Rather than thinking of genes as an absolute and unchanging set of instructions,
one might think of them as a variety of possibilities—a set of “what if” instructions. If certain circumstances are present, then a person’s genes express in a particular
way; if other circumstances are present, those same genes express in a different way. Biochemist Roger Williams maintained that genes alone are entirely useless threads
of chemicals. Genes alone do not determine our sickness or health. If genes, in the form of cellular DNA, were the primary control of the cell—if
they were the “brain” of a cell, so to speak—then the cell would die without them,
but this does not happen. Scientists commonly perform a process called denu-
cleation, a process whereby the nucleus of a cell and its DNA are removed. After this
process, cells continue to perform normal functions for months. Consider how changes in diet, lifestyle and environment over the past one hundred
years have coincided with massive increases in rates of chronic disease. For
example, in 1900 cancer affected only 3 percent of the U.S. population; now about
50 percent of all men and 40 percent of all women develop cancer in their lifetime. Our environment has changed so radically that blaming disease increases solely on
inherited genes is illogical. Consider how environmental factors can affect genetic expression. Environmental
temperature, for example, affects the expression of genes that control the coloration
of Himalayan rabbits. These rabbits, accustomed to cold temperatures, usually haveblack ears, forepaws, noses and tails, but when raised in warm temperatures they
have no black markings at all. Same rabbits, same genes, but different environments
and, therefore, different expressions of genes. Similarly, plants with the genetic
capacity to flower and fruit only do so when a precise set of environmental
requirements (such as temperature, sunlight and moisture) “turn on” the necessary
genes. “Disease genes” function the same way. When people move from one part of
the world to another— adopting the diet and lifestyle habits of the new environment
— they also develop the disease conditions common to that new environment. For
example, people from countries with low rates of heart disease and cancer, such as
Japan, suffer like the rest of our population once they move here. A compelling question in the discussion of heredity is how long you will live—
your life span. A low-calorie diet is the only thing that consistently has been shown
to increase life span. Genetic expression causes this to happen. A study in the
September 2001 
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 
found that a high-
calorie diet (the typical American diet) caused changes in genes that reduced the
expression of disease-protective genes and turned on genes that accelerate the aging
process. But the good news is that the study also showed that by taking older animals
and putting them on calorie-restricted diets for merely four weeks, about half of the
gene expressions that were contributing to the aging process reversed. Changing
internal cellular environment (by reducing calories) not only helps to prevent the
expression of aging genes in the young, it can also slow and even reverse the aging
process in the old. As biologist Steven Rose pointed out in his 1997 book, 
Lifelines, 
much of what
goes on in a cell is at least as much a product of the environment in and around the
cell as its DNA. This environment is something we create with our diet, toxic
exposures, lifestyle, and even with our thoughts, beliefs and perceptions. “Organisms,” Rose wrote, “are active players in their own fate.”
Indeed, even mental climate affects the environment we create for our cells and
genes. Cells depend on the brain to interpret the environment and to use the nervous
system to relay that information, telling the cells what to do. Depending on one’s
perceptions of the environment, the expression of genes can be greatly affected. For
example, the mortality rate goes up during the first year or two after retirement. Why? Does the brain perceive that “life” is over, causing the genes to express
accordingly? Deepak Chopra, M.D., author of many books and a pioneer and leader
in mind/body medicine, often says in his lectures, “Aging is a mistake.” He means
that we observe others around us aging, so we believe that we too will age. We
literally instruct our genes to age us. Could this be one of the reasons that
traditionally healthy people like the Hunzas lived so long? By believing that they
would live long, healthy lives, did they actually instruct their genes accordingly? Much evidence indicates that what we believe does affect the function of our cellsand the expression of our genes. Intentional Damage to Your DNA
Modern diet and lifestyle can cause damage to genes— different from genetically
inherited predispositions. Rather than causing the expression of existing genetic
coding, genetic damage involves changes in the coding. A change in genetic coding
is known as a mutation, which can occur both through natural causes and man-
created damage. One theory of aging is that gene mutations over a lifetime cause
gradual loss of function and resilience. The ability of genes to mutate is not all
“bad,” but rather is an essential part of evolution and of adaptation to changing
conditions. The mutations to be concerned about are caused by chemicals and radiation,
which can lead to dramatic and unpredictable changes in genetic coding. Genes are
crucial plans for creating, repairing and reproducing an organism; randomly
changing these plans is a bad idea. What would happen if you started making
random changes to the blueprints of your house? Doors, windows, walls and even
whole rooms would appear in strange places. So it is with genetic damage. What causes genetic mutation? • 
Ionizing radiation: 
Almost half of the average person’s exposure to ionizing
radiation comes from medical X rays and medical radiation treatments. Avoid
this kind of radiation unless vitally necessary. It’s bizarre that physicians put
much stock in the genetic origins of disease yet also inflict massive amounts of
genetic damage with pharmaceutical chemicals and X rays. • 
Non-ionizing radiation: 
This is created by the flow of electricity and may also
have genetic repercussions— though the evidence is less clear. As a general
rule, avoid close proximity or prolonged exposure to all types of electric
devices. • 
Toxins: 
These include man-made industrial chemicals, prescription drugs,
tobacco, alcohol and chemical residues in meat and dairy products, such as
PCBs and dioxins. In particular, foods that are heated to high temperatures or
blackened (such as in barbecuing) contain chemicals capable of causing gene
mutations and cancer. When a cell is exposed to toxins or radiation, the cell may die or the genes may be
damaged. A mutated gene may permanently alter the way the cell works, often
contributing to deficiency, toxicity and disease. Furthermore, altered cells (with
mutated genes) can replicate, allowing the mutation to propagate throughout more
and more cells. The effects of this replication can range from minor to devastating;
replication is a classic way for cancer to develop. Worse, if genetic mutations take
place in a reproductive cell, a 50/50 chance exists of passing these on to an unbornchild. Destroyed or damaged cells and genes can lead to premature aging and a
variety of diseases, including cancer, fatigue, poor resistance to infections,
psychological stress and even social maladjustment. Genes are not causing aging and disease. We are. We expose our cells to the
toxins and radiation that make the genes mutate in the first place. Life in the twenty-
first century is now causing damage to our genes and creating mutations in
unprecedented ways and at an alarming rate. As scientist Richard Lewontin said in
his 1982 book, 
Human Diversity: 
“Because of technology’s ventures into ionizing
radiation and synthetic chemistry, the human beings of our age, as well as the food
chain on which we live, are thought to be undergoing a far higher mutation rate than
biology has been accustomed to.”
