What comes first, loss of energy or weight gain? Twenty years ago when I was 52 I had energy to spare and my weight was manageable.

Gradually over the years my energy dwindled and I eventually gained 60 excess pounds.

Fifteen years ago I remember going to my favorite health food store and looking through dozens of health books searching for the answer to getting back my energy. I knew I needed motivation to exercise and the key to eating less less calories. I remember thinking, “What Did I Have That I Don’t Have Now?” It was the name of a song and it stuck in my thoughts for months.

The first book I bought was about food combining (interestingly, I’m using food combining now with great success, but that wasn’t the answer to my energy and weight problems).

Another book was “Dr. Kelley’s Self Test For Metabolic Types.” That book helped Dale to understand my food choices (my type is a meat eater and can digest protein better than grains) and me to help understand his (his type cannot digest meat very well and does best eating small meals often), but, again, it didn’t help with my energy and weight problems.

It took 15 years and an article in July 2009’s Reader’s Digest about prunes, but I finally found the answer (a little late, but I’m an optimist and never gave up hope).

Here’s is the answer: Vita-Mix Vegetable Soup.

It seems incredible to me that I had to discover the answer the way I did.

First, for almost 15 years I’ve been listening to Dale counsel Dr. Kelley’s cancer patients to use a Vita-Mix and make their meals easy to digest while they take Dr. Kelley’s enzymes to rid their bodies of cancer.

Second, I’ve watched Dale use his Vita-Mix daily and continue to have steady energy for the twenty years we have been together (Oh, I’ve tried to eat what he mixes up, but I didn’t digest it well and it tasted awful to me).

And third, I’ve been making vegetable broth (and throwing away the vegetables) and drinking a quart every morning for eight years with wonderful results — I have good bone density for my age and never have leg cramps  at night as I use to.

I tried eating the vegetables with the broth several times, but saw no reason to continue as I didn’t feel any different and I really don’t like vegetable soup — the reason I make the broth is because I want the minerals in it as I can’t take mineral supplements because they cause white spots on my skin.

So, because soaking prunes in hot distilled water and then blending the water and prunes in Dale’s Vita-Mix for two minutes and drinking a cup (one cup has three prunes) every morning has given me so much energy I feel like I did 20 years ago, I decided to experiment with my vegetables and broth.

Dale was my inspiration as he recently began making a big pot of his vegetables and spices, another pot of brown rice, and, after everything is cooked, blending it all in his Vita-Mix a pint or so at a time and mixing it all together again, heating it to boiling and pouring it into quart Mason jars.

He opens a new quart jar every day and has several small bowls of it along with two corn tortillas and 1 oz cream cheese. He says he got the idea from me, because I pour my hot broth into Mason jars and that way I don’t have to make broth more than every 10 days or so (Mason jars are terrific for preserving vegetables and broth). Dale makes about eight quarts at a time.

My idea was to take the vegetables and broth that I normally cook up for my broth and blend it in the Vita-Mix, one pint or so at a time, pour it into another big pot and stir it all together and heat it to boiling and pour it into quart Mason jars and eat it like Gourmet Vegetable soup once or twice a day.

Oh, my God, it is the best tasting soup I’ve ever tasted in my life. I’d say it beats a steak dinner, but I’d be lying . . . but it is very, very tasty! And the energy it gives me!!! I love it! And I can make it up once a week and have it every day.

My combination of vegetables is different than Dale’s and I’m sure you will want to use different vegetables, too. But, mixing vegetables (and prunes — just drink the prunes an hour or so before drinking the vegetables) in a Vita-Mix is the answer to high energy and reducing your daily caloric intake.

Bonnie’s Gourmet Vegetable Soup

In a large stainless steel pot combine the following vegetables (organic when available) cut up:

Two large Jewel potatoes, 1/2 large head of red cabbage, two large stalks of celery (celery makes the cabbage not smell bad), one large bunch of parsley, one pound of carrots, one pound of green beans, three large leeks, two bunches of green onions, one pound of frozen unsalted peas,

Six quarts of distilled water

Bring to a boil, reduce heat and simmer for one hour with lid on.

Ladle about one pint at a time into Vita-Mix container and mix for two minutes

Pour each mixed pint into another large stainless steel pot and, after all the vegetables and broth have been blended stir it all together in the pot

Ladle mixture into seven or eight quart Mason jars, seal tightly, allow to cool, place in refrigerator

Drink soup after heating it up again (or cold) and drink separately from prunes and/or meals by at least an hour.

This is terrific for guests and for tiding you over until you prepare your meals.

