From Aajonus:

Hi, healthy-food lovers
The New Yorker magazine's RAW DEAL article was more favorable to our right to have the foods we want in a major magazine, including raw milk but the details of the article are not so favorable. Everyone continues to argue about bacteria. Bacteria is not the problem.

I do not understand why the New Yorker author reiterated the fraudulent disease “statistics” from CDC, the health department, universities and processed-food employees and investors as if the statistics were based on science and fact, especially since they possess such a superstitious prejudice against raw milk. I gave her research which proved that calling bacteria the food problem is an intentional misdirection and a way for government and industry to gain control of our food.

The misinformation starts with the Pasteur info, which was stated as if it were case history. The Sorbonne's Pasteur Institute of the time was hot on the heals of Pasteur's heat process that stopped the molding of his friend's wine grapes, thereby saving his friend's land that he would have lost if his grapes were not made into wine and sold. The Sorbonne jumped on Pasteur's coat tails at the time to ride the notoriety as if they had helped Pasteur with his idea. However, they gave credibility to each other and captured the ears and lips of Europe with the publicity that pasteurization arrested the mold in picked grapes. The medical community jumped on the bandwagon stating that Pasteur's process proved that germs caused disease as well as molds, and that they could be stopped.

However, it was not widely publicized that the wine was abominable to the connoisseur, not sold at posh markets and restaurants but sold to the impoverished who normally could not afford wine. Neither the grower nor Pasteur would drink it. The pasteurized wine was of tainted quality mainly because of pasteurization. It was sold, but it sold cheap.

The affluent class that had experienced failed wine crops in the past now had a market for a processed cheap and inferior food in case mold grew in their grapes. They would never suffer a complete loss again. The market was the trusting poor public in Paris who thought they were getting a drink from the rich man's table. It was sold and marketed as such. There were many reports of illness from consumption of the pasteurized wine, including irrational behavior, increased home and work accidents and violence. Pasteurization alters enzymes, minerals and trace fats which would normally restrict the fast absorption of radical sugars and alcohol that often cause undesirable personality alterations.

While being interviewed for almost two hours for the article, I explained to the author how the CDC and health departments base their statistics about raw-milk borne disease on surveys not science. That should have been obvious when it could have been verified that Organic Pastures' milk did not cause those children's illnesses because there was none of that bacteria in the milk. Bacteria in a calf that does not produce milk and the fact that that bacteria does not survive airborne should be enough to demonstrate that the illnesses were not caused by the raw milk they consumed but by something else.

Also, the girls who were obviously sick and hospitalized in San Diego – whose sickness was caused by something other than Organic Pastures' raw milk – received massive amounts of antibiotics such as Ciprofloxacin which caused kidney disorders exactly like those of HUS in laboratory animals. Therefore, it was likely the antibiotics in such massive concentrations caused the kidney damage, not the bacteria for which the suffering girls were being treated, which was wrongly blamed on raw milk. The article misleads every reader into believing that raw milk caused and causes illnesses because it falsely presumes that raw milk is innately prone to "bad" bacteria. It seems that even David and Mark believe it.

Utilizing the statement from a health "authority" that pasteurization makes milk safe was a blatant falsehood. The word "claim" did not appear before that statement. In the history of pasteurized milk, there have been over 500,000 scientifically-proven incidences of food poisoning, literally epidemics, one involving 197,000 people. Raw milk is condemned by accusations – not science but surveys and statistics.

When a doctor or a hospital reports bloody vomit or diarrhea, usually it is 2-12 weeks after the incident that a health-department clerk calls the person who suffered and asks what they ate when they got sick. Who remembers all that they ate yesterday, much less weeks after an intense illness? If the person states that they drank raw milk, raw milk is automatically determined to be the cause. That is not science but prejudicial survey-spinning false statistics. CDC and others certainly spin it, creating misleading statistics.

