Natural Communities Magazine A magazine devoted to the local natural wellness culture.

Microwaves are a feature in nearly every American home. Yet their dangers are well documented. You can do your own home experiment to understand the hazards of microwaving. Plant seeds in two pots. Water one pot with microwaved water and the other pot with regular tap water. The seeds that received microwaved water won’t sprout. If microwaved water can stop plants from growing, then imagine what microwaved food is doing to your body.

A Swiss study led by biologist and food scientist Dr. Hans Hertel identified the effects of microwaved food. For eight weeks, eight people lived in a controlled environment and intermittently ate raw foods, conventionally cooked foods and microwaved foods. Blood samples were tested after each meal. The microwaved food caused significant changes in blood chemistry.

Another study at Stanford University investigated the effects of microwaving breast milk. One of the head scientists said “Microwaving human milk, even at a low setting, can destroy some of its important disease-fighting capabilities.” They claimed that besides heating, there were many other disturbing alterations in the milk

In early 1991, a lawsuit was filed against an Oklahoma hospital after a patient died from receiving blood that was heated in a microwave oven.

In Russia, microwave ovens were banned in 1976 because of their negative effect on health and wellbeing.

• Eating food processed from a microwave oven causes permanent brain damage by “shorting out” electrical impulses in the brain.

• Male and female hormone production is shut down and/or altered by continually eating microwaved foods.

• Minerals, vitamins, and nutrients of all microwaved food is reduced or altered so that the human body gets little or no benefit.

• The minerals in vegetables are altered into cancerous free-radicals when cooked in microwave ovens.

• Microwaved foods cause stomach and intestinal cancerous tumors.

• The prolonged eating of microwaved foods causes cancerous cells to increase in human blood.

• Continual ingestion of microwaved food lowers the immune system.

• Eating microwaved food causes loss of memory, concentration, emotional instability, and a decrease of intelligence.

• Microwaving alters elemental food-substances, causing digestive disorders.

• Microwaved foods lose 60 to 90 percent of the vital-energy field and microwaving accelerates the structural disintegration of foods.

• Microwaved foods lower the body’s ability to utilize B-complex vitamins, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, essential minerals and lipotropics.

The bottom line is that microwaves cause cancer and other diseases. They destroy the goodness in our food and weaken our bodies. Ultimately, we should all be thinking about permanently getting rid of them.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/023103_microwave_food_foods.html

The following information is probably going to be opposite of everything you have read or heard.  Everyone tells people with cancer that they must have the will to live.  If you are like I was when I was dying of 4 cancers, that is impossible.  I was in so much pain, agony, depression and fear that I simply wanted to die.  I prayed to die but, obviously, that didn’t happen.  All I could do was take the best care of myself as I understood anything to be the ‘best’ for me at any particular time.  I did not get all of the answers at once.  I did not find any magic bullets.  It took many years for me to recover, physically and emotionally.

I was toxic and very sickly as a child.  It all started with many tetanus shots and other vaccines full of chemical toxins.  By age 19, I developed a stomach ulcer that was medically treated.  It became tumorous.  Doctors treated the tumor with surgery and radiation and those treatments gave me blood and bone cancers.  I am the only long-term survivor of bone and blood cancers.  Then doctors treated those with chemotherapy, that caused cancer to metastasize to my lymph.  I ended up crippled with severe spinal pain.  I was relatively paralyzed from the chest down.

I decided doctors did not have a clue about health, but I did not know what to do. An 18-years-old boy who volunteered at hospice coaxed me into drinking raw carrot juice and raw milk. After medical treatments, everything cooked, pasteurized and processed tasted like cardboard or postage-stamp glue. I drank raw carrot juice and raw milk because they were the only foods that tasted good. However, they made me feel better.  I forsook medicine completely and began studying nutrition.  It turned my life around very gradually.

To discover which diets might be cancer preventive and possibly cancer-reversing, we must look at the cultures that had no cancer.  Before Germans brought cauldrons to Alaska, Eskimos did not cook any food.  Ninety-nine percent of their diet was raw meat and animal fat.  They had absolutely no degenerative disease, not even cavities.  The first case of cancer in Eskimos was in 1934, after 100 years of eating cooked and processed food with chemical additives.

