Chronic Fatigue, low energy, allergies, exhaustion, and fibromyalgia

Understanding your body and how it reacts to stress
Hans Selye said that a painful blow and a passionate kiss can be equally stressful.  The point is that anything that requires a return of balance to homeostasis is considered a stress.  Normally our body, and particularly our adrenal glands, help us adapt to our situation by making changes and secreting substances which help us deal with the situation.  Some people push their adrenals and their bodies and a “fight or flight” stress situation becomes prolonged, which furthers chronic fatigue and low-productivity.  If the problem is not corrected, complete adrenal exhaustion leaves a person with no reserves and greater susceptibility to disease.

Signs & Symptoms of low adrenal function

  • Low energy
  • Chronic Fatigue
  • Fibromyalgia
  • Allergies
  • Tired all the time
  • Environmental sensitivities
  • Symptoms begin after a stressful event
  • Headache when standing up
  • Dizziness or loss of vision when standing quickly
  • Low blood pressure or systolic blood pressure that drops when standing (Ragland Test)
  • Weak and shaky
  • Sensitive to bright light
  • Easily startled or frightened
  • Perfectionism
  • Loud noises cause the heart to pound
  • Difficult time breathing
  • “Lump in throat” that hurts when upset
  • Pupillary light reflex test
  • Chronically bad knees (satorius and gracilus connection)
  • Weak ankles or aching calves
  • (gastrocnemius, soleus and posterior tibialis connection)
  • Salt craving
  • Muscle twitches and arrhythmias from sodium/potassium imbalance

Soda and Aggression?

Soda and Aggression?

Are your teenagers getting out of control?  What do you do? Who do you blame? Yourself? Violent video games? How about the culprit that is hiding in your fridge!

Before you point fingers at anyone or anything, I want you to consider how much soda your teenager drinks. A new study shows that high school kids who drink more than 5 cans of soft drinks per week are 15% more likely to act violently when compared to their non-soda drinking counterparts. The study included over 1,800 students.  Although more research is needed to prove that soda is the cause, these results sure do raise suspicion.

A key ingredient found in almost every soft drink out there is high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS).  Not only may soda be involved with more violence, it will probably make them fat too! HFCS “is significantly more metabolically detrimental than plain white sugar” Rats that free-fed on HFCS showed a “48% greater weight gain, higher abdominal fat deposition and higher triglycerides than rats free-fed plain sugar water”. With high-fructose corn syrup being in an estimated 40% of all prepared food and beverages consumed in the US, the “sweetener has been implicated as a major contributor” to diabetes, obesity, and now violence!

Eating healthy is critical to having a great brain and keeping a healthy body weight.

Allergy “Season” only finds some bodies

Allergy “Season” only finds some bodies

Sneezing, wheezing, running nose, itchy eyes, blotchy skin — here we go again with allergy season!

Sneezing, wheezing, coughing and itching are commonly considered symptoms of allergies, but joint stiffness, sluggishness, headaches, alternating constipation and diarrhea – these symptoms and others can also be signs of an “allergic reaction,” a “sensitivity,” or an “intolerance” to something entering your body.

Why do some of us suffer every year, others have good years and bad years, while others never suffer allergies??
To answer this, let’s understand how the body works and what you can do to help yourself, your family, friends and coworkers with their symptoms of allergies the natural way, without medications!

The skin is the most important part of the immune system.

It protects us from the outside world. We also have a special “skin” that protects us from our inside world, which is the mucus membrane. This moist tissue covers the inside of your mouth, throat, stomach and intestines. It also lines your nasal passages and lungs. The purpose of these highly specialized tissues is to protect your body from foreign substances. An important principle to understand is that this “skin” is the first defense for your immune system. When your skin allows these foreign substances to “leak” through into your blood stream, that’s when the real trouble begins.

Immune Challenges are met by antibodies
Allergic reactions begin when substances capable of beginning a “reaction” enter through your nose, lungs, skin or intestines. These substances are commonly thought to be pollen and foods, but they can also come from synthetic chemicals in our environment, drinks or foods.

Regardless of the source, all allergic reactions are a response by your body to the foreign substance. The body responds by sending antibodies to the rescue.
Antibodies are an important part of the body’s natural defense system and are produced normally by our white blood cells to help fight infection or toxins. These white blood cells make antibodies to bind with the foreign materials and then eliminate them. This is a great design!

If this antibody system is designed to protect me from bacteria, viruses and parasites, why am I allergic to foods, perfume and cleaning solvents?

Let’s discuss foods first. One way a body can become overly sensitive (allergic) to common foods occurs when poor digestive function sends partially digested foods down the intestines for absorption. The mucus membrane lining your intestine is supposed to absorb the good nutrients and keep out the rest. If that lining is unhealthy and “leaky,” allergic reactions begin. That’s because the “leaky” state of the intestines allows large protein particles from partially digested foods to be absorbed into the blood stream. These particles are recognized as “foreign” by the immune system, and they are removed from the body by the immune system, by binding with antibodies.
Similarly, chemicals in our environment challenge our immune system by irritating the mucus membranes of the nose and lungs, making them “leak,” and thereby allowing foreign substances to enter the tissues. The immune system must respond yet again.
Additionally, the poor quality of the food we eat, poor digestion, and unhealthy bowel flora also contribute to nutritional deficiency. A nutritionally deficient body does not have the necessary nutrients available to build and maintain healthy tissues, including the skin and mucus membranes that form barriers to protect us. In this way symptoms of allergies begin.
One can see how in our world full of pollution, synthetic foods and chemicals of all types, our immune systems are challenged constantly. We often become overly sensitive to common substances. Such a constant demand on the immune system to respond to “challenges” can result from nutritional deficiency and cause nutritional deficiency, creating a vicious cycle, eventually leading to immune system exhaustion.

A natural approach to cause and care of allergies
To summarize the cause of allergies:

  • Nutritional deficiency can be the cause of allergies.
  • Poor digestion can be the cause of allergies.
  • Insufficient healthy bowel flora can be the cause of allergies.
  • Environmental toxins can be the cause of allergies.
  • 
Understanding the non-drug approach to treating the CAUSES of Allergies
.

In previous issues of “Dr. Chapa’s News You Need to Know” we have addressed each of these important principles of HealthBuilding. Please refer to Issue 3 for digestive support, Issue 5 for the importance of bowel flora, Issue 6 for the importance of purification of the body for health, and Issue 7 for simple ways to enhance the immune system. And always take Catalyn to prevent nutritional deficiency.
Even though we eat the right foods, support the body with digestive enzymes, probiotics, organic minerals and vitamin complexes, we may still experience symptoms of ALLERGIES from time to time. Reactions such as sneezing, wheezing, running nose, itchy eyes and many others are caused by the release of histamine in the affected body tissues.

Question: Should I use anti-histamines when I feel allergic symptoms?

