McAuliffe, ME, PL Williams, SA Korrick, LM Altshul and MJ Perry. 2011. Environmental Exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls and p,p'-DDE and sperm sex chromosome disomy. Environmental Health Perspectives .

Research shows for the first time that increased levels of organochlorine chemicals PCBs and a DDT breakdown product in men are associated with an extra sex chromosome in sperm that can contribute to reproductive problems.

Long-banned chemicals that still persist in people and the environment are linked to an excessive number of sex chromosomes in sperm, according to a study of men from Massachusetts.

The men with higher levels of persistent organochlorine chemicals PCBs and p,p'-DDE in their blood were more likely than those with lower levels to have a higher percentage - sometime 60 percent more - of sperm with too many sex chromosomes. An abnormal number of chromosomes in the embryo or fetus is the largest known cause of failed pregnancies in people. It can also lead to birth defects.

This is the first study to examine the relationship between exposure to these chemicals and sex chromosomal abnormalities in men's sperm. The results are published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

Reprinted fromThe Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine Vol. 11, 4th Quarter 1996, permission to reprint granted by Orthomolecular.org

Recently I was given a tape in which is recorded the proceedings of a committee - The Fraudulent Medical Practices Watch and Be Wary Committee - at the 84th meeting of the Federation of State Medical Boards meeting in Chicago, April 11, 1996. Three presentations were made. Dr. John Renner, a self confessed undercover agent, who described his efforts to uncover fraud including disguising himself as a patient in order to access physicians offices and to attend meetings of alternative and complementary practitioners.

The second speaker was Mr. R. Bell, a prosecutor in California who told the assembled group how to achieve their goal of stripping the licenses from these doctors. Finally Mr. M. Daynor from the Federal Trades Commission described what they were doing to deal with fraud and quackery.

I agree that fraud in medicine should be dealt with very seriously and some of the examples given certainly did require that action be taken to suppress these activities. The examples dealt with physicians who were medical doctors and who were innovative in their practice but in no way could they be considered alternative nor complementary. They were down the line establishment doctors who were perpetrating fraud. But the committee also dealt with complementary practitioners in the same vein.

These were physicians who were recognized as honorable became suspect only because, unhappy with the results of their previous practice, they sought something which would help their patients more. It is obvious that the committee members had not the slightest conception of what complementary practitioners were attempting to do. Nor were they aware of the meaning of the word quack and how it became entrenched in modern language.

Many people are unaware that dozens of painkillers, antihistamines and psychiatric medications - from drugstore staples to popular antidepressants - can adversely affect brain function, mostly in the elderly. Regular use of multiple medications that have this effect has been linked to cognitive impairment and memory loss.

Called anticholinergics, the drugs block the action of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, sometimes as a direct action, but often as a side effect. Acetylcholine is a chemical messenger with a range of functions in the body, memory production and cognitive function among them.

The difficulty for patients is that the effect of anticholinergic drugs is cumulative. Doctors are not always aware of all of the medications their patients take, and they do not always think to review the anticholinergic properties of the ones they prescribe. It's a particular problem for older patients, who are more vulnerable to the effects of these drugs and who tend to take more medicines over all.

Early diagnosis has become one of the most fundamental precepts of modern medicine. It goes something like this: The best way to keep people healthy is to find out if they have (pick one) heart disease, autism, glaucoma, diabetes, vascular problems, osteoporosis or, of course, cancer - early. And the way to find these conditions early is through screening.

It is a precept that resonates with the intuition of the general public: obviously it's better to catch and deal with problems as soon as possible. A study published with much fanfare in The New England Journal of Medicine last week contained what researchers called the best evidence yet that colonoscopies reduce deaths from colon cancer.

Recently, however, there have been rumblings within the medical profession that suggest that the enthusiasm for early diagnosis may be waning. Most prominent are recommendations against prostate cancer screening for healthy men and for reducing the frequency of breast and cervical cancer screening. Some experts even cautioned against the recent colonoscopy results, pointing out that the study participants were probably much healthier than the general population, which would make them less likely to die of colon cancer. In addition there is a concern about too much detection and treatment of early diabetes, a growing appreciation that autism has been too broadly defined and skepticism toward new guidelines for universal cholesterol screening of children.

Sugar contributes to a wide array of health issues. Unfortunately, it has been presented to us by advertisers to be such an innocent food to enjoy at celebrations and holidays but the over consumption of it is quickly destroying the health of this country. And it's not that soda here or there, it's the fact that the average American consumes 155 lbs of sugar EVERY YEAR!

Expert Interview with Sugar Addiction Specialist

I recently interviewed sugar addiction expert, Samantha Taylor on the topic. You can listen to it here.

In this interview we discuss:

• The detriments of sugar on human health
• The symptoms and diseases linked to sugar consumption
• How to break from from this addictive properties of sugar and much more...

Dr. Osborne and Samantha Taylor Interview

Samantha has a program to help people conquer their sugar problems. You can learn more about it here.

The food industry's biggest con trick is one you're probably falling for every day of the week. Even worse, the victims are your children.

Visit any supermarket and wander down the aisle of breakfast cereals. The message from the packets couldn't be more encouraging.

This one is 'the sunshine breakfast'. That one is made from 'wholesome corn, oats, rice and wheat'. Pretty much all are 'fortified with vitamins and minerals'. The contents of the attractive colourful boxes can form 'part of a balanced diet'.

