May 8

The REAL truth about ADHD

NaturalNews) Today I am bringing you news from the world of ADHD, because scientists claim they have found a difference in the brains of children with ADHD versus "normal" children. The brains of these children who have been diagnosed with ADHD were scanned with an MRI machine. They compared 40,000 different points in their brains looking for signs of thickness in the brain tissue.

They discovered that the brains of children diagnosed with ADHD were a little behind schedule in growing. Yes, you heard that right. They said they are about three years behind the brains of other children. Everything else was normal. They said if they wait three years those children will catch up and turn out just fine. 

Now who is "they?" Dr. Phillip Shaw from the National Institute of Health, which is probably the National Institute of Mental Health -- they are the ones who did this research and this research has been making the rounds in mainstream media. You hear stories about it all over the radio. I heard one on national public radio today.

It just blew my mind. I will tell you why in a minute. Headlines in newspapers and magazines, TV news, cable news networks all across the country -- they have experts on there now claiming that ADHD is a physical disease. There is something wrong with the brains of these children. Apparently they forgot to look at the research that came out just two days before. Do you know what that research shows?

The Drugs Don't Work

It was a team of American scientists researching what is called the "Multi-Modal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD -- MTA for short. They found that the drugs are useless over long-term. The drugs used to treat ADHD such as Ritalin and Concerta are useless. They have no benefits whatsoever after three years and even though they may show some short-term benefits depending on who is watching, and depending on their judgment of the child's behavior, the truth is there is no long-term benefit whatsoever. But here's the most important part.

They found that these drugs stunt the growth of children. "They were not growing as much as other children in terms of both their height and their weight," said the report's co-author, Prof. William Pelham from the University of Buffalo. "I think we exaggerated the beneficial impact of medication in the first study," he added in reference to a study they did a few years ago where they declared that these drugs were helping children.

"We had thought that children medicated longer would have better outcomes. That did not happen to be the case. The children had a substantial decrease in their growth rate," he continued. The second point was that there were no benefits to children taking these drugs whatsoever.

ADHD Drugs Stunt Brain Growth in Children

What they did not say in the results of this study is that the same drugs also stunt the growth of the children's brains. Now this is my assessment of the situation, having studied this issue for several years and knowing that this drug is stunting the development of the children. It is very reasonable to conclude that it also stunts the growth of their brains and guess what? This new study actually proves it, because these MRI brain scans of children's brains that found that these brains were three years behind schedule in development.

80% of the children who were looked at with those MRI scans were on ADHD medications. That's right. All that study did was prove that medication stunts the growth of children's brains. Amazing is it not?

How lousy the science has become out there in the world of ADHD when they are trying to push these drugs on to parents, children and school administrators. They come up with anything. They actually take a bunch of healthy children, they invent a fictitious disease, then they come up with a chemical called "Speed" -- it used to be called speed when it was sold on the street as a street drug. They give it to the children.

It harms the children, stunts their growth, and causes their brains to develop more slowly. Then they stick these children under an MRI machine, run some brain scans, and announce to the world that oh my goodness ADHD children have smaller brains that are behind schedule. How amazing is that? It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is really going on here.

This science is so bad. I remember when I was taking a science course in college one of the first lessons we had was how to interpret statistics and how to watch out for correlations that might not be causations or how to make sure that you do not have mistakes in reaching conclusions with your data. This is a classic mistake.

These drugs are causing the slow brain development. All the MRI scans are doing is proving that the drugs are harming the children. Notice they did not take children who were not on the drugs, put them under an MRI machine, and scan their brains. You know why? Because their brains would be normal. They had to take children who were doped up on speed and put them under the machines in order to get these results.

In addition, notice that they did not do this study before children started being dosed with the drugs. They did not say 20 years ago: "Oh, wow! Suddenly children are having this so-called disease 'ADHD.'" Let's stick them under a machine and see if there is anything wrong with their brains. They did not do that because if they had they would have found there was no difference.

The True Cause of ADHD

Nothing is wrong with these children other than probably their diet, a little too much refined sugar and too many food additives. In fact, that reminds me of the Southampton Study in the UK that showed that additives cause hyperactivity in children within an hour after consumption. That's right -- food additives, especially the artificial colors. Made from coal tar derivatives and synthetic chemicals, you feed these to children and guess what? Within an hour you get hyperactive behavior. 

Is there anything wrong with these children's brains? No, there is something wrong with these children's parents, who probably keep feeding him or her chemical food additives. There is probably something wrong with the school administrators who keep dishing out school lunches that contain food items made with toxic chemicals. Maybe those people should have their brains scanned. 

As long as we are talking about brain scans, and talking about retarded neuron development I think the only people in this whole study who probably have brains that are behind schedule are the researchers who announced these conclusions.

These people have stunted brain development. There is no question about it because how on earth could they not have realized that the only thing they did with these MRI scans was prove that these drugs stunt neural development in children? How could they not have considered that? They must be on crack or maybe, in this case, amphetamines because that is what they are giving to the children.

Maybe these researchers are really ADHD children who were treated with these drugs, then they grew up with stunted brains and now they have gotten involved in the research. They have drawn these conclusions and made these announcements and, of course, the editors at places like National Public Radio were probably on the same drugs because they ran this story as if it was fact.

They did not question it one bit. No one out there in the mainstream media questioned this. They did not say, "Gee, could it be that the medication caused the stunted growth in the brains of these children? Could that be?" No, they did not question it at all. No skepticism anymore when it comes to psychiatry or Big Pharma and you know why, of course, because they have an agenda to push.

They have to keep pushing these drugs onto more children. They have to keep those parents in a state of fear. That's how they sell more drugs. They have to keep people believing in this fictitious disease. That's the only way they are going to make money. This is an industry that makes money by exploiting the bodies of children, and the evidence is very clear.

Even the NIH is now saying that these drugs stunt the growth of children. That is a scientific fact announced by a mainstream medical research organization. This is not fringe science. This is not alternative medicine. This is not conjecture on the part of some person who has an axe to grind with psychiatry. This is mainstream medicine announcing that this stuff stunts the growth of children. How could it not stunt the growth of their brains?

Why the Mainstream Media Cannot be Trusted

When I was listening to a report on this issue on National Public Radio just the other day, a woman called into the show and she asked a very good question. She said: "I am an adult who has been diagnosed with ADHD, is my brain also stunted in its growth?" Do you know what the reply was?

They had a doctor on that show. One of the doctors that does news reporting for National Public Radio -- kind of the in-house idiot there, who has no training in nutrition, does not understand a thing about health but knows all the disease names and all the chemical names. Do you know what this doctor told that woman?

He said, "Well, researchers are not sure but they suspect that your brain may be behind in its development too and that eventually your brain will catch up and then you will be fine but right now if you have been diagnosed with Adult ADHD your brain growth maybe a little behind schedule." 

That is what he said to this woman. I am thinking are you kidding me? Is this person really saying this on the air? You have to be a complete idiot to come up with that.

The research said that ADHD is a disease where children lag behind a few years in developing their brains, and if you read the research they said the brain cortex of children reaches peak thickness at an average of 10.5 years for ADHD children compared with age 7.5 years in normal children. 

This person was talking to a woman who is probably in her 40's and he is saying even in your 40's you are probably still a few years behind. Are you kidding me? Where does he come up with any evidence for this -- nowhere, he pulled it out of his hat. He just made that up right there on the air -- just made it up.

He had no evidence whatsoever -- not even any logic behind it and no reason to say that other than the fact that in order to keep up the illusion that this disease has something to do with slow brain development, they had to make an excuse to say "Oh, why are they diagnosing adults with this disease?"

They had to come up with a reason -- another fictitious reason and this was all they could come up with. This doctor on the radio on the spot, this was all he could think of. Oh, well your brain must be behind too.

They are reaching deep aren't they? What will they come up with next? It's like catching a politician in a lie and that politician has to keep the lie going. The lie gets more and more outrageous every time he tells it to a different group in a different city when he is touring around trying to get elected.

The Pharmaceutical Credo: Sell, Sell, Sell

This is what the ADHD industry is like. It is as if they have to carry on this outrageous lie, and they cannot really tell the truth because then the whole house of cards would collapse and everybody would realize this is all one giant fraud.

They cannot tell the truth so they have to keep coming up with new lies to try to market this to more people. First, it was just a children's disorder. Then the drug companies realized they could sell this same speed drug to adults. I mean think about it. Children are only a small part of the total market. 

What if we could convince adults that they too have ADHD then we could sell this drug to them also? They came up with a test. That's right -- a paper test to try to convince adults that they had ADHD.

You know what this paper test is made of? It's a few questions like: Do you feel like you are juggling too many things in your day? Do you have too much on your mind or too many projects that you cannot finish? Do you feel like the stresses of modern life are distracting you? Do you have trouble finishing projects or trouble concentrating on your work? These are the kinds of questions they ask.

Well it turns out that virtually everyone has ADHD according to those questions. This is what they used to diagnose adults. See there is no test. There is no blood test. There is no body chemistry test. There is no MRI scan. There is nothing physically wrong and nothing chemically wrong. They just take a test and it turns out that 80% of American adults who take this test end up diagnosed with ADHD -- that is 80% or four or five adults that walk into this room and answer these questions gets slapped with a label. You are ADHD. 

What a quick quack diagnosis, is it not? Drag a bunch of adults into a room, tell them they have a disease, and then give them a drug. That is what this industry is all about.

Now they have to back this up and they have to say, "Well, gee, adults must have slow brain development too." They cannot think of any other reason to justify their fictitious disease so they are just dragging the stuff out of nowhere -- out of absolutely nowhere.

'Treatment' as a Marketing Term

Even Dr. Phillip Shaw who is the head researcher on this study at the NIH, said in a quote published on Reuters: "What I would not take away from this study is just sit and wait three years and your child will be okay," he said.

In other words, he is saying that even though his own research shows that the brain development of these children is three years behind, your children will not just grow out of it. He is saying, in fact, they need to be treated with chemicals -- or he is implying that. 

He says, "We know ADHD is a real problem for children and their families and the schools and it does need treatment." Now treatment is the word that this industry uses for marketing. When they say "treatment" what they mean is get out your wallet. When they say too many children are going untreated, what they mean is not enough children have bought our drugs -- not enough parents have given in. Not enough prescriptions have been written.

When they say that more children need treatment that is what they mean. They need to sell more drugs. They have managed to change the language. They have managed to phrase all of this so that their marketing campaigns sound like compassionate public health campaigns. Oh, we care about these children so much that we have to sell them our over-priced monopoly prescription drugs that used to be sold as street drugs and would, in fact, get you arrested for a felony if you sold them to a child.

That is how they bypass those signs in front of the schools that say this is a drug-free school zone. They go right over that sign. They jump that fence, get into the administrator's office, get into the heads of the teachers, counselors, get them to start prescribing drugs or pushing them onto those children. Then they come up with this self-reinforcing MRI scan to say that there is a difference in brain development.

Well, of course there is. These children have been on speed. You take a bunch of crack babies and you put them in the same MRI machine, you are going to see something wrong with their brains too. Make no mistake about it. You take a bunch of heroin junkies, you put them in that machine, same thing. You are going to get some strange looking results. 

It does not mean that they had some disease that was treated with heroin or crack and that the disease caused the brain problem. No, it means that the drugs they were taking were the most likely cause of these problems.

Flawed Children or Flawed System?

Let us get back to the doctor with the study -- the Multi-Modal Treatment Study of Children. The report's co-author I mentioned earlier is Professor William Pelham at the University of Buffalo. He is the one who found out that these drugs do not help children at all in the long run. He says, "In the short run, medication will help the child behave better. In the long run, it will not and that information should be made very clear to parents." 

Dr. Tim Kendall, of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (the person who is working on some new guidelines about ADHD for the NHS) says, "A generous understanding would be to say that doctors have reached the point where they do not know what else to offer."

He says, "I hope we will be able to make recommendations that will give people a comprehensive approach to treatment…" there is that word "treatment" again. He continues, "and that will advise about what teachers might be able to do within the classroom when they are trying to deal with children who have difficult problems of this kind. I think the important thing is we have a comprehensive approach that does not focus on just one type of treatment." 

Good for him to dare to say that we have to have a comprehensive approach. Well I have a solution for you that is comprehensive. How about nutrition? How about we stop poisoning our children with processed foods and chemical additives in those foods? How about we stop poisoning the brains of our children by dosing them up on speed? There's an idea for you.

We could cure children of this so-called behavioral disorder by doing two things -- making the children healthy and making education a lot more interesting. These children do not have attention deficit problems. You set those young boys down in front of a Wii or an X-box or a Playstation and they can pay attention for about 12 hours straight. They do not even pee or eat.

They sit there in front of that machine on that TV and they can focus and master a game. You go out and find a game called "Guitar Hero," put a 13-year-old boy in front of that game and you got the whole weekend done. Their whole weekend is focused on that one game and that child will master that game with hand/eye coordination.

That child will be a genius in that game by the end of the weekend. He goes back to school on Monday bored out of his mind. Why? Education is pretty darn boring the way it is done today in most schools. I know there are exceptions and my hat is off to those teachers who make learning fun. I had a few of those in my educational experience, but largely most of them were boring as heck.

History is reduced to just a series of names and dates to memorize and regurgitate onto paper so that you can be called smart and to say that you know history because you have memorized a bunch of stuff. Are you kidding me? That is not an education, and that is not interesting. No wonder these children cannot pay attention. 

Education needs to be experiential. These children learn in a multitude of ways. It is not just auditory through a lecture or it is not just visual through a book. These children need to learn hands-on. They need to learn in a 3D space. They need to be able to move their bodies as they learn.

That is why "Guitar Hero" works, friends -- because they are moving. They are jamming out on these video game guitars -- the mind/body connection is solid. They are focused. They are learning. They master that game. We need to make public education more fun like that. I mean let's face it.

ADHD Drugs are a Crime Against Children

This is really about the Ritalin game, this is about making students easier for teachers to handle. It is about society not being willing to handle the energy of young children and instead of letting these children express that creative energy in a variety of ways and giving them a useful outlet for that energy, they want to turn our children into zombies.

You would think with a drug called "speed" that it would actually make them more hyperactive, right, but no it has the opposite effect. It is called "speed" but it makes them mellow. You can ask any ex-junkie who used to take that drug and they will tell you the same thing. Now, I remember when I was in the third grade, we had a baseball star come in and give a lecture about being hooked on drugs. He played for the Kansas City Royals. 

He had been busted taking drugs. Part of his sentence was community service. He had to go into the schools all over town and talk to the children about how terrible an experience it was being hooked on drugs. He came in and he told us how he was hallucinating, what these drugs did to him, his sleep habits, and how they harmed his life and his health. I was really impacted by that speech but today guess what? You might as well have drug reps going into the schools telling children how good speed is for them.

That is what is going on. The drug reps go in and talk to the administrators, talk to the counselors, they brainwash those people, and then those people talk to the children and say you need these drugs. In one generation, we have gone from telling children "Just Say No to Drugs" to "Just take this pill and then you will be healthy" -- one generation.

Now, we have a new generation of children who are being raised on speed. Worse yet they have been given a label -- a label of a disease. They have been told that they are abnormal. Why? Because they have a whole lot of energy, because they can probably do 50 things at once. It is quite a skill. I have mastered it as an adult personally.

I can do 50 things at once and I do not have any disease. I have incredible creativity. I have fantastic mental focus. I can read a book a day if I want to. I can photo-read ten books a day, and learn multiple languages as an adult much better than I ever could as a child. If I were to walk into any of the psychiatric centers, they would diagnose me with ADHD no question about it. Why? Because I am doing many things at once. It fits their pattern. That is what these children are doing. They can do many things at once.

You say they cannot calm down. Of course they can't. They are too excited to be alive. They have stuff to do, stuff to learn, stuff to touch, hear, feel, taste, experience, stuff to categorize in those brains. Those brains are working and if you take them off those junk food additives those brains will work even better.

