Script of the Show August 17 2013
Topics In this episode :
Dietary Fructose Causes Liver Damage in Animal Model, Study Finds
The Shocking Ingredients In Beer
Inhibition of proinflammatory biomarkers in THP1 macrophages by polyphenols
derived from chamomile, meadowsweet and willow bark
Catholic Church Endorses GMOs As Cure for World Hunger
List of genetically modified foods
Pope Criminalizes the Reporting of Sex Crimes
Dietary Fructose Causes Liver Damage in Animal Model, Study Finds
By Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center
WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. – June 19, 2013 – The role of dietary fructose in the development of obesity and fatty liver diseases remains controversial, with previous studies indicating that the problems resulted from fructose and a diet too high in calories.–However, a new study conducted in an animal model at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center showed that fructose rapidly caused liver damage even without weight gain. The researchers found that over the six-week study period liver damage more than doubled in the animals fed a high-fructose diet as compared to those in the control group.–The study is published in the June 19 online edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.—“Is a calorie a calorie? Are they all created equal? Based on this study, we would say not,” said Kylie Kavanagh, D.V.M., assistant professor of pathology-comparative medicine at Wake Forest Baptist and lead author of the study.—In a previous trial which is referenced in the current journal article, Kavanagh’s team studied monkeys who were allowed to eat as much as they wanted of low-fat food with added fructose for seven years, as compared to a control group fed a low-fructose, low-fat diet for the same time period. Not surprisingly, the animals allowed to eat as much as they wanted of the high-fructose diet gained 50 percent more weight than the control group. They developed diabetes at three times the rate of the control group and also developed hepatic steatosis, or non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.—The big question for the researchers was what caused the liver damage. Was it because the animals got fat from eating too much, or was it something else?–To answer that question, this study was designed to prevent weight gain. Ten middle-aged, normal weight monkeys who had never eaten fructose were divided into two groups based on comparable body shapes and waist circumference. Over six weeks, one group was fed a calorie-controlled diet consisting of 24 percent fructose, while the control group was fed a calorie-controlled diet with only a negligible amount of fructose, approximately 0.5 percent.—Both diets had the same amount of fat, carbohydrate and protein, but the sources were different, Kavanagh said. The high-fructose group’s diet was made from flour, butter, pork fat, eggs and fructose (the main ingredient in corn syrup), similar to what many people eat, while the control group’s diet was made from healthy complex carbohydrates and soy protein.—Every week the research team weighed both groups and measured their waist circumference, then adjusted the amount of food provided to prevent weight gain. At the end of the study, the researchers measured biomarkers of liver damage through blood samples and examined what type of bacteria was in the intestine through fecal samples and intestinal biopsies.
“What surprised us the most was how quickly the liver was affected and how extensive the damage was, especially without weight gain as a factor,” Kavanagh said. “Six weeks in monkeys is roughly equivalent to three months in humans.”-In the high-fructose group, the researchers found that the type of intestinal bacteria hadn’t changed, but that they were migrating to the liver more rapidly and causing damage there. It appears that something about the high fructose levels was causing the intestines to be less protective than normal, and consequently allowing the bacteria to leak out at a 30 percent higher rate, Kavanagh said.—One of the limitations of the study was that it only tested for fructose and not dextrose. Fructose and dextrose are simple sugars found naturally in plants.—“We studied fructose because it is the most commonly added sugar in the American diet, but based on our study findings, we can’t say conclusively that fructose caused the liver damage,” Kavanagh said. “What we can say is that high added sugars caused bacteria to exit the intestines, go into the blood stream and damage the liver.–“The liver damage began even in the absence of weight gain. This could have clinical implications because most doctors and scientists have thought that it was the fat in and around tissues in the body that caused the health problems.”–The Wake Forest Baptist team plans to begin a new study using the same controls but testing for both fructose and dextrose over a longer time frame.
The Shocking Ingredients In Beer
Why are the ingredients not listed on the label? Which brands can we trust? Which brands are trying to slowly poison us with cheap and harmful ingredients? All of these questions were going through my head at once at lightning speed.
