Month: April 2008

Taken from a recent Ask Tony Isaacs CureZone forum question

Q:
 Hi Tony ,

I see a lot of valuable information in your posts and I thank you for that, but it amazes me how you keep recommending different supplements, vitamins (synthetic) and other stuff that is supposed to be healthy and yet you miss the fact that all supplements are made by the same companies that make drugs, they don't work, they have side effects just like drugs,they are not natural – synthetic Vitamin C is not real Vitamin C, it is a mirror image of the real one and is toxic. For decades now humans try to imitate nature and never succeed. You cannot take a real Vitamin and put it in a pill, you cannot take herbs and make drugs from them and expect miracles. I think it is misleading for a lot of people to push synthetic stuff. I think if nature made it and it's not processed by humans in any way or form then it's good for you. Why bother taking 10grams Vitamin C (synthetic) when you can just have some rosehips and get all the other minerals and vitamins on top of Vitamin C. Colloidal Silver? Are you sure? What for? There are so many natural antibiotics in nature (natural, not man made) that I don't see why would anyone bother with Colloidal Silver and take any chances.

No offense intended, just my opinion. Let me know what you think.

Thanks

A:
No offense taken and you ask a good question. My answer is that first of all, there is a big difference between a chemically and bio-identical form of a vitamin as opposed to a patented altered version not found in nature.  Take Vitamin C. No one is more respected than two-time Nobel laureate Linus Pauling when it comes to vitamin C.  According to the Linus Pauling Institute:

• Natural vs. synthetic ascorbic acid: Natural and synthetic ascorbic acid are chemically identical. As assessed by at least two studies, there appears to be no clinically significant difference in the bioavailability and bioactivity of natural ascorbic acid and synthetic ascorbic acid.
Jane Higdon, R.N., Ph.D.
LPI Research Associate

In an ideal and idyllic world, we would be able to get from nature all the vitamins and minerals and other nutrition we needed to supply our basic needs and to build and maintain a strong immune system so we could beat and ward off disease.

In order to do that, we would have to have sources for a constant supply of a wide variety of fresh vegetables and fruits which came from uncontaminated nutrient rich soils, as well as meat and fish that was free of contaminants and not subject to feedlot or artificial growth practices.

We would also need a supply of clean air, fresh uncontaminated mineral rich water and a superior herb garden with all the best medicinal plants nature had to offer.

Few of us can come even close to such a world.  And even if we could, contamination of the soil and air and water is world-wide now with chemicals nature did not intend our immune systems to have to overcome.  Believing that you can get everything you want from your diet and a few herbs is a nice thought.  In your grandmother's day it would likely have been true.  Back then, a bowl of fresh spinach had eight times the nutrition as it does today, and many hundreds of times less contamination. The same as was true for other foods, the soil, the air, and the water.

Cancer and other chronic illnesses are in large part man-made diseases, as we have failed miserably in our duties to be good shepherds of the bounty nature has supplied for us.  For the 99.999% of the people who cannot live in such an idyllic world, especially here in the United States and most other developed countries, you simply cannot get the nutrients you need from diet and available fresh herbs alone to maintain an optimum immune system, much less to boost it and help it face the onslaught of modern chemicals man has dumped into our water, foods, air, soil, plants and animals.

Silver and the oleander I write extensively about are both natural.  Both have been used for thousands of years to combat illness and promote health.  Many of the products that I recommend are derived from nature, such as the 75 plant derived colloidal trace minerals.  And the others, contrary to what you may believe are almost entirely NOT made by pharmaceutical companies and have not been changed to a different patentable chemical compound.  Sorry, but your statement, "all supplements are made by the same companies that make drugs" is incorrect.

You say that man has tried to imitate nature and failed. I say that man could do much worse than imitate or mirror nature (as opposed to alter it).  It is when man has tried to change nature that he has failed most.  To say that we should only consume something if nature made it and it's not been processed by humans in any shape or form would rule out all cooked foods and most natural beverages.  I have yet to find a whole wheat muffin and glass of hot tea sitting in the field or woods.  And as far as taking out a part of a plant, it is usually only when that is done in such a way that leaves out synergistic supporting compounds that causes problems.  As an analogy, when I catch fish I usually like to separate the fillets from the skin, bones and entrails.  In the same way, you normally take an orange from the tree and peel it and eat only the flesh.  You do not also eat a branch along with it.