Technically, we should not call vomit and diarrhea sicknesses. We should call them what they are. A person's body rejects something that is toxic with vomit or diarrhea.  Those are not sicknesses but detoxification of something poisonous. If the tests were done to detect industrial chemicals in the vomit and diarrhea instead of the microbes, we would have a proper answer for their cause.

I have seen literally thousands of very sick individuals recover from disease by drinking raw dairy and eating raw meats. I do not know how "investigative" journalists sleep at night with their poor research. It seems nothing is investigated very thoroughly and the status quo concepts continue to be regurgitated and accepted as unquestionable truths. A proper investigation would entail a study of the children and elderly who completely recovered from their illnesses while drinking raw milk. A good comparative study would entail children and elderly people who remained trapped in their diseases while not drinking raw milk but taking medical drugs that offer no cure or proper healing.

Take for example Walker Kerhrer who was an asthmatic boy on medication. At 7 years old, he stopped taking his medication and began consuming raw milk. At 8 years old in 2001, he testified before the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors that before he drank raw milk he suffered terrible asthma and that when he did not have his raw milk, he suffered terrible asthma. In 2009, Walker was the top high school tennis champion in the USA. From asthma to tennis champion; will that fact be filed away in medical- and university-indoctrinated minds as anecdotal information? How will you file it?

Notice that the the New Yorker article stated that my recovery from blood, bone, lymphatic and stomach cancers were merely my personal claims. She could have easily researched the truth by seeking the records at the hospitals where I was treated. She didn't ask for proof. I could have shown her photos of my surgical scars to verify but she did not ask and I did not think to offer. I have a letter written by one of my doctors 44 years ago that berated me for discontinuing chemo treatments with a 1% chance of living miserably for one more month. In the letter, the doctor tried to emotionally manipulate me into continuing a process that caused me to vomit, defecate and urinate all over myself 5-20 times daily. Such doctors are insane. From medical treatments, I was a hairless worm on the floor in excruciating pain 24 hours daily, only able to sleep 6-10 minutes before I would awake in greater excruciating pain. I suffered other severe side effects from all of the medical treatments.

However, when I began drinking raw milk and raw carrot juice, my symptoms immediately began to diminish little by little. After a while, I noticed that when I drank more raw milk than carrot juice, I experienced less pain. When I drank more carrot juice than raw milk, I suffered more. I was able to achieve a measurable balance. The correlation between foods and health became very apparent to me even though doctors were in complete denial about it. To them, only pharmaceuticals - industrial chemicals - favorably altered health.

All health departments and universities are controlled by medically indoctrinated propaganda instituted by the money and power of the pharmaceutical industry. They have only drops of objectivity when it comes to their brainwashed bacteria-phobic thought processes.

Every bodily process occurs by the interaction of numerous species of bacteria, inter-cellularly, extra-cellularly and bodily fluids, including all of the activities in and of the body. We are 150 bacteria genes to every one human gene. We are about 0.5% human and 99.5% bacteria. The concept that bacteria cause diseases is called the germ theory. It entails the ludicrous notion that a tiny colony of certain terrorist bacteria can willy-nilly overwhelm the the body, even cause the body to attack itself. That is as accurate as a small village of 200 natives with primitive weapons arresting and annihilating all of the people in the United States of America. That sort of phenomenon only happens in fictional movies. It is an absurdity. Why do people believe it? Because our minds are literally turned against natural fact.

The bacteria that is being accused of causing diseases (so-called "pathogenic") are actually cellular janitors. They clean up organic waste. We all have varieties of bacteria that digest (disassemble), construct (reassemble) and cleanse (collect waste, neutralize toxins, and select reusable waste while discarding waste that is not reusable).

When laboratory technicians put live animal cells in an unnatural industrial chemical fluid environment that sustains cellular life it also denigrates the cells simultaneously. Cells that are not in their natural biological fluids degenerate and/or transmogrify.