Love,

Bonnie O’Sullivan
Resources:  http://www.road-to-health.com/vitamix

In a recent conversation I was told that in 1986 “just” 900 variety of drugs were marketing to US consumers now the number is well over 8000. If you think your Doctor is fully versed on every drug… Dream On…  Please read the following Article I found that tells the story of why we have so much unneeded prescription drug use in the USA and why you need to learn to improve your health with diet and exercise.

Dale

Please comment

02/09/2009

Most of us often wish for easy solutions to our problems.  If we see that our clothes are getting tight, what is wrong with wishing for a harmless pill that will allow us to lose weight without changing our eating habits?  When we watch television, we see example after example of happy people who have lost 20, 40 or even 100 pounds by taking this or that pill.  However, most of us have learned that these pills don’t really work. Yet, they are on television for a reason—they sell enough products to pay for the costs and make a profit for the company promoting them.

Hope springs eternal in most of us.  We hope that this solution will be different.  Maybe this is why the diet pills keep selling on television.  Maybe this one will work. 

This attitude of consumers is also why the drug companies spent lots of money lobbying to get the Federal Drug Administration (“FDA”) to modify its rules regarding television advertising of prescription drugs.  They knew that they could sell more and more of their drugs—even if they weren’t needed and might actually do harm.  Sales, nothing else, was important.

For years their lobbying efforts were unsuccessful.  In fact, many of us remember when we could watch television with our children and not be asked to explain “erectile dysfunction” or “herpes” and then explain what the advertised drug does.  This changed in August of 1997.

DIRECT TO CONSUMER

Direct to consumer advertising (“DTC”) is the name given to advertising prescription drugs in magazines, newspapers and television.  Prior to 1997, the FDA rules said, “Advertisements promoting the medical use of prescription drugs must contain a “brief summary” of all important information about the advertised drug, including its side effects, contraindications and effectiveness.  In addition, advertisements broadcast over radio, TV or through telephone communications systems must include a “major statement” prominently disclosing all of the major risks associated with the drug.”

Prior to August of 1997, print advertisements for prescription drugs were able to meet the “brief summary” requirement by including the risk-related sections of drug labeling together with the advertising copy.  As the drug companies looked wistfully at the enormous marketing potential of television, they saw that there was no way to provide the required information about the drug in 30 second or one minute television ads. 

Did Congress act?  No, the FDA made the August 1997 rule change quietly and without consulting Congress or really anyone else.  Their change allowed the drug companies to “…include information about any major risks, as well as instructions for how consumers can easily obtain more detailed information about the drug’s approved uses and risks.”

FDA Lead Deputy Commissioner Michael J. Friedman, M.D was one of the driving forces behind this change long sought by the drug companies.  Dr. Friedman said in 1997, “Today’s action can help promote greater consumer awareness about prescription drugs.  By describing realistic standards for television advertising of prescription drugs, we hope to end the uncertainty which has plagued both consumers and industry about the use of this medium.  The FDA is committed to making sure that accurate and complete information is available to consumers.”

In the 1997 rule revision, the FDA “…presumes that the broadcast ad is truthful, not misleading, and contains information about the major health risks associated with the drug.

In lieu of providing a “brief summary,” the advertiser would have to provide a mechanism to ensure that consumers can easily obtain full product labeling.”  In other words it is enough to quickly list some of the side effects along with a toll-free phone number or web address or advise the listener to speak with a physician.

In her book, Our Daily Meds, Melody Peterson states, “Dr. Friedman soon left the agency. In 1998, President Clinton nominated Dr. Jane Henney  to be the next commissioner of the FDA, and Dr. Friedman resigned the  next year to become a senior vice  president at Searle, a subsidiary of  Monsanto, which had just  introduced a new pain pill.”

It is significant that the United States and New Zealand are the only two industrial nations that allow the drug companies to advertise on television in this fashion.

RESULT
 
According to the Government Accounting Office (report no. GAO-07-54, December 14, 2006):

“In the past decade, drug companies have quadrupled expenditures on ads aimed at consumers. Spending on direct-to-consumer advertising increased by 296.4% from 1997 to 2005, during which time spending on promotion to physicians increased by 86.0% and spending on pharmaceutical research and development increased by 103.3%.”

In an article entitled, Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs published in the August of 2007 issue of Journal Watch, Dr. Allan S. Brett, MD summarized the findings of his study of DTC advertising of prescription drugs on television.  Dr. Brett concluded that:

Total spending on DTC advertising in the U.S. increased from about $1 billion in 1996 to $4 billion in 2005; DTC advertising represented about 14% of drug company promotional expenditures in 2005.

The five single drugs with the highest expenditures for DTC advertising were Nexium, Lunesta, Vytorin, Crestor, and Advair.

