This is great to use as cupcake frosting or a pie/pudding topping! Love it!
Blend the following in a food processor, coffee grinder, or by hand if you soften the coconut enough:
Organic creamed coconut (unsweetened)
Organic coconut oil or water as needed for smoother blending
Dash of organic agave or stevia (the kind without bitter aftertaste), organic vanilla extract, and sea salt
Make sure the coconut is soft first (heat slightly if necessary)
Here's a great deal! For the creamed coconut I use Let's Do Organic Creamed Coconut, 7-Ounce Boxes (Pack of 6):
http://www.amazon.com/Lets-Do-Organic-Creamed-Coconut/dp/B00113ZZ5U/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1297719239&sr=8-3
About Me
- Miriam
- I have a health ministry for friends, family, and health lovers world-wide. I choose natural options whenever possible and avoid chemicals, food additives, etc. even in my cosmetics. I eat mostly organic whole foods. You’ll find lots of healthy recipes and great health research on this site.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Sunday, February 13, 2011
The Crime of Vaccination book by Dr. Tenison Deane, M.D.
You have got to read this summary of the book!
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/deane_b.html
Quotes re Deane:
Dr. Tennison Deane of San Francisco, in his Crime of Vaccination, tells a remarkable story illustrative of this truth.
Dr. Deane relates that he was summering in Northern California in the late 80's, near a wealthy ranchman who lived with his wife and seven children on a 10,000-acre ranch in a salubrious pine region, 15 miles from the nearest town and having no adjacent neighbors. With him on the ranch at that time was a negro foreman who also had a wife and five children. Until Dr. Deane appeared on the scene, none of these 16 persons—white nor black—had ever been vaccinated.
As a zealous young practitioner, very close to his medical school traditions, Dr. Deane quickly warned these ranch-dwellers of their "unprotected" state and was able to persuade six of the sixteen—the farmer's wife and three children, the negro foreman and his 12-year-old son—to submit to the vaccinating operation. "A year later," writes Dr. Deane, "an epidemic of sore throats broke out in this ranch colony which developed into diphtheria in four of the vaccinated, among them the farmer's wife, and one child died. The unvaccinated recovered rapidly from their sore throats, but the farmer's wife was paralyzed for a year and eleven years later died of cancer."
It seems that the San Francisco physician was so impressed by this unexpected turn of his well-intentioned vaccinating zeal, that he not only kept tab on the subsequent history of the two families on the northern ranch, but watched the connection between vaccination and other maladies occurring in his general practice. He learned that the other four persons whom he had vaccinated on the ranch all died either of tuberculosis or cancer within four to twenty-two years from the date of vaccination, while none of the unvaccinated in either family died within that period except the white farmer who, he says, "died of old age."
Dr. Deane relates that for many years after this early experience with vaccination on the Northern California ranch, when a patient came to him with any serious throat, bronchial or pulmonary trouble, he made a point of inquiring into his past history, and invariably he found a back-ground of calf-pus "immunization" against smallpox. Then when he felt he had sufficient data to warrant it, he published The Crime of Vaccination (in 1913), which brought down on him the wrath of his medical colleagues, and made his professional life in San Francisco so unhappy that he voluntarily withdrew from all medical assemblages and finally abandoned all medical practice except surgery. Hale, Annie Riley. The Medical Voodoo. New York: Gotham House, 1936.
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/deane_b.html
Quotes re Deane:
Dr. Tennison Deane of San Francisco, in his Crime of Vaccination, tells a remarkable story illustrative of this truth.
Dr. Deane relates that he was summering in Northern California in the late 80's, near a wealthy ranchman who lived with his wife and seven children on a 10,000-acre ranch in a salubrious pine region, 15 miles from the nearest town and having no adjacent neighbors. With him on the ranch at that time was a negro foreman who also had a wife and five children. Until Dr. Deane appeared on the scene, none of these 16 persons—white nor black—had ever been vaccinated.
As a zealous young practitioner, very close to his medical school traditions, Dr. Deane quickly warned these ranch-dwellers of their "unprotected" state and was able to persuade six of the sixteen—the farmer's wife and three children, the negro foreman and his 12-year-old son—to submit to the vaccinating operation. "A year later," writes Dr. Deane, "an epidemic of sore throats broke out in this ranch colony which developed into diphtheria in four of the vaccinated, among them the farmer's wife, and one child died. The unvaccinated recovered rapidly from their sore throats, but the farmer's wife was paralyzed for a year and eleven years later died of cancer."
It seems that the San Francisco physician was so impressed by this unexpected turn of his well-intentioned vaccinating zeal, that he not only kept tab on the subsequent history of the two families on the northern ranch, but watched the connection between vaccination and other maladies occurring in his general practice. He learned that the other four persons whom he had vaccinated on the ranch all died either of tuberculosis or cancer within four to twenty-two years from the date of vaccination, while none of the unvaccinated in either family died within that period except the white farmer who, he says, "died of old age."
Dr. Deane relates that for many years after this early experience with vaccination on the Northern California ranch, when a patient came to him with any serious throat, bronchial or pulmonary trouble, he made a point of inquiring into his past history, and invariably he found a back-ground of calf-pus "immunization" against smallpox. Then when he felt he had sufficient data to warrant it, he published The Crime of Vaccination (in 1913), which brought down on him the wrath of his medical colleagues, and made his professional life in San Francisco so unhappy that he voluntarily withdrew from all medical assemblages and finally abandoned all medical practice except surgery. Hale, Annie Riley. The Medical Voodoo. New York: Gotham House, 1936.
Abortion stillbirth events from Gardasil far exceed all other vaccines
Saturday, February 12, 2011 by: Rosemary Mathis, Director of SANE VAX, INC.
(NaturalNews) According to a National Vaccine Information Center (http://nvic.org) MedAlerts blog entry written in November 2010, the incidents of abortion and stillbirth events from the HPV4 vaccine Gardasil supersedes the same event from all other vaccinations.
The research and post was written by Steven M. Rubin, Ph.D., a computer scientist who maintains the online searchable VAERS database, MedAlerts. He has managed this database voluntarily and independent of his official work since 2003 and has worked with the NVIC since 2005.
In his blog entry on MedAlerts, Dr. Rubin states that "It has been suggested that the H1N1 Flu vaccine causes miscarriages. This month, I want to see if the claim is supported by VAERS data."
Dr. Rubin explains how it is determined whether a VAERS event resulted in a miscarriage.
"VAERS uses the MedDRA symptom classification, which organizes all known symptoms at five levels of detail. At the second level of detail is an entry 'Abortions and stillbirth' which has under it 'Abortion related conditions and complications', 'Abortions spontaneous', 'Stillbirth and foetal death' and 'Abortions not specified as induced or spontaneous'. Each of these is further refined into specific symptoms. So it seems that this second-level term (or as it is known in MedDRA, the High-Level Group Term or HLGT) is a valid way to identify miscarriages."
He surmised the data would "surely favor vaccines that have been given for 21 years over those that have been recently introduced, because such vaccines will have been given much more, and so will have produced many more symptoms."
In other words, this graph should de-emphasize the H1N1 Flu vaccine, which has existed for just one year. We should see relatively few H1N1-related miscarriage events compared with the "seasonal" flu vaccine, which has been administered to many more patients.
However, the VAERS data proved him wrong. Dr. Rubin acknowledges the "results are shocking. First of all, the H1N1 Flu vaccine has appeared in miscarriage events more often than almost any other vaccine."
He goes on to state, "But the graph has more shocking results for us. The H1N1 Flu vaccine appears in many of the abortion/stillbirth cases, but not the most. The 'winner', appearing in 297 of the VAERS records associated with miscarriage, is Gardasil (vaccine code HPV4)! Once again, this vaccine is a newcomer, having only existed for four years."
His advice to pregnant women is to "read the product manufacturers insert for the vaccine they are considering and speak with one or more trusted health care professionals before making a decision about vaccination during pregnancy."
A recently released study, New Adjuvanted Vaccines in Pregnancy: What is Known About Their Safety? had this to say:
"Owing to the fact that pregnant women are usually excluded from the majority of clinical trials on vaccines, little is known about the side effects of adjuvants during pregnancy. There are only a few published studies on the safety of adjuvanted vaccines during pregnancy. These studies, however, concentrated on the extreme effects of adjuvanted vaccines on pregnancy (i.e., teratogenic effects). No attention has been paid to more subtle effects, such as effects on placental development or fetal weight or the effects of the vaccine or its adjuvant on the maternal immune system. During normal pregnancy, the maternal immune system adapts to accommodate the semiallogeneic fetus and interference with this immune system may interfere with normal pregnancy."
SANEVax (http://sanevax.org/) is outraged that a vaccine that is a "relative newcomer" has the highest incident of induced abortions and stillbirth rates among any other vaccine on the market. There is no doubt the vaccines safety and efficacy has not been thoroughly investigated, and independent investigation on the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix must be conducted before there are more injuries and deaths.
There is currently no vaccine specifically approved by the FDA for use during pregnancy in the United States. Caveat Emptor - let the buyer beware!
It is obvious that the pharmaceutical marketing campaign promises of "One Less Girl" at risk for cervical cancer and "armed for life" have turned into a global travesty as each day ONE MORE GIRL suffers an adverse reaction and/or death - or the death of her baby after taking Gardasil or Cervarix.
Please support the ONE MORE GIRL Documentary: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects... - so the truth about the damage done to innocent girls can be told to prevent this global travesty from ever occurring again.
Sources:
1. Steven M. Rubin Biography http://www.nvic.org/about/Steven-Ru...
2. MedAlerts, http://medalerts.org/analysis/archi...
3. New Adjuvanted Vaccines in Pregnancy: What is Known About Their Safety? 01/13/2011; Expert Rev Vaccines. 2010;9(12):1411-1422. 2010 Expert Reviews Ltd. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle...
About the author:
THE SANE VAX MISSION is to promote Safe, Affordable, Necessary & Effective vaccines and vaccination practices through education and information. We believe in science-based medicine. Our primary goal is to provide the information necessary for you to make informed decisions regarding your health and well-being. We also provide referrals to helpful resources for those unfortunate enough to have experienced vaccine-related injuries.
Articles on this site are written by Norma Erickson, President and Leslie Carol Botha, women's health educator, broadcast journalist and Vice-President Public Relations for SANE Vax, Inc. Other members include Rosemary Mathis, mother of a Gardasil-injured daughter and Vice President Victim Support; Janny Stokvis, Vice-President Research, Freda Birrell, Secretary and HPV vaccine lobbyist United Kingdom /Scotland, and Linda Thompson, Treasurer.
We are demanding the HPV vaccines be taken off the market until an independent study on their safety and efficacy has been conducted. Until then, we are committing our efforts to an educational media campaign to alert the public about the dangers of the HPV vaccines.
SANE Vax, Inc. is involved in the ground-breaking production of the One More Girl Documentary. Please join our cause by contributing to this project at http://www.kickstarter.com/projects....
For more information, please visit our site at http://sanevax.org/.
Articles Related to This Article:
• Facebook crowdsourced investigation exposes vaccine denials of SIGA Technologies
• Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines
• Flu vaccines revealed as the greatest quackery ever pushed in the history of medicine
• NaturalNews exclusive: International Medical Council on Vaccination refutes vaccine propaganda with myth-busting report
• The great thimerosal cover-up: Mercury, vaccines, autism and your child's health
• Are mandatory vaccinations acts of violence against children?
Related video from NaturalNews.TV
Your NaturalNews.TV video could be here.
Upload your own
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031300_Gardasil_stillbirth.html#ixzz1Dt3MJurL
http://www.naturalnews.com/031300_Gardasil_stillbirth.html
(NaturalNews) According to a National Vaccine Information Center (http://nvic.org) MedAlerts blog entry written in November 2010, the incidents of abortion and stillbirth events from the HPV4 vaccine Gardasil supersedes the same event from all other vaccinations.
The research and post was written by Steven M. Rubin, Ph.D., a computer scientist who maintains the online searchable VAERS database, MedAlerts. He has managed this database voluntarily and independent of his official work since 2003 and has worked with the NVIC since 2005.
In his blog entry on MedAlerts, Dr. Rubin states that "It has been suggested that the H1N1 Flu vaccine causes miscarriages. This month, I want to see if the claim is supported by VAERS data."
Dr. Rubin explains how it is determined whether a VAERS event resulted in a miscarriage.
"VAERS uses the MedDRA symptom classification, which organizes all known symptoms at five levels of detail. At the second level of detail is an entry 'Abortions and stillbirth' which has under it 'Abortion related conditions and complications', 'Abortions spontaneous', 'Stillbirth and foetal death' and 'Abortions not specified as induced or spontaneous'. Each of these is further refined into specific symptoms. So it seems that this second-level term (or as it is known in MedDRA, the High-Level Group Term or HLGT) is a valid way to identify miscarriages."
He surmised the data would "surely favor vaccines that have been given for 21 years over those that have been recently introduced, because such vaccines will have been given much more, and so will have produced many more symptoms."
In other words, this graph should de-emphasize the H1N1 Flu vaccine, which has existed for just one year. We should see relatively few H1N1-related miscarriage events compared with the "seasonal" flu vaccine, which has been administered to many more patients.
However, the VAERS data proved him wrong. Dr. Rubin acknowledges the "results are shocking. First of all, the H1N1 Flu vaccine has appeared in miscarriage events more often than almost any other vaccine."
He goes on to state, "But the graph has more shocking results for us. The H1N1 Flu vaccine appears in many of the abortion/stillbirth cases, but not the most. The 'winner', appearing in 297 of the VAERS records associated with miscarriage, is Gardasil (vaccine code HPV4)! Once again, this vaccine is a newcomer, having only existed for four years."
His advice to pregnant women is to "read the product manufacturers insert for the vaccine they are considering and speak with one or more trusted health care professionals before making a decision about vaccination during pregnancy."