Also, look at the Masai tribe in Africa before the 9-year draught.  They ate nothing but raw milk and raw meat, and when raw milk was scarce, they drank raw bull’s blood mixed with raw milk. They were considered the healthiest, tallest, strongest, smartest tribe in the world and did not have cancer or any disease.  The Samburu and Fulani tribes thrived on raw animal foods and were disease-free.
All cooked foods create toxins in our bodies.  However, the worst assaults on our health are food-additives, including pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers. Over long periods, these toxins collect in mass and cause diseases.  We gamble when we try magic bullets like medical therapy and supplements.  When we eat cooked food, our pancreases send hormones to every cell that leaches from our bodies’ constitutions.  Each time we weaken our cells, we weaken ourselves.  If we eat raw foods only, we always supply nutrients without leaching them from our bodies.

Besides eating mainly raw animal foods, I drink raw vegetable juices that not only re-supply enzymes, vitamins and minerals, they counterbalance my over-acidic blood and cottonmouth.  An hour later, I eat raw flesh food with extra raw fat such as unsalted raw butter.  When I need food again, I drink a milkshake with raw milk, raw eggs, and a little unheated honey. I eat different meals throughout the day for balance but mostly raw dairy, including about 2 quarts of raw milk daily and little or no water. Milk and vegetable juices are 86-92% water with good nutrients.

Many therapists say people with cancer should not eat meat, that meat is carcinogenic.  That may be true if meat is cooked, especially fried.  However if you eat raw meat (any flesh food, including fish), the results are health-promoting.  Many people wonder:  But what about bacterial food-poisoning?  That has been an assumption and presumption.  No scientific experiments have been conducted feeding raw meat to people.

I have witnessed over 25,000 people who ate raw meat daily for up to 28 years and none of them have disease associated with eating raw meats. I had a vagotomy for stomach cancer 42 years ago that made it impossible for me to generate HCL in my stomach [(HCl) hydrochloric acid or stomach acid helps digest food by breaking up fats and proteins].  Doctors told me that I would definitely die if I ate any raw food. Yet, I have eaten only raw foods for 36 years. I am alive, well and thriving at age 62. Medical people should not give health and nutritional advice because they study only disease and drugs.

Here are two other experiments that reveal “pathogens” are beneficial and that the label “pathogenic” microbe is a misnomer.  Dr. Sarah Arab at University of Toronto used the verotoxins produced by E.coli to completely dissolve human brain tumors in 5-7 days.  Dr. Lowe at Yale University shrunk tumors with salmonella.  We should not be afraid of so-called “pathogens”; they are janitors.

You may be thinking:  But what of those people who died from food-poisoning?  In an infinitesimal number of cases, a person may die from dehydration and/or excessive bleeding caused by a ruptured stomach or bowel from violent vomiting or diarrhea but I have never seen one.  Those experiences are more likely to occur from eating cooked and processed food contaminated with food-additives and soaps.

People get diarrhea and/or nausea on any diet; which is radical detoxification.  In each of the 132 reports I reviewed that claimed people died of bacterial food-poisoning, each was a false claim. Basically, they died from medical treatment with antibiotics and/or other medication; but, to prevent lawsuits, doctors claimed microbes killed the patent. When I experienced detoxification in the form of vomit and/or diarrhea, I let them run their course, as with colds or flu; eat properly, and stay completely away from toxic medical treatments.

We do not have to be concerned about anything other than eating raw foods that are nutrient-rich to give us a balanced healthy life, getting sunshine, and avoiding as much pollution as possible.  In my books, “We Want to Live” and “The Recipe for Living without Disease,” (www.primaldiet.com) you will find experiences of people who have tried my Primal Diet and triumphed.  I hope that our experiences will help you.

Author: Dr. Aajonus Vonderplanitz, as a young adult had 8 “incurable” diseases including blood & bone cancers, and Type I diabetes, and through personal experimentation, reversed his diseases through diet alone…and later helped 232 out of 242 people put their cancers in remission through diet alone. Aajonus  was on Ripley’s Believe It Or Not TV program July 17, 2002 and in 2001 wrote the expert report that reversed Los Angeles County’s 38-year ban on Grade A raw dairy?

