain of about thirteen pounds a year—and also enough to kindle pre-diabetes, or diabetes.
When our sleep is disrupted, our cells lose their natural power of burning fat at rest. Suddenly, our bodies are like cars with a spark plug that won’t fire. Our engines still run, but inefficiently and by putting unnatural stress on other parts of the engine.
In the Science Translational Medicine sleep study, it took just three weeks of sleep disruption for people’s pancreatic cells to stop working normally. Once the cells became impaired, people started putting on fat and developing blood sugar problems. The takeaway is that our pancreatic cells are powerful enough to provide life to our bodies, yet fragile enough to be disrupted by three weeks of poor sleep.
Now, on to sleep-aid chemicals. A scientific cohort study published in BMJ Open in 2012 shows an association between sleeping pills and bad health outcomes. Use of as few as eighteen sleeping pills per year was associated with over three times higher risk of death, and higher usages had an overall cancer increase of 35%.** Even though this is just an association, it’s also a significant red flag and a wake-up call for more research. Sleeping pills may be putting us to sleep more than we’d like.
As a well-read shift worker, you decide not to use “health” chemicals. You realize that you don’t have “medical conditions”; you have a work-related sleep disruption that causes your body to malfunction. You stabilize your work schedule and get normal sleep. In just a few weeks, your insomnia disappears and your pre-diabetes goes away. Plus, you’ve avoided early death concerns with sleeping pills by never taking them. It’s a win, win, win. Sure, approaching your boss about your schedule may be a challenge, but a “win, win, win” of such magnitude is worth a confrontation, or even a new job. Your job is only there to support your life and family. Your job is worth less than your health.
The tragedy if you happen to be a poorly-read shift worker: you went to see an expert, and diagnostic science correctly identified your pre-diabetic condition. But you did not know of the scientific research on sleep, diabetes, and sleeping pills, so you accepted the doctor’s instant gratification, quick fix chemical prescriptions at face value and turned off the health powers of your benelles.
Another takeaway: the doctor was willing to risk a statistical association of early death in order to solve your sleep problem today. He did exactly what you hired him to do: solve your health problem today. You didn’t consult him about being healthy over the long run or extending your life. If you had, he would probably have looked at you funny and not known what to say.
Taking the big picture view leads to seeing the body as a complex system where good inputs yield dynamic results, where benelles become fully activated and achieve first-class results. Getting sleep is a better scientific solution than loading up on chemicals that harm your benelles.
The power of health is in your cells, waiting to come out. A great number of medical studies support this. Chances are your doctor will have a different view. Chances are your doctor won’t see diabetes as a sleep problem, but a problem to be resolved with chemicals. Chances are your doctor will resist a discussion about recent sleep studies. Chances are most people won’t challenge their doctor’s orthodox viewpoint, which looks and feels like health. Most of us keep the hidden powers of health in our cells waiting.
Getting regular sleep is just one example of how turning on benelles is the best health solution. There are hundreds of other examples, backed by science, ready for your use. Turn on as many benelles as possible to get the health and energy you want.
* Buxton O, Cain S, O’Connor S, Porter J, Duffy J, Wang W, Czeisler C, Shea S “Adverse Metabolic Consequences in Humans of Prolonged Sleep Restriction Combined with Circadian Disruption” Sci Transl Med 2012. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3003200
** Kripke D, Langer R, Kline L “Hypnotics’ association with mortality or cancer: a matched cohort study” BMJ Open 2012;2:e000850. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000850
Pay Attention to How You Are Feeling
When benelles are turned off around your body, you’ll feel anywhere from fatigued to mortally ill. Fatigue, depression, trouble sleeping, and digestive problems are signs that your benelles are being negatively impacted and need help. Benelles supply vital energy and fight cancer, disease, and depression.
There are seven primary ways benelles are shut off: age, injury, pollution, stress, inactivity, processed food, and drugs (including prescription drugs). Let’s go through the list. There’s nothing you can do about age. Injuries are usually random. Pollution is somewhat outside your control. Stress can be managed to a degree. The rest are directly within your control: inactivity, processed food, and drugs.
The authority of doctors has made us think that medical treatments are how we get well. By trusting prescription chemicals over activity and diet, we turn off multitudes of benelles. It’s a slippery slope, endorsed by doctors and the pseudo-scientists of pharma. Doctors and pharma skillfully leverage our Hollywood ideas of what medicine should look and feel like. Of course, if life was actually like Hollywood, we’d all be action-heroes, unphased by wrecks, falls, and crashes.
Protecting your benelles is the primary avenue to good health. On the other hand, doctors and pharma are great at ordering drugs that have powers like an advanced military, but even the most advanced militaries usually have poor information and questionable communication skills, making accidental bombings of innocent civilians common. Plus, they don’t mix well with the locals, your benelles.
Medical treatments are foreign armies to your benelles. Your healthy pancreatic cells may inadvertently be chopped up by an army of antidepressants and statin drugs that have to march over the pancreas to do their job on the other side. The problem: the pancreas wasn’t a bridge built to support armies, and once destroyed, any new bridge that’s built will never be as strong. The doctors, comfortably commanding the army from back home in the capital, don’t see the infrastructure damage as relevant and claim victory at every available press conference.
There’s another unfortunate fold in the storyline. When benelles are turned off during the course of a medical treatment, the effect is often that you lose the vital energy to exercise, eat right, or take interest. At a certain point, inertia weighs you down, and you have a quagmire of weak benelles. Of course, your cells will do everything they can to keep fighting for life, but without support, their chances are low.
Trusting pharma’s ambassadors doctor’s medical treatments is really a faith-based approach. When you take medical treatments into your body, you are putting your faith in technology and chemicals that have been researched by hired scientists and tested on the human body for less than ten years, and often less than five. On the other hand, going with your benelles is a scientific approach that has been quality-assurance tested for millions of years.
If you feel healthy, don’t let doctors go looking for problems. If you are a young, healthy individual who goes in for a routine physical, and a doctor hands you two prescriptions after a ten-minute appointment, be suspicious. When you feel great and have no symptoms, don’t poison your benelles; trust them.
Nothing to Lose
If you are sick or depressed, you really have nothing to lose by trying to “boost your benelles.” You can resort to the chemical approach down the road if you’re not happy with the results, but you can’t always go back if you put chemicals first, because most chemicals are toxic to your biology and can fundamentally diminish or destroy the power of healthy cells. You’re not damned if you invoke benelles first, but you might be if you try them last.
Perhaps you fear that only immediate medical treatment with the most advanced drugs can save you. Relax; the most advanced drugs are nowhere near as advanced as your biology. Unless you’re bleeding to death, there is no need for immediate treatment. Your body is already treating the condition. The idea that we need immediate medical treatment after a diagnosis is not even based on science. It’s an idea created by salesmen and propagated with successful, medicine-as-easy-as-a-fast-food-drive-thru appeal.
One of the Most Interesting Studies of Our Times
One of the most interesting scientific studies of our times supports putting benelles first, as well as not being hasty with medical treatment. A Finnish study conducted by Eija-Riitta Salomaa, MD, PhD, found that delays in the treatment of lung cancer improved survival rates in patients. Patients with a delay longer than the median time had a 40% lower risk of dying compared with patients with a shorter delay.*
Salomma, apparently leery of scientific prejudice and backlash, seems nearly apologetic for the outcome of her study in discussion notes. Salomma shouldn’t apologize. She accomplished what a true scientist should: getting to the truth even when the truth seems odd, and even if it opens Pandora’s Box. Her study contradicts our established notions of “look and feel” propriety by suggesting that a delay in treating lung cancer significantly improves chances of survival. There is nothing nice, tidy, or comforting about her findings, which makes them valuable.
Does our body naturally “recognize” cancer cells over time and start handling the job? Do chemical treatments disrupt this natural process? Currently, no one can say for sure why prompt lung cancer treatment diminishes survival rates. What we can say is that based on Salomma’s research, there’s no need to panic and rush into conventional medical treatment if you have lung cancer.
Cancers have patterns, which mean Salomma’s lung cancer research is likely to apply to the suite of human cancers. Giving your benelles time is likely to be more important in beating cancer than the medical industry’s current approach of eliminating bad cells at any cost.
* Salomaa, E, Sällinen S, Hiekkanen H, Liippo K “Delays in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Lung Cancer” CHEST 2005 Oct;128(4):2282-8. doi: 10.1378/chest.128.4.2282
Popular Medicine Hiding Behind Good Cells
Most of the studies that form the foundation for popular medicine’s chemical prescriptions are based on forcibly controlling bad cells at any cost. This means that oftentimes, chemical prescriptions “work” by making your benelles work double-time. Benelles still have the holistic job of keeping you alive and well. Chemical prescriptions have the easier job of showing up, blowing up abandoned buildings with advanced missiles, and claiming victory at a press conference.
What you don’t hear at the press conference: your benelles had to pick up the smithereens, haul them away, get new raw materials, and build new buildings, and benelles don’t even care about money or recognition. Your healthy cells can age really fast doing that much work, especially if buildings keep being torn down. Of course, your benelles won’t be able to work the long hours as you wear them down.
Ironically, the greatest ally that doctors and pharma companies have is your benelles. Because your benelles are so resilient, popular medicine can hide behind them. Remember, it usually takes decades for a smoker to get lung cancer, decades of inactivity to produce diabetes, and decades for an alcoholic to get liver cirrhosis. Your benelles compensate for bad inputs, but at a cost to themselves.
Prescription chemicals hide behind the strength of your benelles. Think about it: pharma studies don’t test drugs for twenty years before they win Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for mass consumption, yet twenty years is often how long it takes for cigarettes, processed food, or alcoholic excess to culminate in irreversible damage. The powers of benelles are such an aegis that we hardly notice the effects of cigarettes, processed food, or alcoholic excess until down the road.
Your benelle “shield” against harmful toxins is a welcome mat for popular medicine to come in and claim its drugs aren’t harming us. In reality, the side effects of FDA-approved drugs are often more pronounced than cigarettes, processed food, or alcoholic excess. You don’t have to consume nearly as many prescription chemicals to get sick as you would cigarettes, hot dogs, or beers.
Doctors focus our attention on the one cheap trick a drug can perform—misdirection attention from myriad long-term dangers. Popular medicine is like a little boy riding downhill as fast as he can on his bicycle, crying “Look, mum, no hands!” We cheer for him, not seeing the scabs and dirt on his knees and unaware of the catastrophic crash that’s at the bottom.
Good Cells Stronger than Bad Cells
Federal regulators have identified more than ninety-three harmful chemicals in tobacco products.* “Harmful” in this case means associated with cancer, lung disease, or other health problems. In 2012, the FDA decided that manufacturers should be required to report to consumers the levels of twenty of these harmful chemicals. (The FDA decided it would be acceptable for tobacco manufacturers to continue hiding the levels of the other seventy-three harmful chemicals.) This new mandate is evidence that there is a long list of toxins in cigarettes that make our cells sick.
