HealthBeat News

Category: Family Health

  • Make Your Plans Now To Hear Dr. Myatt Speak In Oregon This July

    Dr. Myatt will be speaking at the fifth annual NW Herb Fest in Eugene, Oregon this coming July 25th and 26th.

    Here is the information as provided by the NW Herb Fest organizers:

    This is the one herbal event you do not want to miss this year. Come for a life enriching transformation.Your life & your friends’ lives will be enhanced by your newly gained wisdom & skills gleaned from twelve renowned herbalists & physicians. Beginning & advanced classes will take place simultaneously. The grand event will include herbal classes, herb walks and a variety of seasoned herbal teachers. Wise Acres Farm has more than 200 different species of herbs to meet & experience in person. Classes will be a mix of lecture and demonstration depending on the specific class you choose to go to. Saturday evening will be filled with music, singing and dancing. Bring your instrument! There will be something for everyone at this event.

    Here’s the page link: http://www.herbaltransitions.com/NWherbfest.html

    Questions? Call 541-736-0164 or email class@herbaltransitions.com

    Dr. Myatt will present lectures on:

    • The Urgent Care Herbalist:
      When the going gets tough, the tough can’t always run to the ER for care. With a small but powerful collection of herbal remedies, an herbalist can deal with medical “urgencies” from heart attack and hemorrhage to food poisoning, diarrhea, abdominal pain (even when the cause is unknown), anxiety attacks and more. Learn how to be a “when times get tough” urgent care herbalist.
    • The Urgent Care Herbalist, Part II:
      In this “hands on” workshop, participants will learn how to treat everything from pneumonia and upper respiratory infections to lymphadenitis, external infections, poisonous bites (including brown recluse spider bites), moderate to severe intestinal distress (infection, N/V, diarrhea, colic); kidney stones and gallbladder attacks and more. External treatments include preparation and use of mustard plasters, charcoal poultices, castor oil packs, and essential oil inhalants. Corresponding internal herbal treatments include cayenne/lobelia, kava kava, bromelain, goldenseal, peppermint and more.
    • Botanical Prevention & Adjuvant Treatment of Malignancy:
      Solid tissue malignancy can be a “worthy adversary” in anyone’s treatment notebook, and conventional medicine is often ineffective for the most advanced cases of cancer. Hundreds (if not thousands) of herbs have been suggested for use in cancer prevention and treatment, but which ones really work the best? Come get a “refresher course” on the underlying mechanisms of cancer initiation and progression, and find out which herbs are the most important and powerful allies in treatment of this challenging disease. This talk will include dietary intervention using common foods and herbs.
    • Black Salve Intensive:
      Conventional treatment of malignant melanoma consists of a wide-margin surgical excision. "Black salve," consisting of a variety of botanical substances, has been used successfully in the treatment of melanoma and other external and internal cancers.
      Dr. Dana Myatt will offer this 3 hour intensive class on Sunday night. You may attend this class without attending the symposium or you may add it on as an additional class. This presentation is intended for health care practitioners although non-practitioners are welcome. CAUTION: slides of a graphic nature will be shown. There is an extra fee of $50.00 for the intensive.

    What a great opportunity to hear Dr. Myatt speak and lecture, and to meet and speak with her in person – Dr. Myatt will also have copies of her book "A Physician’s Diary" available for purchase and this is your opportunity to obtain a personally signed copy.

    We’ll look forward to seeing you there!

  • Something Wonderful Has Happened… Fertility!

    By Nurse Mark

    We get calls… again.

    As our readers and Wellness Club Members and Dr. Myatt’s patients know, here at The Wellness Club we answer our own phones – when you call Dr. Myatt’s Wellness Club at our toll-free number you will not speak with someone in a call center in Bangladesh or Manilla or Outer Elbonia – you will most likely speak with Nurse Mark or Lindsay or MJ or maybe even Dr. Myatt herself. Because a lot of folks know this some will try to take advantage of us and we get plenty of calls that we can’t help – folks wanting to discuss which supplement might be best for a complicated medical issue is a good example. We get calls from salesmen too, who are hoping that they can bluff their way to speaking with Dr. Myatt if they ask me the right questions in the right way… And we get calls from doctors and other health practitioners from around the country and even around the world, hoping to be put through to Dr. Myatt "for just a brief question or two…"

    Since Dr. Myatt is booked very heavily it is pretty much a certainty that a casual caller is not going to be able to speak with her – she is usually on the phone with booked calls to either patients or doctors. This is one of the reasons we instituted the "Brief Telephone Consultation" – so that Dr. Myatt could help all those folks who call wanting answers to "just a few quick questions". The salesmen are another matter. They never talk with Dr. Myatt directly – her time with her patients is far too valuable to be interrupted and they are told to email us with their pitch. The other doctors and practitioners that call are a different matter – for we recognize that they are trying to do their best for their patients and if their question is not something that can be resolved by email I will do my best to get them connected somehow with Dr. Myatt.