Fortunately, under the right circumstances, genetic damage can be repaired. Not
only must we avoid damaging our genes in the first place, we also must provide our
genes with the materials (nutrients) they need in order to repair themselves. Genetically Modified Foods: Risky Business
No contemporary discussion on genetics is complete without discussing the
powerful genetic technologies in use today, particularly with our foods. With
modern genetic technology, what would have seemed miraculous just a generation
ago is now possible. However, whether or not these technologies pose a threat to our
health is a huge debate. Scientists on both sides constantly argue their points. These
technologies present the potential both for great achievement and for catastrophe. Not enough research is available to know what will happen, although the research
that is available presents cause for serious concern or even alarm. I recommend
against consuming genetically modified foods because I believe these foods may be
lower in nutrients, higher in toxins and present other potential risks as well. Never before in human evolution has humankind eaten a genetically modified
food. Only in recent years have we developed the technologies that allow us to create
these foods. Now genetic technologies are being developed and deployed rapidly,
with few controls and almost no consideration for long-term consequences. Most of
the food in your supermarket already contains genetically modified components. Yet
there is insufficient research, particularly long-term research, to establish the safety
of genetically modified foods and, indeed, ample reason to believe they may not be
safe. If we keep producing and consuming genetically modified foods, we will be
unable to prevent genetic contamination from becoming prevalent throughout our
entire food supply. If ever these foods are determined unsafe, the damage will be
irreversible. Unexpected results from these foods might not become obvious until
years after they are introduced, at which point taking it back is too late. Ourscientists do their best, but when experimenting with genetics, the potential for
unanticipated side effects is almost incalculable. Here is one scenario: Over time,
genetically modified organisms interact with their environment, mutate and evolve,
and pass on their mutant characteristics to other related and unrelated organisms,
including us. This sets off a chain of events throughout the entire ecosystem,
jeopardizing life on earth as we know it. I know this scenario sounds dramatic, but
messing with genes and the course of evolution is risky business. Is That a Jellyfish in Your Potato? Producing new foods with modern genetic engineering is no minor event. Genetic
engineers cut, splice and transfer genes between totally unrelated species to produce
combinations that could never occur in nature. Scientists are inserting jellyfish
genes into potatoes, scorpion genes into vegetables, human genes into pigs and fish
genes into tomatoes. Perfect accuracy using these gene-splicing techniques and
knowing exactly what will be produced is almost impossible. Researchers at the
prestigious Rowett Institute in Scotland studied different batches of genetically
modified potatoes and found substantial differences from the same gene insertion. Two lines of potatoes grown from the same gene insertion and the same growing
conditions had a 20 percent difference in protein content, demonstrating the
unpredictability inherent in genetic modification. Genetically modified foods may be of altered nutritional value, and they also may
contain allergens or toxins they would not naturally contain—including ones not
normally associated with that type of food. For example, genes from Brazil nuts
were used to engineer a new soybean; but people allergic to Brazil nuts were now
highly reactive to these soybeans. Fortunately the problem was discovered before
anyone was harmed. Other genetically modified foods may present similar risks. A
1999 study printed in the British medical journal 
Lancet 
showed that genetically
modified potatoes damaged the stomach and intestinal linings of rats. People are
also eating genetically modified potatoes, but similar tests are not being performed
on humans. Do you recall one of the health “scandals” of the late 1980s? Many people who
took an essential amino acid called tryptophan (which is used for treating depression
and other emotional problems) had devastating reactions. Thirty-seven people died,
fifteen hundred were permanently disabled, and five thousand became extremely ill.
As it turned out, one particular manufacturer in Japan had produced tryptophan using
a genetically modified bacterium, which did produce commercial quantities of
tryptophan, but which also produced a powerful nerve poison. Of course this poison
did not exist until we created it with genetic engineering, so it could not be detected
by existing safety tests. We cannot test for toxins we don’t know about, which is the
problem with genetically engineered foods. They are capable of producing theunexpected. Supermarkets Full of Genetic Experiments
Food industry journals estimate that about 70 percent of the processed foods in
our supermarkets would test positive for genetically modified ingredients. Most
common are genetically engineered corn, soybeans, tomatoes, yellow crookneck
squash, canola, papaya and Russet Burbank potatoes. Other foods are being
developed, such as apples, rice, wheat, broccoli, cucumbers, carrots, melons and
grapes; genetically modified versions of these foods are either in stores already or
they soon will be. A 1999 study by 
Consumer Reports 
found that only one-third of U.S. shoppers
realize they are eating genetically modified foods. The FDA does not require these
foods to be labeled “genetically modified,” and consumers do not realize what they
are buying. People buy so-called “fresh” produce, unaware that these foods did not
evolve through a natural process. As always, your best bet is to purchase only fresh,
organic foods. If you are unable to buy organic, stay away from commercial foods
most likely to be genetically modified, particularly corn and soy (including tofu). Avoid commercially processed and prepared foods, 70 percent of which contain
genetically modified components, often including soy as a hidden ingredient. Even organic foods are not guaranteed to be free from genetically modified
components. Segregating organic crops completely from genetically modified crops
during harvest, handling, transport and milling is not possible. Similarly, insects,
birds and wind carry seeds and pollen from genetically modified plants into organic
fields and cross-pollinate. America’s crops are so contaminated by genetic
modification that the Organic Federation of Australia announced in 2001 that it
could no longer verify the purity of organic crops imported from the United States. Closer to home, Farm Verified Organic, an organic certification agency, has stated,
“the GM [genetically modified] pollution of American commodities is now so
pervasive, we believe it is not possible for farmers in North America to source seed
free from it.” Our supposedly uncontaminated organic crops of corn, soy and canola
are now testing positive for the presence of foreign genetic material. As you know, commercial farming produces sick plants, which are sprayed with
chemical fertilizers and pesticides to keep them alive. To cut down on pesticide use,
some genetically modified crops (such as corn and potatoes) have been engineered
to produce toxic pesticides internally. These plants actually become their own
pesticide factories. The long-term health effects of these pesticides are unknown. With such crops, the potential certainly exists for long-term nutritional deficiencies,
toxicities and even genetic mutations in humans. A December 1999 issue of 
Nature
reported that genetically modified crops engineered to produce their own pesticides
actually were poisoning the soil. Pesticides leaching from the plant’s roots werekilling beneficial bacteria in the soil, disrupting the soil food web and threatening
soil ecology. This problem is severe. The quality of the soil has everything to do
with the health and nutritional content of the crops it produces. Genetically modified organisms are problematic because they are extremely hard
to control. Genes do not exist by themselves. They exist as part of interactive
networks. The splicing of genes results in not only the desired characteristics but
also in other unpredictable effects. Given that the species developed by Mother
Nature work just fine, why take these unnecessary risks? “Progress?” At What Price? The companies that supply genetically modified seeds, such as Archer Daniels
Midland and Monsanto, believe they are pioneers in a technology that can serve
humankind and offer myriad benefits now and in the future. Scientists in this field
argue that genetically modified foods increase yields and are necessary to feed this
hungry world. They argue that crops can be engineered to reduce environmental
pesticide pollution, because pesticides are produced internally by the plants. They
argue that the plants can be engineered to resist chemical weed killers, so farmers
can use these chemicals without fear of harming crops. Future possibilities include
engineering plants that are better able to withstand harsh environmental conditions,
permitting farming in areas not presently suitable. Another possibility is the
engineering of crops with increased nutritional content. Clearly, genetically
modified foods present great promise, but as always, we must consider the whole
picture. These foods also present enormous risks for which there is little financial
incentive to investigate and plenty of incentive to overlook. Safety tests for these
newly created species should be at least as rigorous as those for new food additives,
but they are not. No single regulatory agency is in charge of genetically modified
foods. Eight government agencies are involved under twelve different laws, none of
which deal specifically with genetically modified foods. Biotechnology companies
do their own testing and are not required to inform the FDA if they suspect a
problem. Huge corporations and large sums of money are involved, yet we rely on
the honor system alone. At the very least, people have a right to know what they are
eating. We should insist that genetically engineered foods be labeled as such. In
order to make our voices heard, contact your elected representatives and tell them
what you think. Misleading Thoughts 
About Birth DefectsOne of the central points of confusion regarding genetics and disease is the
common misunderstanding between genetic and congenital defects. Most people
assume that a condition present at birth is genetically determined. Not so. In a
newborn baby, the environmental conditions in the womb contributed to every step
of its development. Defects caused by problematic conditions in the womb are
congenital, not genetic. Building a baby puts a huge demand on the mother, which can be met only with a
much higher than normal intake of nutrients. Grave consequences often affect the
developing fetus if a mother fails to obtain proper nutrition. Congenital defects—
biochemical and physical defects present at birth— are not determined by genes, but
by the same two causes responsible for all disease: deficiency and toxicity. If the mother’s cells are neither deficient nor toxic, her baby’s chances for a
healthy life increase dramatically. As a fetus passes through various developmental
stages, tissues and cells grow very quickly. Rapidly dividing cells are at a greater
risk of suffering from insufficient nutrients, too much of certain hormones or the
presence of certain toxins. These conditions can alter the development of the baby’s
tissues, permanently affecting the physical and mental function of the child. An unfavorable environment in the womb causes a developing fetus to make
compromises in order to compensate for deficiency or toxicity. These
compensations come at a very high price, a price that often is invisible and
impossible to measure. Perhaps the newborn’s nervous system is compromised and
the child’s IQ will be lower than it might otherwise be. Perhaps the baby’s digestive
system is not fully developed, leading to digestive problems, disease and shortened
life span. Perhaps the circulatory system is not fully developed, making it
impossible for optimal amounts of nutrients and oxygen to reach the tissues, thus
guaranteeing premature aging and disease. Perhaps the baby is born with a cleft
palate, a clubfoot or a heart defect. Some of these problems are obvious at birth, but most are not. When they are
obvious, we usually blame them on genetics, but they are mostly congenital. To
avoid these problems, parents, especially prior to and during pregnancy, must follow
the six pathways closely, optimizing their cellular function and minimizing the
chances of congenital problems in their children. Choosing Your Destiny
Although perfect nutrition, perfect genes, a pure environment and ideal behavior
do not exist, these factors write the story of your life, including how many chapters
you will finish. The interaction between inherited genes, nutritional intake, the
environment and our beliefs at any point in time are the triggers that determine our
current state of health or disease, including how long we live.By changing the conditions inside your body, you can signal your genes to express
in different ways. Our society tends to think that disease is the result of aging. Not
true. The Hunzas and other historically healthy populations lived to very old ages
without disease. Disease is a result of the rate at which we age, not the number of
years we have inhabited the Earth. The rate is affected by “aging genes,” which we
can choose to keep turned off. You can create a younger and healthier you, as was suggested by Arthur Vander,
M.D., in his 1981 book, 
Nutrition, Stress, & Toxic Chemicals: An Approach to
Environmental-Health Controversies. Dr. Vander said, “Different environments, by
altering gene expression, can produce . . . an incredible variety of ‘yous.’”
