Monday, September 25, 2006

The Truth About Non-Nutritive Sweeteners

The Non-Sweet Truth about Non-Nutritive Sweeteners
by David Stewart, PhD, DNM

Non-nutritive sweeteners are popular. They promise the taste pleasures and satisfaction of white sugar (sucrose) without the calories and without upsetting the balance of sugars in your blood. But what is the meaning of “non-nutritive?” And do you really want non-nutritive products in your body?

This brief review will discuss the following: Saccharin (Sweet ‘N Low®), Stevia, Cyclamate, Sorbitol, Aspartame (NutraSweet®), Sucralose (Splenda®), raw sugar, and sucrose (white sugar).

The Meaning of Non-Nutritive

A non-nutritive substance is one your body cannot metabolize, or can only partially metabolize. The theory is that such substances pass harmlessly through your system with no effect, either good or bad. Hence, if you can find a substance that tastes like sugar but does not metabolize or release its calories then you can literally have your cake and eat it too without fear of weight gain or other undesirable bodily reactions such as hyperglycemia or high blood sugar.

The problem is that most sugar substitutes are unnatural. They are synthesized in laboratories. They are unique on this planet in that these molecules never existed before they were manufactured in modern times. Drug companies who make and market such synthetics don’t like natural substances because they cannot be patented to obtain a monopoly. Anyone can produce and sell a natural product. Access to them is the right of everyone.

Drug companies and other manufacturers of unnatural products don’t like a competitive free market because it prevents them from price gouging and merchandise manipulation. They want monopolies. Monopolies reap maximum profits and give a company complete control of the market on the products they can patent. The only patentable molecules are those that do not exist in nature, manufactured by men, not by God.

The problem is that God made our bodies to deal with the molecules he made, but our bodies were not made to handle the strange synthetic molecules of engineered drugs and non-nutritive sweeteners. Such molecules confound and confuse our cellular intelligence and universally cause undesirable side effects. That’s right. Universally. All man-made substances carry some level of risk to human health. The trouble is that the risk may not be obvious at first. It can take time for the damage to become apparent, even years. And even when it becomes evident, the connection between the sickness or condition and the offending substance may take years of research to rigorously prove. Meanwhile, people’s health deteriorates, people get sick, people suffer, and people die.

The First Law of Unnatural Substances

The first rule you can apply when determining if you want to ingest any particular substance or not is this: If it is not natural, there will be some negative consequences. They will always be there even if you don’t detect them right away. There are no exceptions to this. Always assume that it is not good for you, and you will always be right. You don’t need to wait for the scientific studies to discover the details and confirm your doubts. God did not design your body to handle products he did not make. That is why pharmaceutical drugs and artificial sweeteners always carry risks of ill effects. The effects may cumulative over a period of years. They may be sooner and worse for some than for others. But they will always be there, whether recognized or not. You can count on it. It is a law of God’s creation.

By comparison, if it is a natural substance and not naturally toxic, as some herbal substances are, your body can utilize it, metabolize it, and eliminate it with its break-down products while gleaning whatever benefits it may convey. God designed your body to handle his products. That is why proper use of herbs and essential oils carry benefits without risks of ill effects.

One of the more insidious aspects of unnatural substances is our body’s inability to secrete them and/or their break-down products. When strange unnatural molecules come into the body, our body’s organs are thrown into confusion as to what to do with them. After the body passes these substances around from the digestive system, to the blood, to the liver, to the kidneys, to the brain, to this organ and that, and elsewhere, not knowing what else to do with them, the body eventually stores them in fat tissues to be dealt with later. Later can be years, even decades. Meanwhile, our bodily processes are perturbed and disrupted by these resident aliens in ways that reduce our state of wellness, eventually resulting in a chronic disease or condition and premature death. Putting two and two together to make the causative connection is rarely done, least of all by medically trained personnel who are neither educated nor encouraged to seek such causes. Figuring out such things is up to you. Avoiding them is entirely up to you.

Saccharin (aka Sweet ‘N Low®)

Saccharin is one of the oldest sugar substitutes to be marketed, dating back to the 1800s. It is also known as Gluside, Glucid, Garantose, Saccharinol, Saccharinose, Saccharol, Saxin, Sykose, and Hermesetas. It is currently sold under the brand name of Sweet ‘N Low®, a product that is a blend of nutritive sugar (dextrose) and saccharin (3.6%). Sweet ‘N Low was trademarked in 1957 along with its marketing color, pink, by the Cumberland Packing Corp. of Brooklyn, New York, a company that specializing in packaging, not food products.

Saccharin can be said to be natural, but only in the sense that it exists in nature as a component of coal. It is a coal tar derivative. It is not natural in that you would ever ingest it from a natural food.

The chemical formula for saccharin is C7H5NO3S. The molecular structure consists of two rings: one consisting of six carbon atoms in a hexagon and the second of three carbons, one nitrogen, and one sulfur atom arranged in a pentagon with three double-bonded oxygen atoms attached to the perimeter. Its molecular weight is 183 amu (atomic mass units).

Saccharin has long been suspected of causing cancer, since many coal tar derivatives are carcinogenic. It was eventually put on the U.S. FDA’s carcinogen list in 1998. However, in 2000 it was removed for lack of sufficient data to meet the FDA’s criteria for a carcinogen. No doubt, the manufacturers of Sweet ‘N Low® were influential in the FDA’s reversal decision.

In animal studies with saccharin it takes only 3/100s of an ounce for a mouse weighing 5 ounces to have a 50:50 chance of dying from the substance. Translated to humans, this suggests that it would take a pound of saccharin ingested at one setting to kill a 160 lb man. No one is going to intake that much saccharin at once. But this statistic does not address the long term effects which can be cumulative. It also does not address the potential disruption to our hormonal, nervous, digestive, eliminative, metabolic, and cardiac systems. Substances can be damaging to our health without killing us.

Saccharin is said to be 400 times sweeter than white sugar. These comparison figures are somewhat subjective in that they are obtained by diluting saccharin in water until its sweetness is barely detectable to humans. Some humans have more sensitive taste buds than others. Most people cannot taste white sugar in concentrations less than 1:150. Saccharin can be detected by human taste at dilutions of 1:60,000, which is approximately 1/400th the concentration at which sugar can be tasted.

Cyclamic Acid (aka Cyclamate®)

The sweetness of cyclamic acid was discovered by a graduate student at the University of Illinois in 1937. It was subsequently patented by the Du Pont Chemical Company and sold as a non-nutritive sweetener starting in the 1940s. Cyclamate was classified as a non-nutritive sweetener. It is not a natural substance. It was eventually taken off of the market for its proven carcinogenicity.

The formula for Cyclamic Acid is C6H13NO3S. Structurally, the molecule consists of a single ring of six carbon atoms in a hexagon connected to a chain of other atoms, hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and nitrogen. Its molecular weight is 179 amu, very close to that of saccharin. Notice the similarity of its chemical formula with that of saccharin shown above.

Cyclamate is considered to be approximately 70 times sweeter than sugar. Its taste is still detectable in dilute concentrations of 1:10,000. Interestingly, the lethal dose for 50% of a population of research mice (weighing 5 ounces each) to die each is less than for saccharin. It takes three times as much cyclamate to kill a mouse than saccharin. Oddly, the lethal dose for a rat is less per pound of body weight than for a mouse, mice being more resistive to its toxicity than rats.

Stevioside (aka Stevia)

Stevioside is natural. It is the sweet compound isolated from the leaves of Stevia rebaudiana also called yerba dulce. A member of the aster family (Compositae or Asteraceae), stevia is a plant native to Paraguay, South America. Stevioside is marketed as Stevia and/or Steviosin.

The chemical formula for stevioside is C38H60O18. Its structure is very complex, consisting of seven hexagonal rings and one pentagonal ring connected in a complicated and convoluted manner. It is a huge molecule whose molecular weight is 805 amu.

Stevioside is easily metabolized and utilized by the human body, it generates virtually no useable calories and, hence, is a non-caloric food substance. Furthermore, it has been shown to have many benefits to human bodily processes, including maintenance of proper levels of blood sugar. It has no known untoward side effects.

It would be hard to overdose on stevia or stevioside since it is 300 times sweeter than sugar. Its flavor is evident in concentrations as low as 1:45,000. If it has a lethal dosage in mice or men, such data does not seem to be available.

While drug companies have no interest in marketing stevioside, there is a synthetic derivative of stevioside has been made in a lab and has been proposed as a non-nutritive sweetening agent. It is called steviol. So far, no drug or chemical company has tried to market steviol. But if you ever see it on a product label, know that steviol, while derived from a natural substance is not, itself, natural.

Young Living puts natural stevioside (leaves of Stevia rebaudiana) in Sulfurzyme its MSM (methylsulfanylmethane), supplement, to counter the bitterness of MSM.

Sorbitol (aka Sorbit®, Cystosol®, etc.)

Sorbitol is a natural substance sold under many brand names including Sorbit®, Cystosol®, Resulax®, Sorbilax®, Sorbitur®, Sorbo®, Sorbostyl®, and Sorbilande®. It is a simple sugar found in strawberries, black berries, blue berries, raspberries, wolf berries, cherries, plums, pears, apples, seaweed, algae, black strap molasses, and the ripe fruit of mountain ash.

The chemical formula for sorbitol is C6H14O6. Structurally, its molecular shape is different than every other sweetener discussed in this article in that it contains no rings. It is a linear chain of six carbon atoms with a water molecule attached to each carbon and an extra hydrogen atom at each end of the molecule. Its molecular weight is 180 which is almost the same as saccharin and cyclamate, but only half the weight of sucrose or table sugar. It is also comparable in weight to fructose and glucose, two other natural sugars (monosaccarides), which weigh 178 amu each. Glucose (C6H12O6) is the sugar utilized directly by the cells of our bodies.

Sorbitol is pleasant and tastes very much like white sugar with no aftertaste. In fact, it is sometimes mixed with saccharin to reduce its aftertaste. While it releases 3.9 calories per gram when digested (same as sugar), its metabolic products are different. Instead of breaking down into fructose and glucose like sugar, 70% is broken down into carbon dioxide or CO2. Hence, sorbitol is an excellent sweetener for diabetics and people with blood sugar balancing problems since its effect on blood sugar is negligible compared to sucrose.