    Such was the case a few weeks ago when I received a call from someone who identified themselves as "medical director" for "a clinic on Long Island" and asked to speak with Dr. Myatt about her vitamins and about pycnogenol. To be honest, my Bogus-Meter began to climb, and my Salesman Alert Warning Light started to flash – though the flashing subsided to a steady glow when this fellow seemed satisfied that Dr. Myatt could not drop what she was doing (a patient consult) to take his call right then and gave me a call-back number. I discussed this call with Dr. Myatt who was just as suspicious as I was. Still, I also had an equally strong feeling – a hunch – that this one might be important somehow. I persuaded her to return this fellow’s call when she had a few moments between patients.

    It’s a good thing that I went with my hunch – because something very exciting has occurred.

    The caller turned out to be Dr. Jeffrey Braverman – a very highly respected specialist in the immunological causes of infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss and is indeed the Medical Director of the Sher Institutes For Reproductive Medicine – Long Island. As a good and careful scientist Dr. Braverman noticed the cause-and-effect relationships and benefits that diet, vitamins, herbs, and supplements had in improving outcomes for some of his patients, and as a good and caring doctor, he was determined to secure these benefits for all of his patients – so he sought the help of another recognized expert, Dr. Myatt. As a result, something wonderful has happened.

    Conventional, cutting-edge, high-tech, scientific infertility treatment has teamed up with the scientifically-based holistic treatment strategies of naturopathy, and The Fertility Project is the result – bringing the best of both worlds to women and couples seeking to improve their odds of conception and their ability to carry a healthy baby to full term.

    Dr. Myatt is providing her skill and experience and expertise in diet, vitamins, herbs, and supplements – she has, and continues to formulate supplements targeting the special pre-conception needs of men and women and the critical post-conception needs of both mother and unborn child. Dr. Braverman is incorporating these nutritional supplements and other naturopathic techniques from Dr. Myatt into his already highly-successful cutting-edge reproductive therapies, and between the two they are taking on "the tough cases"!

    This is a project that just makes us feel warm all over – and we invite you to learn more at The Fertility Project.

    If you or someone you love are experiencing difficulties in becoming pregnant or keeping a pregnancy this could be some of the most valuable information ever. Check it out – follow your "hunch" and your heart as I followed mine – and find out why we here at The Wellness Club and Dr. Braverman and his staff at Sher Institutes For Reproductive Medicine are so excited about The Fertility Project!

  • Protect Your Family From The Flu – Without Drugs Or Shots

    By Nurse Mark

    The Sky Is Falling!

    The CDC, as of this writing in the afternoon of April 29th, 2009, has elevated it’s "warning level" to "phase 5" on it’s scale of one through six.

    The television news networks are gratefully running nonstop "breaking news" coverage of what they are calling an "epidemic". Obviously, REAL news had been a little slow…

    Google, the internet giant, has jumped onto the bandwagon with a map where the truly swine-flu-obsessed can track suspected and confirmed cases.

    Big Pharma, with visions of sugar plums — and major profits — dancing in it’s eyes is rubbing it’s hands with glee and hoping that no-one will notice that out of the one hundred forty eight or so people known to be infected with this influenza worldwide, only one outside of Mexico – a Mexican toddler with "underlying health issues" who was visiting family (or had come seeking American health care) in Brownsville, Texas – has died.

    "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
    Rahm Emanuel – chief advisor to President Barack Obama

    A public health emergency has been declared in the U.S. to free up resources to deal with the swine flu, Janet Napolitano, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said at a White House briefing. President Obama has requested $1.5 billion in emergency funding from Congress.

    The government is releasing nearly 13 million doses of antiviral medications to stem the spread of swine flu, Napolitano said.

    "The national stockpile has 50 million courses, and we are releasing 25 percent of the state portion already," Napolitano told the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which convened to discuss the federal response to the swine flu outbreak.

    Could enforced vaccination be part of our new reality? Could travel restrictions – both international and even internal – be considered?

    I can certainly envision a scenario where the CDC, the DHS, and Big Pharma combine forces to require that proof of vaccination be shown by anyone wanting to travel… I can’t help but notice that there is an awful lot of fear-mongering going on right now, and a lot of "experts" being called upon to pontificate and "prepare" us for the draconian measures must come next if "our government" is to successfully "battle" the "looming and deadly epidemic" – measures like enforced vaccinations, travel restrictions, perhaps even people rounded up and quarantined en masse.

    Could it really happen here? This is the United States of America, after all you say. I sure hope not, but…

    "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
    Rahm Emanuel – chief advisor to President Barack Obama

    Is It Really That Serious?

    "Seasonal flu each year causes tens of thousands of deaths in this country — on average, about 36,000 deaths — and so this flu virus in the United States, as we’re looking at it, is not acting very differently from what we saw during the flu season." Dr. Richard Besser, acting CDC chief. (Please note: Dr. Myatt told you this last year in Flu Vaccinations: A Shot in The Dark? )

    So, according to the CDC this particular flu is pretty much like every other flu – many people will get it, most will have the usual ugly week of feeling lousy, some will feel really ugly, and a few more will develop secondary infections and die.

    Thus far we have less than two hundred people sick with this flu around the world, and a handful of people (eight, as of this writing) dead. Despite the panicked reporting of the News Industry and the fervent hopes of a pharmaceutical industry hit by global recession this is not an epidemic.