The bacteria that are naturally part of the cleansing of such degeneration are propagated within the cells, coming out of hibernation to eat and/or transform the chemically damaged cell tissue. In cases where the chemical environment causes mutations, bacterial genes are transmogrified and so therefore are the cells. In laboratories, Petri dish observers see that the cells are being eaten, dissolved or transmogrified by the cleansing (janitorial) bacteria and say, "See, those cells are causing cellular disruption and dissolution. They cause disease." The naturally occurring follow-up thinking becomes, "How can we make money from this? Let's create millions of weapons of mass destruction that we will call antibiotics, antiseptics and antimicrobials. We'll make a fortune."

Do we blame the janitors for the waste they clean in our homes and offices? Do we blame the janitors who clean the pollution that mutates our janitors and gives them diseases? Some day soon, I hope that people will awaken and realize that industrial chemicals, including those formed by cooking and processing, cause all disease. We must stop blaming bacteria or we will never understand our bodies. Bacteria are never the problem.

However, bacterial waste can be highly toxic when bacteria are fed foods containing industrial chemicals.  Take for instance, intestinal bacteria that are supposed to make up 90% of digestion. They eat the food we eat. Their waste is our food that we absorb. Their feces, urine and perspiration are our foods. When the bacteria eat foods with gross toxins, they release those toxins as a natural product of the toxic food.

Bacteria are not to blame for our diseases. The chemical farmers and processors are to blame. If people acknowledge those facts, who would they find to buy non-organic and processed food, and medical drugs? Our politicians and business people say the economy is at stake so to hell with health, let's keep up the economy. Is the economy more important than living in a healthy body? That is a question each of us must answer.

The drugs that cause most disease are vaccines. Every ingredient is toxic in every vaccine. There are no exceptions. Together, the ingredients are a soup of toxins that have no proof of effectiveness for preventing the disease for which they are given. However, there are volumes of science that prove those toxins cause illness and disease in laboratory animals.

The reason that those toxins in vaccines may seem to work in some people is that the body stops the janitorial bacteria from cleaning old organic waste and accumulated toxins. Instead, most bodies focus on the immediate toxins from vaccines. It will take a body many years to handle, neutralize, eliminate or store those toxins from a direct injection of toxic fluids. So the normal diseases that result from toxic living are temporarily subdued but increasing.

The body responds to most drugs in the same way: temporary cessation of disease symptoms but increased toxicity that leads to greater disease. The people who benefit are all of those who invest and work in medical-related fields while decaying people's health. If everyone were healthy, medical-related businesses and employees would be out of business and work.

Only if you are sick, do they profit. Do you really think they want you healthy? Those who want people to be healthy yet continue to work in the medical fields are in total denial and ignorant of the results of what they really do.

When I speak of organic, I do not refer to the USDA's corrupt version of organic that allows hundreds of industrial chemicals to enter the grounds that grow plants and animals for food as long as it does not exceed 15%. Fifteen percent chemicals can and does cause massive harm to animal cells, most often gradually but sometimes immediately.

In closing, our food safety should not be predicated on the notion of bacteria, species of bacteria or bacterial behavior. The safety and quality of our food should be based solely on absence of disease-causing industrial chemicals in food, even if those chemicals do their damage ever so slowly for the purpose of growing fast, pretty food with long shelf lives. What is more important?

Let me drive it home: The bacterial chemistry jargon of the medical/chemical industries is used to terrorize people into believing it has validity. Common sense observation will tell you the truth. Observe how many creatures on this planet lick their rectums 5-100 times daily without getting diseases. How many lick others' rectums daily and do not get diseases from it? How many infant creatures suck mother's milk without teat-dips and washes and do not get diseases from that? How many creatures eat the feces of other animals when they eat another creature?

No, I am not saying that those are desirable activities for humans, but they are not innately dangerous. I would never suggest that anyone eat their own feces or any human feces, although it has been proven to save lives.  There is no more toxic animal on this planet than the human being, apart from domesticated dogs and cats fed on foods that are the worst commercial foods of all. Their feces are contaminated with toxic pathogenic industrial chemicals. Bacteria is not a problem of disease.

