Sunday, June 29, 2014
Saturday, June 28, 2014
GMO Insulin Causes Type 1 Diabetes in Type 2 Diabetics, Study Finds
Posted on: Saturday, June 28th 2014 at 7:00 am
A groundbreaking new study finds synthetic (GMO) insulin is capable of rapidly producing type 1 diabetes in type 2 diabetics.
Last year, we reported on the dangers of insulin therapy for type 2 diabetics, following the publication of a study comprised of almost 85,000 type 2 diabetic patients that found insulin monotherapy doubled their risk of all-cause mortality, in addition to significantly increasing their risk for diabetes-related complications and cancer. Insulin monotherapy resulted in:
- 2.0 times more myocardial infarctions.
- 1.7 time more major adverse cardiac events
- 1.4 time more strokes
- 3.5 times more renal complications
- 2.1 time more neuropathy
- 1.2 times more eye complications
- 1.4 times more cancer
- 2.2 times more deaths
Now, a new study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism titled, "Insulin administration may trigger type 1 diabetes in Japanese type 2 diabetes patients with type 1 diabetes high-risk HLA class II and the insulin gene VNTR genotype," is shedding light on a possible explanation for why insulin treatment may accelerate morbidity and mortality in type 2 diabetics. The study revealed that giving genetically susceptible type 2 diabetes patients recombinant insulin can trigger their bodies to target their own insulin producing cells for autoimmune destruction, effectively producing 'double diabetes': type 1 and type 2, as a result.
The Japanese study took 6 patients (4 men and 2 women) with type 2 diabetes, none of whom had previously received insulin therapy nor had markers for autoantibodies to their own insulin (e.g. GAD65). All patients were found to have the type 1 diabetes susceptibility gene known as type 1 diabetes high risk HLA class II (IDDM1), which is considered to play a role in up to 50% of type 1 diabetes cases, and the insulin gene VNTR genotype (IDDM2), believed to play a key role in susceptibility to type 2 diabetes.
After recombinant insulin administration their blood glucose control deteriorated, and their own insulin producing beta cells – as measured by declining C-peptide levels (a marker for the production of natural insulin) – decreased insulin production to a deficiency levels commonly found in type 1 diabetes patients. The average time it took for the patients to develop full blown type 1 diabetes was 7.7 months, with one patient developing the condition within 1.1 months.
Further tests revealed that the patients had antibodies against their own pancreatic islet cells (the cells responsible for producing insulin), insulin allergy or increased levels of insulin antibody. Additionally, 2 of 4 cases were found to have GAD-reactive and insulin peptide reactive Th1 cells, typical markers of autoimmunity induced type 1 diabetes.
The researchers concluded from their findings:
"The findings suggest that insulin administration may have triggered TIDM in patients with T2DM. IDDM1 and IDDM 2 as well as autoreactive T cells may contribute to the development of T1DM. Developing insulin-triggered T1DM if a patient's blood glucose control acutely deteriorates after insulin administration should be carefully considered."
The researchers also pointed out that there are a number trials underway to produce vaccines containing insulin intended to induce a 'tolerogenic immune response' and therefore ameliorate autoimmune type 1 diabetes. Clearly, however, their findings run contrary to this expectation, revealing that it is possible that introducing exogenous forms of insulin may stimulate the opposite reaction and induced autoimmunity against the hormone, or the cells in the pancreas responsible for producing it.
Discussion: GMO Insulin Not the Same As Animal Derived Insulin
A possible explanation for these results lies in the difference between today's synthetic insulin and insulin purified from animals such as pigs (porcine insulin), which is no longer available in countries like the U.S.
Insulin was actually the first protein to be synthesized with recombinant DNA (GMO) technology in the late 1970s, and today, products like Lantus (insulin glargine [rDNA origin] injection) dominate the market. According to Sanofi, Lantus' manufacturer their form is produced "by recombinant DNA technology utilizing a non-pathogenic laboratory strain of Escherichia coli (K12) as the production organism." Synthetic insulin is classified as an insulin analog that differs significantly from human insulin in its primary amino acid structure: "Insulin glargine differs from human insulin in that the amino acid asparagine at position A21 is replaced by glycine and two arginines are added to the C-terminus of the B-chain." Lantus' formulation also contains various 'inactive ingredients,' such as:
- hydrochloric acid
- sodium hydroxide (lye)
- m-cresol (a coal tar derivative)
- polysorbate 20
The simultaneous injection of these antigenic ingredients along with synthetic insulin could be responsible for hypersensitizing the immune system against insulin in the same way that inactive and adjuvant ingredients in vaccines induce exaggerated immune reactions against the 'active' vaccine antigen (e.g. the viral or bacterial antigen) which sometimes results in the immune system attacking self-structures (autoimmunity). Furthermore, synthetic insulin does not have the same conformational state – i.e. it does not assume the same complex folded form – of natural human insulin, or more closely related pig insulin. This presents a 'recognition' problem from the perspective of the immune system which may identify the foreign protein as 'other' generating acute or sustained autoimmune reactions to it as a result.
[The structure of insulin. The left side is a space-filling model of the insulin monomer. On the right side is a ribbon diagram of the insulin hexamer (6 insulin molecules conjoined), believed to be the stored form. Source: Wikipedia]
According to a 1993 paper on recombinant human insulin, "Bacterially expressed proteins normally lack any secondary structure or post-translational modifications" – a highly significant fact, considering that complex proteins such as hormones actually have four levels of folding complexity: primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary, all of which together determine the protein's natural structure and therefore its function. In fact, this complexity is so immense that Levinthal's paradox states a fully folded protein (i.e., one that has attained its native conformation) must pass through such a large number of degrees of freedom to reach its native state that there is not enough time in the universe for it to move through all possible configurations to the one it was designed by nature to assume. Obviously, if synthetic insulin is not capable of obtaining the same 3-dimensional structure as natural insulin, nor is modified post-translationally through epigenetic regulatory processes, it cannot behave in the same way as natural insulin in the body, and would likely be identified as 'other' by the immune system, if not also cellular insulin receptors.
Research dating back to the early 1980s compared synthetic E. Coli derived insulin with porcine (pig) derived insulin in diabetic children and found that porcine insulin was more effective at lowering HbA1 values (a marker of damage associated with elevated blood sugar), superior at reducing fasting glucose concentrations, and less antibody reactive to insulin than synthetic insulin.  While pig derived insulin has its limitations, especially considering there are limits to how much can be produced, clearly it is more appropriate than synthetic versions if it is true that the latter is incapable of reproducing the same therapeutic outcome for diabetics.