But did you know that smokers who are physically active have longer life spans than people who don’t smoke but have a low level of physical activity? It’s true. You can see the data in a John Hopkins University School study published in 1999.** What this means is that the value of activating your benelles is more powerful than sickness caused by ninety-three toxic chemicals. When turned on, your superhero benelles are stronger than a roomful of bad guys.
The Johns Hopkins study shows that turning on your benelles is the most important element in health, but popular medicine takes the opposite approach. It sacrifices benelles in order to kill off, or forcibly control, a small batch of sick cells. Popular medicine writes off the powers of your benelles, even though scientific research shows the amazing power of your benelles is health’s cornerstone.
Finally, we have a real-life story in which the good guys are stronger than the bad guys. “Superhero beats ninety-three bad guys!” The ninety-three bad guys are the chemicals added to cigarettes; the superhero is your active immune system. It’s one of the most exciting stories of our times. It’s being told by world-class scientists and universities, and no one’s listening.
** Ferrucci L, et al “Smoking, Physical Activity, and Active Life Expectancy” Am J Epidemiol 1999
Your Body is Already Fighting
Doctors who practice popular medicine use advanced technology, like blood tests and magnetic resonance imaging, to show that you have a problem. Immediately, they write a prescription, assuming a monopoly over the solution. In this equation, your immune system and benelles are considered dysfunctional junk in need of professional care.
Blood tests and magnetic resonance imaging are probably telling the truth: you’ve got a problem. We know the look and feel of a pill bottle, but we never see the other half of the story. The microscopic view of benelles managing the problem with protective genes, antibodies, beneficial hormones, patches, and workarounds. Your benelles are already managing the situation and producing a solution.
Benelles provide premium problem management, while popular medicine provides a quick fix, like grabbing a candy bar to eat on the go. As candy bars interfere with your metabolism, chemical prescription quick fixes generally interfere with your body’s active management of the problem. Prescriptions instruct your immune system to stop working on the problem and clock out.
The value we place on instant gratification has put us in conflict with our own immune systems. We expect to turn on and turn off individual components of our bodies like appliances. For energy lag: 5-Hour Energy. For acid reflux: a pill for proton-pump inhibition. For sleeplessness: a sleeping pill. For a six-hour window to remedy erectile dysfunction: another pill. Turn on; now turn off; now turn on; now turn off. Make it snappy; make the cells do what we say now. Tell those brutish, slobbering benelles to sit when we say sit.
What if your benelles as an integrated system know better than the drugs turning them on and off in pieces? What if there’s an underlying reason you have energy lag, such as lack of sleep? What if there’s an underlying reason you have acid reflux, such as a certain processed food that’s hurting you? What if there’s an underlying reason you have sleeplessness or erectile dysfunction, such as no physical activity or runaway stress?
What if our benelles are doing a first-class job of dealing with too little sleep, too much processed food, and no physical activity? If we use chemicals to force our benelles into on-demand slave labor, telling them to “do it now” with a gun to their heads, they’ll perform, but over time they’ll turn into sick, damaged cells.
Each day of slave labor makes withdrawals from your reserve bank of benelles. Quickly, you’ll start to get lesser and weaker results with the same “do it anyway” demands, even with increased doses. The phenomenon is similar to drug addicts always needing more to get the same high, even to the point of toxicity.
Your cells put in an honest day’s work every day, but they do more than pay their dues; they are trusted authorities. There is no need for an outsider to jump in and rough them up. You doctor is not a better central authority than your system of healthy cells. Let your cells do their jobs. Your cells do not have the tunnel vision of medical specialists who don’t read medical studies and who have close associations to large pharma concerns. Be a good manager and get out of the way of the true authorities.
If you start experiencing pain or health symptoms, your body has already begun an intense fight to get well. Don’t panic, don’t rush to a doctor, and don’t immediately start a prescription. A prescription is likely to counteract benelles and slow recovery.
Have faith in your health. By the time that you finally see the doctor, your body is probably getting well. If you seek a doctor’s help at the nadir, you’re probably past the nadir by the time you start your prescription. Then “medicine” gets credit it doesn’t deserve as your body fights both the original illness and the chemical toxin.
Don’t make an emotional decision about your health; make a scientific decision. Research shows that all your benelles need in most cases is to be left alone. Don’t be in a race to attack sick cells, a race that punishes all your cells.
Inside your cells are DNA blueprints for powerful medicines to cure disease, medicines that have been around for ten thousand years. Every cell in your body with healthy DNA is a benelle and has hidden power, waiting to be released.
The medical industry does not understand benelles and isn’t aiming to. The medical industry says you cannot get well on your own. But academic research shows natural solutions work better than medical industry solutions—that your immune system knows more than your doctor.
Looking to evidence-based solutions and trusting our benelles as the first line of health makes us well. The number of freely-available, evidence-based studies showing this is growing, but for some reason, we still put top-level faith in doctors and healthcare plans. We trust doctors reading pharmaceutical company scripts instead of medical studies.
Benelles are your first line of health. They are capable of science not yet understood by pharmaceutical companies. Human-controlled medical science doesn’t have the raw power of your benelles. One day, gene therapy may be able to alter the potential of our genes. Today, our best bet is actively protecting and leveraging the DNA in our healthy cells.
Benelles have the power to reverse mortal illness. A team of research scientists under Ho Lam Tang named this power anastasis, Greek for “rising to life.”
Maybe you’ve embraced medical marketing over the past twenty years. Well, you have a tough new job, which consists of making health studies funded by objective sources the new foundation of your health knowledge.
* Tang H, et al “Cell survival, DNA damage and oncogenic transformation following a transient and reversible apoptotic response” Mol Biol Cell 2012. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E11-11-0926
Physical inactivity shuts down benelles. In a large-scale Australian study of over 220,000 people, mortality risk was directly tied to the number of hours per day spent sitting down. You are 40% more likely to die if you sit for eleven hours a day than those who sit less than four hours a day.* It turns out that too much sitting is awful for our health.
The Australian study uses mortality risk as a measuring stick. Mortality risk is the truest scientific indicator we have of what is good or bad for our health. In well-conducted studies, isolating inputs that make us more likely to die is an objective approach to discovering the truth about health. All things being equal, good inputs prevent us from dying; bad inputs accelerate dying. This relationship is scientific and commonsensical.
Sitting for eleven hours a day increases mortality risk, but physical activity activates the powers of benelles and keeps us alive. The 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Report**, presented to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services reads:
The health benefits of being habitually physically active appear to apply to all people regardless of age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and to many people with physical or cognitive disabilities. The amount and intensity of physical activity needed to achieve many health benefits is well within the capacity of most Americans and can be performed safely. This report provides the scientific basis for these conclusions and the development of federal physical activity guidelines.
A few highlights from the 683-page advisory committee report delivered to the U.S. Health Secretary:
- Active people have lower risk associations of cancer: 30% lower for colon, 40% lower for breast, 20% lower for lung, 30% lower for endometrial and 20% lower for ovarian (cohort)
- Active people have 30% lower risk of stroke. (cohort)
- Active people have a 30% lower risk of dying overall. (cohort)
- Active people have 68% lower risk of type 2 diabetes. (cohort)
- Active people have 39% lower risk of heart disease. (case-controlled)
- Active people have nearly 45% lower odds of depression symptoms than inactive people.***
There is only one documented medicine that reduces your risk for cancer, stroke, diabetes, heart disease, depression, and death without side effects. This super-medicine is physical activity, and the more civilized we get, the less we’re getting. What your cells produce and circulate when you’re active fights cancer and restores life.
Physical activity naturally boosts testosterone levels in men. In a study published by The Endocrine Society, men who reduced fat in their diet and started doing 150 minutes of physical activity per week saw a 15% boost in their testosterone level.****
Physical activity is so powerful it does something that science claimed was impossible just a few years ago: it grows new brain cells.
If there were a prescription chemical on the market that could grow your gray matter by up to 2% a year with no side effects, it would be hailed as a miracle drug and some governments would probably pay to add it to the public water supply of their nation. There is no such prescription, yet walking offers this little health miracle.
Scientists don’t yet understand how walking grows brain cells, which is a direct example of how your system is more advanced than the medical system. After extensive research, if the medical industry is able to fool the brain into a 2% gray matter increase with a pill, the underlying chemical will probably cause collateral damage that simply walking will not. The best approach: use what works best, not what sells best.
The fact that walking grows brain cells may explain an observational study connecting physical activity with a 53% reduced chance of Alzheimer’s disease.*8 When we slow down physically, we slow down mentally. Without activity, our benelles stop producing the hormones and chemicals that support life. No prescription chemical can bridge such a “use it or lose it” gap for very long. Keep your benelles alive with activity to beat brain disease, cancer, depression, and all types of sickness.
The effects of being physically active also go far beyond heart, brain and lungs. New research shows unexpected, far-reaching effects of physical activity. For instance, exercise seems to prevent skin cancer. This was illustrated in a novel experiment in which mice were exposed to UV-B radiation that damaged their skin cells. Mice allowed exercise saw a 120% increase in apoptosis (when a cell with damaged DNA terminates itself to prevent cancer).*9 This is an example of how being active activates benelle programming, which in turn helps prevent and overcome cancer in dynamic and unexpected ways.
We’re not conditioned to think of physical activity as a way to grow brain cells or destroy skin cancer cells, yet these natural powers were in our cells before science became aware of the power and before we started making our livings by sitting down all day. Being physically active carries a suite of powers not yet “discovered,” but which have been around for hundreds of thousands of years.
* van der Ploeg H, et al “Sitting Time and All-Cause Mortality Risk in 222 497 Australian Adults” Arch Intern Med 2012;172(6):494-500. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.2174
** Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Report, 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008.
*** Based on more than 100 population-based observational studies published since 1995
**** Dwyer A, et al “Lifestyle modification can reverse hypogonadism in men with impaired glucose tolerance in the Diabetes Prevention Program” ENDO 2012; Abstract OR28-3.
***** Creer D, et al “Running enhances spatial pattern separation in mice” PNAS 2010. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0911725107
****** Voss M, et al “Plasticity of brain networks in a randomized intervention trial of exercise training in older adults” Front. Ag. Neurosci 2010;2:32. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2010.00032
*7 Erickson K, et al “Exercise training increases size of hippocampus and improves memory” PNAS 2011. doi:10.1073/pnas.1015950108
*8 Buchman A, et al “Total daily physical activity and the risk of AD and cognitive decline in older adults” Neurology 2012;78:1323-1329. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182535d35
*9 Lu, Y-P., Lou, Y-R., Peng, Q-Y., Xie, J-G., Nghiem, P., and Conney, A. H. (2007) Proc. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. 48:821
Just a Little Jogging
Vigorous exercise is not necessary for benelle health. In fact, vigorous exercise can injure joints, which prevents future exercise. Research shows that as little as one hour of jogging per week is enough to activate benelles. Slow jogging for one hour per week is associated with a 44% reduction in risk of death, as well as an average of six extra years of life.* An additional bonus: joggers in the same study reported an overall sense of well-being.