    So far, the people who have died have been Mexican – in a country with third-world health care and fourth-world sanitation. Yes, I know that the tourist areas are showcases of gleaming modernity and cleanliness – but they are tiny oases in a sea of squalor that is the bulk of that country. Remember, Mexico is a country where people die of simple diarrhea…

    So – What Can YOU Do to Protect Yourself and Your Family?

    Maybe you should stock up on the new wonder-drug Tamiflu, right? Sure – it is said to shorten the duration of an influenza by a whole day or so, and the side effects aren’t all that bad: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, dizziness, fatigue, cough… uh, wait a second here – aren’t those the symptoms we are trying to avoid?

    OK, so maybe Tamiflu isn’t such a good idea. How about the other wonder-drug, Relenza – you know, the stuff you snort? Well, according to drug-maker GlaxoSmithKline;

    "In studies, the most common side effects with RELENZA have been headaches; diarrhea; nausea; vomiting; nasal irritation; bronchitis; cough; sinusitis; ear, nose, and throat infections; and dizziness. Other side effects that have been reported, but were not as common, include rashes and allergic reactions, some of which were severe." They go on to say: "This list of side effects is not complete."

    Uh, oops, that doesn’t sound like a winner either. In fact, that sounds like "Swine Flu Plus".

    Well, then how about just getting a flu "shot" – a vaccination? Folks, I want you to go back and re-read Dr. Myatt’s recent article Flu Vaccinations: A Shot in The Dark? – this should be required reading for anyone thinking about being subjected to Big Pharma’s foolish experiments, and should probably be required reading for any doctor who is recommending that you be vaccinated. As Dr. Myatt says:

    "Flu vaccines only protect against a small number of viruses, are effective 39% or less of the time and work even less well in people who need it most, the elderly and immune-weakened folks. I’d say the flu vaccine is a real shot in the dark. Worse than ineffective or benign, the influenza vaccine is still preserved with thimerosol (mercury), a known neurotoxin."

    Alrighty then! I need to preserve whatever brain cells I have left – I’ll not willingly be injected with any vaccine, especially one so ineffective…

    So is all hope lost? Are we all doomed to catch swine flu and die?

    Not likely!

    Here’s The Scoop:

    Please re-read Dr. Myatt’s HealthBeat News articles Flu Vaccinations: A Shot in The Dark? and ‘Tis the season… for Colds and Flu! and her webpage The Flu Can Be A Brutal Enemy – where you will find some simple, effective strategies to help you and your family avoid the flu and avoid the drugs and vaccinations that are certain to be pushed upon you.

    As you re-read those articles you will note that Dr. Myatt has made a really crazy money-back guarantee: She guarantees that if you follow her recommendations you will not catch a flu! Will your local doctor promise if you get a flu shot you wouldn’t get the flu or your money back? See Dr. Myatt’s "No Flu for You" Guarantee here Because last year, this year, pseudo-"swine flu epidemic" or whatever, folks, this guarantee still stands!

    Now, here’s the short course, for those who don’t have the time to read those earlier articles:

    How to Make Yourself Flu-Proof:

    1.) Eat an Immune-Boosting Diet. The two major dietary causes of immune suppression are sugar intake and food allergies.

    2.) Practice simple home and hygiene techniques.

    • Wash your hands frequently. You don’t need expensive "hand sanitizers" – simple, pure soap is fine.
    • Cover your mouth and nose — preferably with a tissue — when you sneeze or cough.
    • If you are sick take the day off!
    • Keep your house humid.
    • Get regular exercise – it stimulates the immune system.

    3.) Strengthen your immune system with supplements.

    • Take an optimal potency vitamin/mineral supplement every day.
      Here are the nutrients of particular immune-enhancing importance, and they should all be found in a good multiple nutrient formula:
      * vitamin C
      * vitamin E
      * beta carotene
      * vitamin A
      * vitamin D
      * zinc
      * selenium
      (Please Note: These nutrients and more are found in optimal amounts in Dr. Myatt’s Maxi Multi vitamins)
    • Supplement with additional immune-boosting herbs including Echinacea, astragalus, medicinal mushrooms (Maitake, Shiitake, Reishi), Ligustrum, Goldenseal and Garlic. Learn more about Dr. Myatt’s Immune Support formula .

    If you do catch something, start Dr. Myatt’s Acute Immune Protocol right away.

    For More Information Read Dr. Myatt’s HealthBeat News articles:

    Flu Vaccinations: A Shot in The Dark?

    ‘Tis the season… for Colds and Flu!

    The Flu Can Be A Brutal Enemy

    What’s the Bottom Line?

    We believe, after intense research, that this "new flu" is a complete hoax, no bigger or badder than any other year’s flu (and the acting CDC chief agrees). It’s a money-making opportunity for Big Pharma in cahoots with a spendthrift government eager to flex it’s muscle and advance it’s agendas, as shown by the words of Presidenet Obama’s right-hand man Rahm Emanuel.

    We believe there is NO BIGGER DANGER THIS YEAR FROM FLU than any other year. This is a fabricated problem, designed to lure an unsuspecting and uneducated populace into further dependence on "help" from Big Government and salvation from Big Pharma. Forget it. Neither Big Pharma nor Big Government can save us from the flu any more than they can save us from the common cold.