Histamine is involved in myriad physiological conditions, all with the goal of supporting healing. When antibodies bind with foreign substances, histamine is released to begin a process of flooding the irritated tissue with healing fluids. This inflammatory reaction can be quite uncomfortable, but is a necessary part of the healing process. One does not want to inactivate histamine, although it is ideal to clear the histamine from our tissues efficiently after it has done its job.
Drug forms of antihistamine may interfere with the healing purposes of histamine, and frequently have side effects. More importantly, these drugs may be altogether avoided by supporting normal body processes. What we need is a natural product that helps the body handle the histamine reactions, relieve symptoms, and support healing. For this exact purpose we recommend:

Antronex© which contains Yakriton, a liver fat extract discovered in the 1920’s. Yakriton has been shown to help the liver efficiently filter the blood, removing excess histamine and toxins from the blood.
Protection of the stomach, nasal passages, lungs, liver and kidneys is the ultimate HealthBuilding goal when it comes to strengthening the body to handle allergic reactions. A whole food concentrate product which supports all these body systems is appropriately named Allerplex ©.
Allerplex© is a special combination formula of whole food concentrates containing a wide variety of nutrients effective in helping maintain a healthy immune system. Allerplex is useful in supporting proper acid/alkaline balance, and sustaining healthy liver function. Allerplex has been used by doctors since 1959 for this very purpose.
General Whole Food Guidelines for Allergic People

  1. Live a healthy lifestyle with whole foods and whole food concentrates as outlined in The Nutritional Essentials – Issues.
  2. Take Allerplex 1-3 per day for life .†
  3. When symptoms of allergies are on the rise, take 1-3 Antronex per hour to help the liver clear out histamines until symptoms subside†.

Patients Speak About Allergies
“My entire life I suffered bad allergies. Sneezing, runny nose so bad at times they would lay me out! My nutritional program has entirely cleared this up, AND my chronic cough I have had for over 10 years GONE!!” D.M.M.

What Did you Learn

Best 6 ways to increase your Energy

Fight sluggishness and boost your energy level with these 6 easy tips:

1. Find some downtime every day-Even if it means getting up a few minutes earlier than everyone else in your house, take some time to really relax. Don’t read email, don’t write to-do lists. Do something that truly feels like downtime.
2.Make sure that you’re getting enough iron- Eat lots of leafy greens (especially spinach), pumpkin seeds, soy and other beans, tofu, tempeh, lentils, hemp seeds, blackstrap molasses, and sesame seeds. To increase iron absorption, include foods that contain vitamin C with your iron-rich foods (e.g. oranges, strawberries, red bell peppers, broccoli).
3.Make sure you’re getting your B vitamins- If you’re vegan, you’ll especially need to watch B12. Good sources of B vitamins include: nutritional yeast, fortified products such as soy milk and cereals, beans, tempeh, lentils, brewer’s yeast, and molasses.
4.Increase your intake of magnesium-rich foods- This includes nuts (especially almonds and cashews), soy beans, spinach, broccoli, pumpkin seeds, artichokes, black beans, and fortified cereals.
5.Include probiotics in your diet- Probiotics are the “living cultures” in yogurt and they help to maintain intestinal health and have been credited with other benefits from strengthening the immune system to preventing colon cancer. In addition to yogurt and soy yogurt, miso, sauerkraut, tempeh, and kombucha (fermented tea) also contain probiotics. They are also available in supplement form- look for one that must be refrigerated.
6.Eat lots of fiber- High-fiber foods help you to feel fuller longer than low-fiber foods. They help to maintain blood sugar and act as a broom to keep the intestinal track moving. Fiber helps to lower cholesterol and prevent constipation, diverticulosis, and colon cancer. Eat lots of whole grains such as brown rice, quinoa, breads and cereals (check bread and cereal labels- not all are high in fiber), fruits and veggies, beans, lentils, ground flax seeds, oat bran, and nuts and seeds. Don’t let TV commercials fool you- it is easy to get plenty of fiber from the foods that we eat and no fiber “supplement” is necessary!

Protection From Electromagnetic Fields

Designed to interrupt and eliminate grid lin
es, geomagnetic, electromagnetic standing waves, extremely low frequencie, and other harmful waves unseen by the eye.

Protect yourself and your family from the negative effects of technology

Total Shield
Certain equipment has been developed to protect our magnetic field, thus helping neutralize harmful electromagnetic fields of radiation. The sluggishness, fatigue, nausea, dizziness, irritability, eye strain, rashes and other health problems associated with continuous exposure to high electromagnetic fields (above 30 Hz) can be counteracted with a device designed to blanket an area of about 20,000 square feet. This larger unit was designed to protect a home or office environment against harmful grid lines, geomagnetic disturbances, artificially generated electromagnetic standing waves, extremely low frequencies (ELF frequencies) and other harmful waves.

Total Shield is composed of two separate electronic generators. One generator is a detector device that identifies the frequencies of the geomagnetic disturbances and grid lines from the environment and broadcasts them back out through a Tesla coil, which cancels out the disturbance. The other generator is a 7.83 frequency generator, which duplicates the Schumann resonance (the resonant frequency of the Earth’s magnetic field).

Normally, one of these units is sufficient to protect a large home or office area. However, where electromagnetic pollution is severe, such as areas near high‐voltage power lines, transmitting towers for TV or radio towers, more than one unit might be necessary to overcome the severity of the pollution. According to some electrical engineers, the Total Shield unit will also strip radiation pollution from your body. The Total Shield is an essential asset to protect homes and families from pollution.

You can use the Total Shield in one of three ways: EMF protection only, geopathic stress only or a combination of both. Operates on AC adapter (included). The units are available in four coil strengths, with each additional coil adding 50% more intensity. Stronger units are appropriate for people who are very sensitive to EMFs; who have a large number of electronic devices in their home or office; or who live very close to power lines or stations. All units measure 9″ high x 4.5″ in diameter.

Specifications:

Power Requirements: 9-15 Voltz and includes an AC Wall Adapter
Weight: 1.5 Pounds
Dimensions: 9.5″ x 4.5″
Effective Area:  Blanket area of 20,000 sq ft. (3,500 sq ft.)
Best Place in a Central Location

The Cancer-Sugar Connection

The Cancer-Sugar Connection

Sugar Feeds Cancer

The simple concept that “sugar feeds cancer” is often overlooked as part of a comprehensive support plan for cancer sufferers. Of over 4 million cancer patients being treated in the U.S. today, few are offered specific advice or guidelines for using optimum nutrition, beyond being told to “just eat good foods.” Most cancer sufferers lack knowledge of what an optimal nutritional program is or how to implement it.

Many cancer sufferers could have a major improvement in the outcome of their disease if cancer’s preferred fuel, glucose, was controlled. Eliminating refined sugar and adopting an optimal whole foods diet combined with top quality nutritional supplements and exercise, may be critical components in recovering from cancer.

