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	have	black	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	cells	and	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	unborn	child. 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	technologiespose	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. Our	scientists	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	substantialdifferences	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	the	unexpected. 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	thatthese	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	were	killing	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	Defects
One	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	onlywith	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	ofaging. 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;	itmanages	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	furthercompromised	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
take	responsibility	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. Oftenphysicians	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
nothing	more	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	thebody. 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	and	then	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	andunderstood. 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	of	complex	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	ofTechnology	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	andappropriately.”	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	ChangeAdopting	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	thatwere	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	freeaccess	to	the	documented	health	benefits	of	nutritional	supplements. 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	bediscerned	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
estimates	that	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,	especiallyif	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	deficiency	and	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	theCanadian	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
not	solve	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	aretold	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_.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	have	black	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	cells	and	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	unborn	child. 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	technologiespose	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. Our	scientists	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	substantialdifferences	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	the	unexpected. 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.
The author argues that genes alone are not the primary control of the cell, as cells can still function normally without them.
According to the author, what is the primary control of the cell?