Archive for the ‘Health’ Category

Economic Power: Avoid Arizona and Boycott BP

May 17, 2010

Joel S. Hirschhorn

Money is power.  Each of us has it to varying degrees.  Our challenge is to use our spending to advance worthy goals.  Right now we see economic power being used against the state of Arizona because of the awful legislation recently passed that makes it all too easy for police there to seek proof of citizenship from virtually anyone they choose.  Many groups and government entities have already cancelled conferences and other activities in Arizona, sending state and business leaders into a frizzy.  They deserve to suffer as do the vast majority of Arizona citizens that supported the legislation.  Every American that professes love and respect for the Constitution should avoid spending their tourism and other kinds of spending in Arizona.

Economic boycotts can be very powerful and change the world for the better.  Sadly, too few Americans use their personal spending power to advance worthy goals.  An immediate opportunity is for people to stop buying BP gasoline.  After all, it is clear that BP acted irresponsibly and likely criminally in using offshore oil drilling technology that posed enormous risks to public and worker safety as well as our natural environment in the Gulf of Mexico and possibly far beyond.

Make BP suffer where it hurts, where it can truly harm them.  Send a clear signal that we will get revenge as consumers with an environmental conscience.  An immediate boycott of BP could do much to make the company compensate the incredible number of people that will suffer very much because of the humongous oil spill that should have been prevented.  We cannot depend on BP acting responsibly; nor can we count on the government or the courts for delivering timely justice.

So simple.  While you may not have opportunities to stop spending in Arizona you are more likely to stop spending at BP outlets.  If you can influence decisions by others to stop spending in these two ways, then do it with strength and passion.

There is a Boycott BP page on Facebook.  Show your support.  Over at the Public Citizen website you can sign a petition: “Take the Beyond BP Pledge! Drive a car? Like the occasional fountain drink? Send a clear message to BP by boycotting its gas and retail store products. Don’t spend a cent of your hard-earned money to feed the bottom line of a corporation that has a sordid history of negligence, willfully violates environmental regulations, and is spewing thousands and thousands of barrels of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico.  I pledge to boycott BP for at least three months.”  Public Citizen has also created a Facebook group “1,000,000 Strong to Boycott BP.”

“Boycott BP into bankruptcy” – said Cindy Sheehan.  Amen.

A short while back John Antczak on Huffington Post complained that there is “no apparent sign of a consumer backlash at the pump like the boycott triggered by the Exxon Valdez spill 21 years ago.”  He also noted that “owners interviewed by The Associated Press across the country say it’s been business as usual since the April 20 explosion on a rig off Louisiana began unleashing 200,000 gallons of crude a day.”  However, this too must be noted: It took 40 days for outrage to coalesce into a one-day national boycott of Exxon stations.

Note that n the West, BP sells gas under the long-established Arco brand.

According to BP’s website, there are more than 10,000 BP-branded gas stations in the U.S. and 1,500 under the Arco name.  BP says it sells more than 15 billion gallons of gasoline in the U.S. every year, second only to Shell.

Americans seem to find far too easy to justify buying at BP or Arco because of convenience or low price.  But everyone should see this choice as a moral one.  If you continue to pump money into the BP coffers you are acting immorally, stupidly and anti-environmentally.  Either you have a conscience or not.  Make the marketplace work to punish those that deserve to be punished.

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn at]



Less Toxic Dispersants Lose Out in BP Oil Spill Cleanup

May 16, 2010

BP PLC continues to stockpile and deploy oil-dispersing chemicals manufactured by a company with which it shares close ties, even though other U.S. EPA-approved alternatives have been shown to be far less toxic and, in some cases, nearly twice as effective.

After the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and a deepwater well began gushing crude in the Gulf of Mexico three weeks ago, BP quickly marshaled a third of the world’s available supply of dispersants, chemicals that break surface oil slicks into microscopic droplets that can sink into the sea.