Glucose: The Fuel of Cancer Cells

Dr. Otto Warburg, Ph.D., a 1931 Nobel laureate in medicine, first discovered that cancer cells have a different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells. He found that malignant tumors frequently exhibit an increase in anaerobic (“without air”) glycolysis — an abnormal process whereby glucose is used as a primary fuel by cancer cells and which generates large amounts of lactic acid as a byproduct. (1)

In contrast, normal cells predominantly undergo aerobic (“with air”) cellular metabolism. In cancer, the large increase in lactic acid generated by the cancer cells must be transported to the liver for metabolism and clearance. The lactic acid creates a lower, more acidic pH in cancerous tissues as well as overall physical fatigue from liver stress due to overworking to try to clear the lactic acid buildup. (2, 3) Consequently, larger tumors tend to have a more acidic pH. (4) The goal is to return the body to aerobic metabolism as quickly as possible and to achieve an alkaline tissue pH (between 6.4 – 7.0). An alkaline environment is an unfavorable environment for cancer growth.

Since the cancer cell’s metabolism, anerobic glycolysis, is very inefficient, extracting only about 5% of the available energy in the food supply and from the body’s own calorie stores, the cancer, in effect, is “wasting” energy, so the cancer sufferer eventually becomes tired and undernourished. This vicious cycle increases body wasting – often in a downward spiral until death. (5) This is one reason why almost 40% of cancer sufferers die from malnutrition (called cachexia or “wasting away”). (6)

Do Glucose IVs Feed Cancer?

In hospitals, the total parenteral (TPN) solution typically given to cancer patients intravenously provides 70% of the calories going into the bloodstream in the form of glucose. These high-glucose solutions for cachectic cancer patients may be a poor choice of I.V. nutrition and may in effect, be serving to feed the tumor. A more nutritionally balanced I.V. solution with low glucose levels in addition to a broad spectrum of nutrients such as amino acids, vitamins, minerals, lipids and co-factors, may be a much better choice and allow the patient to build strength and would not feed the tumor. (7)

The best way to regulate blood-glucose levels in cancer sufferers may be the following: 1) an optimal whole foods diet, 2) top quality nutritional supplements with a broad spectrum of anti-infective, immune-supportive phytonutrients, 3) regular exercise and sunlight, 4) gradual weight loss (if overweight) and 5) stress reduction. Professional nutritional guidance is crucial for cancer victims. The goal of nutrition therapy is not to eliminate all carbohydrates from the diet but eliminate all refined carbohydrates, and thus, control blood glucose within a narrow range to help starve the cancer and also bolster immune function.

Blood Sugar Standards

”Sugar” is a generic term used to identify simple and complex carbohydrates, which includes monosaccharides such as fructose, glucose and galactose; and disaccharides such as maltose and sucrose (white table sugar). The standards for blood sugar levels: a) less than 110 mg/dL is considered normal b) 111 to 125 mg/dL is considered to be impaired glucose tolerance and c) 26 mg glucose/dL blood or greater is considered to be diabetic (1997 American Diabetes Association blood-glucose standards).

Excess Blood Sugar and Degeneration

The diets of our ancestors which consisted of vegetables, lean meat, whole grains, nuts, seeds and fruits, is estimated to have promoted healthy blood glucose levels between 60 and 90 mg/dL. (8) Today’s typical diet high in refined sugar is promoting abnormally high blood sugar levels and unprecedented unhealthy effects in blood-sugar metabolism. Excess blood glucose can initiate yeast overgrowth, blood vessel deterioration, diabetes, heart disease, increased rate of infections and many other adverse health conditions. (9)

Blood Sugar and Breast Cancer

A mouse model of human breast cancer demonstrated that tumors are sensitive to blood glucose levels. Mice were injected with an aggressive strain of breast cancer, then fed diets to induce one of the following: high blood sugar (hyperglycemia), normal blood sugar or low blood sugar (hypoglycemia). The findings showed that the lower the blood glucose, the greater the survival rate. (10, 11) This suggests that reducing refined sugar intake is a key factor in slowing breast tumor growth.

A large-scale epidemiological study of 21 modern countries that track morbidity and mortality (Europe, North America, Japan and others) revealed that sugar intake is a strong risk factor that contributes to higher breast cancer rates, particularly in older women.(12)

Blood Sugar and Immune Cell Activity

In an immune cell study, 10 healthy people were assessed for fasting blood-glucose levels and the phagocytic index of neutrophils, which measures the ability of immune cells to destroy invaders such as cancer. Eating 100 grams of carbohydrates from glucose, sucrose, honey and orange juice all significantly decreased the capacity of neutrophils to engulf bacteria. Starch did not have this effect. (13)

In a 4-year research study at the National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection in the Netherlands, 111 cancer patients (with cancer of the biliary tract) were compared with 480 controls. Cancer risk associated with the intake of sugars, independent of other energy sources, more than doubled for the cancer patients. (14)

The medical establishment may be missing the connection between sugar and its role in tumorigenesis. The PET scan, a million-dollar positive emission tomography device, is regarded as one of the ultimate cancer-detection tools. PET scans use radioactively-labeled glucose to detect sugar-hungry tumor cells. The more glucose that is detected at a site, the worse the tumor is becoming. PET scans are used to plot the progress of cancerous tumors and to assess whether present protocols are effective. (15)

Kick the Sugar Out

In Europe, the “sugar feeds cancer” concept is well known. Glucose has an irrefutable role in encouraging the growth and metastasis of cancer. Based on research and the cancer-sugar connection, the best dietary recommendation for those with cancer may be a whole foods, organic diet with includes more fresh, organic vegetables, but less sweet fruit (such as bananas, figs, dates, etc.) as well as eliminating all refined sugars, (such as fructose, sucrose, sorbitol, maltodextrin, etc.) including hidden refined sugars (found in foods not normally associated with containing sugar such as soups, breads, ketchup, etc.). This carefully planned regime may be an enormous help in regulating blood glucose and hence, improving immunity while selectively starving cancer cells.

References

  1. Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science 1956 Feb;123:309-14.
  2. Volk T, et al. pH in human tumor xenografts: effect of intravenous administration of glucose. Br J Cancer 1993 Sep;68(3):492-500.
  3. Digirolamo M. Diet and cancer: markers, prevention and treatment. New York: Plenum Press; 1994. p 203.
  4. Leeper DB, et al. Effect of IV glucose versus combined IV. plus oral glucose on human tumor extracellular pH for potential sensitization to thermoradiotherapy. Int J Hyperthermia 1998 May-Jun;14(3):257-69.
  5. Rossi-Fanelli F, et al. Abnormal substrate metabolism and nutritional strategies in cancer management. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1991 NovDec;15(6):680-3.
  6. Grant JP. Proper use and recognized role of TPN in the cancer patient. Nutrition 1990 Jul-Aug;6(4 Suppl):6S-7S, 10S
  7. American College of Physicians. Parenteral nutrition in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. Ann Intern Med 1989 May;110(9):734.
  8. Brand-Miller J, et al. The glucose revolution. Newport (RI) Marlowe and Co.; 1999.
  9. Mooradian AD, et al. Glucotoxicity: potential mechanisms. Clin Geriatr Med 1999 May;15(2):255.
  10. Hoehn, SK, et al. Complex versus simple carbohydrates and mammary tumors in mice. Nutr Cancer 1979;1(3):27.
  11. Santisteban GA, et al. Glycemic modulation of tumor tolerance in a mouse model of breast cancer. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1985 Nov 15;132(3):1174
  12. Seeley S. Diet and breast cancer: the possible connection with sugar consumption. Med Hypotheses 1983 Jul;11(3):319-27.
  13. Sanchez A, et al. Role of sugars in human neutrophilic phagocytosis. Am J Clin Nutr 1973 Nov;26(11):1180-4.
  14. Moerman CJ, et al. Dietary sugar intake in the aetiology of biliary tract cancer. Int J Epidemiol 1993 Apr;22(2):207-14.
  15. Gatenby RA. Potential role of FDG-PET imaging in understanding tumor-host interaction. J Nucl Med 1995 May;36(5):893-9.