We have to start looking at the gem of what is in these children's heads. That brain is a gift and that brain needs to be cultivated, not shut down with drugs. This is a disgrace to the next generation what we are doing to our children. This is disgusting. In fact, I have often described it as a crime against humanity.

That is what I really believe it is. I believe to be a type of chemical castration to these young children that we are damaging their brains and now the MRI scans prove it, we are damaging their brains. We are stunting their growth. We are creating a generation of mutants because we are putting them all on speed. The industry has said, "Well we are not treating enough of them." They have said, "There are children still out there that do not have treatment. We must treat them all."

How the Drug Game Works

I read an article recently where the estimates were that only one-third of the children who have ADHD are currently "receiving treatment." The implication in this article was that they needed to put three times as many children on these drugs as there are now. 

Think about that -- that would put the number at well over 10 million children in the United States being put on speed. A nation of drugged children -- stunted growth and what other side effects might we learn about this in the years ahead?

Nobody knows -- the researchers certainly don't know. This is all one giant experiment using our children as guinea pigs. This is a giant marketing experiment designed to generate profits, to scare people into believing in a fictitious disease, to label children with a fictitious disease name that they will carry with them for the rest of their lives. Make them a victim of a system of medicine that has no purpose other than to extract profits from bodies.

ADHD will not be the only label they will get. No way, perhaps the side effects of these drugs will cause liver damage and then they will get another disease name -- liver disease. Then after liver damage is in place for a long period, they will have toxicity in their blood and that might cause heart disease. It might cause sleep disorders. It might cause depression and guess what? Big Pharma has a drug to treat all of those too.

What are the odds? Just imagine a lifetime of popping pills. One side effect after another and it all starts with a fictitious diagnosis based on nothing but the opinion of a psychiatrist who has most likely been bribed by the drug companies himself or herself.

Try to find a psychiatrist practicing today who is not taking money from Big Pharma. Just try to find one. Try to find a decision-maker at the FDA who is not financially involved with the pharmaceutical industry. The situation is so bad that the FDA recently announced they were going to limit the amount of bribery allowed by the panel members who make the safety decisions for the FDA.

You see before there was no limit to the amount of bribery allowed. The FDA believed two things. They believed (1) that there should be no limit and (2) that none of this should be made public. In other words, no one needed to actually declare any conflict of interest nor declare how much money he or she had been receiving from pharmaceutical companies.

These are the people sitting on the boards making the decisions for the FDA about which drugs to approve or reject. Of course, all the high profit drugs were approved. Well, now the FDA has decided to clean up its act a little bit and limit the amount of bribery to $50,000 a year per person sitting on the panel. How is that for integrity? This is an agency so corrupt, so steeped in dishonest practices that it believes integrity means limiting bribery to $50,000 a year per person sitting on these panels These are the people making the decisions on drugs like Ritalin.

The Grand Experiment

Here is another fact you probably do not know: Most drugs that are prescribed to children have never been tested for either safety or effectiveness in children. 

Anti-depressants, for example, are commonly prescribed to children. There are millions of children in this country who are on anti-depressant drugs -- SSRI's they are called -- Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors. They are the ones that have been linked to suicides, to violent behavior, violent thoughts. Many of these have been banned for use in children in other countries including the UK, but here in the United States it is perfectly okay to prescribe them on children even though they have never been tested on children -- never! Not one shred of evidence that they are safe on children -- not one.

This whole system of medicine that the FDA claims is the "Gold Standard of Medicine" -- this whole system is a sham. There is no real evidence behind most of what goes on and the evidence that you do see? A lot of it has just been fudged. It has been fraudulently created in order to achieve some level of cover so that the corrupt officials who have been bribed making decisions at the FDA can go ahead and put their rubber stamp on that drug. They can then approve it and release it into the marketplace.

That is when the grand experiment really begins. That is when we start seeing what happens when you unleash this drug onto a population that has never really been tested for? We are just now starting to learn the answers to that question. One of the answers that we just learned is that these drugs for ADHD stunt the growth of children. We know that now. What else might happen?

Might it cause them to be unable to reproduce down the road? What if it stunts the growth of sperm development, as these children become men? What if it interrupts the development or the release of eggs in the ovaries? What if it causes reproductive problems? What if we are, in fact, creating a generation of children who cannot reproduce? 

We do not even know if that is the case or not. We will not know for many more years because this is a grand experiment. No one knows. No one can tell you what is safe. No one can tell you that the scenario I just described cannot happen because they do not know. It has never been tested.

Psychiatric drugs only have to be tested for a few weeks -- sometimes as little as six weeks before they are released onto the public and can be prescribed for a lifetime. That is right. This is true. You can Google this and find it yourself. The FDA has rules about this and the rules state that psychiatric drugs -- even those for schizophrenia -- only need to be tested for a few weeks and then they can be released to the public and prescribed for years or decades.

How do they know that these drugs are safe for use over a period of years or decades? They do not know. No one knows. If you allow your child to be put on these drugs then you are giving up your power and you are in a sense playing the role of a servant to this industry. You are giving up your money. You are compromising the health and safety of your child.

Diet Affects Behavior

You may say "Well, my child has behavioral problems, he is difficult in school," or "The teacher has told me that I should put him on Ritalin. What do I do?" It is very simple -- change the child's diet. Take all the processed foods out of his diet. Take away the food additives -- the artificial colors, artificial flavors and processed sugars. Take all that out and fill his diet with wholesome foods -- fresh produce, super food nutrients.

Emerald Balance has another product made for children called "X-Balance." It is chocolate flavored. Children love it. It is loaded with super foods. You can blend it up into some chocolate milk or some kind of super food drink. Give your child one of those every day. It will change his life.

Symptoms of ADHD will vanish usually within just a couple of weeks once you change their diet. This is not difficult stuff. Take the Aspartame out of their diets. Stop feeding them soda and diet soda. Put wholesome foods and nutrition back into their diets and they will change. They will do better in school and they will resist infection. They will be far less likely to ever be diagnosed with diabetes, cancer, or heart disease. You will in fact be creating a very positive future for that child by changing their nutrition today.

That is how you eliminate so-called behavioral disorders for the most part -- 80% success rate with a couple of weeks just by changing what they eat. It's very simple. This is not complicated. Here is why.

Food as Fuel

The brain is a physical organ. The brain needs blood, it needs oxygen, and it needs blood sugar to operate. In fact, the brain uses up a whole lot of oxygen and blood sugar. The brain burns up some calories. It is that big CPU on top of those shoulders.

The body invests some real resources in keeping that brain active because, of course, the brain is our main advantage. That is why our species has flourished -- at least by some measures. We have at least been able to populate the planet. We have not really taken care of it but we have been very successful at spreading and we did that because our brains worked better than the other animals -- the other mammals on this planet with which we were competing. The brain takes a lot of energy, many resources. Well the brain runs on what is in your blood.

The blood is pumping fuel to your brain and the blood is removing metabolic waste materials from the cells in your brain, right? The brain is a physical organ and that means whatever is in your blood is affecting the functioning of your brain. It makes sense, right? You drive up to a gas station to put fuel in your car. You have three grades of fuel to choose from.

You have your regular, your premium and your super premium. The difference between those grades of fuel is performance. You put in a higher-octane fuel you are going to get more mileage per gallon out of that car because there is just more energy in that fuel. Well you would not drive up to a gas station that had budget fuel for your car.

Budget fuel is 50% water and 50% gas. Would you put that in your car's gas tank and then expect to drive away and have great performance out of your car even if that gas were say half the price of all the other gas? Of course not, no one would do that but what do we do with our children? 

We feed them junk food -- cheap processed junk food that lacks the nutrients the brain needs to operate at a high performance. It is like putting water in your gas tank and then expecting the car to work correctly. It will not work that well.

How to Feed Your Brain

You have to feed the brain the nutrients that it needs. It needs essential fatty acids. It needs DHA. It needs Omega 3 oils, vitamins, minerals, and all of these plant-based phytonutrients from things like berries and micro-algae such as spirulina and chlorella. All of these super foods -- even cacao. The brain needs these nutrients if you want it to run at high performance. It only makes sense. Do you want a child's brain to work correctly? Feed the brain right.

That means getting the right nutrients into the blood, and you know the human body has a very cool system for getting the right nutrients into the blood. It is called "digestion." It is called eating it or drinking it. Get that stuff down your throat -- all that good nutritional stuff, high-density super foods and guess what? The digestive system will take those nutrients.

It will pull them out of those foods. It will put them into the blood stream, and then the heart will pump that blood right to the brain. The brain will absorb that and whoa, wham. The brain is working. Suddenly it is working right. 

This is not rocket science to figure out. This is kind of common sense. Common sense that is completely missed by the whole system of organized medicine today -- psychiatry has no clue about the link between nutrition and brain health. They imagine it does not even exist.

They think that all behavioral disorders are a result of some kind of brain chemical imbalance that has to be corrected with an artificial, synthetic chemical put into the body. It's ridiculous! Your brain has everything it needs to operate perfectly and so does the brain of every child born in this country.

It has everything it needs to operate perfectly -- barring, of course, some bizarre birth defect where they were born without half a brain or something. That is the rare exception. Maybe one in a million -- everybody else has everything they need. They just need to feed that brain correctly. Give it the nutrients that it needs and stop poisoning the brain. Stop poisoning it with toxic food additives that you find in manufactured foods. Stop poisoning it with all the toxic chemicals that you find in personal care products today.

Stop poisoning it with environmental chemicals. That is the key. You want to keep the brain healthy. You want to see it work. Give it the nutrients it needs. Stop poisoning it with toxic chemicals and for goodness sake give it some water. You know the brain is at least 75% water. Many of these children are just dehydrated. That is why they cannot think because the brain does not have the liquid in there. It needs the water. The neurons will not work right without the water.

ADHD and the Standard American Diet

Instead of drinking water, they are chugging down processed juices, sodas, sugary drinks -- stuff like Ensure and Slimfast -- and those infant formulas that are made with about 50% sugar, and I am not exaggerating. I saw one that is 42.6% corn syrup solids plus 10.5% sugar. You put that together that is over 52% refined sweetener. This is a baby formula sold at Wal-Mart and it is half sugar. That is unbelievable. 

This is what parents are feeding their children too. They are guzzling down the Gatorade. It is sugar water with artificial colors and some salt in it. That is what Gatorade mostly is. 

Why are we feeding our kids this stuff? Girl Scout cookies contain partially hydrogenated oil, which contains trans fatty acids that promote heart disease. Read the labels on this stuff folks; you will be shocked to find out what is in it. Once you do, you will know then the real reason why children might have some behaviors that someone could interpret as a disease.

Their diets are messed up. Their nutrients are atrocious. They are not getting enough water and they certainly are not getting right nutrition. If you turn that around -- you turn around the health of these children. 

What they definitely do not need is speed. They definitely do not need amphetamine drugs on top of their malnourished state. You take a child that is dehydrated, that is suffering from numerous nutritional deficiencies and then you feed that child amphetamines of course you are going to see stunted development of their brain on an MRI scan.

Of course, why would you expect anything else? You would have to be insane to expect anything else. Of course, it is going to harm those children. Why has it come to this in this nation? Do you ever wonder that? How did it get to the point where our children are now guinea pigs being drugged up instead of being fed correctly?

Why is it that these companies are pushing infant formula made with sugar but they denounce breast milk? Why is that sunlight is being discredited? It is these companies that sell sunscreen want you to coat your children with sunscreen chemicals rather than to allow them to have decent exposure to the sunlight? Sunlight, which would generate vitamin D and improve brain function, improves immune function, prevent cancer, improve blood glucose metabolism to help prevent obesity and prevent Type II diabetes and so on.

Selling Out the American People for Profit

Why has it come to this? There is one answer to all of this. It is the common thread that runs through everything I have said here and that is the profit motive of corporations. These corporations are out of control and they are behind all of this. They are the drug companies and the food companies and sometimes it is the same company.

They want to exploit the bodies of your children just to make money. That is all there is to it. They don't care who dies, who is harmed. They don;t care about ethics. They don't care about the environment. They don't care what happens when these drugs are eliminated from the body, get flushed downstream, and enter the aquatic ecosystems of our planet. They don't care about that. They don't even think about that. They are not concerned.

They do not care about any of the impacts of what they do as long as they can keep people alive long enough to make sure they keep buying their drugs and that is it. They will market these drugs to anyone -- infants, children, adults, senior citizens. They will market them to people who do not need them. 

They'll even just invent diseases and market those diseases and they will buy off anybody they need to buy off. They'll buy off the psychiatrists. They'll buy off FDA officials. They'll buy off the media with advertising money.

They will pay money to anybody they have to pay to get this message out and get this propaganda cemented in the minds of the American consumer. Once that happens they know they can push these drugs for at least a generation before someone will finally catch up with them and expose this whole sham for what it really is. You see Big Pharma is a lot as Big Tobacco used to be. 

They are selling a product they know harms people. They are distorting all the science to try to cover it up. They are buying off everybody to keep this gimmick going for as long as they can. They're buying off the lawmakers. They're buying off the regulators. They're buying off the media. They're buying off scientists and the ones they cannot buy off they intimidate. We have documented numerous cases of that kind of intimidation of scientists on our website, That is where I encourage you to go to learn more about this issue.

False Media vs. Independent Media

Stay informed, stay empowered, and stay skeptical. Do not believe what you hear in the mainstream media. It is all influenced by this corporate agenda because the media takes money from these companies. 

How do you think they pay their bills and their salaries? They take money from pharmaceutical companies who are pushing these drugs onto children. You cannot trust their information. You can only now trust information from independent sources. That is it. 

Sources like the Environmental Working Group Online or the Organic Consumers Association or sites That's where you can get information that you can trust because I have nothing to sell you here other than ideas, I do not sell nutritional supplements. I do not make any money on nutritional supplements. I do not sell drugs.

The only thing I sell is information. You can buy books on my website. You can buy audio programs if you want, but guess what? Those same audio programs are also available free. The only thing I have to offer you are ideas and information and I hope you have enjoyed this information. I hope you found value in it. I feel passionate about this.

I think what is going on in America today is a crime against our children and I hope that the justice department will round up a bunch of law enforcement officers and march into the offices of these drug companies and start making arrests. These people should be tried for their crimes against the children of this country.

There should be a massive public hearing and a prosecution attempt against the CEO's of these drug companies and the corrupt officials at the FDA and the people in psychiatry who are committing these crimes or allowing them to happen. These people should all be held accountable for their actions in harming our children. We do not even know what the final cost of this is going to be down the road.

If these drugs stunt the growth of these children right now and cause their brains to develop more slowly than normal children what will be the long-term consequences here? We do not even know. Maybe some day we will find out.

Maybe some day there will be prosecutions, maybe even convictions against some of these people but first we have to have the will to move in that direction as a society. We have to stand up and say what is going on today is wrong -- that turning the bodies of these young children into chemical profit centers is morally wrong, ethically wrong. It is wrong in terms of health policy. It is wrong in so many ways that even this hour is not enough to talk about them all. We have to be willing to do that in society.

I have a six CD course available at that is very reasonably priced for these Health Ranger reports because I want to give you the opportunity to listen to these in your car while you are commuting or while you are driving your children to the naturopath. I hope that you are not driving your child to a conventional medical doctor or a psychiatrist. As you are taking them to a naturopathic doctor, you can listen to these programs in your car. You can find those at

Parents Must Protect Their Own Children

I hope you agree with most of what you have read here and I hope you remain skeptical with everything that you read. I hope you check this out. Go to Google. Start Googling this information. Teach yourself the truth about this issue. Find out the truth. 

Do not just get your information from some doctor who has been taking money from the drug companies and certainly do not get your information from the mainstream media because they are taking money from drug companies left and right.

No one in their right mind trusts the FDA anymore except, of course, the drug companies because the FDA is doing their bidding. So remain skeptical, remain informed and please do everything in your power to protect your children from these dangerous drugs and these evil corporations.

