Wednesday, May 30, 2007


The $10 million question of course is why aren't researchers promoting cures that are available for free?
Well, anyone dabbling in medical politics will know that the medical community doesn't really promote anything that it cannot invent and patent for financial gain. Given the large checkbooks of the pharmaceutical companies, it should not surprise us that they can control what press releases are published, and spend millions of dollars on advertising their drugs. When was the last time you saw a full-page advert for sunlight, being able to prevent or reverse cancer?

Instead, the medical community uses the full-page advertisement for high-profit prescription drugs that have negative side effects and actually kill people. If conventional medicine was not so interested in making profits from the drugs that they patents, then we would probably see much more information on how sunlight is a natural treatments and preventative for breast cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, and even diseases like osteoporosis and depression. Instead, however, the profiteers actually scare people away from the healing power of sunlight and discredit any person, who dares to talk and publish scientific information on sunlight and vitamin B. it is a sad state of affairs!


Stay away from sodium benzoate! It is a toxic acid with a pH of less then 2.5. It will destroy healthy cells and tissues and set the acidic stage for cancerous tissues.

See: Caution: All soft or carbonated drinks may seriously harm your health because all soft or carbonated drinks are acidic with a pH below 3 and an ORP of +250 mV and above.

A new health scare erupted over soft drinks amid evidence they may cause serious cell damage. Research from a British university suggests a common preservative found in drinks such as Fanta and Pepsi Max has the ability to switch off vital parts of DNA.The problem - more usually associated with ageing and alcohol abuse - can eventually lead to cirrhosis of the liver and degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's.

The findings could have serious consequences for the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who consume fizzy drinks. The fizzy is carbonic acid which is also harmful for the body.They will also intensify the controversy about food additives, which have been linked to hyperactivity in children.Concerns centre on the safety of E211, known as sodium benzoate, a preservative used for decades by the £74bn global carbonated drinks industry. Sodium benzoate derives from benzoic acid. It occurs naturally in berries, but is used in large quantities to prevent mold in soft drinks such as Sprite, Oasis and Dr Pepper. It is also added to pickles and sauces. So stay away from pickles and sauces they too are highly acidic.Sodium benzoate has already been the subject of concern about cancer because when mixed with the additive vitamin C in soft drinks, it causes benzene, a carcinogenic substance. A Food Standards Agency survey of benzene in drinks last year found high levels in four brands which were removed from sale. Now, an expert in ageing at Sheffield University, who has been working on sodium benzoate since publishing a research paper in 1999, has decided to speak out about another danger. Professor Peter Piper, a professor of molecular biology and biotechnology, tested the impact of sodium benzoate on living yeast cells in his laboratory. What he found alarmed him: the benzoate was damaging an important area of DNA in the "power station" of cells known as the mitochondria.He told The Independent on Sunday: "These chemicals have the ability to cause severe damage to DNA in the mitochondria to the point that they totally inactivate it: they knock it out altogether. "The mitochondria consumes the oxygen to give you energy and if you damage it - as happens in a number of diseased states - then the cell starts to malfunction very seriously. And there is a whole array of diseases that are now being tied to damage to this DNA - Parkinson's and quite a lot of neuro-degenerative diseases, but above all the whole process of ageing.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) backs the use of sodium benzoate in the UK and it has been approved by the European Union but, MPs called for it to investigate urgently.Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat chair of Parliament's all-party environment group said: "Many additives are relatively new and their long-term impact cannot be certain. This preservative clearly needs to be investigated further by the FSA."Sodium benzoate and carbonic acid needs no investigation - they are acidic and will compromise the delicate alkaline pH balance of the human body setting the stage for sickness, disease and death.A review of sodium benzoate by the World Health Organisation in 2000 concluded that it was safe, but it noted that the available science supporting its safety was "limited".Professor Piper, whose work has been funded by a government research council, said tests conducted by the US Food and Drug Administration were out of date. Are you surprised?"The food industry will say these compounds have been tested and they are complete safe," he said. "By the criteria of modern safety testing, the safety tests were inadequate. Like all things, safety testing moves forward and you can conduct a much more rigorous safety test than you could 50 years ago.