If there were a pill on the market that reduced your chance of death by nearly half, gave you a sense of well-being, and had no side effects, you might spend huge sums of money to have it. There is no pill, but the poorest person in the world has access to the same health benefits. One hour of jogging per week is like a magical health pill with no downside.
In the past thirty years, scientists and doctors have encouraged deep suspicion of our natural powers, while inspiring absolute faith in pills. Don’t become a part of history before your time; replace products and pills with physical activity. Take the first step; get active.
* Schnohr P “Jogging — healthy or hazard symposium: Assessing prognosis: a glimpse of the future” EuroPRevent 2012.
The Super Six
“Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.” ? Hippocrates, 460 B.C.
The Super Six is a group of common foods and spices that have an incredible capacity to activate good genes in your cells. They can help destroy cancer cells and regulate blood sugar. The Super Six are items genes learned to use as medicine over the ages. The Super Six, plus physical activity, creates an ethereal interplay of good genes.
The Super Six are: fruits and vegetables, olive oil and omega-3 fats, cocoa, turmeric, tea, and cinnamon.
Adding the Super Six to your diet is easier, cheaper, and healthier than going to the doctor and keeping up with prescriptions. Five of the six can be added to your diet with practically no effort. Olive oil, cocoa, turmeric, tea, and cinnamon can be added to what you prepare. Add olive oil to your hamburger or sandwich. Shake turmeric onto food as you fry it. Sip a cup of tea as you work. Drink a cup of cocoa with dinner. Sprinkle cinnamon on desserts. You don’t have to give up your current diet; just add these super foods to your current diet and you’ll start getting results.
Your benelles already have the blueprints for fighting cancer and disease. Sometimes these benelles become dormant or sluggish and allow diseased cells to multiply. Prescription chemicals attack diseased cells, but don’t activate benelles. Even worse, prescription chemicals can damage and kill benelles.
The Super Six will activate benelles, giving you a potent defense against cancer and disease. With the Super Six, you might gain 50% greater capacity, or higher, to fight cancer and disease. The Super Six, plus physical activity, may be the only medicine that can make you well.
Fruits and Vegetables
Eat whatever fruits and vegetables you like and you will gain immunity and resistance to cancer cells. According to one study, people with low fruit and vegetable intake experience roughly twice the risk of cancer compared to those with high intake.*
Populations that gather or grow what they need to survive from nature have lower cardiovascular risk. Michael Gurven, PhD, an anthropologist at the University of California Santa Barbara, showed that farmers who hunt and grow their own food in the Amazon have a scant 4% rate of hypertension, compared to a 33% rate in the US population.** A separate study by Daniel Lemogoum, MD, MPH, of the Université Libre de Bruxelles-Erasme Hospital in Brussels, showed that African hunter-gatherers with diets rich in natural foods had significantly less aortic stiffness than developed nations.*** Natural foods seem to keep their hearts from hardening.
If you live in an advanced society, the point is not to sell your house and return to a primitive state. The point is that you can buy the fruits and vegetables that provide the health advantage that hunter-gatherers struggle for. For those who like data:
- Cruciferous vegetables like cauliflower, broccoli, cabbage, cress, and bok choy seem to prevent cancer in various ways: they increase enzymes that detoxify and eliminate carcinogens, they alter the metabolism of estrogens that help stop breast and prostate cancer, and they produce sulforaphane, which turns on tumor suppressor genes in precancerous cells.****
- Berries are associated with slower aging in the brain.***** Blueberries are rich in anthocyanidins, which have the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and move into the brain’s memory and learning centers to provide a boost.
- Oranges and grapefruits reduce ischemic stroke in women by 19%.******
In our bodies, fruits and vegetables break down into chemicals that could be considered nature’s chemotherapy. They do what chips and soda can’t—activate enzymes and genes that destroy cancerous cells and pre-cancerous cells. Essentially, our genes do the work, but our genes need fruits and vegetables to do that work. Fruits and vegetables are more than food; they are medicine.
* Block G, Patterson B, Subar A “Fruit, vegetables, and cancer prevention: a review of the epidemiological evidence” Nutr Cancer 1992;18(1):1-29
** Lemogoum D, et al “Effects of hunter-gatherer subsistence mode on arterial distensibility in Cameroonian pygmies” Hypertension 2012. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.111.187757
*** Gurven M, et al “Does blood pressure inevitably rise with age? Longitudinal evidence among forager-horitculturalists” Hypertension 2012. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.111.189100.
**** Higdon, J “Cruciferous Vegetables and Cancer Risk” OSU Newsletter 2006 http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/ss06/vegetables.html
***** Devore E, et al “Dietary intakes of berries and flavonoids in relation to cognitive decline” Ann Neurol 2012. doi: 10.1002/ana.23594
****** Cassidy A, et al “Dietary flavonoids and risk of stroke in women” Stroke 2012. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.637835.
Olive Oil and Omega-3 Fats
We know from various studies that olive oil protects our hearts. A case-control study of the Mediterranean diet indicates that people who consume high levels of olive oil have an 82% reduction in risk of having a first heart attack.* A separate study, which examined data from seven countries over fifteen years, concluded that death rates were low in areas where the main source of fat was olive oil.**
Fish is also an important Omega-3 source. In the 1970s, research showed that the high level of Omega-3 fatty acids consumed via fish by the Inuit reduced triglycerides, heart rate, blood pressure, and atherosclerosis.***
The more saturated fat like red meat you replace with monounsaturated fat like fish and olive oil, the better your chances for health. Other high-quality sources of Omega-3 oil: walnuts and flax seeds.
* Fernandez-Jarne E, et al “Risk of first non-fatal myocardial infarction negatively associated with olive oil consumption: a case-control study in Spain” Int J Epidemiol 2002 Apr;31(2):474-80.
** Keys A, et al “The diet and 15-year death rate in the seven countries study” Am. J. Epidemiol 1986; 124 (6): 903-15
*** Dyerberg J, Bang H, Hjorne N “Fatty acid composition of the plasma lipids in Greenland Eskimos” Am J Clin Nutr 1975; 28 (9): 958-66
**** Strøm M, et al “Fish, n-3 Fatty Acids, and Cardiovascular Diseases in Women of Reproductive Age” HYPERTENSIONAHA 2011. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.111.179382
Despite being a culinary delicacy, cocoa is almost more medicine than food. There is a wealth of scientific data to illustrate cocoa’s amazing health effects on our bodies. A fifteen-year study of older men published in 2006 found a 50% reduction in cardiovascular mortality and a 47% reduction in all-cause mortality for men regularly consuming the most cocoa.*
Hollenberg’s study revealed that Panama’s Kuna Indians have used cocoa to reduce death from stroke, heart failure, cancer, and diabetes to less than 10%.
Hollenberg wrote about the epicatechin in cocoa: “We all agree that penicillin and anesthesia are enormously important. But epicatechin could potentially get rid of 4 of the 5 most common diseases in the western world.”
A Harvard School of Public Health study, published in the Journal of Nutrition in 2011, concluded that cocoa consumption “significantly improves blood pressure, insulin resistance, lipid profiles, and FMD” [flow-mediated vascular dilation].
A study published in 2008 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology covered a thirty-day trial in which participants already medicated for type-2 diabetes were given cocoa.
A clinical study published in 2012 found more frequent consumption of chocolate was associated with a lower body mass index, even in the case of increased calories and saturated fat intake.*** Based on the study’s associations, someone 5’10” tall who ate chocolate might lose seven pounds without consuming fewer calories.
So how do you get this wonder drug, cocoa? Eat chocolate. For the serious cocoa consumer, buy unprocessed cocoa power and drink it in hot water, or eat raw organic cocoa beans. The takeaway: you may get better results from regular consumption of cocoa than from the prescription chemicals your doctor wants you on.
* Shrime M, et al “Flavonoid-Rich Cocoa Consumption Affects Multiple Cardiovascular Risk Factors in a Meta-Analysis of Short-Term Studies” J Nutr 2011 Nov;141(11):1982-8. doi: 10.3945/jn.111.145482
** Balzer J, et al “Sustained benefits in vascular function through flavanol-containing cocoa in medicated diabetic patients” J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 51:2141-2149.
*** Golomb B, et al “Association between more frequent chocolate consumption and lower body mass index” Arch Intern Med 2012; 172(6): 519-521. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.2100
Although it is part of a 2500-year-old system of medicine in India, the west is only beginning to perform scientific studies on turmeric. The active ingredient in turmeric is curcumin and study results are exciting.
A key finding in virtually every study is that there is no toxicity of curcumin, except for mild symptoms in high doses. Turmeric is effective and safe. In a randomized rheumatoid arthritis (RA) study in which curcumin was tested in comparison to a prescription NSAID, curcumin significantly outperformed the NSAID. The study authors wrote: “More importantly, curcumin treatment was found to be safe and did not relate with any adverse events. Our study provides the first evidence for the safety and superiority of curcumin treatment in patients with active RA, and highlights the need for future large-scale trials to validate these findings in patients with RA and other arthritic conditions.” (Chandran 2012)
You can easily add turmeric to food as you fry, bake, or boil it. You can add it to water in tiny quantities and not affect taste. One last hint: black pepper increases turmeric’s absorption and effect.
* Cheng A, et al “Phase I clinical trial of curcumin, a chemopreventive agent, in patients with high-risk or pre-malignant lesions” Anticancer Res 2001; 21(4B):2895-900
** Alexandrow M, Song L, Altiok S, Gray J, Haura E, Kumar N “Curcumin: a novel Stat3 pathway inhibitor for chemoprevention of lung cancer” Eur J Cancer Prev 2011. doi: 10.1097/CEJ.0b013e32834ef194
*** Ali S, Ahmad A, Banerjee S, Padhye S, Dominiak K, Schaffert J, Wang Z, Philip P, Sarkar F “Gemcitabine Sensitivity Can Be Induced in Pancreatic Cancer Cells through Modulation of miR-200 and miR-21 Expression by Curcumin or Its Analogue CDF” Cancer Res 2010; May 1;70(9):3606-17. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-4598
**** Teiten M, Gaascht F, Eifes S, Dicato M, Diederich M “Chemopreventive potential of curcumin in prostate cancer” Genes Nutr 2010; Mar;5(1):61-74. doi: 10.1007/s12263-009-0152-3
***** Chandran B, Goel A “A Randomized, Pilot Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Curcumin in Patients with Active Rheumatoid Arthritis” Phytother Res 2012. doi: 10.1002/ptr.4639
****** Labbozzetta M, Notarbartolo M, Poma P, Maurici A, Inguglia L, Marchetti P, Rizzi M, Baruchello R, Simoni D, D’Alessandro N “Curcumin as a Possible Lead Compound against Hormone-Independent, Multidrug-Resistant Breast Cancer” Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009; Feb;1155:278-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.03699.x
*7 Park S, Kim D “Discovery of natural products from Curcuma longa that protect cells from beta-amyloid insult: a drug discovery effort against Alzheimer’s disease.” J Nat Prod 2002; Sep;65(9):1227-31
There are many wonderful studies indicating tea has powerful effects on our health:
- A 2009 meta-analysis revealed that three cups of black or green tea a day reduces the risk of stoke by 21%.* Many research scientists think that the amino acid theanine in tea crosses the blood-brain barrier and repairs cellular damage.
