. . . but have Monsanto et al. gone too far this time? A rider to a resolution that will fund the federal government through September 30 – critics call it the “Monsanto Protection Act” – is too much for even mainstream media like the New York Times and Bloomberg to stomach. This rider prevents federal courts from putting a stop to the sale and planting of genetically engineered (GE) food crops that the courts themselves have deemed possibly dangerous to public health while the USDA performs an environmental impact report. How could such a thing happen despite an avalanche of letters and emails from a public that opposed this rider? Well, as the Alliance for Natural Health points out, it has something to do with the nearly $90 million Monsanto and the agricultural industry contributed to political campaigns between 2011 and 2012. Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO), who introduced the rider, alone received $243,000 from agribiz PACs in 2010. Food Democracy Now! reports that the rider is…

Question: I am taking St. John’s Wort for depression.  Are there any downsides to doing this?  M.P. — Delray Beach, FL Answer: St. John’s Wort has been well studied and it is effective in treating depression.  Regarding downsides, the one you should be most concerned with, especially living in Florida, is it makes your skin more sensitive to the sun.  So be careful of getting more than a little sun.  It is also not good to take this herb with prescription drugs as it can interfere with their metabolism and make them even more toxic. Your best bet is to stop being depressed by getting on a good diet, getting off of sugar, taking our Basic Wellness Kit, getting adequate sunlight, and exercising.  This will take care of most depression.  Be sure to read my article on depression at www.beyondhealth.com.…

Question: In your books, you recommend avoiding all sweetners other than stevia, primarily because of their effect on blood glucose/insulin levels.  However, many holisitic practitioners allow xylitol (a sugar alcohol) as well as stevia.  Xylitol is even an incredient in my vitamin D supplement, and I've heard that xylitol is helpful in combatting yeast.  I am led to understand that these sugar alcohols have minimal effect on blood sugar and insulin release and have no side effects.  Is there any other reason why a cancer patient should avoid sugar alcohols, such as xylitol and erythritol? Also, I have read that cancer patients should avoid oranges.  Why is that?  -- LP, Internet Answer:  We are wary of xylitol, erythritol and the other sugar alcohols. Whereas they don't appear to cause rapid elevations of blood sugar, whether they are safe for long-term daily consumption is unknown. I don't know why a website on combating cancer would single out oranges; all fruits contain sugar…

REPRINTED FROM BEYOND HEALTH® Newsby Raymond Francis"Never doubt the power of small groups to change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead, Anthropologist 1901 – 1978 The future of our nation as a world leader is at risk. This threat comes not from hostile countries or from organized terrorists; it comes from us. By making uninformed choices regarding our health, both our physical and mental health is deteriorating. A sick and mentally incompetent America cannot continue to supply the kind of political, economic, and technological world leadership that has been such a boon to mankind for more than half a century. The solution to this problem is to teach people how to maintain health. Health education, using cutting-edge technology, will put the responsibility for health where it belongs—with the individual. Pick a city, and it is almost a sure bet that the area's largest private employer is the hospitals, medical centers, doctors, and diagnostic laborato…

REPRINTED FROM BEYOND HEALTH® News by Raymond Francis Cancer is an out-of-control epidemic now affecting almost one out of every two Americans in their lifetime. One American dies of cancer every minute and the problem is growing worse. The startling 20 percent increase in breast cancer between 1998 and 1999 among women ages 45 to 64 gives us all a new sense of urgency for finding the cause. A massive search is on and no stone should be left unturned. Unfortunately, one very big stone is being ignored—our modern healthcare system. Across the nation, higher rates of breast cancer have been observed in affluent communities. Obviously, affluent, bettereducated people get more medical and dental care. Although the connection isn't certain, there is a strong correlation, which should be investigated. A 1998 review by scientists at the Northern California Cancer Center revealed that breast cancer appeared to be related to lifestyle and demographic factors. Affluence is key for breas…

Deodorants and Breast Cancer: Separating Urban Legend From Legitimate Concern Roughly a decade ago, a claim spread rapidly online suggesting that deodorants and antiperspirants—especially those applied to the underarm—cause breast cancer. The idea gained traction quickly, not because it was proven, but because it sounded plausible. Most breast cancers are diagnosed in the upper outer quadrant of the breast, near the armpit. Combine that observation with the fact that many underarm products contain biologically active chemicals, and a hypothesis was born. But what does the science actually say? Why the Concern Arose in the First Place Many conventional underarm products have historically contained ingredients such as: Parabens Aluminum compounds Phthalates Propylene glycol Triclosan Talc and silica Polyethylene glycols and ethoxylated compounds Some of these substances have been studied for endocrine-disrupting or estrogen-mimicking properties, which natural…