However, sorbitol is not easily available to the public as a pure substance. It is not suitable as a frequently ingested sweetener because it is a natural laxative. In fact, most of the trade names under which it is sold are names for laxatives. In small quantities in foods and fruits, it is fine and won’t cause diarrhea.

Sorbitol is used in candy manufacturing (combined with sucrose) because it increases shelf-life. It is a common sweetener in chewing gums. It is a softener for shredded coconut and peanut butter. It is used in soft drinks and wines and is the sweetness of flavored cigars. It is used in pharmaceutical preparations in that it increases absorption of vitamins and medicines. In fact, it is used in the synthetic production of ascorbic acid and vitamin C. It also has non-nutritive industrial applications such as in the production of propylene glycol, synthetic plasticizers, moisture conditioners for printing rolls, the tanning of leather, writing inks, and antifreeze.

Medically it is used as a laxative and diuretic with no known negative effects provided dosages are controlled. As a natural food additive, it is harmless and can have many benefits. But sorbitol is not going to be the answer to your sweet tooth if you want to reduce calories.

Aspartame (aka NutraSweet®)

Aspartame is another popular non-nutritive sweetener sold under the brand names of NutraSweet®, Equal®, and Sanecta®. It was patented in 1968 by the G.D. Searle Company, a subsidiary of Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc., of Peapack, New Jersey. Searle and Upjohn are primarily prescription drug companies.

The chemical formula for aspartame is C14H18N2O5. Structurally, it starts with a hexagonal ring of carbon atoms, like saccharin and cyclamate. However, attached to the ring is a long chain of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen atoms. Its molecular weight is 294 amu, considerably heavier than saccharin or cyclamate. Larger molecules can remain in the body longer and, if toxic, can cause trouble for much longer periods of time.

NutraSweet has been on the market long enough for its dangers to have been well documented. This information is available to the public via a number of books, articles, and websites. Do a search on Google or any other search engine and you will get hundreds of sources addressing both the pros and cons. Some of the metabolic products formed in our bodies when we eat aspartame are methyl alcohol, aspartic acid, and formaldehyde.

Methyl alcohol (methanol) in sufficient quantities can make you go blind. In larger quantities it can cause death.

Aspartic acid disrupts neural activity, interferes with protein synthesis, and can alter DNA.

Formaldehyde has its own toxic consequences and is used to preserve animal specimens in laboratories as well as for embalming bodies.

Aspartame is suspected of being linked to a variety of ailments including epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, brain tumors, birth defects, lymphoma, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, fibromyalgia, migraine headaches, various nervous disorders, and adverse personality changes.

Aspartame is said to be 160 times sweeter than sucrose (white sugar). The human tongue can sense its sweetness in concentrations dissolved in water of 1:24,000 compared to sugar which is no longer discernable to taste in concentrations less than 1:150.

Sucralose (aka Splenda ® )

Sucralose, sold under the brand name of Splenda ®, has now become the most popular non-nutritive sweetener of all time. It is also called TGS, an acronym taken from its technical name, Trichlorotrideoxy-Galacto-Sucrose. Sucralose was discovered by scientists at the University of London in 1977 working under funding provided by Tate & Lyle, an international British firm based in London. It was patented that same year by Tate & Lyle, who are the sole manufacturers and distributors of Splenda worldwide.

Tate & Lyle are a multi-billion dollar corporation specializing in renewable and consumable products manufactured principally from wheat, corn, and sugar. They operate 41 manufacturing plants and 20 additional production facilities in 28 countries, predominantly in Europe, the Americas and South East Asia.

On their website, (www.tateandlyle.com) they state the following:
“Our ingredients touch people's lives in many ways. Our sugars and syrups are in people's kitchen cupboards; and in bathrooms our products make ointments creamy, toothpaste soft and soap that lathers. We make paper smooth and cardboard stiff; we help detergents to clean effectively and glue to stick fast. We put sweetness and flavor into soft drinks; and alcohol into gin and vodka. We create texture and body for yoghurts and ready-made meals; and provide the sheen on fruit pies and tarts. We help to make meals that are low fat or calorie free; and offer active people a source of fat-free energy.”

This brings us back to Splenda. The manufacturers promote it as being made from white sugar (sucrose) but without the calories of sugar. This is technically correct. But Splenda (sucralose) is nothing like sucrose concerning its effects on the human system.

Sucrose (aka White Sugar)

Before we talk about sucralose, let’s briefly discuss sucrose from which sucralose is derived. Sucrose is a natural substance found in many plants, but in relatively high concentrations in sugar cane (18%) and sugar beets (15%). God made our bodies to handle natural, nutritive substances like sucrose. White sugar has gotten a bad reputation, but the problem is not the sugar itself. The problem with sucrose is that we don’t eat it in its natural state as part of a beet or some other plant that contains it. We extract it, concentrate it, and consume it in high doses by way of our soft drinks, various sweets, and in countless other products, including condiments like salad dressings and ketchup as well as most types of potato chips.

The problem is not the product. It’s the quantity. As Paracelsus a Medieval herbologist said hundreds of years ago, “Everything is toxic. Everything is therapeutic. It all depends on dosage.” Of course, Paracelsus was referring only to natural substances when he said that. Petrochemicals, coal tar derivatives, and synthetic substances did not yet exist in his time. Regarding sugar, the average American probably consumes 100 pounds a year. That is too much for anyone’s health. But the answer is moderation. Not substituting an artificial, unnatural, non-nutritive sweetener.

Here is the problem with unnatural substances taken into our bodies. Our metabolic and eliminative processes were not designed to handle such substances. God made our bodies to process natural substances. Our bodies know how to use them and eliminate them along with their break-down products. When a foreign substance enters our bodies that never existed on planet earth (i.e. made in a laboratory), the body is confused. Such substances clog our receptor sites causing miscommunications between cells disrupting normal bodily function and can lodge in various tissues of our bodies and be there for years, even decades, gradually producing a chronic disease of some sort, sometimes even deadly.

The chemical formula for sucrose is C12H22O11. Notice that it contains no nitrogen or sulfur like saccharin, cyclamate, or aspartame. Like all true sugars, it is a carbohydrate, carbon plus hydrate, where hydrate means water or H2O. You can see in the formula that there are 11 molecules of water built into a molecule of sucrose. In fact, its formula can be written as: C12(H2O)11. The structural shape of a sucrose molecule consists of a six-sided or hexagonal ring of 5 carbon atoms and 1 oxygen atom which is connected by a water molecule to another ring which is five-sided or pentagonal of 4 carbon atoms and one oxygen. The hexagonal side of sucrose is actually a molecule of fructose (C6H12O6) while the pentagonal side is formed from modified glucose. Hence, sucrose is actually a disaccharide, a molecular combination of two simple sugars. Its molecular weight is 342 amu.

Splenda is Chlorinated Sugar

Splenda is an unnatural molecule. It is made from sucrose or white sugar. The chemical formula for a molecule of sucrose is C12H22O11, as mentioned above, which incorporates 11 water molecules. The formula for water (H2O) can also be written as HOH, which is an H (hydrogen) combined with OH (a union of an oxygen and a hydrogen atom). In chemistry, OH is called a functional group or radical. It is called the hydroxyl radical. There are 8 hydroxyl radicals attached to the sucrose (sugar) molecule. What scientists cleverly did was figure out a way to substitute three chlorine atoms for three hydroxyl groups in the sucrose molecule.

In short, Splenda is chlorinated sugar. Yes, it is made from sugar, but it is not sugar and does not have the same effects on our body as sugar. Its lethal toxicity in mice is about the same as cyclamate, so it is not highly toxic in the sense that it will kill you unless you grossly overdose, like swallowing three pounds of it at one sitting.

The formula for sucralose is C12H19O8Cl3. Insofar as the structural shape of the molecule is concerned, it still retains the hexagonal and pentagonal rings of sucrose, but with three chlorines attached where three hydrogens and three oxygens used to be. This new compound still stimulates the sweet reacting receptor sites of our tongues since its structural shape is basically the same as sucrose, but it cannot be metabolized by the human body because it is alien, unnatural, and strange—incompatible with our bodily processes. Theoretically, since it cannot be metabolized, it has no calories. Hopefully, it simply passes through harmlessly. But does it? When you see the term, “non-nutritive,” that means your body does and cannot metabolize or digest it. Is that good?

Actually, recent research shows that when people ingest sucralose, not all of it is excreted. So is some of it metabolized or is some of it simply retained in long term storage in bodily tissues, like time bombs waiting to explode? And if some of it is metabolized, what happens to your body when it is metabolized? What are the metabolic products? Are they safe? Who knows?

The molecular weight of sucralose is 398 amu, heavier than sugar and heavier than any of the other non-nutritive sweeteners mentioned in this article. That means it can linger in the body much longer than any of the other substances we have discussed.

What are the undesirable side effects of Splenda? The product has not been on the market as long as aspartame and, hence, not as much is yet known. However, you can go to www.whno.net, or www.splendaexposed.com, or www.mercola.com/2003/aug/23/splenda/htm or just go to Google and do a search.

Preliminary research suggests the following possible effects of sucralose.
• Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage)
• Enlarged liver and kidneys
• Atrophy of lymph follicles in the spleen and thymus
• Abnormalities in the retina of the eye
• Reduced growth rate
• Decreased red blood cell count
• Hyperplasia of the pelvis
• Extension of the pregnancy period
• Aborted pregnancy
• Decreased fetal body weights and placental weights
• Diarrhea
These results are mainly derived from animal studies. Effects on humans are not yet clearly established. One thing is sure. All unnatural molecules have undesirable side effects in our bodies. All of them. No exceptions. It is only a matter of time until they will discover the mischief caused by Splenda. But you can be sure there is mischief taking place, although it may be years before scientists and the public realize what it is. Some unnatural substances take up to 20 years for their deleterious effects to become evident and documented by science.

Raw Sugar (aka Natural Sugar)

For practical purposes, sweeteners that go by the names of raw or natural sugar are actually sucrose or white sugar. The glycemic index is the same as sucrose and the chemical formula is the same, i.e. C12H22O11. In other words, so called “raw sugar” is either white sugar incompletly refined so that some of the natural impurities are retained or it is pure sucrose with some added molasses to give it a slightly brown color and flavor. From the body’s viewpoint, you might as well eat white sugar. It metabolized just the same.