    Forget the flu shot. Follow the simple recommendations given here. Eat well, take supplements to support an otherwise decent diet. Exercise a bit, think good thoughts and pray for the continued survival of our freedoms.

    Yes, this flu is likely to return in the fall flu season as some "experts" are warning.  So don’t stop – keep eating well, exercising, taking your vitamins and immune support and you’ll be just fine.

    That’s how it looks to Dr. Myatt and Nurse Mark from Snowflake, AZ, after a hard, critical look into this current "non-crisis."

  • Heart Association Appears Blind to Risks of America’s “Omega-Imbalance”

    Heart Association Appears Blind to Risks of America’s “Omega-Imbalance”

    Advisory on omega-6 fats and heart health dismays expert observers and ignores inconvenient evidence and dire implications for overall health

    by Craig Weatherby – Courtesy of Vital Choice Seafood


    Click for full story and printer friendly version

    Substantial evidence links America’s extreme “omega-imbalance” to major health risks, so it was surprising to see a recent statement from the American Heart Association (AHA).

    By “omega-imbalance”, we mean a very low intake of omega-3 fatty acids (from dark leafy greens and seafood), and very high intake of omega-6 fatty acids (from vegetable oils, packaged/prepared foods, and grain-fattened meats and poultry).

    A group of researchers working on behalf of the AHA concluded that America’s extreme omega-imbalance does not raise cardiovascular risks … as long as people eat enough omega-3s from fish or supplements (Harris WS et al. 2009).

      Key Points

    • American Heart Association downplays dangers of the omega-6 fat overload typical of American diets.
    • AHA statement ignores documented heart- and general-health risks associated with America’s extreme “omega-imbalance”.
    • Respected researchers dissected the AHA analysis and found fatal flaws.

    The AHA’s evidence- reviewers affirmed the value of omega-3s to protect against heart-related disease and death.

    But they overlooked or downplayed evidence that eating too many omega-6s blunts the cardiovascular benefits of dietary omega-3s, and promotes known risk factors.

    The omega-imbalance

    Researchers generally agree that ideally, people should consume no more than six omega-6 molecules for every omega-3 molecule they ingest.

    And ideally, most say we should consume only two to three omega-6 molecules for every omega-3 molecule.

    This is the approximate “omega ratio” humans have eaten since prehistoric times … and it’s the ratio still eaten by modern hunter-gatherers, who are remarkably free of the degenerative health conditions that plague Western industrial countries, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

    But in reality, most Americans ingest 20 to 40 omega-6 fat molecules for every omega-3 molecule … a radical shift that took place only over the past 150 years, along with immigration from farms to cities, and the rise of cheap, processed foods and vegetable oils.

    We’ve reported many studies that link cancer, metabolic syndrome, and more to the average American’s “omega-imbalance”.

    In historical and evolutionary terms, the average American diet is extremely high in omega-6 fats, and very low in omega-3s.

    There’s ample evidence to indicate that this modern omega-imbalance has very real health consequences.

    Evidence of harm

    Highly respected research scientists like William E. Lands, Ph.D., and Joseph Hibbeln, M.D., point to a large body of evidence indicating myriad health dangers associated with omega-imbalanced diets eaten here and abroad.

    Their work was the subject of our article, titled “Report Finds Americans Need More Omega-3s and Less Omega-6s”, 

    And we’ve published several other reports on research into the impacts of American’s omega-imbalance:

    “Women’s’ Excess Omega-6 Intake Raises Health Risks”

    “Omega-6/Omega-3 Imbalance Pushes Heart/Diabetes Perils”

    “Omega-3s Seen to Fight Metabolic Syndrome”,

    “Omega-3s Slow, Omega-6s Speed Prostate Cancer Growth”

    “Omega-6 overload linked to depression”

    To see even more reports on the impacts of omega-imbalanced diets, search our news archive for “omega-6”.

    American Heart Association advisory misses the big picture

    We can’t predict whether the AHA team’s conclusion ─ which is both supported and contradicted by substantial evidence ─ will be confirmed over the long run.

    For now, it seems irresponsible to ignore or downplay credible evidence that either flatly contradicts their conclusion or points to long-term risks from Americans’ grossly omega-imbalanced diets … an historically unprecedented eating pattern that’s spreading worldwide very speedily.

    We cannot dispute any of the evidence cited as supporting their conclusions regarding heart risks, of which we were well aware.

    But they ignored inconvenient evidence that contradicts their conclusions regarding heart health … as well as compelling evidence that positions America’s omega-imbalanced diets as a major risk to overall health.

    In other words, the AHA team suffered from tunnel vision.

    They should have acknowledged the large, fast-growing body of evidence which indicates that America’s omega-imbalance raises the risks of cancer, depression, and cardiac-related conditions like arterial inflammation, metabolic syndrome, and diabetes.

    What the AHA review said

    The authors of the AHA advisory analyzed previous evidence reviews (meta-analyses), individual clinical trials, and more than two dozen epidemiological studies, which compared people’s diets to their heart health status.