By assuming that inherited genes cause disease, one assumes that disease occurs
regardless of dietary and lifestyle factors—in other words, environment. Not so,
which is why we can have such a powerful influence on the balance between health
and disease. Genes are important, but they are only one small piece of a much larger
puzzle. Fundamentally, there is only one disease (malfunctioning cells), and it has
only two causes (deficiency and toxicity). Regardless of the recipe you start with, a dish is only as good as the ingredients
put into it. The same goes for a cell. When a cell is provided with the proper
nutrients, kept free from toxins and placed in a supportive environment, health-
supporting genes are activated, aging and disease-causing genes remain dormant,
and both your cells and you are healthy. To move yourself in the right direction on
the genetic pathway, create a healthy environment for your genes and protect them
from damage.10
T
HE 
M
EDICAL 
P
ATHWAY
“[T]he greatest danger to your health is the doctor who
practices Modern Medicine.”
Robert Mendelsohn, M.D. Confessions of a Medical Heretic
O
ne spring morning, more than twenty years ago, I received a call from my
father’s physician telling me that my father, hospitalized for emphysema, was dying
of kidney failure. I raced to the hospital almost two hundred miles away. My brother
and I found our father in a deep coma. He looked as if he were dead. The doctors advised us to disconnect his life-support systems and allow him to
slip away peacefully. We knew our father would not choose to live hooked to
machines in a vegetative state. We knew his own decision would be to pull the plug. We consented. All life-support measures were terminated. Late that evening, our father was still alive but in a deep coma. In the morning,
my brother and I returned to the hospital with anxiety and grief. We thought that he
might have died during the night. Instead, we found our father sitting up and telling
jokes to the nurse! A miracle? No. The doctors had been giving our father “life-saving” prescription
drugs that put a lethal load of toxins on his kidneys. When the drugs were stopped,
his body was able to rebalance and begin to repair itself. A night without the drugs
was sufficient. Our decision to “let him die” saved him. Had he died, his death would have been attributed to kidney failure, not the
prescription drugs that were causing his kidneys to fail. My father’s story is extreme, yet all too common. The vast number of medically
caused deaths is underreported and underestimated. Prescription errors, surgical
mistakes and missed diagnoses do not even begin to describe the scope of the
problem. The truth is lost in prescription pads, health charts and death certificates,
which do not reflect the true causes of death and disease. We pride ourselves on the
accomplishments of modern medicine without acknowledging its failures. Actually,
medical intervention may be the leading cause of death in the United States. Conventional medical treatments can be both a blessing or a curse. These
treatments are good, even excellent, in crisis intervention and treatment of injuries. But conventional medicine does not prevent nor cure disease; it manages symptoms. We wait for disease to happen, wait for the damage to be done and then try to control
the problems by “treating,” using assembly-line techniques that are currently
fashionable, expensive and usually dangerous. These techniques cause cellular
malfunction—often cavalierly called “side effects”— which lead to unnecessary
suffering, disease and death. Even so-called preventive medicine usually is only
early disease detection, rather than real prevention.The present system suffers from a disease-care bias. Very few medical resources
are devoted to disease prevention by helping people to maintain cellular health
through diet, nutritional supplements, detoxification, exercise, healthful
environment, state of mind and lifestyle. Instead, resources are devoted toward
treating the effects of disease. Our modern medical system fails to find cures for
chronic diseases despite vast sums of money spent on research every year. The late
Emanuel Cheraskin, M.D., D.M.D., at the University of Alabama Medical Center,
said, “American medical care is the fastest-growing failing business in Western
Civilization.”
The Truth and the Consequences
Many people maintain total and unquestioning trust in modern medicine. They get
advice and treatments from only one school of thought and willingly surrender their
personal health responsibilities to the hands of their doctor. This approach is not
sensible. Educate yourself before you follow anyone else’s advice, including your
physician’s. Health is the responsibility of the individual. Rarely do most people realize that certain aspects of medicine might harm their
health, or that better alternatives might exist. Instead, they do what is familiar and
conventional. Confronted with a health problem, they go to the doctor either because
they do not know how to solve the problem or they are intimidated by alternatives. This was certainly my experience. The medical pathway teaches you how all kinds of medical treatments affect your
body at the cellular level, the benefits and the dangers. With this understanding, and
if you are not blinded by unquestioning trust in modern medicine, you can evaluate
the evidence and make the best choices about medical care for yourself and for your
family. With the right health choices, you should not become sick. But if you do,
you must take an active part in your care which means more than blindly following
someone else’s advice. You need to learn how to take charge—relying on medicine
alone is not a sensible long-term solution. Like most people in our society, I grew up wholeheartedly trusting modern
medicine. When I became sick I took my physicians’ advice without question and
believed that I was benefiting from the most advanced medical science and the most
effective treatments. I unwittingly waited in line at the pharmacy for my toxic drugs. Not until I almost died as a direct result of my medical treatments did I question the
validity of this approach, and then it was almost too late. Before choosing any
medical treatment, consider both benefits and risks. Understand your choices and
how they are supposed to benefit you, and find out the risks.What Is Not on the Death Certificate
A physician may actually guide your movement along the pathways toward
disease rather than away from it. That happened to Harry, a delightful seventy-two-
year-old man and a dear friend. I was shocked to hear that Harry had died of
pneumonia. His story is important to relate. Although Harry’s pneumonia was caused by a bacterial infection, healthy people
rarely develop infections, especially serious ones. Generally, infections occur in
people who are already unhealthy, whose cells are malfunctioning and whose
immunity is already compromised. Harry had always been a strong, healthy person
who rarely succumbed to colds or flu. That pneumonia caused his death seemed
suspicious. Something must have happened to make him susceptible to the infection
that killed him. I sadly surmised that, most likely, modern medicine killed Harry. Harry had been suffering pain in his hip from a congenital problem. His doctor
prescribed a steroid hormone, cortisone. This drug helps alleviate pain and
inflammation, but it has nasty side effects. Cortisone damages the immune system
by inhibiting the production of antibodies and “killer” T-cells. In addition, this
damage makes localizing infections difficult if they develop. The cortisone made
Harry vulnerable to infection. He developed pneumonia in one lung and was
hospitalized, where he was given large doses of antibiotics—presumably to kill the
“germs” causing the pneumonia. Pneumonia, like any infection, is caused by
malfunctioning cells and depressed immunity, not by germs alone. Normalizing cell
function and rebuilding immunity, rather than trying to kill germs, is needed for
recovery. But that is not what happened in Harry’s case: After a few days on
antibiotics, he was discharged, supposedly “cured.”