But the benefits of keeping some oil out of beaches and wetlands carry uncertain costs. Scientists warn that the dispersed oil, as well as the dispersants themselves, might cause long-term harm to marine life.

So far, BP has told federal agencies that it has applied more than 400,000 gallons of a dispersant sold under the trade name Corexit and manufactured by Nalco Co., a company that was once part of Exxon Mobil Corp. and whose current leadership includes executives at both BP and Exxon. And another 805,000 gallons of Corexit are on order, the company said, with the possibility that hundreds of thousands of more gallons may be needed if the well continues spewing oil for weeks or months.

But according to EPA data, Corexit ranks far above dispersants made by competitors in toxicity and far below them in effectiveness in handling southern Louisiana crude.

Of 18 dispersants whose use EPA has approved, 12 were found to be more effective on southern Louisiana crude than Corexit, EPA data show. Two of the 12 were found to be 100 percent effective on Gulf of Mexico crude, while the two Corexit products rated 56 percent and 63 percent effective, respectively. The toxicity of the 12 was shown to be either comparable to the Corexit line or, in some cases, 10 or 20 times less, according to EPA.

EPA has not taken a stance on whether one dispersant should be used over another, leaving that up to BP. All the company is required to do is to choose an EPA-approved chemical, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told reporters yesterday during a conference call aimed at addressing questions about dispersants being used in efforts to contain the Gulf spill.

“Our regular responsibilities say, if it’s on the list and they want to use it, then they are preauthorized to do so,” Jackson said.

One explanation for BP’s reliance on Nalco’s Corexit, which its competitors say dominates the niche market for dispersants because of its industry ties, was its availability in large quantities at the time of the Gulf spill.

“Obviously, logistics and stockpiles and the ability for the responsible party to pull the materials together,” Jackson said. “I’m sure that has a lot to do with the ones that they choose.”

Nonetheless, experts question BP’s sustained commitment to Corexit, given apparently superior alternatives.

“Why wouldn’t you go for the lesser toxic formulation?” said Carys Mitchelmore, an assistant professor of environmental chemistry and toxicology at the University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Science. Mitchelmore testified on Capitol Hill this week about dispersants and co-authored a 2005 National Academy of Sciences report on the chemicals.

BP spokesman Jon Pack defended the use of Corexit, which he said was decided in consultation with EPA. He called Corexit “pretty effective” and said the product had been “rigorously tested.”

“I’m not sure about the others,” Pack said. “This has been used by a number of major companies as an effective, low-toxicity dispersant.”

BP is not considering or testing other dispersants because the company’s attention is focused on plugging the leak and otherwise containing the spill, Pack said.

“That has to be our primary focus right now,” he said.

Nalco spokesman Charlie Pajor said the decision on what to use was out of his company’s hands. He also declined to comment on EPA comparison tests, saying only that lab conditions cannot necessarily replicate those in the field. “The decision about what’s used is made by others — not by us,” he said.

Nalco’s connections

Critics say Nalco, a joint partnership with Exxon Chemical that was spun off in the 1990s, boasts oil-industry insiders on its board of directors and among its executives, including an 11-year board member at BP and a top Exxon executive who spent 43 years with the oil giant.

“It’s a chemical that the oil industry makes to sell to itself, basically,” said Richard Charter, a senior policy adviser for Defenders of Wildlife.

The older of the two Corexit products that BP has used in the Gulf spill, Corexit 9527, was also sprayed in 1989 on the 11-million-gallon slick created by the Exxon Valdez grounding in Alaska’s Prince William Sound.

Cleanup workers suffered health problems afterward, including blood in their urine and assorted kidney and liver disorders. Some health problems were blamed on the chemical 2-butoxyethanol, an ingredient discontinued in the latest version of Corexit, Corexit 9500, whose production Nalco officials say has been ramped up in response to the Gulf of Mexico disaster.

Among Corexit’s competitors, a product called Dispersit far outpaced Corexit 9500, EPA test results show, rating nearly twice as effective and between half and a third as toxic, based on two tests performed on fish and shrimp.