The United States Government wants you to be fat; or at least their current agricultural policy would dictate so. Through a multitude of subsidies, protectionist tariffs, and misguided nutritional policy the USDA has promoted obesity, degenerative disease, damaged the environment, and putrefied the nation's supply of animal protein.

Federally funded agricultural subsidies date back to 1862 with the Morrill Act establishing land-grant colleges, but modern programs began popping up around the 1930's. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 forever changed the face of American agriculture through vigorous regulation including price supports, production controls, crop insurance, and limited competition via import barriers.

Subsidy programs have only expanded since; new crops have been added to subsidy rolls, additional disaster relief programs have been enacted, revenue protection locks in high crop prices, in addition to taxpayer financed crop insurance, marketing support, research, statistical data collection, and guaranteed loans. The USDA spent close to $150 billion in 2011, distributing roughly $27 billion in cash subsidies per year to growers of five crops: wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, and cotton.

The Farm Service Agency (FSA) is "moving aggressively to realize its vision of strengthening U.S. agriculture" as stated in their 2005-2011 Strategic Plan. The FSA's Strategic Plan proclaims that it's goals are to enhance international competitiveness of American agriculture, enhance sustainability, improve quality of life in rural America, protect the Nation's food supply and environment, and improve the Nation's nutrition and health. The reality is that the USDA's policy hampers every one of these goals at the expense of American's health and wealth. Current policy influences farmers to grow crops that maximize subsidy payments, not to satisfy market demand. The worst part is that humans did not evolve to consume the most heavily subsidized crops (grains), and these foods have propagated the epidemic of obesity in America.

Every now and then, a report or study will slip through from the world of medicine that perfectly highlights how much of medical practice is actually "unproven." In fact, as it turns out, the vast majority of mainstream medicine is no more "proven" than alternative medicine, and in most cases, it's decidedly worse.

---

We get thousands of emails at the Foundation every month, and they cover the full gamut -- from thanks for the information we provide to requests to join MLM companies to accusations that we've abandoned our principles and are now supporting the enemy: mainstream medicine. But that said, there's one type of email that stands out. And that's the snarky email from the person who writes in to dismiss an entire newsletter or blog by snottily asking, "Where are the clinical studies to back your support of alternative medicine? I won't pay attention to anything if it's not backed by clinical studies."

Why is this so frustrating?

Because it is based on a mistaken belief, inherent in the question, that mainstream medicine is different -- that it's somehow better, that it's scientifically "proven" by irrefutable studies. Unfortunately, this belief is both mistaken and naïve and so off base that there's nothing "we" can ever say to disabuse these people of the notion once they've got it locked into their heads.

According to the FDA's legal definition, a drug is anything that "diagnoses, cures, mitigates, treats, or prevents a disease."

The problem with this definition is that there are numerous substances, as readily available and benign as found on our spice racks, which have been proven by countless millennia of human experience to mitigate, prevent and in some cases cure disease, and which cannot be called drugs according to the FDA.

How can this be? Well, the FDA has assumed for itself Godlike power, requiring that its official approval be obtained before any substance can legally be used in the prevention and treatment of disease.

The FDA's legal-regulatory control therefore is totalitarian and Napoleonic in construct; what it does not explicitly permit as a medicine is implicitly forbidden.

Historically the FDA has required new drugs undergo expensive and elaborate multi-phased clinical trials, which are out of the grasp of any ordinary interest who might want to demonstrate the efficacy of a non-patentable (and therefore unprofitable) herb, food or spice.

The average out-of-pocket cost for obtaining a new drug approval is US$ 802 million dollars,[1] and therefore an investor putting capital into bringing to market a substance that does not lend itself to market exclusivity and therefore cannot produce a return on investment, is committing economic suicide, if not also breaking the law. The investor actually has a legally-binding fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to make a profit. And therefore, capital will not flow into any would-be commodity that can be produced or obtained with ease, including most things that grow freely on this Earth.

It is an interesting footnote in history that shortly after the Declaration of Independence, Congress declared that natural substances, e.g. water or salt, were God's gift to mankind and that therefore products of nature should be limited in their patent protection. While this was a noble declaration, it has actually been used against those whose rights it would protect. It has forced private interests to synthetically alter natural substances -- for instance the burgeoning biotech field of recombinant DNA technology, i.e. genetically modified organisms (GMOs) -- for the sole reason that it guarantees them ownership/patent rights.

In fact, a medical system that legally requires it make a profit threatens to destroy and/or incriminate itself if non-patented, non-profitable natural substances or therapies are employed. It also results in so much collateral damage to those it purports to serve that it could rightly be called a modern form of human sacrifice.

As a result, instead of choosing prospective medicines logically: because they work, are easily accessible, and safe, billions of dollars flow in the exact opposite direction, capitalizing only those substances which are unnatural, and therefore while proprietary are almost invariably unsafe, and whose access and administration can be intensively controlled.

What is it?

Grapefruit Seed Extract or GSE is a synthetic combination of grapefruit pulp and chemicals. Yes, you read that correctly...chemicals. It is not all natural, much to my dismay.

How is it made?

GSE is made by taking the pulp, not necessarily seeds, from grapefruit juice production and in a multi step industrial chemical process change the natural phenolic compounds into synthetic quaternary ammonium compounds. Added chemicals and heat are used in this process, chemicals you would never knowingly sign up to put into your body, especially if you are of the type to be searching out a natural, alternative remedy.