Breast Cancer, Alcohol and Tobacco

Breast Cancer, Alcohol and Tobacco

Comments from Bandolier: Evidence-Based Thinking about Health Care (www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band109/b109-4.html)

One of the most important developments in recent years has been collaboration between research groups to pool information on individual patients better to understand disease development and treatment. One such is investigating breast cancer [1].

Study

The influence of alcohol and tobacco on breast cancer was examined in 65 studies contributing individual patient data on over 66,000 women with breast cancer and nearly 130,000 controls. Of these, 53 had information on both alcohol and tobacco in 58,500 cases of breast cancer and 95,000 controls.

Case-control and cohort studies were eligible if they recruited at least 100 women with invasive breast cancer and recorded information on reproductive factors and use of hormonal therapies. Information on individual women was collated and analysed centrally to use as similar definitions as possible. One drink was 12 grams of alcohol in the USA and Italy, 8 grams in the UK and 10 grams elsewhere.

Results

The average age at diagnosis of breast cancer was 52 years. Women with higher alcohol consumption also tended to smoke more in cases and controls. Only 37% of women who never drank alcohol had ever smoked, a proportion rising to about 70% in those with the highest alcohol intake.

In women who had never drunk alcohol (22,000 cases and 41,000 controls) there was no relationship between breast cancer and smoking history (relative risk 1.03). Because of the relationship between increased alcohol consumption and increased smoking, no reliable information could be drawn for smokers who also drank alcohol.

The relative risk of breast cancer was positively linked to increased daily alcohol consumption (Figure 1), to the same extent in women who had never smoked and in those who had ever smoked. Overall, the increase in the relative risk of breast cancer rose by 7% for each 10 grams per day of alcohol intake. There was no significant variation in the trend for any of 15 factors (race, education, BMI, breastfeeding etc).

Figure 1: Relationship between daily alcohol consumption and relative risk for breast cancer in women

 

Comment

This is fantastic stuff, which can be relied upon because of the mass of information and the quality of the analysis. It firmly makes alcohol an issue for women.

Reference:

Collaborative group on hormonal factors in breast cancer. Alcohol, tobacco and breast cancer – collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 53 e

pidemiological studies, including 58 515 women with breast cancer and 95 067 women without the disease. British Journal of Cancer 2002 87: 1234-01245.

 

Alzheimer’s Disease (AD): Key Recommendations

Alzheimer’s Disease (AD): Key Recommendations

Antioxidants Can Prevent AD But They Must Be Food-Source

Journal of the American Medical Association, June 26, 2002; 287:3223-3237, 3261-3263


Diets rich in vitamin C and E may delay the onset of memory-robbing Alzheimer’s disease.

Free radicals that are released during normal cellular processes can be harmful to body tissues, leading to oxidative damage or stress. Experts have linked oxidative damage to many illnesses, including cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease.

Since antioxidants — including vitamins C and E — can neutralize free radicals, some experts believe these nutrients may help delay the onset of Alzheimer’s disease. Researchers found that those with the highest intake of vitamin C and vitamin E from food appeared to be the least likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease. Smokers who consumed the most beta-carotene and flavonoids (two types of antioxidants) as found in foods, also appeared to cut their Alzheimer’s risk.

Other researchers found that those with the highest dietary intake of vitamin E had the lowest risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease. However, people who carried a gene known to increase Alzheimer’s risk did not see any benefit from vitamin E consumption.

Neither of the studies showed any reduction in the risk of developing Alzheimer’s among people who took dietary supplements such as daily vitamin pills that contained antioxidants. The benefits only occurred when the antioxidants were consumed in the form of food.

Comments:

Alzheimer’s disease, the most common form of dementia which causes loss of brain function, is one of the most costly and devastating disorders among elderly people. The number of sufferers in the United States is expected to grow from 4 million to 14 million over the next 50 years. This is a staggering number. Typical medical approaches offer no real treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.

This study was funded by a drug company to draw greater awareness to the problem of Alzheimer’s disease and most likely to promote their own drug-based solution. However, medical drugs to not address the real multi-factorial cause of Alzheimer’s, including nutritional deficiencies, toxicity from environmental and chemical exposure, heavy metals from dental work and chronic infection.

Key Recommendations

(for those with Alzheimer’s disease or to help prevent Alzheimer’s):

Exercise.

Exercise is a very potent way to help ward off Alzheimer’s. Previous research has shown that the odds of developing Alzheimer’s were nearly quadrupled in people who were less active during their leisure time between the ages of 20 and 60 compared with their peers. Exercise is recommended several times per week (for a total of at least 3 – 5 hours per week.)

Clear toxic dental metals.

Getting the silver fillings (which are really mercury amalgams) out of your teeth is another effective strategy. But beware, don’t trade one poison for something worse. Many dental composites are considered to be more toxic than silver fillings, since they are petrochemically based.

Download years of toxic accumulation by using the ancient therapy of mud packs. This unique therapy is the use of a simple 15-minute externally applied detoxifying mud pack made from a moor concentrate that is high in humic acid and fulvic acid.These agents are known for their gentle, but highly effective, deep-seated detoxifying effects. The skin is a highly absorptive organ; when applied to the skin, the moor concentrate creates an osmotic exchange in which toxic chemicals are pulled out of the body while minerals and other nutrients are absorbed.

Avoid aluminum.

This means avoiding the use of aluminum cookware and utensils, aluminum antiperspirants, and most composite dental fillings (which contain aluminum compounds.)

Clear mercury.

Avoid and remove mercury from your diet. Also, replace your silver fillings with bio-compatible restorations as well as avoiding the consumption of most commercial fish.

Avoid flu vaccinations.

Vaccines contain toxic preservatives such as mercury. In addition, the the vaccine itself may cause severe stress to the immune system. Research shows that the concept of vaccines (i.e. the idea that they provide immunity against disease organisms) has never been adequately proven. Many elderly people have died after receiving flu vaccinations; many have experienced severe symptoms.

Stay active with your mind
.

Find favorite activities and do them often, such as reading books, gardening, writing, social events with others, creative activities, etc. Avoid the “TV every night” routine. We recommend a maximum of 1 1/2 hours of TV per day or a total of 10 ½ hours per week. Become a TV connoisseur; carefully select programs you want to watch rather than just watching whatever happens to be on. Record TV programs in advance so you can watch them later and have a quality program to watch. If you are watching TV more than 10 – 12 hours per week, you may be living life through your television rather than living life for yourself.

Nutritional Recommendations

In addition, include these key nutritional recommendations:

Eat More Vegetables.