From 2002 to 2006, DTC advertising was the target of one third to one half of letters sent by the FDA to drug companies regarding violations in regulations on drug promotion. Most citations were for DTC advertising that minimized risks or exaggerated effectiveness.

The level of FDA staffing dedicated to review of DTC advertising has not kept pace with the recent increase in DTC advertising.

DTC has led to the manipulation of information in ways that subtly overstate the drug’s benefits, indications, and target populations.

All of us intuitively know that television commercials always show the most ideal situation. The people presented tell us about how all of their problems were solved by taking a drug. They imply that now their lives are what we dream our lives could be. 

But you ask, is this not the same thing that the companies selling diet pills do?  Yes, but except in rare cases, taking these diet drugs doesn’t create other serious health problems or cost society millions of dollars. 

Vioxx was popularized mainly by the image of Dorothy Hamill lacing up her skates and gliding over the ice despite her osteoarthritis, all because of Vioxx.  Merck had to take Vioxx off the market because even while the commercials were running, they were receiving alarming reports that the millions of patients who responded to the ad and demanded their doctors prescibe Vioxx were risking stroke or serious heart problems.

CONCLUSION

Few things better illustrate the extent that the FDA has come under the control of the drug companies than the DTC changes in 1997.  While some of the drug company spokespeople have stated that anyone attacking their misleading television advertisements are attacking free speech, this is a silly argument.  It is unlikely that any court would refuse to uphold an action by the FDA that required a complete statement of the risks of these dangerous drugs.  It would not prohibit television advertising but allow it, only if the drug companies met the same requirements of pre-August 1997 law.

What can we do?  We can contact our U.S. Representative and two U.S. Senators and demand that the rules in effect prior to August of 1997 be required for DTC advertising.  It is only if enough of us make our feelings known and demand change that we will see a change. 

At Novus Medical Detox Center we take pride in helping people safely and more comfortably withdraw from some of these drugs promoted shamelessly by the drug companies.  We help people with OxyContin addiction, Vicodin addiction, Percocet addiction, and methadone addiction and help them withdraw from any unneeded antidepressants and benzodiazepines. 

If you know anyone that wants to take the first step toward freedom from these dangerous drugs, please tell them about Novus.

NOTE: This information is provided for general educational purposes only and is not intended to constitute (i) medical advice or counseling, (ii) the practice of medicine, health care diagnosis or treatment, or (iii) the creation of a physician patient or clinical relationship.  If you have or suspect that you have a medical problem or that this information may be useful to you or others, please consult with your health care provider before applying any information from our articles to your personal situation or to the personal situation of others.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (C) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C.

Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.
From: http://media.novusdetox.com/dependence.php?include=138402

WhenSurgery.mp3

Dr. Kelley Would advise: Surgery only when tumor is causing life threatening event. Like pressing against something like windpipe.

I am often ask “How Many Enzymes to I Need to Take to Never Get Measurable Cancer?”

How Much Pancreatin If you Don\’t Have Cancer

Link to Written Instructions and Purchase Opportunity

Watch the Video to learn the details…
Download Dr Kelley Recommends 6 Months Each Year, three times a day: Okra Pepsin

Purchase Okra Pepsin

What is diabetes? It is nothing more than a symptom. It is a symptom that tells us that our systemic carbohydrate (sugar) metabolism is not functioning properly. Before insulin the great physicians stood by and wrung their hands helplessly.

Before the discovery of insulin by professor Ernest L. Scott in 1911 and until the early 1930’s, when a person was diagnosed as having diabetes, they would often ask the doctor if their condition could be helped or made worse by what they were eating and should they change their diet in any way? The doctor would tell them: “Oh no, diet doesn’t make any difference — eat anything you want, you aren’t going to live much longer anyway, so live it up and eat whatever you want.” Doctors couldn’t connect the diet and diabetes. Even lay people in those days figured out that if you ate a lot of leafy green vegetables and reduced the amount of sugar you took in, you survived longer and did well — at least better than the person who didn’t watch his diet.

And so it was that after the development of insulin, doctors figured out that there is a factor in diet. In the early 1920s there weren’t very good analytical facilities available. But the doctors empirically found that the people who ate green leafy vegetables, and a few other foods, survived diabetes much better and the sugar count in their urine was much better. They had a saying in the medical community at that time that leafy, green vegetables contained “natural insulin.” It wasn’t actually the truth, but they became aware of the fact that including these vegetables in the diet did play a role and they were trying to explain it.

We’re in the same situation now with cancer. Someday, in the near future, it will dawn on the medical community that diet does make quite a difference in people with cancer, and greatly affects health in general. It can’t happen too soon. When it does, a lot of lives will be saved and a lot of lives will be lived more healthfully.