- A 2012 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that regular consumption of black tea significantly lowers both diastolic and systolic blood pressure. **
- A Taiwanese study published in 2010 shows that drinking one cup of green tea a day is associated with over five times lower risk of lung cancer.***
- A thirteen-year study of over 37,000 people found an association between three to six cups of tea per day and a 45% reduction in heart disease mortality.****
Tea is showing to be particularly valuable in fighting stroke and heart disease. If you want better health, drink tea often.
* Arab L, et al “Green and Black Tea Consumption and Risk of Stroke: A Meta-Analysis” Stroke 2009; 40. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.538470.
** Hodgson J, et al “Effects of black tea on blood pressure: A randomized controlled trial” Arch Intern Med 2012; 172: 186-188. doi:10.1001/archinte.172.2.186
*** Lin I-H, et al “Smoking, green tea consumption, genetic polymorphisms in the insulin-like growth factors and lung cancer risk” AACR-IASLC 2010; Abstract A21
**** Gans J, Uiterwaal C, van der Schouw Y, Boer J, Grobbee D, Verschuren W, Beulens J “Tea and Coffee Consumption and Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality” Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2010; Aug;30(8):1665-71. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.109.201939
Components of cinnamon have an ability to help control glucose levels, plus untapped promise:
- Improvement of glucose levels in people with type-2 diabetes, as well as pre-diabetes *
- Chemopreventative properties against human colon cancer cells **
- Anti-viral properties that work against HIV ***
- Anti-inflammatory properties that could treat age-related conditions such as Alzheimer’s and arthritis ****
- Treatment of melanoma cancer (animal study) *****
- Anti-viral properties against herpes simplex virus ******
This is an exciting time for cinnamon lovers. Science is just beginning to understand how this spice has the ability to activate our genes to help control glucose levels, fight colon cancer, protect against brain degeneration, fight herpes, and prevent melanoma cancer. Sprinkle cinnamon on your desserts, shake it onto a piece of bread with honey, or consume it straight.
* Davis P, Yokoyama W “Cinnamon intake lowers fasting blood glucose: meta-analysis” J Med Food 2011; Sep;14(9):884-9. doi:10.1089/jmf.2010.0180
** Wondrak G, et al “The Cinnamon-Derived Dietary Factor Cinnamic Aldehyde Activates the Nrf2-Dependent Antioxidant Response in Human Epithelial Colon Cells” Molecules 2010; 15 (5): 3338-55. doi:10.3390/molecules15053338
*** Premanathan M, et al “A survey of some Indian medicinal plants for anti-human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) activity” Indian J Med Res 2000; Sep;112:73-7
**** Kim D, et al “Suppression of age-related inflammatory NF-kappaB activation by cinnamaldehyde” Biogerontology 2007; Oct;8(5):545-54
***** Cabello C, et al “The cinnamon-derived Michael acceptor cinnamic aldehyde impairs melanoma cell proliferation, invasiveness, and tumor growth” Free Radic Biol Med 2009; Jan 15;46(2):220-31. doi:10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2008.10.025
****** Orihara Y, et al “A silkworm baculovirus model for assessing the therapeutic effects of antiviral compounds: Characterization and application to the isolation of antivirals from traditional medicines” J Gen Virol 2008; Jan;89(Pt 1):188-94. doi:10.1099/vir.0.83208-0
Vitamins are critical to our health. Vitamin depletion is associated with cancer.
Many studies link low levels of key vitamins in our blood to cancer, disease, and early death. In our fast food-style of medicine and pills, getting vitamins should be within reach of even the poorest people in developed countries. We can take daily multivitamins and be done with it, right?
Hold on. There’s one problem. Research doesn’t support supplements as a solution.
* Stahelin H, et al “Plasma Antioxidant Vitamins and Subsequent Cancer Mortality in the 12-Year Follow-up of the Prospective Basel Study” Am. J. Epidemiol 1991; 133 (8): 766-775
** Pilz S, et al “Low 25-hydroxyvitamin D is associated with increased mortality in female nursing home residents” J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012. doi: 10.1210/jc.2011-3043.
The Iowa Women’s Health Study, a study of 38,772 older women, suggests commonly used dietary vitamin and mineral supplements are harming us. Women who took vitamin B6, folic acid, iron, magnesium, zinc, copper, or multivitamin supplements all had significantly higher mortality risk.* Taking supplements makes us die faster.
In a different study, 35,533 men from 427 study sites in the US, Canada, and Puerto Rico found that vitamin E significantly increased the risk of prostate cancer.** Even studies that find no increased risk in vitamin supplements still find no benefit. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a combination pill containing folic acid, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 for women, there was no cardiovascular benefit to the pill.***
Again, most supplement studies find harm. In a study of over 20,000 people, those taking calcium supplements had nearly double the risk of heart attack as individuals not taking any dietary supplements.**** Even if some study out there showed calcium supplements prevented fractures, why would doubling the risk of heart attack be worth it?
In a study based on patient information from eight sites across the U.S.: From 2003 to 2011, supplements accounted for 18% of reported liver injuries. And 7% of those liver-injured needed a liver transplant.***** Trying to bulk up or lose weight or boost bodily powers past natural parameters doesn’t agree with our vital organs. Our livers see our expensive extras not as crème brulee, but crème de crap.
Fish oil supplements are frequently recommended for those suffering cardiovascular disease. But a meta-analysis involving 20,485 patients with a history of CVD found no evidence of any health benefit from taking fish oil supplements.****** Since we would naturally expect some positive fish oil placebo response, this introduces the question of whether fish oil supplementation may actually be harmful.
Bottles that advertise “like taking four garlic cloves at one time!” damage their credibility. Anyone who has consumed one garlic clove knows that one clove is plenty. Four garlic cloves would burn your stomach and intestines and put you in severe pain. It’s not natural to take four garlic cloves at one time; it’s not a selling point. At least, it shouldn’t be a selling point. Overdosing is tantamount to poisoning yourself, and yet “more is better” advertising works on people—and their livers.
Our bodies cannot correctly process manufactured vitamins and supplements. Western science seems to think that if a blood test shows a patient is low on a certain vitamin, the correct procedure is a daily vitamin blast of 2,000 IU. If 2,000 IU doesn’t work overnight, increase to 5,000 IU. If 5,000 IU doesn’t work, jump to 20,000 IU. Meanwhile, the consumption of the vitamin launches the need for additional prescriptions to counter ancillary negative effects. It’s an unnecessary game. When your body says “no,” there’s usually a good reason. Forcing your body to do something when it keeps saying no is like forcing a car to drive in the wrong gear.
Pill-based vitamins and supplements don’t speak our language. Imagine a therapist telling a couple they need to talk in order to save their relationship, so the young man turns to the young woman and commences with a monologue about Monday-night football. Vitamins and supplements talk “at” us, not “with” us. As a result, they divorce us from health.
* Mursu J, Robien K, Harnack L, Park K, Jacobs D “Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women” Arch Intern Med 2011; 171(18):1625-1633. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.445
** Klein E, et al “Vitamin E and the Risk of Prostate Cancer” JAMA 2011; 306(14):1549-1556. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1437
*** Albert C, et al “Effect of Folic Acid and B Vitamins on Risk of Cardiovascular Events and Total Mortality Among Women at High Risk for Cardiovascular Disease” JAMA 2008; May 7;299(17):2027-36. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.17.2027
**** Li K, et al “Associations of dietary calcium intake and calcium supplementation with myocardial infarction and stroke risk and overall cardiovascular mortality in the Heidelberg cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study (EPIC-Heidelberg)” Heart 2012. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2011-301345
***** Navarro VJ, et al “Herbal and dietary supplement induced hepatotoxicity in the U.S.” DDW 2012; Abstract 167
****** Kwak S, Myung S, Lee Y, Seo H “Efficacy of Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplements (Eicosapentaenoic Acid and Docosahexaenoic Acid) in the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease” Arch Intern Med 2012; 172(9):686-694. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.262
Our bodies don’t know what to do with supplements. We need real input, such as fish and sunlight. For instance, even though vitamin D deficiency is associated with 49% increased death risk in older women, vitamin D3 supplements are only associated with a 6% reduction in risk, and vitamin D2 supplements seem to offer nothing but an increased chance of kidney stones.* Supplement pills don’t help our health, and they usually hurt it. When we consider positive background placebo response, supplements may be hurting us considerably more than the data suggests.
Our bodies know how to do what they’ve been engineered to do—use benelles to produce health. Just a few good inputs, like vitamin D, allow benelles to do their job. Common sense tells us that vitamin D must be critical because our bodies learned to manufacture it from sunlight. Think about it: your body makes a vitamin from sunlight. We never develop such novel biological abilities without a critical need.
Yet too much vitamin D is toxic, and the pill form of vitamin D is showing not to be of any benefit and generally is harmful. For generations, our bodies perfectly managed our vitamin D levels based on occasionally being outdoors in the sunlight and eating fish or nuts.
* Bjelakovic G, et al “Vitamin D supplementation for prevention of mortality in adults” Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; Jul 6;(7):CD007470. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007470.pub2
Look at the Big Picture
If your doctor wants you to begin a statin drug treatment because “your cholesterol is a little high,” consider the big picture. If family members have high cholesterol without heart problems, you probably don’t need a statin. You have data that shows your family members live healthily with high cholesterol. But you have no data on your ancestor’s health after twenty years of daily statin treatments. The effects of lifetime statin treatments are unknown.
Back to statins. What is the doctor trying to achieve with a statin drug? Cholesterol reduction. What is the point of cholesterol reduction? To reduce your risk of a coronary problem like a heart attack or a stroke. The question: are statins working?
Let’s look at AstraZeneca’s 17,802-patient study of Crestor called JUPITER. This study was stopped early (before two years of follow-up) because it claimed “unequivocal reduction in cardiovascular mortality.”*
What does “unequivocal reduction” mean? To the authors of the study, it means that eighty-three of 8,901 people died of cardiovascular causes in the Crestor group, versus 157 of 8,901 people in the placebo group. That is about a 1% differential. Is a 1% improvement over a short period of time enough of an “unequivocal reduction” to stop a study prematurely? No. No, it’s not. In a normal person’s estimation, that is known as a rounding error.
Plus, there are two red flags surrounding the supporting science. Red flag 1: the financial sponsor was AstraZeneca. Researchers are 3.6 times as likely to find an outcome that supports the industry paying for their research.** Red flag 2: JUPITER stands for “Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention.” Why would any serious scientist put a phrase with extreme bias such as “justification for” in a study title? Isn’t science supposed to gather facts and make conclusions, versus arriving at the conclusion before the study is started?