Eat a diet high in fresh vegetables, both raw and cooked, focusing more on above ground vegetables (such as broccoli, zucchini, etc.) rather than below ground vegetables such as carrots, beets, etc.

Work up to eating at least 50% of your diet as raw food daily.

This includes fresh fruit, raw vegetables, delicious salads, soaked nuts and seeds, homemade raw kefir, fermented vegetables, sunflower seed cheese, etc. Try to eat some raw foods at all 3 meals.

Baseline Nutritional Support
Include Super Nutrient greens (such as blue green algae, chlorella and herbs) and grasses (including barley grass, wheat grass and oat grass) in your daily nutritional support.

Masterful Antioxidant Protection

A) Pine bark extract, rich in proanthocyanidins

B) Adaptogenic botanical agents for adrenal and hormone support, such as reishi and amla

C) Hyssop, a key herb to help clear toxicity, protect cells and boost immune function

D) CoQ-10 (natural-source; not synthetic CoQ-10) to help protect cellular integrity and function

Immune Support and Lymphatic Clearance

Reishi, olive leaf extract, propolis, flower pollen.

X-Rays, Cancer and Heart Disease

X-Rays, Cancer and Heart Disease

by John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D.

John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., is one of the leading experts in the world in these issues. He is a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor.
The evidence presented in his book, Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, strongly indicates that over 50% of the death-rate from cancer today, and over 60% of the death-rate from Ischemic Heart Disease today, are x-ray-induced.
The finding means that x-rays (including fluoroscopy and CT scans) have become a necessary co-actor — but not the only necessary co-actor — in causing most of the death-rate from cancer and from Ischemic Heart Disease (also called Coronary Heart Disease, and Coronary Artery Disease).
In multi-cause diseases such as cancer and ischemic heart disease, more than one necessary co-actor per fatal case is very likely. Absence of any necessary co-actor, by definition, prevents such cases. The concept of x-ray-induced cases means cases which would be absent in the absence of exposure to x-rays.
X-rays and other classes of ionizing radiation have been, for decades, a proven cause of virtually all types of mutations — especially structural chromosomal mutations (such as deletions, translocations, and rings), for which the doubling dose by x-rays is extremely low. Additionally, x-rays are an established cause of genomic instability, often a characteristic of the most aggressive cancers.
Not surprisingly, a host of epidemiologic studies have firmly established that x-rays and other classes of ionizing radiation are a cause of most varieties of human cancer. We have a high level of confidence that our findings, about the important causal role of medical radiation in both cancer and IHD, are correct.
Reduction of exposure to medical radiation can and will reduce mortality rates — from cancer with certainty, and with very great probability from Ischemic Heart Disease too.


Part 2. Some Key Facts about X-rays and Ionizing Radiation in General

Most physicians and other people appreciate the imaging capability of the x-ray, but — through no fault of their own — they are taught very little about the biological action of those x-rays which never reach the film or other imagereceptor.
Capacity To Commit Mayhem Among The Genetic Molecules
The biological damage from a medical x-ray procedure does not come directly from the x-ray photons. The damage comes from electrons, which those photons “kick” out of their normal atomic orbits within human tissues. Endowed with biologically unnatural energy by the photons, such electrons leave their atomic orbits and travel with high speed and high energy through their home cells and neighboring cells.
Each such electron gradually slows down, as it unloads portions of its biologically unnatural energy, at irregular intervals, onto various biological molecules along its primary track (path).
The molecular victims include, of course, chromosomal DNA, and the structural proteins of chromosomes, and water. Even though each energy-deposit transfers only a portion of the total energy of a high-speed high-energy electron, the single deposits very often have energies far exceeding any energy-transfer which occurs in a natural biochemical reaction. Such energy-deposits are more like grenades and small bombs.
The Free-Radical Fallacy
There is no doubt that, along the path of each high-speed high-energy electron described above, the energy-deposits produce various species of free radicals. Nonetheless, it is a demonstrated fallacy to assume equivalence between the biological potency of x-rays and the biological potency of the free radicals which are routinely produced by a cell’s own natural metabolism.
The uniquely violent and concentrated energy-transfers, resulting from x-rays, are simply absent in a cell’s natural biochemistry. As a result of these “grenades” and “small bombs,” both strands of opposing DNA can experience a level of mayhem far exceeding the damage, which metabolic free-radicals (and most other chemical species) generally inflict upon a comparable segment of the DNA double helix.
Ionizing Radiation: A Uniquely Potent Mutagen
The extra level of mayhem is what makes x-rays (and other types of ionizing radiation) uniquely potent mutagens. Cells cannot correctly repair every type of complex genetic damage, induced by ionizing radiation, and sometimes cells cannot repair such damage at all. Not all mutated cells die, of course. If they all died, there would be very little cancer and no inherited afflictions. Indeed, certain mutations confer a proliferative advantage on the mutated cells. Exposure to x-rays is a proven cause of genomic instability — a characteristic of many of the most aggressive cancers.
Unlike some other mutagens, x-rays have access to the genetic molecules of every internal organ, if the organ is within the x-ray beam. Within such organs, even a single high-speed high-energy electron, set into motion by an x-ray photon, has a chance (far from a certainty) of inducing the types of damage which defy repair. That is why there is no risk-free (no safe) dose-level.
There is widespread agreement that, by its very nature, ionizing radiation at any dose-level can induce particularly complex injuries to the genetic molecules. There is growing mainstream acknowledgment that cellular repair processes are fallible, or entirely absent, for various complex injuries to the genetic molecules.
The Very Low Doubling-Dose for X-ray-Induced Chromosomal Mutations
The inability of human cells, to repair correctly every type of radiation-induced chromosomal damage, has been demonstrated in nuclear workers (who received their extra low-dose radiation at minimal dose-rates) and in numerous studies of x-ray-irradiated human cells at low doses.
Besides demonstrating non-repair or imperfect repair, such studies have established that x-rays have an extremely low doubling-dose for structural chromosomal mutations. (The doubling dose of an effect is the dose which adds a frequency equal to the preexisting frequency of that effect.)
For instance, the doubling-dose for the dicentric mutation is in the dose range delivered by some common x-ray procedures, such as CT scans and fluoroscopy — i.e., in the dose range of 2 to 20 rads. The rad is a dose-unit which is identical to the centi-gray. We, and many others, prefer the simpler name: Rad.
X-rays are capable of causing virtually every known kind of mutation — from the very common types to the very complex types, from deletions of single nucleotides, to chromosomal deletions of every size and position, and chromosomal rearrangements of every type. When such mutations are not cell-lethal, they endure and accumulate with each additional exposure to x-rays or other ionizing radiation.

Medical X-rays as a Proven Cause of Human Cancer

Ionizing radiation is firmly established by epidemiologic evidence as a proven cause of almost every major type of human cancer. Some of the strongest evidence comes from the study of medical patients exposed to x-rays — even at minimal dose-levels per exposure.


Mounting mainstream evidence indicates that medical x-rays are 2 to 4 times more mutagenic than high-energy beta and gamma rays, per rad of exposure.