Bruce Gebhardt, president of the company that manufactures Dispersit, U.S. Polychemical Corp., said BP asked for samples of his company’s product two weeks ago. Later, he said, BP officials told him that EPA had wanted to ensure they had “crossed all their T’s and dotted all their I’s” before moving forward.

Gebhardt says he could make 60,000 gallons a day of Dispersit to meet the needs of spill-containment efforts. Dispersit was formulated to outperform Corexit and got EPA approval 10 years ago, he said, but the dispersant has failed to grab market share from its larger rival.

“When we came out with a safer product, we thought people would jump on board,” he said. “That’s not the case. We were never able to move anyone of any size off the Corexit product.”

He added, “We’re just up against a giant.”

Copyright 2010 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

For more news on energy and the environment, visit
Greenwire is published by Environment & Energy Publishing. Read More »

By PAUL QUINLAN of Greenwire


Codependency Leads to Unhealthy Relationships – Part 1

May 16, 2010
More than ever before, people speak in terms of ‘working on’ relationships. This means if they are not happy in the relationship, be it a marriage, friendship or family connection, they care enough to try to make it better. This is a good thing, most of the time. No one can argue with putting some energy into making it work. If both people are emotionally healthy, respectful of the individuality of the other, and able to maintain healthy boundaries, they should see good results.

Unfortunately, sometimes the best of intentions can backfire, for reasons beyond your control. This can happen when you are involved with someone who needs to use you to fulfill deep emotional needs, but may or may not be consciously aware of it.

Let’s look at an example. You meet someone with whom you have a lot in common. A friendship develops, and you feel very positive about it. Things go well for a while, but then slowly at first, your friend may become cold and distant. At first, there may be denial that anything is wrong. Ultimately, you find that the friend is hurt or angry, because you did not meet some expectation that they had. You may feel badly, and redouble your efforts to be a good friend. You then start to anticipate how the friend will feel about things, and alter your behavior accordingly.

You are now trapped in the sticky web of codependency. This web requires one person who truly wants others to be happy, perhaps even more than they want that for themselves, and another who expects others to make him or her happy. Resentment begins to build within you, because what once was freely given, now seems to be demanded, and in even greater amounts. Because you are one who likes to make things work, you find yourself spending more and more time ‘processing’ the relationship with this person.

What neither of you may recognize is that you have become the unwitting victim of another’s need to play out unresolved hurts from the past. When you begin to feel the frustration of the unrealistic expectations placed upon you, and try to pull back from the relationship, you enter another level of craziness. The codependent may suddenly become very friendly, loving, even remorseful. You may even be told that you are the only one who really understands him or her. There is a promise that things will be different. They will: but just until you are lulled into falling back into the trap again.

The cycle repeats again and again, often with more intense confrontation each time. You may not understand why, but the codependent thrives on the confrontation with you. It gives them the opportunity to vent all of their hurts and anger from the past. For some, emotional entanglement is better than feeling ignored.  Look for Part 2 of this article next week.

Gwen Randall-Young is an author and award-winning Psychotherapist.  For permission to reprint this article, or to obtain books or cds, visit


Burnout and Quick Fixes

May 16, 2010

I once gave a talk on the subject of “burnout”,  and afterward one of the participants indicated that what she had really been hoping for was a quick fix. I thought about this, and the only quick fixes I could come up with were winning a lottery, or a frontal lobotomy.

Burnout is a little like the process of gaining weight. It happens little by little, over time. Crash diets don’t work, and what is really required is a change in dietary habits and lifestyle. Sure, you might lose some weight by starving yourself  for a few weeks, but unless you have made major changes, the weight will come back. Well, think about burnout as the result of “bingeing” on work,  or stressful situations. Yes, you could escape to an island getaway for a time. But unless you do something about the day to day stress in your real life, you can feel burned out again only weeks after your vacation.

The quick fix mentality may actually make burnout worse, just as the crash diet exacerbates the weight problem. If we are satisfied with quick fixes, we may never address the real issues. And often the quick fixes we want involve changes in other people or situations. So I suppose I must settle for being an advocate of the slow, steady fix.