For thousands of years, man has taken the natural medicinals of the earth and made natural remedies from them – either by processing them naturally or combining them.  And the best of them have indeed worked what some might consider miracles.  For a fraction of that time, man and his labs have tried to improve on what you can make from nature with altered and invented compounds and that is where the failures have largely come from – along with the failure to address proper nutrition, lifestyle, prevention and treating the whole body instead of just symptoms.

Whenever you can get vitamins, minerals, medicinal plants and/or herbs from nature, by all means do so.  But do realize that even dried herbs are not the same as those found in nature.  Much depends on the soil and conditions they were grown in and how they were harvested, dried, stored and transported.

So, while pure natural sources are always best, for the huge majority of us who cannot get everything we need from a safe and healthy diet and fresh from the fields to meet the requirements of maintaining a healthy body, much less get the therapeutic amounts we need to treat a serious condition, I think supplements are a good and proven alternative.

by Michelle Lang

Health region fears superbug will hit general population. The number of cases of a superbug sweeping through Calgary prisons and homeless shelters nearly doubled in 2007 and health officials fear the virulent bacteria could spread into the city's general population.

New Calgary Health Region statistics show the number of people who contracted methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus — a form of staph infection resistant to most antibiotics — grew to 1,020 last year. That represents a significant increase from 588 people who contracted the infection in 2006.

Medical officials say the superbug, which causes severe abscesses in the skin and can turn deadly, has struck marginalized populations in the city: homeless people, drug users and prisoners.

And the health region says it's possible cases could begin appearing in other parts of the community, leading its public health department to closely monitor the outbreak.

"It's hard to predict what might happen, but we are seeing increases from one year to the next," said Dr. Judy MacDonald, deputy medical officer of health at CHR.

"So far we haven't seen clusters in other (populations), which is good."

The MRSA superbug began appearing outside local hospitals in 2004, making Calgary the first place in Canada to experience an outbreak in the community. In many other Canadian cities, infections from the bacteria have occurred primarily in hospitals.

The superbug has gained an even stronger foothold in the United States, where the Journal of the American Medical Association estimated last fall that severe infections from the bacteria killed about 19,000 people in 2005, taking more lives than AIDS.

It can often only be treated with expensive, intravenous antibiotics.

The Calgary statistics coincide with news that federal health officials are developing a national strategy for all front line health workers to deal with the bacteria. The Public Health Agency of Canada will work with other organizations to develop training tools for medical workers, focusing on steps such as hand washing to decrease the incidence of MRSA in hospitals.

In Calgary, meanwhile, hospitals are introducing a new patient screening system. On several wards at the Foothills, Peter Lougheed and Rockyview hospitals, staff will soon begin testing all patients for MRSA.

"We have a list of targeted wards," said Dr. Tom Louie, director of infection control at the health region. "On the medical wards and long-term care wards, I think we can make a case for screening everyone."

Screening usually involves taking swabs of a patient's nose and identifies if the person is carrying MRSA, even when he or she shows no sign of infection.

This allows the hospital to take extra precautions, such as isolating the patient so the bacteria don't spread in the facility.

Alberta Health recently recommended that health centres screen high-risk patients — people who had been recently jailed or previously hospitalized — for the superbug when they're admitted to hospital.

But Louie said Calgary hospitals had tried the limited screening system and found it less effective than hoped.

But when they tried so-called "universal screening" in selected wards last year, they found nearly twice as many patients carrying MRSA. The practice now is being adopted.

"As our rates were rising over the past three or four years, we needed to do something else," Louie said.

Outside hospitals, staff at facilities such as the Calgary Remand Centre now check inmates for wounds and skin lesions that could indicate they're infected with the bacteria, said the health region's MacDonald.

In fact, the increased surveillance could explain part of the growth in MRSA cases in Calgary, she said.

The local health authority is talking with jails and homeless shelters about introducing special soaps.

But despite efforts to monitor and control the bacteria, it's clear the number of cases in Calgary is increasing.

