In 1999 Jerry Brunetti was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and given 6 months to live. He did not submit to chemotherapy, but rather, developed his own unique dietary approach to enhance his immune system. In this informative video, Jerry shares his personal experiences and provides his recipe for healthy living. You will learn about the crucial importance of minerals, which foods to choose for your best health requirements and what to avoid. After viewing this video you’ll realize the remarkable value of food in building good foundations, and providing buffers, to keep your body healthy.
Topics of the first video include:
- Why we are losing the ‘war’ on Cancer
- Metastasis kills 90% of the cancer patients; 50% die of cachexia (wasting disease).
- The virtue of the immune system in combating disease, including cancer.
- Chemotherapy agents MOP and CHOP are derivatives of WWI mustard gas.
- Angiogenesis and why cutting out the primary tumor is bad.
- Obesity, diabetes and the sugar consumption explosion.
- The greatest of health threats called Iatrogenic disease – illness caused by modern medicine.
- The superficiality of regular medicine with regards to the US cancer patient.
- Negative synergy of cocktails of different toxins.
- Why Prunes and Eggs are healthy foods.
- Selenium the antidote to mercury.
- The benefits of resveratrol.
- The benefits of Blueberries, Strawberries, Raspberries, Cranberries, Apples, Elderberries, Black Cherries, Lycopene, Pumpkins.
- How foods barely contain minerals in the US.
- Vegetables of the cross/cruciferous vegetables – “nr 1 vegetables in protecting against cancer”.
- Why antacids are not the answer to your stomach troubles.
Check out the accompanying resources page for slides and food advice.
Notes: (blue bold-faced emphasis is all mine)
Soft Drinks: America’s Other Drinking Problem
According to the National Soft Drink Association (NSDA), consumption of soft drinks is now over 600 12-ounce servings (12 oz.) per person per year. Since 1978, soda consumption in the US has tripled for boys and doubled for girls. Young males age 12-29 are the biggest consumers at over 160 gallons per year—that’s almost 2 quarts per day. At these levels, the calories from soft drinks contribute as much as 10 percent of the total daily caloric intake for a growing boy.
TARGETING THE YOUNG
Huge increases in soft drink consumption have not happened by chance—they are due to intense marketing efforts by soft drink corporations. Coca Cola, for example, has set the goal of raising consumption of its products in the US by at least 25 percent per year. The adult market is stagnant so kids are the target. According to an article in Beverage, January 1999, “Influencing elementary school students is very important to soft drink marketers.”
Since the 1960s the industry has increased the single-serving size from a standard 6-½-ounce bottle to a 20-ounce bottle. At movie theaters and at 7-Eleven stores the most popular size is now the 64-ounce “Double Gulp.”
Soft drink companies spend billions on advertising. Much of these marketing efforts are aimed at children through playgrounds, toys, cartoons, movies, videos, charities and amusement parks; and through contests, sweepstakes, games and clubs via television, radio, magazines and the internet. Their efforts have paid off. Last year soft drink companies grossed over $57 billion in sales in the US alone, a colossal amount.
In 1998 the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) warned the public that soft drink companies were beginning to infiltrate our schools and kid clubs. For example, they reported that Coca-Cola paid the Boys & Girls Clubs of America $60 million to market its brand exclusively in over 2000 facilities. Fast food companies selling soft drinks now run ads on Channel One, the commercial television network with programming shown in classrooms almost every day to eight million middle, junior and high school students. In 1993, District 11 in Colorado Springs became the first public school district in the US to place ads for Burger King in its hallways and on the sides of its school buses. Later, the school district signed a 10-year deal with Coca-Cola, bringing in $11 million during the life of the contract. This arrangement was later imitated all over Colorado. The contracts specify annual sales quotas with the result that school administrators encourage students to drink sodas, even in the classrooms. One high school in Beltsville, Maryland, made nearly $100,000 last year on a deal with a soft drink company.
While our children are exposed to unremitting publicity for soft drinks, evidence of their dangers accumulates. The consumption of soft drinks, like land-mine terrain, is riddled with hazards. We as practitioners and advocates of a healthy life-style recognize that consuming even as little as one or two sodas per day is undeniably connected to a myriad of pathologies. The most commonly associated health risks are obesity, diabetes and other blood sugar disorders, tooth decay, osteoporosis and bone fractures, nutritional deficiencies, heart disease, food addictions and eating disorders, neurotransmitter dysfunction from chemical sweeteners, and neurological and adrenal disorders from excessive caffeine.
Over the last 30 years a virtual tome of information has been published linking soft drink consumption to a rise in osteoporosis and bone fractures. New evidence has shown an alarming rise in deficiencies of calcium and other minerals and resulting bone fractures in young girls. A 1994 report published in the Journal of Adolescent Health summarizes a small study (76 girls and 51 boys) and points toward an increasing and “strong association between cola beverage consumption and bone fractures in girls.” High calcium intake offered some protection. For boys, only low total caloric intake was associated with a higher risk of bone fractures. The study concluded with the following: “The high consumption of carbonated beverages and the declining consumption of milk are of great public health significance for girls and women because of their proneness to osteoporosis in later life.”