Life,  for most,  is a long term proposition. It’s worth the effort to learn to live it in a way that feels good, and that honors both ourselves and others. However, doing so involves many challenges. The biggest challenge just might be self-honesty.  It can be hard to discern how we really feel in the face of a lifetime of conditioning as to how we should feel.  It can be difficult to face up to the fact that our views are very different from those of our parents, our partners, our friends or our children.  Even more difficult is expressing those differences, particularly  if  we fear that expressing them will create discomfort in those relationships.  Burnout is ignited in that space between what we really want,  and what we feel is expected of us.  The bigger the space, and the longer it exists, the more we get burned.

This is the level at which burnout must be addressed, and not at the level of its symptoms. Massaging those tense muscles is wonderful.  Meditating to find inner peace is beautiful.  But consider the possibility of being peaceful and relaxed as a way of life.  Can you imagine signing up for trip where a “cope kit” was included to help you survive, and to deal with all of the unpleasantness? Perhaps if you had a burning desire to climb Mt. Everest, then the discomfort might be worth it. You certainly would not choose that otherwise.

If we are merely “coping” with life, if we are living at the emotional  “survival” level, then perhaps we are on a wrong  path. Or on the right path, but doing it the wrong way.  If our house were burning down, we would call for help to douse the flames.  If our energy, our life, laughter and spirit are burning out, there is a tendency to suffer in silence.  We must remember though, there are always choices.  Doing nothing is a choice.  Going for a quick fix is a choice. Dipping into the deep wisdom of your own Soul is also a choice. Choose carefully;  the quality of your life depends upon it.

Gwen Randall-Young is an author and award-winning Psychotherapist. For permission to reprint this article, or to obtain books or cds, visit


No Historical Tradition of Unfettered Access to Foods of All Kinds

May 15, 2010

Feds tell court they can decide what you eat – ‘Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish’


Attorneys for the federal government have argued in a lawsuit pending in federal court in Iowa that individuals have no “fundamental right” to obtain what food they choose.

The brief was filed April 26 in support of a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund over the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s ban on the interstate sale of raw milk.

“There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds,” states the document signed by U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose, assistant Martha Fagg and Roger Gural, trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice.

“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish,” the government has argued.

WND has reported several times on fed crackdowns on producers of raw milk for friends and neighbors, including the recent case when agents arrived to inspect a private property belonging to Dan Allgyer in Pennsylvania at 5 a.m.

The incident was followed by a report a few days later that documented a proposal pending in Congress that critics say would do for the nation’s food supply what the new health-care reform law has done for health-care resources.

“S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the U.S.,” critiqued Steve Green on the Food Freedom blog. “It is to our food what the bailout was to our economy, only we can live without money.”

The plan is sponsored by U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who explains the legislation “is a critical step toward equipping the FDA with the authorities and funding it needs to regulate what is now a global marketplace for food, drugs, devices and cosmetics.”

Now it’s statism on our plate! Mark Levin’s manifesto – ‘Liberty and Tyranny’ – provides the antidote to its growing stranglehold

His website explains, “The legislation requires foreign and domestic food facilities to have safety plans in place to prevent food hazards before they occur, increases the frequency of inspections. Additionally, it provides strong, flexible enforcement tools, including mandatory recall. Most importantly, this bill generates the resources to support FDA food-safety activities.”

The proposal cleared the U.S. House last year but has been languishing in the Senate because of a full calendar of projects. It creates a long list of new requirements for food-producing entities to meet the demands of the secretary of agriculture. It is expected to be the subject of discussion in coming days.

The Iowa case alleges the federal restrictions on raw milk are a violation of the U.S. Constitution, according to a report at Natural News.

The federal attorneys want the case dismissed.

“The interest claimed by plaintiffs could be framed more narrowly as a right to ‘provide themselves and their families with the foods of their own choice,'” the government document states. But the attorneys say that right doesn’t exist.