Truly “raw sugar” would be as you would eat directly from chewing on sugar cane or by eating a raw sugar beet. It would be healthy for you in this form, but not very concentrated and not adaptable for sweetening your drinks and desserts.

What to Do

As for me personally, I don’t knowingly consume Splenda®, NutraSweet®, Sweet ‘N Low®, or any other unnatural substance. Sorbitol products are fine since sorbitol is a natural sugar. If I want a sweetener, I use maple syrup, honey, agave, stevia, molasses, and, yes, white sugar, but in moderation.

I put my faith in God’s products, including, of course, fresh vegetables, various herbs, and the natural oils distilled from plants. He made my body and I believe the products he made are the best for it, but moderation in all things is the key.

I think David Stewart, PhP, DNM did an excellent job writing and explaining the differences about these various sweeteners. I personally, have only ever had in my house the following sweeteners: organic raw sugar, real Maple syrup (not that fake stuff sold in the stores), Blue Agave and Stevia Extract and Stevia Herb. If you've never tried Blue Agave or Stevia you really don't know what you're missing, both I think are far better than regular sugar. Which reminds me...I must start using both of them more often now that cooler weather is encouraging me to do more baking.

Here are a couple of terrific cookbooks on how to use Stevia:

Sensational Stevia Desserts
Sensational Stevia Desserts


Stevia: Naturally Sweet Recipes for Desserts, Drinks, and More!
Stevia: Naturally Sweet Recipes for Desserts, Drinks, and More!




Blue Agave Syrup (item # 3221)



Stevia Extract (item # 3239)

Blue Agave Syrup and Stevia Extract are available at my website

The Very Essence

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Are Your Air Fresheners Killing You?

AIR FRESHENERS AND AEROSOLS

Who would have thought that air fresheners could be harmful? In a major longitudinal study, frequent use of air fresheners during pregnancy and early childhood was associated with higher levels of diarrhea, earache in infants and headaches, depression in mothers.

ARE YOUR AIR FRESHENERS KILLING YOU?

Outside of our own homes, it's rare that we know what ingredients are in those air freshening products. Those products that scent everything from bathrooms, toilets, our friends homes, cars, and so forth. Unless we have the opportunity to read the list of ingredients we have no idea what it is that we're exposing ourselves and children to.

For some of us, our noses tell us when we are inhaling a toxic chemical and we may have symptoms of burning noses and eyes, coughing, sneezing, upset stomaches, headaches, asthmatic responses, and more.

For me personally, when I go into any store or household that sells or uses anything with toxic ingredients, my sinuses and eyes burn so badly that it makes me want to protest and get the stores to stop selling those poisons to people. I actually think it should be criminal to manufacture and sell such poisonous products to uninformed innocent people. And we wonder why the health of Americans is so bad.

The main toxin in room fresheners, urinal cakes, moth balls and certain things like paints ,cleaning products, and vehicle exhaust fumes is 1,4 dichlorobenzene (1,4 DCB). A recent National Institute of Environmental Health Services (NIEHS) study published in Environmental Health Perspectives showed that among 953 adults 1,4 DCB was linked to a reduction in lung function.

Go into your cabinets and see if any of the products in your home contain 1, 4 DCB. If you see 1, 4 DCB or any synthetic chemical added to the product you may want to concider taking it to a chemical disposal dump, please don't flush it or toss it in the trash as that will allow it to continue further on its destructive cycle.

HERE'S HOW YOU CAN FRESHEN YOUR AIR WITHOUT POISONING YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY

By using therapeutic-grade organic essential oils you will be adding oxygen to your indoor air and you will be cutting down or eliminating unwanted microbes, such as fungus, mold, pathogenic viruses and bacteria. With the cold and flu season right around the corner it's a good idea to arm yourself and family with wholesome ways to combat these germs and viruses.

Use a 'cold' air diffuser with therapeutic-grade organic essential oils. You NEVER want to heat your therapeutic-grade organic essential oil as heat will destroy many of the beneficial properties of the essential oil. And remember, the essential oils found in the stores are 'perfume-grade', which means they can be derived from any source and sold very cheaply to the uninformed public. See my previous posts on essential oil quality: Intro To Therapeutic-grade Essential Oils and The Experts Agree About Essential Oil Qualityand Smell Testing an Essential Oil. Never expect to get the same results with any store bought essential oil as you will get with a Young Living essential oil.

COLD AIR DIFFUSERS

A cold air diffuser is different than other means of getting an essential oil into the air. It is electric, and nebulizes the essential oil which creates an extremely fine mist that allow the essential oil to permeate your room(s). It uses only cold air. Here is a picture of what one looks like...


Item # 3830

Diffusing essential oils in your home or office is a perfect way to help relieve tension, dispel odors, and create an atmosphere of peace and harmony. Young Living's diffusers are the most efficient on the market.

Essential Oil Diffuser is designed with an innovative air pump that disperses the oils in a micro-fine vapor so they stay suspended in the air for several hours. The diffuser disperses the oils without heating them, so they retain their therapeutic benefits. Essential oil blends that contain vegetable oils may diffuse slower than other oils and are not recommended.

This diffuser can be purchased at my website:
Visit my website:
The Very Essence


WHICH THERAPEUTIC-GRADE ESSENTIAL OILS DO I CHOSE?

These are two, among many, terrific choices for essential oil diffusing:

Thieves Blend (item # 3423)

This is a fantastic essential oil blend I highly recommend!
Thieves® was created based on research about four thieves in France who protected themselves with cloves, rosemary, and other aromatic essential oils while robbing plague victims. The proprietary Thieves® oil blend was university tested and found to be highly effective in supporting the immune system and good health.*

Thieves® oil blend is an integral ingredient in Thieves® Household Cleaner (item # 3743), Thieves® Throat & Hand Spray (item # 3265), Thieves® Wipes (item # 3756), Thieves® Lozenges (item # 3229), Thieves® Dentarome Plus™ (item # 3738)and Thieves® Dentarome Ultra™ (item # 3744, my favorite) toothpastes, and Thieves® Fresh Essence Plus™ Mouthwash (item # 3683, the best!).

Purification Blend (item # 3399)

Purification™ can be used directly on the skin to cleanse and soothe insect bites, cuts, and scrapes. When diffused, it helps to purify and cleanse the air from cigarette smoke, mold, bacteria and disagreeable odors.

You can put your diffuser on a light timer so it turns on and off by itself, highly recommended. Use it in your home, office, studio, store, or any indoor place that you would want to freshen the indoor environment safely and effectively.

*The information provided is for educational purposes only and is not intended as diagnosis, treatment, or prescription of any kind. The decision to use, or not to use, any information is the sole responsibility of the reader.

If I can assist you with further choices or with placing an order please contact me.

To you and your families good health!

Friday, September 22, 2006

Fluoride and Other Toxic Chemicals vs. Nontoxic Essential Oil Dental Care

Question: What is a major industrial pollutant, lies between lead and arsenic on the toxicity scale, and yet is continually promoted as being good for us?

Answer: Fluoride, and it's not being promoted as safe anymore, at least not by consumer groups who collect data on its toxicity.

One group – Health Action Network Society (HANS) – is urging its members to stop using fluoride in any form. The organization, based in British Columbia, researches self-care and preventive health issues. In a recent press release, it made the case for avoiding the substance that the dental industry has long touted as a healthful substance which strengthens tooth enamel.

On the contrary, says HANS, fluoride is not a nutrient; it is a toxic industrial waste – obtained from scrubbing the air emissions from smelters and phosphate fertilizer plants. It is causing severe environmental degradation in Canada and may, notes the group, be contributing to the rapid depletion of salmon stocks.

Cited are international studies which have “clearly revealed that fluoride is linked with arthritis, hip fractures, cancer and other diseases, and even premature skin wrinkling.” It has been banned or discontinued in 21 European countries along with Japan and Hawaii.

Supporting this stand against fluoride are some Canadian medical leaders such as Dr. Richard Foulkes, former special consultant to the Minister of Health for British Columbia. One of the recommendations that he says he mistakenly made to the government was to recommend mandatory fluoridation for B.C. Dr. Foulkes has recently written a feature article in Health Naturally magazine, in which he says, “I placed my trust in individuals from whom I received advice. I assumed they had done their homework, studying all sides of the subject thoroughly. This was not so.”

The group also quotes Robert Carton, Ph.D., a former scientist with the US Environmental Protection Agency, who says, “Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time.”

To Contact the Health Action Network Society: HANS 202-5262 Rumble St. Burnaby, BC V5J 2B6
Source: Natural Life Magazine Aug 1994, www.life.ca

Fortunately, Young Living has terrific dental care products that are nontoxic, free of acohol and flouride and taste great!



Thieves Dentarome Toothpaste (item # 3744) is an advanced formula of all-nature ingredients that gently cleans and whitens your teeth while harnessing the power of pure, organic, therapeutic-grade essential oil blend called Thieves.

My personal experience: "after using the Thieves toothpaste I cannot and will never go back to using any kind of store bought toothpastes again! This toothpaste is amazing and tastes fantastic! Not only that, if I swallow it I won't be poisoning my body at all! This is by far the most remarkable toothpaste I've ever used." Evelyn



Thieves Fresh Essence Mouthwash (item # 3683) contains a special formulation of essential oils (the blend called Thieves) that gives you incredibly fresh breath. The unique liposome technology (using soy-derived lecithin) binds the essential oils to the mucous membrane in the mouth for longer lasting fresh breath.

My personal experience: "Wow! Everything it claims to do it DOES! And it does it WITHOUT alcohol and fluoride!" Evelyn



KidScents Toothpaste is a 100% safe and natural alternative to commercial brands of toothpaste. The FDA has acknowledged that fluoride, when swallowed, poses significant risks to children. The FDA requires that ALL fluoride toothpastes to carry a POISON warning on the label. KidScents Toothpaste is 100% fluoride free and contains NO synthetic dyes or flavors.It is perfect for children of all ages. KidScents Toothpaste makes a great training toothpaste for children during the crucial first years while they develop their primary teeth.

If you're interested in taking control over what comes into your home, and you and your families life, you have come to the right place! Young Living Essential Oils is by far the best available. When I discovered Young Living Essentail Oils and their essential oil-enhanced products 7 years ago, I literally threw out all of the other products in my cabinets that "claimed" to be nontoxic... these products are the best!