So a year ago, research was started to what was really in beer and after questioning several beer companies, reading books about food science, and talking to experts, the information revealed was downright shocking. It is obvious. Caring about what you eat doesn’t necessarily translate into caring about what you drink and this is a HUGE MISTAKE.-Alcohol is metabolized by the body differently than all other calories you consume. Alcohol is one of the only substances that you consume that can permeate your digestive system and go straight into your bloodstream. It bypasses normal digestion and is absorbed into the body intact, where it goes straight into the liver. Your liver is your main fat-burning organ. If you are trying to lose weight or even maintain your ideal weight, drinking alcohol is one of your worst enemies. The liver is going to metabolize alcohol first vs. the fat you want to get rid of – making weight loss even harder. Additionally, one of the primary functions of the liver is to remove environmental toxins from your body – if it is overtaxed with alcohol, the normal removal of these toxins becomes extremely diminished and can result in rapid aging, loss of libido, and other diseases. Beer, especially American beer, is made with all sorts of ingredients beyond the basic hops, malt and yeast. There are numerous other ingredients used to clarify, stabilize, preserve, enhance the color and flavor of beer. When you drink beer, there is almost a 100% chance that you don’t know what you are drinking (unless you quizzed the beer companies like I did). The ingredients in beer are not required by law to be listed anywhere on the label and manufacturers have no legal obligation to disclose the ingredients. For regular beer, calorie levels and percent alcohol are optional and for light beer calories are mandatory but alcohol levels are optional.
Michele Simon, a public health lawyer, author of Appetite for Profit, and president of Eat Drink Politics told me the reason that beer companies don’t disclose ingredients is simple: they don’t have to. “Ingredient labeling on food products and non-alcoholic beverages is required by the Food and Drug Administration. But a whole other federal agency regulates beer, and not very well. The Department of Treasury – the same folks who collect your taxes – oversees alcoholic beverages. That probably explains why we know more about what’s in a can of Coke than a can of Bud. You can also thank the alcohol industry, which has lobbied for years against efforts to require ingredient labeling.” If the beer companies aren’t required to tell us the exact list of
ingredients then there was a need to investigate this to get to the truth
Number 1, to obtain a baseline list of “legal” additives allowed in beer from the book “Chemicals Additives in Beer” by the Center of Science and Public Interest. This list allowed anyone to ask specific questions about each beer being investigated. For example – beer sold here in America can contain several of the following ingredients:
· Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) – alcohol is already addictive with some people, Alcohol + MSG direct overload and brain burn out
· Propylene Glycol (an ingredient found in anti-freeze)
· Calcium Disodium EDTA (made from formaldehyde, sodium cayanide, and Ethylenediamine)
· Many different types of sulfites and anti-microbial preservatives (linked to allergies and asthma)
· Natural Flavors (can come from aborted babies, soy, left over byproducts natural including a beavers anal gland)
· High Fructose Corn Syrup
· GMO Sugars – Dextrose, Corn Syrup
· Caramel Coloring (Class III or IV made from ammonia and classified as a carcinogen)
· FD&C Blue 1 (Made from petroleum, linked to allergies, asthma and hyperactivity)
· FD&C Red 40 (Made from petroleum, linked to allergies, asthma and hyperactivity)
· FD&C Yellow 5 (Made from petroleum, linked to allergies, asthma and hyperactivity)
· Insect-Based Dyes: carmine derived from cochineal insects to color their beer.
· Animal Based Clarifiers: Findings include isinglass (dried fish bladder), gelatin (from skin, connective tissue, and bones), and casein (found in milk)
· Foam Control: Used for head retention; (glyceryl monostearate and pepsin are both potentially derived from animals)
· BPA (Bisphenol A is a component in many can liners and it may leach into the beer. BPA can mimic the female hormone estrogen and may affect sperm count, and other organ functions.)
· Carrageenan (linked to inflammation in digestive system, IBS and considered a carcinogen in some circumstances)
During my investigationthere was not a single mainstream beer company to share the full list of ingredients contained in their beer. But there was some disclousre to the use of these ingredients in writing so Here is this information…
Carcinogenic Caramel Coloring
Newcastle, a UK brand, confessed to using what I would consider one of the most controversial food additives. Toasted barley is usually what gives beer its golden or deep brown color, however in this case, Newcastle beer is also colored artificially with caramel color. This caramel coloring is manufactured by heating ammonia and sulfites under high pressure, which creating carcinogenic compounds. If beer companies were required by law to list the ingredients, Newcastle would likely have to have a cancer warning label under California law because it is a carcinogen proven to cause liver tumors, lung tumors, and thyroid tumors in rats and mice.
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)
Many of the beers I questioned contained one or more possible GMO ingredients.