In reality, the antibiotics had increased Harry’s problems because they further
compromised his immunity. His already depressed immune system was now in
worse shape than before. Shortly after returning home Harry developed another
infection. This time the pneumonia affected both lungs, and shortly thereafter he
died. During his first hospitalization, Harry became infected with a “superbug,” an
antibiotic-resistant germ that is now common in hospitals. Antibiotics were useless
against this infection, as was Harry’s damaged immune system. In all likelihood, the
state-of-the-art medical establishment both destroyed Harry’s immune system and
subjected him to the untreatable infection that killed him. Yet, the death certificate
stated the official cause of death as pneumonia. At my sickest, I was dying from liver failure that resulted from the toxic effects of
a prescription drug. If I had died, guess what cause would have been listed on my
death certificate? Liver disease. Period. No mention of the drug that made me sick
would have been recorded. Only in the most blatant and obvious cases does modern medicine consider or takeresponsibility for the damage it causes. Fears of malpractice claims only enhance the
resolve of the medical community to keep listing causes of death as resulting from
the sickness of the patient, rather than the treatments of the doctor. Physicians
usually assume that the health problems they cause would have happened anyway. The general belief is that the negative effects of drugs and procedures are worth the
risk. Little wonder that the cause of death on death certificates often has to do with
the specialty of the doctor treating the disease. Prescriptions for Trouble
To understand the extent of the damage caused by the medical establishment,
consider how the patient can be sent toward disease along the six pathways:
• Medical treatments can cause nutritional deficiencies. Antibiotics, anti-
inflammatories and steroid prescription drugs seriously damage the human
digestive system, impairing the ability to digest food and absorb nutrients. Diuretics strip nutrients such as magnesium, calcium, potassium, zinc and
iodine. • Drugs work because they are toxic; they interfere with normal cell function, in
order to suppress disease symptoms. Both prescription and over-the-counter
drugs produce a vast variety of disease symptoms referred to as 
side effects. • Often physicians inflict psychological damage on their patients. When doctors
estimate how long a patient will live, or predict that the patient will never walk
or see again, they can create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Often physicians don’t
even listen to their patients’ thoughts and opinions, interrupting them less than
a minute after the patients start describing symptoms. Such practices sabotage
one of the physician’s primary goals: to help and support the patient throughout
the entire healing process. • Many medical procedures, including surgery, medical X rays and radiation,
physically damage the body and ultimately cause malfunction and disease. This
physical damage can lead to genetic damage. Genetic mutations can cause
cancer and other diseases, and may be passed to future generations. Managing Symptoms 
Instead of Curing Disease
If you seek medical treatment, your physician asks you a series of questions and,
perhaps, runs a series of tests to determine your symptoms. The purpose of this
activity is to diagnose— to match your set of symptoms with specific named
categories, also known as diseases. Diagnosed in this manner, a disease is nothingmore than a set of symptoms. After diagnosis, modern medicine (also known as
“allopathic” medicine; “allo” = against, and “pathic” = disease) literally seeks to “go
against” the symptoms of disease. Symptoms are significant only because they attract your attention; they are
unpleasant and interfere with your ability to function, but they have nothing to do
with the essence of health and disease. Disease ensues when cells malfunction. The
symptoms may vary, the solution is always the same: Normalize cell function
through the six pathways. Perception is everything. Perceived symptoms become the “problem” that
medicine seeks to stop. For example, if the perceived problem is high blood
pressure, medicine aims to lower pressure with a variety of toxic drugs. If the
perceived problem is a germ, medicine aims to kill the germ with toxic antibiotics. Meanwhile, both of these problems are merely symptoms of malfunctioning cells. Using drugs to lower the blood pressure, therefore, does not solve the problem that is
causing the elevated pressure. And likewise with drugs used to kill germs. Germs
can contribute to cellular malfunction, but germs are present constantly and
everywhere in our environment. Killing the germs that are causing an infection does
not make the person healthy, nor does it make the person more resistant to
subsequent infections. In fact, they become less resistant because the drugs that kill
the germs also damage and weaken the body. When one has an infection, masking the symptoms of the sickness (fever, etc.) serves little purpose other than making the sick person more comfortable. For
example, treating fever with over-the-counter drugs is a common practice. Yet, fever
is natural and beneficial; there is no reason to use drugs for this purpose, especially
because the drugs inflict harm. By focusing on symptoms and taking drugs, we do not cure disease; we merely
invent ways to allow sick people to continue living their lives more comfortably. Short-term relief has its place but is not a long-term solution. For example,
angioplasty may prevent the immediate death of a patient by increasing blood flow
to the heart; however, only by eliminating deficiency and toxicity can the heart
disease be reversed, and this will not happen under the guidance of a conventional
physician. More Than a Sum of Our Parts
Modern medicine, pumped up with huge amounts of talent and money, is a strange
dichotomy—technologically advanced and cutting-edge, yet obsolete and
ineffective. Medicine does a superb job managing medical emergencies and disease
symptoms, but is woefully incapable of curing disease or promoting a lifetime of
wellness. In medical schools, physicians study one organ or system at a time andthen specialize, without developing an understanding of health or the body as a
whole. A lack of holistic understanding and appreciation transfers to medicine’s
focus on disease rather than health. Actually, our modern health-care system is a disease-care system. Our health-care
providers are paid for treating disease, not for preventing disease. Treatments can
continue for the entire life of the patient. Our current system does not offer financial
incentives for health, but provides a lot of money for treatments of disease. We need to examine the roots of modern conventional medicine. “Modern
medicine” is based on a seventeenth-century understanding of the human body, and
it has failed to incorporate the most important scientific discoveries of the twentieth
century. Wrapped in the cloak of modern science, at its core, 
conventional medicine
is based on archaic concepts that presently are scientifically obsolete and invalid. Allow me to explain what I mean. Beginning with Isaac Newton’s discovery of the laws of motion, the human body
and the universe both became regarded as a clockwork mechanism. From this
perspective, anything can be dissected into parts, studied scientifically and
understood. Medicine of the time followed this mechanistic concept: Take the
machine apart, study the parts, understand how they work and use that understanding
in medical care. People began to believe they could control health simply by
understanding the mechanical workings of the physical body. Many people still
believe this, although it isn’t true. Today the medical establishment continues to
regard the body as a complex, glorified machine; the focus is on the parts, not the
whole. Disease is seen as confined to specific locations or organs, rather than as affecting
the whole person. Treatments regularly remove or replace body parts without
addressing the reasons that something went awry. By assuming the body is a
machine that cannot heal itself, the only effective therapies are thought to be those
that come from the outside, such as mechanical techniques, surgical invasion and
powerful drugs. The pharmaceutical drug industry “fixes” health problems by adding
molecules to the body that are designed to control the function of certain body parts,
without seeking to understand or remedy the reasons for the malfunction. A
dysfunction in the body’s self-regulating and balancing mechanisms is caused by
cellular malfunction, and it affects the whole body, not just a part of it. With
machines, the function of the whole can be predicted by the sum of the parts, but
humans are not machines. A living organism is much greater than the sum of its
parts. We are alive, and our minds influence our bodies. In the early twentieth century, Albert Einstein challenged existing perceptions and
fundamentally changed the way people view the world. By proving that matter and
energy are one, Einstein brought forth a new field for studying the laws of the
universe, quantum physics, in which human beings are regarded as networks ofcomplex energy systems that interact with physical and cellular systems. We human beings are not Newtonian in nature, but rather Einsteinian. Humans are
matter, but we are also multidimensional energy systems, and our thoughts, beliefs
and attitudes create energy fields that influence our biochemistry and affect our
health. Yet our physicians continue to use the mechanical Newtonian model. No Ground to Stand On
We are brought up to think of medicine as scientific and that the techniques and
procedures used by our physicians are the result of extensive scientific study. Not so. Several studies, including a 1978 report by the U.S. Office of Technology
Assessment, have estimated that no scientific basis exists for 80 to 90 percent of all
procedures used in medical practice. In fact, traditional or allopathic medicine has no general theory of the organism,
health or disease—no unifying framework to tie it all together. Without a theory and
a framework, there is no understanding of what the problems are, how they
developed or how to solve them, and everything becomes an ad hoc experience. The
mechanistic manner in which medicine is practiced today has never been proven by
scientific method. As Lynne McTaggart, author of the 1996 book, 
What Doctors
Don’t Tell You, 
wrote: “For all the attempts to cloak medicine in the weighty mantle
of science—a good deal of what we regard as standard medical practice today
amounts to little more than 20th-century voodoo.”