To see the full line of Young Living, over 400 products, visit my website
The Very Essence and see for yourself what you have been missing, I can assure you it's been a lot.

This is a terrific book...

<br"The Fluoride Deception" >
The Fluoride Deception


Empower yourself today!

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Healing Touch in the News

Healing touch, or the laying-on of hands, has become more widely valued and accepted these days and is beginning to make it's way into hospitals. The laying-on of hands is based on a philosophy of caring and compassion, which is oriented towards service to humanity, and is found in all spiritual paths.

Just as essential oils have a measurable vibrational frequency (read my previous post 9/7/06 "The Vibrational Frequency of Essential Oils"), so does the vibration and/or energy bio-field of our intent. When one is trained, or even gifted with healing hands, it is as though by some magical powers, that the pain of a patient is healed or lessened significantly. Healing touch has also bedome popular with those who work with pets/animals.

The trained practitioner uses their hands as a means by which beneficial energy flows. This is done by using a very light touch or a near-body touch to help clear, balance and energize the human energy system which promotes healing for the mind, body and spirit.

Because of recent studies showing the effectiveness of healing touch, it is becoming increasingly more validated in health care systems around the country. There are over 25 hospitals in the US currently providing healing touch practitioners.. Many healing touch practitioners also incorporate essential oils as a valuale tool, aromatherapy, in their practice. As the demand for healing touch practitioners rises so will too the access to such healer's.

The healing energy vibrations of our hands and connectedness to heart can be seen in the video clip below, click on the "Rose".

If you're interested in becoming a trained and certified Healing Touch practitioner here are a couple of good links to help get you connected in that direction:

Healing Touch Program

Healing Touch Spiritual Ministry

Video of Healing Touch on Fox 13 Good Day Tampa Bay
Featuring: Kimberly Garcia

Click Here

Tamoxifen, DES and Cancer

This is a VERY powerful article that every woman and man needs to read...

Tamoxifen - A Major Medical Mistake?
by Sherrill Sellman

Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 5, #4 (June - July 1998)

Once praised for its benefits in preventing breast cancer recurrence, the lucrative pharmaceutical drug tamoxifen is now implicated in causing dangerous side-effects, including other types of cancers.

In the early 1970's, a shameful chapter closed on the widespread use of a known carcinogenic and endocrine-disrupting drug called DES (diethylstilboestrol), the first synthetic, non-steroidal estrogen drug. Against the advice of its creator, Sir Charles Dodd, between four and six million American and European women and 10,000 Australian women innocently used DES for the prevention of miscarriage and pregnancy complications.

In addition, DES became a popular though unproven drug for a variety of other conditions. It was used for the suppression of lactation, the treatment of acne, the treatment of certain types of breast and prostatic cancer, and as an inhibitor of growth in young girls, an estrogen replacement in menopause and a "morning after" pill.

It would take 30 years to accept what laboratory tests had indicated as early as 1938 — that DES was a highly dangerous and harmful drug. It was reported that, 20 years after taking DES, mothers had a 40 to 50 per cent greater risk of breast cancer than non-exposed mothers. In addition, the children of DES mothers showed a high incidence of reproductive abnormalities, miscarriages, vaginal cancer, testicular cancer, sterility and immune dysfunction. In fact, it is feared that repercussions of this drug will be felt for generations to come.

The irony of this entire debacle is that the medical establishment finally acknowledged that DES was useless in preventing miscarriages. Thus, DES, another disastrous experiment on women, was added to the long list of major medical blunders.

Out of this early research, a new drug appeared on the horizon which would be soon be heralded as a shining star in the war against the growing epidemic of breast cancer. In the late 1960's the pharmaceutical industry developed a drug called "tamoxifen". As a synthetic, non-steroidal compound with hormone-like effects (many of which are poorly understood), tamoxifen has a similar structure to DES. In fact, it was observed that tamoxifen caused the same abnormal changes seen in cells of women taking estradiol and DES. (1) This similarity raised alarm bells for some.

Pierre Blais, well known as a drug researcher who was ejected from Canada's health protection bureaucracy when he spoke out about silicone breast implants, describes the story of tamoxifen as "the story of modern drug design which produces garbage drugs". He says, "Good drug design ceased, unfortunately, in the 1930s." Tamoxifen, Blais asserts, "...is a garbage drug that made it to the top of the scrap heap. It is a DES in the making." (2)

Blais's dire predictions were ignored with the promise of a potential drug treatment for breast cancer. Tamoxifen was first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use as a birth-control pill; however, it proved to induce rather than inhibit ovulation. Although tamoxifen didn't work as a contraceptive, it was found to lower mammary cancer rates in animals. Animal studies showed that tamoxifen prevented estrogen from binding to receptor sites on breast tissue cells. Tamoxifen also reduced the incidence of breast cancer in rodents after administration of a breast-carcinogenic substance. This discovery provided the impetus to study its effects in treating human breast cancer.

Estrogen is the common link between most breast cancer risk factors, i.e., genetic, reproductive, dietary, lifestyle and environmental. It both stimulates the division of breast cells (healthy as well as cancerous) and, especially in its 'bad' form, increases the risk of breast cancer. Thus, hormonal drugs such as tamoxifen that block the effects of estrogen on the breast were expected to reduce the risk of breast cancer recurring in women treated for breast cancer. (3)

Tamoxifen acts as a weak estrogen by competing for estrogen receptors much as phyto-estrogens do. Like phyto-estrogens, tamoxifen has mild estrogenic properties but is considered an anti-estrogen since it inhibits the activity of regular estrogens. More accurately, tamoxifen is an estrogen-blocker. It fights breast cancer by competing with estrogen for space on estrogen receptors in the tumor tissue. Every tamoxifen molecule that hooks onto an estrogen receptor prevents an estrogen molecule from linking up at the same site. Without a steady supply of estrogen, cells in an estrogen-receptor-positive (ER+) tumor do not thrive and the tumor's ability to spread is reduced. (4)

However, tamoxifen exhibited two conflicting characteristics. It could act either as an anti-estrogen or as an estrogen. Therefore, while tamoxifen is anti-estrogenic to the breast, it also acts as an estrogen to the uterus and, to a lesser extent, the heart, blood vessels and bone. So, although it initially showed the tendency to counter breast cancer recurrence, it would soon be revealed that it also promoted particularly aggressive uterine and liver cancers, caused fatal blood clots and interfered with many other functions.

Doctors, however, were quick to jump on the tamoxifen bandwagon, turning a blind eye to its more injurious tendencies. Starting in the 1970's oncologists began using tamoxifen to treat women with cancer, often in combination with other drugs, radiation or surgery such as lumpectomy and mastectomy, with modest success. Like DES, tamoxifen's benefits were then extended for use as a preventive against osteoporosis and heart disease.

Today, doctors are treating about one million American breast cancer patients with tamoxifen, about 20 per cent of them for more than five years. As studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1989 and the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 1992 showed, women with breast cancer who took tamoxifen reduced their chances of developing cancer in the other breast (contralateral cancer) by about 30 to 50 per cent. (3) These findings would later be challenged.

Tamoxifen is now recommended for all pre-menopausal women with hormone-positive cancers, as well as for most postmenopausal women with breast cancer and/or a growing number of women with hormone-negative cancers. Tamoxifen is currently used by more women with breast cancer than any other drug. (6)

Tamoxifen (brand name Nolvadex) is now the most widely prescribed cancer medication in the world. It generated revenues of US $265 million in 1992. By 1995, worldwide sales of Nolvadex reached $400 million. (7) And at AUD $90 for one month's supply, it doesn't come cheap (the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme covers $70).

Tamoxifen was developed by UK-based Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), one of the world's largest multinational chemical corporations. Zeneca, an ICI subsidiary, is responsible for manufacturing and marketing the hormone and is now the world's largest cancer-drug company.

It is no surprise that ICI's profits come from playing both sides of the cancer industry. ICI's agrochemical division, which includes Zeneca, manufactures chlorinated and other industrial chemicals including herbicides. All are poisonous, and many are known endocrine-disrupters that have been incriminated as causes of breast cancer. ICI's profits swell by manufacturing chemicals that on the one hand cause breast cancer, and on the other hand reputedly cure breast cancer.

LIMITED BENEFITS OF TAMOXIFEN

Tamoxifen 's benefits are determined by several factors: (8)
Postmenopausal women who are ER-positive (have a positive estrogen receptor status) get the most benefit. For postmenopausal women who are ER-negative, the benefits appear to outweigh the risks.

For pre-menopausal women who are ER-positive, it's a tough call. Potential benefits are small.

Pre-menopausal women who are ER negative receive virtually no benefit. Tamoxifen is more effective in women who have cancer in their lymph nodes than in those whose nodes are cancer-free.

In 1992 the Lancet published a review of a number of studies in which a total of 30,000 breast cancer patients were randomly assigned either to take tamoxifen or not. The average patient in this collaborative study was followed up for between five and six years. Of the patients taking tamoxifen, 74.4 per cent survived, as compared with 70.9 per cent in the non-tamoxifen group — a less than impressive improvement.

The report found that the group helped most consisted of post-menopausal women with ER-positive status. The study went on to report that pre-menopausal women who are ER-negative had absolutely no benefit from taking tamoxifen. (9)

Despite tamoxifen's proven ability to reduce breast cancer recurrence in postmenopausal women, major studies have shown that tamoxifen reduces death from breast cancer only marginally. (10) The majority of women who take tamoxifen live no longer than women who do not take it. (11) Furthermore, some breast cancers learn how to use tamoxifen to stimulate their growth.

The benefits of tamoxifen are limited. Virtually all women who take it become resistant within five years. (12) A recent randomized controlled study showed that tamoxifen reached its maximum protective effect on breast tissue with women who took it for five years. Taking it for five more years didn't offer any more protection, and may actually have caused more cancers. In other words, after a while the breast cells become resistant to tamoxifen and actually start to be fed by it. (13)

This result surprised the researchers. According to Dr. Susan Love, author of Dr. Susan Love's Hormone Book: "This is a dramatic example of why you need good, long-term studies. If we had based all of our recommendations on the five-year data without doing further studies, we would have had women taking tamoxifen forever. So convinced were we that tamoxifen was a wonder drug that the only reason researchers did the later study at all was to prove it wrong. Luckily, we found out that we were wrong in time to prevent doing further damage. We have learned, not for the first time, that more isn't always better." (l4)

TAMOXIFEN'S DARK SIDE

While the initial findings of tamoxifen's role in breast cancer treatment seemed so promising, as with so many of the synthetic hormone drugs, further research presented grave concerns for its widespread use. In fact, the MIMS Annual lists 25 adverse reactions to tamoxifen: some of l these can be fatal.