High Fructose Corn Syrup (Guinness – unable to provide an affidavit for non-GMO proof)
Corn syrup (Miller Light, Coors, Corona, Fosters, Pabst Blue Ribbon, Red Stripe)
Dextrose (Budweiser, Bud Light, Busch Light, Michelob Ultra)
Corn (Red Stripe, Miller Coors Brand, Anheuser-Busch Brands)
Most beers brewed commercially are made with more GMO corn than barley. Many of the companies dodged the GMO question – however Miller Coors had a very forthcoming and honest response. They stated “Corn syrup gives beer a milder and lighter-bodied flavor” and “Corn syrups may be derived from a mixture of corn (conventional and biotech.)”, admitting their use of GMOs.
Pabst Blue Ribbon responded saying their corn syrup was “special” and “made of carbohydrates and some simple sugars like dextrose and maltose. The sugars are fermented into alcohol and CO2, and the carbohydrates, both from the corn syrup and the malt, remain in the beers as flavor, color and body components.”—Dextrose and maltose can come from a variety of substances that are sweet, but likely are derived from GMO corn because it is super cheap for a company to use corn instead of fruit or other non-GMO sources. With cheap beer – you are not just getting a cheap buzz, you are getting the worst of the worst. Just like with cheap fast food – if you don’t invest in your beer – you will be drinking a lower quality product like Pabst Blue Ribbon that is made from GMO Corn and Corn Syrup.——–In 2007, Greenpeace found unapproved and experimental GMO Rice strain in Anheuser-Busch (Budweiser, Bud Light) beer. Anheuser-Busch responded saying their US-grown long-grained rice “may have micro levels” of a genetically engineered protein called Liberty Link, but added that the protein is “substantially removed or destroyed” during the brewing of beer sold domestically. Don’t you think it’s hard to trust any beer company that gets caught using experimental food made in a laboratory? GMOs have not been tested long term on human beings and one of the main pesticides (Roundup) they spray on GMO crops are linked to inflammation, cancer and other diseases.
High Fructose Corn Syrup & Fish Bladders
Speaking of trusting companies, let’s get one thing straight, Guinness beer is no longer owned by the Irish, they are now owned by a large beer conglomerate called Diageo and manufactured in over 50 different countries. No matter how many St. Patty’s Day celebrations you’ve had with this dark stout, it’s time to stop because they use high fructose corn syrup in their beer. But, Guinness beer also contains isinglass, a gelatin-like substance produced from the swim bladder of a fish. This ingredient helps remove any “haziness,” solids, or yeast byproducts from the beer. The sneaky thing this beer company does like many of the companies mentioned here today is create an illusion of using the best ingredients when in actuality what they tell you publicly on their websites is a complete farce. On Guinness FAQ’s – they have a question that states: “What are the key ingredients in Guinness” and the answer doesn’t reveal the whole picture – it only states “Our key ingredients – other than inspiration – are roasted, malted barley, hops, yeast and water.”
So What Beers Are Additive and GMO Free?
If you enjoy the occasional beer and wish to maintain your healthy lifestyle, choosing one without GMOs and additives is ideal. Unfortunately, most of the mainstream beers available have additives, but luckily, there are a few that don’t. For example, Sierra Nevada, Heineken, and Amstel Light appear to be pretty clean (but these companies still wouldn’t disclose the full list of ingredients . They did say they use non-GMO grains, no artificial ingredients, stabilizers or preservatives)[F1]. German Beers are also a good bet. The Germans are very serious about the purity of their beers and enacted a purity law called “Reinheitsgebot” that requires all German beers to be only produced with a core ingredient list of water, hops, yeast, malted barley or wheat. Advocates of German beers insist that they taste cleaner and some even claim they don’t suffer from hangovers as a result. Another choice to consider is also Certified Organic Beers ( at best questionable). They are required by law to not include GMOs and other harmful additives. Organic beers also support environmental friendly practices and reduce the amount of pesticides and toxins in our air, support Organic farmers – which is a huge plus. [F2]
Craft & Microbrews Beers – For certain local craft and micro beers, you can ask those companies for a list of ingredients and many of them will be up front with you. However, companies like Miller Coors are slowly closing in on craft beers and buying them up one by one… like they did when they created the unique popular variety called Blue Moon (the beer you drink with an orange) and Anhesuer-Busch did this with Rolling Rock and Goose Island Brewery. Make sure your favorite craft and microbrew is still independently owned and controlled before taking a sip.
