“Why is it I get every “bug” that comes along and some people don’t seem to ever get colds or flu?”

What Challenges Your Immune System?
“Why is it I get every “bug” that comes along and some people don’t seem to ever get colds or flu?”

You Need to Know this…

There are fundamental reasons why one person stays well and another person does not. A strong immune system is one answer. For many people, cold and flu season never comes. For those same people, allergy season does not come either, because they have a strong immune system to handle those challenges. This issue of The Nutritional Essentials will give you some strategies that you can use to improve your immune system and the immune systems of all of your family members. First, let’s understand the challenges your immune systems face.

What Challenges Your Immune System?

Everything that is a stress on your body’s natural function can be a challenge to your immune system, such as:
Nutritional deficiencies brought on by improperly prepared foods, refined foods, transfats, and too much sugar!
Toxicity brought on by pollution, chemicals, preservatives and synthetic ingredients in food, basically all of the unnatural toxins.
Physical, structural and emotional stresses that deplete your system of nutrients and energy needed for growth and repair.

A Strong Immune System is a Whole Body Effort

The entire body works together to accomplish the important task of protecting your health. Virtually every aspect of your whole being is in some way involved with this process. Skin, digestive juices, mucous membranes, intestinal flora, and other healthy bacteria all work together with the organs of the immune system (the liver, spleen, blood and lymph) to help protect you. This is your immune system in action—a concerted effort of the parts for the whole. Similarly, immune system HealthBuilding is an action of the whole body as well.

The Best “Cure” for Disease is Health

Seems like a silly thing to say but nothing could be more true! Healthy people do not get sick often. People who are healthy sometimes are gifted with a strong genetic foundation, but more commonly, healthy people do the right things to build and maintain their health. This lifestyle allows their genes to express themselves as a whole body functioning in harmony. You can choose this lifestyle too! So that makes our job easy! Promote health and disease stays away, right? Simple as it sounds, it’s true!
In each issue of of “Dr. Chapa’s News You Need to Know” we speak about ways a person can build his or her health, and HealthBuilding is the key to the immune system strengths! It is highly likely you too can avoid the colds and flu seasons by merely supporting your health all year long. Let’s find out what you can do.

A strong immune system is a matter of choice!

HealthBuilding steps:

  1. Whole foods prepared properly so their natural goodness is available to your body
  2. Pure air and water
  3. Digestive enzymes to help the body assimilate the whole foods
  4. Healthy intestinal flora (probiotics) for proper assimilation and elimination of toxins
  5. Healthy liver functions – periodic purification programs
  6. Exercise and restful sleep
  7. Peaceful surroundings and a purpose for living

Avoiding These Common Pitfalls:

  1. Toxins in the environment (air, water, food)
  2. Refined foods
  3. Synthetic “foods”
  4. Most of us would look at this list and say, “I am not in ideal control of all of these HealthBuilding steps.” “What can I do to build my immune system?”

The best we can do nutritionally is:

  • Eat right and support the immune system with whole food concentrates known to be high in immune support qualities. The product we are featuring enhances the health of the immune system.

Build the health of your families’ immune system. Add immune support to your whole food supplement program!

  1. Immuplex© – The particular combination of whole food concentrates in Immuplex© uniquely supports the entire immune complex systems. For example this product supports the health of the:
  • Thymus gland for healthy lymphocyte production,
  • Spleen (lymphatic and blood) for antibodies,
  • Bone marrow for healthy blood formation,
  • Stomach (digestive system to destroy ingested parasites),
  • Intestinal flora (digestive) to destroy pathogenic microbes and manufacture B12.
  • Liver support for detoxification and enzyme production.
  1. Immuplex combines organic forms of vitamins A, C, and E with vitamin B12, and folic acid with minerals such as zinc, copper, chromium, iron, and selenium. Immuplex also contains bovine thymus, liver, and spleen tissue extracts – nutrients and glandular foods especially prepared to provide vital nutrients well known for their important roles in immune system health and function. †


Taking 1 – 3 Immuplex per day for during the cold and flu season could be one of the best immune support steps you could take.

Patients Speak About Immune Support

“I was one of those guys that no matter what it was that came around, I caught it. Colds, flu seem to never pass me by. Four years ago I started taking 3 Immuplex a day, I have not had a cold or flu since.” L.S.

What Did You Learn???

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.

 

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.