Natural Approaches To Diabetes Prevention and Treatment are the Future
In a previous article on natural interventions for type 1 diabetes, 10 Natural Substances That Could Help Cure Type 1 Diabetes, we focused on the biomedical literature supporting the role of beta cell (insulin producing cell) regenerating foods and natural substances in addressing one of the root causes of type 1 diabetes.
The future of medicine will look to identifying and removing the causes of conditions like diabetes, instead of employing patented synthetic drugs and synthetic replacement therapies (which feed the deficiency), palliatively -- especially considering the new research indicating they actually make the patient far worse. Also, diet is the #1 factor in the pathogenesis of most chronic conditions that afflict the modern world; more specifically, the consumption of foods or food-like products that deviate from our ancestral diets generate the physiological conditions that produce disease in the first place. Addressing the dietary causes and incompatibilities and many 'diseases' decelerate and may even regress.
For additional research on the topic of regenerative medicine and diabetes you can consult the articles 6 Bodily Tissues that Can Be Regenerated Through Nutrition and Diabetes: An Entirely Preventable and Reversible Disease. Or, visit our Health Guide on Blood Sugar Disorders.
Also, if you missed the author's presentation on "What Medical Science Says About Reversing Diabetes" for the Reversing Diabetes World Summit, the all access digital package is still available here.
 Harrison LC, et al Antigen-based vaccination and prevention of type 1 diabetes. Curr Diab Rep . 2013;13:616–623.
 N P Mann, et al Human insulin and porcine insulin in the treatment of diabetic children: comparison of metabolic control and insulin antibody production. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). Nov 26, 1983; 287(6405): 1580–1582.
Friday, June 27, 2014
Posted on: Friday, June 8th 2012 at 2:15 pm
While a growing body of research now suggests that x-ray mammography is causing more harm than good in the millions of women who subject themselves to breast screenings, annually, without knowledge of their true health risks, the primary focus has been on the harms associated with over-diagnosis and over-treatment, and not the radiobiological dangers of the procedure itself.
In 2006, a paper published in the British Journal of Radiobiology, titled "Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme," revealed the type of radiation used in x-ray-based breast screenings is much more carcinogenic than previously believed:
Recent radiobiological studies have provided compelling evidence that the low energy X-rays as used in mammography are approximately four times - but possibly as much as six times - more effective in causing mutational damage than higher energy X-rays. Since current radiation risk estimates are based on the effects of high energy gamma radiation, this implies that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancers for mammography X-rays are underestimated by the same factor.
In other words, the radiation risk model used to determine whether the benefit of breast screenings in asymptomatic women outweighs their harm, underestimates the risk of mammography-induced breast and related cancers by between 4-600%.
The authors continued
Risk estimates for radiation-induced cancer – principally derived from the atomic bomb survivor study (ABSS) – are based on the effects of high energy gamma-rays and thus the implication is that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancer arising from mammography may be higher than that assumed based on standard risks estimates.
This is not the only study to demonstrate mammography X-rays are more carcinogenic than atomic bomb spectrum radiation. There is also an extensive amount of data on the downside of x-ray mammography.
Sadly, even if one uses the outdated radiation risk model (which underestimates the harm done),* the weight of the scientific evidence (as determined by the work of The Cochrane Collaboration) actually shows that breast screenings are in all likelihood not doing any net good in those who undergo them.
In a 2009 Cochrane Database Systematic Review,** also known as the Gøtzsche and Nielsen's Cochrane Review, titled "Screening for breast cancer with mammography," the authors revealed the tenuous statistical justifications for mass breast screenings:
Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm.
In this review, the basis for estimating unnecessary treatment was the 35% increased risk of surgery among women who underwent screenings. Many of the surgeries, in fact, were the result of women being diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a "cancer" that would not exists as a clinically relevant entity were it not for the fact that it is detectable through x-ray mammography. DCIS, in the vast majority of cases, has no palpable lesion or symptoms, and some experts believe it should be completely reclassified as a non-cancerous condition.
cent study published in the British Medical Journal in 2011 titled, "Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modeling of Forrest report," not only confirmed the Gøtzsche and Nielsen's Cochrane Review findings, but found the situation likely worse:
This analysis supports the claim that the introduction of breast cancer screening might have caused net harm for up to 10 years after the start of screening.
So, let's assume that these reviews are correct, and at the very least, the screenings are not doing any good, and at worst, causing more harm than good. The salient question, however, is how much more harm than good? If we consider that, according to data from Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2011), a mammogram uses 4 mSv of radiation vs. the .02 mSv of your average chest x-ray (which is 200 times more radiation), and then, we factor in the 4-600% higher genotoxicity/carcinogenicity associated with the specific "low-energy" wavelengths used in mammography, it is highly possible that beyond the epidemic of over-diagnosis and over-treatment, mammograms are planting seeds of radiation-induced cancer within the breasts of millions of women.***
With the advent of non-ionizing radiation based diagnostic technologies, such as thermography, it has become vitally important that patients educate themselves about the alternatives to x-ray mammography that already exist. Until then, we must use our good sense - and research like this - to inform our decisions, and as far as the unintended adverse effects of radiation go, erring on the side of caution whenever possible.
*This discrepancy in radiation risk models/estimates follows from two fundamental problems: 1) the older risk model was based on higher-energy radiation emissions, such as are given off from atomic bomb blasts 2) it was a crude model, developed before the discovery of DNA and a full understanding of radiotoxicity/genotoxicity.
** Keep in mind that the Cochrane Database Review is at the top of the "food chain" of truth, in the highly touted "evidence-based model" of conventional medicine. Cochrane Database Reviews are produced by The Cochrane Collaboration, which is internationally recognized as the benchmark for high quality, evidence-based information concerning the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of common health care interventions. The organization, comprised of over 28,000 dedicated people from over 100 countries, prides itself on being an "independent" source of information, and historically has not been afraid to point out the corrupting influence of industry, which increasingly co-opts the biomedical research and publishing fields.