In the end – if you decide to drink beer, you are definitely drinking at your own risk for more reasons than just the crazy ingredients that could be in them. The key point to remember is – if you like to drink beer and want to be healthy, drink it infrequently and quiz the beer companies for the truth. Find a beer that you can trust and stick with it.[F3]
For your reference, here are some important questions to ask your favorite beer company:
1. What are the ingredients in your beer – all of them from start to finish?
2. Are any of your ingredients GMO?
3. Do you use any soy, corn, or rice processing ingredients? (Examples include: dextrose, corn syrup, etc.)
4. Do you add any natural, artificial flavors or colors to the beer? (Examples include: yellow #5, caramel coloring, red #40, MSG, natural flavors)
5. Are there any additional preservatives, stabilizers and/or clarifying agents added to your beer during processing? (Examples include: propylene glycol, Calcium Disodium EDTA, anything ending in “sulfite” like sodium metabisulfite, Heptylparaben, isinglass)
Inhibition of proinflammatory biomarkers in THP1 macrophages by polyphenols derived from chamomile, meadowsweet and willow bark
Phytother Res. 2013 Apr;27(4):588-94
Authors: Drummond EM, Harbourne N, Marete E, Martyn D, Jacquier J, O’Riordan D, Gibney ER
Antiinflammatory compounds in the diet can alleviate excessive inflammation, a factor in the pathogenesis of common diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, atherosclerosis and diabetes. This study examined three European herbs, chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla), meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria L.) and willow bark (Salix alba L.), which have been traditionally used to treat inflammation and their potential for use as antiinflammatory agents. Aqueous herbal extracts and isolated[F4] polyphenolic compounds (apigenin, quercetin and salicylic acid, 0-100 μM) were incubated with THP1 macrophages, and interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6 and tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) were measured. At concentrations of 10 μM, both apigenin and quercetin reduced IL-6 significantly ( p < 0.05). Apigenin at 10 μM and quercetin at 25 μM reduced TNF-α significantly ( p < 0.05). Amongst the herbal extracts, willow bark had the greatest antiinflammatory activity at reducing IL-6 and TNF-α production. This was followed by meadowsweet and then chamomile. The lowest effective antiinflammatory concentrations were noncytotoxic (MTT mitochondrial activity assay). The Comet assay, which was used to study the protective effect of the isolated phenols against oxidative damage, showed positive results for all three polyphenols. These are the first findings that demonstrate the antiinflammatory capacity of these herbal extracts.---PMID: 22711544 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE Aqueous Solution Of MeadowSweet-White Willow and Chamomile Recipe---take 2 pint pot fill with distilled water –take equal portions of the herbs and bring to a boil—allow to boil 5 minutes then shut off stove and allow to simmer to a warm or tolerable tea to drink—pour into cup and add maple yurp for a sweetner or drink plain Will even reduce prostate inflammation---and reduce estrogen build up in the endocrine system *************************************************************************
Catholic Church Endorses GMOs As Cure for World Hunger
By Katie Rucke
Genetically modified organisms –(GMOs) are the answer to ending world hunger, at least according to the former leader of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI.—Pope Francis, center, meets Apostolic nuncios at the Vatican, June 21. (AP/L’Osservatore Romano)—According to a 2009 WikiLeaks cable from the U.S. embassy in the Vatican, it was discovered that “Vatican officials remain largely supportive of genetically modified crops as a vehicle for protecting the environment while feeding the hungry,” as a result of lobbying efforts by the U.S.–The cables from the U.S. embassy indicated that if the U.S. could convince the church that GMOs were good, the church would be able to convince its members. This would be a boost for the GMO industry since the Catholic Church claims more than 1 billion members.–Given that GMOs have caused controversy around the world recently as questions arise about their impact on human health, it’s uncertain whether the church will be able to convince all its members GMOs are a good thing.– According to the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, doctors should recommend non-GMO diets to all persons, since some animal studies have suggested that diets with GMO foods can lead to organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging and infertility.–Several countries have banned the use of GMO ingredients or require labeling for products containing them. In the U.S., home to the big agriculture businesses that created GMOs, there is no GMO ban and Americans have just begun to demand GMO products be labeled as such.–Though the 2009 WikiLeaks cable revealed the Catholic Church was in favor of GMOs, Monsignor James Reinert, a member of the Vatican Council of Justice and Peace, noted that the Catholic Church has come to a “consensus on the need for GMOs with one caveat.”