No Doubt about Benefits from Medical Radiation
Radiation was introduced into medicine almost immediately after discovery of the x-ray (by Wilhelm Roentgen) in 1895.
There is simply no doubt that the use of radiation in medicine has many benefits. The findings in this book provide no argument against medical radiation. The findings do provide a powerful argument for acquiring all the benefits of medical radiation with the use of much lower doses of radiation, in both diagnostic and interventional radiology. (Interventional radiology refers primarily, but not exclusively, to the use of fluoroscopy to acquire information during surgery and during placement of catheters, needles, and other devices.).
Within the professions of radiology and radiologic physics, there are mainstream experts who have shown how the dosage of x-rays in current practice could be cut by 50%, or by considerably more, in diagnostic and interventional radiology — without any loss of information and without eliminating a single procedure.

Role of Medical Radiation in Causing Cancer and IHD, Past and Present

This monograph has produced evidence with regard to two hypotheses.
Hypothesis-1:
Medical radiation is a highly important cause (probably the principal cause) of cancer mortality in the United States during the Twentieth Century. Medical radiation means, primarily but not exclusively, exposure by x-rays — including fluoroscopy and CT scans. (Hypothesis-1 is about causation of cancer, so it is silent about radiation-therapy used after a Cancer has been diagnosed.).
Hypothesis-2:
Medical radiation, received even at very low and moderate doses, is an important cause of death from Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD); the probable mechanism is radiation-induced mutations in the coronary arteries, resulting in dysfunctional clones (mini-tumors) of smooth muscle cells. (The kinds of damage to the heart and its vessels, observed from very high-dose radiation and reported for decades, seldom resemble the lesions of IHD).
These Hypotheses in Terms of Multi-Cause Diseases
Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease are well established as multi-cause diseases. In efforts to prevent these multicause diseases, reduction or removal of any necessary co-actor is a central goal. The evidence in this book is that medical radiation has become a necessary co-actor in a high fraction of the U.S. mortality rates from both diseases. Fortunately, dosage from medical radiation is demonstrably reducible without eliminating a single procedure.
During the 1985-1990 period, the number of diagnostic medical x-ray examinations performed per year in the USA was approximately 200 million, excluding 100 million dental x-ray examinations and 6.8 million diagnostic nuclear medicine examinations.
The source of these estimates warns that 200 million could be an underestimate by up to sixty percent.
Not only is the number of annual examinations quite uncertain, but the average doses per examination — in actual practice, not measured with a dummy during ideal practice — vary sometimes by many-fold from one facility to another, even for patients of the same size. The variation by facility has been established by a few on-site surveys of selected facilities, because measurement and recording of x-ray doses are not required for actual procedures.
Fluoroscopy is a major source of x-ray dosage, because the x-ray beam stays “on” during

fluoroscopy. Such doses are rarely measured.
When fluoroscopic x-rays are used during common diagnostic examinations, the total dose delivered varies with the operator. When fluoroscopic x-rays are used during surgery and other nondiagnostic procedures, the total dose delivered varies both with the operator and the particular circumstances.
Our monograph is essentially the first, large prospective study on induction of fatal Ischemic Heart Disease by medical radiation. The results are stunning in their strength. Such strong dose-response relationships do not occur by accident.


Our Unified Model of Atherogenesis and Acute IHD Events

Our view (shared by many others) is that the plasma lipoproteins have no physiologic function in the intimal layer of the coronary arteries, and that under normal circumstances, their rate of entry and exit from the intimal layer is in balance. We propose that what disrupts this lifelong egress of lipoproteins from the intima — with the disruption occurring only at specific locations — are mutations acquired from medical radiation and from other mutagens.
In our Unified Model, some mutations acquired by smooth muscle cells render such cells dysfunctional and give such cells a proliferative advantage — so that they gradually replace competent smooth muscle cells at a localized patch of artery (a mini-tumor). And this patch of cells, unable to process lipoproteins correctly, becomes the site of chronic inflammation, resulting in construction of an atherosclerotic plaque — whose fibrous cap is sometimes too fragile to contain the highly thrombogenic lipid-core within the plaque.
A Personal Word: The X-ray Deserves Its Honored Place in Health
The finding, that radiation from medical procedures is a major cause of both Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, does not argue against the use of x-rays, CT scans, fluoroscopy, and radioisotopes in diagnostic and interventional radiology. Such uses also make very positive contributions to health. We deeply respect those contributions, and the men and women who achieve them.
This author is most definitely not “anti-x-ray” or “radio-phobic.” As a graduate student in physical chemistry, I worked very intimately with radiation, in the quest for the first three atomic-bombs. Subsequently, in medical school, I considered becoming a radiologist. In the late 1940s, I did nuclear medicine with patients having a variety of hematological disorders. In the 1960s, I did chemical elemental analysis of human blood by x-ray spectroscopy. In the early 1970s, our group at the Livermore National Laboratory induced genomic instability in human cells with gamma rays.
In short, I fully appreciate the benefits and insights (in medicine and other fields) which ionizing radiation makes possible.
But no one honors the x-ray by treating it casually or by failing to acknowledge that it is a uniquely potent mutagen. One honors the x-ray by taking it seriously.
While doses from diagnostic and interventional radiology are very low relative to doses used for cancer therapy, diagnostic and interventional x-ray doses today are far from negligible. The widely used CT scans, and the common diagnostic examinations which use fluoroscopy, and interventional fluoroscopy (e.g., during surgery), deliver some of the largest nontherapeutic doses of x-rays. In 1993, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation warned, appropriately, in its Annual Report:
“Although the doses from diagnostic x-ray examinations are generally relatively low, the magnitude of the practice makes for a significant radiological impact.”
In the USA until about 1970, fetal irradiation occurred during ~ 1 pregnancy per 14.

Every Benefit of Medical Radiation: Same Procedures, Lower Dose-Levels
The fact that ionizing radiation is a uniquely potent mutagen, and the finding that radiation from medical procedures is a major cause of both Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, clearly indicate that it would be appropriate in medicine to treat dosage of ionizing radiation at least as carefully as we treat dosage from potent medications. In the medical professions, we do not administer unmeasured doses of powerful pharmaceuticals, and we do not take a casual view of a 5-fold, 10-fold, even 20-fold elevation in dosage of such medications.
By contrast, in both the past and the present, unmeasured doses of x-rays are the rule — not the exception. When sampling has been done, in which actual measurements are taken, dosage has been found to vary from one facility to another by many-fold, for the same procedure for patients of the same size.
The reason for large variation is obvious from the list of numerous proven ways to reduce dosage. Facilities which apply all the measures can readily achieve average doses more than 5-fold lower than facilities which apply very few measures.
Certain Spinal X-rays: A Dramatic Demonstration
The potential for dose-reduction may far exceed 5-fold for some common x-ray exams. This has already been demonstrated for the spinal x-rays employed to monitor progress in treating idiopathic adolescent scoliosis, a lateral curvature of the spine. An estimated 5% of American children, or more, have this disorder. In a most responsible way, Dr. Joel Gray and coworkers at the Mayo Clinic developed radiologic techniques for scoliosis monitoring which can reduce measured x-ray dose to various organs as follows:
Abdominal exposure: 8-fold reduction.
Thyroid exposure: 20-fold reduction (with a back to front radiograph), and 100-fold reduction (with a lateral radiograph).
Breasts: 69-fold reduction (with a back to front radiograph), and 55-fold reduction (with a lateral radiograph).
They report, “These reductions in exposure were obtained without significant loss in the quality of the radiographs and in most instances, with an improvement in the over-all quality of the radiograph due to the more uniform exposure.