***The low-energy wavelengths cause double strand breaks within the DNA of susceptible cells, which the cell can not repair. Through time these mutations result in "neoplastic transformation"; radiation has the ability to induce a cancerous phenotype within formerly healthy cells that has cancer stem cell-like (CSC) properties.
 Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme. Br J Radiol. 2006 Mar ;79(939):195-200. PMID: 16498030
 Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009(4):CD001877. Epub 2009 Oct 7. PMID: 19821284
Posted on: Wednesday, July 31st 2013 at 7:00 am
A devastating new report commissioned by the National Cancer Institute reveals that our 40-year long 'War on Cancer' has been waged against a vastly misunderstood 'enemy,' that in many cases represented no threat to human health whatsoever.
If you have been following our advocacy work on cancer, particularly in connection with the dark side of breast cancer awareness month, you know that we have been calling for the complete reclassification of some types of 'breast cancer' as benign lesions, e.g. ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), as well as pointing out repeatedly that x-ray based breast screenings are not only highly carcinogenic but are also causing an epidemic of "overdiagnosis" and "overtreatment" in US women, with an estimated 1.3 million cases in the past 30 years alone.
This week, a National Cancer Institute commissioned panel's report published in JAMA online confirmed that we all – public and professionals alike – should stop calling low-risk lesions like DCIS and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) 'cancer.'
There are wide-reaching implications to this recommendation, including:
- Millions of women in this country have been diagnosed with DCIS, and millions of men with HGPIN, and subsequently [mis]treated. Are they now to be retroactively reclassified as 'victims' of iatrogenesis, with legal recourse to seek compensation?
- Anyone engaged in a cancer screening will now need to reconsider and weigh both the risks and benefits of such a 'preventive' strategy, considering that the likelihood of being diagnosed with a false positive over 10 years is already over 50% for women undergoing annual breast screening.
- The burgeoning pink ribbon-bedecked 'breast cancer awareness' industry will be forced to reformulate its message, as it is theoretically culpable for the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of millions of US women by propagating an entirely false concept of 'cancer.'
As reported by Medscape:
The practice of oncology in the United States is in need of a host of reforms and initiatives to mitigate the problem of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of cancer, according to a working group sanctioned by the National Cancer Institute.
Perhaps most dramatically, the group says that a number of premalignant conditions, including ductal carcinoma in situ and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, should no longer be called "cancer."
Instead, the conditions should be labeled something more appropriate, such as indolent lesions of epithelial origin (IDLE), the working group suggests. The Viewpoint report was published online July 29 in JAMA.
Fundamentally, overdiagnosis results from the fact that screen-detected 'cancers' are disproportionately slower growing ones, present with few to no symptoms, and would never progress to cause harm if left undiagnosed and untreated.
As you can see by the graph above, it is the fast-growing tumors which will be more difficult to 'detect early,' and will progress rapidly enough to cause symptoms and perhaps even death unless treated aggressively. But even in the case of finding the tumor early enough to contain it through surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiation, it is well-known that the minority subpopulation of cancer stem cells within these tumors will be enriched and therefore made more malignant through conventional treatment. For instance, radiotherapy radiation wavelengths were only recently found by UCLA Jonnsson Comprehensive Cancer Center researchers to transform breast cancer cells into highly malignant cancer stem-cell like cells, with 30 times higher malignancy post-treatment.
What this means is that not only are millions of screen-detected abnormalities not 'cancer' in the first place but even those which can be considered fast-growing are often being driven into greater malignancy by the conventional chemotherapy, radiation and surgery-based standard of cancer care itself.
Our entire world view of cancer needs to shift from an enemy that "attacks" us and that we must wage war against, to something our body does, presumably to survive an increasingly inhospitable, nutrient-deprived, carcinogen- and radiation-saturated environment, i.e. Cancer As An Ancient Survival Mechanism Unmasked.
When we look at cancer through the optic of fear and see it as an essentially chaos-driven infinitely expanding mass of cells, we are apt to make irrational choices. The physiological state of fear itself has been found to activate multidrug resistance proteins within cancer cells, explaining how our very perception of cancer can influence and/or determine its physiological status and/or trajectory within our body.
The NCI panel report opined:
"The word "cancer" often invokes the specter of an inexorably lethal process; however, cancers are heterogeneous and can follow multiple paths, not all of which progress to metastases and death, and include indolent disease that causes no harm during the patient's lifetime."
For more details on what our founder Sayer Ji calls the "Cancer Malignancy Meme," see his video presentation at the Mind Body Week DC conference, wherein he discuss the 'Rise of Biomedicine' within the context of the mind-body connection, and breast cancer overdiagnosis in particular.
We must keep in mind that this proposed redefinition of cancer is no small academic matter, but will affect the lives of millions of women. Consider that every year, approximately 60,000 women in this country are diagnosed with DCIS, a diagnosis so traumatic that it results in significant psychiatric depression 3 years after even a 'false positive' diagnosis. For those less fortunate women, numbering in the millions over the past 30 years, who were told they had 'cancer' and needed to undergo lumpectomy, radiation, chemotherapy and/or mastectomy, the NCI panel's recommendation is a hard pill swallow after the damage has already been irrevocably done.
So, what's the solution? There is a growing movement towards the use of thermography as a primary diagnostic tool, as it uses no ionizing radiation, and can detect the underlying physiological processes that may indicate inflammation, angiogenesis, cancer-specific metabolic changes, etc., many years before a calcified lesion would appear within an x-ray mammogram. Also, the mainstay of any truly preventive strategy against cancer is diet, nutrition, exercise and avoiding chemical and radiation exposures – the things that we can do in our daily lives to take back control of and responsibility for our health.
For related research read 'Hidden Dangers' of Mammograms Every Woman Should Know About
Thursday, June 26, 2014
June 26, 2014 | 99,379 views
By Dr. Mercola
Most public health agencies and nutritionists in the United States still recommend no- or low-calorie artificial sweeteners as an acceptable, and even preferred, alternative to sugar. This flawed advice can have very serious repercussions for those who follow it.
Artificial sweeteners of all kinds have been found to wreak havoc with your health in a number of different ways. Aspartame, which is perhaps the worst of the bunch, has a long list of studies indicating its harmful effects, ranging from brain damage to pre-term delivery.
Aspartame is also the number one source of side effect complaints to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with over 10,000 complaints filed and over 91 documented symptoms related to its consumption.