“The FDA essentially believes that nobody has the right to choose what to eat or drink,” said the Natural News site, which explains it covers topics that allow individuals to make positive changes in their health, environmental sensitivity and consumer choices.

“You are only ‘allowed’ to eat or drink what the FDA gives you permission to. There is no inherent right or God-given right to consume any foods from nature without the FDA’s consent.”

The Natural News report continued, “The state, in other words, may override your food decisions and deny you free access to the foods and beverages you wish to consume. And the state may do this for completely unscientific reasons – even just political reasons – all at their whim.”

The report cited an increasing level of frustration on the part of the federal government because of tactics including buying “cow shares” in which a consumer drinks milk from a cow he partly owns, or “buying clubs.”

“This arrangement drives the FDA absolutely batty because it bypasses their authority and allows free people to engage in the free sales of raw dairy products produced on small family farms,” Natural News said.

The report blames the aggressive campaign against raw milk on large commercial dairy interests, “because it threatens the commercial milk business.”

The reason cannot be safety, the report said, since a report from the Weston A. Price Foundation revealed that from 1980 to 2005 there were 10 times more illnesses from pasteurized milk than from raw milk.

The federal government attorneys say the FDA’s goal is to prevent disease, and that’s why the “ban on the interstate sale of unpasteurized milk” was adopted.

The attorneys conceded that states ordinarily are expected to regulate intrastate activity but noted, “it is within HHS’s authority … to institute an intrastate ban as well.”

Natural News reported the ban could be seen as violating the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which leaves to states all powers not specifically designated in the Constitution for the federal body.

In fact, according to the Wisconsin State Journal, lawmakers there have adopted a bill, with the governor’s support, that would allow farmers to sell raw milk directly to consumers.

The move puts Wisconsin in position to be the 20th state to allow direct sales of raw milk. Another handful of states allow retail sales.



American Meat Is Even Grosser Than You Thought

May 14, 2010

In 2008, Mexican authorities rejected a shipment of U.S. beef  because the meat exceeded Mexico’s regulatory tolerance for copper. The rejected meat was returned to the United States, where it was sold and consumed, because the U.S.  has no regulatory threshold for copper in meat.

Incidents like this are why the food safety arm of USDA, known as the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), is under USDA scrutiny. While the public has gotten used to microbes like E. coli and salmonella threatening the nation’s meat supply, and while food safety agencies make food-borne illness a high-profile priority, contamination of meat by heavy metals, veterinary drugs and pesticides has been slipping through the bureaucratic cracks.

Microbial contaminants can be killed by cooking, but chemical residues aren’t destroyed by heat. In fact, some of these residues break down into more dangerous substances when heated, according to the FSIS National Residue Program for Cattle, a recent report by the  USDA’s Office of the Inspector General.

The report is full of bad news about the ineffectual attempts that are being made to keep chemical residues out of the food supply, but optimists might point to the report’s tone as a sliver of good news. The report is sharply critical of the efforts to keep our meat free of chemical residues, and shows determination to shore up this gaping hole in food safety.

“… The national residue program is not accomplishing its mission of monitoring the food supply for harmful residues,”  the report says, noting that thresholds for many dangerous substances, like copper and dioxin, have yet to be established. “We also found that FSIS does not recall meat adulterated with harmful residues, even when it is aware that the meat has failed its laboratory tests.”

The routes by which veterinary drugs make it into human food trace a disturbing portrait of how large dairy farms operate. Sick dairy cows are given medications to help them recover, but if it appears an animal will die, it’s often sold to a slaughterhouse as quickly as possible,  in time to kill it before it dies. That way, “[the dairy farmer] can recoup some of his investment in the animal,” according to the report.

In such cases, medications may be consumed along with the meat. Such drugs include Ivermectin (which can act as a neurotoxin in humans), Flunixin (which can damage kidneys), and penicillin (which can cause life-threatening allergic reactions in some people).