A recently released study, New Adjuvanted Vaccines in Pregnancy: What is Known About Their Safety? had this to say:
"Owing to the fact that pregnant women are usually excluded from the majority of clinical trials on vaccines, little is known about the side effects of adjuvants during pregnancy. There are only a few published studies on the safety of adjuvanted vaccines during pregnancy. These studies, however, concentrated on the extreme effects of adjuvanted vaccines on pregnancy (i.e., teratogenic effects). No attention has been paid to more subtle effects, such as effects on placental development or fetal weight or the effects of the vaccine or its adjuvant on the maternal immune system. During normal pregnancy, the maternal immune system adapts to accommodate the semiallogeneic fetus and interference with this immune system may interfere with normal pregnancy."
SANEVax (http://sanevax.org/) is outraged that a vaccine that is a "relative newcomer" has the highest incident of induced abortions and stillbirth rates among any other vaccine on the market. There is no doubt the vaccines safety and efficacy has not been thoroughly investigated, and independent investigation on the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix must be conducted before there are more injuries and deaths.
There is currently no vaccine specifically approved by the FDA for use during pregnancy in the United States. Caveat Emptor - let the buyer beware!
It is obvious that the pharmaceutical marketing campaign promises of "One Less Girl" at risk for cervical cancer and "armed for life" have turned into a global travesty as each day ONE MORE GIRL suffers an adverse reaction and/or death - or the death of her baby after taking Gardasil or Cervarix.
Please support the ONE MORE GIRL Documentary: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects... - so the truth about the damage done to innocent girls can be told to prevent this global travesty from ever occurring again.
Sources:
1. Steven M. Rubin Biography http://www.nvic.org/about/Steven-Ru...
2. MedAlerts, http://medalerts.org/analysis/archi...
3. New Adjuvanted Vaccines in Pregnancy: What is Known About Their Safety? 01/13/2011; Expert Rev Vaccines. 2010;9(12):1411-1422. 2010 Expert Reviews Ltd. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle...
About the author:
THE SANE VAX MISSION is to promote Safe, Affordable, Necessary & Effective vaccines and vaccination practices through education and information. We believe in science-based medicine. Our primary goal is to provide the information necessary for you to make informed decisions regarding your health and well-being. We also provide referrals to helpful resources for those unfortunate enough to have experienced vaccine-related injuries.
Articles on this site are written by Norma Erickson, President and Leslie Carol Botha, women's health educator, broadcast journalist and Vice-President Public Relations for SANE Vax, Inc. Other members include Rosemary Mathis, mother of a Gardasil-injured daughter and Vice President Victim Support; Janny Stokvis, Vice-President Research, Freda Birrell, Secretary and HPV vaccine lobbyist United Kingdom /Scotland, and Linda Thompson, Treasurer.
We are demanding the HPV vaccines be taken off the market until an independent study on their safety and efficacy has been conducted. Until then, we are committing our efforts to an educational media campaign to alert the public about the dangers of the HPV vaccines.
SANE Vax, Inc. is involved in the ground-breaking production of the One More Girl Documentary. Please join our cause by contributing to this project at http://www.kickstarter.com/projects....
For more information, please visit our site at http://sanevax.org/.
Articles Related to This Article:
• Facebook crowdsourced investigation exposes vaccine denials of SIGA Technologies
• Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines
• Flu vaccines revealed as the greatest quackery ever pushed in the history of medicine
• NaturalNews exclusive: International Medical Council on Vaccination refutes vaccine propaganda with myth-busting report
• The great thimerosal cover-up: Mercury, vaccines, autism and your child's health
• Are mandatory vaccinations acts of violence against children?
Related video from NaturalNews.TV
Your NaturalNews.TV video could be here.
Upload your own
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031300_Gardasil_stillbirth.html#ixzz1Dt3MJurL
http://www.naturalnews.com/031300_Gardasil_stillbirth.html
Blood Type Diet (why it's impossible to follow worldwide)
Comments from Rave Diet website:
The blood type diet theory posits that type B’s should thrive on dairy products. This sounds great to Americans because the vast majority of white Americans (and Europeans) tolerate lactose (a sugar found in dairy products). On the other hand, the highest percentage of type B’s in the world is found in Asia. But since 90 percent of Asians are lactose-intolerant I can guarantee you they will not thrive on dairy products – just the opposite! This is just one way the blood type theory comes crashing down to reality.
For other ways, we have reprinted, with permission, an article written by Michael Klaper, M.D., below. Dr. Klaper graduated from the University of Illinois College of Medicine in Chicago in 1972. He served his medical internship at Vancouver General Hospital in British Columbia, Canada and took additional training in surgery, anesthesiology, orthopedics and obstetrics at the University of California Hospitals in San Francisco. Dr. Klaper has served as advisor to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (N.A.S.A.) project on nutrition for long-term space colonists on the moon and on mars.
The 'Blood Type Diet: Fact or Fiction?
-Michael Klaper, M.D.
The “blood type diet” theory has gained widespread attention from the public since the release of “Eat Right For Your Type” by Peter J. D'Adamo, N. D. (G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1996). The book's basic premise - that Type O's are the dominant, hunter-caveman type that require meat in the diet, that Type A's are docile vegetarians, while Type B's are dairy-eating omnivores - has become a manifesto for many people to rationalize including regular portions of meat and other animal products in their diet. (“After all, my ancestors did it.”) However, the “blood type diet” theory, and the book that promotes it, presents many problems that prevent me from seriously basing any of my dietary choices upon them.
One of the book's most disturbing characteristics is the frightening images that the author calls forth without providing scientific documentation. For example, D'Adamo hangs much of his theory on the action of lectins, proteins found on the surface of certain foods that can cause various molecules and some types of cells to stick together. He blames lectins for serious disruptions throughout the body, from agglutination of the blood cells to cirrhosis and kidney failure (page 24). He even scares the reader about these lectin “boogie men” with the tale of ex-KGB agent Georgie Markov who was murdered with an injection of the ultra-potent lectin, ricin. Then, on Page 53, D'Adamo states that, “...certain beans and legumes, especially lentils and kidney beans, contain lectins that deposit in your muscle tissues, making them more alkaline and less charged for physical activity.” This is quite a serious scientific charge, and an alarming thought if you are blood Type O - namely, that after eating a bowl of bean chili or lentil stew, lectin proteins are depositing in your muscles and altering their function, changing their acidity, and diminishing your capability for physical action.
If one is going to make a statement like that - and publish it in a book destined for the New York Times bestseller list and intended to change the eating habits of a nation - I believe the author is obligated to present solid scientific evidence of supporting their assertions, which D'Adamo repeatedly fails to do. (An example of an author who presents credible proof is Dean Ornish, M.D., who published in his book the “before and after” photographs of X-rays demonstrating increased blood flow through arteries which had opened more widely after patients had participated in his diet and lifestyle program.) If an author is going to frighten millions of Type O readers about eating kidney beans, lentils, and wheat, I think they are obligated to provide verifyable evidence. To begin to convince me of the existence of his “lectin gremlins,” he would have to publish photographs, taken through a microscope, of muscle tissue biopsied from people with Type O, Type A, Type B, and Type AB blood after they have eaten kidney beans and/or lentils. The photographs should clearly show the lectin deposits in the muscles of people with Type O blood - and not in the tissue samples from the muscles of people with Type A blood. If an author cannot produce proof like this, or clearly cite the scientific references in the text where other people have demonstrated such proof, his credibility, to me, is severely diminished. D'Adamo presents neither photos nor corroborating studies to support his speculations.
As for the rest of his statement regarding lectins changing the muscles, “making them more alkaline and less charged for physical activity,” to substantiate that assertion the author would need to publish or cite studies wherein microelectrodes that measure acidity inside the cells were inserted into the muscles of people of various blood types. After they all ate a meal of lentils and kidney beans, if D'Adamo is to be believed, a significantly greater shift towards alkalinity should be seen in the muscles of the Type O subjects. Yet, no such studies are presented. If an author doesn't have this kind of proof, is it responsible for him to make statements that may frighten millions of people from eating high-protein, high-fibre legumes and other potentially valuable foods? It may indeed be best for a particular person not to eat a particular legume - but they should do so for solid nutritional/medical reasons (allergies, colitis, etc.) independent of their blood type.
What finally pushes the “blood type” theory beyond the limits of believability for me is the primary mechanism of physiologic damage that D'Adamo postulates - namely, lectin proteins on some foods causing blood agglutination in certain people of blood types who are “not genetically/evolutionarily suited” to eat those foods. This is a very serious - and potentially life-threatening - phenomenon that he proposes. Agglutination means that the red cells in your bloodstream are irreversibly sticking together and forming clumps. Once they begin to clump together, they don't come apart. (Note that this is very different than blood sludging, or so-called rouleoux formation - a phenomenon seen when the surface of the red cells become coated with fat or other substances to make them sticky enough to temporarily and reversibly adhere to each other's surfaces - but not to become permanently bonded through irreversible intertwining of surface proteins, which is what happens in agglutination.) Having your blood agglutinate as it circulates through your body is not conducive to good health - or to long term (or short term) survival...
What is so bad about little clumps of red blood cells sailing through the bloodstream? Red blood cells deliver oxygen to the cells of vital tissues like the brain, heart and kidneys. To accomplish this delivery, they must flow through the tiniest of blood vessels - capillaries so narrow that the red blood cells must line up single file to get through. If the red cells are being agglutinated by lectins or anything else, clumps of red cells will clog up the capillaries and block the blood flow. Thus, the blood stream will be prevented from delivering its life-sustaining cargo of oxygen to the tissues served by those capillaries. Cells deprived of oxygen become damaged, and eventually die (cell death is called “infarction” of tissue.)
Since most people are unaware of their blood types, let alone what foods are “evolutionarily inappropriate” for them to eat, it is reasonable to assume that on most days most people eat the “wrong foods” for their blood type (e.g., Type O eating wheat, Type A eating meat, etc.). Thus, according to D'Adamo's theory, most everyone experiences repeated showers of agglutinated red cells throughout their bloodstream after most every meal - day after day, month after month, year after year. If the capillary beds in your heart, lungs, kidneys, brain, eyes, and other essential organs are subjected to barrage after barrage of agglutinated red cells, they will eventually begin to clog up. These micro-areas of diminished blood flow would at first cause scattered, then more concentrated areas of tissue damage - with eventually many micro-infarctions scattered throughout these vital structures. The brain, heart, lungs, kidneys and adrenals would soon be irreparably damaged by these processes, resulting in potentially fatal outcomes in millions of people.
Such a syndrome of organ failures due to lectin-induced micro-infarctions of the brain, heart, kidneys, retinas, and adrenals would be well known to pathologists and other medical scientists. It would not be a subtle disease. In the pathology texts, there would be clear descriptions - complete with photographs taken through high-power, optical microscopes as well as electron microscopes - of damage from lectin deposits and blood agglutination in most major organ systems. The existence and intricacies of such a widespread disease would be as common knowledge among physicians and cell scientists as atherosclerosis is today. Yet, I am aware of no such descriptions in the pathologic literature. No pathologist I know has ever mentioned tissue infarction from lectin-induced red cell agglutination as a cause of any disease in humans.
So when I read a “one size fits all” statement like on page 63, “Type O's do not tolerate whole wheat products at all,” I have to ask, “What does he mean, 'at all'?” Do Type O's eat a whole wheat cracker and fall on the ground holding their abdomen and vomiting - or worse yet, suffer immediate brain damage due to their blood cells agglutinating throughout their brain? How much wheat can a Type O eat before their blood agglutinates? One hamburger bun? One noodle?
I'm not denying that many people do experience problems when they eat wheat. They do, but they do so because they have a true wheat allergy, gluten intolerance, or some other verifyable mechanism - not because of some sugar and protein molecules sticking up from the surface of their red blood cells. Like D'Adamo, I grant that wheat can be a problematic food for people with colitis, and I often recommend eliminating it from the diet. Lectins may even play a role in the inflammatory process for some people. However, before one tells millions of individuals with Type O blood to never eat whole wheat - many of whom apparently have no difficulty with whole wheat and who rely on breads as a major source of energy and protein - isn't some convincing scientific proof required? I feel that author D'Adamo at least owes his readers a text citation with supporting evidence that wheat-induced colon dysfunction is a condition peculiar to Type O's. Yet, his text is devoid of scientific endnote citations.
To convince me, he would need to show me photographs of intestinal tissue from Type O people who have recently eaten wheat and who clearly have evidence of lectin agglutination clogging up the function of their intestinal cells. I would also need to see pictures of tissue biopsies from Types A, B, and AB whose intestinal walls are seen to be undamaged and far less burdened with lectin deposits than those with Type O blood. As far as I know, inflammation of the intestine, like colitis, Crohn's disease, and gluten sensitivities, occurs in people of all blood groups, not just Type O - and D'Adamo cites no convincing proof to the contrary.
Author D'Adamo also makes three hard-to-believe statements concerning dairy products - two which made me doubt his understanding of basic science and one that raises concerns about the safety of his nutritional advice:
1.) D'Adamo states on Page 23 that, “If a person with Type A blood drinks it (milk), his system will immediately start the agglutination process in order to reject it.” If he wants me to believe a statement like that, he had best show me pictures of Type A blood cells under the microscope agglutinating after the person drinks milk, wherein Type O and Type B blood cells are shown not to agglutinate. He again shows no such photos or other believable evidence of the phenomenon. D'Adamo would also have to explain why Type A people who drink milk (sometimes-massive quantities of it) do not suffer strokes and emboli as their blood agglutinates throughout their vascular system. He presents neither proof nor even plausible explanations for the above - very troubling in a book presented as “based on science.”
2.) On page 151, D'Adamo states that, “...the primary sugar in the Type B antigen is D-galactosamine, the very same sugar present in milk.” Actually, the primary sugar present in milk is not D-galactosamine, but rather, lactose. Lactose is a very different molecule than D-galactosamine, with very different chemical properties. Even if there were significant amounts of D-galactosamine in cow's milk, the antibodies in a Type A person's blood that agglutinate with a Type B person's blood cells do so by reacting not with D-galactosamine alone, but with a molecule of D-galactosamine combined with a molecule of the sugar, fucose, projecting from the surface of the red blood cell. Just because Type A antibodies will agglutinate with D-galactosamine+fucose on the surface of a Type B red cell, does not mean Type A blood will agglutinate with the lactose (or even free D-galactosamine) in cow's milk. (It is recognized that people of any blood type may react badly to cow's milk and other dairy products - for a variety of reasons, but likely not because lectins in the milk are agglutinating their “wrong” type blood cells.)