Let’s shift gears. A study of 37,514 people for thirteen years, published by the American Heart Association, shows that a high level of tea consumption is associated with a 36% reduced chance of heart disease and a 45% reduced chance of death by heart disease. (De Koning Gans 2010)
The question: if you’re healthy with borderline high cholesterol, are you going to trust the prematurely-stopped AstraZeneca study and go for a short-term 1% reduction in heart disease death, or will you look to the thirteen-year study that shows that consumption of tea offers a long-term, 45% reduction in heart disease death? Even if you go for a 1% reduction per year, it’s still only a cumulative 13% reduction over thirteen years—nowhere close to the 45% reduction achieved with tea.
If tea works better, what’s the problem with using tea? Does our solution have to come from a pharmacy for us to take it seriously?
To introduce a final doubt to the school of “let’s make you healthy by forcing down your cholesterol,” many studies indicate that cholesterol isn’t even the main driver of coronary heart disease (CHD). Inflammation is a strong candidate.*** Another candidate: having higher concentrations of high density lipoproteins (HDL) particles, versus simply having a high HDL count.****
HDL count is a painful subject for Pfizer Corp.
* de Lorgeril M, Salen P, Abramson J, Dodin S, Hamazaki T, Kostucki W, Okuyama H, Pavy B, Rabaeus M “Cholesterol Lowering, Cardiovascular Diseases, and the Rosuvastatin-JUPITER Controversy: A Critical Reappraisal” Arch Intern Med 2010; Jun 28;170(12):1032-6. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.184
** Bekelman J, Li Y, Gross C “Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review” JAMA 2003; 289: 454-465.
*** Sarwar N, et al “Interleukin-6 receptor pathways in coronary heart disease: A collaborative meta-analysis of 82 studies” Lancet 2012; doi: 10.1016/ S0140-6736(11)61931-4
**** Mackey RH, et al “High-density lipoprotein cholesterol and particle concentrations, carotid atherosclerosis and coronary events: The multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis” J Am Coll Cardiol 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.03.058.
Consider Less Medical Care
Doctors like offering packaged solutions to treat our health symptoms. In the process of treating symptoms, the “medicines” deactivate benelles. Another shortcoming: treating symptoms instead of causes is like painting over a cracked foundation. Your benelles are the foundation and true path of health. Less medical treatment may be necessary to improve your health at the foundation.
Looking at facts highlights unwelcome shortcomings of the popular medicine industry. Doctors make the wrong diagnosis 20% of the time. (Tai et al 2001) At the same time, nearly 50% of U.S. primary care physicians believe that their patients receive too much medical care. (Sirovich et al 2011)
Most doctors consider lawsuits before they consider prudence. Lurking malpractice lawsuits have doctors ordering extreme tests as well as procedures that have risky health consequences.
Another problem: we feel compelled to conform to the authority of doctors. Researchers at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute found that even though almost all patients want to engage in shared decision-making with doctors, many don’t. Why?
We turn our fates over to doctors because we want acceptance. Just as peer pressure causes us to do dangerous things like drinking and driving, peer pressure also causes us to be compliant at the doctor’s office. The safe advice: snap out of your compliance and be as difficult as necessary to take part in health decisions. Doctors are willing to risk your life based on pharma-sponsored studies of less than two years. The government’s on board. There is no system of check and balances but you.
* http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/health/doctor-panels-urge-fewer-routine-tests.html, http://choosingwisely.org/?page_id=13
** Frosch D, May S, Rendle K, Tietbohl C, Elwyn G “Authoritarian Physicians And Patients’ Fear Of Being Labeled ‘Difficult’ Among Key Obstacles To Shared Decision Making” Health Aff 2012; May vol 31 no. 5 1030-1038 doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0576
When we don’t get enough sleep, we make up for it in unhealthy ways. Volunteers in a Mayo Clinic study consumed an average of 549 more calories when they were deprived of an hour and twenty minutes of sleep a night.* That’s the equivalent of having an extra hamburger and chips every day!
Another study on what happens to people who face short sleep on a disrupted schedule—such as is common in shift work—found serious red flags with health outcomes.
These two sleep studies indicate that people are quite capable of pushing through on less sleep. They do it by eating more and wrecking their insulin levels. Instead of addressing this relationship, popular medicine inexorably looks for a pill to make you lose weight, plus a pill to force your pancreas to produce more insulin so you can move forward while continuing to disrupt your sleep. This is an expression of how popular medicine treats symptoms, not underlying causes.
If a shift worker with new sleep and insulin problems goes to see a doctor, he probably walks away with a prescription for sleeping pills and a prescription to help control blood sugar. On the other hand, the science of health says, “Fix your sleep schedule and you’ll be healthy again in a week.” Popular science sees your health as a quick race and a quick paycheck; benelles see your health as a marathon of decades.
Another concern: sleeping pills don’t provide the kind of sleep you’re looking for. Oh, they’re good at accelerating you toward eternal sleep—even eighteen pills a year is associated with a three times higher risk of death. (Kripke 2012) This is confirmed by the fact that users of benzodiazepine sleeping pills tend toward drowsiness, dizziness, memory impairment, and cognitive decline.** Such next-day mental symptoms are powerful indicators that your brain benelles are being negatively impacted. If you’re not getting rest from sleeping pills, don’t use them.
No matter how young you are, shortchanging your sleep is risky. A study reported on at the 2012 Associated Professional Sleep Societies convention revealed that adolescents who sleep longer during weekdays have 38% less risk of an elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) level.***
Sleep is the gateway to repair and recovery from the day’s stress. Our days are hot fire, but sleep is cool nectar for our cells to sip and become young again. Worrying about a lack of sleep extends your day’s toil. Insomnia doesn’t kill; only worry about insomnia kills. Calm yourself. Have faith that your body will take the sleep it needs naturally, as smoothly as the tongue takes honey.
* Calvin A, et al “Insufficient sleep increases caloric intake but not energy expenditure” Circulation 2012; 125: AMP030
** Holbrook A, et al “Meta-analysis of benzodiazepine use in the treatment of insomnia” CMAJ 2000; 162(2): 225-233.
*** Hall M et al “Sleep duration during the school week is associated with C-reactive protein in healthy adolescents” APSS 2012; Abstract 1058.
The fact that your skin makes vitamin D from sunlight is a big clue that vitamin D is essential to health. This natural ability to synthesize a vitamin from UV light means your body must have regular access to the vitamin. Yet dermatologists have convinced us that UV light should be blocked via sunblock to prevent skin cancer.
Which would you rather risk: skin cancer or pancreatic cancer? Rachel Neale, PhD, reported at the 2012 American Association for Cancer Research Pancreatic Cancer Conference that a high level of sunlight exposure reduces the risk of pancreatic cancer by as much as 49%.* The implication is that getting sunlight is the strongest shield we have against pancreatic cancer.
The benefit of getting sunlight goes way past pancreatic cancer prevention. A study undertaken at Kyushu University was designed to see what effect sun exposure would have on the Japanese, who already have a high level of dietary vitamin D intake. The results: sunlight exposure offered additional protection against cancers of the esophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, pancreas, gallbladder, and bile ducts in both men and women.** It turns out that sunlight is great for our guts. Plus, even high-quality dietary vitamin D such as fish isn’t enough for the best results; we need sunlight on top of diet.
Tragically, sun exposure is preached against by many popular medicine doctors. Give them a gold star for theoretically bringing down skin cancer rates, but give them a red X for seeing only a narrow slice of the big picture. Preventing skin cancer isn’t worth risking internal cancer. We need plenty of sun exposure to be healthy, and trying to block sunlight is tantamount to blocking health.
We really didn’t need to wait until 2012 for science to confirm sunlight’s health value. We could have figured it out with common sense twenty years ago, or 20,000 years ago. The clues: the perk of energy from getting sunlight. Many suffer melancholy without sun. There is an increase in immune system power during summer. Even weeds won’t grow without sunlight. Do not discount common sense signs; they are the truest feedback we have for knowing what’s healthy.
As long as you’re not burning or over-browning your skin, you are protecting your health by getting regular sunlight. We’ve had years of training in the wrong direction, so it may be hard to break the sunscreen habit, but the payoff will be big.
* Neale RE et al “Association between ambient ultraviolet radiation at birth, skin type, skin cancer history, and pancreatic cancer” AACR PCC 2012.
** Mizoue T “Ecological studies of solar radiation and cancer mortality in Japan” Health Phys 2004;87(5): 532-538.
Consider More Coffee
In a study of more than 400,000 people, men who drank four to five cups of coffee daily reduced their risk of death over a thirteen-year period by 12%, while women’s risk reduced by 16%.* Coffee was associated with reduced risk of death from heart disease, respiratory disease, stroke, injuries, diabetes, and infections. Coffee is part guardian angel.
More coffee seems to be better. A meta-analysis of Swedish and Finnish studies shows that two cups of coffee (American servings) per day reduces the risk of heart failure by 11%.** This is an example of how research contradicts conventional doctors’ recommendation that heart patients should avoid coffee. By ruling against coffee, conventional doctors invoke misplaced scientific authority to rule out nature’s medicine for heart trouble.
Coffee’s protection even extends to your skin. Data from the venerable Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) shows that people who consumed more than three cups of coffee a month have a 17% reduction in the relative risk of basal cell carcinoma skin cancer versus individuals who drink less than one cup per month.*** This is a prime example of the complex, interrelated nature of health; coffee and caffeine are good for both the heart and the skin.
* Freedman N, et al “Association of coffee drinking with total and cause-specific mortality” N Engl J Med 2012; 366:1891-1904.
**Mostofsky E, Rice M, Levitan E, Mittleman M “Habitual coffee consumption and risk of heart failure: A dose-response meta-analysis” CIRCHEARTFAILURE 2012; 112.967299. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.112.967299.
*** Song F, Qureshi A, Han J “Increased caffeine intake is associated with reduced risk of basal cell carcinoma of the skin” Cancer Res 2012 Jul 1;72(13):3282-9. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-3511
Have Some Salt
Popular medicine eschews salt, but research tells a different story. Thirteen years of data on sodium intake was analyzed at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Surprisingly, the results indicated that low-sodium diets are associated with an increased risk of death.
If you’re tuning out because you’re convinced salt is bad no matter what, stick with the concept for a few paragraphs. It’s a little technical, but easy to follow. We will refer to an analysis of fifty-eight trials of hypertensive people that was published in The Journal of the American Medical Association in 1998.**
Hypertensive people on reduced sodium diets had 1.2 mm Hg lower systolic blood pressure (SBP). Lower SBP is good. On the other hand, their average renin level increased by 3.6 times, their average aldosterone level increased by 3.2 times, and their average cholesterol level also increased. Those increases are bad. Score thus far for reduced sodium: one good, three bad.
Long-term increases of renin and aldosterone can lead to secondary hyperaldosteronism, which does awful things to your heart, such as kill cardiac myocytes, cause cardiac hypertrophy, and trigger cardiac fibrosis.*** That means a stiffening of the heart muscle and slow heart death. Connect the dots: low-salt diets are stressing our bodies, which in turn defend against salt starvation by releasing hormones that damage our hearts and cause us to die faster. Low-salt diets can hurt your heart and increase mortality.