Most recently, studies are also starting to confirm lingering suspicions that artificial sweeteners like aspartame may play a role in the development of Alzheimer's disease, a serious form of dementia that is now thought to kill over half a million Americans each year.
The key mechanism of harm appears to be methanol toxicity—a much-ignored problem associated with aspartame in particular.
In a previous interview, toxicology expert Dr. Woodrow Monte (author of the book While Science Sleeps: A Sweetener Kills1), explained the links between aspartame and methanol toxicity and the formation of formaldehyde. In light of the latest research, this interview is more relevant than ever, which is why I included it again.
Methanol Toxicity Leads to Persistent Alzheimer's Symptoms
A recently published two-part paper2, 3 highlights what Dr. Monte has been saying for many years now—that methanol acts differently in animals and humans. In this case, the researchers also discovered changes in effect between mice and rhesus monkeys.
Methanol-fed mice presented with partial "Alzheimer's disease-like symptoms," while rhesus monkeys fed a 3% methanol solution developed persistent pathological changes related to the development of Alzheimer's. According to the authors:
"A recently established link between formaldehyde, a methanol metabolite, and Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology has provided a new impetus to investigate the chronic effects of methanol exposure.
This paper expands this investigation to the non-human primate, rhesus macaque... [M]ethanol feeding led to persistent memory decline in the monkeys that lasted 6 months beyond the feeding regimen...
Most notably, the presence of amyloid plaque formations in the monkeys highlighted a marked difference in animal systems used in AD investigations, suggesting that the innate defenses in mice against methanol toxicity may have limited previous investigations into AD pathology.
Nonetheless, these findings support a growing body of evidence that links methanol and its metabolite formaldehyde to AD pathology." [Emphasis mine]
The Link Between Aspartame and Methanol Toxicity
The artificial sweetener industry (and makers of artificially sweetened products) has fervently claimed that aspartame is harmless, and that there's "no biological explanation" for the health problems reported by so many after consuming aspartame.
But as explained by Dr. Monte, there is indeed a biological and scientific explanation for aspartame's pathway of harm, and as the latest research suggests, it's related to the effects of methanol and formaldehyde, both of which are extremely toxic.
Aspartame is primarily made up of aspartic acid and phenylalanine—the latter of which has been synthetically modified to carry a methyl group. This is what provides the majority of the sweetness. That phenylalanine methyl bond, called a methyl ester, is very weak, allowing the methyl group on the phenylalanine to easily break off and form methanol.
You may have heard the claim that aspartame is harmless because methanol is also found in fruits and vegetables. However, in these whole foods the methanol is firmly bonded to pectin, which allows it to be safely passed through your digestive tract. This is not the case for the methanol created by aspartame. There, it's not bonded to anything that can help eliminate it from your body. That's problem number one...
Problem number two relates to the fact that humans are the only mammals who are NOT equipped with a protective biological mechanism that breaks down methanol into harmless formic acid. This is why animal testing of aspartame does not fully apply to humans.
According to Dr. Monte, the fact that methyl alcohol is metabolized differently in humans compared to other animals has been known since 1940. And according to the featured paper, rhesus monkeys do not appear to have the same defenses against methanol toxicity as mice do. This basically negates much of the animal research that has been used to "prove" aspartame's safety.
Methanol Acts as a Trojan Horse in Your Body
As explained by Dr. Monte, in humans, methanol ends up acting as a Trojan horse, allowing toxic formaldehyde to wreak havoc in some of your most sensitive areas, such as your brain. Here's how it works: both animals and humans have small structures called peroxisomes in each cell. There are a couple of hundred in every cell of your body, which are designed to detoxify a variety of chemicals. Peroxisome contains catalase, which help detoxify methanol.
Your cells also contain alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), which converts methanol to formaldehyde. Other chemicals in the peroxisome in turn convert the formaldehyde to formic acid, which is harmless—but this last step occurs only in animals. Human peroxisomes cannot convert the toxic formaldehyde into harmless formic acid.
Certain locations in your body, particularly in the lining of your blood vessels, and in your brain, are loaded with ADH that converts methanol to formaldehyde. But since there's no catalase present, the formaldehyde does not get converted into harmless formic acid. As a result, the formaldehyde is free to do enormous amounts of damage in your tissues.
Symptoms of methanol poisoning include: headaches, ear buzzing, dizziness, nausea, gastrointestinal disturbances, weakness, vertigo, chills, memory lapses, numbness, and shooting pains in the extremities, behavioral disturbances, and neuritis. The most well known problems from methanol poisoning are vision problems including misty vision, progressive contraction of visual fields, blurring of vision, obscuration of vision, retinal damage, and blindness. Formaldehyde, in turn, is a known carcinogen that causes retinal damage, interferes with DNA replication, and may cause birth defects.
Processed Foods Are Also High in Methanol
As I've discussed in previous articles, processed foods should be avoided as a proactive Alzheimer's prevention strategy. In his book, Grain Brain, neurologist Dr. Perlmutter reveals how the toxic activity of sugar and carbohydrates in your diet promote Alzheimer's disease. But we can also add methanol to the list of reasons for avoiding processed foods. Not only do many processed foods contain artificial sweeteners, but when fruits and vegetables are canned, for example, the methanol becomes liberated from the pectin.
At room temperature, it only takes one month for 10 percent of the methanol to be released. After about six months, virtually all of the methanol is liberated. Dr. Monte is convinced that methanol and the subsequent conversion to formaldehyde from certain processed foods (see listing below), as well as all foods containing aspartame, are a major culprit in a variety of diseases, especially multiple sclerosis (MS).
Again, methanol can slip through your blood brain barrier, and your brain is one of the areas where you find alcohol dehydrogenase, which converts methyl alcohol to formaldehyde. This causes the destruction of myelin basic protein, which is one of the triggers for MS. Demyelination also plays a role in the development of Alzheimer's and several other brain-related diseases. According to Dr. Monte:
"We know that methyl alcohol is known to be a demyelinating agent... [T]he symptoms associated with the demyelination... are identical between multiple sclerosis, and methanol poisoning, and people who consume aspartame."