Doctors usually have little idea what is wrong with their patients or how to make
them well. And how can one blame them? They spent many years in medical school,
learning technicalities, procedures and protocols, and were taught that “cures” must
come from outside the body. That is why physicians have no faith or instruction
about the natural capacity of the human body to heal itself. In fact, many argue that
almost all conditions presented to physicians are self-limiting and spontaneously
resolve by the natural healing process, regardless of what the physician happens to
prescribe. This natural healing process must become our focus, because the magnitude of
sickness in this country is astonishing. More than three out of four Americans now
suffer from a diagnosable chronic disease, a dilemma that the modern medical
establishment not only fails to solve, but actually contributes to. Things must
change. In March 2001, The Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of
Sciences issued a report titled, 
Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System
for the 21st Century. According to this report: “. . . between the health care we now
have and the health care we could have lies not just a gap, but a chasm.” The report
also said: “Health care harms patients too frequently and routinely fails to deliver its
potential benefits.”The United States has the most expensive, yet one of the most inadequate health
care systems in the world. Our infant mortality rate is worse than Cuba’s. According
to the World Health Organization, our overall health is worse than that of almost
every European country, as well as Australia, Canada, and Israel. According to the
above Institute of Medicine report, “. . . a fundamental, sweeping redesign of the
entire health care system is required.” The report cited that “. . . the nation’s health
care delivery system has fallen short in its ability to translate knowledge into
practice and to apply new technology safely and appropriately.” It went on to say, “. . . if the system cannot consistently deliver today’s science and technology, it is even
less prepared to respond to the extraordinary advances that surely will emerge
during the coming decades.”
We’ve spent hundreds of billions of medical research dollars on outmoded
science, which explains why we have not found the cause or the cure for a single
chronic disease. Decades after President Richard Nixon declared “war on cancer”
and after countless billions of dollars spent, malignancy survival rates are not
noticeably improved. We have yet to produce a truly effective cancer treatment;
every minute another American dies of cancer. The situation is similar with heart
disease. We can implant a new artificial heart surgically, but we cannot prevent or
cure heart disease. Why? Because so few resources are devoted to study of the
body’s healing systems or to help patients understand and support their own health
at the cellular level. Reallocating resources with these priorities in mind is the
direction medicine must take if it is ever to be effective in reversing our epidemic of
chronic disease. Everyone Is Unique
Interested only in identifying symptoms, physicians do not listen to their patients. Patients are regarded as machines, similar to every other machine; doctors need not
learn anything unique about individual people. A study reported in the December
1993 issue of 
Internal Medicine News 
found that 70 percent of patients were
interrupted by their doctor within eighteen seconds after the patient began to
describe their symptoms. As soon as the doctor has matched symptoms to a disease,
treatments follow established protocols. Everyone with the same “disease” receives
the same treatment. Such procedures completely ignore one of the greatest scientific discoveries of the
twentieth century: biochemical individuality. Two people with the same so-called
disease may need different treatments because no two people’s cells are
malfunctioning for exactly the same reasons. Modern medicine does not teach
physicians how to recognize or work with each patient’s unique biochemistry. Even when presented with scientific evidence that an alternative system works
best, most physicians resist change and fail to apply these findings. Their disease-based focus interferes with the essence of what health care should be: the
optimization of health at the cellular level based on a person’s unique biochemistry
and life circumstances. Resistant to Change
Adopting a more rational system of medicine would result in an enormous
reduction in health-care costs by eliminating hundreds of thousands of physicians
and closing thousands of hospitals (not to mention the potential financial ruin of
drug companies). Obviously, the economic incentive to maintain the status quo and
not change is enormous. Currently, cancer is a billion-dollar-a-day “industry” in the
United States, and more people are employed in the AIDS industry than there are
sufferers of AIDS. Modern medicine’s efforts to protect money and jobs were vividly described and
documented in the 2000 book by former New York State Legislator, Daniel Haley,
Politics in Healing: The Suppression and Manipulation of American Medicine. Haley points out that in the twentieth century several inexpensive and highly
effective cures for cancer were introduced in American medicine. The developers of
these cures, well-meaning people, were naive and believed that the world would
welcome a cancer cure. What these people—among others, Harry Hoxey, William
Frederick Koch, Royal Raymond Rife and Dr. Andrew Ivy—all failed to understand
is that someone who threatens the survival of a prospering and growing industry
with an inexpensive cure will not be welcomed. Proven and effective cancer cures
were repudiated and suppressed by the American Medical Association (AMA) and
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Discoverers of these cures were
isolated, harassed, persecuted, prosecuted, financially ruined and destroyed, and
their treatments essentially have been lost. Some events described in Haley’s book
are bizarre and are hard to believe, yet they are documented by evidence presented at
jury trials and recorded in court records. The FDA, AMA, the National Cancer
Institute, and the American Cancer Society still continue to suppress cancer cures,
such as that developed by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski; his office has been raided by
FDA agents and U.S. Marshals, he has been persecuted relentlessly, and his medical
license is on a ten-year probation during which time he is not allowed to see new
patients. These actions prevent public access to treatments and intimidate other
unorthodox physicians. Physicians who have worked all their lives within the existing system often feel
threatened by change. The majority of physicians support efforts by state medical
boards and government regulatory boards to suppress alternative approaches. A less
expensive, more effective way of practicing medicine threatens their economic well-
being, as well as philosophically questions the validity of their lifetime work.Physicians who have dared to introduce alternative treatments have had their
licenses revoked, been financially ruined, and ostracized because they were willing
to help patients with treatments that were not the “accepted standard of care.”