Menopausal Symptoms

Tamoxifen often induces menopausal symptoms in menstruating women. About half of these women experience hot flushes. Fluid retention and weight l gain to occur in about 25 per cent of l women and can be controlled by reducing the dose. Vaginal discharge and vaginal atrophy are additional symptoms. Some studies have also found l that pre-menopausal users are at risk of developing accelerated bone-mineral loss and osteoporosis.

Menstrual irregularities also occur in pre-menopausal women. Amenorrhea (absence of the menstrual cycle) often results and can be permanent.

Eye Damage

According to a 1978 study in Cancer Treatment Reports and another published in Cancer in 1992, about six per cent of women taking even low-dose tamoxifen suffer damage to the retina and corneal opacities and decreased visual acuity. Irreversible corneal and retinal changes can occur in those taking 20 mg. of tamoxifen twice a day (twice the usual dose). These changes may have no immediate effect on visual acuity, but may predispose the eyes to later problems including cataracts.

Blood Clots

Tamoxifen irritates the walls of the veins, and inflammation (a natural healing response to irritation) follows. The constant irritation and inflammation weakens the veins, causing bleeding, clotting, thrombophlebitis and, in the worst cases, obstruction of the blood vessels serving the lungs, which can be deadly and can occur with little warning. The incidence of thrombophlebitis in women using oral contraceptives is generally regarded as significant (1 in 2,000); however, with tamoxifen it's 30 times greater."

Several studies, including one reported to the FDA's Oncological Drugs Advisory Committee by the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project in 1991, showed that the risk of developing life-threatening blood clots increases about seven times in women taking tamoxifen. (6)

Psychological Symptoms

Depression has been reported as a potential side-effect of tamoxifen in 30 per cent of women. Cases have been reported of an inability to concentrate.

It is important that patients observe their moods and mental states. If it is suspected at tamoxifen is causing depression or lack of concentration, it is suggested that a period of tamoxifen avoidance be considered.

Other Symptoms

Tamoxifen can trigger asthma attacks in some sensitive patients.

Changes to the vocal cords resulting in impairment of singing and speaking abilities are occasionally caused by tamoxifen.

CARCINOGENENIC EFFECTS

It wasn't long before laboratory studies showed that tamoxifen acted as a carcinogen. It has been found that tamoxifen binds tightly and irreversibly to DNA, the genetic blueprint of a cell, causing a cancerous mutation to take place. Even Australia's conservative National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) warned that no amount of tamoxifen is safe when it comes to carcinogenic effects.

In California there is a law called "Proposition 65" that requires the state to publish and maintain a list of all known carcinogens. In May 1995, the state's Carcinogen Identification Committee voted unanimously to add tamoxifen to its list.

Following suit, in 1996 the World Health Organization formally designated tamoxifen a human carcinogen, grouping it with 70 other chemicals — about one quarter of them pharmaceuticals — that have received this dubious distinction.

[Editor's note: This paragraph has been paraphrased from another writer's article and inserted here: In response to WHO's announcement, as reported in the mainstream journal, 'Science News' March 2, 1996, our National Cancer Institute and Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, which makes tamoxifen, aggressively lobbied California regulators to keep them from adding tamoxifen to their list of carcinogens. Here is open evidence of a government agency, chartered to find a cure for cancer, flagrantly colluding with a drug company to keep a known carcinogen on the market and keep the public from learning of its dangers. In this instance, NCI worked to promote cancer by suppressing information about a known carcinogen. This should have been a controversy of high order; instead it was barely reported in the press and few heard about it.]

Liver Cancer and Liver Disease

Tamoxifen is toxic to the liver, and there have been reports of acute hepatitis in patients treated with tamoxifen. Liver damage has occurred in every animal given tamoxifen. According to Gary Williams, medical director of the American Heart Foundation, tamoxifen has been shown in animal studies to be a "rip-roaring" liver carcinogen, inducing highly aggressive cancers in about 12 per cent of rats. (7)

The latest human studies show a six-fold increase in liver cancer among women taking tamoxifen for more than two years." Liver failure and tamoxifen-induced hepatitis, although rare, have been reported. Even Zeneca admits that tamoxifen is a liver carcinogen — while nevertheless aggressively promoting its use.

Uterine (Endometrial) Cancer

As early as 1967, ICI scientists noted that "tamoxifen persists for some days in the uterus". In rats, a tamoxifen metabolite (a breakdown compound almost similar in structure to the original) was found to influence the uterus to be more receptive to estrogen. (The more estrogen, the greater the chance of unnatural cell-division leading to cancer.) ICI also reported liver carcino-genicity of tamoxifen as well as both ovarian and testicular tumors in mice in its description of the drug in the standard Physicians Desk Reference.

Uterine growths such as polyps, tumors, endometrial thickenings and cancers occur in a significant number of women taking tamoxifen. One study detected abnormal endometrial cells in subjects the day after the first tablet was taken. (9) Pre-cancerous uterine and endometrial changes were seen in 10 per cent of the women taking tamoxifen in a recent study. The higher the dose of tamoxifen and the longer it is taken, the greater the risk of changes. Women taking the standard dose of 20 mg. for two years run a risk of uterine cancer that is 2 to 3 times greater than normal. After five years, the risk is 6 to 8 times greater. (20)

In February 1996 a review by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, composed of scientists from various countries, definitively concluded that "there is sufficient evidence to regard tamoxifen as a human carcinogen that increases a woman's risk of developing cancer of the endometrium, the inner lining of the uterus" (21)

A large Swedish study linking tamoxifen to uterine cancer forced Zeneca to send letters in April 1994 to 380,000 physicians across the USA, in defense of the drug. The Swedish researchers had studied 1,371 breast cancer patients who took 40 mg. per day for two to five years and found that there was a six-fold increase in uterine cancer among those patients who took tamoxifen when compared to 1,327 who did not. A second study involving patients who took 20 mg. per day (the recommended dose) also showed a marked increase in uterine cancers compared with the control group. (22)

When the news came out that breast cancer patients who took tamoxifen for five years or longer (the same regimen that seems to prevent recurrence) might have tripled their risk of uterine cancer, British cancer researcher Richard Peto, head of the cancer research unit at Oxford University, sought to dismiss it. If caught early, he said, endometrial cancer seldom kills, so "it's no big deal". That statement infuriated critics who noted that the treatment for uterine cancer is hysterectomy. Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, a leading women's health activist, angrily responded: "To some of us, it is a big deal to lose your uterus."

Shortly after Peto's flip dismissal of uterine cancers, researchers at the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center at Houston and at Yale University School of Medicine discovered that breast cancer patients who develop uterine cancer while using tamoxifen are likely to have a fast-moving, lethal form of the disease. (23)

It should be noted that tamoxifen has also been associated with gastrointestinal cancers.

Breast Cancer

The premise for taking tamoxifen is its supposed role in protecting breast cancer patients from recurrence of the cancer. It was further postulated that it prevented breast cancer from occurring in the opposite breast (contralateral).

However, disturbing findings continue to surface, challenging tamoxifen's effectiveness. In 1992 the New England Journal of Medicine showed that tamoxifen may reduce the incidence of contralateral cancer, but this was demonstrated only in pre-menopausal women and only in three out of eight trials. In another 1992 study, reported in Octa Oncologica, it was shown that tamoxifen not only failed to reduce contralateral cancers in pre-menopausal women, but it actually increased their incidence. (24)

The irony of tamoxifen is that, while widely publicized as the leading treatment against the recurrence of breast cancer, it is a known and listed carcinogenic substance.

Heart Disease and Osteoporosis

Another promise of tamoxifen was its supposed protective benefits for the heart and bones. It was theorized that its estrogenic properties would help reduce heart disease and osteoporosis in women, but once again the theory crumbled under the weight of hard facts.

Several trials with tamoxifen failed to show that it has any effect on bone density and thus on prevention of osteoporosis. In three other trials, bone density increased slightly in lower spinal vertebrae but not in longer bones or hip bones which are particularly susceptible to fractures and potentially fatal complications.

Initial data seemed to indicate that it decreased the incidence of heart attacks, but they have been disproved by more recent studies. According to Dr. Susan Love: "It doesn't seem to have a bad effect on lipids, but that's a far cry from preventing heart attacks."

A detailed review of the drug's alleged protective cardiovascular effects prompted the British National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, a once strong proponent of tamoxifen, to withdraw its support because the evidence of benefit proved so inadequate. (25)

According to the January 1996 issue of The Network News, it was reported at a closed-door meeting of the National Cancer Institute that tamoxifen failed to prevent heart disease in breast cancer patients.

THE BREAST CANCER PREVENTION TRIAL

Based far more on wishful thinking than on science, the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) leaped to the conclusion that tamoxifen's anti-estrogenic effects in relation to breast cancer treatment meant that the drug would prevent breast cancer from developing in healthy women.

Disregarding all the research implicating tamoxifen with serious and potentially fatal side-effects, the NCI launched a US$60 million breast cancer prevention trial in April 1992, aiming to recruit 16,000 healthy women in the United States, Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Still ongoing, the trial now involves 13,000 healthy women over the age of 35 who are considered at high risk. Australia has recruited 1,350 women, with a target of 2,500. For five years, half the women receive tamoxifen and half receive a placebo. The drug is supplied free of charge by manufacturer Zeneca.

Dr. Samuel Epstein, Professor Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health and author of The Breast Cancer Prevention Program, raises serious concerns. "Unfortunately, this misguided and dangerous approach to prevention stems from the entrenched fixation of the NCI on the use of chemical drugs to prevent cancer which may have been induced by chemical pollutants, medical technology (such as radiation from X-rays) and carcinogenic/estrogenic drugs in the first place. Instead of attempting to reduce the carcinogenic chemical burden under which we struggle to maintain our health, the NCI believes that the solution is to add more chemicals to the mix."

Dr. Susan Love concurs: "It is a sad state of affairs when we have to add yet more chemicals to counteract the effects of other chemicals."

This attitude extends to the way the NCI treats the women in the trial. They are given no guidance on alternative protective measures such as increasing exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, eating a protective diet and avoiding exposure to environmental carcinogens; nor are they being fully informed about the serious risks of tamoxifen.

Dr. Lynette Dumble, Senior Research Fellow in History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Melbourne, believes that the global trial to prevent breast cancer with tamoxifen is a modern and very large chapter of "medical imperialism". Back in October 1994 she commented on ABC TV's Quantum science program that the tamoxifen trial was the medical equivalent of mutilating surgery which prevents a woman from developing breast cancer by cutting off both her breasts.

Dr. Dumble sees women as vulnerable guinea pigs for the trial, and questions both the breast cancer risk of healthy women volunteering for the trial (how can you tell whether fate or tamoxifen prevents a woman from developing breast cancer?) and the terms of the trial's positives and negatives-if a woman dies of tamoxifen-related endometrial or liver cancer, does this count as a tamoxifen success in preventing breast cancer?

It seems absurd, but why would the powers-that-be continue to promote a trial that promises to substitute one cancer for another in otherwise healthy women? Once again, healthy women are targeted as the guinea pigs for a drug treatment that has already been proven to be a cause of a variety of cancers including breast cancer. In the case of tamoxifen, medical research has once again taken a back seat to profits. It is the population that is at risk. The cancer establishment would certainly be eager to prove a tamoxifen-prevention role, since it would then open up another huge, billion-dollar market.

ALTERNATIVES TO TAMOXIFEN

While the cancer establishment continues to invest vast amounts of money into research, manufacturing and trialing of harmful drugs for the prevention and hopeful cure of breast cancer, there are safer and more effective options that already exist.

Estriol, one of the estrogens produced by the ovaries, is considered a safe estrogen in that it has been shown to inhibit breast cancer. Dr. Henry Lemon and his colleagues conducted a study in women who already had breast cancer that had spread to other areas of the body. One group was given Estriol and another not. At the end of the study, 37 per cent of those women who received estriol had either a remission or an arrest of their cancer. Might not estriol, a natural, safe hormone with almost no side-effects, be able to accomplish what tamoxifen does but without the toxic side-effects?

There is also convincing evidence that natural progesterone has an important role in breast cancer treatment and prevention. A study conducted in 1981 at Johns Hopkins University revealed that when a group with a low progesterone level was compared with a normal-level progesterone group, it was found that the occurrence of breast cancer was 5.4 times greater in the women in the low progesterone group. That is, the incidence of breast cancer in the low progesterone group was over 80 per cent greater than in the normal progesterone group. When the researchers looked at the low progesterone group for all types of cancer, they found that these women experienced a tenfold increase in all malignant cancers, compared to the normal group.

In a 1995 study published in the Journal of Fertility and Sterility, researchers found that women using a topical progesterone cream had dramatically reduced breast cell multiplication rates compared to women using either a placebo or estrogen. This exciting study demonstrated that natural progesterone creams impressively decreased breast cell proliferation rates. (27)

Lifestyle factors also play a significant role. In a prospective study of 25,624 Norwegian women aged 20 to 54, after an average of 14 years of follow-up the investigators found strong evidence that everyday exercise, both at work and at leisure, reduced the breast cancer risk. Women who exercised at least four hours a week during leisure time were found to have a 37 per cent reduction in risk of breast cancer, compared with sedentary women. The study found that the more time spent exercising, the lower the breast cancer risk. (28)

As Dr. John Lee pointed out in his best-selling book, What Doctors May Not Tell You About Menopause: "Herbs and food contain phyto-estrogens. Their benefit parallels that of tamoxifen (without the adverse side-effects) in that phyto-estrogens occupy estrogen receptors and are less estrogenic than those made by the body. Since it is now known that reducing caloric intake reduces estrogen levels, and recent studies find 46 per cent less breast cancer among women consuming more fruit and vegetables, it would seem that women interested in preventing breast cancer could make modest changes in diet and derive better and certainly safer results." (29)

History continues to repeat itself. Time and time again women have been reassured that the wonder drugs or treatments offered them would be their salvation, only to discover they were exposed to harmful carcinogenic and mutagenic chemicals.

In addition to the DES debacle, the disasters of thalidomide, silicone breast implants, estrogen replacement therapy and now tamoxifen (to name just a few) continue to demonstrate how readily women's lives have been sacrificed in the pursuit of profits. The warnings have been drowned out by the glossy advertising campaigns and the reassurances of "medical experts".

There are solutions to the breast cancer epidemic. However, they will be found more by altering lifestyle, dietary and stress factors, and reducing or eliminating exposure to the many known toxic, carcinogenic chemicals that are polluting the environment, than by some miraculous drug discovery. It is also up to women not only to continue to become fully educated about safe health options but to demand them from health providers. Too many women have already been maimed and sacrificed to unproven and unsafe drug treatments.

It is widely believed that today's drugs are tomorrow's poisons.

In the case of tamoxifen, tomorrow has already arrived.

End notes:
Weed, Susan S., Breast Cancer? Breast Health!, Ash Tree Publishing, Woodstock, New York, 1996, page 203
Batt, Sharon, Patient No More: The Politics of Breast Cancer, Spinifex Press, Melbourne, Australia, 1994, page 118
Epstein MD, Samuel S.; Steinman, David; LeVert, Suzanne; The Breast Cancer Prevention Program, Macmillan, New York, 1997, page 145
Rinzler, Carol Ann, Estrogen and Breast Cancer, Hunter House, California, 1996, pages 148 - 149
Epstein, ibid., page 146
Weed, ibid., page 201
Clorfene-Casten, Liane, Breast Cancer: Poisons, Profits and Prevention, Common Courage Press, Maine, USA, 1996, page 93
Austin ND, Steve; Hitchcock, Cathy; Breast Cancer: What You Should Know (But May Not Be Told) About Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment, Prima Publishing, Rocklion, California, 1994, page 102
Early Breast Cancer Trials Collaborative Group, "Systemic treatment of early breast cancer by hormonal, cytotoxic, or immune therapy." The Lancet (1992) 339, pages 1 - 15, 71 - 85
De Gregorio, M. and Wibe, V., Tamoxifen and Breast Cancer, Yale University, USA, 1994
Batt, ibid., page 125
De Gregorio and Wibe, op. cit.
Love MD, Susan, Dr. Susan Love's Hormone Book, Random House, New York, 1997, page 264
Ibid., pages 264 - 265
Weed, ibid., page 204
Epstein, ibid., page 149
Ibid.
Weed, ibid., page 205
Adler, T., "Study reaffirms tamoxifen's dark side", Science News, June 4, 1994, page 356
"Studies spark tamoxifen controversy", Science News, February 26, 1994, page 133
Nesmith, Jeff, "Breast Cancer Drug Increases Risk:, The Atlanta Journal / The Atlanta Constitution, February 22, 1996
Clorfene-Casten, ibid., page 89
Rinzler, ibid., page 152
Epstein, ibid., page 146
Ibid., page 148
Northrup MD, Christiane, Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom, Bantam Books, New York, 1996, page 158
Sellman, Sherrill, Hormone Heresy: What Women MUST Know About Their Hormones, GetWell International, USA, 1997, pages 107 - 108
Thune MD, Inger, et al., New England Journal of Medicine, May 1, 1997
Lee MD, John R., What Doctors May Not Tell You About Menopause, Warner Books, New York, 1996, page 220

© 1998 by Sherrill Sellman
------------------------------------

The author, Sherrill Sellman, is a psychotherapist, lecturer, and writer on women's health issues and author of the best selling book, Hormone Heresy: What Women MUST Know About Their Hormones, is committed to providing women with the most accurate health information enabling them to make safe, effective and informed choices.

Sherrill lectures widely throughout Australia and internationally. She can be contacted at: POBox 690416 Tulsa, OK USA 74169-0416; Ph: 918-437-1058; email: golight@earthlink.net

Omega-3 Fatty Acids

By now we've probably all heard about how beneficial Omega-3 fatty acids are, some of you may already have increaesed your Omega-3's years ago. For those of you who haven't yet, or for those who would like to have another source of Omega-3's available, I have some great news!

The end of next week, Young Living is launcing one of many new products. The one I want to discuss now is a product called, "Omega Blue."

Omega Blue consists of a combination of Omega-3's and the highest quality essential oils for internal use. This is fantastic news for heart health! What Young Living has done that's absolutely brilliant is they've added organic therapeutic-grade essential oils to the high quality fish oils to help prevent rancidity. Be sure to read the labels on all fish oils because refrigeration is neccessary, even for unopened bottles.

Below is an article about a study published by NewsTarget...

Omega-3 Fatty Acids Outperform Automated External Defibrillators in Saving Lives From Heart Attacks

(NewsTarget) New research published in the October issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine indicates that consuming omega-3 fatty acids may be more effective at preventing sudden cardiac deaths than automated external defibrillators or implanted defibrillators.

Researchers from the Heart Center at Regions Hospital in St. Paul, Minn., used a computer-simulated study of 100,000 residents in Olmsted County, Minn., to determine that the residents consuming the highest levels of omega-3 fatty acids experienced a 6.4 percent lower overall death rate. The researchers found that automated external defibrillators (AEDs) reduced the death rate by only 0.8 percent, and implanted defibrillators lowered death rates by 3.3 percent.

In the population of 100,000 -- which was simulated to allow researchers to examine patient data under unrealistic conditions, such as full patient compliance with prescriptions -- the researchers found that increasing consumption of omega-3s could save 58 lives per year, while AEDs would only save seven lives, and implanted defibrillators would save 30.

"Once again, nutrition triumphs over complicated medical technology," explained Mike Adams, a holistic nutritionist and author of The Seven Laws of Nutrition. "When it comes to saving lives from heart attacks, simple, low-cost omega-3 oils are outperforming complex, expensive technology devices that have to be surgically implanted," he said. "As a bonus, these oils also reduce inflammation and joint pain, help regulate blood sugar, eliminate ADHD symptoms, protect the brain and nervous system from oxidative damage, boost skin elasticity and even help prevent cancer. No defibrillator can do that."

Sources of Omega-3's are: oily fish, cold water fish and flax seeds. Flax oil is good but do NOT cook with it as heat turns it into linseed oil, that's right, the linseed oil furniture finishers use to get that nice antique looking wood finish. Flax seed oil also requires refrigeration, even if unopened.