    Epidemiological studies of various kinds ─ observational, cohort, case-control and others ─ show that people who eat the most omega-6 fatty acids usually have the least heart disease.

    Some (not all) other studies ─ that have compared blood levels of omega-6s in heart patients to the levels in healthy people ─ associate low levels of omega-6s with lower rates of heart disease.

    And, in controlled trials where people were randomly assigned to eat diets containing either high levels or low levels of omega-6s, those assigned to the omega-6-rich diets often have less heart disease and fewer heart attacks.

    The AHA team was not the first to assert the irrelevance of very high omega-6 intake. Brandeis University researchers said this in 2004:

    “… the balance between dietary [omega3 and omega-6] fatty acids an important consideration influencing cardiovascular health … [but] the absolute mass of essential fatty acids consumed, rather than [the omega3/omega-6] ratio, should be the first consideration …” (Wijendran V, Hayes KC 2004)

    There is little doubt that replacing the saturated fats in animal foods with polyunsaturated omega-6 fats in vegetable oils lowers the risk for heart disease, due partly to changes in blood cholesterol profiles.

    But the AHA review compared a heart-unhealthier diet (high in fatty meats and dairy, low in plant-source foods and oils) to a heart-healthier diet (low in fatty meats and dairy, highs in plant-source foods and oils).

    And they ignored evidence that an omega-balanced diet ─ with fewer omega-6s and more omega-3s than average in America ─ represents the ideal diet for heart and overall health.

    Evidence that the omega-imbalance does matter

    The AHA team made sweeping statements that ignored major evidence that undermines their conclusion.

    For example, the AHA’s assertions ignored the findings of the famous Lyon Diet Heart study, which made “Mediterranean diet” a household word.

    This large clinical trial involved two groups of heart patients from France who were fed one of two diets:

    · Mediterranean diet low in omega-6 polyunsaturated fats.

    · A “heart healthy” diet based on American Heart Association guidelines.

    The group eating the Mediterranean diet had a striking 70 percent reduction in all causes of death, including cancer, compared to the group eating the AHA’s “heart healthy diet.”

    The Lyon study was designed to be low in omega-6 fats, in order to mimic the indigenous Mediterranean diet of Aegean Islanders, who have very low rates of heart disease.

    The AHA’s diet guidelines were designed to reduce saturated fats, but made no distinctions between the omega-6 and omega-3 polyunsaturated fats expected to take their place.

    Because the American diet is very low in sources of omega-3s, and awash in omega-6 food sources, most people who follow AHA diet guidelines will end up overloading on omega-6s.)

    Just last month, Lyon Heart Study lead author Dr. Michel de Lorgeril criticized researchers who overlook the omega-6 factor in his Lyon Heart Study results, saying, “… the epidemiologists do not capture one major lipid [dietary fat] characteristic of the Mediterranean diet, which is [that it is] actually low in omega-6 [fats].”

    And as bestselling fatty acid and weight control researcher Barry Sears, Ph.D. wrote in response to the AHA statement, “… none of the references in that article referred to the Lyon Diet Heart Study, which represented one of largest dietary intervention studies ever conducted. The failure to discuss this major study and its implications … in your Science Advisory greatly undermines its conclusion that the current consumption of omega-6 fatty acids is safe for the American public.” (Sears B 2009)

    In fact, there was enough scientific evidence 10 years ago to prompt fatty acid researcher Artemis Simopoulos, M.D. to recommend an upper limit for intake of omega-6 fats, to protect heart and overall health (Simopoulos AP et al. 1999; Simopoulos AP 2008).

    In addition to epidemiological evidence, we have a great deal of lab evidence from animal and cell studies, showing that omega-imbalanced diets worsen proven risk factors for cardiovascular disease (Lai CQ et al 2006; Louheranta AM et al 1996; Dwyer JH et al 2004; Ghosh S et al. 2007; Ramsden CE et al 2009).

    Leading researchers publish letter refuting AHA stance

    We’d like to paraphrase key excerpts from a letter to the editor of the journal that published the AHA statement.

    To those familiar with the literature, this letter from three leading fatty acid researchers constitutes a persuasive, pungent rebuttal of the AHA team’s broad generalizations.

    We should note that instead of generic “omega-6s” the letter’s authors actually referred to intakes of the short-chain omega-6 fat in vegetable oils called LA, which blocks conversion of plant-source omega-3s to the essential long-chain omega-3s (EPA and DHA) found in human cells and in fish.

    These were key points made by three expert critics of the AHA statement:

    · The AHA team excluded two studies that showed increased rates of adverse cardiovascular events and mortality in people place on omega-6-rich diets, and one that concluded that diets lower in omega-6s are more effective for prevention of coronary heart disease.

    · One study the AHA included had serious confounding factors, including greater long chain omega-3 intake in the group receiving extra omega-6s.

    · Lead author William S. Harris, Ph.D. overlooked the fact that higher intakes of omega-6 fats lower omega-3 blood levels, which he acknowledges elsewhere as a risk to heart health.

    · Evidence indicates that lower dietary intakes of omega-6s raise tissue levels of long chain omega-3s and lowers levels of omega-6s … changes that clearly benefit humans.