The meat from sick dairy cattle is low-grade, and is usually turned into burger and sold to the sorts of buyers who stretch their dollars furthest, like fast food chains and school lunch programs. But veterinary drugs are also finding their way into an upper echelon of meat: veal.

The milk produced by medicated dairy cows is barred from sale to human consumers — a sensible rule, given the dangers suggested above. Unfortunately, no law prevents this  “waste milk”  from being fed to veal calves, the meat of which sometimes tests positive for these drugs. As with sick dairy cow meat that tests positive for antibiotics, no measures are taken to recall such veal or penalize the slaughterhouses that produce it. One slaughterhouse, according to the report, amassed 211 violations in 2008 and was still considered by FSIS as a place where contamination “is not reasonably likely to occur.”

Such failings can be traced to a 1984 memorandum of understanding between FDA, FSIS and EPA. These three agencies agreed to appoint senior executives to oversee a group called the Surveillance Advisory Team (SAT). The SAT was supposed to manage interagency collaboration aimed at preventing the entry of chemical residues into the food supply. But according to the recent report, “…high-level officials from the agencies involved do not attend [the annual SAT] meetings, and there is no mechanism for elevating issues, making recommendations, and ensuring that appropriate actions are taken to solve identified problems. Without such a mechanism, many problems requiring interagency coordination have not been dealt with despite the agencies’ awareness of the problems.”

In addition to veterinary drugs and heavy metals, agricultural pesticides also find their way into the meat supply, often through contaminated food and water. While the SAT agencies jointly determine which pesticides should be tested for, it’s the FSIS that actually conducts the tests. In recent years the FSIS has tested for only one of the 23 pesticide classes it is charged with testing for: chlorinated hydrocarbons/chlorinated organophosphates. FSIS blames its limited budget and a lack of guidance as to minimum levels the agency is supposed to enforce. The Office of the Inspector General report dismisses the excuses and calls the oversight unacceptable, saying “the SAT needs to seek executive-level involvement from all three agencies to resolve differences, and, if necessary, to determine the best method for obtaining the needed testing resources to ensure that the highest priority substances are tested.”

Several other chinks in the food supply’s armor are noted as well, including faulty testing methodologies, bureaucratic smothering of innovative testing techniques, and failure of FSIS to share testing results. After raking the muck, the report makes recommendations on how the interagency collaborations behind the SAT could be improved. The report also mentions that the FSIS has agreed to many of its recommendations, such as increasing testing at plants that slaughter veal calves and dairy cows–where 90 percent of the residue violations have been detected.

While the Office of the Inspector General appears to be making a sincere effort to improve the framework that’s supposed to protect our food, it could also be argued that these efforts amount to enabling an industry that remains rotten at its core. Rushing sick cattle to slaughter before they die, or feeding tainted  “waste milk”  to veal calves, are practices that would be better eliminated than improved, but in fairness that isn’t within the mandate of the OIG to decide. So while improvements appear to be in the works for the production practices behind mystery meat and mystery milk, the system shows little sign of becoming inherently less disgusting. As long as customers keep demanding cheap meat, cheap meat will probably continue to be produced.

Ari LeVaux writes a syndicated weekly food column, Flash in the Pan.

By Ari LeVaux, AlterNet
Printed on May 14, 2010
© 2010 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at:


Beating Cancer Gently – Vitamin D3 Wins Again!!

May 14, 2010

Many of you have read and listened as I raved about the benefits of Vitamin D3 in recent months. Well, I have some personal evidence now of how incredibly useful it is that I want to share with you. Those of you who have heard my web talk radio show this week can skip down to the section about my grandson, which wasn’t on the radio show.


On Thursday, April 15th, I was preparing to leave the next morning for Michigan to visit my daughter and her husband, two of my grandsons and their wives and five of my great grand-babies (with two more “on the way”). My flight was scheduled to leave Oakland (about an hour from where we live) at 7:00 AM. Well, right about 3 PM in the afternoon, I began shaking. My fever shot up to what felt like 104 degrees and my body was aching all over. I had a real attack of the flu — big time!