"The strain, once it gets established, it tends to keep going," MacDonald said.

That's disturbing news for those who have battled the bug.

David Munson, a 31-year-old Airdrie man who says he contracted MRSA at Foothills Hospital after a 2006 hand surgery after an accident at work, hasn't been able to beat the infection.

In his case, the bacteria formed an abscess in his leg that physicians have repeatedly attempted to remove, without success.

"There's got to be something that can be done," said Munson, referring to news of the increased Calgary cases. "It's not a good sickness."

by Christopher Nickson

We’ve heard the pros and cons before, but a new Australian study claims cell phones could be worse for your health than smoking or asbestos.

It’s the issue that won’t go away. Are cell phones detrimental to your health? Will the electromagnetic radiation cause brain tumors? Studies have said yes, studies have said no.
 
Now a new paper from a staff specialist neurosurgeon at the Canberra Hospital and associate professor of neurosurgery with Australian National University Medical School, Vini G. Khurana, entitled Mobile Phones and Brain Tumors – A Public Health Concern, looks at the results of previous reportage in both the academic and popular press.
 
Khurana’s warning is quite dire:
 
“It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking, and directly concerns all of us, particularly the younger generation, including very young children.”
 
The latency time, he believes, “may be in the order of 10-20 years.” He feels that “the link between mobile phones and brain tumours should no longer be regarded as a myth. Individual and class action lawsuits have been filed in the USA, and at least one has already been successfully prosecuted, regarding the cell phone-brain tumour link.”
 
However, it’s worth noting that many studies have yet to establish a link between the use of cell phones and cancer.

by Ron Paul

These past few weeks have provided an unfortunate opportunity to discuss inflation.  The dollar index has reached new all-time lows. The total money supply, M3, as calculated by private sources, is growing at a disturbing 17% rate.  The Fed is pumping dollars into the economy at an alarming rate.

Just recently the Fed announced new loan auctions totaling $100 billion.  That is new money created from thin air.  If these money auctions, combined with the bailout of Bear Stearns, continue to be the trend, we are in for some economic stormy weather.  The explanation lies in understanding the basics of money, and why it is dangerous to give government and big banks control over it.

First, money is not wealth, in and of itself.  You cannot create more wealth simply by creating more money.  Wall Street bankers cry out for more liquidity, but what is really needed is more value behind the dollar.  But the value, unfortunately, isn't there.

You see, the Fed creates new money and uses it to purchase securities from banks.  Flush with funds, these banks seek to put this money to use.  During the Fed's expansionary period, much of this money went to home loans.  Through a combination of federal government inducements to lend to risky borrowers, and the Fed's supply of easy money, the housing bubble took shape.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were encouraged to purchase and securitize mortgages, while investors, buoyed by implicit government backing, rushed to provide funding. Money that could have been invested in more productive, less risky sectors of the economy was thereby malinvested in subprime mortgage loans.

The implicit guarantee from the Fed is quickly becoming explicit, as those institutions deemed "too big to fail" are bailed out at taxpayer expense.  Wall Street made a killing during the housing bubble, reaping record profits.  Now that the bubble has burst, these same firms are trying to dump their losses on the taxpayers.  This approach requires more money creation, and therefore debasement of all dollars in circulation.

The Federal Reserve, a quasi-government entity, should not be creating money or determining interest rates, as this causes malinvestment and excessive debt to accumulate.  Centrally planned, government manipulated economies always fail eventually.  The collapse of communism and the failure of socialism should have made this apparent.  Even the most educated, well-intentioned central planners cannot plan the market better than the market itself.  Those that understand economics best, understand this reality.

In free markets, both success and failure are options.  If government interventions prevent businesses, like Bear Stearns, from failing, then it is not truly a free market.  As painful as it might be for Wall Street, banks, even big ones, must be allowed to fail.

The end game for this policy of monetary inflation is that the money in your bank account loses purchasing power.  So, by keeping failing banks afloat, the Fed punishes those who have lived frugally and saved.  The power to create money is a power that should never be granted to government.  As we can plainly see today, the Fed has abused this power, and taxpayers are paying the price.