"He advised parents to think carefully about buying drinks with preservatives until the quantities in products were proved safe by new tests. "My concern is for children who are drinking large amounts," he said.Coca-Cola and Britvic's Pepsi Max and Diet Pepsi all contain sodium benzoate and carbonic acid. Their makers and the British Soft Drinks Association said they entrusted the safety of additives to the Government.Can you really trust the FSA or the FDA? (or Health Canada)

The bottom line, all soft or carbonated drinks are acidic and harmful to the body. A simple test will confirm this both in vitro and vivo.In vitro all you need to do is pour a soft or carbonated drink, like a Cola drink, on a piece of pork and watch the tissue dissolve and degenerate. You may even see parasites crawling out of the meat.

In vivo all you need to do is test the pH of your urine before you drink the the soft or carbonated drink and then test it after. What you will find is the pH of your urine will show a lower pH then before indicating the acidifying effects of the soft or carbonated drink on the fluids and then tissues of the body. Note: The urine pH is a direct indicator of tissue pH not blood pH. When the pH of the urine is below 7, that indicates latent tissue acidosis and is a reflection of what you are eating and drinking. Latent tissue acidosis always proceeds the sickness or dis-ease or compensated and then decompensated acidosis.The best indicator for excellent health, energy and vitality is the way you will feel when you discontinue drinking acidic fluids, like soft or carbonated drinks.

Monday, May 28, 2007

Could Drinking Alkaline Water from a Plastic Bottle Cause Men to Grow Breasts?

The answer is a big YES! Polycarbonate, first introduced to caging in 1962, was the industry standard for 25 years and is still in wide use in animal facilities. The accidental exposure of high-temperature polycarbonate (polyphthalate carbonate) cages and water bottles in our facility to a harsh alkaline detergent intended for washing floors rather than cages resulted in degradation of the plastic polymer. The damaged caging materials (both cages and water bottles) leached high concentrations of the weakly estrogenic compound bisphenol A (4',4'-isopropylidenediphenol, hereafter referred to as BPA).The increase in the estrogen hormone in men can lead to breast enlargement.---------------------------------------------------------------Study Cites Risk of Compound in Plastic BottlesReport urges the EPA to restrict bisphenol A, found widely in liquid and food containersMARLA CONE:Los Angeles Times 13apr 2005---------------------------------------------------------------Evidence is mounting that a chemical in plastic that is one of the world's most widely used industrial compounds may be risky in the small amounts that seep from bottles and food packaging, according to a report to be published this week in a scientific journal.

The authors of the report, who reviewed more than 100 studies, urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to re-evaluate the risks of bisphenol A and consider restricting its use.Bisphenol A, or BPA, has been detected in nearly all humans tested in the U.S. It is a key building block in the manufacture of hard, clear polycarbonate plastics, including baby bottles, water bottles and other food and beverage containers. The chemical can leach from the plastic, especially when the containers are heated, cleaned with harsh detergents or exposed to acidic foods or drinks.The chemical is the focus of a contentious debate involving industrial compounds that can mimic acidic sex hormones. Toxicologists say that exposure to man-made hormones skews the developing reproductive systems and brains of newborn animals and could be having the same effects on human fetuses and young children.Since the late 1990s, some experiments have found no effects at the doses of BPA that people are exposed to, and others have suggested that the chemical mimics estrogen, blocks testosterone and harms lab animals at low doses. Plastics industry representatives say the trace amounts that migrate from some products pose no danger and are far below safety thresholds set by the EPA and other agencies.In the new report, to be published online in Environmental Health Perspectives, scientists Frederick vom Saal and Claude Hughes say that as of December, 115 studies have been published examining low doses of the chemical, and 94 of them found harmful effects.