Stay tuned for more information coming out in the next few weeks on Omega Blue! And of course, you will be able to order it at my website as soon as it's available.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

30 Ways You Can Poison Yourself Before Breakfast

Reference: The Politics of Poison by Nina G. Silver, Ph.D., 2000, Government agencies, and medical institutions, and product Manufacturers

If a product has a WARNING on the label, it is POISON!

"What is the cumulative effect on our health after using many, many products that contain small amounts of dangerous poisonous chemicals?"

According to the U.S. Government and product manufacturers, below is a partial list of chemical and synthetic poisons found in common products that are absorbed, ingested, or inhaled by the body before you even eat breakfast!


(This list does not include the additional use of common household cleaners, which are more poisonous.)

PRODUCTS AND KNOWN POISONOUS INGREDIENTS

Mattress & Pillow: 4, 7

Air Freshener: 1, 4, 7, 8

Bath Soap*, Bath Gels* or Body Wash: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Hair Shampoo: 1, 3, 4, 8

Skin Lotions: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Shaving Cream: 3, 4, 8

Aftershave Lotions: 1, 4, 8

Skin Rash/Acne Medications: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Moisturizers: 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Antiperspirants: 1, 4, 5, 7, 8

Cologne: 1, 4, 7, 8

Underarm Deodorant: 1, 4, 7, 8

Hair Spray: 4, 7

Toothpaste: 3, 4, 5, 6

Mouthwash: 4, 5, 6

Foot Deodorant Powder: 4, 6, 8

Plastic Drinking Glass: 8


LAUNDRY

Detergent*: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Fabric Softener: 3, 4, 5, 7

Chlorine Bleach: 1, 2

Dry Cleaned Clothes: 1, 7


FEMININE PRODUCTS

Cosmetics (Make-up): 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8

Feminine Deodorant: 4, 7

Sanitary Napkins: 4, 7

Perfumes: 1, 4, 7, 8

Facial Cleansers: 3, 4, 8

Nail Polish: 4, 5, 7, 8


*Anti-bacterial products contain poisonous pesticides and fungicides as ingredients that create more serious health risks.

Negative Health Effects (a partial list)

1.) Alcohols - Acid and Alkali: rashes, muscle weakness, headaches, dizziness, nerve damage, vision problems, sleeping problems, stomach cramps, disorientation, coughing, depression, respiratory problems, anemia, organ damage, fatigue, heart damage, cancer, death.

2.) Chlorines: headaches, mertal function difficulties, pulmonary edemas and heart disease, diabetes, gastrointestinal and urinary tract cancer, organ and gland cancer, severe eye problems, immune system breakdown, child development problems, anemia, and more.

3.) Detergents/Emulsifiers: strip skin of protective oils, interference with nutrient absorption, skin irritation, scalp eruptions, hair loss, allergic reaction, cataract formation, organ damage, reproductive damage, blindness, cancer.

4.) Synthetic Fragrance & Dyes: allergic reaction, skin rashes, ADD, stomach upsets, muscular aches and pains, violent coughing and sneezing, irritability, vertigo, hyperactivity, convulsions, emotional and behavioral problems, Leukemia, Hodgkin's, multiple tumors, reproductive damage, headaches, dizziness, organ damage, depression, cancer.

5.) Heavy Metals: abdominal cramps, mausea, joint and bone pain, muscle weakness, mouth sores, muscle, joint , and bone pain; cancer, reduced intelligence, motor difficulties, brain disorders, short attention span, aging, hyperactivity, emotional disorders, immune disorders, genetic damage, aging.

6.) Pesticides & Fungicides: flu-like symptoms, (fatigue, muscle and joint pain), stomach cramps, nervous system disorders, insomnia, memory loss, swelling of body parts, dizziness, genetic mutations, birth defects, gland tumors, organ damage, cancer, death.

7.) Petrochemicals: inhibit skin functions, pimples, rashes, splitting nails, sensitivity to sun, headaches, premature aging, allergic reactions, fatigue, depression, intestinal gas, asthma, respiratory failure, immune disorders.

8.) Preservatives (synthetic): headaches, skin rashes, eye damage, asthma, respiratory problems, tumors, cancer, digestive problems, mental confusion, organ damage, muscle weakness & cramps, loss of motor control, joint pain, reproductive damage, etc.

When using common household cleaners in the shower, on mirrors, toilet, in the kitchen, etc., you inhale and absorb a whole new range of poisonous chemicals that can damage the organs, eyes, central nervous, and respiratory systems.

Day after day, week after week, year after year, people may be unaware they are being exposed to numerous poisonous chemicals found in common, everyday household and personal care products. By themselves there is reason for concern, but when you combine them in your body, there is reason to worry.

To learn how you can protect yourself and family from these poisonous threats, visit my website to find safe products and solutions to replace the poisons you may be using: The Very Essence and click on "Library", then click "4 Phase Plan To Optimum Health" to see how easy it is to transfer from toxic products to safe, all natural alternatives.

Your skin is your most important immune defense barrier as well as your largest organ for eliminating waste. Commercial products containing petroleum ingredients can plasticize your skin, making germs more likely to get in and toxins less likely to get out.

Good health begins with taking control of what is in your home, and taking responsibility of our bodies!

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Research Report on Young Living Essential Oils

Weber State University Publishes Young Living Essential Oil Research Report

The U.S. lags behind other countries in essential oil research is well known.

Weber State University, sponsored by Young Living Essential Oils, Inc. , to research Essential Oils, published in 1997 its Annual Research Report. The mission of the work is to identify which oils, and/or combination of oils are effective against disease-causing microorganisms.

The study also compared the effectiveness of two often used antibiotics, Penicillin and Ampicillin, with 4 essential oils (two single oils and two blends) against 2 bacteria with known high morbidity rates, Escherichia coli (E-Coli) and Staphylococcus aureus. The four essential oils are Cinnamon, Oregano, Immupower and Purification.

The results clearly showed all 4 oils were superior to both Penicillin and Ampicillin in their ability to kill the microorganisms. In the case of Penicillin, lysis disintegration of E-Coli did not occur. Apparently this generation of bacteria strain is totally resistant to Penicillin. Interestingly, the kill rate with essential oils went up dramatically as more of the oil was added. This same effect, however, did not occur when more of the antibiotics were added. This however, does not mean that the more of an essential oil that is used the better. Whenever an essential oil is used it should be therapeutic-grade and should be used mindfully and within the guidelines of the Essential Oils Desk Reference.

With National attention focused on E-Coli bacteria outbreaks, we want to share a portion of another Weber State Study with you that deals with this potential killer. To understand the numbers next to each oil below, it is necessary to know something of how the study was conducted.

A small piece of paper infiltrated with essential oil was placed in a petri dish infected with Escherichia coli. After a period of incubation, examination revealed a dark shadow around the paper indicating Lysis (disintegration) of the E-Coli. The diameter or size of the dark circle is demonstrative of the kill ratio and referred to as the "Zone of Inhibition" (Through replication, researchers know that E-Coli cannot grow in this zone).

Measured in millimeters (mm), the Zone of Inhibition was noted for each of 67 different oils tested. There were nine oils that the Zone of Inhibition measured 25 mm or larger, meaning these oils are most effective against E-Coli.

They are:
Rosewood 40 mm
Cinnamon Bark 32 mm
Peppermint 30 mm
Thyme 30 mm
Ravensara 30 mm
Oregano 30 mm
Mountain Savory 30 mm
Lavender 25 mm

By mixing Peppermint and Rosewood with a ratio of 1 part Peppermint to 8 parts Rosewood, researchers discovered the Zone of Inhibition for E-Coli increased to 50 mm.

This is wonderful news as one begins to speculate how commerce might employ these oils to insure the safety of our food supply. One in particular, Peppermint oil, caught our attention. Already in use as a food additive, health conscious consumers may consider spraying countertops, sinks, fruits and vegetables with therapeutic-grade Peppermint oil diluted in water, as a safeguard against the possibility of E-Coli infected food.

The Weber State study is important because it confirms that essential oils play a vital role in the health and well-being of mankind.

Monday, September 18, 2006

The Healing Properties of Tea Tree Essential Oil

Belonging to the same family of plants as the eucalyptus tree, the Melaleuca alternifolia or tea tree, was discovered in the 1770s by Captain James Cook when he witnessed native Australians brewing tea from its leaves. Growing 20 feet high, the tree resembles a shrub. The tree's leaves are collected twice a year and distilled to expel the oil.

The active ingredients of Melaleuca alternifolia (or Tea Tree) oil are terpinen and cineole. Terpinen is the ingredient responsible for the healing properties. Cineole contributes the disinfectant properties. In large amounts, cineole is caustic to human tissue. In order to obtain the best results from using tea tree oil, the percentage of terpinen must be between 35 and 60 percent, and the percentage of cineole must be below ten percent to ensure skin safety during usage.

In 1920, Dr. A. Penfold tested the oil's properties for the first time. He discovered that Melaleuca oil was 12 times more potent than the accepted antiseptic at the time, carbolic acid. Dr. Penfold's research prompted further testing in the following decades, contributing to its increasing use by the public. Australian physicians were astounded by the oil's ease in sterilizing wounds and preventing infections resulting from surgery. In the late 1940s, the introduction of antibiotics such as penicillin caused a drop in the use of tea tree oil. However, in 1980, growth in immunity to antibiotics and improved tea tree harvesting procedures created a new demand for this amazing substance.

When compared to standard antibiotics and antiseptics, Melaleuca oil displays unique characteristics. In contrast to iodine and hydrogen peroxide, two commonly accepted antiseptics, tea tree oil does not harm human tissue. It also kills germs upon application and prevents their growth for days afterward.

As an alternative to traditional antibiotics, tea tree oil's complex chemical composition makes it extremely difficult for germs to develop resistance to it. Traditional antibiotics possess more simple chemical structures to which germs can easily develop immunity.

Due to its potent healing and antiseptic properties, the oil has many varied uses.  It is most effective in treating skin diseases and respiratory illnesses. Some skin conditions showing marked improvement after applications of tea tree oil are acne, dandruff, burns, cold sores, warts and cuts. Recent research at the Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney, Australia indicates that tea tree oil eliminates the onset of infections in first and second degree burns while rapidly healing skin tissue and preventing scarring.

