Posts Tagged ‘toxins’

Proof of EFA Deficiency

Todays food processing requires widespread use of preservatives, additives, and artificial chemicals. EFAs have a short shelf life since they spoil quickly. Food processors have to replace ingredients that spoil with stable long-lived alternatives. Everything in food mfg. revolves around increasing shelf-life and making the EFAs inactive. Virtually every processed product in the supermarket has a substantially, though artificially, increased shelf life. As a result, it is difficult to obtain enough UNPROCESSED EFAs through our diet.

For example, margarine was developed at the request of Napoleon as an inexpensive, long-lasting spread costing much less than butter. The chemical process of hydrogenation that creates transfats was patented in 1911. It was known in 1939 that the transfats caused by hydrogenation were associated with increased skin cancer contraction rates. Margarine can be left out for a year with no refrigeration and it won’t spoil. Compare that result to any “real food”. No food can last longer than a few days without spoiling unless there are cancer-causing additives in the food. This means that the oxygen transfer is ruined. Thousands of products now contain these harmful oils and preservatives – from cakes and cookies and bread, to frozen pizza.

While it is possible to get enough natural EFAs from modern food, it has become extremely difficult.

To learn more about these transfats, pick up a copy of “The Hidden Story of Cancer” at, and turn to the section titled, “Transfats – A Small Percentage Causes Great harm” on page 255.


Margarine vs Real Butter

February 20, 2010 Leave a comment

The Professor’s NEWSFLASH!

Prior to the advent and huge rise in margarine (and other hydrogenated oil) use:

• Death rates from Heart Disease & Cancer were at only 3%.

• Obesity was at only 5%.

• Diabetes was practically nonexistent!

The strong case against margarine:

Eating margarine (and other trans-fats), not getting enough of the critical healthy essential oils (EFAs), along with high sugar consumption and lack of sufficient protein in our diets has caused an epidemic of disease and ill health in this country and around the world. Margarine plays a key role in our deteriorating health because it is unnatural – our bodies are not designed to use it. A plastics engineer would call margarine “plastic food,” – meaning that margarine’s molecular structure resembles a low-grade plastic. Margarine is not real food by any stretch of the imagination. If you leave margarine sitting out, no insect will touch it and it won’t spoil. They seem to know better than us what is edible and what isn’t.

Margarine contains a tremendous amount of harmful distorted EFAs called trans-fatty acids.1 Hydrogenation is the chemical addition of hydrogen to another chemical. When applied to oils, the process turns the healthy essential oils into dangerous trans-fatty acids, which are very unhealthy for humans.2 The process of hydrogenation requires a metal catalyst, like nickel, and is stopped when the margarine looks butter-like, without regard to the unnatural fat by-products, which have been produced.3 These by-products include trans-fatty acids, lipid peroxides and other potentially toxic compounds. Some large studies have been published, which suggest that ingestion of trans-fatty acids is considered a risk factor for heart disease.4 In 1956 Lancet published a 16-page article warning physicians of its dangers but few listened.

Trans-fatty acids can block the body’s ability to use healthy Essential Fatty Acids (EFAs) in the production of eicosanoids and they lessen the transfer of the life-giving nutrient, oxygen, across cell membranes.5 Sufficient transfer of oxygen is crucial for cellular health, prevention of cancer, energy, and a healthy immune system.

In 1939, The American Journal of Cancer published that eating trans-fats produced cancer when skin was exposed to ultra-violet rays. Your skin needs unadulterated parent omega 6 EFAs (it contains NO omega3), but most people have been consuming trans-fats or excessive amounts of omega 3 instead, so their skin (and other tissues) are deficient in EFAs, causing it to be susceptible to UV rays that can lead to the development of cancer. It is important to understand that your skin doesn’t utilize omega 3 EFAs (like in fish or flax oils), which is one reason why I recommend a formula with a higher balance of organic, cold-pressed “parent” omega 6 than omega 3.