When you eliminate salt from your diet, your body makes renin and aldosterone in a souped-up, emergency fashion in order to get your blood pressure back up to where it should be. Sending one’s body into overdrive to increase blood pressure back to where it needs to be is a flagrant red flag. Meanwhile, the popular medicine system, ignoring the red flag, says, “Hey, look how many deaths we can save by lowering people’s blood pressure!” Popular medicine celebrates without realizing penalty flags have been thrown all over the field and the play is coming back. It’s simple. Stressing your cells for long periods leads to terrible outcomes—usually cancer and death.
What’s really frustrating is that starving yourself of sodium barely reduces blood pressure. With a low sodium diet, SBP will drop by about 1.2 mm Hg. On the other hand, adding cocoa to your diet drops SBP by a mean of 4.1 mm Hg.****
The other sad part is that the intent of popular medicine in lowering blood pressure is good, but the approach is awful. Starving your body of salt and stressing your heart to achieve lowering of your blood pressure doesn’t pay dividends. Sure, you’ll get lower blood pressure, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory because your mortality risk goes up as you kill your heart cells. It’s not smart to send your renin and aldosterone levels through the roof in order to lower your blood pressure. Even a first-grader should be able to spot the poor risk/reward relationship, yet trusted medical professionals don’t see it.
Lowering your blood pressure by cutting salt is like losing weight by taking up smoking. The health of your benelles should not be sacrificed to improve a standalone health stat. The body is a complex living system, not a mathematical equation in which doctors can alter variables. Your body will tell you when it wants salt. The wise thing to do: listen.
* Cohen H, Hailpern S, Fang J, Alderman M “Sodium intake and mortality in the NHANES II follow-up study” Am J Med 2006 Mar;119(3):275.e7-14
** Graudal N, Galloe A, Garred P “Effects of Sodium Restriction on Blood Pressure, Renin, Aldosterone, Catecholamines, Cholesterols, and Triglyceride: A Meta-analysis” JAMA 1998; May 6;279(17):1383-91. doi:10.1001/jama.279.17.1383
*** Zannad F “Aldosterone and heart failure” Eur Heart J 1995; Dec;16 Suppl N:98-102. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/16.suppl_N.98
**** Ellinger S, Reusch A, Stehle P, Helfrich H “Epicatechin ingested via cocoa products reduces blood pressure in humans: a nonlinear regression model with a Bayesian approach” Am J Clin Nutr 2012; Jun;95(6):1365-77. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.111.029330
Stress makes us sick. Chronic stress results in glucocorticoid receptor resistance (GCR) which, in turn, results in failure to down-regulate inflammatory response. What’s that mean? In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, it meant that men and women suffering with chronic stress were more likely to develop persistent cold symptoms after inhaling the cold virus than their stress-free counterparts.* In short, stress made their immune systems weak.
Sheldon Cohen, lead author of the study, explains, “The symptoms of a cold are not caused directly by the virus; they’re caused by the inflammatory response to the infection. You want to produce enough of inflammation to fight off the infection, but not so much that you experience cold symptoms.” Under stress, our bodies naturally produce cortisol to control inflammation. But under chronic stress, our immune systems become resistant to our own cortisol, so that we have no way to turn off inflammation. Chronic inflammation leads to disease, plus it makes us feel sick even when we’re not.
Cohen’s study demonstrates how stress shows up as physical illness. Stress’s psychosomatic manifestation matches with the Quebec back pain study. With the 860 workers in the Quebec study, the level of psychological distress correctly predicted the level of the back problem 82% of the time.** People with chronic stress lose the ability to “turn off” the inflammation causing their back pain, so their back pain goes on and on. Not understanding the simple connection with stress, doctors of popular medicine convince back pain sufferers that the cause of their pain is something physically wrong with their backs, which requires a complex drug or surgical procedure to fix.
Chronic stress damages us at all levels. Women with high levels of distress disrupt their DNA telomeres such that they are functionally six years older than their actual age.*** In the same vein, a Duke University study found that the DNA of ten-year-olds who faced violence during childhood showed the advanced wear and tear that normally comes with aging.**** The stress of violence accelerates the unraveling process of children’s DNA. When DNA unravels, sickness and cancer follow. This shows how the seeds of cancer and disease are planted along unexpected avenues, such as domestic violence. A woman given a black eye is given bladder cancer by the same punch. Common sense tells us that domestic violence isn’t healthy; it’s just that we think of harm in terms of black eyes, not bladder cancer. In reality, it helps to see anything that stresses you as a carcinogen and start finding a way to reduce the stress.
Stress kills brain cells. In an animal study at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine, a single socially stressful situation was shown to destroy neurons in the hippocampus.***** Moreover, women who experienced early childhood sexual abuse have on average 16% smaller hippocampus volume.****** By preventing growth, the stress of the sexual abuse made the women’s brains smaller. Since the hippocampus controls memories and emotion, you would expect that the chronically-stressed may have memory retention problems and/or emotional problems. In fact, research does show this. People with depression exhibit much higher cortisol levels in the wake of stress (*7), and post-traumatic stress is associated with short-term memory problems. *8
Science shows that stress keeps us sick long after we beat a cold virus; stress makes our backs hurt, depresses us, and kills brain cells.
We’re effectively using drugs to run our engines on low oil. Popular medicine does not realize that when it comes to chronic pain like back pain, the body is actually sending a valuable message that the chronic stress needs to be addressed. The body is telling us that the engine needs fresh oil. Popular medicine encourages you to pave over these messages with prescription chemicals. You are free to go down that road, but ignore your body’s warning signs at your own risk. Popular medicine is caveat emptor—and a $20 co-pay.
One of the greatest shortcomings of popular medicine is that it does not treat stress as a tangible harm, like smoking or eating saturated fat. It is probable that stress will kill you faster than either cigarettes or fatty meat. Your journey to overcoming stress can begin as soon as you recognize stress as a cause of poor health. To learn how to overcome stress, try How to Stop Worrying and Start Living, by Dale Carnegie.
* Cohen S, Janicki-Deverts D, Doyle W, Miller G, Frank E, Rabin B, Turner R “Chronic stress, glucocorticoid receptor resistance, inflammation, and disease risk” PNAS 2012. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1118355109
** Dionne, C “Psychological distress confirmed as predictor of long-term back-related functional limitations in primary care settings.” J Clin Epidemiol 2005; Jul;58(7):714-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.12.005
*** Okereke O, et al “High Phobic Anxiety Is Related to Lower Leukocyte Telomere Length in Women” PLoS ONE 2012; 7(7): e40516. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040516
**** Shalev I, Moffitt T, Sugden K, Williams B, Houts R, Danese A, Mill J, Arseneault L, Capsi A “Exposure to violence during childhood is associated with telomere erosion from 5 to 10 years of age: a longitudinal study” Molecular Psychiatry 2012. doi:10.1038/mp.2012.32
***** Thomas R, Hotsenpiller G, Peterson D “Acute Psychosocial Stress Reduces Cell Survival in Adult Hippocampal Neurogenesis without Altering Proliferation” The Journal of Neuroscience 2007; 27(11): 2734-2743. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3849-06.2007
****** Bremner D, et al “MRI and PET Study of Deficits in Hippocampal Structure and Function in Women With Childhood Sexual Abuse and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder” Am J Psychiatry 2003;160:924-932. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.160.5.924
*7 Burke H, Davis M, Otte C, Mohr D “Depression and cortisol responses to psychological stress: A meta-analysis” Psychoneuroendocrinology 2005; Oct;30(9):846-56. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2005.02.010
*8 Bremner, D et al “Deficits in Short-Term Memory in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder” American Psychiatry 1993; 150:1015-1019
An Autism Spike
Since the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) started tracking autism in 1992, rates have almost doubled. According to CDC data, autism increased 23% from 2006 to 2008. This 20 year spike in autism made us ask, “Why is this happening?”
Please visit our sister foundation, WhyAutismHappens for complete coverage on preventing autism; the major research points are given below.
Fathers and Autism
There is new autism data involving fathers which is being highlighted by The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Per the April 2012 NIMH press release:
Researchers have turned up a new clue to the workings of a possible environmental factor in autism spectrum disorders (ASDs): fathers were four times more likely than mothers to transmit tiny, spontaneous mutations to their children with the disorders.
The results are among several from a trio of new studies, supported in part by the National Institutes of Health, finding that such sequence changes in parts of genes that code for proteins play a significant role in ASDs. One of the studies determined that having such glitches boosts a child’s risk of developing autism five to 20 fold. (NIMH press release 2012)
For your examination, the trio of studies are: Sanders SJ et al Study #1, O’Roak BJ et al Study #2, and Neale B et al Study #3. A New York Times article entitled “Scientists Link Gene Mutation to Autism Risk” discusses these same findings published in Nature. These studies present us with autism implications.
7 Autism Implications for Parents and Kids:
- Men are responsible for 80% of autism. Men pass autism at four times the rate of women. Think of a pie with five parts, and men own four parts. This means men are driving 80% of autism today.
- 80% of autism happens before conception. Men are passing 80% of autism, therefore 80% of autism is happening before baby is formed in the mother’s womb.
Immunizations are not causing our autism spike.
- Immunizations are not causing our autism spike. 80% of autism is traceable to DNA glitches from the father. Paternal DNA is contributed a minimum of 9 months before a child receives an immunization.
- Maternal flu and fever is not causing our autism spike. Paternal DNA, responsible for 80% of autism, is categorically contributed before a pregnant mother can catch the flu.
- Women’s age during pregnancy is not causing our autism spike. Paternal DNA is responsible for 80% of autism, meaning the mother’s age is only a minor factor at most.
- What the mother eats and drinks is not causing our autism spike. Paternal DNA, responsible for 80% of autism, is categorically contributed before a mother eats or drinks while pregnant.
A dark new force is affecting men over the last 20 years.
- A dark new force is affecting men over the last 20 years. If men had always passed autism at the current rate, there would be no autism spike. Instead, rates have at least doubled.
The logical conclusion of the Nature studies is this: in the last 20 years, men have begun passing autism at an extremely high rate that has never happened before in human history.
To solve the puzzle of our autism spike, we need to think of what began to negatively impact men’s reproductive DNA in the last 20 years. Then, we can search for supporting scientific studies. The Nature studies point to the father’s age as a possible primary cause, so let’s start there.
Could men waiting longer to have kids be the primary source of our autism spike? Perhaps men have a biological clock that is far more sensitive than women’s. Maybe men’s reproductive DNA wears out faster than women’s; “old” male DNA may be driving autism. Let’s call this the “older father” theory.
What do the Nature studies say about the older father theory? Well, they seem to support the idea that the age of fathers is the primary cause. Per the April 2012 NIMH press release:
…the number of such transmitted genetic glitches increased with paternal age. The discovery may help to explain earlier evidence linking autism risk to older fathers.