Protect your children. That is the best way that you can thank me for putting forth this effort to get you this information and to keep going is to just protect your children. Help me make a difference. Spread this information around. 

I do not want to see more children stunted in their growth and harmed by these dangerous drugs and in fact, I would like to see this whole industry overturned. This whole sham of psychiatric medicine should come crumbling down real soon now. It can only do so if people like you -- intelligent consumers like you continue to stay informed and continue to voice your concerns. 

Speak out! Take a stand! Do not be rolled over by these dangerous corporations -- these powerful entities who seem to be in control in society today.

They will not last much longer. Trust me because the truth is coming out about these issues and as this truth comes out that house of cards is going to come falling down. Stand up, voice your truth, and protect the health of your children. 

This article is a transcript of Health Ranger Report #7, entitled The ADHD Scam and the Mass Drugging of Schoolchildren, which is available free of charge as an MP3 download at: 


About the author: Mike Adams is a holistic nutritionist with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public He has authored and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers guides, and books on topics like health and the environment, impacting the lives of millions of readers around the world who are experiencing phenomenal health benefits from reading his articles. Adams is a trusted, independent journalist who receives no money or promotional fees whatsoever to write about other companies' products. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a maker of super bright LED light bulbs that are 1000% more energy efficient than incandescent lights. He also founded an environmentally-friendly online retailer called that uses retail profits to help support consumer advocacy programs. He's also the founder and CEO of a well known email mail merge software developer whose software, 'Email Marketing Director,' currently runs the NaturalNews email subscriptions. Adams also serves as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a non-profit consumer protection group, and regularly pursues cycling, nature photography, Capoeira and Pilates. He's also author of numerous health books published by Truth Publishing and is the creator of several consumer-oriented grassroots campaigns, including the Spam. Don't Buy It! campaign, and the free downloadable Honest Food Guide. He also created the free reference sites and Adams believes in free speech, free access to nutritional supplements and the ending of corporate control over medicines, genes and seeds.

May 8


By Dr. James Howenstine, MD.
January 28, 2007

Biochemist Ernst T. Krebs Jr. proposed that cancer was caused by a deficiency of Vitamin B 17 (Laetrile, Amygdaline).No person eating a high nitriloside(Vitamin B 17) diet (Hunzas, Eskimos, Hopi Indians) or voluntarily taking a high intake of nitriloside containing foods has ever developed cancer.[1] Diseases caused by deficiency of Vitamins scurvy (Vitamin C) and pellagra (Vitamin B3 Niacin) have been great mysteries to conventional medicine long after the cure for the disease was well documented. Cancer appears to be a similar mystery.

With the shift in consumption of food in the United States many foods high in nitrilosides (laetrile) are no longer eaten (millet was replaced by wheat) and other foods not containing laetrile have become widely consumed (packaged foods). The food with the highest quantity of Vitamin B-17(laetrile) is in the pit of apricots. Apricot trees are prized by the Hunzas who eat plentiful amounts of the pit substance. Hunzas are known for their vitality, good health and longevity. Many live to be 100 years old and are able to perform hard physical labor all their lives. They never develop cancer until they leave their homeland and start eating new food. Eskimos obtain large amounts of laetrile from caribou meat and salmon berries. Laetrile can be obtained from almonds, macadamia, buckwheat and millet.

There are more than 1200 plants that contain laetrile(Vitamin B 17). Many seeds contain laetrile (grapes, peaches, apples, pears, plums, nectarines, strawberries, raspberries etc). The seed is responsible for providing the nutrients needed to generate the whole plant or tree so it is not surprising that seeds are a concentrated source of nutrition full of vitamins that encourage growth. The apricot pit has the highest content of laetrile of any plant and it’s. hard outer shell protects the central portion of the pit from becoming dehydrated. When the pit is cracked there is a soft central portion that contains laetrile which has a bitter taste. Stevia can improve the taste of apricot pits. Nitrilosides contribute flavor to food.

Other foods that supply Vitamin B 17 include sorghum, maize, grasses, linseed, millet and bitter almonds. Sugar cane has largely replaced sorghum and wheat has replaced millet in North American eating patterns.

Pets can often be observed eating high nitriloside grasses when they become ill. Bears eat the viscera and rumen of their prey along with salmon berries all of which are high in nitrilosides. Five bears in the San Diego zoo have died of cancer. These bears are fed western food not containing laetrile. Healthy animals shot by hunters are never found to have cancer.

How Does Laetrile Work?

More than 100 years ago, brilliant biologist Dr. James Beard of Scotland proposed that pancreatic enzymes had an important role in preventing cancer. Careful microscopic review of tissue slides revealed to him that stem cells, which have the capability to become cells of any tissue in the body, were identical to the trophoblast cells that invade the uterus in the initial stage of a pregnancy. Wherever damage to body tissues from chemicals, infection, stress or injury occurs there is prompt release of estrogen at the injury site. This estrogen immediately promotes rapid growth of cells to speed healing.

This invasion of the uterus to establish the placenta and umbilical cord is initiated by the contact between estrogen and stem cells. This converts stem cells into trophoblastic cells. The appearance and behavior of the trophoblast cells entering uterine muscle can not be distinguished from the appearance of cancer cells invading tissues. When the pancreas secretes trypsin at 8 weeks of the embryo’s life there is prompt disappearance of all trophoblastic tissue.

White blood cells are responsible for killing infectious organisms and tumor cells. Prior to secretion of trypsin into the small intestine at 8 weeks white blood cells are prevented from attacking the trophoblastic tissue by the fact that the trophoblast has a layer of tissue surrounding it with a negative charge. The white blood cell also has a negative charge so these two tissues(white blood cell and trophoblast) repel each other. When trypsin appears in the small intestine at 8 weeks of pregnancy via the pancreatic duct the substance covering the trophoblast becomes dissolved by blood borne trypsin and the trophoblast no longer has a negative charge. It is immediately dissolved and digested by white blood cells.. In a brief period of time there is complete disappearance of trophoblast tissue from the uterus brought about by the appearance of trypsin in the blood. Cancer of the duodenum is quite rare probably reflecting this protective effect of trypsin in duodenal secretions. High doses of potent enzymes have enabled patients with pancreatic cancer and other malignancies to recover.

When trypsin begins to be absorbed into the blood it passes throughout the body. From this moment on trypsin can rid the body of abnormal cells and damaged stem cells. The stem cell(trophoblast) produces chorionic gonadotropin which appears in the urine.. Of considerable importance to Beard’s theory about carcinogenesis it has now been documented that at least 80% of cancers[2] have chorionic gonadotropin in their urine which originates in rapidly growing trophoblastic tissue(malignant stem cells). Damage to the pancreas from aging, toxic metal exposure(mercury, cadmium, arsenic, uranium, iron, lead etc.), lack of essential omega 3 fatty acids, excessive consumption of sugar, alcoholism, diabetes, Co Q 10 deficiency, and acidosis with hypoxia in tissues due to arteriosclerosis could all contribute to relative pancreatic failure with decreased enzyme output that allows stem cells (trophoblasts) to proliferate in an abnormal way(cancer)..

Recent research provides some interesting insight into the stem cells that were studied by Dr. Beard. Stem cells seem to have a tendency to become malignant. Cancer stem cells[3] have now been identified in blood malignancies, brain tumors and breast tumors. Dr. Michael Clarke and Dr. Mohammed Al-Haji at the University of Michigan have demonstrated that not all tumor cells are equally capable of causing spread of cancer (metastatic cancer). In experimental cancers, it was learned that less than 1% of tumor cells were able to cause metastatic cancer. The highly malignant 1% of cells have been identified as stem cells.

In 2005, Jean Marie Houghton MD, PhD of the University of Massachusetts, Worcester showed that in certain stomach cancers, the cells that initiate the malignancy did not originate in the stomach. These were shown to be stem cells that had migrated to the stomach from the bone marrow in response to a low grade stomach infection with Helicobacter pylori organisms. The bone marrow derived cells (BMDC) are sent to the stomach to fight the infection as the body tries to heal itself. After arriving in the stomach the BMDC assume the physical characteristics of stomach cells, but when influenced by hormonal signals from inflammatory tissue, they undergo malignant change. This sheds light on how stem cells are involved in the origin and progression of cancer. It seems possible that marginal success with current drugs for myeloid leukemia (white cell derived) might relate to their lack of affect on the malignant stem cells that appear to be causing the cancer.

Amygdaline(laetrile) contains 2 molecules of sugar, one molecule of benzaldehyde and a cyanide radical.. This is quite stable in normal cells but can be broken apart in cancer cells which are the only site of the enzyme beta-glucosidase. The quantity of beta-glucosidase in cancer cells is 3000 times the quantity found in normal cells. When laetrile is lysed by beta-glucosidase HCN(hydrogen cyanide) forms in the cancer cell and promptly destroys the cell. This limited method of release of HCN ensures that laetrile therapy is completely safe.

The quantity of the enzyme rhodanese is high in normal cells and absent in cancer cells. This enzyme is able to prevent the release of cyanide in healthy cells. Because rhodanese is absent in cancer cells there is nothing to stop the release of cyanide from amygdaline and the cancer cell is immediately destroyed. In this remarkable way the Creator of the Universe was able to design a mechanism to destroy cancer cells while protecting healthy cells from the cyanide radical found in Vitamin B-17.

In treating patients with laetrile it is vital that patients receive zinc, Vitamin C, Vitamin B, Vitamin E, pancreatic enzymes and antioxidants. Zinc is the transport mechanism for both laetrile and nitrilosides. Thus absence of zinc will prevent either laetrile or nitrilosides from entering the body. Zinc is a key part of enzymatic reactions that becomes disabled by the presence of toxic metals in the body. These toxic metalscause a slowdown or shutdown of the chemical reactions dependent on enzymes that contain zinc. For this reason the removal of toxic metals is an important part of the therapy in patients with cancer.

Standard pharmacology textbooks for more than a 100 years have always given laetrile a perfect safety approval. Reputable scientist Dr. Dean Burk, head of the Cytochemistry Department at the National Cancer Institute reported that when laetrile was added to a culture of cancer cells[4] “The cancer cells died like flies until none were left.”

What Are the Results In Treating Cancer With Laetrile?

More than 25 papers about laetrile have been published. Reputable scientists like Dr. Hans Nieper of Hanover, Germany and Dr. Francisco Contreras of Oasis of Hope Hospital in Tijuana, Mexico have reported good results in cancer patients using laetrile.

White rats taking 70 times the equivalent human dose of laetrile remained well but did have better appetites, better health and weight gain which would be expected from a vitamin therapy.

Humans with cancer taking laetrile have shown lower blood pressure and disappearance of both anemia and pain. The release of benzaldehyde, which is known to effectively treat pain affords a possible explanation for the disappearance of pain. The unfavorable reports about laetrile and cancer are because of usage of tiny doses of laetrile which could not be expected to work or fabrication and denial of favorable results.

Case Reports

#1 David Edmonds in June 1971 developed colon cancer that had penetrated into the bladder. This was treated with a colostomy. Six months after the initiation of laetrile therapy the bladder cancer had disappeared and his colostomy was returned to a normal bowel connection.

#2 In 1967 Joan Wilkinson presented with a large thigh malignancy. She was initially treated with chemotherapy but the mass reappeared along with tumor spread into lungs, bladder and pelvis. Amputation was suggested but she took laetrile with disappearance of the mass and tumor from lungs, bladder and pelvis.

#3 A podiatrist, Dr. Dale Danner of Santa Paula, Ca., in 1972 developed lung cancer in both lungs with a painful right thigh mass where tumor had spread from his lung. He placed a 10 day supply of laetrile into an artery in one massive dose. He awoke 36 hours later with resolution of his cough, thigh mass and pain. He began conventional doses of laetrile and returned to work several months later.

#4 Alicia Buttons(Red’s wife) She had “hopeless” advanced throat cancer. She went to Dr. Hans Nieper in Hanover, Germany who treated her with laetrile. She was alive and well 23 years later.

#5 Carol Vencious This 20 year old student nurse developed a swelling in the occipital area associated with tumors in the right acetabulum(hip) and cervical spine. Biopsy showed a malignant tumor thought to possibly be an amelanotic melanoma. Chemotherapy made her very sick. She went to the Richardson Cancer Clinic where she was treated with a metabolic program including laetrile. She made a complete recovery and later delivered a healthy daughter.

In advanced cancers that have metastasized to many sites about 15% recover[5] with laetrile therapy. Conventional therapy with chemotherapy and radiation fails to cure this form of cancer. Patients who have never been injured by chemotherapy or radiation have significantly better recovery rates than patients who have received chemotherapy and radiation. Eighty percent of early cancers are cured with laetrile. Conventional cancer therapy cures about 15% of similar cases. No person taking laetrile has ever developed cancer. Cancer patients who have responded favorably to laetrile do not relapse when they are maintained on laetrile therapy.

Laetrile can be given intravenously, intramuscularly and orally. A large intravenous or intramuscular dosage would be 2 or 3 grams given daily or several times weekly. Orally several apricot pits daily can be combined with amygdaline(there is no need to take more pits than you would eat of apricot fruit). This is suggested possibly because there may be an ingredient of value in the natural substance not necessarily found in the capsules. Patients with advanced cancers should receive at least two 500 mg amygdaline capsules three times daily along with several apricot pits daily. If there is no sign of improvement large doses should be given intramuscularly or intravenously as some patients may need large doses to recover. The center of the pit contains a soft bitter substance (laetrile) which will need flavoring with stevia to become palatable.