I crawled into bed and moaned for a few minutes. Then, a light came on in my head. I thought “Bill, you’ve been talking about Vitamin D3 and how great an anti-viral it is for weeks. How about ‘walking the walk’ instead of ‘talking the talk.'” I dragged myself downstairs and got the bottle of 5,000 I.U. Vitamin D3 gelcaps. I counted out 10 of them and swallowed them. I was feeling so bad, I didn’t want to even think. I just went back to bed. But I took the D3 bottle with me.

For the next three hours, I took the 50,000 I.U. dose of the Vitamin D3 every 30 minutes — a total of 300,000 I.U. I felt so bad that I called my daughter at about 5 PM and left her a message that I just had to postpone the trip.

Well, maybe you can guess what happened next. About 8 PM, I got up and realized that my fever was gone. My muscles and bones weren’t aching anymore. I felt weak and a little queasy in the stomach, but I said to myself “Hey, you’re about 80% recovered from this. Maybe you can make the trip after all.”

I went back to bed at 9 PM and slept until 3 AM. I got up, packed my bag and left for the airport at 4 AM to make the 7 AM flight. I was walking slowly and feeling weak, but otherwise, I was fine. At the airport, I called my daughter and told her I was on the way. She was, needless to say, very surprised.

During the flight, I took another 200,000 I.U. of the Vitamin D3. I changed planes in Chicago, got in to Detroit, rented a car and drove to my daughter’s house in Jackson, Michigan (about an hour away). I was gradually feeling better. By the time I got there, I was about 90% back to normal.

The next day, I went with the family to watch my 6 year old great grandson play a soccer game. It was very cold (about 37 degrees with a wind of 20 miles an hour). I bundled up and spent an hour and a half on the sidelines.

By then, Saturday morning, about 33 hours after the onset of the flu bug, I was feeling about 95% normal. Everybody was amazed.


By Saturday afternoon, I was completely recovered. I was so delighted that this wonderful trip had not been ruined by the flu bug.

On Monday afternoon, after a great weekend with my family, I learned that my 28-year-old grandson, Tim, had stayed home from work and was in bed with the flu. I don’t think he caught it from me. I’m pretty sure I was past being contagious by the time I got to Michigan, but who knows?

On Tuesday, I went over to Tim’s house and gave his wife, Becky, a bottle of 100 of the Vitamin D3 gelcaps. I told her what I would do if I were Tim. She took my advice and began feeding him large doses of the D3.

I got back home on Tuesday night, April 20th. I was feeling great! On Thursday, I called Tim to see how he was doing. Well, you guessed it. He told me that by Wednesday, he had completely recovered from the flu and went back to work.


Folks, this is probably the most useful information you will read this year. Stock up on this wonderful healer. It is incredibly inexpensive. A bottle of 100 of these 5,000 I.U. tiny gelcaps costs about $4. You now have not only a great preventative for colds and flu, but a great healer, as well. No need for flu shots. Just take a good dose (I take 10,000 I.U. every day) of this stuff and be prepared to load up on it if the flu bug (or a cold) hits you or anyone in your family.

My massive dose of the D3 was not taken blindly. My good friend, Cheryl Miller-Uphoff (author of the “Cancer Free Foods” recipe book) had used about 200,000 I.U. of it for three days or so to heal her flu several months ago. In fact, I had discussed her experience with Dr. William Grant, the authority on Vitamin D3 who I had interviewed on my radio show. He was completely OK with someone taking that much if they were sick with a virus. He said the level in your body will normalize with no problem after you stop taking the massive doses. Particularly when you are sick like I was, there is almost no toxic level of this stuff.

Obviously, for children, you should probably adjust the dose according to their size. But it will still work for them. Dr. Garcia (my question/answer buddy — see below) says the gelcaps are the best form to take the D3 in, but it also comes in liquid form which might be easier for a child to take.