– “The Vatican cannot force all bishops to endorse biotechnology,” he said, “particularly if their opposition has to do with concerns over protecting profits of large corporations who hold the patents for the crops, versus feeding the hungry.”—Poor Health Epidemic Brought On By GMOs?–Some Scientist have concluded that GMO products, introduced by biotechnology companies such as Monsanto – DOW – Dupont – Syngesta-Cargil – BASF- ADM and a host of other Biotech Companies would work toward ending world hunger and malnutrition, could be connected to an increase in the percentage of Americans with chronic illnesses, food allergies and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders and digestive problems.—Reports from the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development also indicate that GMO crops do not necessarily increase yields.—According to the report, “assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable.” In addition the report states that GMOs “have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.”—The most common GMO crops grown today include over 30,000 estimated products. According to the Organic Valley Co-Op, the corn and soybeans are animal feed crops and nations that don’t consume a lot of meat won’t benefit from their use.–Science seems to have also poked holes in the church’s argument that GMOs protect the environment. In order to grow GMO crops, farmers have to use hazardous pesticides to remove weeds and keep insects away from the crops.–However, studies indicate that farmers with GMO crops not only have to use more pesticides when they have GMO crops, but have to use more hazardous pesticides.–These pesticides and herbicides have been found to harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems and soil organisms. Studies have also found herbicides reduce biodiversity and pollute water.–Not only are these chemicals unsafe, they are expensive. According to the Organic Valley Co-Op, “the only farmers that can afford the seeds and chemicals are those from first-world countries or the wealthy landowners from developing countries, who grow the crops for export, not to feed the poor.”—New Pope, New Stance?—While the Catholic Church’s initial pro-GMO stance was issued under Pope Benedict XVI, the church’s current leader, Pope Francis, has yet to share his view on GMOs.—According to Al Jazeera, Pope Francis is a trained chemist, which gives him more information on the scientific aspect of consuming GMOs than his predecessor. Another factor that may influence Francis is his Argentinian heritage.—Argentina relies heavily on genetically modified crops. But a new documentary demonstrates the high usage of Monsanto-manufactured GMO seeds in the Latin American nation has caused issues with land ownership in addition to health problems.—Filmmaker Glenn Ellis summarized the documentary by saying that “… Doctors and scientists claim that babies are being born with crippling birth malformations and that in recent years the incidence of childhood cancer has soared. It is a phenomenon, they say, that has coincided with the introduction of Monsanto’s seed.”
List of genetically modified foods:
It’s virtually impossible to provide a complete list of genetically modified food (GM food) in the United States because there aren’t any laws for genetically modified crops!
Some estimates say as many as 30,000 different products on grocery store shelves are “modified.” That’s largely because many processed foods contain soy. Half of North America’s soy crop is genetically engineered!
Rapeseed – Resistance to certain pesticides and improved rapeseed cultivars to be free of erucic acid and glucosinolates. Gluconsinolates, which were found in rapeseed meal leftover from pressing, are toxic and had prevented the use of the meal in animal feed. In Canada, where “double-zero” rapeseed was developed, the crop was renamed “canola” (Canadian oil) to differentiate it from non-edible rapeseed.
Honey – Honey can be produced from GM crops. Some Canadian honey comes from bees collecting nectar from GM canola plants. This has shut down exports of Canadian honey to Europe.
Cotton – Resistant to certain pesticides – considered a food because the oil can be consumed. The introduction of genetically engineered cotton plants has had an unexpectedly effect on Chinese agriculture. The so-called Bt cotton plants that produce a chemical that kills the cotton bollworm have not only reduced the incidence of the pest in cotton fields, but also in neighboring fields of corn, soybeans, and other crops.
Rice – Genetically modified to contain high amounts of Vitamin A. Rice containing human genes is to be grown in the US. Rather than end up on dinner plates, the rice will make human proteins useful for treating infant diarrhoea in the developing world.
Soybean – Genetically modified to be resistant to herbicides – Soy foods including, soy beverages, tofu, soy oil, soy flour, lecithin. Other products may include breads, pastries, snack foods, baked products, fried products, edible oil products and special purpose foods.
Sugar cane – Made resistant to certain pesticides. A large percentage of sweeteners used in processed food actually comes from corn, not sugar cane or beets. Genetically modified sugar cane is regarded so badly by consumers at the present time that it could not be marketed successfully.
Tomatoes – Made for a longer shelf life and to prevent a substance that causes tomatoes to rot and degrade.