From Chapter 1 “One Answer to Cancer” By Dr. William Donald Kelley D.D.S, M.S.

At least 86% of all cancer conditions could be adequately treated and/or prevented by diet and pancreatic enzymes.

Cancer is a symptom of inadequate and deficient protein metabolism. The real problem is protein metabolism, not cancer. Cancer is only a symptom telling those who would listen that their protein metabolism is in very serious trouble. Surgery, radiation and chemotherapy only treat the symptoms of cancer.

One hundred years ago Dr. John Beard at the University of Edinburgh discovered that the body’s primary mechanism for destroying cancer is contained in pancreatin, a secretion from the pancreas that includes enzymes for digesting protein (among other things). Enzymes digest or liquefy foods for absorption by the body. Dr. Beard presented pictures in his books and papers to show recoveries using pancreatin. This was an unprecedented approach to treating the symptoms of cancer — a direct attack on the malignancy with a substance that did not have toxic side effects on the other functions of the body.

Dr. Howard Beard (no relation) of Fort Worth, Texas has contributed considerably to the understanding and use of pancreatic enzymes in the treatment of cancer. He and other researchers indicated that where cancer is concerned trypsin and particularly chymotrypsin are the important enzymes in pancreatin.

Dr. Beard also recommended a nutritional program and other things, as stated in his book: A New Approach to Cancer, Rheumatic, and Heart Diseases.

From Chapter 1 “One Answer to Cancer” By Dr. William Donald Kelley D.D.S, M.S.

The recall of ground beef at Whole Foods Market has shed a new spotlight on Nebraska Beef of Omaha, one of the country’s largest meatpackers. Seven people in Massachusetts, from ages 3 to 60, were sickened by E. coli from beef bought at Whole Foods stores. The same strain has sickened 31 people in 12 states, the District of Columbia, and Canada.

The Whole Foods ground beef was among 1.2 million pounds of Nebraska Beef recalled on Friday. The processor also recalled 5 million pounds produced in May and June after its beef was blamed for another E. coli outbreak in seven states.

Sanitation violations over the past six years at Nebraska Beef, include:

• The USDA shut down the plant three times in 2002 and 2003 for problems such as feces on carcasses and water dripping off pipes onto meat
• In 2004 and early 2005, Nebraska Beef was written up at least five times for not removing brains or spinal cords from the food supply, as required
• U.S. inspectors in August 2006 threatened to suspend Nebraska Beef operations for not following requirements for controlling E. coli
• Also in 2006, Minnesota health officials blamed Nebraska Beef for sickening 17 people who ate meatballs at a church potluck; several victims filed lawsuits against Nebraska Beef, including the family of a woman who died

Whole Foods claims that it did not know that their supplier, Meyer Natural Angus, had switched processing plants to the Nebraska Beef facility. Whole Foods has long audited the slaughterhouse facilities from which it is supplied.

Antiquated thinking posits that you shouldn’t mix work and play. But the truth is, your personal interests have a lot to do with your success, particularly if you’re in an idea-centric field — which means just about every job that has problems which require creative thinking.

It’s no coincidence some of the most profound and popular scientists are also musicians: Albert Einstein played the violin. Numerous bios of Steve Jobs cite his schooling in calligraphy as a driving factor for why the early Mac computers were so far ahead in terms of graphics. Think about what skills you have that aren’t officially job responsibilities, but get applied nonetheless.

Do this fun exercise:

1. On the left-hand side of a piece of paper, write a list of your favorite career moments
2. Beside it on the right, write a list of your hobbies and activities off the job
3. Draw circles around something in the left column that happened because of something on the right, and join them with a line

The connections are now much clearer. By recognizing how various parts of you falsely appear miles apart but are actually adjacent in their applicability, you stand a much higher chance of succeeding at what’s important.

Every person who takes up running has been confronted by a “helpful” critic who is more than happy to reel off the reasons running will ruin your life. Here’s a look at three questionable claims about running and health:

1. Running will give you a heart attack or other heart problems. It is true that exercise temporarily raises the odds of a heart attack while you’re mid-workout, but doing it consistently reduces that risk over the long haul, leading to a net benefit. Going for a run most days of the week is doing far more good than bad for your heart.

2. Running will ruin your bones and joints. A study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found no evidence of accelerated rates of osteoarthritis among long-distance runners. Weight-bearing exercise like running helps stave off osteoporosis by maintaining bone mineral density.

3. Running will kill you before your time. According to a study in the Archives of Internal Medicine, running and other vigorous exercise in middle age is associated with a longer life. Not only that, it will make your later years more pleasant by reducing disability.