REPRINTED FROM BEYOND HEALTH® News by Raymond Francis Modern living has created a problem the human body was never designed to handle—exposure to excessive amounts of environmental toxins, especially heavy-metal and oil-soluble toxins. Toxicity is one of our leading causes of disease, and the overall chemical load to which we are now exposed is unprecedented in human history. Toxic chemicals are bioaccumulating in our tissues faster than we can get rid of them, creating an unprecedented epidemic of chronic disease. Since our bodies were not designed to deal with the amount and variety of toxins we are accumulating—saunas to the rescue. Heat causes toxins to be released by cells, and hyperthermic (sweat) treatments have been used by cultures around the world for millennia (American Indians used sweat lodges). Hyperthermic practices are known to reduce levels of organic toxins such as pesticides and PCBs, as well as heavy metals like lead and mercury. Our bodies were designed a…

REPRINTED FROM BEYOND HEALTH® News by Raymond Francis The average American breathes in about two heaping tablespoons of airborne particles each day. The smallest of these particles can lodge deep in the lungs where they remain and cause serious problems. Now there are shocking new findings regarding such particles. In mid-May, Canadian researchers reported in the journal Science that fine airborne particles can cause genetic mutations that are passed on to future generations. Most of these fine particles emanate from industrial plants, power plants, incinerators, and diesel-burning vehicles. In 1999, a study in Los Angeles indicated that 71 percent of the cancer risk from air contaminants came from diesel emissions; now we know why. The fine particles from these emissions cause DNA damage, and such damage is the first step in the development of cancer. The researchers said they didn’t know if it was the particles themselves or toxic chemicals carried by the particl…

. . . more you can do on the above issue S. 1310 is currently "in committee." It is standard practice that when bills are introduced in either the Senate or the House of Representatives they are sent to a special committee made up of Senators (or Representatives) to study the bill and then come back to the whole group with recommendations. Since the committees receive hundreds of bills, many bills never get reviewed. Instead they "die in committee," and need to be reintroduced the following year. S. 1310 has been sent to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. If any of your state senators sit on this Committee, contact them and let them know of your opposition.  The members of the Committee are: Alaska - Lisa Murkowski (R) Arizona - John McCain (R) Colorado - Michael Bennet (D) Connecticut - Richard Blumenthal (D) (co-sponsor of S. 1310) Georgia - Johnny Isakson (R) Illinois - Mark Kirk (R) Iowa - Tom Harkin (D), Chairman of the Commit…

. . .slow cooking at lower heat is best Holidays are times when everyone breaks a few rules. However, you can minimize damage with these 5 tips for a healthier thanksgiving meal. 1. Choose organic turkey. Organic turkeys are usually more delicious than conventional birds, and they're free of pesticides and hormones. They're given antibiotics only when sick rather than as a standard practice, to stimulate growth and compensate for unsanitary living conditions. 2. Use low temperature cooking. Cooking at high temperatures saves time, but high temperatures (over 370 degrees Fahrenheit) create excessive toxic chemical reactions. It's best to preheat your oven to 325 degrees and cook the bird at this temperature until the stuffing reaches 165 degrees (at this temperature any harmful bacteria have been killed) and the meat in the inner thigh is 180 degrees. 3. Make a healthy stuffing. If you need to be strict in food combining, "stuff" with a quartered, peeled yellow onion; a bunc…

. . . cancer-causing fumes There's a good reason why many people get headaches when they stand near tumble dryer vents. Prof. Anne Steinemann, a pollution expert at the University of Washington, led research that analyzed fumes emitted from clothes dryers drying clothes washed using scented detergents, with added scented dryer sheets. The researchers found more than 25 volatile organic compounds including 7 hazardous pollutants -- 2 of them, acetaldehyde and benzene, carcinogens. Steinemann pointed out that such toxins are health hazards not only for people living in homes where scented detergents and dryer sheets are used, but chemicals from these products get into public air and go down the drain into public waterways. Acetaldehyde is a toxic emission from automobiles. Steinemann and her group estimated that acetaldehyde emissions from the top five brands of scented laundry detergents would equal about 6% of automobile emissions in the Seattle area. Non-toxic laundry deterge…

. . . You're on your own for now! You might be wondering how it's possible that dangerous chemicals are allowed in common personal care products. It's because our laws in this area were written before "better living through chemistry" had shown its darker side, and they've never been brought up to date. As a result, manufacturers can introduce and include any chemicals they like in their products without safety tests. It's left up to the public to prove the chemicals are harmful through the courts. This is next to impossible when you're dealing with a slow erosion in health caused by hundreds of different toxins working together. Two new laws, the Safe Chemicals Act and the Safe Cosmetics Act, were proposed this past spring to remedy the situation. They embody the "precautionary principle" of not allowing synthetic chemicals into general use until they've already been proven to be safe.…