He believes many diseases can be prevented if we start avoiding methanol from all sources, and he even offers a methanol-free diet on his website.4 Items to avoid include:
Tomato sauces, unless first simmered at least 3 hours, no lid on pan
Diet foods and drinks with aspartame
Smoked food of any kind, particularly fish and meat
Fruit and vegetable products and their juices in bottles, cans, or pouches
Chewing gum, as most chewing gum in the USA contains aspartame
Jellies, jams, and marmalades not made fresh and kept refrigerated
Slivovitz and other fruit schnapps
Black currant and tomato juice products, fresh or processed
Overly ripe or near rotting fruits or vegetables
The Neurotoxic Properties of Splenda
Another popular artificial sweetener is sucralose, sold under the brand name Splenda. Sucralose is a synthetic chemical created in a five-step patented process, in which three chlorine molecules are added to one sucrose (sugar) molecule. Some will argue that natural foods also contain chloride, which is true. However, in natural foods, the chloride is connected with ionic bonds that easily dissociate when ingested. In Splenda, they're in a covalent bond that does not dissociate.
And, since your body has no enzymes to break down this covalently bound chloride, harm can ensue... The reason why your body has no enzymes for this task is because, in nature, there are NO covalent chloride bonds to organic compounds—they only exist in synthetic, man-made form. Aside from Splenda, other examples of synthetic covalently bound chloride compounds include DDT, PCBs, and Agent Orange.
Previous research indicates that about 15 percent of sucralose is absorbed into your digestive system, and ultimately stored in your body fat. A 2008 animal study5 found that Splenda reduced the amount of beneficial intestinal bacteria by 50 percent, increased the intestinal pH level, and affected a glycoprotein that can have crucial health effects, particularly if you're on certain medications.
More recent research6 detailing Splenda's oxidative effects, suggests the sweetener may have neurotoxic properties, which doesn't surprise me in the least. The researchers, who assessed the effects of sucralose on water fleas, concluded that: "exposure to sucralose may induce neurological and oxidative mechanisms with potentially important consequences for animal behavior and physiology." As reported by GreenMedInfo.com:7
"Like so many novel patented chemicals released onto the market without adequate pre-approval safety studies, we do not know if this preliminary toxicological research will be applicable to human exposures. In fact, there are only 318 study citations on this chemical in existence since it first began to be researched in the 70's. This most recent study is the first in existence to look at its effect on the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, which is found in all animals.
This information deficit is all the more remarkable when you consider there are over 7,000 published studies in existence on either turmeric or its primary polyphenol curcumin, which is still not readily administered by the conventional medical establishment mostly due to 'safety concerns,' despite what the voluminous positive data on its relevance to over 600 health conditions indicates."
FDA Approval Means Little When It Comes to Ascertaining Safety
As previously noted by Dr. Janet Hull,8 many tend to excuse the negative health effects of aspartame simply because it has received the stamp of approval by the FDA. But as discussed in her article, "Abusing the FDA Approval Process,"9 the FDA requires that the industry do its own research, and actually places the burden of proof on the company making the product. Rarely is the industry research reviewed by independent researchers. Should you still be confused on this issue, thinking that the buck somehow stops at the FDA, FDA spokesman Theresa Eisenman recently clarified who is ultimately responsible for making sure a food product is safe, stating that:10 "Manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their food products are safe and lawful..."
But what company would really make a serious effort to find problems with the very products they want to capitalize on? Despite this illogical premise, the FDA trusts corporations to be honest in their research and evaluations. How likely do you think it is that this "honor system" will actually ensure that each product released to market is safe?
When it comes to artificial sweeteners, aspartame in particular, there's no doubt in my mind that the system has protected industry profits at consumers' expense. And we've not seen the last of it. Despite mounting evidence showing that artificial sweeteners as a group have adverse health effects, the FDA has just approved yet another artificial sweetener called Advantame,11, 12, 13 concocted from a combination of aspartame and vanillin, an artificial vanilla flavor.
Being 20,000 times sweeter than refined sugar, Advantame is the sweetest artificial sweetener so far. To put this into perspective, aspartame, sucralose, and saccharine range from 200 to 700 times sweeter than sugar. Also, as reported by the LA Times:14
"Like aspartame, advantame contains phenylalanine, which is metabolized with difficulty by people with a rare genetic disorder, phenylketonuria. But because of its intense sweetness, advantame would be used at much lower volumes than is asparatame. As a result, the FDA has declared that it can be safely consumed by those with phenylketonuria."
Having a Hard Time Giving Up Artificial Sweeteners?
When you consume artificial sweeteners, your brain actually craves more calories because your body receives no satisfaction on a cellular level by the sugar imposter. This can contribute to not only overeating and weight gain, but also an addiction to artificial sweeteners. To break free, I recommend addressing any emotional component of your food cravings using a tool such as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT). A version of EFT specifically geared toward combating sugar cravings is called Turbo Tapping. The video below with EFT practitioner Julie Schiffman also demonstrates how to use EFT to fight food cravings of all kinds.
If you still have cravings after trying EFT or Turbo Tapping, you may need to make some changes to your diet. My free nutrition plan can help you do this in a step-by-step fashion. As for safer sweetener options, you could use stevia or Luo Han, both of which are safe natural sweeteners. That said, if you struggle with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes or extra weight, then you have insulin sensitivity issues and would likely benefit from avoiding ALL sweeteners.
Last but not least, if you experience side effects from aspartame or any other artificial sweetener, please report it to the FDA (if you live in the United States) without delay. It's easy to make a report — just go to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator page, find the phone number for your state, and make a call reporting your reaction.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Posted on: Monday, June 23rd 2014 at 5:15 pm
We all want to live a long life, but did you know eating these simple foods has been proven scientifically to prevent and in some cases reverse the #1 cause of death in the modern world?
Statistically, atherosclerosis (the progressive clogging of the arteries) is the #1 killer on the planet. A complex process, involving autoimmunity, infection, dietary incompatibilities, and many known and unknown factors, it is – despite conventional medical opinion – entirely preventable, and in some cases reversible.
Here is the peer-reviewed, published research proving the fact:
- B Vitamins – yes, something as simple as adding a source of B-complex to your regimen can prevent the juggernaut of heart disease from taking your life prematurely. A doubled-blind, randomized study, published in 2005, in the journal Atherosclerosis found that a simple intervention using 2.5 mg folic acid, 25 mg Vitamin B6, and 0.5mg Vitamin B12 for 1 year, resulted in significant reductions in arterial thickness (as measured by intima media thickeness). Even niacin-or folic acid- alone has been show to have this effect in patients. [Note: Always opt for natural sources of the B-group vitamins, including probiotic supplementation (which produce the entire complement for you), or a whole food extract, versus synthetic or semi-synthetic vitamins which, sadly, predominate on the market today].
- Garlic – as we have documented extensively previously, garlic can save your life. It has been found to regress plaque buildup in the arteries, among many other potentially life-saving health benefits.
- Pomegranate – this super healing fruit has been found to regress plaque buildup in the arteries,- as well as being demonstrated to provide dozens of validated health benefits, including replacing the function of the mammalian ovary!
- Fermented Cabbage – Kimchi, a Korean recipe, which includes fermented cabbage, hot pepper, and various other ingredients, including fermented fish, appears to stall the atherosclerotic process in the animal model. Additionally, strains of good bacteria in kimchi have been found capable of degrading toxic chemicals that can additional bodily harm.
- L-Arginine: This amino acid is capable of preventing arterial thickening – up to 24% reduction! -- in the animal model.-We have done an extensive literature review on arginine supplementation and have found that in over 30 studies demonstrating this fact addition to 150 known health benefits, it is capable of addressing the underlying dysfunction associated with cardiovascular disease: endothelial dysfunction, with no less than 20 studies proving this fact.
- Turmeric (curcumin): the primary polyphenol in the Indian spice turmeric known as curcumin has been found to be an excellent cardioprotective, with over 30 studies demonstrating this fact. One study found that curcumin prevented damage to the arteries associated with blockage (neointima formation).
- Sesame Seed: probably one of the most underappreciated super foods on the planet, sesame seed, which we have shown is as effective as Tylenol for arthritic pain, may be an excellent cardioprotective substance, ideally suited for preventing the progression of atherosclerosis. One animal study found it was capable of preventing atherosclerosis lesion formation.
This is a small sample of evidence-based natural interventions for cardiovascular disease prevention and/or regression. We have a much larger set of studies on over 200 natural substances capable of reducing the risk of heart attack and related heart disease related conditions.
Remember, heart disease is not a natural process, that we must accept as inevitable based on family history of an outdated gene-based model of human disease risk. Our daily decisions, especially regarding what we decide we are going to eat or do not eat, are first and foremost. We can use food as medicine, sloughing off the pharmaceutical industry meme that we need statins to stave off the 'inevitable.' Take back control of your health with nutrition, and realize that food is the only medicine that will both nourish us and heal our bodies in a way that will produce lasting health.
 Uwe Till, Peter Röhl, Almut Jentsch, Heiko Till, Andreas Müller, Klaus Bellstedt, Dietmar Plonné, Horst S Fink, Rüdiger Vollandt, Ulrich Sliwka, Falko H Herrmann, Henning Petermann, Reiner Riezler. Decrease of carotid intima-media thickness in patients at risk to cerebral ischemia after supplementation with folic acid, Vitamins B6 and B12. Atherosclerosis. 2005 Jul;181(1):131-5. Epub 2005 Feb 16. PMID: 15939064
 Allen J Taylor, Hyun J Lee, Lance E Sullenberger. The effect of 24 months of combination statin and extended-release niacin on carotid intima-media thickness: ARBITER 3. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 Nov;22(11):2243-50 PMID: 17076985
 M Thoenes, A Oguchi, S Nagamia, C S Vaccari, R Hammoud, G E Umpierrez, B V Khan. The effects of extended-release niacin on carotid intimal media thickness, endothelial function and inflammatory markers in patients with the metabolic syndrome. Int J Clin Pract. 2007 Nov;61(11):1942-8. PMID: 17935553
 George Ntaios, Christos Savopoulos, Dimitrios Karamitsos, Ippoliti Economou, Evangelos Destanis, Ioannis Chryssogonidis, Ifigenia Pidonia, Pantelis Zebekakis, Christos Polatides, Michael Sion, Dimitrios Grekas, Apostolos Hatzitolios. The effect of folic acid supplementation on carotid intima-media thickness in patients with cardiovascular risk: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Int J Cardiol. 2009 Feb 6. PMID: 19201496
 T P Smith, C P Cruz, A T Brown, J F Eidt, M M Moursi. Folate supplementation inhibits intimal hyperplasia induced by a high-homocysteine diet in a rat carotid endarterectomy model. J Vasc Surg. 2001 Sep;34(3):474-81. PMID: 11533600
 G Siegel, A Walter, S Engel, A Walper, F Michel. [Pleiotropic effects of garlic]. Wien Med Wochenschr. 1999;149(8-10):217-24. PMID: 10483684
 Michael Aviram, Mira Rosenblat, Diana Gaitini, Samy Nitecki, Aaron Hoffman, Leslie Dornfeld, Nina Volkova, Dita Presser, Judith Attias, Harley Liker, Tony Hayek. Pomegranate juice consumption for 3 years by patients with carotid artery stenosis reduces common carotid intima-media thickness, blood pressure and LDL oxidation. Clin Nutr. 2004 Jun;23(3):423-33. PMID: 15158307
Article Published Date : Jun 01, 2004
 Michael H Davidson, Kevin C Maki, Mary R Dicklin, Steven B Feinstein, Marysue Witchger, Marjorie Bell, Darren K McGuire, Jean-Claude Provost, Harley Liker, Michael Aviram. Effects of consumption of pomegranate juice on carotid intima-media thickness in men and women at moderate risk for coronary heart disease. Am J Cardiol. 2009 Oct 1;104(7):936-42. PMID: 19766760
 Hyun Ju Kim, Jin Su Lee, Hae Young Chung, Su Hee Song, Hongsuk Suh, Jung Sook Noh, Yeong Ok Song. 3-(4'-hydroxyl-3',5'-dimethoxyphenyl)propionic acid, an active principle of kimchi, inhibits development of atherosclerosis in rabbits. J Agric Food Chem. 2007 Dec 12;55(25):10486-92. Epub 2007 Nov 16. PMID: 18004805
 M G Davies, H Dalen, J H Kim, L Barber, E Svendsen, P O Hagen. Control of accelerated vein graft atheroma with the nitric oxide precursor: L-arginine. J Surg Res. 1995 Jul;59(1):35-42. PMID: 7630134
 Mehdi Nematbakhsh, Shaghayegh Haghjooyjavanmard, Farzaneh Mahmoodi, Ali Reza Monajemi. The prevention of endothelial dysfunction through endothelial cell apoptosis inhibition in a hypercholesterolemic rabbit model: the effect of L-arginine supplementation. Lipids Health Dis. 2008;7:27. Epub 2008 Aug 2. PMID: 18673573
 Xiaoping Yang, D Paul Thomas, Xiaochun Zhang, Bruce W Culver, Brenda M Alexander, William J Murdoch, Mysore N A Rao, David A Tulis, Jun Ren, Nair Sreejayan. Curcumin inhibits platelet-derived growth factor-stimulated vascular smooth muscle cell function and injury-induced neointima formation. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2006 Jan;26(1):85-90. Epub 2005 Oct 20. PMID: 16239599
 Shylesh Bhaskaran, Nalini Santanam, Meera Penumetcha, Sampath Parthasarathy. Inhibition of atherosclerosis in low-density lipoprotein receptor-negative mice by sesame oil. J Med Food. 2006 Winter;9(4) PMID: 17201634
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Monday, June 23, 2014
Posted on: Monday, June 23rd 2014 at 5:30 am
What do we really know about ovarian cancer risk and the 'gene mutations' considered largely responsible for increasing it? The answer is quite surprising and opens up the possibility for a radical change in how we diagnosis and treat the most lethal gynecological cancer in existence.
Ovarian cancer strikes fear into the hearts of women, their families, and their doctors, alike. Risks of false positive diagnosis leading to a treatment that has been demonstrated to result in the worst outcomes of any gynecologic cancer have led the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to recommend against routine screening.
The real tragedy – largely still unacknowledged – is that ovarian cancer statistics are not transparent to the fact that five times more women without ovarian cancer end up having surgery than those with ovarian cancer, according to a 2011 JAMA retrospective study of ovarian cancer screening.
The JAMA trial of 78,216 women found that those in the intervention group who underwent annual screening for ovarian cancer (39,105) evaluating serum cancer antigen (CA-125) for 6 years and transvaginal ultrasound for 4 years, were far more likely to receive a false-positive diagnosis (3,285 women) than an accurate positive cancer diagnosis (212 women). 32.9 percent of the false positives – 1,080 women -- opted for oophorectomy surgery (surgical removal of one or both ovaries), a fact that can not fully convey the untold suffering, morbidity and decrease in lifespan they experienced as a result of these medical 'mistakes.' For instance, we know from breast cancer research that even when women receive false positive diagnoses that are soon followed by corrective cancer-free diagnoses, the negative psychosocial outcomes of the shock of false diagnosis persist for at least 3 years. [See: Hidden Dangers of Mammograms That Every Woman Should Know.]
In other words, being diagnosed and being treated for ovarian cancer is not the same as actually having it. The ovarian cancer statistics, however, do not take this into account, making the problem of 'ovarian cancer' look much larger than the problem of medical iatrogenesis itself. The fear created by this disingenuous representation of the problem, further amplifies the fear that drives even more presumably healthy women into overdiagnosis and overtreatment, feeding this vicious cycle – a cycle occurring on an epidemic scale with other screen-detected 'cancers,' such as breast, prostate, lung and thyroid. [See: Millions Wrongly Treated for 'Cancer,' National Cancer Institute Panel Confirms.]
Presumably, family history and so-called BRCA gene status are the best method to determine your risk. And today, with high profile figures like Angelina Jolie removing her breasts and soon her ovaries due to what she is being told is her extremely elevated risk associated with her family history and BRCA status, millions around the world are now looking at Jolie's decision as a viable method to 'take back control' of their health vis-à-vis cancer. The Orwellian result? 'Prevention' is being equated with the removal of non-diseased organs.
But are BRCA mutations – technically, BRCA single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), of which there are hundreds– really the primary drivers of ovarian cancer risk? Is being born with 'bad genes,' and having close family members with a history of gynecological cancer, alone enough to make an informed choice?
Inherited BRCA Gene 'Mutations' Alone Do Not Determine Your Cancer Risk
The answer is a resounding NO. BRCA mutation status is only one factor to consider. Every man and woman has the BRCA1 and 2 genes within their genome, and regardless of whether they were born with a variant that renders the cancer-protective BRCA protein dysfunctional or inactive (i.e. germline mutations), or came to acquire it later in life as a result of genetic processes we do not fully understand (i.e. somatic mutation), BRCA genes in susceptible tissues, e.g. breast, ovary, prostate, can be deactivated through factors beyond the control of the genes (epigenetic factors), such as through viral infection (SV-40, Epstein-Barr virus), chemical exposures, nutritional factors, and even mind-body processes that have downstream physiological effects that directly modulate the structure and function of our genome and epigenome. In fact, whether a BRCA gene is rendered dysfunctional through an inborn 'mutation' or from the 'outside in,' through the silencing of the gene (hypermethylation of the promote region of the gene), the result is the same as far as the cell phenotype and BRCA protein production is concerned. This means that risk can not be calculated accurately without taking into account both genetic and epigenetic factors, with the crucial difference being that epigenetic changes to BRCA such as hypermethylation of the gene is at least theoretically partially reversible and/or preventable through behavioral, nutritional, environmental and lifestyle changes.
There is a prevailing belief in conventional medicine and among the lay public, today, that if you possess a BRCA1 mutation, you are fated to develop cancer. But inborn or developed BRCA1 variations are so complex, with literally hundreds identified, that there are few studies that have even attempted to identify and validate the risk associated with each variant. Bunched together under the umbrella concept of a 'BRCA gene mutation,' the reality is that anyone can develop BRCA1 or BRCA2 dysfunction in their lifetime through chemical and infectious exposures and nutritional incompatibilities and deficiencies, such that the resulting gene-silenting effect (methylation) is the same: the BRCA genes are altered within the cells, producing changes consistent with the appearance of pathology in a screen-detected lesion or tumor.
Indeed, a recent study published in Tumour Biology found that BRCA1 gene silencing through promoter region hypermethylation were frequent events in ovarian cancer. The frequency of BRCA1 gene silencing in epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC) was 51.2% and 57% in low malignant potential tumors (LMP). They found that BRCA1 protein expression (remember, BRCA proteins protect against DNA damage and tumor initiation and promotion) was significantly lower in EOCs, and that the lack of protein expression correlated with tumor grade and type, and the methylation status correlated with reduced BRCA1 expression. Remarkably, they found that benign tumors and normal ovarian tissue showed no methylation of the BRCA1 gene -- indicating that epigenetic methylation (as opposed to inherited gene defects) is also a primary driver of ovarian cancer malignancy.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Posted on: Friday, June 29th 2012 at 6:45 pm
It may come as a surprise to some, especially those with conventional medical training, but the default state of the body is one of ceaseless regeneration. Without the flame-like process of continual cell turnover within the body – life and death ceaselessly intertwined – the miracle of the human body would not exist.