Corn – Resistant to certain pesticides – Corn oil, flour, sugar or syrup. May include snack foods, baked goods, fried foods, edible oil products, confectionery, special purpose foods, and soft drinks.
Sweet corn – genetically modified to produces its own insecticide. Officials from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have said that thousands of tonnes of genetically engineered sweetcorn have made their way into the human food supply chain, even though the produce has been approved only for use in animal feed. Recently Monsanto, a biotechnology food producer, said that about half of the USA’s sweetcorn acreage has been planted with genetically modified seed this year.
Canola – Canola oil. May include edible oil products, fried foods, and baked products, snack foods.
Potatoes – (Atlantic, Russett Burbank, Russet Norkatah, and Shepody) – May include snack foods, processed potato products and other processed foods containing potatoes.
Flax – More and more food products contain flax oil and seed because of their excellent nutritional properties. No genetically modified flax is currently grown. An herbicide-resistant GM flax was introduced in 2001, but was soon taken off the market because European importers refused to buy it.
Papaya – The first virus resistant papayas were commercially grown in Hawaii in 1999. Transgenic papayas now cover about one thousand hectares, or three quarters of the total Hawaiian papaya crop. Monsanto, donated technology to Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, for developing a papaya resistant to the ringspot virus in India.
Squash – (yellow crookneck) – Some zucchini and yellow crookneck squash are also GM but they are not popular with farmers.
Red-hearted chicory – (radicchio) – Chicory (Cichorium intybus var. foliosum) is popular in some regions as a salad green, especially in France and Belgium. Scientists developed a genetically modified line of chicory containing a gene that makes it male sterile, simply facilitating the production of hybrid cultivars. Today there is no genetically modified chicory on the market.
Cotton seed oil – Cottonseed oil and linters. Products may include blended vegetable oils, fried foods, baked foods, snack foods, edible oil products, and smallgoods casings.
Tobacco -The company Vector has a GMO tobacco being sold under the brand of Quest® cigarettes in the U.S. It is engineered to produce low or no nicotine.
Meat – Meat and dairy products usually come from animals that have eaten GM feed.
Peas – Genetically modified (GM) peas created immune responses in mice, suggesting that they may also create serious allergic reactions in people. The peas had been inserted with a gene from kidney beans, which creates a protein that acts as a pesticide.
Vegetable Oil – Most generic vegetable oils and margarines used in restaurants and in processed foods in North America are made from soy, corn, canola, or cottonseed. Unless these oils specifically say “Non-GMO” or “Organic,” it is probably genetically modified.
Sugarbeets – May include any processed foods containing sugar.
Dairy Products – About 22 percent of cows in the U.S. are injected with recombinant (genetically modified) bovine growth hormone (rbGH).
Vitamins – Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is often made from corn, vitamin E is usually made from soy. Vitamins A, B2, B6, and B12 may be derived from GMOs as well as vitamin D and vitamin K may have “carriers” derived from GM corn sources, such as starch, glucose, and maltodextrin.
Pope Criminalizes the Reporting of Sex Crimes
VATICAN CITY — Few eyebrows were raised last week when Pope Francis brought the Vatican’s legal system up to date by criminalizing leaks of official information and formalizing laws against sex crimes. But now that the laws have been made public, a closer look revealed that the pope has made it illegal to report sex crimes against children.–According to the new laws, revealing or receiving confidential Vatican information is now punishable by up to two years in prison, while newly defined sex crimes against children carry a sentence of up to twelve years. Because all sex crimes are kept confidential, there is no longer a legal way for Vatican officials to report sex crimes.— “We didn’t mean for this to happen, obviously,” lamented Vatican foreign minister Monsignor Dominique Mamberti. “It’s quite the papal pickle that His Holiness has placed upon our heads. Sex crimes are more illegal than ever, but technically it’s illegal to report them.” Mamberti said that the simultaneous passing of each law is merely a coincidence and insisted that the Church is not trying to protect itself against further embarrassment, but critics outside the Vatican are skeptical.— “We didn’t mean for this to happen, obviously,” lamented Vatican foreign minister Monsignor Dominique Mamberti. “It’s quite the papal pickle that His Holiness has placed upon our heads. Sex crimes are more illegal than ever, but technically it’s illegal to report them.” Mamberti said that the simultaneous passing of each law is merely a coincidence and insisted that the Church is not trying to protect itself against further embarrassment, but critics outside the Vatican are skeptical. “They know exactly what they’re doing,” claims Fabrizio Perona of Italy’s La Repubblica newspaper. “They just thought nobody would notice. The Church wants to impress the world by getting tough on sex crimes, but they criminalized leaks, which is the only way anybody would ever discover their crimes. It’s genius, if you stop and think about it.” Mamberti says plans are already being made to eliminate the loophole, but change often comes slowly to antiquated Vatican law, which is based on the 1889 Italian code. “We’re not going to let a dangerous law like this stand, but people need to understand that this is the Vatican, and there is a process here. Voting, incense, prayer. We ask the minors at risk to please be patient with us.” Fortunately, only clergy and lay people who live and work in Vatican City are subject to the new legislation, which differs from the canon law governing the universal Catholic Church. Fortunately, only clergy and lay people who live and work in Vatican City are subject to the new legislation, which differs from the canon law governing the universal Catholic Church As the Holy See moves to clarify the law, Mamberti has warned would-be offenders within Vatican walls that they “are still subject to the most watchful eye of all: the eye of God. His judgment is greater than—oh, who am I kidding? For now, there is nothing we can do.” – See more at: http://www.newslo.com/pope-criminalizes-the-reporting-of-sex-crimes/#sthash.yuwK7BRC.dpuf
Other common name(s): Kelley’s treatment, Gonzalez treatment, Issels whole body therapy, Gerson therapy
Scientific/medical name(s): none
Metabolic therapy uses a combination of special diets, enzymes, nutritional supplements, and other measures in an attempt to remove “toxins” from the body and strengthen the body’s defenses against disease.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that metabolic therapy is effective in treating cancer. However there are many different practices that make up metabolic therapy. Some of these practices may be harmful.
How is it promoted for use?
Metabolic therapy is based on the belief that toxic substances in food and the environment build up in the body and create chemical imbalances that lead to diseases such as cancer, arthritis, and multiple sclerosis. Some proponents of this approach say that metabolic therapy rids the body of these toxins and strengthens its resistance to disease. Some claim that a special diet can cure serious illnesses, including cancer. Others claim that they can evaluate a patient’s metabolism and diagnose cancer before symptoms appear and that they can locate tumors and learn the tumor’s size and growth rate.
What does it involve?
Metabolic therapies vary a great deal depending on the practitioner, but all are based on special diets and detoxification. This usually involves natural, whole foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables, as well as vitamins and mineral supplements. Other measures may include colonic irrigation with coffee or hydrogen peroxide enemas, juicing, enzyme supplements, visualization, and stress-reduction exercises. At least one metabolic therapy system also includes the drug laetrile (see Colon Therapy, Enzyme Therapy, Imagery, Juicing, and Laetrile).
Among the better known types of metabolic therapy are Kelley’s treatment, the Gonzalez treatment, Issels whole body therapy, and Gerson therapy (see Gerson Therapy,).
Kelley’s treatment includes dietary supplements (such as enzymes and large doses of vitamins, minerals, and amino acids), detoxification (such as fasting, exercising, and using laxatives and coffee enemas), a restricted diet, chiropractic adjustments, and prayer. Practitioners classify people into different metabolic types that form the basis for individual dietary and supplement recommendations.
The Gonzalez treatment is similar to Kelley’s treatment and includes extracts or concentrates from animal organs such as thymus and liver (taken from beef or lamb) and digestive enzymes as part of the plan (see Cell Therapy).
Another form of metabolic therapy is Issels whole body therapy. Patients are asked to remove teeth that contain mercury dental fillings, follow a strict diet, and eliminate the use of tobacco, coffee, tea, and other substances that are considered harmful. Some patients are encouraged to undergo psychotherapy to relieve stress and deal with anger and emotional distress (see Psychotherapy).
Gerson therapy involves a strict dietary program, coffee enemas, and various mineral or chemical supplements.
What is the history behind it?
Gerson therapy was introduced by Max Gerson, MD, a German-born physician who immigrated to the United States in 1936. Gerson initially used the therapy for treating migraine headaches and tuberculosis and began using it for cancer in 1928. Kelley’s treatment was developed in the 1960s by American orthodontist William Donald Kelley, DDS, MS. Nicholas Gonzalez, MD, became interested in metabolic therapy as a medical student in 1981 when he was asked to review Dr. Kelley’s work.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Harold Manner, PhD, a biology professor, was also a major proponent of metabolic therapy. He claimed to have cured cancer in mice with injections of laetrile, enzymes, and vitamin A. In his version of metabolic cancer therapy, patients often received another unproven alternative substance, a chemical compound called dimethyl sulfoxide (see DMSO). In the early 1980s, Dr. Manner moved to Tijuana, Mexico, to treat patients (see Questionable Cancer Practices in Mexico). His clinic there is still open despite his death in 1988.
What is the evidence?
There is general agreement among scientists that there are differences in the metabolism of certain cells in people with cancer compared to people without cancer. There is also general agreement regarding the importance of attention to optimal nutrition as a component of conventional oncology care. Otherwise, there is no convincing clinical evidence that supports the claims made for metabolic therapy or any of its components. Some aspects of metabolic therapy may in fact be harmful.
An article on metabolic therapies on the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Web site concludes that “…retrospective reviews of the Gerson, Kelley, and Contreras metabolic therapies show no evidence of efficacy.” And a review article in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, “Colonic Irrigation and the Theory of Autointoxication,” concludes that
“[c]offee enemas are a hazardous derivative of colon therapy…. Its proponents claim that caffeine is absorbed in the colon and leads to a vasodilatation in the liver, which in turn enhances the process of elimination of toxins. None of this is proved, nor is there any evidence of the clinical efficacy of coffee enemas. Coffee enemas are associated with severe adverse reactions.”
In a 1990 report from the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, 3 oncologists reviewed the “best cases” collected by Dr. Gonzalez. In the vast majority of these cases, they found claims of benefit from metabolic therapy to be unconvincing. In addition, they found a few cases to be “unusual” at best, meaning that these patients lived longer than typical people with the same type and stage of cancer but concluded that this difference was probably due to statistical variation that occurs when “best cases” are selected from a large group of patients. A group of physicians who practiced alternative medicine (none of whom were cancer specialists) concluded that the alternative regimen was beneficial in some cases.
A small study of patients with pancreatic cancer — conducted by Dr. Gonzalez and published in Nutrition and Cancer in 1999 — found that patients treated with pancreatic enzymes survived longer than typical patients with pancreatic cancer. In a recent review of alternative cancer cures, an expert in integrative oncology research methods noted that, “The study was small and obviously prone to several biases. Not only is the comparison with national averages unadjusted for confounders (other factors that can affect outcome), but the principal results are based on patient selection; twelve patients who did not comply with treatment were excluded from analysis.” A randomized clinical trial has been sponsored by the National Cancer Institute to evaluate the Gonzalez regimen for treating pancreatic cancer, but no results of this trial have yet been published in any available peer-reviewed medical journal.
Are there any possible problems or complications?
These substances may have not been thoroughly tested to find out how they interact with medicines, foods, or dietary supplements. Even though some reports of interactions and harmful effects may be published, full studies of interactions and effects are not often available. Because of these limitations, any information on ill effects and interactions below should be considered incomplete.
Some aspects of metabolic therapy are considered dangerous. There are reports of complications related to liver cell injections, as well as nutritional deficiencies due to restricted diets. Several deaths have been directly linked to injecting live cells from animals (a practice called cell therapy). The drug laetrile may cause nausea, vomiting, headache, dizziness, and even cyanide poisoning, which can be fatal. Care should be taken to make sure that any diet containing raw meat or raw meat juice is free from contamination, given the increasing number of diseases that are known to be transmitted from animals to people.
Reports of illness and even deaths linked to colonic irrigation have been published in several medical journals. (See Colon Therapy for more information.) People with diverticulitis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, severe hemorrhoids, or rectal or colon tumors, or who are recovering from bowel surgery, may be at higher risk of bowel injury when using enemas. People with kidney or heart failure may be more likely to experience fluid overload or electrolyte imbalances. Enemas can also cause discomfort and cramps.
Women who are pregnant or breast-feeding should not use this method. Relying on this type of treatment alone and avoiding or delaying conventional medical care for cancer may have serious health consequences.
[F1]If no full disclosure then would be suspect of what they are saying has any real credibility—someone here is being mislead with any credibility by hiding there secret—may see something else in them like aborted baby fetus extract—not beyond the realm of possibility
[F2]Organics is a farce and they may grow something but like the rice in the previous comment these to will have sevcre cross contamination—should not use at all—the only beer you should drink is what you make yourself
[F3]If such a thing actually exist—with cross gee tech in plants and the different levels of chemtrail activity —again the raw materials to be bough and make at home would be the best answer to drinking beer ir even wine