A larger, cross sectional retrospective study of 460 high school girls was published in Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine in June 2000. The study indicated that cola beverages were “highly associated with bone fractures.” In their conclusion the authors warned that, “. . . national concern and alarm about the health impact of carbonated beverage consumption on teenaged girls is supported by the findings of this study”
THE BATTLE AHEAD
The dangers of society’s other drinking problem have recently been in the news. Senator Christopher Dodd and Representative George Miller have commissioned a study on the uses and oversight of school vending machines. Pending legislation in the State of Maryland would turn school soda vending machines off during the school day. Senator Patrick Leahy has introduced a bill requiring the USDA to rule within 18 months on banning or limiting the sale of soda and junk food in schools before students have eaten lunch.
The soft drink industry has fought back by funding four studies on soft drink consumption at the Georgetown Center for Food and Nutrition Policy. Predictably, these studies found that there was nothing wrong with soft drinks. In fact, researchers said they found a positive relationship between soft drink consumption and exercise. All this means is that those children participating in sports programs drank more sodas.
The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NAASP) says that decisions about soda sales should be made at the local level and not by the federal government. School administrators are caught between demands of a few parents for a saner food policy and the need for more funds in the face of dwindling school budgets.
One good idea comes from the Philippines, a country where malnutrition is an ominous health threat. A recently devised plan there would allow citizens to cash in on the country’s “junk food diet” by taxing every liter bottle of carbonated soft drink sold. If the US taxed soft drink sales, the new income stream generated could then be distributed to declining school budgets. Is this not a better idea than forcing our schools to sell their souls to soft drink companies under the titanic sink of fiscal degradation?
The alarm has been sounded! Are you listening? I strongly encourage all who are concerned about the health of their families to consider the debilitating consequences of drinking soft drinks. How many more studies and reports need to be published before we notice the tsunami lurking ahead? In the 1970s, we finally recognized the risks of smoking. In the 1990s, the problem of teenage drinking became widely known. The new millennium is the time for awakening to the risks of soda consumption—America’s other drinking problem.
IatrogenicIatrogenic is defined as disease caused by medical examination or treatment. This includes disease, illness, or death from Drug Reactions, Vaccines, irresponsibly prescribed drugs such as Ritalin, et al, turning a blind eye to the dangers of such approved (and deadly) chemicals as Aspartame, ignoring many societal caused maladies (everything from EMF Dangers to Computer Game Problems), disregarding negative effects of Mental Health on individual’s general welfare, and mistakes, errors, omissions, and blunders by hospitals, medical doctors, nurses, and other individuals in the mainstream medical establishment.
Which is a bunch of stuff!
An additional, indirect avenue of iatrogenic problems may be due to the prohibition and/or banning of those Inexpensive Remedies (such as Homeopathy or Essiac) and alternative medical treatments which are demonstrably beneficial in healing everything from cancer to cold sores. The lack of research funding and attention to these alternatives is inexcusable, and can be explained only by the greed for money, status, and power of corporations, governments, associations, and influential (or influenced) individuals.
Iatrogenic deaths — if Drug Reactions alone are considered — are easily the third leading cause of death in the United States. Iatrogenic deaths might easily be the leading cause of death, if deaths attributed to other causes were, in fact, due to unrecognized iatrogenic means. For example, elderly patients can be killed by mistake, even when they are suffering from diseases, illnesses, or general deterioration which might eventually result in their death. In one case, a 92 year old woman with congestive heart failure (who was otherwise active and feeling fine) had a breast cancer biopsy, which sapped her strength to the extent she fell and broke her hip, and eventually died a month later from the complications of no longer being able to move from her bed.
If we add the general discouragement and/or prohibition of alternative healing techniques to the mix — along with the refusal to acknowledge (and therefore attempt to alleviate) the unhealthy practices of our society — then it is entirely possible the medical establishment is by far the leading cause of death, pain and suffering in the United States.
It is noteworthy, for example, that:
There are more people making a good living in research or treatment of cancer than there are individuals suffering from the disease in its various manifestations.
There is more money spent by Medicare for treatment of individuals in their last two months of life than for all of the rest of Medicare expenses in total.
There is now a concerted effort on the part of drug corporations — with the aid and comfort of governments and medical associations — to invent out of thin air, new “diseases and ailments” for which a particular corporation(s) just happens to have a cure — but which, unfortunately, turns out to be a very expensive cure — one which is also very beneficial to the bottom line of the corporate profit statement!
An enormously important report concerning iatrogenics is Death by Medicine. This report is essential reading for anyone thinking or concerned about their health or the health of someone — anyone — they care about. A few of the choice tidbits — i.e. shock and awe facts — from the report include:
Over a ten year period, statistics show 7.8 million iatrogenic deaths, a number which is more than all the casualties from wars that the United States has fought in its entire history — just to put the problem into some sort of perspective.