Since the prostate antigen screening test (PSA) began being widely used about 23 years ago, doctors have lauded its ability to detect prostate cancer at a very early stage. In fact, PSA testing has resulted in over a million additional men being diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer. The problem is, according to new research just published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, most of these cases were overdiagnosed and subjected men to treatment they didn’t need.

For their study, H. Gilbert Welch, M.D., MPH, of the White River Junction VA and the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice., and Peter C. Albertsen, M.D., of the University of Connecticut, studied data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. They looked at age-specific prostate cancer incidence rates to investigate whether there was an excess or a deficit in the number of American men diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer after PSA screening was introduced in l987.

The results were clear. The researchers found that an additional 1.3 million men, especially younger men, had been diagnosed with the malignancy who would never have been found to have prostate cancer without the PSA test. And over one million of these men have been treated since l986.

So why isn’t this good news if cancers are being found and treated earlier? Because over a million of these men who were told they had prostate cancer most likely had no real health problem — until they started down the path of side-effect laden treatments and became labeled as “cancer patients”.

“Given the considerable time that has passed since PSA screening began, most of this excess incidence must represent overdiagnosis,” the authors of the study wrote. “All overdiagnosed patients are needlessly exposed to the hassle factors of obtaining treatment, the financial implications of the diagnosis, and the anxieties associated with becoming a cancer patient.”

Even more importantly, as Otis W. Brawley, M.D., chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, pointed out in an editorial accompanying the study, there has been little evidence that PSA screening has saved lives. All it has done is surge the rate of diagnosed prostate cancers upward. Moreover, Dr. Brawley warned that the highly marketed early-detection message has pushed public opinion toward accepting PSA screening as critically important and necessary for men — when there’s a lack of good science to back up that belief.

“Prostate cancer screening has resulted in substantial overdiagnosis and in unnecessary treatment. It may have saved relatively few lives. Results from this article and recent results from prostate cancer screening and prevention trials demand reflection about what we as a society have done and are doing. Lessons to be learned have ethical and economic implications and involve our lack of respect for the scientific process and scientific evidence,” Dr. Brawley wrote.

Another new study adds even more evidence that prostate cancer is being overdiagnosed and over treated. According to research just published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, many prostate cancer patients, including older men and men with small, low-risk tumors, can safely defer treatment for many years with no adverse consequences at all.

“With the advent of PSA screening nearly 20 years ago, we started to detect prostate cancers at much earlier stages,” researcher Martin Sanda, MD, Director of the Prostate Cancer Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, said in a statement to the media.

“Consequently, while PSA testing has enabled us to successfully begin aggressive treatment of high-risk cancers at an earlier stage, it has also resulted in the diagnosis of cancers that are so small they pose no near-term danger and possibly no long-term danger.”

Dr. Sanda, along with colleagues from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the Harvard School of Public Health and the University of California, San Francisco, studied data from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, a large cohort study comprising 51,529 men who have been followed since 1986. Every two years, the participants respond to questionnaires and list information about diseases and health-related topics, including whether they’ve been told they have prostate cancer.

In all, 3,331 men reported receiving a diagnosis of prostate cancer between 1986 and 2007. Among this group, about ten percent (342 men) decided to put off having any treatment for one year or longer. Ten to 15 years later, 50 percent of these men who had initially deferred treatment still had not undergone any prostate cancer treatment.

To find out how this group of men fared in the long-term, the scientists looked at the data after an average of eight years after their initial diagnosis and then compared it with information provided by prostate cancer patients who had decided on going ahead with aggressive treatment, including surgery, radiotherapy or hormonal therapy.

“We found that the deaths attributed to prostate cancer were very low among the men with low-risk tumors,” Dr. Sanda stated. “Our analysis showed that only two percent of the men who deferred treatment eventually died of the disease, compared with one percent of the men who began treatment immediately following their diagnosis. This is not a statistically significant difference.”

According to the press statement, the researchers found that men diagnosed with low-risk tumors who deferred treatment were still doing fine an average of eight years and up to 20 years after their cancer diagnosis.

“Only half of these men wound up undergoing any treatment 10 to 15 years post-diagnosis. This means that they were able to avoid the disruption in their quality of life which might have occurred had they undergone immediate treatment,” Dr. Sanda explained in the media statement.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/027193_cancer_Prostate_prostate_cancer.html

Orange mobile phone company agreed to remove its cell phone mast — dubbed the “Tower of Doom” — from the top of a five-story London apartment building after seven of its residents got cancer.

The cancer rate among those living on the top floor, where residents from five of the eight flats were affected, is 20 percent — 10 times the national average.

The mast, along with a second mast owned by Vodafone, was put up in 1994. Since then, residents have battled cancer, headaches and other health problems they say are caused by radiation from the masts. Three residents have died from cancer, while another four are still fighting the disease.

The World Health Organization and other agencies say there is no risk of radiation from cell phone masts, so the companies had no legal obligation to remove the masts.

In August 2007, after a long legal battle, Orange agreed to move the mast from the building — to another area near homes, a public library and a primary school.

Vodafone has no plans to remove their mast from the building, and is working on securing a new long-term lease.

Sources: This Is London August 6, 2007

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Unless you live in some unbelievably remote location, the odds are high that you’re being bombarded with information-carrying radio waves that can wreak havoc on your body.

These radio waves have increased dramatically and exponentially over the last few years — especially from cell phones, but also from WiFi, WiMax, BlueTooth, and other wireless devices. For most people, the damage from this 24-7 exposure will take years or even decades to surface since there is a lag time of five to 20 years for the health effects to become clinically apparent.

For those unfortunate people in London who were living directly below a major cell phone mast, the damage became apparent sometime between the mast’s construction in 1994 and the beginning of the resident’s campaign to have the mast removed in 2002.

You may not realize that you are likely living closer to a cell phone tower than you think. Cell “sites” can look like antennas or huge towers, but they can also be quite camouflaged. They exist on many schools, churches, firehouses, cemeteries and even in national parks. If you’re wondering why a school or park would want a cell site on their grounds, it’s because the cell phone companies pay to have them there, with fees that can range upwards of $2,000 a month.

While there are already more than 175,000 cell towers in the United States, this number is expected to increase by 48 percent to 260,000 by 2010, according to CTIA (the International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry).

If you want to know just how close you are to a cell phone tower or antenna, simply type your location into AntennaSearch.com. It will tell you all of the towers (existing and future) and antennas that are within eight miles of your address!

Why are Increasing Cell Phone Towers so Concerning?

What most people, including experts, fail to understand is that the danger from land-based portable phones, cell phones and WiFi routers is not from the magnetic radiation or the microwave carrier wave from which typical SAR ratings are given on phones. Unless you have massive exposures like you might expect in a microwave oven, these thermal effects are insignificant.

Nearly all the biological damage comes from the modulated signals that are carried ON the carrier microwave. These modulated information-carrying radio waves resonate in biological frequencies of a few to a few hundred cycles per second, and can stimulate your vibrational cellular receptors causing a whole cascade of pathological consequences that can culminate in fatigue, anxiety and ultimately cancers.

Again, this is a very serious concern because, unless you live in an isolated rural setting, you are probably being exposed to these radio-waves day-in and day-out — whether or not you even own or use a cell phone.

Numerous studies have linked exposure to information-carrying radio waves to health problems, but you may not realize that your symptoms are related to these radio frequencies because they could easily be attributed to other causes as well.

Aside from cancer and brain tumors, cells phones and other radio frequencies can cause:

• Alzheimer’s, senility and dementia
• Parkinson’s
• Autism
• Headaches
• Sleep disruptions and fatigue
• Altered memory function, poor concentration and spatial awareness

Can You Hear Me Now? The Truth the Cell Phone Industry Doesn’t Want You to Hear

One of the world’s undisputed experts in cell phone safety is Dr. George Carlo, and I had the privilege of spending two full days with him in October 2007.