Mammography: A Model of Success

The importance of dose-reduction for the mammographic examination has been recognized, and such doses have been reduced by about a factor of ten in recent years. “Where there is a will, there is a way.” In certified mammography centers today, doses are routinely verified periodically, and measurements provide the feedback required, in order to achieve constant dose-reduction instead of upward creep.
The Benefits of Every Procedure — with Far Less Dose
Dose-reduction can be a truly safe measure. It is clear that average per patient doses from diagnostic and interventional radiology could be reduced by a great deal without reducing the medical benefits of the procedures in any way.
Radiography: Quality-assurance (dose-reduction by an average factor of 2), beam-collimation (by a factor up to 3), rare-earth screens (by a factor of 2 to 4), rare-earth filtration (by a factor of 2 to 4), use of carbon-fibre materials (by a factor of 2), gonadal shielding (by a factor of 2 to 10 for the gonads).
Digital Radiography: Decrease in contrast resolution, when such resolution is not needed (dose-reduction by a factor of 2 to 3), use of a pulsed system (by a factor of 2).
Fluoroscopy: Changes in the operator’s technique (dose-reduction by a factor of 2 to 10), variable aperture iris on TV camera (by a factor of 3), high and low dose-switching (by a factor of 1.5), acoustic signal related to dose-rate (by a factor of 1.3), use of a 105mm camera (by a factor of 4 to 5). Additional methods not specified in the list: Use of a circular beam-collimator when the image-receiver is circular, adoption of “freeze-frame” or “last-image-hold capability, and restraint in recording fluoroscopic images.
An Immense Opportunity: All Benefit, No Risk
The evidence in this monograph, on an age-adjusted basis, is that most fatal cases of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease would not happen as they do, in the absence of x-ray-induced mutations. We look forward to responses to our findings.
We have also presented findings, from outside sources, that average per patient radiation doses from diagnostic and interventional radiology could be reduced by a great deal, without reducing the medical benefits of the procedures in any way. The same procedures can be done at substantially lower dose-levels.
Does the Public Need a Denial, “For Its Own Good” ?
One type of response to this monograph may be that the findings need to be denied immediately (without
examination), lest the public refuse to accept the benefits of x-ray procedures.
This type of response, insulting to the public, would not be consistent with reality. In reality, the public accepts a host of dangerous medications and procedures, in exchange for their demonstrable benefits —  sometimes, for undemonstrated benefits. Very few people will forego the obvious benefits from diagnostic and interventional radiology, just because such procedures confer a risk of subsequent Cancer and IHD.
The only change will probably be that people will demand that the same degree of care, now exercised with respect to dosage of potent medications, be exercised with respect to dosage of radiation from each procedure. They will want to avoid a dose-level of, say, ten rads — if the same information could be acquired with one rad. They do not deserve”one useful part of information, and nine unnecessary parts of extra risk of Cancer and IHD.” Patients will want more measurements, and fewer assumptions, about the doses delivered. But they will not reject the procedures themselves.
The “Advocacy Issue” and the Hippocratic Oath
It is very often said that, if scientists advocate any action based on their findings, they undermine their scientific credibility. If such scientists stand to benefit financially from the actions they advocate, such suspicion occurs naturally. But even in such circumstances, if their work is presented in a way which anyone can replicate, it should be impossible for their advocacy to diminish the scientific credibility of their work.
Our findings are not encumbered either by financial interests or by any barriers to replication. The findings stand on their own, whether or not we advocate any action.
I have spent a lifetime studying the causes of Ischemic Heart Disease, and then Cancer, in order to help prevent such diseases. So it would be pure hypocrisy for me to feign a lack of interest in any preventive action which would be both safe and benign. And when sources, completely independent from me, set forth their findings that such action is readily feasible — namely, significant dose-reduction in diagnostic and interventional radiology — it would be worse than silly for me to pretend that I have no idea what action should occur.
After all, as a physician, I took the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm.” Silence would contribute to the harm of millions of people. Why Wait? What Is the Purpose?
Although it is commonly assumed that radiation doses are “negligible” from modern medical procedures, the assumption is definitely mistaken.
An estimated 35% to 50% of some higher-dose diagnostic procedures are currently received by patients below age 45 — when the carcinogenic impact per dose-unit is probably stronger than it is after age 65 or so.
In diagnostic and interventional radiology, dose-reduction would be wholly safe, quite inexpensive, and guaranteed beneficial — because induction of Cancer by ionizing radiation has been an established fact for decades.

A Mountain of Solid Evidence That Each Dose Matters
The fact, that x-ray doses are so seldom measured, reflects the false assumption that such doses do not matter. This monograph has presented a mountain of solid evidence that they do matter, enormously.
And each bit of additional dose matters, because any x-ray photon may be the one which sets in motion the highspeed high-energy electron which causes a carcinogenic or atherogenic mutation. Such mutations rarely disappear. The higher their accumulated number in a population, the higher will be the population’s mortality-rates from radiation-induced Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease.
The x-ray is a proven mutagen and a proven cause of Cancer, and the evidence in this book strongly indicates that it is also a very important cause of Cancer and a very important atherogen. From the existing evidence, it is clear that average per patient doses from diagnostic and interventional radiology could be reduced by a great deal without reducing the medical benefits of the procedures in any way.
A Prudent Position from Which No One Loses, Everyone Gains
Whether diseases are common or rare, a prime reason for studying their causation is prevention. Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, combined, accounted for 45% of all deaths in the USA during 1993.
If we in the medical professions take the position, that we should not press for reducing doses from medical radiation until every question has been perfectly answered, then we can never undo the harm inflicted during the waiting period, upon tens of millions of patients every year.
By contrast, if we take the prudent position that dose-reduction should become a high priority without delay (and if humans do not start exposing themselves to some other potent mutagen), the evidence in this monograph indicates that we will prevent much of the future mortality from Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, without causing any adverse effects on health. No one loses, everyone gains.


Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RMP/chp1F.html
COMMENT:

Dr. Gofman’s credentials are astounding. Not only does he have a Ph.D. in nuclear and physical chemistry, but he is also a medical doctor. While a graduate student at U.C. Berkeley, Gofman earned his Ph.D. (1943) in nuclear/physical chemistry, with his dissertation on the discovery of Pa-232, U-232, Pa-233, and U-233, the proof that U-233 is fissionable by slow and fast neutrons, and discovery of the 4n + 1 radioactive series. His faculty advisor was Glenn T. Seaborg (who became Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, 1961-1971).
Post-doctorally, Gofman continued research related to the first atomic bombs, particularly the chemistry of plutonium, at a time when the world’s total supply was less than 0.25 milligram. He shares patents #2,671,251 and #2,912,302 on two processes for separating plutonium from the uranium and fission products of irradiated nuclear fuel.
After the plutonium work, Gofman completed medical school (1946) at UCSF. In 1947, following his internship in Internal Medicine, Gofman joined the faculty at U.C. Berkeley (Division of Medical Physics), where he began his research on lipoproteins and Coronary Heart Disease at the Donner Laboratory.
In 1954, Gofman received the Modern Medicine Award for outstanding contributions to heart disease research. In 1965, he received the Lyman Duff Lectureship Award of the American Heart Association, for his research in atherosclerosis and Coronary Heart Disease. In 1972, he shared the Stouffer Prize for outstanding contributions to research in arteriosclerosis. In 1974, the American College of Cardiology selected him as one of twenty-five leading researchers in cardiology of the past quarter-century.

Meanwhile, in the early 1960s, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) asked Gofman to establish a Biomedical Research Division at the AEC’s Livermore National Laboratory, for the purpose of evaluating the health effects of all types of nuclear activities.
From 1963-1965, Gofman served as the division’s first director and concurrently as an Associate Director of the full laboratory. Then he stepped down from the administrative activities in order to have more time for his own laboratory research on Cancer and chromosomes (the Boveri Hypothesis), on radiation-induced chromosomal mutations and genomic instability, and for his analytical work on the epidemiologic data from the Japanese atomic-bomb survivors and other irradiated human populations.
By 1969, Gofman and a Livermore colleague, Dr. Arthur R. Tamplin, had concluded that human exposure to ionizing radiation was much more serious than previously recognized.
Because of this finding, Gofman and Tamplin spoke out publicly against two AEC programs which they had
previously accepted. One was Project Plowshare, a program to explode hundreds or thousands of underground nuclear bombs in the Rocky Mountains in order to liberate (radioactive) natural gas, and to use nuclear explosives also to excavate harbors and canals. The second was the plan to license about 1,000 commercial nuclear power plants (USA) as quickly as possible. In 1970, Gofman and Tamplin proposed a 5-year moratorium on that activity.
The AEC was not pleased. Seaborg recounts some of the heated conversations among the Commissioners in his book, The Atomic Energy Commission under Nixon: Adjusting to Troubled Times (1993). By 1973, Livermore de-funded Gofman’s laboratory research on chromosomes and Cancer. He returned to teaching full-time at U.C. Berkeley, until choosing an early and active “retirement” in order to concentrate fully on pro-bono research into human health-effects from radiation.
His 1981, 1985, 1990, 1994, and 1995/96 books present a series of findings. His 1990 book includes his proof, “by any reasonable standard of biomedical proof,” that there is no threshold level (no harmless dose) of ionizing radiation with respect to radiation mutagenesis and carcinogenesis — a conclusion supported in 1995 by a government-funded radiation committee. His 1995/96 book provides evidence that medical radiation is a necessary cofactor in about 75% of the recent and current Breast Cancer incidence (USA), a conclusion doubted but not at all refuted by several peer reviewers.

Crystalline Brucella and Mycomplasm Continued

Crystalline Brucella
The title page of a genuine U.S. Senate Study, declassified on February 24, 1977, shows that George Merck, of the pharmaceutical company, Merck, Sharp & Dohme (which now makes cures for diseases that at one time it created), reported in 1946 to the Secretary of War that his researchers had managed “for the first time” to “isolate the disease agent in crystalline form”.(3)
They had produced a crystalline bacterial toxin extracted from the Brucella bacterium. The bacterial toxin could be removed in crystalline form and stored, transported and deployed without deteriorating. It could be delivered by other vectors such as insects, aerosol or the food chain (in nature it is delivered within the bacterium). But the factor that is working in the Brucella is the mycoplasma.

Brucella is a disease agent that doesn’t kill people; it disables them. But, according to Dr. Donald MacArthur of the Pentagon, appearing before a congressional committee in 1969,(4) researchers found that if they had mycoplasma at a certain strength — actually, 10 to the 10th power (10-10) — it would develop into AIDS, and the person would die from it within a reasonable period of time because it could bypass the natural human defenses. If the strength was 10 to the 8th, the person would manifest with chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia. If it was 10 to the 7th, they would present as wasting; they wouldn’t die and they wouldn’t be disabled, but they would not be very interested in life; they would waste away.
One salt shaker of the pure brucella disease agent in a crystalline form could sicken the entire population of Canada. It is absolutely deadly, not so much in terms of killing the body but disabling it.
Because the crystalline disease agent goes into solution in the blood, ordinary blood and tissue tests will not reveal its presence. The mycoplasma will only crystallize at 8.1 pH, and the blood has a pH of 7.4 pH. So the doctor thinks your complaint is “all in your head”.
Crystalline Brucella and Multiple Sclerosis
In 1998 in Rochester, New York, I met a former military man, PFC Donald Bentley, who gave me a document and told me: “I was in the U. S. Army, and I was trained in bacteriological warfare. We were handling a bomb filled with brucellosis, only it wasn’t brucellosis; it was a Brucella toxin in crystalline form. We were spraying it on the Chinese and North Koreans.”
He showed me his certificate listing his training in chemical, biological and radiological warfare. Then he showed me 16 pages of documents given to him by the U.S. military when he was discharged from the service. They linked brucellosis with multiple sclerosis, and stated in one section: “Veterans with multiple sclerosis, a kind of creeping paralysis developing to a degree of 10% or more disability within two years after separation from active service, may be presumed to be service-connected for disability compensation.
Compensation is payable to eligible veterans whose disabilities are due to service.” In other words: “If you become ill with multiple sclerosis, it is because you were handling this Brucella, and we will give you a pension. Don’t go raising any fuss about it.” In these documents, the government of the United States revealed evidence of the cause of multiple sclerosis, but they didn’t make it known to the public–or to your doctor.
In a 1949 report, Drs. Kyger and Haden suggested “the possibility that multiple sclerosis might be a central nervous system manifestation of chronic brucellosis”. Testing approximately 113 MS patients, they found that almost 95% also tested positive for Brucella.(5) We have a document from a medical journal, which concludes that one out of 500 people who had brucellosis would develop what they call neuro-brucellosis; in other words, brucellosis in the brain, where the Brucella settles in the lateral ventricles — where the disease multiple sclerosis is basically located.(6)
Contamination of Camp Detrick Lab Workers
A 1948 New England Journal of Medicine report titled “Acute Brucellosis Among Laboratory Workers” shows us how actively dangerous this agent is.(7) The laboratory workers were from Camp Detrick, Frederick, Maryland, where they were developing biological weapons. Even though these workers had been vaccinated, wore rubberized suits and masks and worked through holes in the compartment, many of them came down with this awful disease because it is so absolutely and terrifyingly infectious.
The article was written by Lt. Calderone Howell, Marine Corps, Captain Edward Miller, Marine Corps, Lt. Emily Kelly, United States Naval Reserve, and Captain Henry Bookman. They were all military personnel engaged in making the disease agent Brucella into a more effective biological weapon.