A chilling example of how nonconforming doctors are kept in line is the case of
Jonathan Wright, M.D. On May 6, 1992, a small army of FDA agents plus ten police
officers, with drawn guns and flak jackets, attacked Dr. Wright’s office. Rather than
simply opening the office door and walking in, they broke it down, terrifying his
staff and patients in the waiting room. Why? Was Wright on the FBI’s list of known
terrorists? No. Wright was merely an outspoken critic of modern medicine and the
FDA, and he regularly used vitamins and natural substances in his practice. This
approach to healing made him a target. During the fourteen-hour raid, all of Wright’s records, equipment, manuals,
vitamins, minerals and herbs were confiscated. They even took his postage stamps. None of Wright’s patients ever had complained about him. Wright was never
charged with anything, nor ever prosecuted for anything. Yet, both his practice and
his reputation were damaged. It took years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in
legal fees to have his patient records returned and his practice restored. Events like
this are not supposed to happen in America, but they do happen to doctors who step
out of line. As a result, we are denied the right to choose certain treatments because
our doctors cannot offer them. Most people are unaware that a physician can lose his or her license to practice by
failing to adhere to “prevailing standards of practice in their community.” A loss of
license can occur even if no patient is harmed, no patient has complained and the
condition of the patients involved actually improved. Physicians can learn
something new at a medical conference or from a medical journal, but they cannot
use it in their practice. The only treatments allowed are the ones already in use,
which makes innovation and progress slow to almost impossible. Physicians must be
very courageous to depart from traditional practices, even if they believe doing so
can be helpful. Money is at stake, and competition from less expensive, natural treatments is
discouraged. The FDA is supposed to regulate drugs to assure that they are safe and
effective. In practice, FDA-approved, properly prescribed drugs kill about four
hundred people every day. Why? Because the FDA has become an instrument of the
pharmaceutical companies. The drug industry is among the most profitable in the
world, and Americans pay more for the same drugs than people in other countries. To help protect these economic interests, about one-half of the senior officials at the
FDA formerly were employed as key executives in the drug industry. After leaving
the FDA, about half eventually return to executive positions in drug companies. This
practice is termed “the revolving door.” The FDA is very biased in favor of drugs,
and people are denied free access to the documented health benefits of nutritionalsupplements. Needless to say, these people are not in favor of treating diseases with
vitamins. Both manufacturers and retailers of supplements have been subjected to
FDA seizures and harassment. One of the supposed justifications for modern medicine’s suppression of
alternative approaches is that they have not been properly tested for safety and
effectiveness. In truth, many alternative approaches (such as the use of vitamin
supplements) are supported by thousands of sound studies, while, ironically, up to 90
percent of the techniques and procedures used by modern medicine have never been
proven to be safe or effective. Medical Malpractice
According to a 1995 issue of the 
Journal of the American Medical Association,
more than 1 million people per year are injured in hospitals, and 180,000 die from
those injuries. Illnesses caused by prescription drugs are estimated to cost more than
$136 billion a year. A 1981 study published in the 
New England Journal of Medicine
concluded that at least one-third of hospital patients suffered some ill effect during
their stay, and that 9 percent suffered major injury. Consider what the late Robert
Mendelsohn, M.D., author of the 1979 book 
Confessions of a Medical Heretic,
wrote: “I believe that more than ninety percent of Modern Medicine could disappear
from the face of the earth—doctors, hospital, drugs, and equipment—and the effect
on our health would be immediate and beneficial.”
Normally, one might think that if doctors went on strike the public would suffer
serious health problems. Yet, Mendelsohn noted cases when doctors went on strike
and the death rate declined. In 1973, doctors were on strike in Israel for a month, and
this coincided with a decline of 55 percent in the death rate. In 1976, a fifty-two-day
doctor strike in Bógota, Colombia, coincided with a decline in mortality of 35
percent. The same year, in Los Angeles, doctors staged a slowdown, and the death
rate dropped by 18 percent. In each case, when the doctors’ labor actions ended,
mortality rates shot back up to prior levels. In recent years, a number of medical journals, such as 
Pediatrics, Lancet, Annual
Review of Public Health, 
and particularly the July 26, 2000, 
Journal of the American
Medical Association, 
have been filled with statistics on injuries and deaths caused
by modern medical practice. The most recent annual estimate of hospital-caused
deaths is:
• 106,000 deaths from “properly” prescribed drugs. • 80,000 deaths from hospital-caused infections. • 12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgery. • 7,000 deaths from medication errors.• 20,000 deaths from other errors. These numbers total 225,000 deaths per year, but the real total is far greater. These numbers do not include unreported medically caused deaths. Why take
responsibility for a death if another plausible explanation can be given? Even in
good hospitals, only one “adverse event” out of four is reported; some studies have
placed the reporting as low as one out of twenty. Medicine-caused deaths in
outpatient settings have been estimated as an additional 200,000 per year. Again,
this figure is conservative. Perhaps one of the biggest problems, though, is X rays. The Threat of X Rays
One of the most serious threats to our health may be caused by one type of
medical testing: medical and dental X rays. There is no safe radiation level; any
amount of radiation can cause our cells to malfunction. The radiation levels from
medical and dental X rays (though supposedly within “safe limits”) contribute to
both cancer and coronary heart disease. Evidence was published in 1999 by John
Gofman, a medical doctor and a Ph.D. nuclear physicist, who is one of the world’s
leading authorities on radiation damage. Dr. Gofman’s book, 
Radiation from
Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease,
presents a compelling argument for reconsidering how we understand disease and
death rates in our society and modern medicine’s responsibility for them. Gofman’s
research caused him to conclude that medical radiation was probably the single
largest cause of cancer mortality in the twentieth century. Gofman’s evidence suggests that medical X rays are a necessary cofactor,
meaning that while other factors are involved, the X ray is necessary for both cancer
and heart disease to develop. Dr. Gofman found that more than 60 percent of deaths
from cancer and more than 70 percent of deaths from coronary heart disease
involved X rays. To cite just one example, Gofman found that in 1990, medical X
rays were a necessary causal factor in 83 percent of all breast cancer. In other words,
chest X rays and mammograms are the leading cause of breast cancer. Fortunately, thermography is a safe and effective alternative to mammograms. Thermography measures temperature and appears to be a far more accurate way of
detecting tumors at a much earlier stage. A cancerous tumor, as it begins to receive
its own blood supply, is warmer than the surrounding tissue and can be discerned
when the temperature of the breast is measured. Modern medicine is responsible for about 90 percent of our exposure to man-
made radiation, and about 90 percent of that exposure is the result of diagnostic X
rays. A level of radiation less than that produced by ten bitewing dental X rays can
produce thyroid cancer, and not surprisingly, an epidemic of thyroid cancer is now
being found in people who had upper chest, neck and head X rays decades ago. Nevertheless, X rays are performed with alarming frequency. Gofman estimatesthat more than half are not necessary. Other researchers have placed the percentage
of X rays of “little to no medical value” as high as 90 percent. Even low-level X rays
are capable of inflicting genetic damage, presenting a hazard to both existing and
future generations. For example, correlations have been found between the number
of abdominal X rays a mother had received in her lifetime and the birth of a baby
with Down’s syndrome. The public worries about radiation from nuclear power plants, yet a more common
hazard is radiation from medical X rays. Decline X rays unless they are absolutely
necessary, which is not often. Children are especially vulnerable to radiation and
need to be protected by their parents. Applying Dr. Gofman’s data on medical X rays to 60 percent of the deaths from
cancer and 70 percent of the deaths from ischemic heart disease in this country, I
calculated that X rays cause about 650,000 deaths every year. Combining these
deaths with the acknowledged number of medicine-caused deaths (250,000 inpatient
and 200,000 outpatient per year) reveals an estimated total of more than 1 million
deaths per year caused by modern medical practice. This figure amounts to about
half of all deaths in America, making modern medicine our leading cause of death. Should You Have Medical Testing? Among the treatments that cause patients harm are diagnostic tests, everything
from ultrasound to X rays, from blood tests to barium enemas. Many of these tests
are inaccurate, present more risk than benefit and alternatives often are safer and
more effective. The only time these tests are justified are when safety is clearly in
question and only when the results of the test would require action. Avoid tests that
simply provide information. For example, avoid ultrasounds during pregnancy,
which do little more than inform parents about their child’s development and rarely
lead to any meaningful action. Always question your doctor carefully about whether
a particular medical test is necessary, especially if the test is invasive. All tests need
not be avoided, but ask about potential risks as well as benefits. Be aware that most
doctors downplay risks. Remember, a diagnostic test precipitated my own health
crisis. Most often doctors order tests to measure symptoms in order to make a diagnosis. Such testing is not especially useful because it is not designed to measure the causes
of disease: deficiency and toxicity. Doctors should be ordering tests that measure,
directly or indirectly, levels of deficiency and toxicity and what is causing them. If
the tests are not for these purposes, they may be unnecessary. Many diagnostic tests
are ordered solely for defensive purposes, so that physicians can prove they
considered every possibility in the event of legal action. Decline tests if the doctor is
unable to explain how it will help to measure and correct your cellular deficiencyand toxicity. Every invasive test poses some risk. Even a simple blood test poses the danger of
an infection developing at the puncture site. Punctures for removal of fluid from the
joints, bone, spinal column and womb pose greater risks. Be especially wary of
signing an informed consent for a diagnostic test, tip-off about the degree of risk
involved. If the accuracy of test results seems questionable, seek a second opinion. Be
skeptical of any diagnosis based solely on a test. If something is found abnormal and
the doctor wants to prescribe, request to have the test repeated before doing
something that could cause damage, be it needless surgery, biopsies, medications,
anxiety or financial cost. Suppose that a particular medical test is 95 percent
accurate. For every twenty tests given, one false result will occur, usually a false
positive. If a person has this test twenty times in a lifetime, the odds are in favor of
at least one false result. In fact, many diseases can be “cured” simply by redoing the
test. In 1975, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveyed medical
testing labs nationally and concluded that more than 25 percent of all test results
were wrong; for certain clinical chemistry tests, the error rate was 50 percent. Not a
lot has changed since then. A study in the May 1997 issue of 
Hippocrates 
examined 169 different kinds of
medical diagnostic tests and concluded that only nine of them actually did anything
for the patient for reducing the incidence of disease. According to the article, many
of these tests regularly led to faulty diagnoses, resulting in unnecessary treatments
the patients did not need, and people with passing chest or back pain were “being
marched off to surgery to get their hearts repaired or spines fixed.”