It is difficult to get undamaged parent omega 6 oils in your diet. Despite what you may read from popular health publications and “professionals” about omega 6 oils, ALL of my research clearly shows that nearly every bit of omega 6 in the foods we eat has been damaged in one fashion or another so that we absolutely need to get it in a high-quality supplement. The balance of parent omega 6 and 3 is crucial as well. Simply taking flax oil (I NEVER recommend fish oil – because it is excessive in harmful omega 3 derivatives) is not enough. Flax is excessive (unbalanced) in omega 3, and without enough unprocessed omega 6 there will be an imbalance. It is nearly impossible to avoid all trans-fats, so the best way to ensure your cells get the good oils you need is to take a high-quality supplement.

You can also expect vision-related problems when you consume too many trans-fats in your diet.6 This is because your eyes are supposed to contain healthy EFAs, but are getting the distorted oils instead. Studies show that the trans-fatty acids we eat do get incorporated into brain cell membranes, including the myelin sheath that insulates neurons. They replace the natural DHA in the membrane, which affects the electrical activity of the neuron. Trans-fatty acid molecules disrupt communication, setting the stage for cellular degeneration and diminished mental performance.7 This shows that EFA deficiency likely plays a key role in mental and emotional disorders from children to the elderly.

Researchers have found that trans-fats are more detrimental to the ability of blood vessels to dilate, a marker for Heart Disease risk. “This suggests that trans-fatty acids increase the risk of heart disease more than the intake of saturated fats,” concluded the scientists at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. It suggests that if French fries were cooked in saturated fat instead of in hydrogenated vegetable oils, they would probably be safer.8 It is important to note that even though margarine is promoted as “heart-healthy,”

The Professor’s NEWSFLASH!

Margarine eaters have twice the rate of heart disease as butter eaters.9

The actual numbers will prove to be much greater.

Now read about the truth about real, full-cream butter by downloading the rest of this highly informative Science Not Opinion e-Newsletter at:  (pdf file).

To learn more, please visit  today. Your health will thank you!

Avoiding Nitrates in Foods such as Hot Dogs and Lunch Meats is Unnecessary

February 12, 2010 Leave a comment

The long-standing nitrate scare is another of many incorrect recommenndations. Nitrate is a preservative used in hot dogs, bacon, and lunch meats. Its consumption has been said to comprise a “possible” link to stomach cancer, because nitrate derivatives (N-nitrosamines) have caused cancer in rats and farm animals. For decades, we have livec in fear of nitrate-containing foods.

But these recommendations were made even though numerous studies in humans showed no negative effects! And no one mentions that nitrate is naturally occurring in greens such as lettuce and spinach. The article, “Bad Rap for Nitrate: Infamous Preservative Maj Help Defend Against Bacteria,” by J.R. Minkel, Scientific American Biochemistry Section, September 2004, page 24, details that “they” were wrong again and sets the record straight. It was known in 1994, that the stomach contains lots of nitric oxide. Nitric oxide kills germ in the bloodstream. Therefore, it is obvious that nitrate is a helpful substance. Why this has taken ten years to be publicized is astounding, Here are some key points from the article:

” … [D]ietary nitrate is actually part of the body’s inherent defense against infection ….

“Bacteria in the mouth convert nitrate to nitrite, which gets swallowed, so the stomach can naturally produce nitric oxide …. ”

”’We’ve gone from considering all of these things to be toxic and carcinogenic to realizing that [nitrates are] playing a fundamental homeostatic role [safe and required, and NOT cancerous],’ says microbiologist Ferric Fang of the University of Washington.” (Emphasis added.)

Interested in learning more about medicine’s long history of mistakes and wrong recommendations? Pick up a copy of “The Hidden Story of Cancer” at today!

Newsflash 2007: Studies Dispel Myth of Cancer-causing Red Meat…

December 11, 2009 Leave a comment

Medical News Today reported on June 5, 2007 that “red” meat does NOT promote cancer:(1)

“Recent studies published in the journal Cancer Science have disproved the myth that consumption of red meat increases colorectal cancer.