Tea tree oil is also effective as an additional treatment for colds, bronchitis, whooping cough and pneumonia. Adding it to a vapourizer and inhaling the fumes helps to kill germs that infect the sinuses and lungs. Similar to eucalyptus oil, tea tree oil also opens clogged respiratory passages.

Household cleaning solutions based on the therapeutic-grade Tea Tree oil provide a healthy alternative to products containing harmful and very toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde (suspected of causing cancer and birth defects), ammonia and phenol (which irritate the respiratory tract), to name just two. Tea tree oil is an excellent insect repellent and can be used to repel ticks and soothe sunburns by reducing inflammation. Applying the oil to insect bites reduces swelling and disinfects the area.

It can also be utilized to reduce the spread of infection in hospitals. Besides sterilizing surgical instruments, washing with soap containing the oil reduces the chances of cross contamination. Soaps made from the oil are 60 times stronger in killing bacteria when compared to other disinfectant soaps. Tea Tree oil soap, unlike the antibacterial commercial soaps available, will not cause bacteria to mutate and become a resistant strain of bacteria. In Australia, dental patients are often instructed to apply tea tree oil to infected teeth a few days before dental work occurs to prevent post-operative infections.

Sports medicine physicians, chiropractors and massage therapists can capitalize on the healing properties of this useful oil in the treatment of sports and work-related injuries as well as sore muscles. Applied to physical injuries, it sanitizes the area, reduces the level of swelling and acts as an anaesthetic. Its deep penetrating action soothes sore muscles and loosens them up, making this oil an essential tool in massage therapy.

Information found here refers solely to products from Young Living Essential Oils and is for educational purposes only. It is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent disease. We urge you to do the health related research necessary to learn what is right for you. Young Living uses only therapeutic grade oils. Perfume grade or poor quality oils may possibly be harmful due to unknown additives and poor plant or distillation conditions. US labeling for essential oils is governed by the Perfume Act, allowing labels to say "100%"pure essential oil" and by law contain only 5% of any grade oils.

You can find Young Living therapeutic-grade Tea Tree (Melaleuca) essential oil and Tea Tree/Melaleuca and Geranium bar soap at my website:
The Very Essence

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Why Essential Oils Heal and Drugs Don't

by David Stewart, Ph.D.

If you tell a medical doctor that essential oils can bring about healing with no negative side effects, they won't believe you. This is because in medical school students are repeatedly told by their professors that all effective medicines have negative side effects, and if they don't, then they can't be effective.

When I was in medical school one professor emphasized this point in a colorful, graphic manner with specially prepared slides. In each slide specific drugs were depicted as evil looking demons or goblins. As he presented each picture, he explained, "Although ugly and capable of doing harm, these 'demons' are also the bearers of some good. So long as the benefits outweigh the risks, we use them," he summarized. "We have no choice," he continued, "because if a drug has no dangers, then it can have no benefits. That's just the way it is. And that's why it is essential that only qualified physicians be allowed to prescribe medicines," he concluded.

Actually, the professor was telling the truth. Within the restricted practice of allopathy (MDs) the only real medicines are physician prescribed pharmaceuticals. Such medicines always do have negative side effects. All of them. No exceptions. Hence, doctors are trained to accept the bad with the good as the price of effective medicine.

The Danger is in the Drug, Itself
The dangers of prescription drugs are intrinsic to the drugs, themselves. No matter how careful the physician in prescribing and how compliant the patient in following doctor's orders, even then deaths and damages occur. In fact, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, more than 100,000 Americans die every year, not from illegal drugs, not from drug overdoses, not from over-the-counter drugs, and not from drug abuses, but from properly prescribed, properly taken prescriptions. In this country, more people die from doctor's prescriptions every ten days than were killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Why is this so? Why do allopathic drugs always have undesirable effects (along with their apparent benefits) while one can find healing with natural products, such as essential oils, with no undesirable effects? Here is why.

Why Companies Deliberately Sell Dangerous Products
It is illegal to patent any natural product. The way to big profits in the medicine industry is to create an unnatural substance that never before existed in nature, then patent it, and obtain a monopoly. Hence, the molecules of pharmaceutical drugs are all strange to the human body. In all the history of humankind, such molecules were never encountered or taken into any human body. Hence, the body does not easily metabolize them. God never made your body to accept and deal with these chemicals and antibiotics. Hence, you can find traces of prescription drugs in your body that were taken in childhood, decades ago.

On the other hand, natural molecules, such as those found in essential oils, are easily metabolized by the body. In fact, your body was created to handle them. When an essential oil molecule finds the receptor sites it was designed to fit and conveys its information to the cell, or participates in other therapeutic functions, it then goes on its way to the liver and the kidneys and moves out of the body. Its benefits have been conveyed and its job is complete.

By contrast, the unnatural molecules of man-made drugs attach themselves to various tissues, disrupting normal function, for years while the body tries to figure out what to do with them. Meanwhile, they wreak mischief with our bodily functions and even our minds.

Drugs versus Oils
Drugs and oils work in opposite ways. Drugs toxify. Oils detoxify. Drugs clog and confuse receptor sites. Oils clean receptor sites. Drugs depress the immune system. Oils strengthen the immune system. Antibiotics attack bacteria indiscriminately, killing both the good and the bad. Oils attack only the harmful bacteria, allowing our body’s friendly flora to flourish.

Drugs are designed to send misinformation to cells or to block certain receptor sites in order to trick the body into giving up symptoms. But drugs never deal with the actual causes of disease. They aren't designed for that purpose. While they may give prompt relief for certain uncomfortable symptoms, because of their strange, unnatural design, they will always disrupt certain other bodily functions. Thus you always have some side effects.

Oil molecules send information to cells and cleanse receptor sites so that they bring your body back to natural function. Oils are Balancing to the body. Drugs are unbalancing to the body. Oils address the causes of disease at a cellular level by deleting misinformation and reprogramming correct information so that cells function properly and in harmony with one another. With drugs, misinformation is fed into the cells so that some temporary relief may be obtained, but there is never any true healing. Drugs only trade one kind of disease for another.

Because essential oils properly applied always work toward the restoration of proper bodily function, they do not cause undesirable side effects. They are feeding the body with truth. Drugs feed the body with lies. While no amount of truth can contradict itself, it doesn't take many lies before contradictions occur and the body suffers ill effects.

Sixteen Doctors Speak Out
Not all physicians are caught up in the idea that the only good medicines are ones that can also be harmful. Here are some comments by physicians, themselves, on the practice of medicine.

"The cause of most disease is in the poisonous drugs physicians superstitiously give in order to effect a cure." Charles E. Page, M.D.

"Medicines are of subordinate importance because of their very nature, they can only work symptomatically." Hans Kusche, M.D.

"The person who takes medicine must recover twice, once from the disease and once from the medicine." William Osler, M.D.

"If all the medicine in the world were thrown into the sea, it would be bad for the fish and good for humanity" O.W. Holmes, M.D. (Prof. of Med. Harvard University)

"Drug medications consist in employing, as remedies for disease, those things which produce disease in well persons. Its materia medica is simply a lot of drugs or chemicals or dye-stuffs—in a word poisons. All are incompatible with vital matter; all produce disease when brought in contact in any manner with the living; all are poisons." R.T. TraIl, M.D., (lecture to members of congress and the medical profession, Smithsonian Institute, Washington D.C.)

"Every drug increases and complicates the patients condition." Robert Henderson, M.D.

"The greatest part of all chronic disease is created by the suppression of acute disease by drug poisoning." Henry Lindlahr, M.D.

"Every educated physician knows that most diseases are not appreciably helped by medicine." Richard C. Cabot, M.D. (Mass. Gen. Hospital)

"Medicine is only palliative, for back of disease lies the cause, and this cause no drug can reach." Wier Mitchel, M.D.

"Medical practice has neither philosophy nor common sense to recommend it. In sickness the body is already loaded with impurities. By taking drug - medicines more impurities are added, thereby the case is further embarrassed and harder to cure." Elmer Lee, M.D., Past Vice President, Academy of Medicine.

"Our figures show approximately four and one half million hospital admissions annually due to the adverse reactions to drugs. Further, the average hospital patient has as much as thirty percent chance, depending how long he is in, of doubling his stay due to adverse drug reactions." Milton Silverman, M.D. (Professor of Pharmacology, University of California)

"What hope is there for medical science to ever become a true science when the entire structure of medical knowledge is built around the idea that there is an entity called disease which can be expelled when the right drug is found?" John H. Tilden, M.D.

"We are prone to thinking of drug abuse in terms of the male population and illicit drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. It may surprise you to learn that a greater problem exists with millions of women dependent on legal prescription drugs." Robert Mendelsohn, M.D (author of book, "Confessions of a Medical Heretic.)

"Why would a patient swallow a poison because he is ill, or take that which would make a well man sick." L.F. Kebler, M.D.

"Drugs never cure disease. They merely hush the voice of nature's protest, and pull down the danger signals she erects along the pathway of transgression. Any poison taken into the system has to be reckoned with later on even though it palliates present symptoms. Pain may disappear, but the patient is left in a worse condition, though unconscious of it at the time." Daniel. H. Kress, M.D.

"The necessity of teaching mankind not to take drugs and medicines, is a duty incumbent upon all who know their uncertainty and injurious effects; and the time is not far distant when the drug system will be abandoned." Charles Armbruster, M. D.

Conclusion
So there you have it, why oils heal and drugs don't. Let's hope Dr. Armbruster is right, that "the time is not far distant when the drug system will be abandoned." Pharmaceutical companies and their physician drug dealers could market and sell natural products with genuine healing capabilities, but most won't. There isn't any money in it.

In my opinion, changing the medical system toward more natural and spiritual forms of healing is impossible. The system can't change. It must be replaced. Those of you who have opted out of the system in favor of essential oils and their physical, mental, emotional and spiritual benefits are among the pioneers who are replacing the system.

And for those of you who have taken prescriptions drugs over long periods of time, essential oils are your best friend because they can cleanse the residues of these drugs from your system once and for all and help restore your body back to its natural healthy state.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The information is not meant to diagnose, prescribe, or substitute for professional medical assistance. It is provided as information only for your better understanding of holistic health. In case of medical need, please consult an appropriate licensed professional.