About 70 percent of all pregnant American women undergo ultrasound
evaluations, yet studies published in medical journals including 
Lancet 
and the
Canadian Medical Association Journal 
show that ultrasound may affect fetal
growth, resulting in babies with lower birth weight. In addition, children are twice as
likely to have delayed speech development if they were examined via ultrasound as a
fetus. A 1995 study done at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and reported
in 
Science 
found that low-frequency ultrasound increases the permeability of human
skin, allowing proteins to pass through more easily. Ultrasound definitely affects the
body’s tissues, yet it is presented to patients as a procedure free of risks and side
effects. Should You Have Surgery? Modern surgery certainly is one of the crowning achievements in modern
medicine. Surgery works very well to correct physical problems, such as those
sustained in accidents, sports injuries and from birth defects, but surgery does notsolve disease problems. Unfortunately, most surgery is performed to address disease
problems, wasting resources and permanently damaging the patient. Every part of
the human body is important to the functioning of the whole; removing
malfunctioning body parts does not solve the real problem. Surgery should not be
performed unless there is absolutely no alternative, and there is almost always an
alternative. Most conventional cancer treatments—especially surgery— are directed by the
mechanistic belief system described earlier. Cancer is regarded as affecting a
specific location or body part that should be removed physically or otherwise
poisoned and killed. Completely forgotten is that cancer is a systemic disease
affecting the entire body, and that a sounder approach is to restore cancerous cells to
normal by addressing their deficiency and toxicity. Cancer patients who properly address their deficiency and toxicity may
experience what is termed “spontaneous remission.” A study by Dr. Harold Foster at
the University of British Columbia in 1988 found that virtually every one of two
hundred cancer patients who had experienced a spontaneous cancer remission had
actually done something to improve their cell chemistry. Eighty-seven percent had
made major changes to their diet, while others had used nutritional supplements and
detoxification programs. Currently, numerous alternative treatments for cancer are
available (see appendix D). A heart bypass operation is another example of unnecessary surgery. In 1992,
Nortin Hadler, M.D., a professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina
Medical School, concluded that 95 to 97 percent of the coronary bypass surgeries
done that year were unnecessary—even though patients usually are told that without
the surgery they will die. In truth, almost all coronary disease is preventable with
diet, supplements and exercise. Likewise, coronary disease is reversible, as pioneers
like Nathan Pritikin, more recently Dean Ornish, M.D., and others, have proven. How much surgery is necessary? Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, in 
Confessions of a
Medical Heretic, 
said, “My feeling is that somewhere around ninety percent of
surgery is a waste of time, money, energy, and life.” Dr. Mendelsohn cites an
independent review of people recommended for surgery. The study found that most
of these patients did not need surgery and half of them needed no medical treatment
at all.
Never_Be_Sick_Again_by_Raymond_Francis.txt
Summarize the following text section accurately and concisely. Maintain specific details and numerical information, and use anti-repetition mechanisms:

        Rather than thinking of genes as an absolute and unchanging set of instructions,
one might think of them as a variety of possibilities—a set of “what if” instructions. If certain circumstances are present, then a person’s genes express in a particular
way; if other circumstances are present, those same genes express in a different way. Biochemist Roger Williams maintained that genes alone are entirely useless threads
of chemicals. Genes alone do not determine our sickness or health. If genes, in the form of cellular DNA, were the primary control of the cell—if
they were the “brain” of a cell, so to speak—then the cell would die without them,
but this does not happen. Scientists commonly perform a process called denu-
cleation, a process whereby the nucleus of a cell and its DNA are removed. After this
process, cells continue to perform normal functions for months. Consider how changes in diet, lifestyle and environment over the past one hundred
years have coincided with massive increases in rates of chronic disease. For
example, in 1900 cancer affected only 3 percent of the U. S. population; now about
50 percent of all men and 40 percent of all women develop cancer in their lifetime. Our environment has changed so radically that blaming disease increases solely on
inherited genes is illogical. Consider how environmental factors can affect genetic expression. Environmental
temperature, for example, affects the expression of genes that control the coloration
of Himalayan rabbits. These rabbits, accustomed to cold temperatures, usually haveblack ears, forepaws, noses and tails, but when raised in warm temperatures they
have no black markings at all. Same rabbits, same genes, but different environments
and, therefore, different expressions of genes. Similarly, plants with the genetic
capacity to flower and fruit only do so when a precise set of environmental
requirements (such as temperature, sunlight and moisture) “turn on” the necessary
genes. “Disease genes” function the same way. When people move from one part of
the world to another— adopting the diet and lifestyle habits of the new environment
— they also develop the disease conditions common to that new environment. For
example, people from countries with low rates of heart disease and cancer, such as
Japan, suffer like the rest of our population once they move here. A compelling question in the discussion of heredity is how long you will live—
your life span. A low-calorie diet is the only thing that consistently has been shown
to increase life span. Genetic expression causes this to happen. A study in the
September 2001 
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 
found that a high-
calorie diet (the typical American diet) caused changes in genes that reduced the
expression of disease-protective genes and turned on genes that accelerate the aging
process. But the good news is that the study also showed that by taking older animals
and putting them on calorie-restricted diets for merely four weeks, about half of the
gene expressions that were contributing to the aging process reversed. Changing
internal cellular environment (by reducing calories) not only helps to prevent the
expression of aging genes in the young, it can also slow and even reverse the aging
process in the old. As biologist Steven Rose pointed out in his 1997 book, 
Lifelines, 
much of what
goes on in a cell is at least as much a product of the environment in and around the
cell as its DNA. This environment is something we create with our diet, toxic
exposures, lifestyle, and even with our thoughts, beliefs and perceptions. “Organisms,” Rose wrote, “are active players in their own fate. ”
Indeed, even mental climate affects the environment we create for our cells and
genes. Cells depend on the brain to interpret the environment and to use the nervous
system to relay that information, telling the cells what to do. Depending on one’s
perceptions of the environment, the expression of genes can be greatly affected. For
example, the mortality rate goes up during the first year or two after retirement. Why. Does the brain perceive that “life” is over, causing the genes to express
accordingly. Deepak Chopra, M. D. , author of many books and a pioneer and leader
in mind/body medicine, often says in his lectures, “Aging is a mistake. ” He means
that we observe others around us aging, so we believe that we too will age. We
literally instruct our genes to age us. Could this be one of the reasons that
traditionally healthy people like the Hunzas lived so long. By believing that they
would live long, healthy lives, did they actually instruct their genes accordingly. Much evidence indicates that what we believe does affect the function of our cellsand the expression of our genes. Intentional Damage to Your DNA
Modern diet and lifestyle can cause damage to genes— different from genetically
inherited predispositions. Rather than causing the expression of existing genetic
coding, genetic damage involves changes in the coding. A change in genetic coding
is known as a mutation, which can occur both through natural causes and man-
created damage. One theory of aging is that gene mutations over a lifetime cause
gradual loss of function and resilience. The ability of genes to mutate is not all
“bad,” but rather is an essential part of evolution and of adaptation to changing
conditions. The mutations to be concerned about are caused by chemicals and radiation,
which can lead to dramatic and unpredictable changes in genetic coding. Genes are
crucial plans for creating, repairing and reproducing an organism; randomly
changing these plans is a bad idea. What would happen if you started making
random changes to the blueprints of your house. Doors, windows, walls and even
