"Wrong again!" NATURALLY Speaking Guest Commentary By Christopher C. Barr

"B vitamins fail to cut heart risk in study," declared the headline of the rotten Reuters (polluted) mainstream news service – 2^nd largest in the world.

The story cited a study featured in the Journal of the American Murderousedical Association (JAMA) allegedly on the effect of some B vitamins against heart disease.

An accompanying JAMA editorial questioned the value of the nutritional approach as “wrong again”.

Wrong again indeed…

Well designed study?

First, the study included women in their 40s at which age there is going to be a lesser likelihood of heart problems in which to make a difference.

Second – and more importantly – the study used 50 milligrams of the vitamin called B6. That is half (or less) the amount already published more than a decade ago as making a tremendous difference in another clinical study some years before the current study was begun.

Furthermore, synthesized 'nutrients' concocted by man were used rather than 100 per cent whole food nutrients. There is a difference and your body knows the difference.

This JAMA published study was well designed for failure.

A genuine, expert source

Dr. John Ellis, M.D. wrote the book on vitamin B6 -- literally. 'Vitamin B6: The Doctor's Report' by Dr. Ellis is the classic book on the subject of this nutrient. Ellis took 200 milligrams of vitamin B6 daily from 1961 until his recent death at nearly 90 years of age.

The last time I spoke with Dr. Ellis before he died was after another study in the news using a similar amount of vitamin B6. The good doctor had not heard of that study yet but laughed vigorously when I told him of it.

"Sounds like a cardiologist who doesn't want somebody getting in his field," Ellis responded.

His newest book, 'Vitamin B6 Therapy' is an update from his earlier classic work a quarter century earlier.

The newer book cites the study from more than a decade ago noted above. That study used a minimum of 100 milligrams of vitamin B6 with individuals in their 60s, 70s and 80s already afflicted with heart disease. There were 74 per cent less heart disease events than those who did not take vitamin B6 in that five-year clinical study. The study was conducted by Dr. Ellis and Dr. Kilmer McCully who served many years as a Harvard University professor.

The currently cited “news report” is about a study using much less than an amount previously determined to be very successful.

"'Vitamin B6 Therapy' is a report full of information that I stand 100% behind and wouldn't take a word of it back," said Dr. Ellis.

“Elderly people who had taken 100 to 200 milligrams of vitamin B6 daily for long periods and died from myocardial infarction lived eight years longer than those who did not take vitamin B6,” wrote Dr. Ellis in his book ‘Vitamin B6 Therapy’.

The long-term, tried and true successful approach from the medical and nutritional giant of Dr. Ellis dwarfs the pitiful, pathetic JAMA study well designed for failure.

Christopher C. Barr writes Naturally Speaking from Arkansas: The Natural State … naturally! You may write him at P. O. Box 1147, Pocahontas, Arkansas 72455 or by e-mail at servantofYHVH@hotmail.com.

Spare the Selenium and Intoxicate the Child

Headline: Breast-Feeding While on Seizure Meds Doesn't Harm Babies "However, more research is needed to confirm our findings, and women should use caution due to the limitations of our study."

In other words, the headline you just read is devoid of any real meaning, except that it intends to mislead moms-to-be that taking drugs during pregnancy is just fine for that new life inside her.

I find it interesting and disturbing that "incomplete" findings, as long as they show drugs in a favorable light, are reported as if they were definitive. Not so with unapproved natural substances. The headlines often read "Dietary Supplements Dangerous" even though there is a lack of substantiation, nor recognition as to the difference between synthetic nutrients and those grown in a whole food matrix. Is there a liberal bias in the media? I would argue that there is a pharmaceutical bias.

For instance, if Selenium, a dietary mineral supplement, is ever revealed in media to be cancer preventive it is always reported as if the findings are still preliminary. This, despite the overwhelming and irrefutable science (decades worth) in support of the humble trace element and its critical role in cancer prevention.

Almost 30 years ago Dr. Gerhard Schrauzer of the University of California San Diego Medical School recommended 200 micrograms of selenium daily as a cancer preventative agent.

In December of 1996, A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) noted 63 per cent reduction of prostate cancer, 58 per cent reduction of colorectal cancer, and 46 per cent reduction in lung cancer with less than 10 years of selenium supplementation at only 200 micrograms daily. There's not a drug on planet earth that even comes close.

Every ten years or so, research scientists are actually allowed to acknowledge the cancer-preventive role that selenium plays, but just as quickly, we are told that it will be another ten years until anything definitive is confirmed.

What about that study published in JAMA in 1996? Why is "Selenium" not shouted from the rooftop of the American Cancer Society on Clifton Road in Atlanta? Perhaps there were too few people in the study? After all, there were a whopping 187 children studied to determine that it is "safe" to ingest anti-seizure medication while pregnant (as the headline proclaims).

Well, that little not-so-old selenium-cancer study included 1,300 people in seven different cities. Yet the headline above about medicated kids-to-be rings with "drug safety" despite the fact that no such thing was actually proven.

The medical "disclaimer" or backtrack quote from the linked article article above was actually buried in the story. Editors realize that the majority of people merely skim the headlines and move on. Thus, if ever accused of inaccurate reporting, they can always point to the one sentence buried in the article as evidence that they tell the "whole" story.

Of course the whole story is actually the fact that Selenium from WHOLE food sources is the most important nutrient, not only for cancer prevention, but for liver function as well (as many other functions). If the headline were about selenium instead of "drugs during pregnancy" it would likely read:

"Dietary supplement danger to babies.."

...rather than the misleading "drugs are safe" insinuation so typical of the pharmaceutically biased mainstream media. Had the headline read

"Breastfeeding while driving may harm babies..."

...there would be a lot less to discuss. As it is, drugs are toxic and selenium is crucial to detoxification functions. By the way, this isn't a choice between anti-seizure medication and trace minerals. If you would like to get rid of seizures without resorting to pharmaceutical intoxication, simply restore integrity to the gastrointestinal tract. I'll even throw you a homeopathic bone for intestinal recovery: Baptisia tinctora 10x or 15x daily during recovery.

Although there is much more needed to address the totality of seizure disorders, more importantly, we must break through the pharmaceutical stranglehold on the mainstream media and its pervasive message that every symptom is somehow evidence of an FDA-approved drug deficiency.

Only then will it be patently obvious for all to see that there are nutritional solutions for whatever ails you. Don't worry, the drugs will still be available if you want them. In the mean time, perhaps somebody could start up an alternative media site for everyone that has already taken the red pill...