3.) A statement that causes me great concern regarding the safety of D'Adamo's dietary advice appears on page 37, where, despite widespread knowledge that many non-Caucasians are intolerant of dairy products due to the normal disappearance of lactase enzymes in their intestinal cells, D'Adamo recommends that “Type B's of Asian descent may need to incorporate them (dairy products) more slowly into their diets as they adjust their systems to them.” This seems like strange counsel from an author trying to improve the intestinal health of his public. I fear that the consequences for many of his unsuspecting, lactase-deficient readers who follow such advice will be severe bouts of abdominal cramps and diarrhea.
Another assertion in this book that make me not want to recommend it to my patients is on page 53, where D'Adamo writes that:
“This condition, called hypothyroidism, occurs because Type O's tend not to produce enough iodine.” The reality is that the body does not “produce” iodine at all, any more than it produces calcium, magnesium, sodium, or any other earth mineral. Iodine is a halogen element, related to chlorine and bromine, which is taken up by plants from the soil and in the sea - which are then consumed in the diet. To worry tens of millions of Type O readers that they “may not be producing enough iodine” (which no one does) and are thus at risk for hypothyroidism, is unfounded and, I feel, unnecessarily worrying. The causes of clinical hypothyroidism are complex issues, probably involving autoimmune and other mechanisms of injury to the thyroid tissue. To imply that eating red meat and avoiding wheat (a “Type O diet”) will help the Type O person “produce iodine” is unsubstantiated and may not only raise false hopes in the reader, but may also increase the risk of meat-associated diseases.
Beyond the usual association with heart attack, stroke, osteoporosis, colon cancers and other degenerative diseases, animal-based diets foster the growth of pathogenic organisms in the intestine, which can injure the intestinal wall and lead to the “leaky gut syndrome” - a condition of increased intestinal permeability which allows injurious fragments of antigenic food proteins and bacterial breakdown products to leak into the bloodstream (1). These foreign, inflammation-inciting substances can, in turn, exacerbate rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other autoimmune diseases in tissues throughout the body (2). The bacteria in the colons of people who consume vegan diets are far less likely to cause these kinds of diseases (3).
Repeatedly packing the colon full of meat residue from a high protein diet has been shown to be highly correlated with cancer of the colon - among the leading killers of industrial nations (4). In fact, animal protein seems to be “high octane fuel” for the growth of many kinds of cancers (5). I fear that the apparent improvement experienced by many people who use the “zone” rationale to become big-time carnivores will ultimately be at the cost of damaged vital organs and more lethal and degenerative diseases.
Beyond his views on biology, I was disappointed in D'Adamo's psychological portrayal of people of vegetarian persuasion. In the book, he tells flesh-eating Type O's that they have a “genetic memory of strength, endurance, self-reliance, daring, intuition, and innate optimism...”, “the epitome of focus, drive...”, “hardy and strong, fueled by a high protein diet” (is he describing a Type O “master race”?), while he paints the “more vegetarian” Type A as submissive tofu eaters, “biologically predisposed to heart disease, cancer and diabetes” (p. 97). He labels Type A's with personalities “...poorly suited for the intense, high-pressured leadership positions at which Type O's excel,” (p.142), stating that, in pressure situations, people with Type A blood “tend to unravel” and “become anxious and paranoid, taking everything personally.” Finally, on page 143, he saddles the group with the dark image of Adolph Hitler, “...a mutated Type A personality.” D'Adamo's system seems to create a “blood type astrology” (“What's your type? O Positive? knew it! So am I!”) that imposes strange, limiting stereotypes on very complex human beings.
Remember, there is nothing sacrosanct about the ABO blood typing system devised by Dr. Landsteiner in the 1920's. It is only one system classifying more than thirty proteins on the surface of cells that determine other blood groups, with names like Auberger, Diego, Duffy, Kell, Kidd, Lewis, Lutheran, MNSs, P, Rh, Sutter, and Xg. This means that food selections that may be “right” for the ABO blood group system might be “dead wrong” for someone's Kell or idd antigens. Why are we deifying the D- galactosamine-fucose molecules on the red cell surfaces that determine ABO Type?
In my opinion, D'Adamo has spun an evolutionary fairy tale that leaves many unanswered questions. What exactly is he proposing happened to Type O hunter-gatherers when the Type people began growing wheat, barley and other grains? Do Type O people eat a mouthful of barley and fall down in the dust, unable to work and reproduce? Do they then become warlike and club the agrarian people to death because lectins are clogging their intestines? Do the genetic changes to Type A blood type magically appear just before a society grows new grains (allowing them to eat the new grains in the first place), or did Type A blood types emerge after the grains are grown, as the people with Type O blood died out from their blood agglutinating in their brains? And why would so many of the native Indians of North America, classic Type O hunters, go to the trouble of cultivating high-lectin corn (maize)? Someone talk some science to me, please...
Is the blood type the ultimate determinant of successful adaptation to a particular dietary style? How do we explain the experience of people who say, “I tried to be a vegetarian and it didn't work for me - so I added some meat back into my diet and I feel better. I guess I'm a Type O caveman,” or “A practitioner of 'live cell' analysis stuck my finger and I saw my blood agglutinate! He said I must have eaten foods wrong for my blood type!” I hear variations of these two statements several times per year. Do either of these phenomena validate D'Adamo's blood type theory?
First, the red cell clumping on the TV screen... I have walked through many medical meetings and health expos and seen this demonstration set up and performed many times. A subject's finger is punctured and a drop of their blood is placed under the microscope slide with the image projected on a large screen or television monitor. The results can appear quite dramatic as a person often sees on the TV screen their red blood cells, platelets, and other cellular elements apparently misshapen and clumped together. It can then be an opportune time to convince the startled person that their blood is laden with toxins or deficient in vital minerals or some other nutrient - and then sell them the “necessary” supplements that the “live cell analyst” happens to be purveying.
Though the images may be graphically convincing, the unsuspecting subject is probably unaware that they may have just witnessed a biological parlor trick. The “live cell analyst” has probably failed to inform them that the “agglutinating” effect seen on the screen can be produced by a number of factors, most having nothing to do with lectins, blood type, or any other forces beyond the physics and chemistry of a drop of blood on a slide. Remember, that a drop of blood on the microscope slide is very different than a drop of blood flowing through your bloodstream.
While flowing naturally through the bloodstream within the arteries and veins, the blood is shielded from light, is held at a constant temperature of 98.6 F., is under much higher pressure than room air, and is physically moving very rapidly through the “piping” system of blood vessels. These are all factors which profoundly affect the surface characteristics of the red blood cells, making them less likely to stick together. The red cells' rapid motion through the bloodstream also prevents antibody fixation, blood clotting factor activation, and other pro-agglutinating forces from exerting much effect. When the drop of blood is squeezed out onto the microscope slide, all these factors are changed or eliminated. At that point, physical forces - cooler temperatures, lower pressure, exposure to light, physical stagnation, activation of enzyme systems, etc. - begin to affect the blood on the slide in ways that may make it much more likely that the cells may begin to clump together - independent of blood type or presence of lectins.
In addition to the above purely physical influences, other chemical factors may be at work on the slide to create the appearance of clumping - independent of the person's blood group. These chemical agents include:
1. The person's last meal. In particular, the fats from the egg yolk at breakfast or the olive oil in the salad dressing at lunch may be invisibly coating the red blood cells, making them stickier and more likely to adhere together. Fats will make red blood cells of all blood types sticky and more likely to clump together. In my experience, “live cell analysts” seldom ask the subject about their last meal nor analyze it for the fat content.
2. Antibodies (immune proteins that can bind to cells) left over from a recent viral infection or allergic reaction - but not associated with food lectins - can coat red blood cells and make them prone to clump together.
3. Molecules with unknown chemical properties, introduced into our blood from living in the “civilized world” - such as food colorings, food preservatives like BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene), hydrogenated oils eaten in fast foods, snacks, and restaurant meals, as well as birth control pills, aspirin, cold medications, and over-the-counter remedies, etc. - may affect the tendency of blood cells to clump, independent of lectins or blood type.
4. The acidity (pH) of the blood, the levels of calcium, sodium, and other circulating minerals - even the concentration of salt in the “saline solution” that the “live cell analyst” mixes with the drop of blood - can all dramatically affect its behavior and appearance on the slide. Add to this the effects of exercise, medications, even a prolonged time since the last drink of water - it's no wonder the blood on the slide might look strange. There are hundreds of unseen forces acting upon the red blood cells, platelets, and suspended plasma proteins.
Under some conditions, the blood cells of some individuals might even tend to clump together when viewed on the television screen. However, this does not mean that individual is ill, suffering from a nutritional deficiency, or is being agglutinated internally from the lectins in their diet. Unfortunately, this is often not the message they receive from the “live cell analyst” about to make a recommendation as to which one of their proprietary supplements to buy in order to remedy the “condition.”
(This is not to imply that all people performing “live cell analysis” are unscrupulous, but only that the technology creates a powerful imagery and it is easy to abuse. There seems to be quite a number of people demonstrating the televised technique for the public who are unaware of the subtleties of the blood stream and the body - and thus not qualified to make clinical diagnoses based upon what they are seeing on the TV monitor. Yet, it is very easy for “a live cell analyst “ - for reasons altruistic, capitalistic, or otherwise - to issue an ominous-sounding term or diagnosis to an unsuspecting member of the public. I have had several people consult me, worried that their blood was agglutinating inside their arteries, or that their “immune system was shot,” based upon comments made at a health expo by a “live cell analyst” - who had received little more than a weekend training course. The public should be made aware of the limitations of the “live cell analysis” technique, so they are not unduly frightened by what they may see on the screen or hear from the analyst.)
What of the people who say they feel better when they resumed flesh eating after intervals of consuming vegetarian or vegan diets? Unquestionably, their experiences have some important messages for us. But what are they? Here are some possibilities...
It is known that, in some people, merely adjusting the proportions of proteins, fats and sugars in any manner significantly new to their body can produce noticeable improvements in the way they feel. Changing the proportion of raw vs. cooked foods can similarly have beneficial effects. Some people who feel that their health has improved after adopting a “zone” or “blood type” diet may actually be benefiting from just eating less carbohydrates, more protein, etc. We plan to investigate whether some of the individuals who re-introduced animal products into their diet could have achieved similar effects by altering their selection and quantities of plant-based foods.
We recognize that there are significant metabolic differences between people. It may well be that some of these differences may propel certain individuals towards flesh consumption. It may be, however, that the cause is not so much genetic, as acquired after birth. Remember, virtually every person who reports adding meat back into a previously vegetarian diet is an individual who was raised on a meat-based diet.
Why is this important? The kind of foods one eats in their early years may set biochemical patterns that last for a lifetime. For example, the human body can synthesize from simpler molecules some essential substances like carnitine (required for energy production) and some long-chain fatty acids (EPA, DHA, etc., needed for hormone function, membrane synthesis, etc.). People who eat meat ingest these substances, pre-formed, in the muscles and other animal tissues they consume. It may be that the body of a person raised as a life-long omnivore becomes functionally dependent upon a diet that contains these pre-formed nutrients. As adults, if they suddenly change to a completely plant-based style of eating, where the foods are essentially devoid of pre-formed carnitine, EPA, DHA, etc., they may find themselves in a body with enzyme systems unable to synthesize all the energy-generating compounds, fatty acids, and other molecules they may require.
After months or years on a flesh-free diet, these individuals might experience deterioration of their health or energy - only to feel better upon resumption of meat ingestion. To the person, this may seem like confirmation that they are “natural meat eaters.” Rather, it may be evidence of an acquired dependency on flesh-borne nutrients formed through early eating patterns. If this is the case, it may be possible to prevent, repair, or at least compensate for these imbalances through provision of additional nutrients, removal of inhibiting substances in the diet, varying combinations of food, etc., utilizing foods of plant-based origin. There is much to learn about the subject and much research needs to be done.
In my experience, these problems are not encountered in people raised on vegetarian diets from infancy. This effect might be especially pronounced in long-term omnivores who make an abrupt change to a vegan diet, as opposed to those who taper flesh foods out of their diet more gradually. It may be that some “omnivore-from-birth” people who desire to sustain themselves on a vegan diet may have to make a more graded transition to completely plant-based foods, sometimes over several weeks or months, to give the body time to “gear up” its metabolic machinery. In other words, what appears to be a “natural need for meat” may really be the need for an attenuated weaning process from animal products in order to overcome metabolic patterns begun early in life, created largely by cultural practices.
Through the Institute of Nutrition Education and Research, we plan to study these phenomena in detail and will attempt to identify any nutrients that may be required in larger amounts when consuming vegetarian diets. A goal of our research is to develop science-based guidelines to aid anyone who chooses to nourish their body on exclusively plant-based foods to do so with optimal benefits to their health and well being.
An additional thought: Less than optimal function on a plant-based diet (or any diet) may not stem from a “lack of meat” or a nutrient deficiency at all, but rather from an individual's other health conditions, like digestive dysfunction, malabsorption by the intestine, parasite problems, adverse immune reactions, etc. To me, these are far more likely mechanisms that could explain the “failure-to-thrive” syndrome occasionally seen in vegetarians and vegans - rather than a genetic mandate to consume flesh determined by their blood type. Much more research is needed to obtain the answers to so many questions in this essential but subtle science.
Beyond the “blood type issue,” perhaps a deeper question about any book which advocates a meat-based diet for the majority of the population is, “In today's world, is eating meat, in any form, safe?” It appears that to base one's diet around animal foods is becoming a high-risk activity, similar to unsafe sex or driving without wearing a seat belt. Consider the smorgasbord of health hazards available at today's meat counters. It's a safe bet that virtually every cut of “fresh” meat produced commercially in North America today contains:
Residues of hydrocarbon pesticides and herbicides, linked to cancers and birth defects,
Residues of antibiotics and growth-augmenting sex hormones fed to the animals and stored in their tissues,
Fecal microbes, like the potentially lethal E. coli 0:157 and Salmonella bacteria. (Hamburger roulette, anyone?)