This is exciting as it directly supports the older father theory. And what’s even more exciting is that the Nature studies are corroborated by an independent study out of Iceland. The Icelandic study, also published in Nature in 2012,
At first blush, it seems we may have the silver bullet. We have two venerable, independent studies both telling us that that the father is responsible for nearly all autism-causing DNA mutation in children. Furthermore, multiple studies associate the age of the father to the amount of DNA mutation.
At this point, we have almost everything we need to say that we have figured out the cause of the runaway autism spike of our times. It’s simple; men are waiting too long to have children. To cement our older father theory, all we need to do is collect CDC information on the age of fathers and verify that it correlates to the rise in autism rates. We are on track to rather easily solve the largest public health crisis of our times; onward!
This is awful news. CDC data just killed our older father autism theory. Instead of a tidy association, CDC data reveals a major discrepancy.
The age of fathers stayed the same while autism increased rapidly. Autism rates increased 23% from 2006 to 2008, but fathers were not any older during that time. This is a frustrating conclusion to what seemed like an obvious answer.
There must be a way to make sense of the recent Nature studies, which establish that paternal DNA is causing our autism spike. There has to be a common factor that began negatively affecting men’s reproductive DNA approximately 20 years ago.
The increase in male DNA glitches does not make sense. Men and women live in the same kinds of houses, eat the same kinds of foods, work the same kinds of jobs, and face about the same level of stress. There is no scientific evidence which explains why male reproductive DNA is suddenly “wearing out” faster than female reproductive DNA for the first time in human history, resulting in the unnatural autism spike of our times.
In short, solving the puzzle of recent-onset male reproductive DNA glitches is the holy grail of understanding our autism spike.
What if the solution to this puzzle is so obvious—and so close—that we are all missing it? What if the puzzle is directly tied to a lifestyle that has become “the norm” for roughly the same period of time as the autism spike? What if the cause of rising autism is in men’s pockets?
Father’s Reproductive Cells and Baby
Men and women live in the same places, eat the same foods, work the same jobs, and face similar stresses. But men and women don’t carry their cell phones in the same way. Women often carry their cell phones in purses; men usually carry theirs in their front pockets. Front pockets within inches of their reproductive cells.
Non-ionizing radiation given off by cell phones is understood by the public to be safe. The Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) of cell phones is a measure of the amount of radio frequency (RF) energy our bodies get when we use them. All cell phones emit RF energy into our human cells.
Doctors, epidemiologists, and mothers around the world agree that cell phones emit such a small amount of radiation that they are safe. It’s considered
crazy talk unscientific thinking that mobile phones could be causing autism in babies safely tucked away in the wombs of mothers.
There’s one problem, however, with the current thinking of doctors, epidemiologists, and mothers. They are all thinking about autism being caused after conception. But autism is being caused before conception. Autism is being caused by DNA glitches in men’s reproductive cells. This introduces a new question. Are there any scientific studies which show radiation from mobile phones damages men’s reproductive cells?
Yes, there are studies showing radiation from mobile phones damages men’s reproductive cells:
“RF energy in both the power density and frequency range of mobile phones enhances mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation by human spermatozoa, decreasing the motility and vitality of these cells while stimulating DNA base adduct formation and, ultimately DNA fragmentation.” (De Iuliis GN et al 2009)
“impair male fertility”
“We speculate that keeping the cell phone in a trouser pocket in talk mode may negatively affect spermatozoa and impair male fertility.” (Agarwal A et al 2009)
“adversely affects [sperm morphology]”
“A recent study found that use of cell phones adversely affects the quality of semen by decreasing the sperm counts, motility, viability and morphology.” (Deepinder F et al 2007)
“sperm cells with abnormal morphology”
“An increase in the percentage of sperm cells with abnormal
morphology is associated with the duration of exposure
to the waves emitted by GSM equipment.” (Wdowiak et al 2007)
“effects may be observed later in life”
“These data suggest that EMR emitted by cellular phone influences human sperm motility. In addition to these acute adverse effects of EMR on sperm motility, long-term EMR exposure may lead to behavioral or structural changes of the male germ cell. These effects may be observed later in life, and they are to be investigated more seriously.” (Erogul O et al 2006)
“slow progressive motile sperm”“The duration of possession and the daily transmission time correlated negatively with the proportion of rapid progressive motile sperm (r = ? 0.12 and r = ? 0.19, respectively), and positively with the proportion of slow progressive motile sperm (r = 0.12 and r = 0.28, respectively).” (Fejes I et al 2005) “DNA damage…and spermatozoal cell death”“Prolonged exposure to [cell phone] RF-EMW can also cause DNA damage…which may accelerates neuronal and spermatozoal cell death…the SAR limit (maximum acceptable exposure limit)
should be lowered for cellular phones.” (Desai N et al 2009)
“negatively affects sperm quality in men”“We examined 2110 men attending our infertility clinic from 1993 to October 2007…Our results showed that cell phone use negatively affects sperm quality in men.” (Gutschi T et al 2011) “a significant genotoxic effect on epididymal spermatozoa”“while RFEMR does not have a dramatic impact on male germ cell development, a significant genotoxic effect on epididymal spermatozoa is evident and deserves further investigation.” (Aitken RJ et al 2005) “link between DNA damage…and embryonic development”“From a clinical perspective, we simply cannot ignore animal data that provide an incontrovertible link between DNA damage in spermatozoa and defects in embryonic development.” (Aitken RJ et al 2009) “affecting…the health and wellbeing of [men’s] offspring.”“These findings have clear implications for the safety of extensive mobile phone use by males of reproductive age, potentially affecting both their fertility and the health and wellbeing of their offspring.” (De Iuliis GN et al 2009)
Tragically, of all human cells, sperm cells are the most vulnerable to the oxidative stress caused by RF energy. Why? For three reasons: 1) they lack the protective cytoplasm of other cells, 2) their makeup of DNA and polyunsaturated fatty acids are juicy targets for oxidative stress, 3) they are natural generators of reactive oxygen in the first place (De Iuliis GN et al 2009).
There are a significant number of scientific studies which conclude that RF energy in the range of cell phones fragments men’s reproductive DNA.
Of particular note across the cell phone/sperm studies is that cell phones are causing male infertility. Indeed, male infertility has been on the rise over the last 20 years. A study of over 26,600 men in France revealed a 32.2% decrease in semen concentration from 1989 to 2005. Moreover, there was a 33.4% decrease in the percentage of normally formed sperm over the same period. (Le Moal J et al 2012)
Conception is far less likely to happen if sperm is fragmented. This is natural selection in action—selecting against autism. But life is very resilient and, in many cases, will go with what’s given, which in the case of fragmented sperm means a baby with only a single healthy copy of chromosomes—from the mother.
In a sense, human biology has provided an amazing safeguard against autism. We perceive that autism has spiked to a shocking level, but the reality is that male infertility has prevented vast numbers of autistic babies. Male infertility has protected our society from an epidemic that would have over-run our resources.
Men who are having problems with infertility should not fight natural selection. Instead of turning to fertility drugs, a man should keep his mobile phone away from his reproductive cells. When his sperm becomes healthy in a natural manner, nature is likely to favor a conception.
Language and Communication
In the case of our 20-year autism spike, autism is a word being used to describe cases where fragmented sperm cells successfully fertilize eggs and make babies.
A primary reason that autism has been so elusive to geneticists is because of the way men’s sperm cells are being fragmented. Men’s sperm cells are being randomly “zapped” by microwave radiation, thus they are affected in a wide spectrum of ways. That is why autism is frequently seen as a “spectrum” disorder.
As you might imagine, sperm DNA can be fragmented in many different ways. Sometimes, it may be a slight fragmentation, barely noticeable as baby grows. In others, fragmentation may be so complete that baby never masters language at all. In most cases, the fragmentation level is average, where there are noticeable gaps in development but baby is still functional in many ways.
The key thing to remember is that each time a fragmented sperm cell goes on to fertilize an egg, it is a unique fragmentation. That is why geneticists will never be able to “decode” or “solve” autism. Each case of autism is too unique.
The reason that language and communication are primarily affected by fragmented sperm cells is because the evolution of language and communication was the most recent—and most complex—part of human evolution. Language and communication require a complex interaction of many genes to be successful.
Even a small fragmentation of the precious DNA code stored in a sperm cell is enough to disrupt a baby’s ability to call upon the vital genes. It would be like asking a computer motherboard to correctly operate, but without certain chip subsystems.
Scientists are Lost
Today, scientific funding for autism research is being spent in a fruitless way. Scientists must wake up and see that autism is being caused before conception. We can turn-around the autism spike simply by protecting men’s sperm cells. Then, scientific funding can properly be used to study naturally-occurring autism and hopefully make breakthroughs.
In reversing our autism spike, geneticists have already done their part by determining that men are passing 80% of autism. WhyAutismHappens is playing the role of health analyst, explaining what is going on in the big picture. This way, epidemiologists will finally have the direction they need to conduct cohort studies over the next 10 to 20 years to show the relationship of RF energy to autism. In the meantime, parents can take immediate action by keeping RF energy safely away from men’s reproductive DNA for 30 days before trying.
The Good News
The good news is that we are probably near the apex of the autism spike. Mobile phones have reached a high level of saturation. Most men are already carrying around cell phones in their front pockets. The effect has been a doubling of autism. It is unlikely there will be much more of a spike simply because mobile phones are already so common. Moreover, once word of WhyAutismHappens travels to prospective parents, autism rates should come down dramatically. The reality is that it’s quite easy to protect men’s reproductive cells, and thus reverse the autism spike.
Why Women’s Eggs are Safe
Many women carry their cell phones in their purses, keeping them at a safe distance from their eggs. Moreover, even when women carry their cell phones in their pockets, their reproductive cells are located behind dense tissue. Plus, women’s eggs are much higher up in their bodies, safely away from the RF energy. In contrast, men’s testicles are often only a few inches away from mobile phones, behind only a thin layer of skin.
Anyone who has used an EMF meter knows that only a few inches of air space radically diminishes the effects of radiation. If you have ever held a cell phone near a radio and heard the disruption it causes, you know this. Simply drawing the cell phone away from the radio by a few inches ends the disruption. Women’s eggs are never that close to disrupting energy; men’s sperm is often too close. That is why men are passing 80% of autism.
Connect the Dots
Men are four times as likely as women to pass on the DNA glitches that cause autism; cell phone radiation causes sperm cell DNA fragmentation. Cell phones are fragmenting men’s reproductive DNA, causing them to pass on autism to their children at an unnaturally high rate. Women, in contrast, are protected. Even when they carry their cell phones in their pockets, their reproductive cells are located much higher up in their bodies, safely away from RF energy.
The radiation from mobile phones is microwaving men’s reproductive cells. Nature is trying to compensate with male infertility, but in many cases the cooked sperm cells are still enough to create a zygote. A zygote that will not be able to call upon certain vital parts of DNA code that provide the advanced gifts of human evolution.
The seemingly innocuous practice of men storing cell phones in their front pockets is giving our children autism. Men are giving our children autism before conception. The problem: men don’t know this. We have what is the easiest-to-solve public health crisis of our times, but we’re not solving it.