whole rooms would appear in strange places. So it is with genetic damage. What causes genetic mutation. • 
Ionizing radiation: 
Almost half of the average person’s exposure to ionizing
radiation comes from medical X rays and medical radiation treatments. Avoid
this kind of radiation unless vitally necessary. It’s bizarre that physicians put
much stock in the genetic origins of disease yet also inflict massive amounts of
genetic damage with pharmaceutical chemicals and X rays. • 
Non-ionizing radiation: 
This is created by the flow of electricity and may also
have genetic repercussions— though the evidence is less clear. As a general
rule, avoid close proximity or prolonged exposure to all types of electric
devices. • 
Toxins: 
These include man-made industrial chemicals, prescription drugs,
tobacco, alcohol and chemical residues in meat and dairy products, such as
PCBs and dioxins. In particular, foods that are heated to high temperatures or
blackened (such as in barbecuing) contain chemicals capable of causing gene
mutations and cancer. When a cell is exposed to toxins or radiation, the cell may die or the genes may be
damaged. A mutated gene may permanently alter the way the cell works, often
contributing to deficiency, toxicity and disease. Furthermore, altered cells (with
mutated genes) can replicate, allowing the mutation to propagate throughout more
and more cells. The effects of this replication can range from minor to devastating;
replication is a classic way for cancer to develop. Worse, if genetic mutations take
place in a reproductive cell, a 50/50 chance exists of passing these on to an unbornchild. Destroyed or damaged cells and genes can lead to premature aging and a
variety of diseases, including cancer, fatigue, poor resistance to infections,
psychological stress and even social maladjustment. Genes are not causing aging and disease. We are. We expose our cells to the
toxins and radiation that make the genes mutate in the first place. Life in the twenty-
first century is now causing damage to our genes and creating mutations in
unprecedented ways and at an alarming rate. As scientist Richard Lewontin said in
his 1982 book, 
Human Diversity: 
“Because of technology’s ventures into ionizing
radiation and synthetic chemistry, the human beings of our age, as well as the food
chain on which we live, are thought to be undergoing a far higher mutation rate than
biology has been accustomed to. ”
Fortunately, under the right circumstances, genetic damage can be repaired. Not
only must we avoid damaging our genes in the first place, we also must provide our
genes with the materials (nutrients) they need in order to repair themselves. Genetically Modified Foods: Risky Business
No contemporary discussion on genetics is complete without discussing the
powerful genetic technologies in use today, particularly with our foods. With
modern genetic technology, what would have seemed miraculous just a generation
ago is now possible. However, whether or not these technologies pose a threat to our
health is a huge debate. Scientists on both sides constantly argue their points. These
technologies present the potential both for great achievement and for catastrophe. Not enough research is available to know what will happen, although the research
that is available presents cause for serious concern or even alarm. I recommend
against consuming genetically modified foods because I believe these foods may be
lower in nutrients, higher in toxins and present other potential risks as well. Never before in human evolution has humankind eaten a genetically modified
food. Only in recent years have we developed the technologies that allow us to create
these foods. Now genetic technologies are being developed and deployed rapidly,
with few controls and almost no consideration for long-term consequences. Most of
the food in your supermarket already contains genetically modified components. Yet
there is insufficient research, particularly long-term research, to establish the safety
of genetically modified foods and, indeed, ample reason to believe they may not be
safe. If we keep producing and consuming genetically modified foods, we will be
unable to prevent genetic contamination from becoming prevalent throughout our
entire food supply. If ever these foods are determined unsafe, the damage will be
irreversible. Unexpected results from these foods might not become obvious until
years after they are introduced, at which point taking it back is too late. Ourscientists do their best, but when experimenting with genetics, the potential for
unanticipated side effects is almost incalculable. Here is one scenario: Over time,
genetically modified organisms interact with their environment, mutate and evolve,
and pass on their mutant characteristics to other related and unrelated organisms,
including us. This sets off a chain of events throughout the entire ecosystem,
jeopardizing life on earth as we know it. I know this scenario sounds dramatic, but
messing with genes and the course of evolution is risky business. Is That a Jellyfish in Your Potato. Producing new foods with modern genetic engineering is no minor event. Genetic
engineers cut, splice and transfer genes between totally unrelated species to produce
combinations that could never occur in nature. Scientists are inserting jellyfish
genes into potatoes, scorpion genes into vegetables, human genes into pigs and fish
genes into tomatoes. Perfect accuracy using these gene-splicing techniques and
knowing exactly what will be produced is almost impossible. Researchers at the
prestigious Rowett Institute in Scotland studied different batches of genetically
modified potatoes and found substantial differences from the same gene insertion. Two lines of potatoes grown from the same gene insertion and the same growing
conditions had a 20 percent difference in protein content, demonstrating the
unpredictability inherent in genetic modification. Genetically modified foods may be of altered nutritional value, and they also may
contain allergens or toxins they would not naturally contain—including ones not
normally associated with that type of food. For example, genes from Brazil nuts
were used to engineer a new soybean; but people allergic to Brazil nuts were now
highly reactive to these soybeans. Fortunately the problem was discovered before
anyone was harmed. Other genetically modified foods may present similar risks. A
1999 study printed in the British medical journal 
Lancet 
showed that genetically
modified potatoes damaged the stomach and intestinal linings of rats. People are
also eating genetically modified potatoes, but similar tests are not being performed
on humans. Do you recall one of the health “scandals” of the late 1980s. Many people who
took an essential amino acid called tryptophan (which is used for treating depression
and other emotional problems) had devastating reactions. Thirty-seven people died,
fifteen hundred were permanently disabled, and five thousand became extremely ill. As it turned out, one particular manufacturer in Japan had produced tryptophan using
a genetically modified bacterium, which did produce commercial quantities of
tryptophan, but which also produced a powerful nerve poison. Of course this poison
did not exist until we created it with genetic engineering, so it could not be detected
by existing safety tests. We cannot test for toxins we don’t know about, which is the
problem with genetically engineered foods. They are capable of producing theunexpected. Supermarkets Full of Genetic Experiments
Food industry journals estimate that about 70 percent of the processed foods in
our supermarkets would test positive for genetically modified ingredients. Most
common are genetically engineered corn, soybeans, tomatoes, yellow crookneck
squash, canola, papaya and Russet Burbank potatoes. Other foods are being
developed, such as apples, rice, wheat, broccoli, cucumbers, carrots, melons and
grapes; genetically modified versions of these foods are either in stores already or
they soon will be. A 1999 study by 
Consumer Reports 
found that only one-third of U.
Environmental factors, such as a poor diet, lack of proper nutrients, and exposure to toxins and radiation, are the primary cause of aging and disease, not genetic predisposition.
According to the author, what is the primary cause of aging and disease?
The author recommends avoiding the consumption of genetically modified foods due to concerns over their potential long-term effects and lack of sufficient research.
What is the author's stance on the use of genetically modified foods?
The author states that modern medicine is focused on treating symptoms, rather than addressing the root causes of disease, and that it is not designed to promote health and wellness.
According to the author, what is the primary focus of modern medicine?
The author criticizes the medical establishment, stating that doctors often prioritize their own interests over the well-being of their patients, and that they are not incentivized to consider alternative approaches or unconventional treatments.
What is the author's view on the role of doctors in the healthcare system?
The author advises avoiding medical testing procedures like X-rays and ultrasound, as they can cause harm and are not always necessary, and instead recommends a holistic approach to health and wellness.
What is the author's stance on the use of X-rays and other medical testing procedures?