In an interview with Vom Saal, a reproductive biologist at University of Missouri in Columbia, said there is now an "overwhelming weight of evidence" that the plastics compound is acidic and harmful."This is a snowball running down a hill, where the evidence is accumulating at a faster and faster rate," Vom Saal said."You can't open a scientific journal related to sex hormones and not read an article that would just floor you about this chemical.... The chemical industry's position that this is a weak chemical has been proven totally false. This is a phenomenally potent chemical as a sex hormone."In their study, Vom Saal and Hughes suggest an explanation for the conflicting results of studies: All 11 of those funded by chemical companies found no risk, while 90% of the 104 government-funded, non-industry studies reported harmful acidic effects.

One report, released by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis last fall and funded by the American Plastics Council, concluded that "the evidence is very weak" that BPA has acidic estrogen effects on males.The scientists at Harvard reviewed the results of 19 experiments on male animals published before April 2002 and found no consistent findings.However, Vom Saal said, the Harvard report was prepared before at least 60 other studies found harmful effects in lab animals, and it was too narrowly focused because it looked at effects in males only.Steven G. Hentges, executive director of the polycarbonate business unit of the American Plastics Council, said Tuesday that unlike the Harvard report, the new report lists numbers of studies and pieces of data without analyzing them to determine their strengths or weaknesses and whether they are relevant to human beings."The sum of weak evidence does not make strong evidence," Hentges said. "If you look at all the evidence together, it supports our conclusion that BPA is not a risk to human health at the very low levels people are exposed to. This paper does not change that conclusion. It has an opinion, not a scientific conclusion."Vom Saal and the plastics industry have been in an escalating battle since 1997, when Vom Saal became the first researcher to reveal effects in mice exposed to low doses of BPA. His discovery triggered new scientific studies by industry and government.

The chemical, used in polycarbonate plastics manufacture for half a century, is not subject to any bans, even in Europe, which has prohibited many hormone-disrupting compounds. The EPA last evaluated its risks in the 1980s, and a review by the European Union was published in 2003.In California, the Legislature is considering a bill, introduced by Assemblywoman Wilma Chan (D-Alameda), chairwoman of the Assembly's Health Committee, that would ban products intended for children that contain BPA or other compounds called phthalates, used in some plastic toys.The plastics industry says there is no scientific basis for removing the chemicals from children's products.Polycarbonate plastics, which are useful in items such as baby bottles because they are durable, lightweight and shatter-resistant, cannot be made without BPA. Hentges said the products have had "a strong and long safety record" for more than 50 years.In addition to its use in hard plastics, BPA lines food and beverage cans and is found in dental fillings and sealants, including some used to prevent cavities in children.Some government-funded tests on rodents exposed to low levels have reported decreased testosterone, enlarged prostates and lower sperm counts in newborn males and early puberty and disrupted hormonal cycles in females. They also have reported hyperactivity and other neurological changes in lab animals.
This is why Dr. Robert O.Young made the decision to move away from plastics, including polycarbonate plastics when bottling pH Miracle Water in amber and blue glass.It is always best to drink your pH Miracle Water or your green drinks from a glass bottle.
pH Miracle Living Center
16390 Dia Del SolValley Center, CA

Sunday, May 27, 2007


The murder conviction this week of vegan parents whose six-week old baby died of starvation underscores the dangers to infants of vegan ideology. To supplement the mother's inadequate supply of breastmilk, the parents had fed their son soy milk and apple juice. The baby was only 3 ½ pounds when it died of starvation in April 2004.

“Soy milk should never be given to infants in place of formula, ” says Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America's Favorite Health Food. “In 1990, the FDA issued a warning about the use of soy milk for infants stating that it is 'grossly lacking in the nutrients needed for infants' and asked all manufacturers to put warning labels on soy milks so that they would not be used as formula substitutes.” Yet most makers of soy milk put warning labels on the package in very tiny print, if at all.