Over the same ten year period, figures show that a total of 164 million people, approximately 56% of the population of the United States , have been treated unnecessarily by the medical industry – nearly 50,000 people per day.
Incredibly, only about 5 to 20% of iatrogenic incidents are even recorded. This would increase the ten year iatrogenic deaths to something on the order of 39 to 156 million deaths in the United States alone! Furthermore, outpatient iatrogenic statistics only include drug-related events and not surgical cases, diagnostic errors, or therapeutic mishaps.
It is worth noting that the February 2004 issue of the Idaho Observer referenced the Death by Medicine report, and noted that “The Nutritional Institute of America (NIA) recently announced its research findings that iatrogenic (doctor-induced) disease has replaced heart disease as the #1 killer of Americans.” The Idaho Observer went on to note that “The report indicated that the numbers could be much worse. A study of two hospitals found that nurses intercepted 86 percent of medication errors before they reached patients. The observer then provided a link to the complete report: http://www.nutritioninstituteofamerica.org/research/DeathByMedicine which a few months later had disappeared from the net. Clearly Corporate Politics was not enjoying the expose and Pharmacidal had struck yet another blow against the people.
As shown in the following table, the estimated total number of iatrogenic deaths—that is, deaths induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures— in the US annually is 783,936. It is evident that the American medical system is itself the leading cause of death and injury in the US . By comparison, approximately 699,697 Americans died of heart in 2001, while 553,251 died of cancer.(5)
The enumerating of unnecessary medical events is very important in our analysis. Any invasive, unnecessary medical procedure must be considered as part of the larger iatrogenic picture. Unfortunately, cause and effect go unmonitored. The figures on unnecessary events represent people who are thrust into a dangerous health care system. Each of these 16.4 million lives is being affected in ways that could have fatal consequences. Simply entering a hospital could result in the following:
* In 16.4 million people, a 2.1% chance (affecting 186,000) of a serious adverse drug reaction(1)
* In 16.4 million people, a 5-6% chance (affecting 489,500) of acquiring a nosocomial infection(9)
* In16.4 million people, a 4-36% chance (affecting 1.78 million) of having an iatrogenic injury (medical error and adverse drug reactions).(16)
* In 16.4 million people, a 17% chance (affecting 1.3 million) of a procedure error.(40)
These statistics represent a one-year time span. Working with the most conservative figures from our statistics, we project the following 10-year death rates.
The Seven Countries Study found that Cretan men had exceptionally low death rates from heart disease, despite moderate to high intake of fat. The Cretan diet is similar to other traditional Mediterranean diets, consisting mostly of olive oil, bread, abundant fruit and vegetables, fish, and a moderate amount of dairy foods and wine.
The Lyon Diet Heart Study set out to mimic the Cretan diet, but adopted a pragmatic approach. Realizing that some of the people in the study (all of whom had survived a first heart attack) would be reluctant to move from butter to olive oil, they used a margarine based on rapeseed (canola) oil. The dietary change also included 20% increases in vitamin C rich fruit and bread and decreases in processed and red meat. On this diet, mortality from all causes was reduced by 70%. This study was so successful that the ethics committee decided to stop the study prematurely so that the results of the study could be made available to the public immediately.
According to a study published in the British Medical Journal (May 29, 2008), the traditional Mediterranean diet provides substantial protection against type 2 diabetes. The study involved over 13 000 graduates from the University of Navarra in Spain with no history of diabetes, who were recruited between December 1999 and November 2007, and whose dietary habits and health were subsequently tracked. Participants initially completed a 136-item food frequency questionnaire designed to measure the entire diet. The questionnaire also included questions on the use of fats and oils, cooking methods and dietary supplements. Every two years participants were sent follow-up questionnaires on diet, lifestyle, risk factors, and medical conditions. New cases of diabetes were confirmed through medical reports. During the follow-up period (median 4.4 years) the researchers from the University of Navarra found that participants who stuck closely to the diet had a lower risk of diabetes. A high adherence to the diet was associated with an 83% relative reduction in the risk of developing diabetes.
A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine (July 17, 2008) examined the effects of three diets: low-carb, low-fat, and Mediterranean. The study involved 322 participants and lasted for 2 years. The low-carb and Mediterranean diet resulted in the greatest weight loss, 12 lbs and 10 lbs, respectively. The low-fat diet resulted in a loss of 7 lbs. One caveat of the study is that 86% of the study participants were men. The low-carb and Mediterranean diets produced similar amounts of weight loss in the overall study results and in the men. In the remaining participants who were women, the Mediterranean diet produced 3.8 kg (8.4 lbs) more weight loss on average than the low-carb diet.
A meta-analysis published in the British Medical Journal (September 12, 2008) showed that following strictly the Mediterranean diet reduced the risk of dying from cancer and cardiovascular disease as well as the risk of developing Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. The results report 9%, 9%, and 6% reduction in overall, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality respectively. Additionally a 13% reduction in incidence of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases is to be expected provided strict adherence to the diet is observed.
MOPP -mechlorethamine, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone
CHOP – cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone