Shopping Cart: 0 items

Login | Privacy


Discount Coupon, Metabolism, "New Study Syndrome", Fish Oils, Vitamin C and Cancer, Fluoridation News and Local Video, Portland Election, Revisit of Declaration of Independence

August 2013 - Print | Index

Our Discount Coupon Code for August 2013 - 82013 to get $5.00 off any purchase over $25.00.

New Approach for our Vitamin Express Report; Trying something different. We will be sending out two emails each month.

  1. One will be promotional for products and sales with special discounts, free products, samples, and product information updates.
  2. The other will be in this format for reading with news items, opinions, and thoughts regarding nutrition, news, and fun items that might be of interest from Michael, the President of Vitamin Express.
  3. Both will include the month's Special Discount Coupon code that offers you an extra discount on your mail order and on-line orders of products.

Thank you for shopping with us.

  • Metabolism the key to good health
  • What does Preventative Medicine mean?
  • Studies Come and Go
  • Fish Oils and Prostate Cancer
  • Hyaluronic Acid and the Vitamin C connection  and Cancer
  • Fluorosilicic Acid in our water? See the Video of the Marin Water Board Meeting of July19th
  • Warning! Fluoridated Water and Infants
  • Portland, Oregon votes "NO" on water fluoridation
  • History of fluoridation
  • Concrete eaten away by hydro fluorsilicic acid accident at public water plant
  • Short interpretation of the July 4th 1776 Declaration of Independence

Thoughts from Michael’s Notebook:

Exercise, Practice and Metabolism

What is the underlying purpose of exercise? What is the underlying purpose of practice?

Exercise is stressed as a necessity for performance of a sport or activity. Sports and activities require development of a certain physique and physical ability. Practice is incorporated as a means to develop a determined performance. The two therefore go hand in hand. The results are skill and bodily development.

The underlying purpose of exercise and practice are metabolism. Metabolism is the key for the body to develop neural pathways, strengthen tendons, bone and muscle, and produce energy.

The key to great health is to keep metabolism consistent with the body’s natural needs of exercise and practice. As we age there often develops voids within our daily life that reduces exercise and practice. It is this absence that directs us towards reduced metabolism and increased stagnation, resulting in inflammation. We begin to think and act old. There are natural consequences that significantly speed up this process with what we consume as beverages and food. There are other consequences within everyone’s life that produces major disruption to good metabolism – stress.  Stress in all forms cools the body and creates chemical imbalances that lead to stagnation and inflammation. Stress is a general category that covers the body’s response to everything harmful, from an accident to a dispute to an environmental cellular disruptor.    

It is with good reason that Traditional Chinese Medicine places the three most important things one can do for one’s health as: 1) Meditation – relaxation warms the body creating optimum metabolism.  2) Exercise – aids the increase of metabolism for specific needs of development and repair. 3) Diet – good nutrition is the base for proper nutrients to aid a protected breakdown of cells with the proper renewal of cells throughout the body in the metabolic process.

Science now confirms through experience and research from genetics and stem cells that cellular life is not bound by a limited series of reproductive acts. Hold onto your hats!  The sky is the limit!   

Prevention and Breasts

Industrial allopathic medicine is up to it again. A few years back they confused the public and they continue the process to try to take over the term “Traditional Medicine” as though allopathic or conventional medicine was “traditional” because it had been around for a few years. In the early 1900’s industry required workers to be on the production line, and looking for quick fixes to health issues found its advocate in Dale Carnegie who backed the American Medical Associations affiliation with pharmaceutical drugs and the quick fix, such as aspirin.

In the nutritional health world “Traditional Medicine” is considered as the medicine practiced by eclectic physicians whose education was based on herbs and the heritage and experience that has developed through hundreds of years of use, study and selection. The use of herbs was the medicine practiced by M.D.’s up until the early 1900’s. The Eclectic M.D.’s were steeped in herbal knowledge beyond our present day comprehension.

NOW allopathic medicine has begun its efforts to confuse and take over the term “Preventative Medicine” by equating the removal of a woman’s breasts because of a genetic marker called a single nucleotide polymorphism, a SNIP, as an act of “preventative” medicine. This is using the term as an oxymoron. “Preventative Medicine” is where you look at the SNIP and research what nutrients turn it “off” and what environmental influences turn it “on”- and then act accordingly- doing no harm to the body.   

So what term should we use when a surgeon pre-maturely cuts off a woman’s breasts? The proper term is “Catastrophic Medicine”. In Traditional Chinese Medicine surgery is the last resort on the list of solutions to maintain health. It is used after meditation, exercise, diet, massage, geomancy*, herbalism and acupuncture have been unsuccessful in the treatment of the disease. Surgery is the final catastrophic solution used to avoid impending death. It is the loss of a limb or an organ when no other solution has been tried and failed or has been ignored and remained outside the practice of the afflicted person.                               

*Geomancy refers to the proper placement of the body within the environment. Cancer has been cured by simply a physical move to a new environment. A person may live on or near radioactive mine tailings, a heavily polluted well, a disruptive geopath, exposure to chemical and heavy metals or any of many cellular disruptors that interfere with health. They may also be living in a stressful emotional situation that is equally as harmful.

New Study – SO?

Yes, a NEW Study has just come out and reports that breathing is dangerous to your health.  First of all this is only an example of how we might respond to a “new study”. So think about it. There are ways this could be considered true and there are other ways that make the statement inconsequential and ridiculous.

Studies come and go endlessly. Some are worthy of merit, some are fabrications, and some are just poorly done. How we respond to such news is the question. It is our perception of the news that matters.

There is a place in our minds that new is always better and an improvement from the past. We get the latest cell phone, automobile, gadget. This perception is used frequently by advertisers, policy makers and news reporters.

In the world of Health NEW studies have to be evaluated carefully. Well established research, huge amounts of data, interpretations and speculations written about nutrients must be considered in relation to well established findings to properly evaluate accuracy.

For example a “new study” was printed throughout the world regarding Vitamin E being associated with early death with the warning not to take more than 200iu per day. The report was immediately challenged and refuted and ultimately fully repudiated by the scientific community. However, that response was narrowly conveyed to the public. Even on Dr. Oz’s TV Show his comment was that he took vitamin E but never more than 200iu, obviously influenced by that “new study” which was only a study and a poor one at that and nothing more- it was not a definitive and final world on the nature of vitamin E. Studies from early on to the present have found Vitamin E to be one of the safest nutrients a person can take. It is considered so safe by scientific studies that no upper limit of toxicity has been found!

The other major perception and issue to consider is to what extent a health study is presenting information that has been segmented and reduced to the point that statements regarding its nature may not be true and accurate. Often what applies to the part is not the same as what applies to the whole. This has been done for example with the Yew tree and Pau d’Arco.

Reductive thinking has become in vogue and guides one further and further away from holistic thought. In science we see herbs reduced to certain chemical levels by pharmaceutical companies to enable the process of patenting. When isolation occurs often the net of safety and buffering agents are cast aside and then the chemical synthetic substitute causes harm. The resulting drug is often an entirely new substance with little actual research and the general public becomes the guinea pigs, the quality control inspectors, the sequestered volunteers to determine its efficacy and dangers.

So beware NEW studies and reductive thinking. Dig deeply if you use or are recommended a new drug or a study that suddenly declares a vitamin or nutrient now harmful to your health.

Here is a recent example of the “New Study Syndrome” being corrected- Fish Oils and Prostate Cancer.

Seattle, WA—In mid-July, researchers from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center published an article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute claiming that high levels of omega-3 fatty acids in the blood were associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer.

The scientists examined data from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, which took place from 1994 through 2003 and involved 1,658 men who developed prostate cancer (ages 55–84) and 1,803 controls. Their blood levels of omega-3, -6 and trans-fats were examined. The group determined that the more DHA in a man’s system, the higher the risk of prostate cancer; the opposite was true of trans-fats.  In fact, DHA was associated with a 71% increased risk of a high-grade form of prostate cancer.

Many industry members believe that this study and analysis are flawed. The following is a statement on this study from WholeFoods Science Editor Richard A. Passwater, Ph.D.:

A recent on-line journal article that incorrectly associates Fish Oil intake with increased prostate risk received widespread, non-peer-reviewed media coverage that could result in harming the health of millions of persons who may discontinue their omega-3 supplementation. (Brasky, T. M., Darke, A. K., Song, X., et a., Plasma Phospholipid Fatty Acids and Prostate Cancer Risk in the SELECT Trial. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst (2013)  doi: 10.1093/jnci/djt174; First published online: July 10, 2013) The best that can be said of this article is that it is another example of “junk science.”

I question how this article was considered worthy of publication by the journal. As a result, I have conferred with my co-author and fish oil pioneer, Dr. Jørn Dyerberg and leading omega-3 researcher, Dr. Bill Harris. (The Missing Wellness Factors—EPA and DHA. Basic Health Publications, Inc. 20122) We see several issues in the article that raise questions to the authors’ results and their interpretation, but it any event this article must be taken into the context of the existing body of science that either shows no such effect or a protective effect of fish oil against prostate cancer.

The authors fail to deal in details with the results from the literature. Interestingly, this same team reported in 2010 that the use of fish oil supplements was not associated with any increased risk for prostate cancer. A 2010 meta-analysis of fish consumption and prostate cancer reported a reduction in late stage or fatal cancer among cohort studies, but no overall relationship between prostate cancer and fish intake. In 2001, a study found higher fish intake was associated with lower risk for prostate cancer incidence and death. In 2004, EPA and DHA intakes were found to reduce the risk of total and advanced prostate cancer in a cohort of 47,866 US men aged 40-75 years with no cancer history and followed for 14 y. In contrast to increased dietary intakes of ALA that may that increase the risk of advanced prostate cancer. The same group studying the same cohort had in 2003 found that each additional daily intake of 0.5 g of marine fatty acid from food was associated with a 24% decreased risk of metastatic cancer. Higher intakes of canned, preserved fish have been reported to be associated with reduced risk for prostate cancer. It has been reported that a higher omega-3 fatty acid intake predicted better survival for men who already had prostate cancer. Increased fish intake was associated with a 63% reduction in risk for aggressive prostate cancer in a case-control study. 

So there is actually considerable evidence favoring an increase in fish intake for prostate cancer risk reduction! I will discuss these findings and others in upcoming interviews with Dr. Jørn Dyerberg and Bill Harris.

Another issue not dealt with in the paper is comparing prostate cancer rates in countries with high and low fish intake and consequently high and low intake of marine omega-3 fatty acids, e.g. Japan versus the US. If the findings were true, then prostate cancer would be rampant in any country with high seafood consumption (Japan, Greenland etc.) and conversely, low level consumption should be protective. Clearly this is not the case. The Japanese typically eat about 8 times more omega-3 fatty acids than Americans do and their blood omega-3 fatty acid levels are twice as high, their prostate cancer risk would be much higher if the papers risk calculations were true, but the opposite is obviously the case.

In a paper entitled “Inuit are protected against prostate cancer,“ researchers concluded from autopsy findings in Greenland Inuits that “Our results suggest that in situ carcinoma is rare among Inuit and that their traditional diet, which is rich in omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and selenium, may be an important protective factor.”

 As to the new report itself, we found it disconcerting that the reported EPA+DHA level in the plasma phospholipids in the study was 3.62% in the no-cancer control group, 3.66% in the total cancer group, 3.67% in the low grade cancer group, and 3.74% in the high-grade cancer group. These differences between cases and controls are very small, being within the normal variation. The lowest quartile would correspond to an omega-3 Index of <3.2 % and the highest to an Index of >4.8 %. These values are obviously low. So to conclude that regular consumption of 2 oily fish meals a week or taking fish oil supplements, both of which would result in an Omega-3 Index above the observed range, would increase risk for prostate cancer is extrapolating beyond the data.

We also question why they did not control for the correct risk factors to correct for bias. And, we ask, why did the authors of the study not report how long cancer patients had the blood levels of EPA + DHA reported in the study. Did they start eating more fish or begin taking fish oil supplements after they learned they had cancer?

Drs. Dyerberg, Harris and I will discuss these concerns and others and try to bring perspective to the role of EPA and DHA in upcoming columns.

 Published in WholeFoods Magazine, Sept. 2013 (online 7/17/13)

Here is an example of a "New Study" being revised.

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, July 30, 2013

Vitamin C and Cancer:
The Naked Mole-Rat Connection

by Steve Hickey, PhD

(OMNS July 30, 2013) Naked mole-rats are highly resistant to cancer despite their living much longer than other small rodents. While laboratory mice generally live less than three years and often die of cancer, mole-rats can live up to 30 years yet tumours are rare. Researchers recently claimed that they had found an explanation.[1] It appears that naked mole-rats have a very strong tissue matrix based on a long-chain biomolecule called hyaluronic acid (hyaluronan). Supplement users may recognise this molecule from its wide use in reversing arthritis along with other glycosaminoglycans such as glucosamine and chondroitin. These supplements are used to regrow and reinforce damaged cartilage and other connective tissues. Similarly, hyaluronic acid helps mole-rats strengthen their tissues for tunnelling through soil and they have a particularly large version of the molecule. An enzyme called hyaluronidase breaks down hyaluronic acid. This and related enzymes work slowly in mole-rats which allows hyaluronic acid to accumulate in their tissues.

Hyaluronic Acid Inhibits Cancer

The abundance of hyaluronic acid in mole-rats strengthens the surrounding tissues, challenging their invasion by cancer cells. Tiny tumours have difficultly growing larger and spreading, both locally and to distant sites (metastases). In addition, hyaluronic acid acts as a signal inhibiting the growth of cancer cells. Naked mole-rat cells are seemingly far more responsive to the signal, making them even less likely to form a spreading cancer. This research "breakthrough" was recently reported in Nature, one of the world's leading scientific journals, and quickly picked up by the international media.[1] The study supports orthomolecular medicine since hyaluronic acid, available as a supplement in health food stores, is a natural molecule found in the body. So why are we somewhat less than impressed?

Vitamin C Prevents Spread of Cancer

The recent paper on cancer in mole-rats confirms and reinforces earlier findings. Going back to 1966, surgeon and orthomolecular doctor Ewan Cameron published a book on hyaluronidase and cancer which is now an expensive collector's item.[2] Over 30 years ago Ewan Cameron and Linus Pauling provided an updated explanation of how high doses of vitamin C prevent the spread of tumors.[3,4] They suggested that cells are restrained from proliferating by the highly viscous nature of hyaluronic acid and other glycosaminoglycans. In order to spread, cancer cells must escape from this restriction by breaking down these molecules in their local tissues.

Cameron and Pauling had previously described the importance of hyaluronidase and enzymes that break down hyaluronic acid.[5] They explained how cancer cells released hyaluronidase and other tissue breakdown enzymes. As they put it "the only difference between neoplasia and normal cell proliferation is the persistence of hyaluronidase release in the former."[3] They suggested that vitamin C blocked the breakdown of hyaluronic acid. In other words, Cameron and Pauling pre-empted the recent study by several decades. Some may be reminded of the description of Linus Pauling being consistently 20 years ahead of other scientists.[6]

Over the past decade it was shown that vitamin C inhibits hyaluronidase and related breakdown enzymes.[7,8] Once again this is not a new finding as it was determined by Edmond Reppert and colleagues back in 1951.[9] The recent mole-rat study is a confirmation of the core ideas of Cameron, Pauling, and others. It supports an important anticancer mechanism of high-dose vitamin C. Over the last several decades, additional ways that vitamin C attacks cancer have been established.[10-13]


Although we welcome the recent mole-rat paper, our enthusiasm is tempered by the lack of references to the far earlier work of Pauling, Cameron, and other orthomolecular researchers. The paper presents old ideas as new. Orthomolecular medicine should not be ignored when its findings are confirmed. Vitamin C provides an effective basis for the safe treatment of cancer, an important implication that the recent paper and the worldwide media coverage failed to mention.


1. Tian X, Azpurua J, Hine C. Vaidya A, Myakishev-Rempel M, Ablaeva J, Mao Z, Nevo E. Gorbunova V. Seluanov A. (2013) High-molecular-mass hyaluronan mediates the cancer resistance of the naked mole rat, Nature, Jun 19, doi: 10.1038/nature12234.

2. Cameron E. (1966) Hyaluronidase and Cancer, Pergamon Press.

3. Cameron E. and Pauling L. (1973) Ascorbic acid and the glycosaminoglycans: an orthomolecular approach to cancer and other diseases. Oncology, 27, 181-192.

4. Cameron E, Pauling L, Leibovitz B. (1979) Ascorbic acid and cancer: a review, Cancer Res., 39(3), 663-681.

5. Gonz lez MJ, Miranda-Massari JR, Mora EM, Guzm n A, Riordan NH, Riordan HD, Casciari JJ, Jackson JA, Rom n-Franco A. (2005) Orthomolecular oncology review: ascorbic acid and cancer 25 years later, Integr Cancer Ther., 4(1), 32-44.

6. Roberts H. (2004) Vitamin C, Linus Pauling was right all along. A doctor's opinion, Medical News Today, Aug 17.

7. Okorukwu ON, Vercruysse KP. (2003) Effects of ascorbic acid and analogs on the activity of testicular hyaluronidase and hyaluronan lyase on hyaluronan, J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem., 18(4), 377-382.

8. Spickenreither M, Braun S, Bernhardt G, Dove S, Buschauer A. (2006) Novel 6-O-acylated vitamin C derivatives as hyaluronidase inhibitors with selectivity for bacterial lyases, Bioorg Med Chem Lett., 16(20), 5313-5316.

9. Reppert E, Donegan J, Hines LE. (1951) Ascorbic acid and the hyaluronidase hyaluronic acid reaction, Exp Biol Med., 77(2), 318-320.

10. Hickey S (2013) Antioxidants may prevent cancer and some may even cure it.

11. OMNS (2011) Intravenous vitamin C as cancer therapy.

12. OMNS (2010) Cancer and vitamin C: Evidence-based censorship.

13. OMNS (2008) Vitamin C slows cancer down. And, doctors say, can reverse it as well.

the OMNS free subscription link and the OMNS archive link

On the Fluoridation Controversy Front

Local News:

Here is an excellent video presentation given on July 19th, 2013 at the Marin Municipal Water District Board meeting by the Executive Director of the Clean Water Sonoma Marin and five other participants.

Don't Feed Fluoridated Water to Infants

     This is the advice that Eleven Government Agencies, Health Departments, Dental Groups and Seven Cities give Parents to Avoid Dental Fluorosis.  (41% of US teens now have Fluoride Discolored and Stained Permanent Teeth)     


Health and Human Services           Centers for Disease Control
Academy of General Dentistry       Mayo Clinic
Vermont Dept. of Health               New York State Dept of Health
California Dental Assn.                  American Dental Assn.
National Research Council            American Public Health Assn.
SmileFlorida, part of Florida Dental Assn. Inc 


Chester, PA     Milwaukee, Wisconsin    Des Moines, IO Water Works    Broomfield, CO     Ormond Beach, FL    Sugarland TX            Sunnyvale, CA  (

    These agencies now join the National Institute of Health and American Academy of Pediatric Dentists who warned parents in 2006:

      "...If a child under the age of six months is exclusively consuming infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water, there may be an increased chance of dental fluorosis." 

   Formula-fed infants can get up to 200 times more fluoride than breastfed babies who get next to none.  The EPA says babies also absorb more chemical toxins in baths than in drinks so baby baths should be short.   Some 90% of Fluoride absorbed by infants stays in the baby's bones.