Cell Phones Still Safe
Mobile phones are generally safe. WhyAutismHappens is not attacking mobile phones.
There is no reason to fear or stop using your cell phone. There is a reason for young and middle-aged men to start carrying and storing their mobile phones differently. This will be a small price for men to pay compared to the price women pay during a pregnancy. Women go to great lengths to protect their babies in utero.
The Common Sense Factor
We have a long list of no-no’s for pregnant women during their first trimester. They are warned against smoking. They are warned against drinking. They are warned against using drugs, including prescription drugs. They are warned against getting x-rays. They are warned about getting enough folic acid. They are warned to stay away from peeling paint and any renovation work. They are warned against taking herbal remedies. They are warned to avoid insecticides, weed killers, and fertilizers. They are warned to stay away from paints, varnish, shellac, turpentine, and paint strippers. They are warned to avoid electric blankets, saunas, whirlpools, hot tubs, and steam rooms. They are encouraged not to consume caffeine. They are warned, in general, to avoid all medicines except acetaminophen. They are even warned to stay away from cat litter boxes. Any of these inputs, as well as many others, are considered developmental hazards for unborn babies.
Women have a litany of precautions. So why is it ok for men to microwave their reproductive cells just before they fertilize the egg?
The answer: it’s not ok.
We just think it’s ok because it’s what we’ve always done. We literally don’t even think of it. It’s as simple as that.
Today, the public thinks it’s
crazy unscientific to associate mobile phone radiation with autism. In the future, avoiding mobile phone radiation in the vicinity of men’s reproductive cells will be the first recommendation for couples wanting to prevent autism in their children.
Science is already telling us that RF energy is damaging men’s sperm cells. But scientists are locked away in silos, failing to make the associations that would connect their research and stop the epidemic. WhyAutismHappens is providing analysis of the big picture so that health experts can begin working in the right direction.
Dramatically Reducing Autism
How much could we reduce autism If we change men’s “front pockets” cell phone carrying? It is useful to think in parts. We know from the National Institutes of Health that fathers are passing on autism at four times the rate of women. Let’s think of autism as a pie with five parts.
The pie chart shows 80% of autism being caused by paternal DNA. This means the 20-year autism spike has been caused by a sudden spike in damage to men’s reproductive cells. More than likely, before the spike began, fathers were passing autism at a similar rate to mothers. That’s why we had a stable autism rate for centuries. Since mother’s eggs have not been affected by RF energy, we can deduct that a natural pass-on rate, per sex, is about 20% of today’s total.
Let’s summarize the thinking: women cause 20% of autism naturally and, before our 20 year spike, men were causing another 20% of autism naturally. Roughly 20 years ago, men began accidentally causing the remaining 60% of autism via reproductive cell fragmentation. This 60% is our heretofore mysterious “autism epidemic”.
Does this pass the common sense test? Yes. If men and women are naturally passing only 40% of autism, then 60% of autism is being caused by fragmentation to men’s sperm cells. So autism has increased by an unnecessary 60%. This matches to within 10% of the CDC’s estimate that autism rates have doubled since 1992.
Let’s look at the same pie chart, but assume that fathers reduce their risk of passing on autism by protecting their reproductive cells. As a result, their risk of passing on autism reduces to the natural level—the same level as mothers.
Let’s put some numbers to the pie chart to make sense of how much autism could be prevented. Let’s use the CDC’s published 2009 U.S. birth rate of 4,130,665. Let’s use the CDC estimate that 1 in 88 children in the U.S. has an autism spectrum disorder. [ref 8] In 2009, an estimated 46,939 kids were born with autism spectrum disorder. If we imagine 60% of these autism cases were prevented by men carrying their mobile phones safely, then 28,163 new cases of autism would have been prevented in 2009.
If we make a small change with our cell phone carrying, we might prevent almost 30,000 new autism cases per year in the U.S., and a much greater number around the world.
30 Day Rule
The good news: DNA fragmentation in reproductive cells caused by cell phones could be immediately stopped by young and middle-aged men in the days before they attempt to have children.
Of course there is always the long-term picture to consider too. The 1.6 watts per kilogram maximum SAR level allowed by the U.S. government isn’t very toxic to our cells in a single dose. But if you get thousands of doses a year, or tens of thousands over a decade, reproductive tissue can incur long-term damage to the point men can’t make reproductive cells with healthy DNA even if they stop storing their cell phones in their front pockets. Therefore, the wisest approach is for young and middle-aged men to permanently change their habit of keeping their cell phones in their front pockets.
What Can We Do?
What should men do about storing phones? Men can carry their cell phone in their breast pockets. Moreover, once the public understands the issue, new products such as pouches that clip to the top of shoes will spring up, allowing men to safely carry their cell phones atop the bones of their feet. In the meantime, they can also carry their cell phones in their hands, as well as let the cell phones harmlessly sit atop a counter or table when they are at rest. One special note: men should NEVER drive in cars with their cell phones in their front pockets, as microwave radiation inside a vehicle is especially intense.
How far away do men need to keep cell phones from reproductive cells? Only about as far as women keep cell phones from their eggs, which is about six to eight inches. Women are only passing 20% of autism. This means women’s eggs have not been impacted by radiation from cell phones. Thus, men should use this distance as a gold standard for safety.
What should women do? At the minimum, they should enforce the “30 day no front pockets rule” on their male partners. Raising a child with autism is very difficult, both financially and emotionally. Women are inheriting a huge portion of that difficulty based on men’s habits.
What should the government do? The rise is autism represents a public health and financial crisis.
Additionally, more research needs to be funded and conducted as soon as possible. Specifically: 1) Research on the rate of autism inheritance from the maternal and paternal sides before 1990, when mobile phone use was uncommon. 2) Research on the rate of autism inheritance from the maternal and paternal side in cultures where mobile phones are not currently used.
A special note to the autistic. This website is not intended to insult you. Your autism may not have been caused by RF energy exposure.
What else can you do to help? Be a part of the autism solution: share this information with your social media network and within your autism network.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Cells phones, cell phone manufacturers, cell phone providers, cell phone service providers, and cell phone users are NOT being attacked with this health data. Benelles.com uses, supports and likes cell phones. The way men carry their cell phones immediately next to their delicate reproductive cells is being linked to autism, and the practical solution of men using the “30 day no front pockets rule” is being recommended for couples who wish to increase their chances of having healthy children. This health announcement represents business opportunity for textile manufacturers to present men with safe, stylish options for carrying cell phones.
The placebo effect is an improvement in health that is not attributable to an administered medication or invasive treatment. In short, the placebo effect is the benefit we get from thinking we have gotten medical treatment.
The placebo effect is more properly called the placebo response. It is the body’s response to thinking that it is about to get better—having faith that it is about to get well.
These self-healing responses are described by Steve Silverman in a 2009 Wired article: “Placebo-activated opioids, for example, not only relieve pain, they also modulate heart rate and respiration. The neurotransmitter dopamine, when released by placebo treatment, helps improve motor function in Parkinson’s patients. Mechanisms like these can elevate mood, sharpen cognitive ability, alleviate digestive disorders, relieve insomnia, and limit the secretion of stress-related hormones like insulin and cortisol.”*
In short, if we expect to get better—we get better.
And the reverse is true, too. Silverman highlights an example of the nocebo effect, in revealing that men taking a commonly prescribed prostate drug, once they were informed that the drug might cause sexual dysfunction, were twice as likely to become impotent. If we expect to get worse, we get worse.
How much credit are prescription chemicals getting that they don’t deserve?
Trials and studies illustrate the power of the placebo response. A double-blind controlled clinical trial for treatment of recurrent herpes simplex virus found that placebo response was 70%—so high that the authors concluded that the assessment of any drug treatment for herpes would be difficult.*** A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled treatment studies revealed that 30% of the treatment benefit of ulcerative colitis is actually placebo response.****
Much of the healing that popular medicine offers is actually just an idea. Popular medicine gives us the idea that it will make us well; the idea of being well makes us well. When we think we’re going to get well, our bodies let go of the tax of fear and doubt, allowing benelles to race forward unchecked. We have attached our placebo response to chemicals, but the evidence shows we are wrong in doing so. In fact, many doctors know the placebo response secret and use it on their patients on a regular basis.
In a survey of 1,200 U.S. internists and rheumatologists, 57% reported prescribing placebos to patients on a regular basis.***** A survey of Danish doctors revealed 86% had prescribed placebos once, and 48% had prescribed them more than ten times within a single year.****** A survey of physicians in Israel found that 60% used placebos in their medical practice.*7
Placebos work and doctors prescribe them. Even the doctors who do not prescribe placebos know that in order to get the results patients want, a positive drug response must be combined with a positive placebo response. In short, in order to get well, doctors pretend chemicals work so that patients will have faith.
* Silberman, S “Placebos Are Getting More Effective. Drugmakers Are Desperate to Know Why” Wired 2009; Aug
** Kirsch I, Sapirstein G “Listening to Prozac but hearing placebo: A meta-analysis of antidepressant medication” Psychological Association 1998. doi: 10.1037/1522-37184.108.40.206a
*** Marks R, Koutts J “Topical treatment of recurrent herpes simplex with cytosine arabinoside” Med J Aust 1975; Apr 12;01(15):479-80.
**** Pollo A, Benedetti F “Placebo response: relevance to the rheumatic diseases” Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2008. doi:10.1016/j.rdc.2008.04.002
***** Tilburt J, et al “Prescribing “placebo treatments”: results of national survey of US internists and rheumatologists” BMJ 2008;337:a1938. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1938
****** Hrobjartsson A, Norup M “The Use of Placebo Interventions in Medical Practice—A National Questionnaire Survey of Danish Clinicians” Eval Health Prof 2003. doi: 10.1177/0163278703026002002
*7 Nitzan U, Lichtenberg P “Questionnaire survey on use of placebo” BMJ 2004;329:944. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38236.646678.55
Faith and Reversing Disease
Believing our bodies have the power to be well has become a stumbling block in our age of drive-thru medicine. Without belief, we write off our benelles and open the door to disease.
Your benelles are the first line of health. They have the power to prevent and reverse cancer, arthritis, diabetes, depression, and other maladies. They have the power of anastasis; the power to reverse chronic disease. You’ve heard the “your cells are bad and need professional help” story repeated by doctors for decades.
Is faith or the placebo response going to compete with getting stitches for a severe laceration? Will faith perform a knee replacement surgery for you? No. The placebo response works on long-term conditions such as pain, swelling, stomach ulcers, depression, and anxiety—the same list of long-term conditions that cause cancer, diabetes, stroke, and depression. Most of the ailments we suffer are not sudden and severe; they build over time and are chronic. Faith and the placebo response activate benelles and reverse chronic disease.
Don’t allow the shock of a serious diagnosis to take away your faith. Turn to benelles, and there will be a way forward. Health miracles spring from biological magic, which is already inside you, and which is evident by looking objectively at medical studies.