The Atlanta conviction follows two other cases of vegan parents found guilty of the deaths of their babies. Previously, a New York couple was convicted of murder and a Florida couple of manslaughter. Many more babies, however, have been malnourished on soy milk because of their parents' vegan ideology. In 1990 the FDA investigated after a two-month old girl in California was hospitalized with severe malnutrition. Her parents had fed her EdenSoy brand soy milk instead of infant formula. Because of this and a similar incident in Arkansas involving the SoyMoo brand of soy milk, the FDA issued a warning on June 13, 1990. Since then, most brands of soy milk – but not EdenSoy – include warning labels in tiny print on their packages.
“The FDA told manufacturers to put warning labels on packages of soy milk for a very good reason. Soy milk can put an infant's life in jeopardy,” says Dr. Daniel. “The myth that soy is a health food has led many parents – particularly vegans who use no animal products -- to believe that soy milk is a complete and nourishing food not only for adults but for babies and children. It is not, and severe vitamin, mineral, fatty acid and amino amino acid deficiencies will occur. That's why supplements are required by law to be added to soy infant formula.”
“The tragedy is that this baby died because its vegan parents thought they were doing a good thing for their baby by choosing organic soy milk instead of a commercial soy formula. The mother had clearly tried to breast feed as well, but like many vegans she had an inadequate supply of breast milk because of the limitations of her diet and depletion of her own nutritional stores because of pregnancy. Supplementing breast milk with soy milk and apple juice could not support the life and growth of her baby boy,” Dr. Daniel says.
In Fall 2003, soy formula caused the deaths of three babies and brain damage to at least four other babies in Israel. The infants were using Remedia brand formula that was seriously deficient in vitamin B1 because its manufacturer had failed to add it. Soy milk – as was given by the convicted vegan parents to the dead baby – does not contain added B-1 or other of the essential supplements needed to nourish growing babies.

The deaths of the three Israeli infants from the improperly manufactured soy formula in 2003 led the Israeli Health Ministry to form a 13-member committee of pediatricians, oncologists, toxicologists and other health experts to investigate soy formula and soy foods. In July 2005, the Ministry issued a health advisory, in which it warned that babies should not receive soy formula (except as a last resort) and that children up to age 18 should not eat soy foods or drink soy milk more than once per day to a maximum of three times per week. The Ministry was concerned about many health issues, including adverse effects on fertility and increased cancer risk. The UK, Swiss and New Zealand governments have also warned that soy infant formula should only be used as a last resort.

And soy milk should never be used at all.
“The myth that soy is a health food can have tragic consequences for infants and children,” says Dr. Daniel. “Here in the U.S. soy milk sales are experiencing double digit growth and soy infant formula now represents 25 percent of the bottle-fed market. It's time that the soy industry act responsibly and put prominent warning labels on its all products about the dangers to babies before more tragedies occur.”
“It is irresponsible for soy milk manufacturers not to prominently place warning labels on their products, alerting vegan parents to the very real danger of feeding these products to their infants. How many unnecessary and tragic deaths will occur before these actions are taken?”
* * * * *

© 2007 Crusador Enterprises

CRUSADOR ENTERPRISESP.O. Box 618205Orlando, FL 32861-8205Toll Free #: 800-593-6273Email:
Home Contact Us About CrusadorProduct Search Site Search Product InformationArticles E-Alerts Subscribe UnsubscribeSite Terms Product Terms Privacy Info Your Account

hosted by:

Saturday, May 26, 2007

More Harm Than Good

How is it that regulatory agencies pretend that vitamins are dangerous, yet ignore published statistics showing that government-sanctioned medicine is the real hazard? Until very recently, no one had ever analyzed and combined all of the published literature dealing with injuries and deaths caused by government-protected medicine. A group of researchers meticulously reviewed the statistical evidence and their findings are absolutely horrifying: today’s medical system that misprescribes and overprescribes medication frequently causes more harm than good. According to the research findings, the number of people having in-hospital, adverse reactions to prescribed drugs is 2.2 million per year. The number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections is 20 million per year. The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million per year. The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million per year. The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year. Let’s repeat that last sentence again: 783,936 deaths caused by conventional medicine every year. That makes conventional medicine the leading cause of death and injury in America today!.