      41% of teens in the U.S. today have stained permanent teeth from too much fluoride as infants.  Hispanic and African-American children have much higher amounts.  They still get cavities since cavities are caused by a bacteria from adults:  streptococcus mutans and sucrose (sugar) in the baby's mouth.  Fluoride or antibiotics do not destroy the bacteria.  Xylitol gum can reduce it.

Fluoride for humans:

0 to 6 months    None

6 mo to 3 yrs    .25 mgs (ppm)

3   to 6  yrs       .50 mgs

6 to 16 yrs        .75 mgs      (Amer. Academy of Ped. Dentistry 2008)

Women             3 mgs

Men                  4 mgs          (USDA fluoride in 505 foods and beverages  2004) 

Compiled by Arlene Goetze, M.A. writer/researcher on health

from data in, USDA fluorideinfood, ADA abstract on formula. 

Portland Votes NO to Water Fluoridation

In a city wide election, the pivotal issue regarding water fluoridation is tooth decay prevention. A recent independent report was hidden from release until legal action allowed its publication in time of the election showing that residents of Portland had fewer cavities without fluoridated water than neighboring communities with fluoridated water. This is called evidence in the legal world and adds to the science evidence that fluoridated water is causing many health problems. This is mainly due to its character as an enzyme disruptor. The teeth mirror the health of the body and scientific proof of fluorides presence in glands that should be free of its  presence is extremely important especially in the pineal gland and thyroid gland.

The American Dental Association now agrees with the Food and Drug Administration and the Center for Disease Control that 1 part per million is too high for communities because of the dramatic increase of fluorosis found in young people.

Along with these findings a report in 2013 has shown that the kind of fluoride added to water is of major significance with the controversial hydro fluorosilicic acid which is added to our water in San Francisco reported 100times more toxic than sodium fluoride in causing cancer.

It seems ridiculous that cities are using that form of an already toxic element that also carries with it small amounts of arsenic and lead. Why would a city even pick such a source? What strange back room exchanges have occurred to choose that source from the companies that have it as industrial waste? How can a water board of elected citizens be so compromised to pick or agree to continue such procedures?

More and more court cases are appearing on the dockets regarding harm from fluoride exposure. Even recently in England a toothpaste company made an out of court settlement regarding harm from their fluoride toothpaste. Full exposure is on the horizon as people read the science and research regarding fluoridation. It’s hard for one to overcome years of hearing fluoride prevents cavities to looking at the overwhelming evidence and science saying the opposite.

A Chronological History of Fluoride!

Here's a little news item showing the intensity of hydro fluorosilicic acid

And now for something different: Here’s a little Political History lesson received from a friend:

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

What is the Declaration of Independence? A declaration of the colonies independence from Great Britain and their rationale for that action.

What is the source of people’s Natural Rights?  God, who inalienably granted certain rights to people.

What are those inalienable rights?  Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness.

What is the purpose of government:  To pursue those inalienable rights.

What is the source of government power? The consent of the people governed.

What are people’s right regarding government? To alter or abolish an unjust government.

What is the objective of government? To preserve & protect people’s safety & happiness.

What are people’s rights for representation?  To represent themselves before the government, and especially if taxed by government.

What are people’s rights regarding trials? An independent judiciary, just process & trial by jury.

What are people’s rights regarding the military?  Permanent military must have legislative authority; no mandatory housing of military in private homes; civilians should control the military; and trying military troops in civil courts for civil crimes.

What did it mean to sign the Declaration?  Each signatory knew that they committed treason, a crime punishable by death.

What did the delegates mutually pledge?  Their Lives, Fortunes, and sacred Honor.

An Act of the Second Continental Congress Final draft verbally approved July 4, 1776

“Those willing to sacrifice liberty for safety, deserve neither.” 

Parsed from the original: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin in Historical Review of Pennsylvania -1759 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. The products listed in this newsletter are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Consult with your physician before taking any of these products.