In times of illness, however, regenerative processes are overcome by degenerative ones. This is where medicine may perform its most noble feat, nudging the body back into balance with foods, herbs, nutrients, healing energies, i.e. healing intention. Today, however, drug-based medicine invariably uses chemicals that have not one iota of regenerative potential; to the contrary, they almost always interfere with bodily self-renewal in order to suppress the symptoms against which they are applied.
Despite the outright heretical nature of things which stimulate healing and regeneration vis-à-vis the conventional medical system which frowns upon, or is incredulous towards, spontaneous remission in favor of symptom suppression and disease management, over the course of the past few years of trolling MEDLINE we have collected a series of remarkable studies on the topic...
Nerve Regeneration – There are actually a broad range of natural compounds with proven nerve-regenerative effects. A 2010 study published in the journal Rejuvenation Research, for instance, found a combination of blueberry, green tea and carnosine have neuritogenic (i.e. promoting neuronal regeneration) and stem-cell regenerative effects in an animal model of neurodegenerative disease.  Other researched neuritogenic substances include:
- Lion's Mane Mushroom
- Apigenin (compound in vegetables like celery)
- Red Sage
- Royal Jelly
- Coffee (trigonelline)
There is another class of nerve-healing substances, known as remyelinating compounds, which stimulate the repair of the protective sheath around the axon of the neurons known as myelin, and which is often damaged in neurological injury and/or dysfunction, especially autoimmune and vaccine-induced demyelination disorders. It should also be noted that even music and falling in love have been studied for possibly stimulating neurogenesis, regeneration and/or repair of neurons, indicating that regenerative medicine does not necessary require the ingestion of anything; rather, a wide range of therapeutic actions may be employed to improve health and well-being, as well.
[View the first-hand biomedical citations on these neuritogenic substance visit our Neuritogenic Research page on the topic]
Liver Regeneration – Glycyrrhizin, a compound found within licorice, and which we recently featured as a powerful anti-SARS virus agent, has also been found to stimulate the regeneration of liver mass and function in the animal model of hepatectomy. Other liver regenerative substances include:
- Carvacrol (a volatile compound in oregano)
- Korean Ginseng
- Vitamin E
[view the first-hand biomedical citations on the Liver Regeneration research page]
Beta-Cell Regeneration – Unfortunately, the medical community has yet to harness the diabetes-reversing potential of natural compounds. Whereas expensive stem cell therapies, islet cell transplants, and an array of synthetic drugs in the developmental pipeline are the focus of billions of dollars of research, annually, our kitchen cupboards and backyards may already contain the long sought-after cure for type 1 diabetes. The following compounds have been demonstrated experimentally to regenerate the insulin-producing beta cells, which are destroyed in insulin dependent diabetes, and which once restored, may (at least in theory) restore the health of the patient to the point where they no longer require insulin replacement.
- Gymenna Sylvestre ("the sugar destroyer")
- Nigella Sativa ("black cumin")
- Vitamin D
- Curcumin (from the spice Turmeric)
- Berberine (found in bitter herbs such as Goldenseal and Barberry)
- Bitter Melon
- Chard (yes, the green leafy vegetables)
- Corn Silk
- Sulforaphane (especially concentrated in broccoli sprouts)
[view the first-hand biomedical citations on the Beta Cell Regeneration research page]
Hormone Regeneration – there are secretagogues, which increase the endocrine glands' ability to secrete more hormone, and there are substances that truly regenerate hormones which have degraded (by emitting electrons) into potentially carcinogenic "transient hormone" metabolites. One of these substances is vitamin C. A powerful electron donor, this vitamin has the ability to contribute electrons to resurrect the form and function of estradiol (estrogen; E2), progesterone, testosterone, for instance.  In tandem with foods that are able to support the function of glands, such as the ovaries, vitamin C may represent an excellent complement or alternative to hormone replacement therapy.
Cardiac Cell Regeneration – Not too long ago, it was believed that cardiac tissue was uniquely incapable of being regenerated. A new, but rapidly growing body of experimental research now indicates that this is simply not true, and there is a class of heart-tissue regenerating compounds known as neocardiogenic substances. Neocardiogenic substances are able to stimulate the formation of cardiac progenitor cells which can differentiate into healthy heart tissue, and they include the following:
- Siberian Ginseng (Eleuthero)
- Red Wine Extract
- Geum Japonicum
Another remarkable example of cardiac cell regeneration is through what is known as fetomaternal trafficking of stem cells through the placenta. In a recent article we discussed the amazing process known as "fetal microchimerism" by which the fetus contributes stem cells to the mother which are capable of regenerating her damaged heart cells, and possibly a wide range of other cell types.
Cartilage/Joint/Spine Regeneration – Curcumin and resveratrol have been shown to improve recovery from spinal cord injury. Over a dozen other natural compounds hold promise in this area, which can be viewed on our Spinal Cord Injury page. As far as degenerative joint disease, i.e. osteoarthritis, there are a broad range of potentially regenerative substances, with 50 listed on our osteoarthritis research page.
Ultimately, regenerative medicine threatens to undermine the very economic infrastructure that props up the modern, drug-based and quite candidly degenerative medical system. Symptom suppression is profitable because it guarantees both the perpetuation of the original underlying disease, and the generation of an ever-expanding array of additional, treatment-induced symptoms.
This is the non-sustainable, infinite growth model which shares features characteristic of the process of cancer itself - a model, which by its very nature, is doomed to fail and eventually collapse. Cultivating diets, lifestyles and attitudes conducive to bodily regeneration can interrupt this pathological circuit, and help us to attain the bodily freedom that is a precondition for the liberation of the human soul and spirit, as well.
 NT-020, a natural therapeutic approach to optimize spatial memory performance and increase neural progenitor cell proliferation and decrease inflammation in the aged rat. Rejuvenation Res. 2010 Jun 29. Epub 2010 Jun 29. PMID: 20586644