I was so compelled with the information I heard that my next book, slated for release in 2009, will detail the reasons why I believe using cell phones is far more dangerous than smoking cigarettes ever was.

In the 1990s, Dr. Carlo was given a $28-million grant from the cell phone industry to put an end to the talk that cell phones were hazardous to your health. Unfortunately, what he found was not what he’d been paid to find. Instead, he discovered that they DO, in fact, cause damage.

The cell phone industry offered him a position for $1 million a year to silence him, but he refused, and started a non-profit institute called The Safe Wireless Initiative to inform the world of this danger instead. I highly recommend you check out his site as he has compiled excellent resources on interventions you can use to maximize your health and minimize your risks.

I also tried to spread the word about the dangers of cell phones via a Today Show interview I did last year. Well, they only aired four seconds of my 20-minute interview, completely censoring the supporting evidence that cell phones can cause damage.

Tips to Limit Your Damage from Information-Carrying Radio Waves

There quite simply is no safe biological threshold for exposure to information-carrying radio waves, and there is, quite honestly, little you can do to avoid them 100 percent.

But you can reduce your, and your family’s, exposure by taking the following commonsense precautions:

• Limit the amount of time you spend on a cell phone or cordless phone.

• Use a wired headset to limit your exposure to the cell phone — ideally, an air tube headset that conducts sound but prevents any radiation from traveling up the wire to your brain. Also make sure the wire is SHIELDED, which prevents the wire from acting as an antenna that could attract more information-carrying radio waves directly to your brain. Wireless BlueTooth headsets should be avoided.

• Limit your exposure to WiFi routers. Find out where they are located in your work environment and stay away from them.

• If you have any land-based (non-cellular) portable phones, do NOT use anything other than the 900 MHz phones as the Gigahertz phones stay on continuously, blasting you with information-carrying radio waves 24/7.

• Use the speakerphone instead of putting the phone to your ear; this is probably one of the single most important steps you can take other than not using your cell phone.

• Limit calls inside buildings.

• Use the phone in open spaces as often as possible.

• Limit use by children and preadolescents, or don’t let them use cell phones at all. Children’s developing nervous systems and thinner skulls are simply too vulnerable to cell phone damage.

A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives this month finds that children born to mothers living in households with pesticide use during pregnancy have over twice as much risk of getting cancer, specifically acute leukemia (AL) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The study, Household Exposure to Pesticides and Risk of Childhood Hematopoietic Malignancies: The ESCALE Study (SFCE), 115:1787–1793 (2007) , investigates the role of household exposure to pesticides in the etiology of childhood hematopoietic malignancies, using the national registry-based case–control study ESCALE (Etude sur les cancers de l’enfant) that was carried out in France over the period 2003–2004.

The researchers evaluated maternal household use of pesticides during pregnancy and paternal use during pregnancy or childhood which was reported by the mothers in a structured telephone questionnaire. Insecticides (used at home, on pets or for garden crops), herbicides and fungicides were distinguished. The researchers estimated odds ratios (ORs) using unconditional regression models closely adjusting for age, sex, degree of urbanization, and type of housing (flat or house).

The researchers included a total of 764 cases of acute leukemia (AL), 130 of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), 166 of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) , and 1,681 controls. Insecticide use during pregnancy was significantly associated with childhood AL [OR = 2.1 ; 95% confidence interval (CI) , 1.7–2.5], both lymphoblastic and myeloblastic, NHL (OR = 1.8 ; 95% CI, 1.3–2.6) , mainly for Burkitt lymphoma (OR = 2.7 ; 95% CI, 1.6–4.5) , and mixed-cell HL (OR = 4.1 ; 95% CI, 1.4–11.8).

The researchers conclude that the study findings strengthen the hypothesis that domestic use of pesticides may play a role in the etiology of childhood hematopoietic malignancies. The consistency of the findings with those of previous studies on AL raises the question of the advisability of preventing pesticide use by pregnant women.