Here are a couple of sources for you to stock up on this wonderful healer:



Here’s a quote from an article this week in Natural News about Vitamin D3 and diabetes:

“A team from Warwick Medical School in the U.K. has found that people who maintain healthy vitamin D levels are 43 percent less likely to get heart disease or diabetes. After evaluating 28 different studies conducted on nearly 100,000 people, researchers concluded that people who eat oily fish two or three times a week and five servings of fruits and vegetables a day are able to achieve healthy levels of vitamin D.

While the team evaluated only natural sources of vitamin D, including from sunlight exposure and consumption of oily fish like tuna, salmon, and mackerel, it is probable that supplementation with natural vitamin D3 would prove to have the same effect.”

If you want to read the whole article, just click here.


Coincidentally, I got an e-mail a couple of weeks ago from my friend Tanya Pierce, author of “Outsmart Your Cancer.” Tanya was telling me about an exchange she had with Dr. Navarro (head of the Navarro Clinic in the Philippines) about the possible effects on the HCG Urine Test (see pp. 134-140 in my Cancer-Free — Third Edition book) of Vitamin D3, among other things. Here are some quotes from her message:

“Dr. Navarro has recently told Elonna McKibben that all hormones, including steroids, must be stopped for at least 3 days before the test to try to avoid a false positive. So, as you can see, instructions on this test have been changing…

…[Dr. Navarro] also confirmed that there are numerous factors that can adversely affect the test and cause ‘false positives.’ Most of these factors are hormones, so women who are on bioidentical hormones must stop their progesterone, testosterone, cortisol, or any other hormones they are on for anywhere between 3 days and two weeks (for the testosterone)…

…Dr. Navarro also said that vitamin D supplementation could even interfere with the test… [Vitamin D3 is actually a hormone, not a vitamin.]

…[Tanya concludes as follows] As far as cancer screening tests go, this HCG test is still a good test in many ways — possibly better than anything else out there. But it is not ‘cut and dried’ perfect in the way that both Bill [me] and Andy [Scholberg] have chosen to represent it to the public. They have never told the public that there are hormones, steroid medications, and even vitamin D that must be avoided for the test to be accurate and that even then the numbers should not be used all by themselves but should only be used along with other factors of each individual case to determine how well the person is doing. I really worry that there are people who will use the test the way Bill and Andy are recommending it and either assume they have cancer when they don’t (because they got a false positive score), or they will assume their alternative cancer treatment isn’t working because their HCG score hasn’t gone down yet when in some cases their treatment could be working very well and they just got a false positive on their test results for some other reason.”


Well, I thanked Tanya Pierce for her valuable information. I really was unaware of the effects of hormones and steroids on the HCG Urine Test. Dr. Navarro had never mentioned it in our many exchanges over the years. Do I still think the test is useful? You bet. Literally hundreds of people I’ve worked with over the last 8 years or so have found the trend indicated by this test very useful. But the bottom line here is that no test is perfect. This one is certainly no exception. It is a good indicator, but not a “be all and end all” test.

I suggest that if you are doing the HCG Urine Test you stop taking hormones (including Vitamin D3) and steroid medication at least three days before you collect the urine sample. Then follow Dr. Navarro’s advice on all the HCG test result e-mails. Confirm the HCG Urine Test results with other tests — CT/PET scans, MRI’s, etc.

End of story on “Vitamin D3” for now.


Be well…and be sure to hug each other every day!

Bill Henderson
Author, “Cure Your Cancer” and “Cancer-Free”
E-mail: “How to Live Cancer-Free” Listen anytime.


Although many alternative medical treatments have been successfully used for many years, they are currently not practiced by conventional medicine and are therefore not “approved” and legal (in some States) for medical professionals to prescribe for their patients, although it is legal for individuals to use them at their own discretion. It therefore becomes necessary to include the following disclaimer:

The offerings made by this publication are to be carefully considered by the user. All responsibility regarding the use of alternative treatments rests with the patient. If you have doubts regarding these things, rely on your conventional doctor.