“Researchers have run a large case-controlled study in Japan, examining associations of meat, fish and fat intake with risk of colorectal cancer…

“…[F]ound that intake of beef/pork, processed meat, total fat, saturated fat or n-6 PUFA [parent omega-6] showed no clear association with the overall or subsite specific risk of colorectal cancer.
“Our findings DO NOT SUPPORT the hypothesis [guess] that consumption of red meat increases colorectal cancer risk…” (Emphasis added.)

Life-Systems Engineering Science Commentary: I have reported for over 10 years that the science is very clear that “red” meat could not be cancer-causing. Furthermore, I have been advocating meat as a 1st class protein source. “Red” meat’s natural saturated fat is burned for energy and its EFAs are used in numerous biochemical reactions. Meat’s protein is required to maximize hemoglobin’s oxygen binding. Without exception “red” meat and its associated saturated fat content are not cancer-causing. Their misinformation is based on opinion – not science.

Japan would naturally have a bias for fish since it is less expensive and more plentiful than red meat. Additionally, the study showed that fish and fish product consumption was not statistically significant in decreasing cancer. You already discovered from me why fish consumption can’t prevent cancer. Eat all the steak you want (I recommend “natural” or “organic” with no hormones or steroids used) without guilt, knowing you are eating what your body needs to remain healthy.

1. Ref.: Kimura, Yasumi, et al., “Meat, fish and fat intake in relation to subsite-specific risk of colorectal cancer: The Kukuoka Colorectal Cancer Study, Cancer Sci. 2007 Apr ;98 (4):590-7.

Newsflash: JAMA 2006 ADMITS…

December 11, 2009 1 comment

Omega-3 is NOT a Cancer Preventive

Omega-3 fatty acids have been claimed to lower the risk of contracting cancer. The Journal of the American Medical Association (Vol. 295, No. 4, January 25, 2006) reports what we have been saying for years:

“A large body of literature spanning numerous cohorts from many countries and with different demographic characteristics does not provide evidence to suggest a significant association between omega-3 fatty acids and cancer incidence. Dietary supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids are unlikely to prevent cancer.” (emphasis added)

Life-Systems Engineering Science Analysis: For years we have been misled about the supposed anticancer effects of omega-fatty acids; in particular, fish oil and flax oil. This reports explained the significant dangers of overdosing on them.

To reach the truth, all anyone had to do was to review the 38 medical journal articles from 1966 to 2005 like this study’s authors did; then discount the majority of the studies because they were statistically incorrect or improperly done. It is tragic that America and the rest of the world follows recommendations based on the results of improperly performed studies. Medical journals don’t independently verify them. Don’t expect the popular press to report the truth anytime soon.

Newsflash: British Medical Journal 2006 ADMITS…

December 11, 2009 Leave a comment


Omega-3 is NOT a Cancer or Heart-Disease Preventive

In the most comprehensive review to date, published in British Medical Journal (Hooper, Lee, et al., “Risks and benefits of omega 3 fats for mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review,” prepublication reference: BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.38755.366331.2F (published 24 March 2006)), 96 trials, including 44 trials with supplements and 5 trials consisting of mainly ALA (parent omega-3) from plants with the remainder being fish oil, confirms what we have been saying for years:

• “Neither RCT’s [randomized clinical trials] nor cohort studies [estimated omega-3 consumption and related clinical outcomes] suggested increased risk of cancer with higher intake of omega 3, but clinically important harm could not be excluded.”

• “We found no evidence that omega 3 fats had an effect on the incidence of cancer and there was no inconsistency.”

• “This systematic review assessed the health effects of using omega 3 fats (together or separately) on total mortality, cardiovascular events, cancer, and strokes in a wide variety of participants and found no evidence of a clear benefit of omega 3 fats on health.” (emphasis added)

Life-Systems Engineering Science Analysis: this was an exceptionally outstanding analysis of existing studies. The authors state omega-3s worthless alone in preventing cancer and heart disease in spite of the popular recommendations. Furthermore, the authors warn us of the potential danger of overdosing on omega-3 in the doses being recommended!

This news gives you the reason for these studies’ failures; the potential problems with fish oil supplementation and consumption is much more complex than the issue of carcinogenic content of the fish, i.e., mercury toxicity, alone. Current recommendations do not take into account human physiology and biochemistry.