The nightmare specter of the brain-destroying prion protein, the cause of spongioform encephalopathies - “mad cow disease” in bovines - Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease, or CJD in humans. (I feel sadly certain that what occurred in England with mad cow disease will probably occur here in North America and other parts of the world.)
Given these ever-increasing risks connected to meat consumption, I fear that the theories and books that attempt to justify and promote the eating of flesh - for whatever reason - could be opening the floodgates of ghastly epidemics five or ten years from now. These plagues likely will have a magnitude that will dwarf everybody's concerns about “being in the zone” or eating “right for your type.”
Finally, no matter what advocates of animal-based diets might say about the merits of being in the “zone” or “eating right for your blood type,” from an ecological standpoint, a meat-based diet for the world's population is non-achievable and, for even a sizeable minority, is non-sustainable. The world's soils, waters, and forests are being decimated to produce meat-based diets. We are destroying the life support systems of our planet - of our children's planet - for a mouthful of flesh. To me, the promotion of diets centered around meat increases the chances of ecological catastrophes and thus jeopardizes each of our futures.
I wish for everyone optimal health, happiness, and longevity. We owe it to ourselves, to our children, and to all who come after them, to see how optimal function and life span can be achieved on diets that are truly sustainable - for individuals, for societies, and for the planet. It is, after all, the food of all our futures.
-Michael Klaper, M.D.
References
(1) Galland, L. Intestinal Dysbiosis and the Causes of Disease. Journal of Advancement in Medicine - Vol.6, No.2, Summer, 1993; Inman, R. Antigens, the Gastrointestinal Tract, and Arthritis. Rheumatic Disease Clinics of North America - Vol. 17, No. 2, May 1991; Katz, K. Intestinal mucosal permeability and rheumatological diseases. Bailliere's Clinical Rheumatology - Vol. 3, No. 2, August, 1989.
(2) Kjeldsen-Kragh, J. Controlled trial of fasting and one-year vegetarian diet in rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet, 1991; 338:899-902; Mielants, et al. Intestinal Mucosal Permeability in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases. II. Role of Disease. (J. Rheumatol. 1991; 18:394-100).
(3) Peltonen, R., et al. Changes of Faecal Flora in Rheumatoid Arthritis During Fasting and One-Year Vegetarian Diet. British Journal of Rheumatology 1994; 33:638-643; Ling, W. Shifting from a Conventional Diet to an Uncooked Vegan Diet Reversibly Alters Fecal Hydrolytic Activities in Humans. Journal of Nutrition, 122: 924- 930,1992.
(4) Bidoli, E. et al (1992), Food consumption and cancer of the colon and rectum in North-Eastern Italy, International Jnl of Cancer v.50 p.223-229; Rao, A V. & Janezic, S A. (1992), The role of dietary phyosterols in colon carcinogenesis, Nutrition & Cancer v.18 (1) p.43-52; Willett, W C. et al (1990), Relation of meat, fat and fibre intake to the risk of colon cancer in a prospective study among women, New England Jnl of Medicine v.323 (24) p.1664-1672.
(5) Mills, P. K. (1988), Animal product consumption and subsequent fatal breast cancer risk among Seventh-Day Adventists, American Jnl of Epidemiology v.127 (3) p.440-453; Fraser, G. E. et al (1991), Diet and lung cancer in California Seventh-Day Adventists, American Jnl of Epidemiology v.133 (7) p.683-693.
http://www.ravediet.com/bloodtypediet.html
The blood type diet theory posits that type B’s should thrive on dairy products. This sounds great to Americans because the vast majority of white Americans (and Europeans) tolerate lactose (a sugar found in dairy products). On the other hand, the highest percentage of type B’s in the world is found in Asia. But since 90 percent of Asians are lactose-intolerant I can guarantee you they will not thrive on dairy products – just the opposite! This is just one way the blood type theory comes crashing down to reality.
For other ways, we have reprinted, with permission, an article written by Michael Klaper, M.D., below. Dr. Klaper graduated from the University of Illinois College of Medicine in Chicago in 1972. He served his medical internship at Vancouver General Hospital in British Columbia, Canada and took additional training in surgery, anesthesiology, orthopedics and obstetrics at the University of California Hospitals in San Francisco. Dr. Klaper has served as advisor to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (N.A.S.A.) project on nutrition for long-term space colonists on the moon and on mars.
The 'Blood Type Diet: Fact or Fiction?
-Michael Klaper, M.D.
The “blood type diet” theory has gained widespread attention from the public since the release of “Eat Right For Your Type” by Peter J. D'Adamo, N. D. (G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1996). The book's basic premise - that Type O's are the dominant, hunter-caveman type that require meat in the diet, that Type A's are docile vegetarians, while Type B's are dairy-eating omnivores - has become a manifesto for many people to rationalize including regular portions of meat and other animal products in their diet. (“After all, my ancestors did it.”) However, the “blood type diet” theory, and the book that promotes it, presents many problems that prevent me from seriously basing any of my dietary choices upon them.
One of the book's most disturbing characteristics is the frightening images that the author calls forth without providing scientific documentation. For example, D'Adamo hangs much of his theory on the action of lectins, proteins found on the surface of certain foods that can cause various molecules and some types of cells to stick together. He blames lectins for serious disruptions throughout the body, from agglutination of the blood cells to cirrhosis and kidney failure (page 24). He even scares the reader about these lectin “boogie men” with the tale of ex-KGB agent Georgie Markov who was murdered with an injection of the ultra-potent lectin, ricin. Then, on Page 53, D'Adamo states that, “...certain beans and legumes, especially lentils and kidney beans, contain lectins that deposit in your muscle tissues, making them more alkaline and less charged for physical activity.” This is quite a serious scientific charge, and an alarming thought if you are blood Type O - namely, that after eating a bowl of bean chili or lentil stew, lectin proteins are depositing in your muscles and altering their function, changing their acidity, and diminishing your capability for physical action.
If one is going to make a statement like that - and publish it in a book destined for the New York Times bestseller list and intended to change the eating habits of a nation - I believe the author is obligated to present solid scientific evidence of supporting their assertions, which D'Adamo repeatedly fails to do. (An example of an author who presents credible proof is Dean Ornish, M.D., who published in his book the “before and after” photographs of X-rays demonstrating increased blood flow through arteries which had opened more widely after patients had participated in his diet and lifestyle program.) If an author is going to frighten millions of Type O readers about eating kidney beans, lentils, and wheat, I think they are obligated to provide verifyable evidence. To begin to convince me of the existence of his “lectin gremlins,” he would have to publish photographs, taken through a microscope, of muscle tissue biopsied from people with Type O, Type A, Type B, and Type AB blood after they have eaten kidney beans and/or lentils. The photographs should clearly show the lectin deposits in the muscles of people with Type O blood - and not in the tissue samples from the muscles of people with Type A blood. If an author cannot produce proof like this, or clearly cite the scientific references in the text where other people have demonstrated such proof, his credibility, to me, is severely diminished. D'Adamo presents neither photos nor corroborating studies to support his speculations.
As for the rest of his statement regarding lectins changing the muscles, “making them more alkaline and less charged for physical activity,” to substantiate that assertion the author would need to publish or cite studies wherein microelectrodes that measure acidity inside the cells were inserted into the muscles of people of various blood types. After they all ate a meal of lentils and kidney beans, if D'Adamo is to be believed, a significantly greater shift towards alkalinity should be seen in the muscles of the Type O subjects. Yet, no such studies are presented. If an author doesn't have this kind of proof, is it responsible for him to make statements that may frighten millions of people from eating high-protein, high-fibre legumes and other potentially valuable foods? It may indeed be best for a particular person not to eat a particular legume - but they should do so for solid nutritional/medical reasons (allergies, colitis, etc.) independent of their blood type.
What finally pushes the “blood type” theory beyond the limits of believability for me is the primary mechanism of physiologic damage that D'Adamo postulates - namely, lectin proteins on some foods causing blood agglutination in certain people of blood types who are “not genetically/evolutionarily suited” to eat those foods. This is a very serious - and potentially life-threatening - phenomenon that he proposes. Agglutination means that the red cells in your bloodstream are irreversibly sticking together and forming clumps. Once they begin to clump together, they don't come apart. (Note that this is very different than blood sludging, or so-called rouleoux formation - a phenomenon seen when the surface of the red cells become coated with fat or other substances to make them sticky enough to temporarily and reversibly adhere to each other's surfaces - but not to become permanently bonded through irreversible intertwining of surface proteins, which is what happens in agglutination.) Having your blood agglutinate as it circulates through your body is not conducive to good health - or to long term (or short term) survival...
What is so bad about little clumps of red blood cells sailing through the bloodstream? Red blood cells deliver oxygen to the cells of vital tissues like the brain, heart and kidneys. To accomplish this delivery, they must flow through the tiniest of blood vessels - capillaries so narrow that the red blood cells must line up single file to get through. If the red cells are being agglutinated by lectins or anything else, clumps of red cells will clog up the capillaries and block the blood flow. Thus, the blood stream will be prevented from delivering its life-sustaining cargo of oxygen to the tissues served by those capillaries. Cells deprived of oxygen become damaged, and eventually die (cell death is called “infarction” of tissue.)
Since most people are unaware of their blood types, let alone what foods are “evolutionarily inappropriate” for them to eat, it is reasonable to assume that on most days most people eat the “wrong foods” for their blood type (e.g., Type O eating wheat, Type A eating meat, etc.). Thus, according to D'Adamo's theory, most everyone experiences repeated showers of agglutinated red cells throughout their bloodstream after most every meal - day after day, month after month, year after year. If the capillary beds in your heart, lungs, kidneys, brain, eyes, and other essential organs are subjected to barrage after barrage of agglutinated red cells, they will eventually begin to clog up. These micro-areas of diminished blood flow would at first cause scattered, then more concentrated areas of tissue damage - with eventually many micro-infarctions scattered throughout these vital structures. The brain, heart, lungs, kidneys and adrenals would soon be irreparably damaged by these processes, resulting in potentially fatal outcomes in millions of people.
Such a syndrome of organ failures due to lectin-induced micro-infarctions of the brain, heart, kidneys, retinas, and adrenals would be well known to pathologists and other medical scientists. It would not be a subtle disease. In the pathology texts, there would be clear descriptions - complete with photographs taken through high-power, optical microscopes as well as electron microscopes - of damage from lectin deposits and blood agglutination in most major organ systems. The existence and intricacies of such a widespread disease would be as common knowledge among physicians and cell scientists as atherosclerosis is today. Yet, I am aware of no such descriptions in the pathologic literature. No pathologist I know has ever mentioned tissue infarction from lectin-induced red cell agglutination as a cause of any disease in humans.
So when I read a “one size fits all” statement like on page 63, “Type O's do not tolerate whole wheat products at all,” I have to ask, “What does he mean, 'at all'?” Do Type O's eat a whole wheat cracker and fall on the ground holding their abdomen and vomiting - or worse yet, suffer immediate brain damage due to their blood cells agglutinating throughout their brain? How much wheat can a Type O eat before their blood agglutinates? One hamburger bun? One noodle?
I'm not denying that many people do experience problems when they eat wheat. They do, but they do so because they have a true wheat allergy, gluten intolerance, or some other verifyable mechanism - not because of some sugar and protein molecules sticking up from the surface of their red blood cells. Like D'Adamo, I grant that wheat can be a problematic food for people with colitis, and I often recommend eliminating it from the diet. Lectins may even play a role in the inflammatory process for some people. However, before one tells millions of individuals with Type O blood to never eat whole wheat - many of whom apparently have no difficulty with whole wheat and who rely on breads as a major source of energy and protein - isn't some convincing scientific proof required? I feel that author D'Adamo at least owes his readers a text citation with supporting evidence that wheat-induced colon dysfunction is a condition peculiar to Type O's. Yet, his text is devoid of scientific endnote citations.
To convince me, he would need to show me photographs of intestinal tissue from Type O people who have recently eaten wheat and who clearly have evidence of lectin agglutination clogging up the function of their intestinal cells. I would also need to see pictures of tissue biopsies from Types A, B, and AB whose intestinal walls are seen to be undamaged and far less burdened with lectin deposits than those with Type O blood. As far as I know, inflammation of the intestine, like colitis, Crohn's disease, and gluten sensitivities, occurs in people of all blood groups, not just Type O - and D'Adamo cites no convincing proof to the contrary.
Author D'Adamo also makes three hard-to-believe statements concerning dairy products - two which made me doubt his understanding of basic science and one that raises concerns about the safety of his nutritional advice:
1.) D'Adamo states on Page 23 that, “If a person with Type A blood drinks it (milk), his system will immediately start the agglutination process in order to reject it.” If he wants me to believe a statement like that, he had best show me pictures of Type A blood cells under the microscope agglutinating after the person drinks milk, wherein Type O and Type B blood cells are shown not to agglutinate. He again shows no such photos or other believable evidence of the phenomenon. D'Adamo would also have to explain why Type A people who drink milk (sometimes-massive quantities of it) do not suffer strokes and emboli as their blood agglutinates throughout their vascular system. He presents neither proof nor even plausible explanations for the above - very troubling in a book presented as “based on science.”
2.) On page 151, D'Adamo states that, “...the primary sugar in the Type B antigen is D-galactosamine, the very same sugar present in milk.” Actually, the primary sugar present in milk is not D-galactosamine, but rather, lactose. Lactose is a very different molecule than D-galactosamine, with very different chemical properties. Even if there were significant amounts of D-galactosamine in cow's milk, the antibodies in a Type A person's blood that agglutinate with a Type B person's blood cells do so by reacting not with D-galactosamine alone, but with a molecule of D-galactosamine combined with a molecule of the sugar, fucose, projecting from the surface of the red blood cell. Just because Type A antibodies will agglutinate with D-galactosamine+fucose on the surface of a Type B red cell, does not mean Type A blood will agglutinate with the lactose (or even free D-galactosamine) in cow's milk. (It is recognized that people of any blood type may react badly to cow's milk and other dairy products - for a variety of reasons, but likely not because lectins in the milk are agglutinating their “wrong” type blood cells.)
3.) A statement that causes me great concern regarding the safety of D'Adamo's dietary advice appears on page 37, where, despite widespread knowledge that many non-Caucasians are intolerant of dairy products due to the normal disappearance of lactase enzymes in their intestinal cells, D'Adamo recommends that “Type B's of Asian descent may need to incorporate them (dairy products) more slowly into their diets as they adjust their systems to them.” This seems like strange counsel from an author trying to improve the intestinal health of his public. I fear that the consequences for many of his unsuspecting, lactase-deficient readers who follow such advice will be severe bouts of abdominal cramps and diarrhea.
Another assertion in this book that make me not want to recommend it to my patients is on page 53, where D'Adamo writes that:
“This condition, called hypothyroidism, occurs because Type O's tend not to produce enough iodine.” The reality is that the body does not “produce” iodine at all, any more than it produces calcium, magnesium, sodium, or any other earth mineral. Iodine is a halogen element, related to chlorine and bromine, which is taken up by plants from the soil and in the sea - which are then consumed in the diet. To worry tens of millions of Type O readers that they “may not be producing enough iodine” (which no one does) and are thus at risk for hypothyroidism, is unfounded and, I feel, unnecessarily worrying. The causes of clinical hypothyroidism are complex issues, probably involving autoimmune and other mechanisms of injury to the thyroid tissue. To imply that eating red meat and avoiding wheat (a “Type O diet”) will help the Type O person “produce iodine” is unsubstantiated and may not only raise false hopes in the reader, but may also increase the risk of meat-associated diseases.
Beyond the usual association with heart attack, stroke, osteoporosis, colon cancers and other degenerative diseases, animal-based diets foster the growth of pathogenic organisms in the intestine, which can injure the intestinal wall and lead to the “leaky gut syndrome” - a condition of increased intestinal permeability which allows injurious fragments of antigenic food proteins and bacterial breakdown products to leak into the bloodstream (1). These foreign, inflammation-inciting substances can, in turn, exacerbate rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other autoimmune diseases in tissues throughout the body (2). The bacteria in the colons of people who consume vegan diets are far less likely to cause these kinds of diseases (3).
Repeatedly packing the colon full of meat residue from a high protein diet has been shown to be highly correlated with cancer of the colon - among the leading killers of industrial nations (4). In fact, animal protein seems to be “high octane fuel” for the growth of many kinds of cancers (5). I fear that the apparent improvement experienced by many people who use the “zone” rationale to become big-time carnivores will ultimately be at the cost of damaged vital organs and more lethal and degenerative diseases.
Beyond his views on biology, I was disappointed in D'Adamo's psychological portrayal of people of vegetarian persuasion. In the book, he tells flesh-eating Type O's that they have a “genetic memory of strength, endurance, self-reliance, daring, intuition, and innate optimism...”, “the epitome of focus, drive...”, “hardy and strong, fueled by a high protein diet” (is he describing a Type O “master race”?), while he paints the “more vegetarian” Type A as submissive tofu eaters, “biologically predisposed to heart disease, cancer and diabetes” (p. 97). He labels Type A's with personalities “...poorly suited for the intense, high-pressured leadership positions at which Type O's excel,” (p.142), stating that, in pressure situations, people with Type A blood “tend to unravel” and “become anxious and paranoid, taking everything personally.” Finally, on page 143, he saddles the group with the dark image of Adolph Hitler, “...a mutated Type A personality.” D'Adamo's system seems to create a “blood type astrology” (“What's your type? O Positive? knew it! So am I!”) that imposes strange, limiting stereotypes on very complex human beings.
Remember, there is nothing sacrosanct about the ABO blood typing system devised by Dr. Landsteiner in the 1920's. It is only one system classifying more than thirty proteins on the surface of cells that determine other blood groups, with names like Auberger, Diego, Duffy, Kell, Kidd, Lewis, Lutheran, MNSs, P, Rh, Sutter, and Xg. This means that food selections that may be “right” for the ABO blood group system might be “dead wrong” for someone's Kell or idd antigens. Why are we deifying the D- galactosamine-fucose molecules on the red cell surfaces that determine ABO Type?
In my opinion, D'Adamo has spun an evolutionary fairy tale that leaves many unanswered questions. What exactly is he proposing happened to Type O hunter-gatherers when the Type people began growing wheat, barley and other grains? Do Type O people eat a mouthful of barley and fall down in the dust, unable to work and reproduce? Do they then become warlike and club the agrarian people to death because lectins are clogging their intestines? Do the genetic changes to Type A blood type magically appear just before a society grows new grains (allowing them to eat the new grains in the first place), or did Type A blood types emerge after the grains are grown, as the people with Type O blood died out from their blood agglutinating in their brains? And why would so many of the native Indians of North America, classic Type O hunters, go to the trouble of cultivating high-lectin corn (maize)? Someone talk some science to me, please...
Is the blood type the ultimate determinant of successful adaptation to a particular dietary style? How do we explain the experience of people who say, “I tried to be a vegetarian and it didn't work for me - so I added some meat back into my diet and I feel better. I guess I'm a Type O caveman,” or “A practitioner of 'live cell' analysis stuck my finger and I saw my blood agglutinate! He said I must have eaten foods wrong for my blood type!” I hear variations of these two statements several times per year. Do either of these phenomena validate D'Adamo's blood type theory?
First, the red cell clumping on the TV screen... I have walked through many medical meetings and health expos and seen this demonstration set up and performed many times. A subject's finger is punctured and a drop of their blood is placed under the microscope slide with the image projected on a large screen or television monitor. The results can appear quite dramatic as a person often sees on the TV screen their red blood cells, platelets, and other cellular elements apparently misshapen and clumped together. It can then be an opportune time to convince the startled person that their blood is laden with toxins or deficient in vital minerals or some other nutrient - and then sell them the “necessary” supplements that the “live cell analyst” happens to be purveying.
Though the images may be graphically convincing, the unsuspecting subject is probably unaware that they may have just witnessed a biological parlor trick. The “live cell analyst” has probably failed to inform them that the “agglutinating” effect seen on the screen can be produced by a number of factors, most having nothing to do with lectins, blood type, or any other forces beyond the physics and chemistry of a drop of blood on a slide. Remember, that a drop of blood on the microscope slide is very different than a drop of blood flowing through your bloodstream.
While flowing naturally through the bloodstream within the arteries and veins, the blood is shielded from light, is held at a constant temperature of 98.6 F., is under much higher pressure than room air, and is physically moving very rapidly through the “piping” system of blood vessels. These are all factors which profoundly affect the surface characteristics of the red blood cells, making them less likely to stick together. The red cells' rapid motion through the bloodstream also prevents antibody fixation, blood clotting factor activation, and other pro-agglutinating forces from exerting much effect. When the drop of blood is squeezed out onto the microscope slide, all these factors are changed or eliminated. At that point, physical forces - cooler temperatures, lower pressure, exposure to light, physical stagnation, activation of enzyme systems, etc. - begin to affect the blood on the slide in ways that may make it much more likely that the cells may begin to clump together - independent of blood type or presence of lectins.
In addition to the above purely physical influences, other chemical factors may be at work on the slide to create the appearance of clumping - independent of the person's blood group. These chemical agents include:
1. The person's last meal. In particular, the fats from the egg yolk at breakfast or the olive oil in the salad dressing at lunch may be invisibly coating the red blood cells, making them stickier and more likely to adhere together. Fats will make red blood cells of all blood types sticky and more likely to clump together. In my experience, “live cell analysts” seldom ask the subject about their last meal nor analyze it for the fat content.
2. Antibodies (immune proteins that can bind to cells) left over from a recent viral infection or allergic reaction - but not associated with food lectins - can coat red blood cells and make them prone to clump together.
3. Molecules with unknown chemical properties, introduced into our blood from living in the “civilized world” - such as food colorings, food preservatives like BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene), hydrogenated oils eaten in fast foods, snacks, and restaurant meals, as well as birth control pills, aspirin, cold medications, and over-the-counter remedies, etc. - may affect the tendency of blood cells to clump, independent of lectins or blood type.
4. The acidity (pH) of the blood, the levels of calcium, sodium, and other circulating minerals - even the concentration of salt in the “saline solution” that the “live cell analyst” mixes with the drop of blood - can all dramatically affect its behavior and appearance on the slide. Add to this the effects of exercise, medications, even a prolonged time since the last drink of water - it's no wonder the blood on the slide might look strange. There are hundreds of unseen forces acting upon the red blood cells, platelets, and suspended plasma proteins.
Under some conditions, the blood cells of some individuals might even tend to clump together when viewed on the television screen. However, this does not mean that individual is ill, suffering from a nutritional deficiency, or is being agglutinated internally from the lectins in their diet. Unfortunately, this is often not the message they receive from the “live cell analyst” about to make a recommendation as to which one of their proprietary supplements to buy in order to remedy the “condition.”
(This is not to imply that all people performing “live cell analysis” are unscrupulous, but only that the technology creates a powerful imagery and it is easy to abuse. There seems to be quite a number of people demonstrating the televised technique for the public who are unaware of the subtleties of the blood stream and the body - and thus not qualified to make clinical diagnoses based upon what they are seeing on the TV monitor. Yet, it is very easy for “a live cell analyst “ - for reasons altruistic, capitalistic, or otherwise - to issue an ominous-sounding term or diagnosis to an unsuspecting member of the public. I have had several people consult me, worried that their blood was agglutinating inside their arteries, or that their “immune system was shot,” based upon comments made at a health expo by a “live cell analyst” - who had received little more than a weekend training course. The public should be made aware of the limitations of the “live cell analysis” technique, so they are not unduly frightened by what they may see on the screen or hear from the analyst.)
What of the people who say they feel better when they resumed flesh eating after intervals of consuming vegetarian or vegan diets? Unquestionably, their experiences have some important messages for us. But what are they? Here are some possibilities...
It is known that, in some people, merely adjusting the proportions of proteins, fats and sugars in any manner significantly new to their body can produce noticeable improvements in the way they feel. Changing the proportion of raw vs. cooked foods can similarly have beneficial effects. Some people who feel that their health has improved after adopting a “zone” or “blood type” diet may actually be benefiting from just eating less carbohydrates, more protein, etc. We plan to investigate whether some of the individuals who re-introduced animal products into their diet could have achieved similar effects by altering their selection and quantities of plant-based foods.
We recognize that there are significant metabolic differences between people. It may well be that some of these differences may propel certain individuals towards flesh consumption. It may be, however, that the cause is not so much genetic, as acquired after birth. Remember, virtually every person who reports adding meat back into a previously vegetarian diet is an individual who was raised on a meat-based diet.
Why is this important? The kind of foods one eats in their early years may set biochemical patterns that last for a lifetime. For example, the human body can synthesize from simpler molecules some essential substances like carnitine (required for energy production) and some long-chain fatty acids (EPA, DHA, etc., needed for hormone function, membrane synthesis, etc.). People who eat meat ingest these substances, pre-formed, in the muscles and other animal tissues they consume. It may be that the body of a person raised as a life-long omnivore becomes functionally dependent upon a diet that contains these pre-formed nutrients. As adults, if they suddenly change to a completely plant-based style of eating, where the foods are essentially devoid of pre-formed carnitine, EPA, DHA, etc., they may find themselves in a body with enzyme systems unable to synthesize all the energy-generating compounds, fatty acids, and other molecules they may require.
After months or years on a flesh-free diet, these individuals might experience deterioration of their health or energy - only to feel better upon resumption of meat ingestion. To the person, this may seem like confirmation that they are “natural meat eaters.” Rather, it may be evidence of an acquired dependency on flesh-borne nutrients formed through early eating patterns. If this is the case, it may be possible to prevent, repair, or at least compensate for these imbalances through provision of additional nutrients, removal of inhibiting substances in the diet, varying combinations of food, etc., utilizing foods of plant-based origin. There is much to learn about the subject and much research needs to be done.
In my experience, these problems are not encountered in people raised on vegetarian diets from infancy. This effect might be especially pronounced in long-term omnivores who make an abrupt change to a vegan diet, as opposed to those who taper flesh foods out of their diet more gradually. It may be that some “omnivore-from-birth” people who desire to sustain themselves on a vegan diet may have to make a more graded transition to completely plant-based foods, sometimes over several weeks or months, to give the body time to “gear up” its metabolic machinery. In other words, what appears to be a “natural need for meat” may really be the need for an attenuated weaning process from animal products in order to overcome metabolic patterns begun early in life, created largely by cultural practices.
Through the Institute of Nutrition Education and Research, we plan to study these phenomena in detail and will attempt to identify any nutrients that may be required in larger amounts when consuming vegetarian diets. A goal of our research is to develop science-based guidelines to aid anyone who chooses to nourish their body on exclusively plant-based foods to do so with optimal benefits to their health and well being.
An additional thought: Less than optimal function on a plant-based diet (or any diet) may not stem from a “lack of meat” or a nutrient deficiency at all, but rather from an individual's other health conditions, like digestive dysfunction, malabsorption by the intestine, parasite problems, adverse immune reactions, etc. To me, these are far more likely mechanisms that could explain the “failure-to-thrive” syndrome occasionally seen in vegetarians and vegans - rather than a genetic mandate to consume flesh determined by their blood type. Much more research is needed to obtain the answers to so many questions in this essential but subtle science.
Beyond the “blood type issue,” perhaps a deeper question about any book which advocates a meat-based diet for the majority of the population is, “In today's world, is eating meat, in any form, safe?” It appears that to base one's diet around animal foods is becoming a high-risk activity, similar to unsafe sex or driving without wearing a seat belt. Consider the smorgasbord of health hazards available at today's meat counters. It's a safe bet that virtually every cut of “fresh” meat produced commercially in North America today contains:
Residues of hydrocarbon pesticides and herbicides, linked to cancers and birth defects,
Residues of antibiotics and growth-augmenting sex hormones fed to the animals and stored in their tissues,
Fecal microbes, like the potentially lethal E. coli 0:157 and Salmonella bacteria. (Hamburger roulette, anyone?)
The nightmare specter of the brain-destroying prion protein, the cause of spongioform encephalopathies - “mad cow disease” in bovines - Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease, or CJD in humans. (I feel sadly certain that what occurred in England with mad cow disease will probably occur here in North America and other parts of the world.)
Given these ever-increasing risks connected to meat consumption, I fear that the theories and books that attempt to justify and promote the eating of flesh - for whatever reason - could be opening the floodgates of ghastly epidemics five or ten years from now. These plagues likely will have a magnitude that will dwarf everybody's concerns about “being in the zone” or eating “right for your type.”
Finally, no matter what advocates of animal-based diets might say about the merits of being in the “zone” or “eating right for your blood type,” from an ecological standpoint, a meat-based diet for the world's population is non-achievable and, for even a sizeable minority, is non-sustainable. The world's soils, waters, and forests are being decimated to produce meat-based diets. We are destroying the life support systems of our planet - of our children's planet - for a mouthful of flesh. To me, the promotion of diets centered around meat increases the chances of ecological catastrophes and thus jeopardizes each of our futures.
I wish for everyone optimal health, happiness, and longevity. We owe it to ourselves, to our children, and to all who come after them, to see how optimal function and life span can be achieved on diets that are truly sustainable - for individuals, for societies, and for the planet. It is, after all, the food of all our futures.
-Michael Klaper, M.D.
References
(1) Galland, L. Intestinal Dysbiosis and the Causes of Disease. Journal of Advancement in Medicine - Vol.6, No.2, Summer, 1993; Inman, R. Antigens, the Gastrointestinal Tract, and Arthritis. Rheumatic Disease Clinics of North America - Vol. 17, No. 2, May 1991; Katz, K. Intestinal mucosal permeability and rheumatological diseases. Bailliere's Clinical Rheumatology - Vol. 3, No. 2, August, 1989.
(2) Kjeldsen-Kragh, J. Controlled trial of fasting and one-year vegetarian diet in rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet, 1991; 338:899-902; Mielants, et al. Intestinal Mucosal Permeability in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases. II. Role of Disease. (J. Rheumatol. 1991; 18:394-100).
(3) Peltonen, R., et al. Changes of Faecal Flora in Rheumatoid Arthritis During Fasting and One-Year Vegetarian Diet. British Journal of Rheumatology 1994; 33:638-643; Ling, W. Shifting from a Conventional Diet to an Uncooked Vegan Diet Reversibly Alters Fecal Hydrolytic Activities in Humans. Journal of Nutrition, 122: 924- 930,1992.
(4) Bidoli, E. et al (1992), Food consumption and cancer of the colon and rectum in North-Eastern Italy, International Jnl of Cancer v.50 p.223-229; Rao, A V. & Janezic, S A. (1992), The role of dietary phyosterols in colon carcinogenesis, Nutrition & Cancer v.18 (1) p.43-52; Willett, W C. et al (1990), Relation of meat, fat and fibre intake to the risk of colon cancer in a prospective study among women, New England Jnl of Medicine v.323 (24) p.1664-1672.
(5) Mills, P. K. (1988), Animal product consumption and subsequent fatal breast cancer risk among Seventh-Day Adventists, American Jnl of Epidemiology v.127 (3) p.440-453; Fraser, G. E. et al (1991), Diet and lung cancer in California Seventh-Day Adventists, American Jnl of Epidemiology v.133 (7) p.683-693.
http://www.ravediet.com/bloodtypediet.html
Friday, February 11, 2011
Bras and the Breast Cancer Cover-Up: FOR LADIES ONLY
Personal note from Miriam:
A few months ago I decided to put this to the test because it made so much sense. What do you know? It made a big difference to get rid of my underwire bras and go wireless (Kohl's carries Vanity Fair Body Superior Support, the most flattering of all the wireless styles). At home, it's bra-free! Later, I pushed it a step further and quit drinking coffee with caffeine in it. Another improvement in being pain-free! By the way, I read an article saying that underwire bras act as an antenna when you're using the cell phone! Ladies, we are the cause of so many of our own problems. We need to start questioning everything of this world and ask God for wisdom in all matters that affect us and our families and living the life of "separation" that He has called us to.
Bras and the Breast Cancer Cover-Up
By Sydney Ross Singer
We asked those questions in 1995, at the end of our book, Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras. Before writing our book, we sent details of our research to the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, President's Cancer Panel, American Women's Medical Association, National Organization for Women, National Women's Health Network, and National Women's Health Resource Center. There was no response. Not one. Given the lack of interest, we decided to publish our findings in a book, getting the information directly to the women who needed to hear it.
But are women getting the message?
It has been 12 years since our book was first published. Over that time, more than 500,000 women in the US alone have died from breast cancer, with another 2,000,000 having been diagnosed with this terrible disease -- a disease that is in most cases preventable by simply loosening up or eliminating the bra. And yet, this lifesaving information has been actively suppressed and censored by the medical and lingerie industries.
Examples of Suppress and Censorship
A large public relations firm in New York City was willing and eager to help us release this information to the public. "My wife just had breast cancer, and I'm sure you are right," the head of the firm confessed. A big media announcement and celebration were planned. Days later, however, the firm withdrew its offer to help, stating that one of their clients, a large medical center, objected to their working with us.
A Sydney, Australia public relations firm agreed to help publicize our work when we were doing outreach efforts in their country. But it, too, reversed itself. We had asked if they had any conflicts of interest, such as lingerie industry clients. They said they had none. But as it turned out, they did represent a pharmaceutical company that makes a breast cancer treatment drug, and the prevention of breast cancer and its treatment are in conflict, they explained.
The Intimate Apparel Council (which is the US trade association for the multi-billion dollar bra industry) threatened our publisher, Avery Publishing Group, with a lawsuit if Dressed To Kill was released. The publisher said the publicity would help spread the word. The lawsuit never materialized.
After the book was released, the NBC television news show, Dateline, was interested in doing a story on our work. We were extensively interviewed by a skeptical reporter who became a supporter. The story was then abruptly terminated. The producer confidentially explained that the policy of General Electric, which owns NBC, is to avoid airing news stories that can adversely impact on other GE interests. As it happens, GE is a manufacturer of mammography machines.
Women's magazines, such as Glamour, Self, and others, ran critical stories condemning our work, and finding "experts" to encourage women to continue wearing bras. Elle magazine planned a positive story about the bra/cancer link, but was coerced into pulling the story by bra advertisers. In various newspapers around the world, such as the Guardian in the UK, stories were pulled prior to publication because of fear that they may "panic the public", including their lingerie advertisers.
The British Fashion Council (which is the UK's equivalent of the Intimate Apparel Council) published the Breast Health Handbook in 1996 to oppose our efforts. They announced the formation of the Breakthrough Breast Cancer Foundation, which was to receive donations from bra sales to fund genetic research into breast cancer. The book criticized our work, claiming, "The idea that wearing a bra encourages cancer by trapping toxins was recently put forward by researchers at the Institute for Culturogenic Studies (sic) in Hawaii. Researchers from more august establishments promptly dismissed it as claptrap." Without any medical evidence or research, the book informs women that wearing bras is a health necessity, and should be worn as early in life as possible to prevent breast damage.
Our original publisher, Avery, was purchased by giant Penguin Putnam in 1998. The new publisher did not list the book for three years and refused to revert publication rights to the copywrite holders, Singer and Grismaijer. The book was virtually unavailable, and it was thought to have gone out of print. Finally, after repeated requests, the publishing rights were released to us in October, 2001. (ISCD Press has been keeping it in print since then.)
A television documentary was produced in the year 2000 by Channel 4 in the UK, called, Bras- The Bare Facts. In the documentary, 100 women with fibrocystic breast disease went bra-free for 3 months to document the effect on breast cysts and pain. Two prominent British breast surgeons conducted the study. The results were astounding, and clearly demonstrated that the bra is a serious health hazard. We were interviewed for the program to discuss the bra/cancer connection, which was considered highly plausible and important by the doctors interviewed. Some theorized that, in addition to lymphatic impairment, the bra could also cause cancer by overheating the breasts. The documentary made newspaper headlines in British Commonwealth countries throughout the world, but no mention of it was made at all in the US. The following day, headlines in the U.K. tried to suppress fears of the bra/cancer link, and the doctors in the study quickly distanced themselves from the cancer issue, telling women to continue wearing bras. Their research for the documentary was supposed to be published in a medical journal, but never was. And no further research ever materialized to follow-up on their work, which they said they would do. Extensive news coverage of the program was available on the Internet soon after it aired, but most articles were removed shortly thereafter.
No follow-up studies have been done to refute or confirm our research. None. While a Harvard study, published in the European Journal of Cancer in 1991, discovered that bra-free women have a lower rate of breast cancer, the results were not central to the research they were conducting and were considered unimportant and not followed-up. In fact, apart from our initial 1991-93 Bra and Breast Cancer Study, discussed in detail in Dressed To Kill, and our follow-up research in Fiji, discussed in our book, Get It Off!, there are still no other studies on the bra/cancer link. Not even a letter or discussion of the issue can be found in any medical journal. After decades of breast cancer research, the bra is still completely ignored as even being a potential factor for consideration. It's like studying foot disease and ignoring shoes.
Keeping the Public Mystified
This lack of research, and the consequent ignorance, are then used by cancer organizations to justify further suppression of the issue. As the American Cancer Society states on its website, (ignoring the Harvard study), "There are no scientifically valid studies that show a correlation between wearing bras of any type and the occurrence of breast cancer. Two anthropologists made this association in a book called Dressed To Kill. Their study was not conducted according to standard principles of epidemiological research and did not take into consideration other variables, including known risk factors for breast cancer. There is no other, credible research to validate this claim in any way." And they don't seem interested in funding any such studies in the near future, either. There are other organizations that are similarly critical of the bra/cancer link for lack of research evidence, while at the same time discouraging any research on the subject.
Of particular interest is when breast cancer organizations antagonistic to the issue declare the bra/cancer link to be "misinformation" or a "myth", without any scientific study supporting their claims. They say bras are important for women to wear for support, without any evidence showing bras are safe or necessary. They then encourage regular mammograms, cancer prevention drug therapy (not realizing that "prevention therapy" is an oxymoron), and even preventative mastectomies (which means that those who are high risk for breast cancer but who don't want to get it can have their breast removed as a prevention strategy). Of course, it is better to remove the bra instead of the breasts, but bra removal is not a billable procedure.
Keep in mind that bras have been associated with other health problems, such as headaches, numbness in the hands, backache and other postural problems, cysts, pain, skin depigmentation, and more. And lymphatic blockage, which is the result of bra constriction, has already been associated with various cancers. Clearly, the bra/cancer link needs further research, while women take the precaution of loosening up.
Why the resistance?
What harm could there be in following our simple advice, or in even researching this issue? Why the defensive reaction?
There are three reasons:
1. The bra industry fears class action lawsuits. Many insiders have admitted to us that for years the industry suspected underwires were causing cancer. They know that tight bras cause cysts and pain. It is only a matter of time until a lawsuit is made against a bra manufacturer. As a defense, the industry is shifting the blame to the customer, claiming that most women are wearing their bras too tightly, and should get professional fittings. (How do you get a properly fitted push-up bra?) Breaking ranks with their industry peers, and trying to capitalize on the bad news, are several bra manufacturers that now offer newly patented bras claiming to mitigate the damage, including cancer, caused by conventional bras.
2. The medical industry is making billions each year on the detection and treatment of breast cancer. As mentioned above, there is a conflict between the prevention and the treatment of disease, especially if the prevention does not include drugs or surgery. The fact is that our treatment-focused, profit-oriented medical system is making a killing treating this disease, and has billions to lose if breast cancer goes out of fashion along with bras.
In addition, the bra issue will revolutionize the breast cancer field, embarrassing many researchers. Breast cancer research to date that has ignored the bra issue is seriously flawed as a result, which is why the "experts" are still unable to explain the cause of over 70% of all breast cancer cases. Career cancer researchers who have ignored the bra issue will have to admit this fatal flaw in their work, which they are not inclined to admit in their lifetimes.
3. Finally, there is the dogmatic, fearful resistance from some women who find their personal identity so connected to their bras that they would rather risk cancer than be bra-free (which some women have actually told us.) Women are cultural entities, and so long as our culture scorns a natural bustline, many women will submit to the pain, red marks and indentations, cysts, and even the threat of cancer rather than face potential public ridicule (which never really happens.)
There are also women who believe the myth that bras will prevent droopy breasts. The bra industry admits this is a myth, while it still promotes it to improve sales. In fact, bras cause breasts to droop, as the breasts become dependent on the bra for support and the natural supportive mechanisms atrophy from non use.
Despite the resistance, however, some women have gotten the message. And many health care professionals, who have also suspected bras for years, are now spreading that message. As women hear the news and discover that eliminating the bra also eliminates cysts and pain, the news further spreads by word of mouth.
There are now thousands of websites on this subject, many from health care professionals including medical doctors, naturopathic doctors, osteopathic doctors, chiropractors, massage therapists, lymphatic specialists, nutritionists, and others who care about women and helping end this epidemic. Grassroots efforts to keep this information alive and spreading have supplanted the traditional medical research approach, which has disqualified itself for lack of interest and conflict of interest.
When a disease is caused by the culture and its habits, attitudes, fashions and industries, there is bound to be resistance to change. Industries that contribute to disease will be defensive, and industries that profit from disease will be conflicted. However, the truth has a way of getting out, despite the resistance and suppression. Thank Goodness the truth does have a way of getting out.
Sydney Ross Singer is a medical anthropologist and director of the Institute for the Study of Culturogenic Disease, located in Hawaii. His unique form of applied medical anthropology searches for the cultural/lifestyle causes of disease. His working assumption is that our bodies were made to be healthy, but our culture and the attitudes and behaviors it instills in us can get in the way of health. By eliminating these causes, the body is allowed to heal. Since most diseases of our time are caused by our culture/lifestyle, this approach has resulted in many original discoveries into the cause, and cure, of many common diseases. It also makes prevention possible by eliminating adverse lifestyle practices. Sydney works with his co-researcher and wife, Soma Grismaijer, and is the author of several groundbreaking health books.
Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer can be reached at the Institute for the Study of Culturogenic Disease, P.O. Box 1880, Pahoa, Hawaii 96778 (808) 935-5563. sydsinger@gmail.com
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Sydney_Ross_Singer
http://ezinearticles.com/?Bras-and-the-Breast-Cancer-Cover-Up&id=795041
A few months ago I decided to put this to the test because it made so much sense. What do you know? It made a big difference to get rid of my underwire bras and go wireless (Kohl's carries Vanity Fair Body Superior Support, the most flattering of all the wireless styles). At home, it's bra-free! Later, I pushed it a step further and quit drinking coffee with caffeine in it. Another improvement in being pain-free! By the way, I read an article saying that underwire bras act as an antenna when you're using the cell phone! Ladies, we are the cause of so many of our own problems. We need to start questioning everything of this world and ask God for wisdom in all matters that affect us and our families and living the life of "separation" that He has called us to.
Bras and the Breast Cancer Cover-Up
By Sydney Ross Singer
We asked those questions in 1995, at the end of our book, Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras. Before writing our book, we sent details of our research to the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, President's Cancer Panel, American Women's Medical Association, National Organization for Women, National Women's Health Network, and National Women's Health Resource Center. There was no response. Not one. Given the lack of interest, we decided to publish our findings in a book, getting the information directly to the women who needed to hear it.
But are women getting the message?
It has been 12 years since our book was first published. Over that time, more than 500,000 women in the US alone have died from breast cancer, with another 2,000,000 having been diagnosed with this terrible disease -- a disease that is in most cases preventable by simply loosening up or eliminating the bra. And yet, this lifesaving information has been actively suppressed and censored by the medical and lingerie industries.
Examples of Suppress and Censorship
A large public relations firm in New York City was willing and eager to help us release this information to the public. "My wife just had breast cancer, and I'm sure you are right," the head of the firm confessed. A big media announcement and celebration were planned. Days later, however, the firm withdrew its offer to help, stating that one of their clients, a large medical center, objected to their working with us.
A Sydney, Australia public relations firm agreed to help publicize our work when we were doing outreach efforts in their country. But it, too, reversed itself. We had asked if they had any conflicts of interest, such as lingerie industry clients. They said they had none. But as it turned out, they did represent a pharmaceutical company that makes a breast cancer treatment drug, and the prevention of breast cancer and its treatment are in conflict, they explained.
The Intimate Apparel Council (which is the US trade association for the multi-billion dollar bra industry) threatened our publisher, Avery Publishing Group, with a lawsuit if Dressed To Kill was released. The publisher said the publicity would help spread the word. The lawsuit never materialized.
After the book was released, the NBC television news show, Dateline, was interested in doing a story on our work. We were extensively interviewed by a skeptical reporter who became a supporter. The story was then abruptly terminated. The producer confidentially explained that the policy of General Electric, which owns NBC, is to avoid airing news stories that can adversely impact on other GE interests. As it happens, GE is a manufacturer of mammography machines.
Women's magazines, such as Glamour, Self, and others, ran critical stories condemning our work, and finding "experts" to encourage women to continue wearing bras. Elle magazine planned a positive story about the bra/cancer link, but was coerced into pulling the story by bra advertisers. In various newspapers around the world, such as the Guardian in the UK, stories were pulled prior to publication because of fear that they may "panic the public", including their lingerie advertisers.
The British Fashion Council (which is the UK's equivalent of the Intimate Apparel Council) published the Breast Health Handbook in 1996 to oppose our efforts. They announced the formation of the Breakthrough Breast Cancer Foundation, which was to receive donations from bra sales to fund genetic research into breast cancer. The book criticized our work, claiming, "The idea that wearing a bra encourages cancer by trapping toxins was recently put forward by researchers at the Institute for Culturogenic Studies (sic) in Hawaii. Researchers from more august establishments promptly dismissed it as claptrap." Without any medical evidence or research, the book informs women that wearing bras is a health necessity, and should be worn as early in life as possible to prevent breast damage.
Our original publisher, Avery, was purchased by giant Penguin Putnam in 1998. The new publisher did not list the book for three years and refused to revert publication rights to the copywrite holders, Singer and Grismaijer. The book was virtually unavailable, and it was thought to have gone out of print. Finally, after repeated requests, the publishing rights were released to us in October, 2001. (ISCD Press has been keeping it in print since then.)
A television documentary was produced in the year 2000 by Channel 4 in the UK, called, Bras- The Bare Facts. In the documentary, 100 women with fibrocystic breast disease went bra-free for 3 months to document the effect on breast cysts and pain. Two prominent British breast surgeons conducted the study. The results were astounding, and clearly demonstrated that the bra is a serious health hazard. We were interviewed for the program to discuss the bra/cancer connection, which was considered highly plausible and important by the doctors interviewed. Some theorized that, in addition to lymphatic impairment, the bra could also cause cancer by overheating the breasts. The documentary made newspaper headlines in British Commonwealth countries throughout the world, but no mention of it was made at all in the US. The following day, headlines in the U.K. tried to suppress fears of the bra/cancer link, and the doctors in the study quickly distanced themselves from the cancer issue, telling women to continue wearing bras. Their research for the documentary was supposed to be published in a medical journal, but never was. And no further research ever materialized to follow-up on their work, which they said they would do. Extensive news coverage of the program was available on the Internet soon after it aired, but most articles were removed shortly thereafter.
No follow-up studies have been done to refute or confirm our research. None. While a Harvard study, published in the European Journal of Cancer in 1991, discovered that bra-free women have a lower rate of breast cancer, the results were not central to the research they were conducting and were considered unimportant and not followed-up. In fact, apart from our initial 1991-93 Bra and Breast Cancer Study, discussed in detail in Dressed To Kill, and our follow-up research in Fiji, discussed in our book, Get It Off!, there are still no other studies on the bra/cancer link. Not even a letter or discussion of the issue can be found in any medical journal. After decades of breast cancer research, the bra is still completely ignored as even being a potential factor for consideration. It's like studying foot disease and ignoring shoes.
Keeping the Public Mystified
This lack of research, and the consequent ignorance, are then used by cancer organizations to justify further suppression of the issue. As the American Cancer Society states on its website, (ignoring the Harvard study), "There are no scientifically valid studies that show a correlation between wearing bras of any type and the occurrence of breast cancer. Two anthropologists made this association in a book called Dressed To Kill. Their study was not conducted according to standard principles of epidemiological research and did not take into consideration other variables, including known risk factors for breast cancer. There is no other, credible research to validate this claim in any way." And they don't seem interested in funding any such studies in the near future, either. There are other organizations that are similarly critical of the bra/cancer link for lack of research evidence, while at the same time discouraging any research on the subject.
Of particular interest is when breast cancer organizations antagonistic to the issue declare the bra/cancer link to be "misinformation" or a "myth", without any scientific study supporting their claims. They say bras are important for women to wear for support, without any evidence showing bras are safe or necessary. They then encourage regular mammograms, cancer prevention drug therapy (not realizing that "prevention therapy" is an oxymoron), and even preventative mastectomies (which means that those who are high risk for breast cancer but who don't want to get it can have their breast removed as a prevention strategy). Of course, it is better to remove the bra instead of the breasts, but bra removal is not a billable procedure.
Keep in mind that bras have been associated with other health problems, such as headaches, numbness in the hands, backache and other postural problems, cysts, pain, skin depigmentation, and more. And lymphatic blockage, which is the result of bra constriction, has already been associated with various cancers. Clearly, the bra/cancer link needs further research, while women take the precaution of loosening up.
Why the resistance?
What harm could there be in following our simple advice, or in even researching this issue? Why the defensive reaction?
There are three reasons:
1. The bra industry fears class action lawsuits. Many insiders have admitted to us that for years the industry suspected underwires were causing cancer. They know that tight bras cause cysts and pain. It is only a matter of time until a lawsuit is made against a bra manufacturer. As a defense, the industry is shifting the blame to the customer, claiming that most women are wearing their bras too tightly, and should get professional fittings. (How do you get a properly fitted push-up bra?) Breaking ranks with their industry peers, and trying to capitalize on the bad news, are several bra manufacturers that now offer newly patented bras claiming to mitigate the damage, including cancer, caused by conventional bras.
2. The medical industry is making billions each year on the detection and treatment of breast cancer. As mentioned above, there is a conflict between the prevention and the treatment of disease, especially if the prevention does not include drugs or surgery. The fact is that our treatment-focused, profit-oriented medical system is making a killing treating this disease, and has billions to lose if breast cancer goes out of fashion along with bras.
In addition, the bra issue will revolutionize the breast cancer field, embarrassing many researchers. Breast cancer research to date that has ignored the bra issue is seriously flawed as a result, which is why the "experts" are still unable to explain the cause of over 70% of all breast cancer cases. Career cancer researchers who have ignored the bra issue will have to admit this fatal flaw in their work, which they are not inclined to admit in their lifetimes.
3. Finally, there is the dogmatic, fearful resistance from some women who find their personal identity so connected to their bras that they would rather risk cancer than be bra-free (which some women have actually told us.) Women are cultural entities, and so long as our culture scorns a natural bustline, many women will submit to the pain, red marks and indentations, cysts, and even the threat of cancer rather than face potential public ridicule (which never really happens.)
There are also women who believe the myth that bras will prevent droopy breasts. The bra industry admits this is a myth, while it still promotes it to improve sales. In fact, bras cause breasts to droop, as the breasts become dependent on the bra for support and the natural supportive mechanisms atrophy from non use.
Despite the resistance, however, some women have gotten the message. And many health care professionals, who have also suspected bras for years, are now spreading that message. As women hear the news and discover that eliminating the bra also eliminates cysts and pain, the news further spreads by word of mouth.
There are now thousands of websites on this subject, many from health care professionals including medical doctors, naturopathic doctors, osteopathic doctors, chiropractors, massage therapists, lymphatic specialists, nutritionists, and others who care about women and helping end this epidemic. Grassroots efforts to keep this information alive and spreading have supplanted the traditional medical research approach, which has disqualified itself for lack of interest and conflict of interest.
When a disease is caused by the culture and its habits, attitudes, fashions and industries, there is bound to be resistance to change. Industries that contribute to disease will be defensive, and industries that profit from disease will be conflicted. However, the truth has a way of getting out, despite the resistance and suppression. Thank Goodness the truth does have a way of getting out.
Sydney Ross Singer is a medical anthropologist and director of the Institute for the Study of Culturogenic Disease, located in Hawaii. His unique form of applied medical anthropology searches for the cultural/lifestyle causes of disease. His working assumption is that our bodies were made to be healthy, but our culture and the attitudes and behaviors it instills in us can get in the way of health. By eliminating these causes, the body is allowed to heal. Since most diseases of our time are caused by our culture/lifestyle, this approach has resulted in many original discoveries into the cause, and cure, of many common diseases. It also makes prevention possible by eliminating adverse lifestyle practices. Sydney works with his co-researcher and wife, Soma Grismaijer, and is the author of several groundbreaking health books.
Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer can be reached at the Institute for the Study of Culturogenic Disease, P.O. Box 1880, Pahoa, Hawaii 96778 (808) 935-5563. sydsinger@gmail.com
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Sydney_Ross_Singer
http://ezinearticles.com/?Bras-and-the-Breast-Cancer-Cover-Up&id=795041
What Does A Healthy Kitchen Look Like?
by Rev. George Malkmus
1/25/2011
In recent Health Tips we have evaluated the “size” of your family and what items are found in a weight-gaining kitchen.
In this Health Tip we are going to explore what comprises a healthy kitchen; those items that will not only produce health, but also produce a body that is slim and trim and fit for the Master’s use. We will also consider those items that do not qualify to be in a healthy kitchen.
What Does A Healthy Kitchen Look Like?
We are going to begin our search for the answer to that question by going to the source of all truth, the Bible, and see what we can learn from God, the Creator of mankind, about the subject:
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust (dirt, minerals) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward of Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.” (Genesis 2:7-8)
“And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food. . . . And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.” (Genesis 2:15-16)
Then God gives us an even more detailed description of what food items should be in a healthy kitchen in the following verses:
“AND GOD SAID, Behold, I have given you every herb (vegetable) bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat (food). . . . AND GOD SAW everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” (Genesis 1:29,31a)
What Did God’s “Kitchen” Look Like?
First, God’s kitchen was located outside in a garden. Because this garden was in a warm climate where food was able to grow year-round, food was readily available on a daily basis. God then created the first “gardeners” – Adam and Eve.
“And the Lord God said it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. . . . And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon ADAM , and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man, made he a woman. . . . And Adam called his wife’s name EVE.” “Genesis 2:18, 21-22, 3:20)
“And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:23-24)
So what have we learned thus far? God has created a man and then a woman, and placed them in a garden that was to be the source of nourishment for their physical bodies.
From these beginning verses in the book of Genesis (the book of Beginnings) we have already learned a lot of information that will help us on our journey to discovering “What a Healthy Kitchen Looks Like.”
What Foods Qualify To Be In A Healthy Kitchen?
First, let’s take a look at what qualifications God said a food must have in order to qualify as a food to be in the kitchen of Adam and Eve:
“AND GOD SAID, Behold I have given you every herb (vegetable) bearing SEED, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding SEED; to you it shall be for meat (food).” (Genesis 1:29)
In other words, the only foods that qualified to meet God’s standard to be in that first kitchen (Adam & Eve’s kitchen) were plant-sourced.
Furthermore, these foods had to be living foods that had their enzymes (life force) still intact, and also had the ability to reproduce from a seed. This fact was extremely important, because if the food didn’t have the ability to reproduce for all eternity to support human life, the food supply would run out! This would be the end of man’s ability to live and perpetuate the human race on planet earth.
The foods that qualified to be in that first kitchen included all enzymatically alive fruits and vegetables capable of reproducing from the seed contained in the food or on the plant from which the food came, including (but not limited to):
Fruits: Apples, peaches, pears, plums, nectarines, watermelon, cantaloupe, bananas, persimmon, grapes, blueberries, etc., as well as those foods we often consider vegetables which are technically fruits because they contain the seed within (tomatoes, squash, cucumbers, peppers, avocados, etc).
Vegetables: Called “herbs” in the Bible, these would include all leafy greens such as lettuce, kale, and collards, as well as celery, cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, carrots, beets, potatoes, sweet potatoes, kohlrabi, onions, leeks, garlic, as well as the grains of corn, barley, etc, and beans.
What Foods Do NOT Qualify To Be In A Healthy Kitchen?
The listing of foods that would not qualify to be in Adam and Eve’s kitchen is a very long one but these disqualified foods are really easy to determine…
Any food that does not come from a seed, have its enzymes intact and the ability to reproduce would be disqualified.
These include all animal flesh, because it is not plant-based as God clearly instructed Adam it must be in Genesis 1:29. Nor is animal flesh enzymatically alive.
Other disqualified foods include all manufactured and processed foods found in any type container, and technically any food that has been cooked. Once a food has been cooked, even though it qualified before cooking to be in a healthy kitchen, loses its ability to reproduce because the heat destroys its enzymes (life-force).
How Close Can We Come to Meeting God’s Criteria Today?
Meeting God’s criteria for a healthy kitchen isn’t as hard as it might at first appear. While most people do not live in a warm climate, or in a garden, people who live in a house with even a small lawn or amount of ground bordering their home can have a raised bed garden in which they can grow an amazing amount of food during the growing season.
For instance, in just one square yard of ground, 16 lettuce plants could be grown per month during growing season; 64 carrots; or one cherry tomato bearing 100’s of small tomatoes. Or you can grow an amazing amount of fresh garden foods in containers or large pots on a porch or patio that receives sun most of the day.
Rhonda and I have three 4×12 foot raised beds near our kitchen door in which we grow most of our vegetables from April through November. In addition we have planted an edible landscape for our fruit foods. A person who has as little as one eighth of an acre can create an edible landscape around their home and literally live in a garden.
Rhonda and I currently have 47 blueberry bushes, 5 thornless blackberries, six scuppernong (muscadine) grape vines, three fig trees, plus two apple trees, a peach and pear tree, along with a persimmon tree. All our garden foods are grown organically, and we plan to slowly increase the varieties in coming years.
For those who do not live in a house where there is available space, we are so blessed today to have health food stores that often carry fresh organic garden produce. Many of today’s supermarkets are also carrying increasing varieties of fresh organic produce.
Now that we have learned what foods qualify for a Healthy Kitchen, we need to share how a person can set up a healthy kitchen… stay tuned for that in next week’s Health Tip!
I will take you on a literary tour of Rhonda’s kitchens (she has two of them), and share how she has set them up to promotes health rather than disease and sickness.
http://healthtip.hacres.com/index.php/2011/01/25/what-does-a-healthy-kitchen-look-like/?utm_source=eblast&utm_medium=email&utm_content=feature&utm_campaign=health-tip
1/25/2011
In recent Health Tips we have evaluated the “size” of your family and what items are found in a weight-gaining kitchen.
In this Health Tip we are going to explore what comprises a healthy kitchen; those items that will not only produce health, but also produce a body that is slim and trim and fit for the Master’s use. We will also consider those items that do not qualify to be in a healthy kitchen.
What Does A Healthy Kitchen Look Like?
We are going to begin our search for the answer to that question by going to the source of all truth, the Bible, and see what we can learn from God, the Creator of mankind, about the subject:
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust (dirt, minerals) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward of Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.” (Genesis 2:7-8)
“And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food. . . . And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.” (Genesis 2:15-16)
Then God gives us an even more detailed description of what food items should be in a healthy kitchen in the following verses:
“AND GOD SAID, Behold, I have given you every herb (vegetable) bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat (food). . . . AND GOD SAW everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” (Genesis 1:29,31a)
What Did God’s “Kitchen” Look Like?
First, God’s kitchen was located outside in a garden. Because this garden was in a warm climate where food was able to grow year-round, food was readily available on a daily basis. God then created the first “gardeners” – Adam and Eve.
“And the Lord God said it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. . . . And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon ADAM , and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man, made he a woman. . . . And Adam called his wife’s name EVE.” “Genesis 2:18, 21-22, 3:20)
“And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:23-24)
So what have we learned thus far? God has created a man and then a woman, and placed them in a garden that was to be the source of nourishment for their physical bodies.
From these beginning verses in the book of Genesis (the book of Beginnings) we have already learned a lot of information that will help us on our journey to discovering “What a Healthy Kitchen Looks Like.”
What Foods Qualify To Be In A Healthy Kitchen?
First, let’s take a look at what qualifications God said a food must have in order to qualify as a food to be in the kitchen of Adam and Eve:
“AND GOD SAID, Behold I have given you every herb (vegetable) bearing SEED, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding SEED; to you it shall be for meat (food).” (Genesis 1:29)
In other words, the only foods that qualified to meet God’s standard to be in that first kitchen (Adam & Eve’s kitchen) were plant-sourced.
Furthermore, these foods had to be living foods that had their enzymes (life force) still intact, and also had the ability to reproduce from a seed. This fact was extremely important, because if the food didn’t have the ability to reproduce for all eternity to support human life, the food supply would run out! This would be the end of man’s ability to live and perpetuate the human race on planet earth.
The foods that qualified to be in that first kitchen included all enzymatically alive fruits and vegetables capable of reproducing from the seed contained in the food or on the plant from which the food came, including (but not limited to):
Fruits: Apples, peaches, pears, plums, nectarines, watermelon, cantaloupe, bananas, persimmon, grapes, blueberries, etc., as well as those foods we often consider vegetables which are technically fruits because they contain the seed within (tomatoes, squash, cucumbers, peppers, avocados, etc).
Vegetables: Called “herbs” in the Bible, these would include all leafy greens such as lettuce, kale, and collards, as well as celery, cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, carrots, beets, potatoes, sweet potatoes, kohlrabi, onions, leeks, garlic, as well as the grains of corn, barley, etc, and beans.
What Foods Do NOT Qualify To Be In A Healthy Kitchen?
The listing of foods that would not qualify to be in Adam and Eve’s kitchen is a very long one but these disqualified foods are really easy to determine…
Any food that does not come from a seed, have its enzymes intact and the ability to reproduce would be disqualified.
These include all animal flesh, because it is not plant-based as God clearly instructed Adam it must be in Genesis 1:29. Nor is animal flesh enzymatically alive.
Other disqualified foods include all manufactured and processed foods found in any type container, and technically any food that has been cooked. Once a food has been cooked, even though it qualified before cooking to be in a healthy kitchen, loses its ability to reproduce because the heat destroys its enzymes (life-force).
How Close Can We Come to Meeting God’s Criteria Today?
Meeting God’s criteria for a healthy kitchen isn’t as hard as it might at first appear. While most people do not live in a warm climate, or in a garden, people who live in a house with even a small lawn or amount of ground bordering their home can have a raised bed garden in which they can grow an amazing amount of food during the growing season.
For instance, in just one square yard of ground, 16 lettuce plants could be grown per month during growing season; 64 carrots; or one cherry tomato bearing 100’s of small tomatoes. Or you can grow an amazing amount of fresh garden foods in containers or large pots on a porch or patio that receives sun most of the day.
Rhonda and I have three 4×12 foot raised beds near our kitchen door in which we grow most of our vegetables from April through November. In addition we have planted an edible landscape for our fruit foods. A person who has as little as one eighth of an acre can create an edible landscape around their home and literally live in a garden.
Rhonda and I currently have 47 blueberry bushes, 5 thornless blackberries, six scuppernong (muscadine) grape vines, three fig trees, plus two apple trees, a peach and pear tree, along with a persimmon tree. All our garden foods are grown organically, and we plan to slowly increase the varieties in coming years.
For those who do not live in a house where there is available space, we are so blessed today to have health food stores that often carry fresh organic garden produce. Many of today’s supermarkets are also carrying increasing varieties of fresh organic produce.
Now that we have learned what foods qualify for a Healthy Kitchen, we need to share how a person can set up a healthy kitchen… stay tuned for that in next week’s Health Tip!
I will take you on a literary tour of Rhonda’s kitchens (she has two of them), and share how she has set them up to promotes health rather than disease and sickness.
http://healthtip.hacres.com/index.php/2011/01/25/what-does-a-healthy-kitchen-look-like/?utm_source=eblast&utm_medium=email&utm_content=feature&utm_campaign=health-tip
Anesthesiologists spread dangerous infections during surgery because they don't wash their hands
Note from Miriam:
Stay healthy and stay out of hospitals! We either pay small now or pay big later.
------------------
Thursday, January 20, 2011 by: S. L. Baker, features writer
(NaturalNews) With all the amazing and advanced medical technology available in the 21st century, operating rooms must be extremely safe when it comes to being sterile and clean for surgery. At least, that is what most of us assume. But now a new study just reported in Anesthesia & Analgesia, the official journal of the International Anesthesia Research Society (IARS), shows that's a dangerous assumption. In fact, bacteria -- including some very dangerous varieties -- are commonly found on the hands of anesthesia providers, resulting in high rates of transmission of these germs to the surgical field during operations.
The reason behind this hand contamination is nothing less than astounding. It turns out, anesthesiologists simply aren't washing their hands or washing them well enough. The study points out that while other factors contribute to bacteria being spread in operating rooms, the problem is mostly from a lack of compliance with plain, old-fashioned hand-washing.
"As anesthesiologists, we like to think that the surgical drapes protect the patient from tens of trillions of microorganisms that are in and on our bodies," Dr. Steven L. Shafer of Columbia University, who is Editor-in-Chief of Anesthesia & Analgesia, said in a statement to the media. "Nope! These studies provide evidence that our bacterial flora contribute to surgical site infections."
Dr. Randy W. Loftus and colleagues of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, New Hampshire, carried out a detailed study to investigate the specific origin of bacteria transmitted to the surgical field in 164 operating room procedures that all involved general anesthesia. The researchers performed culture tests and discovered that bacteria were transmitted to the stopcock valves of the intravenous lines in 11.5% of procedures. And in about 50% of these cases, the bacteria found in the intravenous lines were the same as those identified on the hands of anesthesia providers, including attending anesthesiologists, residents, and nurse-anesthetists
What's more, before the start of surgical procedures, contamination with potential disease-causing bacteria was identified on the hands of anesthesia providers in 66% of cases. And bacteria were transmitted in the operating room in an astounding 89% of procedures.
The study found there were several factors that were linked with an increased risk of bacterial transmission. For example, germ transmission was more likely when the anesthesiologist had to supervise more than one operating room simultaneously. The spreading of bacteria was also more likely in older patients, and when the patient was sent directly from the operating room to the intensive care unit.
"Contamination of provider hands before patient care represents an important modifiable risk factor for bacterial cross-contamination," Dr. Loftus and colleagues wrote in the journal article. "These findings support initiatives designed to improve intraoperative hand hygiene of anesthesia providers both before and during patient care, as well as intraoperative decontamination strategies."
An editorial accompanying the study pointed out there that while there's a need to improve decontamination measures, there's little doubt that what the authors call "abysmal compliance with hand-washing recommendations" is the major contributor to the spread of surgical infections.
"Although we know that hand-washing is an important step, our compliance is poor, and there is little excuse for hospitals not implementing systems that facilitate compliance with hand-washing guidelines," Dr. Shafer stated.
http://www.naturalnews.com/031061_hand_washing_infections.html
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031061_hand_washing_infections.html#ixzz1Bdq88Kjl
Stay healthy and stay out of hospitals! We either pay small now or pay big later.
------------------
Thursday, January 20, 2011 by: S. L. Baker, features writer
(NaturalNews) With all the amazing and advanced medical technology available in the 21st century, operating rooms must be extremely safe when it comes to being sterile and clean for surgery. At least, that is what most of us assume. But now a new study just reported in Anesthesia & Analgesia, the official journal of the International Anesthesia Research Society (IARS), shows that's a dangerous assumption. In fact, bacteria -- including some very dangerous varieties -- are commonly found on the hands of anesthesia providers, resulting in high rates of transmission of these germs to the surgical field during operations.
The reason behind this hand contamination is nothing less than astounding. It turns out, anesthesiologists simply aren't washing their hands or washing them well enough. The study points out that while other factors contribute to bacteria being spread in operating rooms, the problem is mostly from a lack of compliance with plain, old-fashioned hand-washing.
"As anesthesiologists, we like to think that the surgical drapes protect the patient from tens of trillions of microorganisms that are in and on our bodies," Dr. Steven L. Shafer of Columbia University, who is Editor-in-Chief of Anesthesia & Analgesia, said in a statement to the media. "Nope! These studies provide evidence that our bacterial flora contribute to surgical site infections."
Dr. Randy W. Loftus and colleagues of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, New Hampshire, carried out a detailed study to investigate the specific origin of bacteria transmitted to the surgical field in 164 operating room procedures that all involved general anesthesia. The researchers performed culture tests and discovered that bacteria were transmitted to the stopcock valves of the intravenous lines in 11.5% of procedures. And in about 50% of these cases, the bacteria found in the intravenous lines were the same as those identified on the hands of anesthesia providers, including attending anesthesiologists, residents, and nurse-anesthetists
What's more, before the start of surgical procedures, contamination with potential disease-causing bacteria was identified on the hands of anesthesia providers in 66% of cases. And bacteria were transmitted in the operating room in an astounding 89% of procedures.
The study found there were several factors that were linked with an increased risk of bacterial transmission. For example, germ transmission was more likely when the anesthesiologist had to supervise more than one operating room simultaneously. The spreading of bacteria was also more likely in older patients, and when the patient was sent directly from the operating room to the intensive care unit.
"Contamination of provider hands before patient care represents an important modifiable risk factor for bacterial cross-contamination," Dr. Loftus and colleagues wrote in the journal article. "These findings support initiatives designed to improve intraoperative hand hygiene of anesthesia providers both before and during patient care, as well as intraoperative decontamination strategies."
An editorial accompanying the study pointed out there that while there's a need to improve decontamination measures, there's little doubt that what the authors call "abysmal compliance with hand-washing recommendations" is the major contributor to the spread of surgical infections.
"Although we know that hand-washing is an important step, our compliance is poor, and there is little excuse for hospitals not implementing systems that facilitate compliance with hand-washing guidelines," Dr. Shafer stated.
http://www.naturalnews.com/031061_hand_washing_infections.html
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031061_hand_washing_infections.html#ixzz1Bdq88Kjl
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)