--------

From Ramiel Nagel, author of Cure Tooth Decay

As I teach people on my website and in my book Cure Tooth Decay, it is a mistake for modern dentistry to point its finger at bacteria as the cause of disease. The reason for this problem has to do with the law of personal responsibility. If bacteria are to blame for our health problems, then there is nothing you or I as individuals can do to create health other than kill or destroy bacteria. Yet the war to kill bacteria is fruitless. When health authorities point to dangers of food from the perspective of bacteria, they white out how what really matters is the quality of the food, how it is prepared and how it is handled. I urge you to reconsider your perspective that disease is caused by bacteria. Rather, disease is caused by toxins. When animals are raised inhumanely, disease happens. Trying to kill bacteria just hides the disease process and helps us as individuals and society avoid being responsible for causing disease, as well as for healing disease.

TweetShare via email

Photo courtesy of Flickr

Many health officials are alarmed at the growing rate of type 2 diabetes in U.S. kids aged 10 to 17 - some are even referring to it as an epidemic.

Adding to the growing concern is a trifecta of factors:

First - since it only began showing up in this age group around 15 years ago, not much is known about its cause and treatment in children. Second - it is very aggressive. And third - it is very hard to control in children because lifestyle changes are hard to make and the typical treatment does not work well for them.

In a report in the Tulsa World newspaper, Dr. Kenneth Copeland, endocrinologist and director of the pediatric program at the Harold Hamm Diabetes Center in Oklahoma City, said the results of the five year study - that followed almost 700 children with type 2 diabetes between the ages of 10 and 17 - show that type 2 diabetes in children must be treated early and aggressively.

"The disease can cause blindness, kidney failure and neuropathy, among other problems," said Copeland. "New drugs simply must be developed for children."

But drugs are not the answer, according to Copeland.

"Prevention is ideal, and the study's results should not lead to discounting lifestyle changes as important for managing diabetes," he said. "The whole idea is we need to be intervening in lifestyle so we can be treating the obesity before diabetes occurs."

There will be more on lifestyle changes later in this article but first, let's take a look at the link between gum disease and diabetes.

Did you know that a dental care provider may very well be the first to detect diabetes in your child?

Bad breath, dry mouth, bleeding gums and receding gums are often signs of the disease.

In a study by a nursing-dental research team at the New York University College of Dentistry Study, of people with periodontal (gum) disease are also at high risk for diabetes and "should be screened for diabetes." They looked at data from the 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and designed to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United States.

Study lead Dr. Shiela Strauss, Associate Professor of Nursing and Co-Director of the Statistics and Data Management Core for NYU's Colleges of Dentistry and Nursing, examined data from the 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, using guidelines established by the American Diabetes Association. The survey, conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was designed to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United States.

Dr. Strauss's findings were published in the online edition of the Journal of Public Health Dentistry in 2009 and "add to a growing body of evidence linking periodontal infections to an increased risk for diabetes," according to NYU.

The study also found that three in five people with gum disease and at risk for diabetes had visited a dentist within the preceding two years, and that a third hd visited one in the prior six months.

"In light of these findings, the dental visit could be a useful opportunity to conduct an initial diabetes screening - an important first step in identifying those patients who need follow-up testing to diagnose the disease," said Dr. Strauss.

It's been estimated that 5.7 million Americans with diabetes were undiagnosed in 2007," Dr. Strauss added, "with the number expected to increase dramatically in coming years. The issue of undiagnosed diabetes is especially critical because early treatment and secondary prevention efforts may help to prevent or delay the long-term complications of diabetes that are responsible for reduced quality of life and increased levels of mortality among these patients. Thus, there is a critical need to increase opportunities for diabetes screening and early diabetes detection."
Spotting it early enough can make all the difference for the quality of a child's entire life.

Now back to lifestyle changes. Experts all agree that lifestyle changes are essential for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes. But getting kids to get off the couch or away from their video games and out getting exercise is "suprisingly difficult" says Dr. Copeland. And even harder is getting them to change their diet.

But diet change is critical, especially if the aim is to prevent type two diabetes in the first place. Especially since the one main thing medical experts do know about type 2 diabetes is that obesity is a proven factor.

So what kind of foods should be consumed by children to prevent it?

Well, loe and behold, it is the same diet that can prevent and even reverse tooth decay - a related condition.

Avoiding refined sugar, sodas, candy and sweet desserts is, of course, the most obvious. But processed foods contain a lot of hidden sugar as well. And even natural but still sugary fruits need to be limited or eliminated all together. Carbohydrates are necessary but it is the right type of carbohydrates that are key. Another component of the right diet is the inclusion of high quality proteins and animal fats into every meal.

Learn more about the right diet, for children and adults, in Cure Tooth Decay.

References:

"Nexus." New York University. Web. 02 May 2012. <http://www.nyu.edu/dental/nexus/issues/winter2010/397&gt;.

"Know Your World | Tulsa World." Oklahoma Latest & Breaking News, Sports, Weather, Entertainment, Business, Jobs, Homes, Cars, and Classified Ads OK. Web. 02 May 2012. <http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=17&gt;.

"Newswise." Expert Commentary Available on NYC Diabetes Epidemic as Highlighted in New Health Dept. Study. Web. 02 May 2012. <http://www.newswise.com/articles/expert-commentary-available-on-nyc-diabetes-epidemic-as-highlighted-in-new-health-dept-study?ret=/articles/list&gt;.

TweetShare via email

Many people from tribes that consume a hunter-gatherer diet have optimum dental health, which changes once they are introduced to modern foods.

An interesting overview of dental caries, titled "Epidemiology of Dental Disease" from the University of Illinois, explains how cavity rates have changed drastically over the years.  Although this research is not entirely new. Dr. Weston Price discovered that there are populations that lived free from cavities and tooth decay. The University paper helps explain why cavities and tooth decay have become so prevalent.

"During the first 4,000 years there is a gradual increase in caries prevalence ranging from 2 to 10 carious teeth per 100 teeth, followed by a sharp rise at about the year 1000 A.D. to 24 carious teeth per 100 for 3 out of 4 populations. The year 1000 A.D. is the approximate date for the introduction of sugar cane to the Western world....Several studies have shown an increase in caries rate associated with the change from a hunter-gatherer diet with meat and low carbohydrate to a diet heavy with starch-rich cereal." ("University of Illinois")

What this article helps show is that before sugar and modern foods were introduced into the diet, many people did not have cavities or tooth decay. Dr.Weston Price discovered a similar phenomenon. He found that when tribes who had previously lived off a hunter-gatherer diet were introduced to a western or modern diet, their dental health would decline.

While the beginning of the paper from the University of Illinois attributes cavities and tooth decay to bacteria, the true explanation for why dental caries and tooth decay occurs is explained by the introduction of sugar and processed foods into the diet. The problem with the type of diet that most people consume is that it contains high levels of white flour, sugar, and processed foods. When the body is supplied with certain foods, such as ones that are overly sweet or lack nutrients, it results in a disruption of the internal body chemistry and alters blood sugar levels. If the body is not supplied with fat-soluble vitamins, it can also result in a disruption of the internal body chemistry, as fat-soluble vitamins are essential for building healthy bones and teeth. This results in the body pulling calcium from the bones and teeth, which causes demineralization. The teeth can become weak or damaged, and may eventually decay or form cavities.

If the body is supplied with nutrient-rich whole foods and sugary or processed foods are avoided, the body can begin to remineralize the teeth. A diet that contains the necessary nutrients and vitamins needed for healthy bone and tooth development is very similar to the hunter-gatherer diet of native tribes and the diet consumed before the introduction of sugar. Many of the same foods that were consumed by native tribes and those from ancient civilizations, such as meats and organs from grass-fed animals or wild caught fish, raw dairy products and vegetables, are all essential for maintaining optimum dental health. Following a more paleo or traditional dietTake a bite out of cavities, and reduce your sugar intake.

References:

"Epidemiology of Dental Disease ." University of Illinois. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Jan 2012. < http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/11_1Epidemiology.htm >.

TweetShare via email

Saccharin Bottles Circa 1900

If you have perused this site or, even better, read Ramiel Nagel’s Cure Tooth Decay, you know that refined sugar is bad for your teeth not because it “sticks” to them as conventional dentistry would have you believe, but through changes in blood chemistry.

Whether it is for the prevention of cavities or for weight control, many people mistakenly turn to artificial sweeteners or other sugar substitutes.

Artificial sweeteners like saccharine, sucrolose and aspartame are not safe to consume.

Some artificial sweeteners may be worse than others. Proponents now claim saccharine is the safest of the three - despite its controversial history.

Saccharine was first discovered in 1878 by a chemist, Constantin Fahlberg, at Johns Hopkins University who was analyzing the chemical compounds in coal tar. Later one evening while at home, he inadvertently tasted his hand, which had some residual anhydroorthosulphaminebenzoic acid on it. It tasted incredibly sweet. He eventually patented it and named it saccharin after the word Saccharine, which means resembling sugar.

Scientists are still not sure to this day WHY benzoic sulfamide, or saccharine is so sweet. Sweet to the tune of anywhere from 200 to 700 times sweeter than table sugar.

As for the controversy over the past 134 years, as early as 1907 the United States government was investigating saccharine. Initial opponents viewed it as wrong because it was a cheap alternative to the more highly valued sugar and it was ruled “adulterated” through the Pure Food and Drug Act’s 1911 Food Inspection Decision. Even President Theodore Roosevelt got involved in the fray, fiercely defending the saccharine he had come to love. By 1912 it was declared harmless.

Saccharine was first used in a truly widespread manner after sugar became scarce during World War I.

It gathered significant momentum during the dieting crazes of the 1960s and 1970s.

The Federal Food and Drug Administration first proposed a ban in 1977 based on Canadian research that reported that laboratory rats consuming saccharine developed bladder cancer. The ban was put on hold after an outcry from the diabetic community, and eventually withdrawn and replaced by a warning label.

As the accuracy of the initial bladder cancer findings were further attacked, the government removed the requirement for warnings in 2000 and removed it from the list of potential carcinogens.

However, Nagel says that “a wide body of evidence and concern exists regarding the hazards of artificial sweeteners and recommends checking out http://www.sugarshockblog.com.

In addition to Sweet-N-Low packets, saccharine is widely used in all sorts of processed foods.

Because Saccharine has been linked with bladder cancer, it is not a safe replacement for sugar when you are facing tooth decay. Rather, Nagel recommends using only natural sweeteners in moderation, or taking a break from sweeteners in order to remineralize cavities fast.

And it is also found in almost all mass-produced toothpastes. They also contain toxic fluoride, hydrated silica, titanium dioxide, glycerin and sodium lauryl sulfate - all substances Nagel says should be avoided. In Cure Tooth Decay, Nagel recommends natural health cleaners from the holistic dental store.

In our next installment in the Sickenly Sweet Series, we will take a look at aspartane, better known as Nutrasweet.

References:

1. Remsen & C. Fahlberg (1880) "On the oxidation of orthotoluenesulphamide," American Chemical Journal, vol. 1, pages 426-439.

2. "Proposition 65." OEHHA. Web. 20 Apr. 2012. <http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_notices/chemicals_reconsideration/fdelistsacc.html>.

TweetShare via email

Abdominal fat (image courtesy of Flickr)

Before moving on to the dangers of the various artificial sweeteners, let’s take some time to delve further into just what makes excess sugar in our diets so unhealthy.

As explained in Part One, Ramiel Nagel, author of Cure Tooth Decay, lays out that the real reason for the connection between sweets and tooth decay is blood chemistry, not the sugar "sticking to the teeth" as conventional dentistry teaches.

It is also those changes in blood sugar that play a major role in metabolic syndrome. It is these same changes in blood sugar that contribute to tooth decay.

And despite the fact that more than a third of Americans meet the criterion for this potentially fatal condition, and experts believe it will take over as the leading cause of heart disease AND eventually bankrupt our health system, many people still do not know what it is.

Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of high risk factors that seriously increase your chances of diabetes, heart attack and strokes.
It is caused by high blood sugar - or chronic hyperglycemia.Quite simply, chronic hyperglycemia is brought on by eating too many carbohydrates.

What does metabolic syndrome look like?

It looks like high blood sugar, extra abdominal fat, high blood pressure, and unhealthy cholesterol levels.
Specifically, metabolic syndrome occurs when a person has three or more of the following most widely used measurements:
1. Abdominal obesity - a waist circumference over 102 cm (40 in) in men and over 88 cm (35    inches) in women.
2. Triglyceride level of 150 milligrams per deciliter of blood (mg/dL) or greater
3. HDL cholesterol of less than 40 mg/dL in men or less than 50 mg/dL in women
4. Systolic blood pressure (top number) of 130 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) or greater
5. Diastolic blood pressure (bottom number) of 85 mm Hg or greater
6. Fasting glucose of 100 mg/dL or greater
7. Insulin resistance or glucose intolerance (the body can't properly use insulin or blood sugar)

If a person has just one of these risk factors - it’s a bad thing. In combination they raise the risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes significantly.

In addition to too much sugar, the underlying causes of metabolic syndrome are obesity, being overweight, physical inactivity and genetic factors.
Dentists who see patients who regularly have tooth decay as a result of consuming a modern western diet high in refined sugar are seeing the first signs of metabolic syndrome. However, rather than warn patients that their health is going done hill, most dentists inform patients to brush more often, perhaps eat a few less sweets. Without really educating the patient on the full connection between diet and tooth decay.

Although metabolic syndrome is a very serious condition, it is also somewhat reversible. Some researchers even define it as “physiologic markers that respond to reduction in dietary carbohydrate.”

How? By significantly by reducing your weight; increasing your physical activity; eating a healthy diet as describe in the book, Cure Tooth Decay and working with a health practitioner to watch and control your blood glucose, blood cholesterol, and blood pressure.

Supplemental Content." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Web. 18 Apr. 2012.

TweetShare via email

Sugar: Is it Just a Matter of Moderation?

For decades we have been taught that sugar causes cavities by sticking to the teeth. I agree with what dentists say. That eating sugar frequently will lead to tooth decay. But it isn't because of the bacteria feeding off of the sugar. It is because of how processed sugar can cause and contribute to disease and imbalance in your body.

But Ramiel Nagel, author of Cure Tooth Decay, says that it is actually changes in blood chemistry that results in tooth decay.

Perhaps you’ve heard that sweets are ok in moderation, as long as you brush right after consuming them. In reality, the fluctuations in blood chemistry last for several hours - so whether you brush the teeth or not after the damage is still being done.

As for moderation, how much is too much?

Well, consider that the United States Department of Agriculture says Americans consume a staggering 156 pounds of added sugar per year, most of which comes from processed foods not traditional sugar.

When fat became the enemy in the 80s and 90s, manufacturers realized that low fat and fat-free foods would be bland and unappealing, so they replaced it with loads of sucrose or sugar - same thing - and high fructose corn syrup.

If you think there is any debated whether sugar/sucrose is better or worse than high fructose corn syrup. Let me clarify. Sugar is recognized by the body. High fructose corn syrup is a man made sweetener that is toxic to the liver. Its consumption promotes tooth decay by wreaking havoc with your body chemistry.

Even natural sweets can cause fluctuations in blood sugar.

And it’s not just “sweets” that have sugar. Much is hidden in everyday processed foods like peanut butter, crackers and even condiments like ketchup and salad dressing. Read the labels of these foods before you buy them and make sure they have no added sugar.

The bottom line is that despite health warnings from the World Health Organization, sugar consumption is rising at an alarming rate of more than five percent every year!