Hematopoietic malignancies are the most common childhood cancers, with world age-standardized incidence rates of 43.1, 6.7, and 8.9 per million children in France for leukemia, Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), respectively (Clavel et al. 2004). The etiology of those malignancies remains largely unknown. Some epidemiologic studies have suggested that pesticides might increase the risk of childhood hematopoietic malignancies (Daniels et al. 1997; Infante-Rivard and Scott Weichenthal 2007; Jurewicz and Hanke 2006; Nasterlack 2006, 2007; Zahm and Ward 1998). Furthermore, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified the occupational spraying of insecticides as probably carcinogenic to humans (group 2A); adult lymphoma is one of the main cancers suspected (IARC 1991). Children can be exposed to pesticides in utero or during childhood through their parents’ work, domestic use, or the general environment (residues in food, water, air, and soil). It is not clear which sources of pesticide exposure are the most important for children, and household pesticide exposure may be a major exposure for children (Bradman and Whyatt 2005; Grossman 1995). No French survey on household pesticide use is available, but surveys conducted in North America and the United Kingdom reported high rates of household use or storage of pesticides (Adgate et al. 2000; Grey et al. 2006).

This study supports numerous other studies that have for years linked household use of pesticides with elevated rates of childhood cancers. See [viii] Gold, E. et al., “Risk Factors for Brain Tumors in Children,” American Journal of Epidemiology 109(3): 309-319, 1979 and [ix] Lowengart, R. et al., “Childhood Leukemia and Parent’s Occupational and Home Exposures,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 79:39, 1987.

For more complete information, also see Beyond Pesticides’ Facts and Figures: Children, Pesticides and Schools.

www.beyondpesticides.org/

World cancer experts have finally declared what NewsTarget readers learned nearly four years ago: That processed meats cause cancer, and anyone seeking to avoid cancer should avoid eating all processed meats for life.

Hundreds of cancer researchers took part in a five-year project spanning more than 7,000 clinical studies and designed to document the links between diet and cancer. Their conclusion, published in the World Cancer Research Fund’s report, Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective (2007), has rocked the health world with a declaration that all people should immediately stop buying and eating processed meat products and that all processed meat should be avoided for life!

Processed meats, the report explains, are simply too dangerous for human consumption. And why? Because they contain chemical additives that are known to greatly increase the risk of various cancers, including colorectal cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, leukemia, brain tumors, pancreatic cancer and many more. The report, published at this DietAndCancerReport.org website also recommends that consumers:

• Avoid all sugary soft drinks for life.
• Exercise at least 30 minutes a day.
• Get lean and fit, without becoming underweight.
• Limit consumption of ALL meats (even fresh meat).
• Breastfeed all infants for their first six months, avoiding infant formula.

Sadly, the WCRF still does not recommend that consumers use nutritional supplements to help protect themselves from cancer, indicating that the group still has a lot to learn about the role of medicinal mushrooms, sea vegetables, microalgae, Chinese herbs, rainforest herbs and superfood extracts in preventing and reversing cancer. But at least the group’s recommendation that consumers now avoid all processed meat products is a huge step in the right direction. It is the first time that any internationally-recognized cancer organization has found the courage to make a partial proclaimation about the health hazards of the chemicals found in processed meat products. It’s almost as big a deal as when the American Medical Association, after years of taking millions of dollars from tobacco companies, finally admitted that smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease. (A decade after the scientific evidence was irrefutable, of course, but then again, the AMA was making money off Big Tobacco by running tobacco ads in JAMA…)

What is “processed meat” exactly?

A woman asked me this question at a recent live event where I was warning the audience about the dangers of chemicals found in popular grocery products. Frankly, I was surprised to hear the question. But I’ve since learned that many people really don’t know the difference between processed meat and non-processed meat (“fresh” meat).

Here’s the difference:

Fresh meat usually has only one ingredient: The meat! Fresh meat is refrigerated and has a very short shelf life (just a few days, usually). It’s usually packaged in simple wrappers, with no fancy logos or color printing.

Processed meat has many ingredients and is usually packaged for long-term shelf life. These products almost always contain sodium nitrite, the cancer-causing chemical additive that meat companies use as a color fixer to turn their meat products a bright red “fresh-looking” color. Processed meat products include:

• Bacon
• Sausage
• Pepperoni
• Beef jerky
• Deli slices
• Hot dogs
• Sandwich meat (including those served at restaurants)
• Ham
• Meat “gift” products like Christmas sausages
• Meat used in canned soups
• Meat used in frozen pizza
• Meat used in kid’s lunch products
• Meat used in ravioli, spaghetti or Italian pasta products

… and many more meat products.