    As they concluded, “The combined available data and flawed meta-analysis do not justify concluding that high omega-6 diets reduce coronary heart disease. On the contrary, careful consideration suggests that omega-6 reduction is likely a better strategy for coronary heart disease prevention.

    “The widespread consumption of diets with more than 2% of calories from omega-6s should be recognized for what it is—a massive uncontrolled human experiment without adequate rationales or proven mechanisms.” (Ramsden CE et al. 2009)

    British review highlights key flaw in AHA statement

    Last year, British researchers interested in the omega-balance issue reviewed the results of a controlled clinical trial called OPTILIP, and of a “stable isotope” tracer study that followed the fate of dietary fats in the body.

    The British review included this statement, which at first blush seems to support the AHA team’s conclusions:

    “These two studies were independently unanimous in concluding that the ratio of omega-6/omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids is of no value in modifying cardiovascular disease risk.”

    However, as they went on to say, the isotope tracer study confirmed a major point made by proponents of omega-balanced diets.

    Namely, the relative amounts of plant-source omega-6s and plant-source omega-3s we eat affects the efficiency with which our bodies convert short-chain, plant-source omega-3s into long-chain omega-3s (EPA and DHA), which are the only kinds proven to enhance heart health.

    In other words, the Brits were warning that omega-imbalanced diets yield too few omega-3s in our cell membranes to provide optimal protection from heart risks.

    Accordingly, the UK team concluded that their review reinforces recommendations to increase omega-3 intakes and decrease intake of omega-6s.

    Sound familiar?

    Sources

    · American Heart Association. Omega-6 fatty acids: Make them a part of heart-healthy eating. Jan. 27, 2009. Accessed online at http://americanheart.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=650

    · de Lorgeril M et al. Mediterranean Diet, Traditional Risk Factors, and the Rate of Cardiovascular Complications After Myocardial Infarction : Final Report of the Lyon Diet Heart Study Circulation1999;99:779-785 (Free full text)

    · de Lorgeril M, Reanud S, Mamelle N, Salen P, Martin JL, Monjuad I, Gidolet J, Touboul P, Delaye J. Mediterranean alpha-linolenic acid-rich diet in secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Lancet. 1994;343:1454-1459.

    · de Lorgeril M, Salen P, Martin JL, Monjaud I, Delaye J, Mamelle N. Mediterranean diet, traditional risk factors, and the rate of cardiovascular complications after myocardial infarction: Final report of the Lyon Diet Heart Study. Circulation. 1999;99:779-785.

    · Dwyer JH et al. Arachidonate 5-Lipoxygenase Promoter Genotype, Dietary Arachidonic Acid, and Atherosclerosis. N Engl J Med 2004 350: 29-37.

    · Ghosh S, Novak EM, Innis SM. Cardiac proinflammatory pathways are altered with different dietary n-6 linoleic to n-3 -linolenic acid ratios in normal, fat-fed pigs. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol (2007)293: H2919-H2927.

    · Griffin BA. How relevant is the ratio of dietary n-6 to n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids to cardiovascular disease risk? Evidence from the OPTILIP study. Curr Opin Lipidol. 2008 Feb;19(1):57-62. Review.

    · Harris WS, Mozaffarian D, Rimm E, Kris-Etherton P, Rudel LL, Appel LJ, Engler MM, Engler MB, Sacks F. Omega-6 fatty acids and risk for cardiovascular disease: a science advisory from the American Heart Association Nutrition Subcommittee of the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism; Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; and Council on Epidemiology and Prevention. Circulation. 2009 Feb 17;119(6):902-7. Epub 2009 Jan 26.

    · Hibbeln JR et al. Healthy intakes of n-3 and n-6 fatty acids: estimations considering worldwide diversity.Am J Clin Nutr 2006 83: S1483-1493. Free Full Text.

    · Lai CQ et al. Dietary Intake of n-6 Fatty Acids Modulates Effect of Apolipoprotein A5 Gene on Plasma Fasting Triglycerides,Remnant Lipoprotein Concentrations, and Lipoprotein Particle Size: The Framingham Heart Study.Circulation (2006)113: 2062-2070.

    · Lands WE. Dietary fat and health: the evidence and the politics of prevention: careful use of dietary fats can improve life and prevent disease. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2005 Dec;1055:179-92.

    · Leaf A. Dietary Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease: The Lyon Diet Heart Study.Circulation 1999;99:733-735.

    · Louheranta AM et al. Linoleic acid intake and susceptibility of very-low-density and lowdensity lipoproteins to oxidation in men. Am J Clin Nutr 1996 63: 698-703.

    · Okuyama H. Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease From the Cholesterol Hypothesis to omega-6/omega-3 Balance. World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics (2007) Vol. 96:1-158.

    · Ramsden CE, Hibbeln JR, Lands WE. Letter to the Editor re: Linoleic acid and coronary heart disease. Prostaglandins Leukot. Essent. Fatty Acids (2008), by W.S. Harris. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 2009 Jan;80(1):77; author reply 77-8. Epub 2009 Jan 14.

    · Sears B. Consume more omega-6 fatty acids? They have to be kidding. February 2009. Accessed online at http://www.drsears.com/tabid/399/itemid/13303/Consume-more-omega6-fatty-acids-They-have-to-be.aspx

    · Simopoulos AP. The importance of the omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio in cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases.Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2008 Jun;233(6):674-88.

    · Simopoulos AP, Leaf A, Salem N. Workshop on the Essentiality of and Recommended Dietary Intakes for Omega-6 and Omega-3 Fatty Acids.J Am Coll Nutr 1999 18: 487-489.

    · Tribole E..What happened to do no harm? The issue of dietary omega-6 fatty acids.Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 2009 Jan 13. [Epub ahead of print] .

    · Wang J et al. 5-Lipoxygenase and 5-Lipoxygenase-Activating Protein Gene Polymorphisms, Dietary Linoleic Acid, and Risk for Breast Cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev October 1, 2008(17): 2748-2754

    · Wijendran V, Hayes KC. Dietary n-6 and n-3 fatty acid balance and cardiovascular health. Annu Rev Nutr. 2004;24:597-615. Review.

  • Cancer Research – A Super Fraud?

    Nurse Mark note: We have long warned of the effect that Big Medicine and Big Pharma have on such organizations as those purporting to be seeking a "Cure for Cancer". Indeed, we have gone as far as to say that the "War on Cancer" has been lost. This well-written and well-researched article provides some interesting insight. It is very true that there is nothing so noble that it cannot be perverted for profit by these mighty chemical, pharmaceutical, and medical cartels.

    Cancer Research – A Super Fraud?

    by Robert Ryan, B.Sc.

    "Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." – Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner).

    Have you ever wondered why, despite the billions of dollars spent on cancer research over many decades, and the constant promise of a cure which is forever "just around the corner", cancer continues to increase?

    Cancer Is Increasing

    Once quite rare, cancer is now the second major cause of death in Western countries such as Australia, the U.S.A. and the United Kingdom. In the early 1940s cancer accounted for 12% of Australian deaths. (1) By 1992 this figure had climbed to 25.9% of Australian deaths. (2) The increasing trend of cancer deaths and incidence is typical of most Western nations. It has been said that this increase in cancer is just due to the fact that people now live longer than their ancestors did, and that therefore the increase of cancer is merely due to the fact that more people are living to be older and thereby have a greater chance of contracting cancer. However, this argument is disproved by the fact that cancer is also increasing in younger age groups, as well as by the findings of numerous population studies which have linked various life-style factors of particular cultures to the particular forms of cancer that are predominant there.

    The Orthodox "War on Cancer" Has Failed

    "My overall assessment is that the national cancer programme must be judged a qualified failure" Dr. John Bailer, who spent 20 years on the staff of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and was editor of its journal. (3) Dr. Bailer also says: "The five year survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a total failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before . . . More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being ‘cured’. When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly."

    A 1986 report in the New England Journal of Medicine assessed progress against cancer in the United States during the years 1950 to 1982. Despite progress against some rare forms of cancer, which account for 1 to 2 per cent of total deaths caused by the disease, the report found that the overall death rate had increased substantially since 1950: "The main conclusion we draw is that some 35 years of intense effort focussed largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure." The report further concluded that ". . . we are losing the war against cancer" and argued for a shift in emphasis towards prevention if there is to be substantial progress. (4)

    Most Cancer IS Preventable

    According to the International Agency for Research in Cancer "…80-90 per cent of human cancer is determined environmentally and thus theoretically avoidable." (5) Environmental causes of cancer include lifestyle factors such as smoking, a diet high in animal products and low in fresh fruit & vegetables, excessive exposure to sunlight, food additives, alcohol, workplace hazards, pollution, electromagnetic radiation, and even certain pharmaceutical drugs and medical procedures. But unfortunately, as expressed by medical historian Hans Ruesch, "Despite the general recognition that 85 per cent of all cancers is caused by environmental influences, less than 10 per cent of the (U.S.) National Cancer Institute budget is given to environmental causes. And despite the recognition that the majority of environmental causes are linked to nutrition, less than 1 per cent of the National Cancer Institute budget is devoted to nutrition studies. And even that small amount had to be forced on the Institute by a special amendment of the National Cancer Act in 1974." (6)

    Prevention – Not Profitable to Industry

    According to Dr. Robert Sharpe, " . . . in our culture treating disease is enormously profitable, preventing it is not. In 1985 the U.S., Western Europe and Japanese market in cancer therapies was estimated at over 3.2 billion pounds with the ‘market’ showing a steady annual rise of 10 per cent over the past five years. Preventing the disease benefits no one except the patient. Just as the drug industry thrives on the ‘pill for every ill’ mentality, so many of the leading medical charities are financially sustained by the dream of a miracle cure, just around the corner." (7)

    Desired: A State of No Cure?

    In fact, some analysts consider that the cancer industry is sustained by a policy of deliberately facing in the wrong direction. For instance, in the late 1970s, after studying the policies, activities, and assets of the major U.S. cancer institutions, the investigative reporters Robert Houston and Gary Null concluded that these institutions had become self-perpetuating organisations whose survival depended on the state of no cure. They wrote, "a solution to cancer would mean the termination of research programs, the obsolescence of skills, the end of dreams of personal glory, triumph over cancer would dry up contributions to self-perpetuating charities and cut off funding from Congress, it would mortally threaten the present clinical establishments by rendering obsolete the expensive surgical, radiological and chemotherapeutic treatments in which so much money, training and equipment is invested. Such fear, however unconscious, may result in resistance and hostility to alternative approaches in proportion as they are therapeutically promising. The new therapy must be disbelieved, denied, discouraged and disallowed at all costs, regardless of actual testing results, and preferably without any testing at all. As we shall see, this pattern has in actuality occurred repeatedly, and almost consistently." (8) Indeed, many people around the world consider that they have been cured by therapies which were ‘blacklisted’ by the major cancer organisations.

    Does this mean that ALL of the people who work in the cancer research industry are consciously part of a conspiracy to hold back a cure for cancer? Author G.Edward Griffin explains ". . . let’s face it, these people die from cancer like everybody else. . . [I]t’s obvious that these people are not consciously holding back a control for cancer. It does mean, however, that the [pharmaceutical-chemical] cartel’s medical monopoly has created a climate of bias in our educational system, in which scientific truth often is sacrificed to vested interests . . . [I]f the money is coming from drug companies, or indirectly from drug companies, the impetus is in the direction of drug research. That doesn’t mean somebody blew the whistle and said "hey, don’t research nutrition!" It just means that nobody is financing nutrition research. So it is a bias where scientific truth often is obscured by vested interest." (9) This point is similarly expressed by Dr. Sydney Singer: "Researchers are like prostitutes. They work for grant money. If there is no money for the projects they are personally interested in, they go where there is money. Their incomes come directly from their grants, not from the universities. And they want to please the granting source to get more grants in the future. Their careers depend on it." (10)

    Money Spent on Fraudulent Research?

    A large portion of money donated to cancer research by the public is spent on animal research which has, since its inception, been widely condemned as a waste of time and resources. For instance, consider the 1981 Congressional Testimony by Dr. Irwin Bross, former director of the Sloan-Kettering, the largest cancer research institute in the world, and then Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research, Bufallo, NY: "The uselessness of most of the animal model studies is less well known. For example, the discovery of chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of human cancer is widely-heralded as a triumph due to use of animal model systems. However, here again, these exaggerated claims are coming from or are endorsed by the same people who get the federal dollars for animal research. There is little, if any, factual evidence that would support these claims. Indeed, while conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance either in the prevention or treatment of human cancer. For instance, practically all of the chemotherapeutic agents which are of value in the treatment of human cancer were found in a clinical context rather than in animal studies." (11)

    In fact, many substances which cause cancer in humans are marketed as "safe" on the basis of animal tests. As expressed by Dr. Werner Hartinger of Germany, in regard to cancer-causing products of the pharmaceutical-petro-chemical industry, "Their constant consumption is legalised on the basis of misleading animal experiments . . . which seduce the consumer into a false sense of security." (12)

    Imagine What Could Be Achieved

    The next time you are asked to donate to a cancer organisation, bear in mind that your money will be used to sustain an industry which has been deemed by many eminent scientists as a qualified failure and by others, as a complete fraud. If you would like to make a difference, inform these organisations that you won’t donate to them until they change their approach to one which is focussed on prevention and study of the human condition. We have the power to change things by making their present approach unprofitable. It is only through our charitable donations and taxes that these institutions survive on their present unproductive path.

    Return to the Top

    Copyright 1997 by the Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research, www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr

    This article may be copied or distributed, provided the copyright and disclaimer messages are clearly attached.

    Disclaimer: This article is presented for educational purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for professional or medical advice. CAFMR disclaims all liability to any person arising directly or indirectly from the use of the information provided.

    References:
    1. d’Espaignet, E.T. et al., Trends in Australian Mortality 1921-1988, Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS), Canberra, 1991, p. 33
    2. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Causes of Death, Australia 1992, ABS, Canberra, 1993, p.1
    3. Dr. Bailer, speaking at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in May 1985, as quoted in Bette Overall, Animal Research Takes Lives – Humans and Animals BOTH Suffer, NZAVS, 1993, p.132
    4. Robert Sharpe, The Cruel Deception, Thorsons Publishing Group, Wellingborough, U.K. 1988, p.47
    5. Robert Sharpe, op. cit. 1988, p.47
    6. Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress – the Great Medical Fraud, CIVIS, Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland, 1992, p.77
    7. Robert Sharpe, op. cit. 1988, p.65
    8. as quoted in Hans Ruesch, op.cit. 1992, p.65-66
    9. Edward Griffin, The Politics of Cancer, (audio cassette) American Media, 1975 available from CAFMR $14.
    10. Sydney Singer, Medical Demystification (M.D.) Report, Vol.1 No.1 p.5., Medical Demystification Crusade, 1992, CA, U.S.A.
    11. Irwin Bross, as quoted in Robert Sharpe, op.cit., 1988 p.179
    12. Dr. Werner Hartinger, in a speech given at the 2nd International Scientific Congress of the Doctors in Britain Against Animal Experiments (D.B.A.E.), London, 24 Sept. 1992.