. . . it can be challenging How about products that say they're "hypoallergenic," "natural," "herbal" or even "organic?" Sorry, but because this market is unregulated, such product descriptions are meaningless. How about buying products at the health food store? Sorry again, but genuinely non-toxic products are relatively rare, and most health food store products don't pass the test. Now manufacturers do have to list all ingredients on the bottle, so you can become an expert on the particular ingredients to avoid. I've written about many of these in prior Newsclips, and the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has done an excellent job in making educational materials about common toxins available on their website. (Also see, "Is Your Bodycare Toxic" by the EWG, at www.shareguide.com/bodycare.html.) However, manufacturers don't have to list unintentional ingredients, i.e., impurities. For example, a Canadian study recently found heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, lead and others)…

 . . . many don't remove enough to meet current standards I firmly believe that our Reverse Osmosis Water Filtration System is the best bargain in home filtration systems available. Yes, there are cheaper ways to purify water, but do you really get a pure, safe product? A recent article in The Chicago Tribune reported that many popular pitchers with built-in filters, including Brita and PUR, don't reduce lead enough to meet current standards. If you purchased one of these pitchers before 2007, it may have been sold as reducing lead, but that was before industry standards required that filters remove lead particles as well as dissolved lead. The water pitcher type filters simply can't do this. Certification now requires that a filter take water with 150 parts per billion (ppb) of lead and reduce it to 10 ppb or less. Our Reverse Osmosis Water Filtration System not only meets these certification requirements, but greatly exceeds them. The two causes of disease are nutritio…

. . . they do permanent damage and are devastating our health We have more bacteria and other microflora in our bodies than we have cells, and our health is totally dependent upon them. Yet antibiotics devastate these populations and, in the process, devastate our health. I've been talking about this for the past 25 years. Now an establishment doctor, Martin J. Blaser, MD, Chairman of the Department of Medicine at NYU School of Medicine, has come to similar conclusions. In a news making commentary in the journal Nature, Blaser states that although concerns about antibiotics have been centered on bacterial resistance, there is a much worse problem in the "permanent changes to our protective flora." He has urged the medical community to curtail use of broad-spectrum antibiotics which kill both good and bad bacteria, citing findings that some of the beneficial bacteria may never recover, and that this may lead to increases in infections and other diseases, specifically obesity, alle…

Q: Hello, I am looking for information about breastfeeding.  I am  trying to get pregnant now.  I breastfed my first child for 6 months but my milk dried up and I don't want that to happen again.  I was aiming to breastfeed for 2 years. A: Thank you for your question. I would like to direct you to an article that Raymond wrote on breastfeeding. “Women who don’t breastfeed are more likely to develop type 2 diabetes. A study in the September issue of the American Journal of Medicine concluded that mothers who did not breastfeed their children have significantly higher rates, twice the risk, of type 2 diabetes later in life than mothers who breastfed. This study is just one more argument for breastfeeding. Another problem is when women are not breastfeeding; they are feeding inappropriate food to the infant, causing obesity in the children. A recent study in American Journal of Medicine concluded that mothers who did not breastfeed their children have significantly higher rates,…

. . . it prevents celiac disease Celiac disease is an extreme autoimmune response to gluten (found in wheat, rye, barley, spelt, kamut and triticale) resulting in degradation of the intestinal wall. This greatly impairs absorption of nutrients. Celiac disease now affects 1% of the population (its incidence has been growing rapidly) and has a genetic component.  Spanish researchers studied 75 newborn babies over the first 4 months of life. They were classified according to genetic predisposition to celiac disease (high or low) and whether they were breastfed or bottle fed. The researchers found that among those genetically predisposed to get celiac disease, certain gut microflora tended to predominate; however microflora in those who were breastfed were more like the microflora found in the babies with a low genetic predisposition.  In other words, although the babies will be followed to see who actually gets celiac disease, breastfeeding appeared to be protective against it. …

David from rockstarreviews.com, reviews Raymond Francis’ book, Never Be Sick Again. David explains the basis of Raymond’s Beyond Health System. There is one disease, cellular malfunction, two causes and six pathways. David enjoys the section where Raymond opens up and tells his own story of disease and how he changed his life. The book takes readers “outside the box of traditional medicine.”  Watch the full review to hear more about Raymond’s simple to understand guide to health.…