Unless it says “NITRITE FREE” on the front label, you can bet it’s made with cancer-causing sodium nitrite!

(Hint: You will only find nitrite-free meat products in two places in the grocery store: 1) In the fresh meat section where you can buy freshly-ground hamburger, for example, and 2) In the freezer, where you can find “natural” meat products that are nitrite-free.

What are the dangerous chemicals in processed meats?

Sodium nitrite is one of the most dangerous chemicals added to processed meats. Please be aware:

• You MUST read the ingredients list to find the sodium nitrite! Meat product companies do not list this ingredient on the front of the package.
• Even ORGANIC meat products and NATURAL meat products can still contain sodium nitrite. So read the labels to be sure, and avoid buying any meat product made with sodium nitrite.
• Be especially careful of food for kids! Virtually all packaged food products containing meat and marketed to children contain sodium nitrite! (Read the ingredients to protect your children.)

Monosodium glutamate (MSG) is a second dangerous chemical found in virtually all processed meat products. MSG is a dangerous excitotoxin linked to neurological disorders such as migraine headaches, Alzheimer’s disease, loss of appetite control, obesity and many other serious health conditions. Manufacturers use MSG to add flavor to dead-tasting processed meat products.

Essentially, dead meat products look and taste dead (because they are), so meat companies use the following three ingredients to make them look fresh and taste interesting:

Sodium nitrite makes the meat look red and fresh. (But it promotes cancer.)

MSG makes the meat taste savory. (But it causes neurological disorders.)

Processed salt makes the meat taste more interesting. (But it causes nutritional problems and high blood pressure.)

On top of these three chemical additives, processed meats also contain saturated animal fat that is often contaminated with PCBs, heavy metals, pesticide residues and other dangerous substances.

You can download my free Honest Food Guide from www.HonestFoodGuide.org which reveals the true health dangers of numerous chemicals added to processed foods. The Honest Food Guide has now been downloaded by over one million people.

Protect yourself and your family

Processed meats promote cancer. There is simply no question about the scientific validity of that statement, and anyone who disagrees with it is either working for the meat industry or hopelessly behind the times on their nutritional research.

The processed meat industry, of course, insists that processed meat is perfectly healthy and that you can eat all you want. It’s no surprise, of course: Big Tobacco insisted that cigarettes aren’t really bad for your health and that nicotine isn’t addictive, either. No industry is really willing to admit that its products are hazardous to human health, and the processed meat industry is no exception.

To protect yourself from these dangerous processed food products, here are the action steps to take:

1) Check the ingredients of all processed meat products in your refrigerator and pantry. Throw out any products containing sodium nitrite or MSG (monosodium glutamate).

2) Inform your spouse, roomates or children of what you’re doing and why you’re doing it. Show them the sodium nitrite right on the label of the products as you throw them out. Let them know that the World Cancer Research Fund now recommends that ALL consumers avoiding eating processed meats for life!

3) Boycott all processed meat products for life! Never buy processed meats again. That includes shopping at the grocery store, eating at a restaurant or consuming foods at a social event.

4) Spread the word. Tell others about the dangers of sodium nitrite. Print out the Honest Food Guide (www.HonestFoodGuide.com) and share it, if you want. Let people know that processed meats are dangerous for their health.

What’s next: The future of processed meats

My research tells me that chemical additives in processed meats are emerging as the next big food safety issue to hit mainstream awareness. Just a few years ago, most consumers had never heard of trans fats or the dangers of hydrogenated oils, for example. But once that issue went mainstream, fast food restaurants all over the country announced changes to avoid hydrogenated oils.

I believe that sodium nitrite in processed meats is the next big food safety issue that’s about to break into mainstream awareness. More and more consumers are suddenly aware that hot dogs promote cancer, or that bacon consumption is incredibly bad for your health. As awareness of this issue builds, there’s going to be increasing political pressure to pass laws that protect the public by strictly limited or banning the use of sodium nitrite in processed meats.

The meat industry, of course, which seems to have absolutely no respect for human or animal life, will fight this every inch of the way. The people in charge of meat-producing companies exhibit zero concern for the health of the consumers who actually eat their products, and they remain entirely focused on the profits to be had from selling more toxic meat products to gullible consumers.

But just like Big Tobacco’s marketing methods and fraudulent science was finally exposed as wholesale fraud, the processed meat industry is going to have to face scientific facts sooner or later: Sodium nitrite promotes cancer, and eating processed meat products substantially increases your risk of cancer. There’s no denying it or arguing about it, at least not by any sane person. Eating cancer-causing chemicals is blatantly and irrefutably dangerous to your health.

For now, just remember:

Processed meats = sodium nitrite = cancer

If you don’t want cancer, don’t eat processed meats. Ever.

About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health researcher and author 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.

www.newstarget.com

In February 2007, the FDA approved Alli—an over-the-counter version of the diet drug Orlistat (Xenical).

The Public Citizen’s Health Research Group has voiced concerns about Orlistat’s safety and efficacy for the past 10 years, as it’s been shown to cause pre-cancerous lesions of the colon.

In April of 2006, a group of doctors with Public Citizen petitioned the FDA to ban Orlistat and deny OTC status to the lower dosage version Alli, offering testimony that Orlistat raises the risk of both colon cancer and gallstones.

Public Citizen cited unpublished studies on Orlistat, showing:

• Orlistat increases the precursor markers to colon cancer by 60 percent in rats.
• When eating a high fat diet and taking Orlistat, the cancer risk increased 2.4 fold.
• Fat soluble vitamin E depletion, due to Orlistat’s fat blocking action, raises the risk of colon Recorded adverse reactions to Orlistat include: 39 cases of increased abnormal blood thinning; several cases of bleeding episodes; 10 hospitalizations, four with life threatening reactions, and one death.
• Dangerous thinning of the blood can occur in people taking drugs like Warfarin (an anti-coagulant), or who suffer from vitamin K deficiency.

In addition, the FDA itself found 37 cases of gallstones in patients of all ages, between 1999 and 2006, prior to releasing Alli for over-the-counter sale.

The safety analysis from the Public Citizen’s Health Research Group is that Alli “has marginal weight loss benefits, common and bothersome G-I tract reactions, significant decrease in absorption of fat soluble vitamins, and problematic use in the millions of people using Warfarin or Cyclosporine.”

The FDA denied Public Citizen’s petition on the same day they approved Alli as an OTC.

Public Citizen’s Health Research Group

Statement to the FDA of Dr. Wolfe February 2007

Petition to the FDA to Remove Orlistat April 2006

Testimony Before the FDA Advisory Committee January 2006

Alli and Gallstones June 2007

Dr. Mercola comments

The sad truth is, although obesity is rampant, OTC diet pills are often purchased by women who are not obese at all. One of Public Citizen’s main concerns over the approval of Alli for over-the-counter sale, is that countless numbers of people will expose themselves to radical and unnecessary health risks, for no reason whatsoever. I agree with their sentiment.

Alli is marketed as a “plan,” which includes a low fat diet and exercise. But honestly, you’d get superior results from the last two alone, without the embarrassing side-effects and the potential onset of lethal diseases.

But people are always looking for a quick, easy fix, and the drug companies are ever so happy to accommodate them. There is no miracle, one-shot cure, and adding a pill to your weight-loss plan will only make it worse, not better.

In fact, dieting is actually a consistent predictor of future weight GAIN; those who participate in formal weight-loss programs usually gain significantly more weight over a two-year period than those who have never participated in such a program.

But this is because most diets are based on myths and half truths. The good news is that there are very effective tools you can use to lose weight successfully:

• Eliminate grains and sugars from your diet
• Add cardiovascular exercise for one hour a day seven days a week at an intensity that is challenging enough to make it difficult for you to talk to someone next to you
• Address the underlying emotional challenges that are keeping you from changing your habits

www.mercola.com