May 8

Mercury Fillings Shattered! FDA, ADA Conspiracy to Poison Ch

(NaturalNews) The FDA has, for decades, ridiculously insisted that mercury fillings pose no health threat whatsoever to children. While dismissing hundreds of studies showing a clear link between mercury amalgam fillings ("silver fillings") and disastrous neurological effects in the human body, the FDA denied the truth about mercury and effectively protected the mercury filling racket that has brought so much harm to so many people. For over a hundred years, a cabal of "mercury mongers" made up of the American Dental Association, mercury filling manufacturers and indignant dentists have reaped windfall profits by implanting toxic fillings into the mouths of children, all while insisting that mercury -- one of the most toxic heavy metals known to modern science -- posed no health threat whatsoever. Today, that reign of toxicity is about to end. Thanks to the tireless, multi-year efforts of people like Charles Brown, National Counsel for Consumers for Dental Choice (, the FDA has now been forced to acknowledge a fact so fundamental that, by any measure of honest science, it should have adopted the position decades ago. What position is that? Simply that mercury is toxic to humans. Why the FDA has to be sued to do its job of protecting consumers The FDA's stonewalling on this issue has been nothing less than a circus of politically-motivated denials, much like the Big Tobacco executives swearing under oath that "Nicotine is not addictive." In similar style, the FDA insisted for decades that "Mercury is not toxic." Both statements, as any sane person can readily conclude, are the outbursts of lunatics. Sadly, those lunatics somehow remain in charge of our nation's food, drugs and cosmetics (and dental care), meaning that any real progress to protect the People must come from outside the FDA. And that's exactly what just happened. Consumers for Dental Choice teamed up with Moms Against Mercury ( to sue the FDA and its commissioner whose name sounds like an evil-minded villian right out of a Marvel comic book: Von Eschenbach. The lawsuit, entitled, Moms Against Mercury et al. v. Von Eschenbach, Commissioner, et al was concluded earlier this week with a reluctant agreement by the FDA to both change its website on the issue of mercury and to reclassify mercury within one year, following a period of public comment (which the agency will no doubt try to drag out as long as possible in order to avoid actually sticking to the terms of the lawsuit agreement). Remarkably, the FDA's website no longer claims mercury is harmless. The language has now been changed in dramatic fashion, reading: "Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetus." There's still a lot of fudging there. Note the careful use of the word "may," which means the FDA still isn't sure whether mercury is neurotoxic, but it might be. This is the FDA's way of continuing to stonewall this issue, even as it lost its lawsuit. For any FDA officials who don't yet think mercury is toxic to the human nervous system, I invite them to chug a few milliliters of the substance themselves and find out what the effects might be. It certainly couldn't make them any more mad than they are already! Why the FDA is as mad as a hatter Speaking of people going mad with mercury, that's the history of the term "as mad as a hatter." As explained by Wikipedia: There is scientific evidence behind the meaning of insanity. Mercury was used in the process of curing felt used in some hats. It was impossible for hatters to avoid inhaling the mercury fumes given off during the hat making process. Hatters and other men in working mills died early due to the residual mercury caused neurological damage, as well as confused speech and distorted vision. As the mercury poisoning progressed to dangerously high levels, sufferers could also experience psychotic symptoms, such as hallucinations. See to read more. Interestingly, the symptoms of mercury toxicity quite accurately describe the mental state of the top decision makers at both the FDA and the American Dental Association, both of which have hallucinated for decades that mercury was safe for children to swallow! These people also exhibit symptoms of serious neurological damage such as malfunctioning frontal lobes -- the part of the brain responsible for reasoning. They also seem to lack proper functioning in the part of brain responsible for empathy and compassion towards fellow human beings. Perhaps top FDA and ADA officials have been chemically lobotomized in some way, and there's no question that the leaders in conventional dentistry suffer from advanced stages of psychosis, too. This could very well be due to the fact that their ongoing use of mercury fillings has exposed them to decades of mercury vapors and airborne particles which have entered their nervous systems and damaged their brains, making them appear quite mad. Thus, the modern version of "mad as a hatter" might be, "mad as a dentist." Not all dentists are mad, mind you, but the ones that still work with mercury no doubt suffer very real neurological damage as a result. What's next for the FDA Despite this lawsuit victory, please keep in mind that the FDA has not agreed to immediately ban toxic mercury fillings. They have merely agreed to consider reclassifying mercury at some future date -- a commitment they will probably break, given their history of lying about mercury and refusing to do what they've agreed to do on this subject (see the interview, below, for more details on that). At every opportunity throughout recent history, the FDA has gone out of its way to censor the truth about the toxicity of mercury fillings, thereby directly supporting the continued exposure of literally hundreds of millions of children, adults and senior citizens to a substance that every reasonable scientist in the modern world knows to be highly toxic to the human nervous system. And in this way, the FDA is guilty of crimes against the People. To know that a substance is highly toxic, and yet to continue allowing it to be implanted into the mouths of children, teens and adults (even when you have the power to ban it) is not merely irresponsible, it is downright criminal. I can only hope that a nationwide class action lawsuit against the ADA, the FDA, local dentists and mercury manufacturers will emerge from this action. Countless Americans have been poisoned by mercury fillings, and the whole scam has been orchestrated by the usual suspects: Powerful corporations and industry groups that sought to exploit the People for profits, regardless of the harm it might cause them. The fact that a substance as toxic as mercury has been allowed to be implanted into the mouths of children for so long reveals precisely how corrupt, outdated and downright dangerous our system of modern dentistry has really become. Much of what comes out of the mouths of dentists, it turns out, is pure poison... and not coincidentally, that's exactly what those same dentists put into the mouths of their own patients! But I don't want to give the impression that all dentists are evil. In fact, more and more dentists are now practicing mercury-free dentistry, and I strongly recommend that if you need to see a dentist in the future, insist on seeing one that has given up using mercury. This is more than a personal health issue, it's also an environmental issue. Where do you think all the mercury goes after you chew on those silver fillings and swallow little mercury bits? The mercury molecules that aren't absorbed by your body and lodged in your brain cells are eliminated from the body and flow right into the environment. Ever wonder why all the seafood bring harvested from the ocean these days is contaminated with mercury? Well now you know: It's due to all the toxic consumers peeing away the mercury they've swallowed from their silver fillings! See my related CounterThink Cartoon, Seafood Mercury Warning at The FDA remains steadfastly clueless about mercury So now, thanks to this lawsuit, the FDA has changed its website to read: "Pregnant women and persons who may have a health condition that makes them more sensitive to mercury exposure, including individuals with existing high levels of mercury bioburden, should not avoid seeking dental care, but should discuss options with their health practitioner." This sentence says nothing conclusive of course, and it doesn't urge consumers to avoid mercury in any way, but it does at least imply that perhaps there is a link between dental care and mercury poisoning. If you're interested in being amused, you can read all this distorted language yourself at: This document, by the way, reveals the outright stupidity of FDA "experts" as they stumble from one topic to the next. For example, one question asked on the page is: Should pregnant women and young children use or avoid amalgam fillings? The FDA's answer to that is: The recent advisory panel believed that there was not enough information to answer this question. In other words, the FDA advisory panel selectively chose to avoid all the evidence showing mercury to be extremely harmful to the nervous system of a fetus or a child, and they have decided to pretend to be uninformed on the subject rather than take any real stance on protecting human beings from the toxicity of mercury. Wow, and to think, these are the people running our national food supply and drug approval processes, too! Is it any wonder so many drugs are deadly? If the FDA thinks mercury is safe, no wonder they think deadly pharmaceuticals don't harm people either! Exclusive interview with Charles Brown, Consumers for Dental Choice In the days leading up to this lawsuit with the FDA, I spoke to Charles Brown over the phone and explored the timeline of events involving the FDA and mercury. This interview, published below, is nothing short of astonishing! In it, you'll learn about the FDA's stonewalling tactics, the lies and deceptions of the American Dental Association, and why it took an outside consumer group suing the FDA to get the agency to do its job of protecting consumers from toxic mercury. Here's the full interview. Be sure to learn more at Mike: The story here is that you and the organization – Consumers for Dental Choice are now suing the Food & Drug Administration to seek removal of mercury fillings from the U.S. marketplace. Can you give us some details about this lawsuit? Why you think suing the FDA is the best way to go here. Charlie: Well sure Mike, the FDA is the spoke of the wheel here. I mean they are the ones that make decisions on whether products should be on the market or should not be on the market. They approve, they classify. In the case of devices – a device is something that is used in healthcare and it is separately regulated under a set of rules. One category of devices is implants. Implants are what goes in the body but does not dissolve. It stays in the body at least six months and does not dissolve. Dental fillings are an implant. The FDA is deciding instead of classifying, instead of regulating it, it will do nothing and it has done nothing on mercury amalgam – encapsulated mercury fillings - decade after decade. They continue to promise to act and actually, last year they made me a written promise and I foolishly believed them. I actually thought when they promised, in writing, that they would begin the classifying process and put together the first step. They promised me specifically what the step would be, I naively thought, "Well, gee maybe these people are honorable and telling the truth." Actually, once again, they have just pretended. Under pressure, they will say they are going to do something – pressure from Congress, pressure from the Courts, pressure from petitioners, pressure from the press. They will say, "Sure, we are going to do something." They do nothing. They have left this mercury amalgam out there unclassified, unregulated with no warnings and just a few news releases, which have nothing to do with what they are supposed to be doing. Mike: So mercury fillings – let me just get this straight from the beginning here, have never been classified by the FDA, which means they have never been really approved by the FDA, correct? Charlie: Correct, this is a primitive filling in the first place but the pre-primitive – the pre-historic system in the 19th and early 20th Century was where was the dentist mixed the mercury with a powder. That lasted until the 20th Century with the old-fashioned offices. It is now prohibited in several states but that was the way where the dentists would mix a bottle of mercury and powder. That has been classified – not together, but the powder has been classified and the bottle of mercury. No dentist does that anymore. They are not allowed to do it that way where the ADA tells them not to do it. The state government tells them not to do it. Everybody tells them they cannot do it that way and they do not do it that way. They take the capsule that they receive in the mail. The capsule has never been classified. The FDA knows to classify. Any step that the FDA takes, that the Food & Drug Administration takes toward addressing mercury fillings they know it is the beginning of the end. Mike: That is my next question. Do you think there will be a cascading effect here? I mean if the FDA honestly begins to apply the law; it would then have to mean the end of mercury. Charlie: It is the end of the mercury fillings if they apply law so they have intentionally done nothing. If they classify amalgam, they know they are going to have to classify it similar to other mercury devices so they do not do it. Mike: They just try to delay this and hope no one notices. Charlie: They will delay until they retire – not delay until next week. They will delay until they retire. Then they will get the golden retirement egg from the American Dental Association. They also know that if they did an Environmental Impact Statement it is the end of mercury fillings. Mike: Well, that is my next question. The environmental impact of mercury fillings in dentistry Charlie: Environmental... yes, sure – the Environmental Impact Statement says it does not require you to go a certain step but if you say if we use mercury fillings, it is the largest source of mercury in the wastewater. Its cremation is the largest source of mercury in the air except in communities that have many power plants is something. In communities with no other industrial mercury uses it is the largest source of mercury in the air and is the largest source of mercury in the water in every community in America -- the huge contributor in coming out of cemeteries and so on. So you say if we continue mercury fillings, it is an environmental disaster. If we ban them, it is environmentally the right thing to do. Once they have done that the logical step since you could go either way is to take the environmentally friendly move. They will not do an Environmental Impact Statement. It is a conscious decision inside FDA of protectors of mercury fillings – people like Susan Runner, people like Norris Alderson who have decided that they will protect the use of these fillings on behalf of organized dentistry and they will defy the laws of the land to do so. Mike: I have so many questions to ask you about this. Let us start with one that I think any intelligent reader would be asking himself or herself and that is if this mercury is so toxic to human biochemistry and if it has such a detrimental impact on the environment, how could so many dentists and the American Dental Association be in such strong support of it. Charlie: Yes, it is amazing. It is amazing. It really goes to the foundation stone. Clearly if we had it to do over again we would not build the combustion engine. The invention of the combustion engine may have been the decision that destroys our planet unless we can reverse that. I mean clearly that is the main reason we are turning our planet into a heat box. However, the foundation stone is the combustion engine in which Henry Ford put us. The foundation stone of dentistry is mercury fillings. If there had been no mercury fillings, there would have been no dental profession. That is a certainty. We now have physicians of the ear, nose, and throat. In the 19th Century, there were physicians of the mouth. They said to use mercury is malpractice. The barbers put the mercury in. It worked better than gold, which was very hot then. It hurt you to go in. Whereas, the mercury was nice and smooth and people were drinking mercury for syphilis so they were able to put it in there because medicine had not yet pushed it out of their profession. They pushed it out again not counting vaccines but they pushed it out of medicine around 1900, but dentistry was something different. By then dentistry had gotten their market niche. Their market niche was we are going to take care of the mouth. They created an entirely different profession – one that basically is not related to healthcare. They take the position the mouth is so different from the rest of the body we will just worry about the mouth and nothing else and you doctors will not worry about the mouth at all. We have the most grotesque healthcare system where physicians even refuse to look at the mouth. People in the hospital – you can be in the hospital, you can be so sick and nobody is going to look at your mouth except the dentist. It is like a division of labor where they both make their money and the person harmed is the public, so organized dentistry took the position since mercury is safe by definition because we use it and we are doctors, anything we put in the mouth is safe. They just put in... they put beryllium in there. They put anything in there with the idea of we are immune because we are doctors. We know what we are doing and it is just a tragedy. It is just unbelievable that we ended up with a profession so wedded to the most neuro-toxic element on the planet. Why dentists are walking away from mercury fillings Mike: Well, you hinted at the arrogance of the professionals who continue to support this mercury and you mentioned the history quite a bit there. I have to wonder that given that nearly a hundred years have passed since this was being widely introduced into dentistry and with all the information about mercury's toxicity over the years, how could dentists still say that this substance is not harmful? What is their argument now? Charlie: Well, half of them do not use it now. See half of them have walked away from it. Here is what happened – enter the institutional powerhouse, the American Dental Association, to impose a top down system. The ADA realizing that they had a secret. The ADA became the whole player on the field. The ADA is opposite the AMA in many ways and I am not – believe me I am not a supporter of the American Medical Association. I do not mean to say that but in this one area the AMA has a set of ethics that make sense, which is we do not endorse products for money. The AMA ventured into that I think in about the ཚs and decided they had better stop and then they ventured into it again in the ྖs and they realized they could not. They promised their membership. They had to fire their executive director, break this contract with Sunbeam, and promise they will never endorse products for money. That is the AMA's ethical position and it is an ethical position. The ADA – the American Dental Association has no such ethics, Mike. They endorse products for money. The ADA, starting in the ཮s really, the 1950's, they really took off at that point. A product endorsement system, business studies show that Crest was a minor toothpaste product compared to Colgate. Crest surpassed Colgate because the they poured money into the ADA coffers and the ADA, in turn, gave their name to Crest to say we endorse this Crest toothpaste. It became such an advantage for Crest that the other toothpaste makers decided they would slop money to the ADA too, which they did. The ADA was not only unethically telling the public a product is safe when they did not know if it was safe. They were not testing it. The ADA was even taking money from their members for joining and then turning around and saying to their members you should use this product because we endorse it, because it is safe and effective when they had no idea if it was safe and effective. They were serving two masters but the corporate master to ADA was paramount and so they took these sums of money from every dental products manufacturer, became a dental products endorsement machine more than a professional group – much more than a professional group. You had that basic powerhouse – the ADA saying go buy these products. Then the ADA saw the criticism of mercury amalgam coming in the 1980's and they knew they had to do something because they were getting money from the manufacturers and they had dentists that did not want the public to know. The ADA adopted a gag rule in their code of ethics in 1987 and it said that dentists should not tell anybody about the toxicity of mercury. Mike: Really? Charlie: Yes, absolutely. Mike: They adopted a gag rule about mercury fillings? Charlie: They adopted a gag rule. In the Goldwater Center, the Phoenix based Goldwater Center wrote an essay condemning the gag rule in 1998 – a decade later. They were the first ones to do it. They are a think tank, kind of a libertarian think tank I guess you would call it – the Goldwater Center. Modeled after the thinking of their namesake of the group, of course, Senator Goldwater... he did not found it but it was founded on his principles and Congressman Flake was the executive director. He is now a Congressman. When he was executive director, Mark Gingrich – a former reporter at the Arizona Republic, who joined that group, wrote a whole report on the gag rule and how bad it was. That was the libertarian from the right if you will. The libertarian on the left – the American Civil Liberties Union, took the same position. They sued the Connecticut Dental Board here on the other coast, said you cannot have this gag rule, and won. Then the attorney general of Oregon, the attorney general of Iowa said you have to stop the gag rule so bit by bit, piece by piece, the gag rule has been dismantled but the value of it was the ADA protecting its product. I will tell you something else when they adopted the gag rule, I left this out: the ADA had patents on mercury amalgam. Not only did they get money for promoting the product. They even got patents on amalgam to protect its use, then told dentists do not talk about this product. Mike: This sounds like just a financial racket here. Charlie: The ADA is a financial racket. There is no question about it. To break the control over mercury fillings you not only have the history, they have to protect their profession, which was founded on mercury. I mean it is not that now but it was founded on mercury – the foundation stone. They have to protect their own history and their own pocketbooks. Now with the gag rule crumbling they have many problems. The ADA has huge problems with this. They are in retreat. Mike, the one thing is they are definitely this year they began retreating. We gave them an exit strategy. December of 2006 I sat down in the ADA headquarters and said you guys know you have to get out of this and I have a cost-free exit strategy that will not destroy your reputation. We presented – Consumers for Dental Choice presented the ADA – the American Dental Association with an exit strategy on mercury fillings based on the environment where the ADA could say they would not have to concede any health issues. They would say we recognize that mercury amalgam is an environmental problem. Alternatives exist, therefore, we are announcing a phase out over the following number of years. I asked for one year and they said it would have to be longer and I said okay, but I said we have to have an end. People have said to me well let us take them on like cigarettes and I will tell that is about the worst prototype I can think of where the lawyers became billionaires and kids are still smoking. I am not going to tolerate that kind of end where a bunch of people get rich and the kids are still harmed... because poor kids are still getting mercury fillings and poor Latino pregnant women and Native American children and so on are getting this. We are not going to accept that. There has to be an end date. They were willing to do it. The lawyers were willing to do it at this discussion – December 14, 2006 at the ADA offices in Chicago but they just could not pull the trigger with the ADA. They just could not have a second meeting. They have decided instead through 2007 they are doing a gradual retreat. There is no question they are. It is coming, but the gradual retreat continues to harm millions of people in America and around the world. Their gradual retreat is not acceptable. We are not going to have a Vietnam ending where we have eight years to withdraw. Mike: Right, now, I mean obviously the ADA does not want to admit that mercury fillings were ever a hazard because then they could open themselves up to huge class-action lawsuits, right. Charlie: Absolutely and I told them I hope they do get huge class-action lawsuits and some day they will because they would not walk away from it. They had their chance and they continued to give this nonsensical stuff about how mercury exposure is okay as long as they do it. It is just outrageous. It is morally outrageous and they know it. The scientific reports that they produce are cooked. They are unethical. They have no scientific aspect. They are simply PR machines where they find some dentist – not a real scientist but just their fellow dentists to write reports. It is an effort to say we are going to protect ourselves, we are going to have our government do it, the government is going to do it for us, and the FDA is about as compliant a government agency as ever existed. Mike: Now, what happens if your lawsuit succeeds with the FDA? I mean essentially, what has to happen next for the FDA to ban mercury fillings? Charlie: Well, they could take many routes. They could just ban it. They could start doing their job. If they start the classifying process then amalgam is gone. The ADA has admitted that. The ADA warned its members the FDA is probably going to put restrictions on amalgam. That process has started. They promised us they were starting then the FDA just stopped. They just stopped because within the organization they reversed the course and decided effectively