There is no doubt that society rewards itself - especially our children - with sugar. Think of the associations. Birthdays and cakes, Christmas and cookies, Halloween and candy... these are just the tip of the icing - pun intended.

Dr. Robert Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California at San Francisco medical school has long called sugar “toxic,” leading to obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and even heart disease.

And findings from a 2011 study by a team of University of California at Davis and Japanese researchers support his claims by showing a link between high sugar diets and a significantly elevated risk for heart disease. For five weeks, 48 adults (18 to 40 years-old were limited to just one 8-ounce serving of fruit juice per day. They then consumed 25 percent of their daily calories as fructose, high fructose corn syrup or glucose.

Within two weeks participants had increased bloodstream concentrations of LDL cholesterol, triglycerides and a protein known as apolipoprotein-B, which can lead to plaque buildup in arteries.

Kimber Stanhope, senior study author and research scientist at UC Davis said that "the American Heart Association recommends that people consume only five percent of their daily calories as added sugar, but the federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010 suggest an upper limit of 25 percent or less" - suggesting a reevaluation of the U.S. dietary guidelines.

TweetShare via email

Emergency Room Entrance, courtesy of taberandrew on Flickr

Think of why people wind up in the emergency room and you may conjure heart attacks, broken limbs or pneumonia, but according to the latest information from the American College of Emergency Physician Foundation toothaches are a common reason.

And it’s becoming more common.

In the United States there are approximately 125 million emergency room visits each year and the number of dental-related cases is growing fastest.

A February 2012 report entitled A Costly Dental Destination by The Pew Center on the States said that preventable dental conditions were the primary reason for more than 830,000 emergency room visits in the U.S. in 2009, up 16 percent from 2006.

Although statistics are not available from all states, Pew’s report shares hospital data from 24 showing the frequency and cost of dental-related ER visits, including:

• California: More than 83,000 emergency visits in 2007 for preventable dental problems
• North Carolina: More than 69,000 trips to ERs in 2009 due to teeth or jaw disorders
• Illinois: Nearly 77,000 dental visits to metro Chicago’s hospitals from 2008 to 2011
• Florida: More than 115,000 dental-related ER cases in 2010
• New York: A 32 percent increase in emergency treatments for young children with preventable dental problems

According the Chicago Tribune more than 65,000 Illinois residents went to the ER in 2009 for dental conditions, of which nearly half were determined to be preventable by Pew’s study.

In California's Central Valley, emergency rooms have seen a five-fold increase in dental-related ER visits. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that the number of dentists who accept the state-funded Medi-cal insurance is dwindling rapidly according to the Fresno Business Journal. People turn to the ER of government funded hospitals as the only place where they can receive dental care of any kind.

And when they turn to the ER for dental care they  - or in many cases the government - pay a staggering price - 10 times the cost by most estimates.

“The country will never drill, fill and extract its way to victory over untreated dental disease,” said William Calnon, president of the American Dental Association in an April 10, 2012 letter to the editor of the New York Times. “A public health system based primarily on surgical intervention in disease that could have easily been prevented is ill conceived and doomed to fail.”

Tooth decay that goes ignored and the last resort ER visits that all too often follow are preventable. But not in the traditional way conventional dentistry contends.

In Cure Tooth Decay, author Ramiel Nagel explains how the correct foods and supplements can not only prevent, but even reverse decay.

He calls modern dentistry is an “unequivocal failure” and says that even though holistic dentists offer LESS toxic alternatives, only a small number offer the REAL CURE - which is found through a diet that balances blood chemistry.

References:

"A Costly Dental Destination: Hospital Care Means States Pay Dearly." Pew Charitable Trusts. Web. 24 Apr. 2012..

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/opinion/improving-the-state-of-americas-teeth.html

"Local ERs Note Influx of Patients with Dental Problems." The Business Journal. Web. 24 Apr. 2012. <http://www.thebusinessjournal.com/news/healthcare/1328-local-ers-note-influx-of-patients-with-dental-problems&gt;.

TweetShare via email