that dentists are more important to them than consumers. It is just so tragic that dental economics out-trumps children's health but that is the way the FDA operates. Mike: Well but that cannot be a surprise to anyone who follows the FDA... Charlie: Well it is a surprise to those of us that had an assumption that we actually believed what we were told. I know if you follow FDA, it is not a surprise. The FDA needs to be totally reorganized. They need to stop having a system where those with a self-interest in the product are the ones that get to make the decisions. The idea that Susan Runner, a practicing dentist, is at the FDA doing the work for the ADA and has actually had a sort of agenda to cover up mercury decade after decade and it is still being covered up in the Dental Devices Branch. The fact that Dan Schultz – the physician who's head of Devices will not remove her or allow anybody but a dentist to be in charge, this shows the professional courtesy that physicians give to dentists. Schultz simply closes his eyes. He knows it is a problem but he is a physician. He wants dentists in charge because that is the deal they made a hundred years ago that dentists are in charge of the mouth and the public is shut out and physicians are to blame as well on this for shutting their eyes. Dan Schultz is as morally culpable and legally culpable at the FDA as Susan Runner is. That is why we sued him and sued her both and several other people. Arresting top FDA officials and charging them with crimes against the People Mike: Now, I am on the record saying that I believe the FBI should march into the FDA offices and arrest these individuals and we should prosecute them for criminal behavior against the American people. Do you think that is going way too far or do you think that's quite reasonable? Charlie: That is probably not going too far. We filed a series of complaints with the Inspector General. We filed complaints with the in-house FDA Inspector and then filed a complaint with the U.S. Inspector General last Fall. They have decided they will not comply with the law. They know they have to classify mercury amalgam. They will not do it. They know environmental impact statements are required or environmental assessments are required – the first step. They will not do it. They know that they warn about all of the mercury exposures such as fish or they warn against as a matter of precaution mercury exposure to children from all other sources. They banned mercurochrome years ago. They took it out of childhood vaccines – actually not of them but they said they would take it out of all of them. They gave warnings on fish for children and pregnant women. They have decided that they will stand silent on mercury and it is truly a conspiracy of silence. That is why our lawsuit did not just sue the FDA. We sued five deep into the bureaucracy. We know whom the players are who are ignoring their duty and we have named them because we are tired of the FDA having a system where they all can hide behind each other. I hope that system ends and our lawsuit plays a role in exposing it. Mike: Now, you just mentioned mercury in fish and that is a great point. Do you happen to know how many times more mercury there is in a typical filling than would be found in a serving of fish? Charlie: Well, it is a more severe exposure because in the fish it is locked in. The mercury from the fish is mainly going through the body. It is a lesser exposure. The mercury in the amalgam is implanted. The mercury in the fillings is thousands of times more because it is half a gram. That is 500,000 micrograms per filling. Mike: Where we are talking micrograms in the fish, right? Charlie: Yes, yes we are. We are so I mean it is so much more but it is a way for medicine and dentistry to change the subject and to blame the fish. It is the fish's fault. Mike: So the FDA says well, mercury in fish is dangerous to you but mercury in your mouth, in your teeth is harmless. Charlie: Well, the FDA has said that. You know the FDA does not speak through its news releases. The FDA speaks through its regulations and its warnings. It has never officially said anything about mercury amalgam. They know it cannot stand the light of day. Yes, they make off-the-cuff comments. They come out with a white paper, which has nothing to do with a regulation – and they refuse to say who wrote it. If FDA staff has furtively sneaked out interviews, white papers, other ways to say mercury fillings are safe but officially, FDA is not saying that at all. Officially, FDA is taking the position that they have never taken a position that it is safe. When forced by the Court to say is mercury safe or not in the first lawsuit we filed, the first bombs against mercury versus FDA, the FDA admitted five times that it does not know if mercury fillings are safe. I can give you all five quotations from their brief or I can give people the website to look it up. Meet Consumers for Dental Choice Mike: Can you tell us a little bit, about where your passion comes from on this topic and people would like to know a bit about your background and your organization – Consumers for Dental Choice. Charlie: Well, sure. Consumers for Dental Choice were founded a decade ago. Came up with the idea in 1996 – it was an idea of Bob Jones who is an inventor from Colorado and now in Texas. He is a former airline pilot, former U2 pilot earlier than that. He is just an outstanding man and inventor and an engineer. He has many patents. He got very sick from mercury fillings and realized the impact of them was severe. He got to know many of the pioneering dentists like Hal Huggins and Scott McAdoo. He was out west and in the east Sue Ann Taylor, a journalist in Atlanta came up with the idea that we really need a consumer movement to fight this. Bob Jones had a conference, which he paid for and sponsored in Denver in 1996. I was in a law firm that represented a lot of alternative health practitioners and interests and consumer groups in the kind of cutting edge alternative health issues many of which no longer were cutting edge because of the work of the senior partner, Jim Turner. Anyway so Jim Turner and I went to that and we decided we would start up the group but Jim came up with the idea we called it the Consumers for Dental Choice and it became a project of another non-profit and then became its own organization in 1999. Then it became a spin off, I left the law firm with it in 2002 to become a full-time consumer group with an office and so on. It has been around for 12 years. It has been a stand-alone organization for six. I got into it representing alternative health groups. I represented many alternative health ideas. I have been a state attorney general of West Virginia in the 1980's. I have been a political activist in the past and had interesting kinds of legal challenges I think. This has just appealed to me and I guess the more I get into it the more I realize how many children are being hurt and how many animals are being poisoned and we have to do something. The way to do it is to have a very aggressive activist organization. It needs to get right in the face of federal or state regulators or the private sector interests like manufacturers or the ADA. Mike: What about your funding? Where does your funding come from? Charlie: We get some money from foundations – the Garfield Foundation is a wonderful funder, has funded us for seven years. For a long time we were funded by the Wallis Research Foundation, a family foundation. The patriarch was H. B. Wallis, an inventor from Iowa. He then lived in Scottsdale near you Mike. He died a couple of years ago and that funding ended at that point from the Wallis Research Foundation but Garfield funds us and then individual dentists and that number grows each year... dentists who have decided to give money off their credit card every month or give an annual contribution and it is very exciting. These people are mercury-free. They are the people who know the ADA is wrong and know we need to fight and they are so much a part of our team that quite a few of them give money. It is terrific. Mike: How quickly is that movement accelerating towards mercury-free dental care? Charlie: Well, fast. The number of mercury-free dentists, if that is any measurement, was 9% in 1995. This is according to the Clinical Research Associates run by the preeminent dentist scholar, very neutral. He has no dog in our fight – Gordon Christensen out of Orem, Utah. One of the things he surveys in dentists is who is mercury-free and it was 9% in 1995. Then 27% of dentists were mercury-free by 2001; by 2005, it was 32%. In 2007, a different survey – this was by a dental magazine said that 52% of the dentists are now mercury-free. It may have reached that number. It may have reached half. It may have reached the tipping point. The progress on dentists is huge. The progress of consumers, the number of mercury fillings was far over 50% when we started, like 60% or something like that I believe or more. The ADA says it is fewer than 30%. I am sure it is but that is the good news. The bad news is it could well get frozen at that number where we have two-tier dentistry where middle-class adults get no mercury but the poor, the children, the working class people, minorities, children, they keep getting mercury and that is absolutely both immoral and unacceptable. Mike: How much mercury is actually released into the environment or put into people's mouths each year through dentistry? Charlie: Well, I do not have that but the expert is the Mercury Policy Project and Michael Bender. They are really the experts. Their website is Michael has written just some seminal reports on this. About every two years, he writes another one. If the folks want to go to they will definitely see what they need to do. Mike: While we are mentioning websites, I want to mention yours again. It is Charlie: Yes it is. Mike: Can consumers also financially support your organization with a donation? Charlie: Sure, our address is 316 F Street Northeast, Suite 316, Washington, D.C. 20002 and again our website is Why conventional dentists are so arrogant about mercury and fluoride Mike: Okay and I will check out too. I will take a close look at that. Getting back to the dentists themselves it is encouraging to see that perhaps as many as half of practicing dentists are now shunning the use of mercury. You have to wonder what the other half are thinking though. I have had numerous conversations, debates, arguments with dentists. I find that those who are still using mercury also still support mass fluoridation of the water supply. They are some of the most arrogant people I have ever met. It is infuriating because his or her position is that no one has any right to question mercury or fluoridation. It makes you wonder. Where are these people coming from that they think they already know so much about mercury that they have declared it to be harmless and no one can challenge that? Charlie: Albert Einstein once said it is always unusual to find someone for whom curiosity survives a formal education. There are so many dentists and they are not alone in this among professionals who get that degree and now they can turn off their brain and make money. These people have decided just to read the ADA propaganda and that is it. You hear that these pro-mercury dentists defend their use of mercury fillings and they will not use the word "mercury" they will give false information as if it is inert. It is not. They know it is not. If they read anything, they know it is not inert. They may just decide to believe it themselves and their big rationale and every pro-mercury dentist that you talk to will give this rationale within the first two minutes. We know it is safe because we have used it for 150 years. Now, I guess the first response to that is what other part of pre-civil war medicine do you endorse? The second point is that it is the most absurd scientific reasoning to say something has been used a long time and therefore is safe. I mean cigarettes must be safe. I have this article, a copy of it, from the British Lancet. Lancet is the British equivalent of the American Medical Association Journal but it is much better. It is much less sleazy in its connection to special interest groups, which the AMA Journal certainly is. The Lancet had an article in 1860, an editorial in 1860 that said cigarettes are the universal product around. If it were dangerous as if its critics said people would be dropping dead in the streets, and clearly its universal use proves that it is safe and it is time to quit criticizing it. That is what things are with amalgam. They make jokes. Well, nobody dropped dead in my office, they say. Well, if somebody gets sick later he or she does not go back to the dentist. The dentist says I am just in charge of the mouth and just the metals I put in the mouth. I do not have any other role. If I cut you while I am putting it in, well I know I have to deal with that because then I have done something that is in the mouth. Any total body effect of what I do leaves with the patient. They get that patient out of the office. They are done with them and then they have this wall of silence and nobody can get back in and beat them in court, although we are going to beat them in court soon. Dentists literally say it is safe because we have done it for 150 years. Does that make it good? – is this good if we do it for 150 years? It was the same argument for slavery. It was the same argument for cigarettes. It is the same argument for everything. If we do it long enough it must be good. That is just the most absurd thing for a man of science or a woman of science to say but by goodness, they do. Mike: Yes, they do. I know you are not focusing on fluoridation but of course, this issue extends to fluoridation where I personally find many of the same similarities – a complete lack of scientific evidence supporting it, a denial of the dangers of fluoridation and the extreme arrogance and unwillingness to consider any possibility that they might be wrong. Charlie: Yes, absolutely, absolutely and I think that is why you would say well how could this continue for so long. I mean how segregation could continue for a hundred years. I mean how could it take 70 years to ban lead in gasoline? In the early 1920's as they started to mass produce gasoline with lead in it the people started dying. Workers died. Workers died in large numbers and everyone knew lead was the culprit... I mean everyone knew. Just as everyone knows mercury is toxic. Everyone knew lead in the 1920's knew lead was toxic. The gasoline industry and the oil industry came up with two solutions. One is they thought of the funny word that said we have added ethyl to the gas. It means lead but they thought just as the dentists say silver fillings or amalgam. To protect the workers they raised the steam stacks in the plants where the gasoline was made. In other words, rather than the workers getting sick and dying immediately from the lead exposure, the chimneys were raised so high that the lead went into the higher atmosphere and started just polluting the whole country. The workers were semi-saved in the sense they were not dying on the spot and the whole country was getting to the point of huge toxicity. The study showed that as we took the lead out of gasoline in the ྂs the level of violence committed by teenagers started going down immediately because each year they were less lead-toxic and the ones growing up were not starting out with lead toxicity. Lead toxicity like mercury toxicity causes people to be violent because they are poisoned. They just strike out. It took from the ཐs to the late ྂs and everybody knew it was toxic and again with mercury fillings because the oil industry had such well-placed lobbyists and they were able to revert the question, saying we do not have to prove it is safe, you have to prove it is unsafe. That is what the dentists keep doing. We have done it for 150 years so prove it. Well, okay we can prove it. But they say, now you are not going to prove it with us having the government in our pocket. The government people are in their pocket. Randall Luter, who had a lot of promise, he was Deputy Commissioner. He has just decided to sleep on it. Let the dentists and the bureaucrats' be back in charge of this issue at FDA; those people have decided we do not care. We are going to protect special interest groups or we are going to let others at FDA protect special interest groups so we have a similar resolve. How to stop the FDA with a lawsuit Mike: To conclude this – getting back to the lawsuit itself, if you win the lawsuit can it force the FDA to rule on this? Why cannot the FDA just say we will deal with it later? I mean can they not just continue to delay even if you win the lawsuit? Charlie: Well, that is a challenge. You pointed to that. I mean if a court just looks at the FDA and says hurry up and do it, the FDA will nod, oh your honor we certainly will. We will hurry as fast as we can. In that sense, it may not do anything. We are trying to build accountability of public officials and that is why we have asked for the remedy that the court should simply take it off the market until FDA does its job. Then I will bet they start moving fast. That is a challenge – a challenge to get that kind of remedy. Nonetheless, we have to begin. We sued them in the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals gave us a roadmap to go to district court. We were all set to file in May of 2007 and the FDA said no they would like a meeting. Please do not file. They would like a meeting. We had a meeting. We said we need an answer in 30 days. In 30 days, the FDA answered and said yes, we will do an advanced notice and a proposed rule. I got a letter from the lawyer for the FDA, Wendy Vincente saying speaking for the FDA we will do this... we assumed that the FDA was telling us the truth. We were wrong so we waited and waited and waited because we would have filed this suit in June. The FDA just bought six, seven months of time simply by telling another bald faced lie, which was that they were going to start moving forward to classify amalgam when... I think some people at the FDA probably have that intention. I think there was good faith from some people but the bureaucrats – the ones that want to keep mercury fillings unclassified, protected for dentistry like Susan Runner - have won out. The FDA is so badly organized, its lead scientist – the Associate Commissioner for Science, the top science person of the agency, degree is in veterinarian medicine. Mike: Their degree is in veterinarian medicine? Charlie: Veterinarian medicine – not a toxicologist, not a chemist, the top person has a degree in veterinarian medicine. Mike: Well, let me just say right here let me offer that when it comes time to apply grassroots pressure give me a call because we can put out an action alert to our reader base, which is now over one million people. Charlie: That is fantastic. Mike: If we coordinate it with what you are doing then we can create this real surge of grassroots pressure because I think what you are finding out is that if you take the FDA's word on anything, then nothing is done. If we can pressure them from another angle that can really assist your lawsuit effort or other efforts in applying pressure. What we need is a re-launch of a campaign as you had "Mothers Against Mercury." We need, what I call, a Web sticker – like a bumper sticker on the Web. We need a little graphic, name like that "Mothers Against Mercury", launch this campaign, and let it go viral all across the Web tied to action items such as grass roots complaints or protests – those kinds of things. Charlie: Well, I will tell you where we are going to work grass roots and I am happy because I have already told the company we are, Dentsply, is the second largest manufacturer of mercury fillings. They make others. They make resin. They make composite. They also make the alternatives – porcelain and so on I think. I know they make a resin composite. They make many other dental products and Wall Street report said Dentsply would be better off if amalgam was banned, they would be more profitable. Dentsply nonetheless has dug in its heels and said we are going to keep making mercury fillings. Basically, Dentsply has turned its back on its own shareholders. The Wall Street has said stop and they said we are not going to stop. Now whether this is just some kind of backroom deal with the ADA or pressure from the ADA that they cannot stand or some other reason that they will not explain to me. I have written them and their counsel wrote me back a "back of the hand" letter... about a two-paragraph letter or three paragraphs saying [nothing substantial]. Dentsply is not only harming consumers and dentists – dental employees, dental workers, the environment all of which they could be sued for. They have an easy exit route. They could make the non-mercury fillings. That is an area we are going to work on – they are based in York, Pennsylvania. I think their day is going to come. Mike: Well, what if we can organize all kinds of protests around that company even maybe not in person but phone calls, faxes, emails... Charlie: Well, why not in person? Anybody who is listening to this and wants to contact me or anybody around the York, PA area or anybody in Pennsylvania that wants to help us ought to contact me that want to go in person. My email is This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. We would like to get people to write but we want folks that are somewhere in the Maryland, eastern half of Pennsylvania... Mike: We have readers all over the country and I know we could get people there. I do not know how many. I do not know if it is ten, 100, or what but I know we have people emailing us all the time asking what we can do. What can we do to fight these evil corporations? If we get some people out there protesting with signs – "Mercury poisoned my child" on their sign. If we get that up on YouTube this could have just a huge domino effect not only make more people aware of your organization but also the mercury toxicity issue. Charlie: Okay, I will. Thank you sir. Prologue Following this interview, Charles Brown won a significant court victory over the FDA, and now the FDA has promised it will reclassify mercury by June, 2009. Between now and then, NaturalNews will be working closely with to rally grassroots support for an outright ban on mercury amalgam fillings. Stand by for action alerts on internet protests, petitions, and perhaps even in-person protests. We must work together to demand that toxic mercury fillings be banned. Then we will end the hundred-year reign of neurotoxic terror that has been orchestrated by the ADA, the FDA and the conventional dentistry industry. We will also support a national class-action lawsuit against not just the ADA and FDA, but even against the individual dentists who have installed these toxic mercury fillings into the mouths of children over the last ten years, despite the incredible amount of scientific evidence proving that mercury fillings cause irreparable harm to human health. It is time to stop poisoning our children and our planet with mercury. The era of mercury poisoning must come to an end. NOW. And those responsible for this chemical attack against our people must be made to compensate for the harm they have unleashed and serve time for their crimes against the People. The revolution will be announced via e-mail. If you're not already subscribed to NaturalNews, get on our e-mail list right now by signing up here: In the months ahead, we'll announce key action items via e-mail. Join us in protesting against the ADA and FDA about the toxicity of mercury fillings, and be prepared to hammer your Senators and other lawmakers in Washington to urge them to support an outright ban on mercury in dental care. This poison must be stopped! And it is up to you to help us achieve this important goal for the future of the human race. Literally, it is that important. We are talking about the future of human life on this planet. If we hope to live, if we hope to have seafood, or ocean ecosystems, or fully-functioning brains and healthy babies, we must stop mercury now. Join the revolution. Stay tuned to NaturalNews. Watch your e-mail for important announcements from us. And be sure to visit and join their e-mail list, too. Stay informed. Empower yourself. Demand real change. And when the day comes, I ask for your support in urging the arrest and prosecution of the criminals at the ADA the FDA who have orchestrated this mass poisoning of the American people. It is time to arrest, prosecute and imprison these criminals who are, in every sense, an imminent threat to the health and safety of the American people. I do not believe in using violence to resolve problems, and I do not believe that these people should be dragged out of their offices and hanged in a public forum, as some other writers have suggested, but I do believe that we must strip them of their power and influence, and we must hold a public court session so that all the world can see the degree of evil that has been operating inside the ADA and FDA for so many years. We must bring this issue into the light, and let the truth be told about this hundred-year lie so that future generations can learn what happens when you allow corporate profits to dictate health regulatory decisions in any society. ### About the author: Mike Adams is a holistic nutritionist with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public He is a prolific writer and has published thousands of articles, interviews, reports and consumer guides, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is an independent journalist with strong ethics who does not get paid to write articles about any product or company. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a manufacturer of mercury-free, energy-efficient LED lighting products that save electricity and help prevent global warming. He also launched an online retailer of environmentally-friendly products ( and uses a portion of its profits to help fund non-profit endeavors. He's also the CEO of a highly successful email newsletter software company that develops software used to send permission email campaigns to subscribers. Adams volunteers his time to serve as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and enjoys outdoor activities, nature photography, Pilates and adult gymnastics.

May 8

God's Pharmacy

God's Pharmacy

God left us a great clue as to what foods help what part of our body! 
> God's Pharmacy! Amazing!
> A sliced Carrot looks like the human eye. The pupil, iris and radiating
> lines look just like the human eye.. and YES, science now shows carrots
> greatly enhance blood flow to and function of the eyes.
> A Tomato has four chambers and is red. The heart has four chambers and is
> red. All of the research shows tomatoes are loaded with lycopine and are
> indeed pure heart and blood food.
> Grapes hang in a cluster that has the shape of the heart. Each grape looks
> like a blood cell and all of the research today shows grapes are also
> profound heart and blood vitalizing food.
> A Walnut looks like a little brain, a left and right hemisphere, upper
> cerebrums and lower cerebellums.  Even the wrinkles or folds on the nut are
> just like the neo-cortex. We now know walnuts help develop more than three
> (3) dozen neuron-transmitters for brain function.
> Kidney Beans actually heal and help maintain kidney function and yes, they
> look exactly like the human kidneys.
> Celery, Bok Choy, Rhubarb and many more look just like bones. These foods
> specifically target bone strength. Bones are 23% sodium and these foods are
> 23% sodium If you don't have enough sodium in your diet, the body pulls it
> from the bones, thus making them weak. These foods replenish the skele tal
> needs of the body.
> Avocadoes, Eggplant and Pears target the health and function of the womb and
> cervix of the female - they look just like these organs. Today's research
> shows that when a woman eats one avocado a week, it balances hormones, sheds
> unwanted birth weight, and prevents cervical cancers. And how profound is
> this?  It takes exactly nine (9) months to grow an avocado from blossom to
> ripened fruit. There are over 14,000 photolytic chemical constituents of n
> utrition in each one of these foods (mo dern science has only studied and
> named about 141 of them).
> Figs are full of seeds and hang in twos when they grow Figs increase the
> mobility of male sperm and increase the numbers of Sperm as well to overcome
> male sterility. 
> Sweet Potatoes look like the pancreas and actual ly bal ance the glycemic
> index of diabetics.
> Olives assist the heal th and function of the ovaries 
> Oranges, Grapefruits, and other Citrus fruits look just l ike the mammary
> glands of the female and actually assist the health of the breasts and the
> movement of lymph in and out of the breasts.
> Onions look like the body's cells. Today's research shows onions help clear
> waste materials from all of the body cells. They even produce tears which
> wash the epithelial layers of the eyes. A working companion, Garlic, also
> helps eliminate waste materials and dangerous free radicals from the body.

May 8

Can You Trust Chemotherapy to Cure Your Cancer?

(NaturalNews) Former White House press secretary Tony Snow died in July 2008 at the age of 53, following a series of chemotherapy treatments for colon cancer. In 2005, Snow had his colon removed and underwent six months of chemotherapy after being diagnosed with colon cancer. Two years later (2007), Snow underwent surgery to remove a growth in his abdominal area, near the site of the original cancer. "This is a very treatable condition," said Dr. Allyson Ocean, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Weill Cornell Medical College. "Many patients, because of the therapies we have, are able to work and live full lives with quality while they're being treated. Anyone who looks at this as a death sentence is wrong." But of course we now know, Dr. Ocean was dead wrong.

The media headlines proclaimed Snow died from colon cancer, although they knew he didn't have a colon anymore. Apparently, the malignant cancer had "returned" (from where?) and "spread" to the liver and elsewhere in his body. In actual fact, the colon surgery severely restricted his normal eliminative functions, thereby overburdening the liver and tissue fluids with toxic waste. The previous series of chemo-treatments inflamed and irreversibly damaged a large number of cells in his body, and also impaired his immune system -- a perfect recipe for growing new cancers. Now unable to heal the causes of the original cancer (in addition to the newly created ones), Snow's body developed new cancers in the liver and other parts of the body.

The mainstream media, of course, still insist Snow died from colon cancer, thus perpetuating the myth that it is only the cancer that kills people, not the treatment. Nobody seems to raise the important point that it is extremely difficult for a cancer patient to actually heal from this condition while being subjected to the systemic poisons ofchemotherapy and deadly radiation. If you are bitten by a poisonous snake and don't get an antidote for it, isn't it likely that your body becomes overwhelmed by the poison and, therefore, cannot function anymore?

Before Tony Snow began his chemo-treatments for his second colon cancer, he still looked healthy and strong. But after a few weeks into his treatment, he started to develop a coarse voice, looked frail, turned gray and lost his hair. Did the cancer do all this to him? Certainly not. Cancer doesn't do such a thing, but chemical poisoning does. He actually looked more ill than someone who has been bitten by a poisonous snake.

Does the mainstream media ever report about the overwhelming scientific evidence that shows chemotherapy has zero benefits in the five-year survival rate of colon cancer patients? Or how many oncologists stand up for their cancer patients and protect them against chemotherapy treatment which they very well know can cause them to die far more quickly than if they received no treatment at all? Can you trustingly place your life into their hands when you know that most of them would not even consider chemotherapy for themselves if they were diagnosed with cancer? What do they know that you don't? The news is spreading fast that in the United States physician-caused fatalities now exceed 750,000 each year. Perhaps, many doctors no longer trust in what they practice, for good reasons.

"Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy... Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade. Yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors... Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemo than without it." - Alan Levin, M.D.

An investigation by the Department of Radiation Oncology, Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Australia, into the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival in 22 major adult malignancies, showed startling results: The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA." [Royal North Shore Hospital Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2005 Jun;17(4):294.]

The research covered data from the Cancer Registry in Australia and the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results in the USA for the year 1998. The current 5-year relative adult survival rate for cancer in Australia is over 60%, and no less than that in the USA. By comparison, a mere 2.3% contribution of chemotherapy to cancer survival does not justify the massive expense involved and the tremendous suffering patients experience because of severe, toxic side effects resulting from this treatment. With a meager success rate of 2.3%, selling chemotherapy as a medical treatment (instead of a scam), is one of the greatest fraudulent acts ever committed. The average chemotherapy earns the medical establishment a whopping $300,000 to $1,000,000 each year, and has so far earned those who promote this pseudo-medication (poison) over 1 trillion dollars. It's no surprise that the medical establishment tries to keep this scam alive for as long as possible.

In 1990, the highly respected German epidemiologist, Dr. Ulrich Abel from the Tumor Clinic of the University of Heidelberg, conducted the most comprehensive investigation of every major clinical study on chemotherapy drugsever done. Abel contacted 350 medical centers and asked them to send him anything they had ever published on chemotherapy. He also reviewed and analyzed thousands of scientific articles published in the most prestigious medical journals. It took Abel several years to collect and evaluate the data. Abel's epidemiological study, which was published on August 10, 1991 in The Lancet, should have alerted every doctor and cancer patient about the risks of one of the most common treatments used for cancer and other diseases. In his paper, Abel came to the conclusion that the overall success rate of chemotherapy was "appalling." According to this report, there was no scientific evidence available in any existing study to show that chemotherapy can "extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers."

Abel points out that chemotherapy rarely improves the quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as "a scientific wasteland" and states that even though there is no scientific evidence that chemotherapy works, neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on it. The mainstream media has never reported on this hugely important study, which is hardly surprising, given the enormous vested interests of the groups that sponsor the media, that is, thepharmaceutical companies. A recent search turned up exactly zero reviews of Abel's work in American journals, even though it was published in 1990. I believe this is not because his work was unimportant -- but because it is irrefutable.

The truth of the matter would be far too costly for the pharmaceutical industry to bear, thus making it unacceptable. If the mass media reported the truth that medical drugs, including chemotherapy drugs, are used to practically commit genocide in the U.S. and the world, their best sponsors (the pharmaceutical companies) would have to withdraw their misleading advertisements from the television media, radio stations, magazines, and newspapers. But neither group wants to go bankrupt.

Many doctors go as far as prescribing chemotherapy drugs to patients for malignancies that are far too advanced for surgery, with the full knowledge that there are no benefits at all. Yet they claim chemotherapy to be an effective cancer treatment, and their unsuspecting patients believe that "effective" equals "cure." The doctors, of course, refer to the FDA's definition of an "effective" drug, one which achieves a 50% or more reduction in tumor size for 28 days. They neglect to tell their patients that there is no correlation whatsoever between shrinking tumors for 28 days and curing the cancer or extending life. Temporary tumor shrinkage through chemotherapy has never been shown to cure cancer or to extend life. In other words, you can live with an untreated tumor for just as long as you would with one that has been shrunken or been eliminated by chemotherapy (or radiation).

Chemotherapy has never been shown to have curative effects for cancer. By contrast, the body can still cure itself, which it actually tries to do by developing cancer. Cancer is more a healing response than it is a disease. The "disease" is the body's attempt to cure itself of an existing imbalance. And sometimes, this healing response continues even if a person is subjected to chemotherapy (and/or radiation). Unfortunately, as the previously mentioned research has demonstrated, the chances for a real cure are greatly reduced when patients are treated with chemotherapy drugs.

The side effects of the treatment can be horrendous and heartbreaking for both patients and their loved ones, all in the name of trustworthy medical treatment. Although the drug treatment comes with the promise to improve the patient's quality of life, it is just common sense that a drug that makes them throw up and lose their hair, while wrecking their immune system, is doing the exact opposite. Chemo-therapy can give the patient life-threatening mouth sores. It attacks the immune system by destroying billions of immune cells (white blood cells). Its deadly poisons inflame every part of the body. The drugs can slough off the entire lining of their intestines. The most common side effect experienced among chemo patients is their complete lack of energy. The new additional drugs now given to many chemo patients may prevent the patient from noticing some of the side effects, but they hardly reduce the immensely destructive and suppressive effect of the chemotherapy itself. Remember, the reason chemotherapy can shrink some tumors is because it causes massive destruction in the body.

If you have cancer, you may think that feeling tired is just part of the disease. This rarely is the case. Feeling unusually tired is more likely due to anemia, a common side effect of most chemotherapy drugs. Chemo drugs can dramatically decrease your red blood cell levels, and this reduces oxygen availability to the 60-100 trillion cells of your body. You can literally feel the energy being zapped from every cell of your body -- a physical death without dying. Chemo-caused fatigue has a negative impact on day-to-day activities in 89% of all patients. With no energy, there can be no joy and no hope, and all bodily functions become subdued.

One long-term side effect is that these patients' bodies can no longer respond to nutritional or immune-strengthening approaches to cancerous tumors. All of this may explain why cancer patients who do not receive any treatment at all, have an up to four times higher remission rate than those who receive treatment. The sad thing is that chemotherapy does not cure 96% to 98% of all cancers anyway. Conclusive evidence (for the majority of cancers) that chemotherapy has any positive influence on survival or quality of life does not exist.

To promote chemotherapy as a treatment for cancer is misleading, to say the least. By permanently damaging the body's immune system and other important parts, chemo-therapy has become a leading cause of treatment-caused diseases such as heart disease, liver disease, intestinal diseases, diseases of the immune system, infections, brain diseases, pain disorders, and rapid aging.

Before committing themselves to being poisoned, cancer patients need to question their doctors and ask them to produce the research or evidence that shrinking a tumor actually translates to any increase in survival. If they tell you that chemotherapy is your best chance of surviving, you will know they are lying or are simply misinformed. As Abel's research clearly demonstrated, there is no such evidence anywhere to be found in the medical literature. Subjecting patients to chemotherapy robs them of a fair chance of finding or responding to a real cure and deserves criminal prosecution.

Andreas Moritz's book, Cancer is not a Disease - It's a Survival Mechanism, explains the root causes of cancer and how to eliminate them for good. Available through ( or ( .

About the author

Andreas Moritz is a medical intuitive; a practitioner of Ayurveda, iridology, shiatsu, and vibrational medicine; a writer; and an artist. He is the author of The Amazing Liver and Gallbladder Flush, Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation, Lifting the Veil of Duality, Cancer Is Not a Disease, It's Time to Come Alive, Heart Disease No More, Diabetes No More, Simple Steps to Total Health, Diabetes -- No More, Ending the AIDS Myth and Heal Yourself with Sunlight. For more information, visit the author's website (

May 8

A Small Supplement Company's Fight for Health Freedom

(NaturalNews) For the past five years, the Utopia Silver Supplement Company has been waging a battle for health freedom against the giants of the State of Texas and the FDA -- one which may have major implications for all of us regarding the freedom of access to natural health supplements.

"This system operates on fear, you have no fear and that's a problem for us." - Texas district court official to Utopia Silver Company owner Ben Taylor

Much like the Alamo defenders in days gone by, this small Texas company and its supporters of health freedomare pitted against a corrupt giant determined to impose its will and stifle freedom -- and just like the Alamo and the struggles that followed, the outcome may effect the freedom and future of millions.

The conflict began as a result of an FDA complaint five years ago that seeks to set a precedent for how much control the FDA has over all natural supplement companies and specifically the manufacture and sale of colloidal silver supplements.

While the Texas Attorney General's office may try to contend that this is merely a state action "to insure the safety of the citizens of the State of Texas", the truth is that the prosecuting Texas assistant attorney general and TDSHS officials are commissioned as officers of the FDA and there is no denying that the investigation into Utopia Silver began as a result of an FDA complaint. The certificates of Commission were obtained after several filings of Texas Public Information Act requests. Therefore, this is really a Federal action by proxy and it has pitted Utopia Silver Supplements against the Goliath of the FDA and the World Pharma lords the FDA serves.

The persecution of Utopia Silver began five years or so ago, about the same time that the FDA began renewed targeting of colloidal silver because of its effectiveness as a natural anti-biotic and rising popularity -- and, coincidentally, as a threat to the profits of Big Pharma and mainstream medicine -- the FDA sent an email to the Texas Department of State Health Services (TDSHS) essentially complaining that Utopia Silver was making medical claims which, in the eyes of the FDA turned their supplements into drugs. The TDSHS then brought the 'complaint' to the Office of the Texas Attorney General (TAG).

It has since been determined that among the targeted objections are: having 'disease' terms such as cancer, hepatitis, diabetes, etc., posted anywhere on the website; having any 'disease' terms in a search engine, and the posting of testimonials from customers who had used Utopia Silver products and defeated or improved any 'disease' condition.

Such restrictions appear to be a clear violation of the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech) of the Constitution of the United States of America, especially the supposed prohibition against posting testimonials and speaking the truth about how people believe that dietary supplements have helped them. If the FDA is to have their way, they will stifle a supplement company's constitutionally protected freedom of speech to the extent that a person seeking a natural dietary supplement for any medical condition would not be able to go to any website which offered vitamins, minerals, natural supplements or any other alternatives to mainstream medicine and be able to find that term in a search of the site or mentioned anywhere in the site. Neither would they be able to find testimonials/customer opinion from anyone who had used an alternative to FDA approved drugs and medical procedures.

It is no secret that the FDA has targeted colloidal silver, which is a safe, effective, natural and inexpensive pathogen destroyer -- four common traits of dietary supplements that represent competition to the approved drugs of Big Pharma and which frequently come under FDA attack. It is worth noting that that the FDA at one time had approved 34 different prescribed and OTC (over-the-counter) medications containing silver, but withdrew approval at about the same time antibiotics came on the market and superior methods of making colloidal silver commercially and at home were devised.

The Texas state district court hearings and threatened trial are purportedly about licensing and inspections, but the FDA complaint was centered around the publication of customer testimonials which the FDA considers to be health claims that supposedly enable them to label Colloidal Silver and other Utopia Silver dietary supplements as drugs, and that too is part of the legal proceedings.

Although the State of Texas maintains that they are acting alone, Utopia Silver has obtained copies of individual certificates which show that the state health and AG employees are also "Commissioned Officers" of the FDA -- in apparent conflict with the separation of state and federal powers. It is Utopia Silver's contention that the actions to restrict them are unconstitutional restraints on the freedom of commercial speech (as borne out by previousSupreme Court decisions) and further contends that there is no constitutional jurisdiction for the state agencies, who are actually for-profit corporations (and they are listed as such by Dun and Bradstreet) disguised as constitutional entities.

Utopia Silver believes, as do many others including legal scholars, that much of the country's court system and agencies operate outside the Constitution as corporate entities, having no real jurisdiction until defendants unwittingly submit to the jurisdiction by entering into a "contract" with the courts and agencies through such measures as making a 'general' rather than a 'special' appearance before a court, entering a motion, applying for a license, hiring an attorney (who are themselves 'officers of the court'), etc. Such scholars and observers point to the yellow fringed admiralty flags flying in most of our courts as clear symbols that the courts are not constitutional courts but rather administrative corporate courts operating under the "color of law".

In the case against Utopia Silver, Taylor contends that there is no constitutionally mandated requirement for them to submit to what amounts to a commercial contract with the STATE OF TEXAS, a corporation acting under the color of law but not under the state or federal constitutions, and not in accordance with the God-given unalienable rights clearly declared by our forefathers when this country was founded.

So far the Texas Attorney General's Office (TAG), has given no indication of making a fair or reasonable settlement -- although in the Spring of 2005, the Assistant Texas Attorney General in charge of the case, Raul Noriega, first agreed and then reneged on an oral agreement that would have settled the case. When asked why, Noriega's response was that he was told by higher ups to proceed to trial despite the prior agreement to settle.

In the summer of 2006, TDSHS employees paid three separate visits to the Utopia Silver offices and demanded with a bogus warrant to make inspections. The first time, two TDSHS officers paid a visit. One identified himself as an "inspector" and the other as an "investigator". The owner of Utopia Silver, Ben Taylor, asked to see credentials so he could make copies. When they refused he ordered them to leave his premises and they complied.

The next day they returned, accompanied by two Texas State Troopers, and said they had a warrant. When Taylor demanded to see a supporting affidavit, they refused, saying he could go to Austin if he wanted to see it and threatening to arrest Taylor if he did not comply. At that point, Taylor began placing a phone call to the local sheriff, and the TDSHS employees and State Troopers beat a hasty retreat. It was later determined that no properly executed affidavit ever existed.

Two days later the TDSHS employees returned for a third time, just ahead of a Sheriff's Deputy. Taylor told them that since he was expecting the deputy to be there that morning to take statements about their previous visits, he would talk to them after he spoke to the deputy. He told the two TDSHS/FDA 'officers' to wait outside until the deputy took statements from four employees who had witnessed what had transpired the previous days.

"In the middle of the first statement," said Taylor, "the investigator came and asked to speak to the deputy. The deputy followed him to the lobby and I followed right behind. The TDSHS/FDA officer asked if I was going to comply with the warrant for an inspection. I again told him that I would talk to him when I finished with the deputy."

"He then proceeded to say that since I was refusing his inspection," Taylor continued, "would I sign a document stating that I refused inspection, and I said no and they meekly left. After that, we finished giving our statements to the Sheriff's deputy and so far they have not been back."

Since then, they continued to stonewall and refused to answer questions or otherwise attempt to make clarifications requested by Ben Taylor in accordance with the presiding judge's request for both sides to work together to try to work out an agreement. When Utopia Silver asked why they were being singled out for such actions and nothing was happening to similar companies, Assistant Attorney General Noriega said that it had been decided to make Utopia Silver a test case. After he made the statement, he was interrupted by the TDSHS officer, who, according to Taylor "proceeded to hem and haw on that point, obviously not comfortable with that statement having been made by the Assistant Attorney General."

At a subsequent hearing in the Fall of 2007, the judge stated that he was ordering a trial date to be set then and tried to first intimidate and then coerce Ben Taylor to agree to date for the trial. Mr. Taylor refused to agree, since in doing so he would be in effect entering into a contract to agree to the court's jurisdiction. At one point a deputy was summoned with the clear implication that Mr. Taylor might be arrested if he failed to agree.

Taylor, after various other tactics of intimidation by the judge, told the judge that, "The court might have the power to force me into a trial, but I will never agree to any trial date and will attend only "in propria persona" (in one's own proper person) by "special appearance" in order to defend my God-given Rights." (Note: an appearance may be either general or special; the former is a simple unqualified or unrestricted submission to the jurisdiction of the court where the defendant waives defects of service, the latter is for the purpose of objecting to the sufficiency of service or the jurisdiction of the court over a defendant without submitting to such jurisdiction).

Later, Taylor was told by a court official, "This system operates on fear, you have no fear and that's a problem for us."

Instead of setting a trial, a hearing was set before a new judge to determine a date for interrogatories and discovery as well as inspections and sanctions -- all of which are slippery grounds and another step towards a trial. At the subsequent hearing, Taylor again stated his objections to the jurisdiction and a new hearing was ordered to determine jurisdiction. When the new hearing was held and both sides presented their arguments, the judge rendered no immediate verdict and said she would take it under advisement and render a subsequent decision.

As expected, when the judge made her ruling she apparently ignored all evidence against the 'court's jurisdiction' entered by Taylor and co-defendant Adask, however she failed to do so pursuant to the State's own Rules of Civil Procedure, first sending an email of her ruling and then later sending a letter of the ruling when challenged about her emailing a 'court order'. Some observers believe that such an unorthodox method of 'delivering' a purported 'court order' was yet another in a string of ploys intended to trap Taylor, Adask and other defendants into unwittingly submitting to the court's jurisdiction.

Instead of accepting the improper service, Taylor sent his own "Notice of Insufficient Process" to the court along with a demand to the court and the prosecutor to "Cease and Desist" their fraudulent actions against Taylor, Adask and Utopia Silver.

Taylor's notice was sent on November 30th of last year -- and since it was filed, a silence has descended upon the case. As Taylor reports, "We haven't heard anything from the Texas Attorney General or the courts since late November of last year (about 230 days). At that time, the "judge" issued (by email initially) a court order denying my and Al Adask's (Anti-Shyster publisher and Texas State Supreme Court Libertarian Party candidate) special appearance." (As noted previously, a "special appearance" is one in which is made without submitting to the jurisdiction of the court).

This is the notice sent to the court by Ben Taylor:


C.M.R.R. 7003 0500 0000 9039 8675, dated November 30, 2007

Reference: Cause No. D-1-GV-04-000268 (GV 400268)


Defendants & Alleged Defendants



I, Ben Taylor, in my proper person (in propria persona) as a Man with certain God-given unalienable and non-negotiable Rights and by right of Special Visitation, hereby return the purported ORDER DENYING SPECIAL APPEARANCES, which was placed in a containment designated as Post Office Box 444, Utopia, a geographical location within the boundaries of The State of Texas on or about November 28, 2007 and addressed to a non-existent "Ben Taylor, pro se", as insufficient process pursuant to your Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Part II, Section 1, Rule 15 & Rule 16, Writs and Process, to wit:


The style of all writs and process shall be "The State of Texas;" and unless otherwise specially provided by law or these rules every such writ and process shall be directed to any sheriff or any constable within the State of Texas, shall be made returnable on the Monday next after expiration of twenty days from the date of service thereof, and shall be dated and attested by the clerk with the seal of the court impressed thereon; and the date of issuance shall be noted thereon.

Every officer or authorized person shall endorse on all process and precepts coming to his hand the day and hour on which he received them, the manner in which he executed them, and the time and place the process was served and shall sign the returns officially.

Further, I demand that this court, Plaintiff's, and Plaintiff's attorneys immediately cease and desist with all of their fraudulent actions and attempts to entice, trick and otherwise force me into a jurisdiction that has no dominion or authority over me and my business, whether in the presence of my proper person or through the United States Postal Service, via electronic mail, or by any other means of communication.

Without Prejudice,
and with a Reservation
of All God-given unalienable Rights,
Within The organic State of Texas,
The United States of America

Ben Taylor, a Man
c/o P.O. Box 444
Utopia [78884]
Within The organic State of Texas,
The United States of America

Explaining this notice to the court by Ben Taylor

As Taylor reports, "This Notice along with co-defendant Al Adask's "Man or other animals filing", see (( , seems to have short-circuited the Plaintiff's intention to set another court hearing date for Motions for court ordered interrogatories and depositions under oath, as well as a restraining order to prevent my selling of colloidal silver (which they say is a drug because of customer testimonials) and silver generators (which they call a medical device).

"Also filed by us into evidence was a number of other things, including, but not limited to, The Organic Laws of The United States of America, The Common Law (specifically The Herbalist Charter), The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, which limits the FDA's jurisdiction/authority to Washington, DC and the territories (supported by the 18th and 21st Amendments) except in the regulating (organizing for efficient flow) of interstate commerce (transportation across State lines -- there is no FDA authority to control the sale and manufacturing of anything that I can find.), the case of Lopez v. United States, Dun & Bradstreet documents showing that the Texas Courts and government 'agencies' are "corporations for profit", the United States Code 28 Sec. 3002 showing that the "United States" is a federal corporation (which is a fictitious rather than an organic entity- our God-given Rights are recognized only by the organic United States of America) and numerous other Supreme cases that establish that God-given Rights cannot be statutorily converted into privileges."

Has Taylor and health freedom triumphed over a system that is corrupt and unconstitutional? Time may tell otherwise, but so far the silence has been deafening. Many who have followed the case feel that the FDA and their state servants bit off much more than they realized when they decided to take on Taylor and Utopia Silver. Instead of finding a small company and a man they could steamroll and bully, they have instead been fought to a standstill by a man who is determined to carry this fight to the very end no matter what the personal cost.

More than one astute observer has pointed out that the powers that be may well be facing some very thorny issues they had just as soon not see the light of day -- such as the FDA commissioning state officers, the constitutional limits on the true powers of the FDA and other such agencies' true constitutional powers, freedom of commercial speech, and the issue of whether God-given unalienable rights set out in the Declaration of Independence and secured by the Constitution trump the entire corporate "color of law" administrative system of courts and agencies which have been used to usurp our freedoms and liberties over the year.

Should the state and their FDA masters continue further actions, Taylor promises that not only will such issues be at the forefront of his case, but also that he and his co-defendants will then "go on the offensive by filing suit against key officials (in their individual capacities) who have conspired to violate our Constitutionally secured Rights. Public servants/government officials lose their "official immunity" if they overstep their authority as granted (and limited) by the Organic Laws of the USA.

(Author's Note: Ben Taylor and the Utopia Silver company will soon have an exclusive special offer on his outstanding colloidal silver and colloidal gold liquids and skin care bars just for readers of Natural News, and a continuing Natural News reader discount code good for permanent discounts on every item they sell. Look for it soon here at this page.)

About the author

Tony Isaacs, is a natural health advocate and researcher and the author of books and articles about natural health including "Cancer's Natural Enemy" and "Collected Remedies"as well as song lyrics and humorous anecdotal stories. Mr. Isaacs also has The Best Years in Life website for baby boomers and others wishing to avoid prescription drugs and mainstream managed illness and live longer, healthier and happier lives naturally. He is currently residing in the scenic Texas hill country near Utopia, Texas where he serves as a consultant to theUtopia Silver colloidal silver and supplement company and where he is working on a major book project due for publication later this year. Mr. Isaacs also hosts the CureZone "Ask Tony Isaacs" forum as well as the Yahoo Health Group "Oleander Soup"

May 8

Christina Applegate Diagnosed with Breast Cancer

The BBC News is reporting that Christina Applegate is fighting a mild form of breast cancer. In an article titled "US star Applegate fighting cancer" the News says that the news was revealed by Applegate's publicist, Ame Van Iden, who said, "The cancer is not life threatening. She is following the recommended treatment of her doctors and will have a full recovery." She went on to say that Applegate had benefited from early detection via an MRI ordered by her doctor. 

Christina Applegate is developing a biography of major achievements. She stars in "Samantha Who?" and was nominated for an Emmy award last month for her work in that series. Additionally, as the article goes on to say, she received an Emmy for her appearance on "Friends" as Jennifer Aniston's sister.

Applegate will be on a major telethon next month for cancer research. Joining her will be Jennifer Aniston, Meryl Streep and Charlize Theron for the effort which will be carried on all three major television channels.

The cancer telethon echoes an effort that was started in my city of Peoria, Illinois called "Race for the Cure" which" now is the largest grass-roots movement in the country with respect to breast cancer. It was started by Nancy Brinker , after her sister, Susen Komen died from the illness.

The 36-year-old Applegate has just had another traumatic event occur in her life this year as I reported on Associated Content on July 4th in the article "Lee Grivas, Boyfriend of Christina Applegate, Found Dead". Grivas was Applegate's "on-again-off-again" boyfriend and they had just decided to "try again" when the death occurred. To make matters worse, drugs were suspected.

No matter what Christina Applegate does in her career however, I don't believe she will ever exceed her success as Kelly Bundy in the series "Married with Children". Because of the "dumb blonde" mentality she was given as the Bundy's trampy daughter it was easy to overlook her incredible timing and comic abilities. I have many of the ten seasons of the series on DVD and it is one of those programs you simply never tire of.

Two Cents From The CV Editor: (I feel compelled to give my own thoughts on this article.....I don't understand why these celebrities also just go with the flow and hit conventional methods right out of the gate. HOW CAN WE GET THE WORD ACROSS? If we had so much a one HUGE celebrity on our side to help us spread the word that there are healthy alternative ways to treat and prevent cancer it would impact the nation in a HUGE way. Why is everyone so scared about stepping out for what is right and true? Why don't they do their research as we do? I'm not saying everyone should just believe in alternative methods in healthcare, I just want to know people out there are making INFORMED decisions, not just being followers. If you are going to get chemo or radiation or use an alternative at least do your homework. It is sad and disheartening but I believe in HOPE and know that ultimately God is much bigger than a celebrity and can give us wisdom as to how to share the GREAT news and reach many and hey I'm not pointing blame or judging, I didn't always do my own research either! Just my two cents... Kristi Johnson, CancerVictors and Friends)

May 8

Robert Novak Retiring After Brain Tumor Diagnosis

Mon Aug 4, 3:35 PM ET

CHICAGO - Conservative political commentator Robert Novak announced his immediate retirement Monday because of his diagnosis of a malignant brain tumor.


Novak told the editor and publisher of the Chicago Sun-Times that he plans to focus on his treatment and recovery, said Sun-Times spokeswoman Tammy Chase.

Novak told the newspaper his prognosis is "dire," the Sun-Times reported on its Web site.

"The details are being worked out with the doctors this week, but the tentative plan is for radiation and chemotherapy," Novak said.

Chase confirmed Monday that Novak's tumor is malignant. He was discharged from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston on Saturday, said Kevin Myron, a hospital spokesman.

Novak announced that he had a brain tumor late last month, less than a week after he struck a pedestrian with his Corvette in downtown Washington and drove away. He received a $50 citation for the accident.

Novak, editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report, has been a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times for decades. He is perhaps best known as the longtime co-host of CNN's "Crossfire" from 1980 to 2005.

He was the first to reveal the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame. His 2003 column came out eight days after Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, said the Bush administration had twisted prewar intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq.


Information from: Chicago Sun-Times,

May 8

Bernie Mac Another Casualty of Conventional Medicine?

(NaturalNews) The number of famous people dying at the hands of conventional medical doctors is increasing at an alarming rate. Today comedian Bernie Mac (best known for appearing in Oceans Eleven and The Bernie Mac Show) died today following hospitalization and treatment for pneumonia. At the young age of 50, Bernie Mac joins numerous other notable celebrities who have died while being treated with conventional pharmaceuticals or chemotherapy: Heath Ledger, Peter Jennings, Tim Russert and many more.

Pneumonia is an infection that fails to be properly handled by the body's own immune system. Bernie Mac's immune system, it turns out, was suppressed by pharmaceuticals due to treatments for an autoimmune disorder he was previously diagnosed with, called sarcoidosis.

The most common treatments for sarcoidosis are dangerous steroids (like Prednisone) or immune system suppressants like Methotrexate. Following his treatment with one or both of these pharmaceuticals, Bernie Mac was described as having his sarcoidosis go into "remission." That's conventional medicine's code word for masking symptoms with dangerous chemicals while ignoring the underlying cause of the disease.

"Sarcoidosis," meanwhile, is just a fancy-sounding name for an imbalanced immune system almost always caused by dietary imbalances and exposure to toxic chemicals through processed foods, pharmaceuticals, personal care products and other environmental sources (like pesticides or cleaning solvents). Bernie Mac didn't really have sarcoidosis; he was merely given that label by doctors who attached a fancy name to a pattern of symptoms that Bernie Mac expressed.

So rather than addressing the underlying causes of his autoimmune disorders, doctors pumped him up with more chemicals that suppressed his immune system. From there, Bernie Mac was a fatal pneumonia case just waiting to happen, because at that point he was walking around with a suppressed immune system.

In my opinion, this is why Bernie Mac has now passed away: Because his doctors destroyed his immune system and called it "treatment" for a disease, all while ignoring the underlying lifestyle factors that Bernie should have been told were causing his symptoms in the first place.

Modern medicine takes another talented soul from our world

Bernie Mac was a brilliant comedian. He was wildly entertaining in Oceans ElevenOceans Twelve and other movies in which he appeared.

He radiated a very likeable charm and possessed a captivating wit both on and off the screen. Sadly, conventional medicine's dangerous medications have hastened his death and taken from us an uplifting artist who could have lived another 20 - 30 years if he had not has his life stolen fom him by modern medicine.

Modern medical treatments are the leading cause of death in the western world, surpassing even the number of people killed by cancer. Most cancer deaths, of course, are actually "deaths by medicine" because it is thechemotherapy that kills the patient before the cancer! Individuals who put their faith in modern medicine are playing roulette with their lives, and many of them pay the ultimate price for that misplaced faith.

So what should Bernie Mac have done instead? It's simple: Visit a naturopath, get off all the chemicals and medications, eliminate all the junk from his diet (processed foods, etc.) and transition to a mostly plant-based diet rich in superfoods and living foods. His lung condition would have disappeared and his immune system would have been strong enough to withstand infections.

But doctors never told Bernie Mac this information. They never even gave him the option. Doctors, it turns out, are in the business of causing the deaths of patients through a process of authoritative ignorance -- keeping patients unaware of natural alternatives, and thereby forcing them to rely on toxic treatments that unfortunately harm more people than they help.

I truly believe that Bernie Mac would be alive right now if he had been given the option to pursue natural medicine (which BOOSTS immune function) rather than conventional medicine (with DESTROYS immune function).

Bernie Mac will be missed.

About the author: Mike Adams is a consumer health advocate with a passion for teaching people how to improve their health He is a prolific writer and has published thousands of articles, interviews, reports and consumer guides, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is an independent journalist with strong ethics who does not get paid to write articles about any product or company. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a maker of energy efficient LED lights that greatly reduce CO2 emissions. He's also the founder of a well known HTML email software company whose 'Email Marketing Director' software currently runs the NaturalNews subscription database. Adams is currently the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit, and enjoys outdoor activities, nature photography, Pilates and adult gymnastics. Known by his callsign, the 'Health Ranger,' Adams posts his missions statements, health statistics and health photos at

May 8

Christina Applegate Maimed by Surgeons with Double...

Christina Applegate Maimed by Surgeons with Double Mastectomy Following Breast Cancer Diagnosis

(NaturalNews) Following her diagnosis with breast cancer, actress Christina Applegate decided to have both of her breasts surgically removed, believing that physically removing her breasts would save her from cancer. The double mastectomy procedure is an all-too-frequent choice by women who have been scared into limited treatment options by mostly male doctors who think nothing of physically maiming a woman and cutting away organs that are often closely tied to a woman's self identity.

When pushing that high-profit double mastectomy procedure to Christina Applegate, what cancer doctors did not tell her is that breast cancer has many natural cures, and none of them require surgery. In fact, breast cancer is one of the most easily cured forms of cancer, and had Applegate been informed about her options, she might have chosen to avoid being surgically maimed, and she could have lived out her life with her natural-born breasts.

What kind of natural cures are available for breast cancer today? I've written an entire report on this topic that lists them. You can read it right now at:

Had Christina Applegate read that report (and been wise enough to act on it), she would be far healthier and happier today. She'd be free of cancer and still have her natural breasts. But instead, she has chosen a barbaric treatment route that has now left her without her breasts but still potentially metabolizing cancer!

Cancer is not a disease found in specific tissues

What do I mean by "still metabolizing cancer?"

Cancer is not defined by a physical tumor. Cancer is a systemic failure of the immune system and cellular communication. You can remove a tumor from one area of the body, but unless you eliminate the underlying causes of cancer, tumors will likely reappear somewhere else

Thus, by surgically removing Christina Applegate's breasts, cancer surgeons have misled her into thinking she's cured, when in reality, she now has the exact same risk of cancer coming back as she did before the surgery.

In other words: She gave up both breasts and still didn't cure her cancer!

Such is the "treatment" offered by the fraudulent cancer industry.

Even more, Applegate probably didn't know that mammography causes breast cancer! (Mammogram machines emit dangerous levels of radiation, causing DNA damage.) In a press interview, Applegate readily admitted she had been having mammograms since she was age 30, but she did not make any statements realizing that mammography may have, indeed, caused her breast cancer in the first place!

Mammograms harm nine women for every one they help, according to published research, and no woman under 40 should receive regular mammograms at all! See and

What Applegate -- and all women concerned about breast cancer -- really need is an upgrade in their daily habits to create a cancer-free lifestyle. Specifically, they need:

Real cancer solutions for women

What Applegate (and all women concerned about breast cancer) really needed to do is upgrade her daily habits to a cancer-free lifestyle. Specifically, they need:

TheBreastCancerDeception150• Lots of vitamin D and natural sunshine.
• Regular exercise.
• Daily intake of anti-cancer foods (sprouts, raw cruciferous vegetable juice, etc.)
• Daily intake of superfoods (berries, garlic, turmeric, cacao, goji berries, etc.)
• Daily intake of anti-cancer herbs (Cat's Claw, green tea, etc.)
• Daily intake of additional anti-cancer supplements (pomegranate, zinc, resveratrol, etc.)
• Complete avoidance of toxic chemicals in personal care products (shampoo, cosmetics, skin lotions, etc.)

... and many other strategies that are clearly outlined in my report, The Breast Cancer Deception.

Is Applegate courageous? Yes, but also uninformed

Many women in America today look at Applegate and consider her courageous for making such a decision. She is, indeed, quite courageous. Allowing surgeons to physically maim your body in a desperate attempt to save your own life takes real courage. Applegate is to be commended for that attribute, at least.

But at the same time, Applegate is sadly misinformed, and she has now permanently damaged her body and yet achieved no lasting safety from cancer.

Of course, if she starts taking anti-cancer herbs right now, she can easily prevent cancer for the rest of her life. Preventing cancer is simple and straightforward: It only requires daily exposure to the right nutrients (phytonutrients, vitamin D, etc.) and protection from exposure to cancer-causing chemicals -- especially endocrine disruptors like cow's milk, conventional meats, plastics, pharmaceuticals and food additive chemicals.

I can tell you right now with near-certainty that Applegate is vitamin D deficient. This is what allowed her cancer to grow to the point where it was large enough to be diagnosed. Sufficient levels of Vitamin D in your blood prevent 77% of ALL cancers (including breast cancer). Read that story here:

That's correct: One nutrient prevents 77% of all cancers. Yet I'd be willing to bet a substantial sum of money that Applegate's doctors never even told her about this simple, powerful anti-cancer nutrient that she could get for free! (Cancer doctors don't make money teaching nutrition to their patients. They only make money when their patients stay cancerous...)

Cancer doctors, you see, are really in the business of keeping patients ignorant and uneducated, corralling them into barbaric treatments that benefit themselves, not their patients. While Applegate has now lost both breasts and undergone an extremely painful, barbaric surgical procedure, her cancer doctors have collected enormous sums of cash that they charged her. The doctors walk home rich, but women walk home maimed and still susceptible to recurring cancer. Is that really the best modern medicine can offer? The answer is yet! -- if you limit yourself to drugs and surgery. To get something better, you have to turn to advanced natural medicine, where anti-cancer nutrients are found everywhere in foods, herbs and nature.

Even if the breasts are no longer present, cancer will find other tissues in which to express itself: Ovaries, skin, liver, bones, brain, etc. You don't cure cancer by removing organs. You cure cancer by nourishing and detoxifying the body.

In ten years or so, Applegate will no doubt realize her mistake. And perhaps in twenty years, there may be medical technology advanced enough to re-grow her breasts. But I wouldn't bet on it.

And I certainly wouldn't bet my life on it.

Why we need to empower women with truthful information about cancer

The cancer industry, as operated today, exploits women's fear for profit and control. Rather than informing women about their real options, the cancer industry keeps them ignorant, uneducated and misinformed. It's much like the days when women couldn't vote, couldn't attend universities, or couldn't hold the jobs traditionally held by men.

The cancer industry today operates like society in the 1850's -- it's a male-dominated system run by people who exploit women for their own selfish reasons. Following the Women's Suffrage Movement (('s_su...), as new rights started to become available to women, more and more women began to attend universities. Education empowered women with new choices, and with that power, they were able to rise to new positions of power, both in the home and the workplace.

Modern medicine wishes to keep women trapped in a system of ignorance and enslavement. Telling women they need to cut off both breasts to treat cancer is like demanding they stay at home, barefoot and pregnant, serving as little more than servants of their men.

I thought we had moved beyond that sad chapter in American history, but apparently the exploitation of women is alive and well in the cancer industry, where ignorance of women is fully enforced by the mostly-male doctors who trap these women in a system of barbaric (but high-profit) medical treatments.

And my message to all women reading this is that I encourage you to stand strong in your own power. Do NOT let cancer doctors maim your body and treat you like cattle. Education has always been your pathway to freedom, and it is now up to you to educate yourself about herbs, anti-cancer foods, superfoods, vitamin D and other topics that can help you win your freedom and avoid the enslavement of modern medicine.

To be truly free, you must be informed. And to be informed, you must know your options. Cancer doctors do not offer you any options other than the ones that make them money, and any person who agrees to be physically maimed by a cancer doctor is acting out of ignorant desperation rather than informed power.

Empower yourself now: