Scientists cure cancer but no one takes notice

http://www.sott.net/article/228583-Scientists-cure-cancer-but-no-one-takes-notice

Bob Marley: everything happens for a reason

Powerful people wanted Marley dead. They tried to assassinate him and failed. Later he got cancer. Eventually he died. In the end, Bob Marley was dead just the same as if he was assassinated. In the end, no one was accountable for his death. It was a WIN WIN for the powerful. Lucky for them he got cancer and died.

That is the "beauty" of a death by "natural" causes: it's nobody's fault. It is cruel fate, the vagaries of the human body, the mysterious genome.....


It Was God's Will.
It Was Meant To Happen.
Everything Happens For A Reason.
Regrettable.

The American Cancer Society, just one of many organizations dedicated to cancer, is a billion dollar a year boondoggle that's been in place for almost 100 years. No luck with the cure yet. Perhaps you should buy something pink, as part of the research and AWARENESS campaign for breast cancer.

How about a pink jet?

http://iloapp.liladesign.com/blog/aviationbrandingweblog?Home&post=112

Who can say how many billions of dollars are poured into the cancer industry, each year, year after year; and hardly anyone raises an eyebrow and finds it odd that the brilliant scientists can't ever seem to find a cure, as our environment and food supply are continually degraded with pollutants, also coming from the laboratories.

To our mind, it is absolutely plausible and extremely likely that cancer can be artificially induced on a specific target. Is that not how cancer *always* develops? Something causes it. YOUR genes. YOUR diet. YOUR failure to exercise. YOUR failure to quit smoking those horribly addictive wads. Certainly we must realize that the causes, the mechanism of how various pollutants cause cancer, has been studied and understood with some of the billions and billions of research monies devoted to cancer over the past hundred years? Good luck doing everything right and avoiding the invisible cancer-causing particles coating everything you touch and breathe. Sorry about those invisible particles. Unfortunately, that is nobody's fault.

From there it is a tiny leap of the imagination to think that if powerful people wanted someone dead, and they wanted the death to be completely deniable, that they could GIVE the person cancer, very specifically, and then assure that treatments would FAIL to cure the person of cancer. Eventually the person would die, a slow death full of suffering.

In fact that is EXACTLY how Bob Marley died. The only thing you have to entertain is whether you think it is possible, whether the technological understanding exists, whether the malice exists, to GIVE someone cancer. And whether you think it was possible to do those things in the 1970s.

Bob Marley: A healthy man in his prime.

http://bobmarleytshirts.net/bob-marley-biography/

Bob Marley followed an 'ital' diet of primarily fruits and vegetables, and he loved to play soccer. Good diet and exercise. CHECK! He was just very unlucky then, to get cancer IN HIS TOE?

He was gifted a pair of suspect boots in 1976.

Lew Lee, a documentary filmmaker said; "People came by his house. There were always people going in and out.Someone gave Bob a pair of boots. He put his foot in and said "Ow!" A friend got in there - you know how Jamaicans are. He said, "let's get in here" - in the boot, and he pulled a piece of copper wire out. It was embedded in the boot." The assumption is it was radioactive because Marley later broke his toe playing soccer in London and when the bone wouldn't mend, the doctors found that the toe had cancer.

The boots were a gift from Carl Colby, son of the late William Colby, CIA director. William Colby was very much alive at the time.

Surviving an attempt on his life by a well-armed death squad at his Hope Road home in Jamaica, Bob was later given a 'gift' of a new pair of boots by Carl Colby, son of the late CIA director William Colby. When the unsuspecting Marley put them on, something pricked his foot. He then reached into one of the boots and pulled out a piece of copper wire. Many of his closest friends suspected that the wire contained some carcinogenic substance, since Marley contracted cancer shortly thereafter.

William Colby died a suspicious death, by the way, in 1996. William Colby learned a lot of secrets about the CIA and heroin, Israeli spying, and the CIA's involvement with child sex abuse scandals, during his time as CIA director between 1973 and 1976.He was scheduled to testify before a congressional committee when he suddenly drowned while canoeing at night.

It is important to note the timing and circumstances of the gift boots: a week after the assassination attempt, in early December 1976.

There has since been widespread belief that the CIA arranged the hit on Hope Road. Neville Garrick, a Marley insider and former art director of the Jamaican Daily News, had film of “suspicious characters” lurking near the house before the assassination attempt. The day of the shooting he had snapped some photos of Marley standing beside a Volkswagen in a pool of mango-tree shade. The strangers in the background made Marley nervous; he told Garrick that they appeared to be “scouting” the property. In the prints, however, their features were too blurred by shadow to make out. After the concert, Garrick took the photographs and prints to Nassau. Sadly, while the Wailers and crew prepared to board a flight to London, he discovered that the film had been stolen.

Many of the CIA’s files on Bob Marley remain classified to the present day. However, on December 5, 1976, a week after the assault on Hope Road, the Wailers appeared at the Smile Jamaica fest, despite their wounds, to perform one long, defiant anthem of rage directed at the CIA – “War” – suggesting the Wailers’ own attitude toward the “Vampires” from Langley....Only a handful of Marley’s most trusted comrades knew of the band’s whereabouts before the festival. Yet a member of the film crew, or so he claimed – reportedly, he didn’t have a camera – managed to talk his way past machete-bearing Rastas to enter the Hope Road encampment: one Carl Colby, son of the late CIA director William Colby. ...While the band prepared for the concert, a gift was delivered, according to a witness at the enclave – a pair of boots for Bob Marley.

Quick recap: One week after nearly being assassinated in a hail of bullets, during a full-blown CIA orchestrated destabilization campaign against Jamaica that Marley recognized and opposed with his music, the son of the CIA director manages to talk his way past armed guards, to get into the secret location of Marley's band, and gave Marley a pair of boots that stabbed his toe with an embedded copper wire.

Coincidentally, that same toe later became the source of malignant cancer that spread throughout his body, killing him.

Frankly, we are not sure what part of that is NOT suspicious.


Five months later, Marley injured the same toe in a soccer game. The toenail came off. 

In his revealing book, “Marley And Me”, former Wailers manager Don Taylor notes that an unknown doctor came and gave Bob a still unknown injection in his toe right after the ball game was interrupted. Malignant cancer, originating in the same toe, was diagnosed some time after.

"Some time after" being three years later. The toe would not heal. Two months later Marley was limping and the toe had become so infected that a doctor recommended amputation. He had a skin graft performed instead. For three years he immersed himself in music, refusing medical attention while his health deteriorated. In September 1980 he suffered a stroke while out on a run in New York's Central Park, which forced him into medical care. His cancer diagnosis followed, which by this time had metastasized to his liver, brain and lungs. He quickly cycled through a few standard treatments before being referred to a doctor in Bavaria.

Marley was steered to Dr. Issel, a "holistic comprehensive immunotherapist," via Dr. Carl "Pee Wee" Fraser in Jamaica.

Marley's manager, Don Taylor (a man who made questionable decisions with Marley's money) wrote in his book Marley and Me that a "senior CIA agent" had been planted amoung the crew, assassination was the objective.

When Marley was diagnosed with cancer, he returned to Jamaica where he was referred to Dr. Carl "Pee Wee" Fraser. Fraser advised Marley to seek treatment from a Dr. Josef Issels in Bavaria.

Dr. Issels proceeded to torture Bob Marley, who was by this time loaded with cancer.

Dying.

Marley believed he was being poisoned and called Issels a mad man shortly before his death.

They cut Bob's dreadlocks off and he was getting all of this crazy, crazy (experimental) medical treatment in Switzerland. I know this because of Ray Von Evans, who played in Marley's group, we were very close friends. As Bob was receiving these medical treatments, Ray would come by every two or three months and told me, "Yeah, mon, they're killing Bob. They are KILLING Bob." I said, "What do you mean they are killing Bob?" "No, no, mon," he said. "Dis Dr. Issels, he's a Nazi!"

During Bob's stay at Dr. Joseph Issels clinic in Bad Wiesse,he was subjected to blood transfusions, hyperthermia and illegal injections of THX. He was put on a restricted diet until he weighed only five stones, his friends who found his weight loss alarming, felt the treatment was "breaking down Bob's physical structure."

But a very 'telling' conversation took place when Dr. Issels told Bob a story about a German friend who had advised Issels not to treat him, saying that Marley was the most dangerous black man on the planet. A strange (Nazi) acquaintance for an eminent doctor? Not really, Joseph Issels was an officer in the SS, a colleague of Joseph Mengele and had served a jail term for manslaughter. Mengele survived the war and enjoyed the protection and employment of the CIA.

Bob himself sometimes felt the injections he was given were poison, and in bad moments thought they were trying to kill him. When Bob was too ill to continue treatment and Issels sent him home to die, he kissed his teeth bitterly and said softly, "Dr. Issels is a madman." Robert Nesta Marley, the King of Reggae, had been at the pinnacle of his career and was in danger of inciting peace and unity when he died of cancer in a Miami hospital on Monday May 11, 1981.

Still alive.

ohverlycritical.com

Note the gratuitous cruelty of the treatments.

Cedella Booker-Marley, his mother, visited him three times in the course of the “treatments.” She found Dr. Issels to be an “arrogant wretch” with the “gruff manners of a bully,” who subjected her dying son to a bloodless brand of “hocus-pocus” medicine. Booker-Marley: “I myself witnessed Issels’ rough treatment of Nesta [Marley]. One time I went with Nesta to the clinic, and we settled down in a treatment room. Issels came in and announced to Nesta, ‘I’m going to give you a needle.’” Dr. Issels “plunged the needle straight into Nesta’s navel right down to the syringe. [Marley] grunted and winced. He could only lie there helplessly, writhing on the table, trying his best to hide his pain. ‘Jesus Christ,’ I heard myself mumbling.” Issels yanked out the needle and strolled casually out of the room. Marley was left groaning with pain. “I went and stood at his side and held is hand.

“With every visit,” she recalls, “I found him smaller, frailer, thinner. As the months of dying dragged on, the suffering was etched all over his face. He would fall into fits of shaking, when he would lose all control and shiver from head to toe like a coconut leaf in the breeze. His eyes would turn in his head, rolling in their sockets until even the white jelly was quivering.”

Marley’s torment was aggravated by starvation. “For a whole week sometimes,” Booker laments, her son “would be allowed no nourishment other than what he got intravenously. Constantly hungry, even starving, he wasted away to a skeleton” – starved to death like an Auschwitz inmate. “To watch my first-born shrivel up to skin and bone ripped at my mother’s heart.” Marley weighed 82 pounds on the day of his death. The starvation diet must have devastated his immune system and rushed his demise, not prolonged his life as Dr. Issels and some biographers have contended. It also caused him intense pain. “It would drag on so, for one long painful month after the other, and every day would be a knife that death stabbed and twisted anew in an already open, bleeding wound.” The agony “wrapped him up like a crushing snake.”

"Here are some of the last known photo's of Bob Marley a few months before his death while in Munich, Germany with Dr. Josef Issels who was treating him for cancer…" 

Cheers.

So, the main objection of the "conspiracy theory" that Marley was given induced cancer is simply the inability to believe that such a thing is possible. 

After all, everyone knows that cancer is a fatal disease, and Bob had it and died from it and that’s a great pity… but murdered? How ridiculous!

But since Fukushima, we have had an education about radiation. We learned that there are different kinds of radiation, and in some cases, a single particle of radiation can become embedded in the body, say in the lungs, and from there bombard the body continuously with deadly radioactivity, causing tissue to destruct at the cellular level, aka: cancer.

This is the mechanism by which a single, invisible, radioactive particle of plutonium can cause cancer.

Imagine if the copper wire on the boots had been tipped with a bit of plutonium, for instance. Imagine that the plutonium ended up in Marley's toe, through the tiny puncture wound. The toe would now be infused with a non-stop radioactive particle. Eventually the toe would become cancerous. Eventually the cancer would metastasize. And that is what happened to Marley. His toe had cancer, which he found out *after* breaking the toe in soccer. The cancer spread. He was given ineffective treatments. He died.

That is but one possibility that we can think of off the top of our head. We expect that the CIA has many options at its disposal for inducing cancer, along with heart attacks, multiple personality disorder, etc. We expect the CIA already had many of these methods since post WWII, since Operation Paperclip.

Bottom line is this: People wanted him dead. Then, conveniently, he died. Point A to Point B, with a long layover at Suffering City. You can believe it was all a remarkable coincidence, and bad luck, an Act of God, Mother Nature, etc.....

the usual suspects.....

...because it took a little extra time to get to Point B. The time between a poisoning and a death has long been very useful for avoiding responsibility. See asbestos, for instance. See radiation. See cigarettes.

It Was God's Will.
It Was Meant To Happen.
Everything Happens For A Reason.


Everything Happens For A Reason. Even Cancer.

http://www.accidental-brilliance.com/2010_10_01_archive.html

Source: http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/05/who-killed-bob-marley-2955496.html

The medical experts who refuse to use low-energy lightbulbs in their homes: Professors have stocked up on old-style bulbs to protect against skin cancer and blindness. So should YOU be worried?

The medical experts who refuse to use low-energy lightbulbs in their homes: Professors have stocked up on old-style bulbs to protect against skin cancer and blindness. So should YOU 

More...

• Why a tight belt can lead to sore knees as it changes the way stomach muscles work

• Superman surgeon who cycles to the rescue day and night - and even buys patients wine!

• ME AND MY OPERATION: Forty-minute wonder op to treat emphysema gets damaged lungs working again

'The most damaging part of the spectrum is the short wavelength light at the indigo/violet end of blue.
'Incandescent bulbs did not cause problems, but these low-energy lamps emit high peaks of blue and ultraviolet light at this wavelength.'

HOW THEY CAN ATTACK YOUR EYES 

Invented in the late 1800s, but how do light bulbs work?

READING LAMP DANGER ZONES

The LINK TO MIGRAINE

A study by Germany's Federal Environment Agency found a broken low-energy bulb emits levels of the vapour up to 20 times higher than the safe guideline limit for an indoor area.

RISK OF FAULTY BULBS
She adds: 'European scientific experts have not found any health impact from UV rays emitted by energy-saving bulbs in normal conditions.

FIRST light bulb which you can turn on with NO POWER

By JOHN NAISH

How would you view a man who's stockpiled a lifetime supply of old-fashioned lightbulbs because he believes low-energy bulbs could lead to blindness? 

You might well dismiss him as dotty. But the man in question, John Marshall, is no crank. In fact, he's one of Britain's most eminent eye experts, the professor of ophthalmology at the University College London Institute of Ophthalmology. So concerned is he that he has boxes stacked with old-fashioned incandescent lightbulbs at home. 

'I bulk bought incandescent lightbulbs before the Government made it illegal to import them,' he says.

Scroll down for video

Top eye expert Prof John Marshall has boxes stacked with old-fashioned incandescent lightbulbs at home

Nor is he alone in his concerns about modern lightbulbs. Another eminent British professor, John Hawk, an expert in skin disease, is warning they may cause sunburn-like damage, premature aging and even skin cancer. 

He doesn't have any low-energy bulbs in his house, explaining: 'I have lots of old-style bulbs I bought in bulk when they were available.'

Incandescent bulbs had been the standard form of illumination for more than a century. But following an EU directive, the Government banned the import of 100-watt bulbs from 2009. This was followed by a ban on 60w bulbs in 2011 and a full ban on all 'traditional' bulbs in 2012.

The EU directive was aimed at cutting fuel and carbon emissions. The low-energy bulbs - or compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), to give them their technical name - are said to use 80 per cent less electricity and to  last longer. 

Old-fashioned incandescent bulbs work by electrically heating a filament inside a glass globe filled with inert gas, so that it emits light. 

Instead of a glowing filament, low-energy bulbs have argon and mercury vapour within a spiral-shaped tube. When the gas gets heated, it produces ultraviolet light. This stimulates a fluorescent coating painted on the inside of the tube. As this coating absorbs energy, it emits light.

The concern is about some of the light rays emitted in high levels by these bulbs, says Professor Marshall.  Recent scientific evidence shows these specific rays are particularly damaging to human eyes and skin. 

Light is made up of a spectrum of different coloured rays of light, which have different wavelengths. As he explains: 'Light is a form of radiation. The shorter the wavelength, the more  energy it contains.

Low-energy bulbs are said to use 80 per cent less electricity and to last longer

In the same way ultraviolet rays in sunlight can cause premature aging in our skin if we get sunburnt, there is a similar situation in the eye, says Professor Marshall. 

'You shed skin every five days, but your retina is with you for life.'

The retina at the back of the eye is vital for sight - it's made up of light-sensitive cells that trigger nerve impulses that pass via the optic nerve to the brain, where visual images are formed.

Sustained exposure to ultraviolet light wavelengths from CFLs increases the risk of two seriously debilitating eye conditions, macular degeneration and cataracts, the professor claims.

With macular degeneration, the macula, which is at the centre of the retina, becomes damaged with age. A cataract is a clouding of the lens inside the eye. These are two of the leading causes of blindness in Britain.

'If you are in a country with high levels of ultraviolet light, your eyes will age faster,' he says. 'This is why the incidence of cataracts is earlier and greater nearer the equator, where sunlight is at its strongest, so there is more light across all spectrums. CFLs may have a similar effect.

'The exposure can also significantly increase your risk of macular degeneration. The biggest risk factor for this is age, as it commonly starts to affect people from 60 to 80. 

'You will almost certainly exacerbate that risk with low-energy lightbulbs,' adds the professor, who last month warned his colleagues of the dangers at Optrafair, a national education forum for opticians.

But it's not just your eyes that may be at risk from these lightbulbs. 

Professor John Hawk, the retired head of the photobiology unit at St John's Institute of Dermatology, King's College, London, warns: 'There is good evidence that the CFLs that have been foisted upon us emit radiation sufficient to cause damage to the skin if used close by for long enough.'

He says the risk is particularly high if the bulb is a metre or less from your body, which is common as people use them in reading lamps.

'There is evidence that demonstrates that the lamps can not only cause damage to skin, but also short-term symptoms such as sun rash and prickly heat, a condition that medically is called polymorphic light eruption.

The year ultraviolet rays were discovered by physicist Johann Wilhelm

'As with any ultraviolet damage, these effects can add up over the years. The cumulative effect of this ultra-violet light causing burning, skin cell damage and aging skin, is that it must to some small, but significant, extent, increase the risk of skin cancer.' 

Low-energy bulbs are also known to cause trouble to people who have lupus, an auto-immune disorder that typically affects the skin, joints and internal organs. Irritation caused by ultraviolet light worsens the rashes, joint pain and fatigue associated with the disease. 

According to the Lupus Foundation of America, up to two-thirds of people with the condition are sensitive to CFLs.

The EU has acknowledged that exposure to low-energy lightbulbs may cause skin damage. But a report published in 2008 by its Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks said this risk is only with  'prolonged' exposure at distances of less than 20cm. 

In such cases, 'CFLs may lead to UV exposures approaching the work- place limit set to protect workers from skin and retinal damage'. 

'Migraines and epilepsy are also problems,' says Professor Hawk. 'I have seen 30 skin patients in my clinic who have been experiencing these problems linked to the bulbs.' 

This may be because low-energy bulbs can flicker imperceptibly (incandescent bulbs flicker only when they are about to break). 

A 2013 study in the journal Neurology found that flickering lights are likely to trigger migraines in some sufferers. Flickering lights are also a trigger for epileptic fits.

Eleanor Levin, 44, a teacher of Spanish and music from Lancaster, blames low-energy bulbs for her headaches. She says she can't be in the same room as one as it will trigger attacks of nausea, confusion and migraine. She first noticed the problem three years ago, when she began to suffer headaches in the office where she worked. 'In the end, it made me so ill I had to give up that job,' she says. 

Flickering lights are likely to trigger migraines in some sufferers. They are also a trigger for epileptic fits

Eleanor has seen an array of doctors and neurologists. 

'Some neurologists have told me they believe the problem is caused by light flickering and is related to migraines,' she says. 

'I have old-fashioned incandescent lights at home and don't get headaches - that's why I now teach students at home for a living. I'm also fine with halogen bulbs.'

But she says she has to be careful where she goes at night. 'Luckily, there are enough places that use gentle ambient light without these bulbs,' she says.

'The EU accepts there can be skin-damage problems related to low-energy lightbulbs, but not headaches. I suspect there are a lot of people who suffer milder problems with CFL bulb-related headaches, but who have not made the link with the cause.'

It's also previously been reported that low-energy bulbs contain small amounts of mercury, raising concerns that if the glass is broken, this toxic substance could be released into the air or landfill. 

While the amounts are relatively small, if a low-energy bulb does break, Public Health England advises householders to evacuate the room and leave it to ventilate for 15 minutes. 

You're advised to wear gloves while wiping the area with a damp cloth and picking up the fragments - these should be placed in a plastic bag, then sealed. 

This should be taken to a council dump and placed in  a special recycling bank - councils do not collect hazardous waste in normal collections.

Incandescent bulbs had been the standard form of illumination for more than a century

Another potential concern is that low-energy bulbs bought off the shelf vary considerably in the amount of dangerous spectrum ultraviolet light they emit, according to research at Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, by Professor Harry Moseley, its head of photo-biology. 'There appear to be significant problems with quality control in their manufacture,' he says. 

'Our testing has found that in a batch of ten CFLs from randomly selected makers, one may be significantly worse than  the rest, because, for example, it has a fault in its light-shielding.'

Professor Moseley says that the 'single-envelope' bulbs - the low-energy bulbs where the coiled  parts are visible - tend to emit the highest levels of ultraviolet light. 

He believes those with a 'double' envelope - where a pearly dome like an old- fashioned lightbulb covers the coiled parts - tend to block out UV light 'much better'.

Dermatologist Professor Hawk acknowledges the efforts to improve the bulbs by providing clouded glass domes. 

'But we are not sure how improved they are,' he says. 

He has been trying to lobby the EU to lift its ban on incandescent bulbs. 

'I have talked to the committee on light safety in Brussels about these concerns, but no one there seems to be interested in this,' he says. 

'The EU was trying to be green by introducing CFLs, but they did not think of the health consequences. They are  very reluctant to reverse  its policies.'

Anne Vick, the communications director of Lighting Europe, the industry association representing leading lighting manufacturers, maintains 'there is no risk from ultra- violet light exposure emitted by  CFLs as their UVA and UVB rays are well within the limits that guarantee consumer protection'.

'For workers exposed to high levels of light and for people affected by extreme light sensitivity, experts recommended using double-envelope lamps. 

'CFLs comply with all relevant consumer protection legislation. All lamps are thoroughly tested in order to ensure safe applications for all consumers.'

Meanwhile, an EU spokes- person told the Mail that 'based on scientific evidence, an EU scientific committee in 2008 and the UK's Health Protection Agency came to the conclusion that in normal use compact fluorescent lamps do not pose risks to the general public'.

However, Professor Moseley is not convinced. 

He says that what's needed is better legislation from the EU on the quality and safety of  low-energy lighting. 

'But they are very reluctant,' he says. 'Their feeling is that it is the sufferers' problem. In Brussels, the carbon emission targets take precedence.'

Eye expert Professor Marshall has a far simpler, if rather blunt, solution. 

'I would like to urge the manufacturers of these lightbulbs to get rid of them.'

Source: http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/the-medical-experts-who-refuse-to-use-low-energy-lightbulbs-in-their-homes-professors-have-stocked-up-on-old-style-bulbs-to-protect-against-skin-cancer-and-blindness-so-should-you-be-worried/

Cancer in a Can: The Shocking True Story of how Pringles are Made

To understand the nature of Pringles and other stackable chips, forget the notion that they come from actual potatoes in any recognizable way.

The Pringles Company (in an effort to avoid taxes levied against “luxury foods” like chips in the UK) once even argued that the potato content of their chips was so low that they are technically not even potato chips.

So if they’re not made of potatoes, what are they exactly?

The process begins with a slurry of rice, wheat, corn, and potato flakes that are pressed into shape.

This dough-like substance is then rolled out into an ultra-thin sheet cut into chip-cookies by a machine.

According to io9:

“The chips move forward on a conveyor belt until they’re pressed onto molds, which give them the curve that makes them fit into one another.

Those molds move through boiling oil … Then they’re blown dry, sprayed with powdered flavors, and at last, flipped onto a slower-moving conveyor belt in a way that allows them to stack.

From then on, it’s into the cans … and off towards the innocent mouths of the consumers.”

I suspect nearly everyone reading this likely enjoys the taste of potato chips. However, they are clearly one of the most toxic processed foods you can eat—whether they’re made from actual potato shavings or not.

Potato Chips are Loaded with Cancer-Causing Chemical

One of the most hazardous ingredients in potato chips is not intentionally added, but rather is a byproduct of the processing.

Acrylamide, a cancer-causing and potentially neurotoxic chemical, is creaed when carbohydrate-rich foods are cooked at high temperatures, whether baked, fried, roasted or toasted. Some of the worst offenders include potato chips and French fries, but many foods cooked or processed at temperatures above 212°F (100°C) may contain acrylamide. As a general rule, the chemical is formed when food is heated enough to produce a fairly dry and brown/yellow surface. Hence, it can be found in:

• Potatoes: chips, French fries and other roasted or fried potato foods
• Grains: bread crust, toast, crisp bread, roasted breakfast cereals and various processed snacks
• Coffee; roasted coffee beans and ground coffee powder. Surprisingly, coffee substitutes based on chicory actually contains 2-3 times MORE acrylamide than real coffee

How Much Acrylamide are You Consuming?

The federal limit for acrylamide in drinking water is 0.5 parts per billion, or about 0.12 micrograms in an eight-ounce glass of water. However, a six-ounce serving of French fries can contain 60 micrograms of acrylamide, or about FIVE HUNDRED times over the allowable limit.

Similarly, potato chips are notoriously high in this dangerous chemical. So high, in fact, that in 2005 the state of California actually sued potato chip makers for failing to warn California consumers about the health risks of acrylamide in their products. A settlement was reached in 2008 when Frito-Lay and several other potato chip makers agreed to reduce the acrylamide levels in their chips to 275 parts per billion (ppb) by 2011, which is low enough to avoid needing a cancer warning label.

The 2005 report “How Potato Chips Stack Up: Levels of Cancer-Causing Acrylamide in Popular Brands of Potato Chips,” issued by the California-basedEnvironmental Law Foundation (ELF), spelled out the dangers of this popular snack. Their analysis found that all potato chip products tested exceeded the legal limit of acrylamide by a minimum of 39 times, and as much as 910 times! Some of the worst offenders at that time included:

• Cape Cod Robust Russet: 910 times the legal limit of acrylamide
• Kettle Chips (lightly salted): 505 times
• Kettle Chips (honey dijon): 495 times

Beware: Baked Chips May Be WORSE than Fried!

If you think you can avoid the health risks of potato chips by choosing baked varieties, which are typically advertised as being “healthier,” think again. Remember that acrylamide is formed not only when foods are fried or broiled, but also when they are baked. And according to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data on acrylamide levels in foods, baked chips may contain more than three times the level of acrylamide as regular chips!

Interestingly, the same trend holds true for other foods, too, which suggests that baking processed potatoes at high temperature may be one of the worst ways to cook them. For instance, according to the FDA’s data, Ore Ida Golden Fries contained 107 ppb of acrylamide in the regular fried version and 1,098 when baked. So remember, ALL potato chips contain acrylamide, regardless of whether they are natural or not; baked or fried. Likewise, they will ALL influence your insulin levels in a very negative way.

Acrylamide is Not the Only Danger

Acrylamide is not the only dangerous genotoxic compound formed when food is heated to high temperatures.

A three-year long EU project, known as Heat-Generated Food Toxicants (HEATOX), whose findings were published at the end of 2007, found there are more than 800 heat-induced compounds, of which 52 are potential carcinogens. In addition to their finding that acrylamide does pose a public health threat, the HEATOX scientists also discovered that you’re far less likely to ingest dangerous levels of the toxin when you eat home-cooked foods compared to industrially or restaurant-prepared foods.

Additionally, the HEATOX findings also suggest that although there are ways to decrease exposure to acrylamide, it cannot be eliminated completely.

According to their calculations, successful application of all presently known methods would reduce the acrylamide intake by40 percent at the most—which makes me wonder whether chip manufacturers have really succeeded at this point in reducing acrylamide levels to within legal limits… There’s no updated data as of yet, so there’s no telling whether they’ve been able to comply with the 2005 settlement.

For more in-depth information about acrylamide, I recommend reading the online report Heat-generated Food Toxicants, Identification, Characterization and Risk Minimization.  In general however, just remember that cooking food at high temperatures is ill advised. A few of the most well-known toxins created in high-temperature cooking include:

• Heterocyclic Amines (HCAs): These form when meat is cooked at high temperatures, and they’re also linked to cancer. In terms of HCA, the worst part of the meat is the blackened section, which is why you should always avoid charring your meat, and never eat blackened sections.
• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): When fat drips onto the heat source, causing excess smoke, and the smoke surrounds your food, it can transfer cancer-causing PAHs to the meat.
• Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs): When food is cooked at high temperatures (including when it is pasteurized or sterilized), it increases the formation of AGEs in your food. When you eat the food, it transfers the AGEs into your body. AGEs build up in your body over time leading to oxidative stress, inflammation and an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and kidney disease.

The Search for a “Healthful” Chip Continues…

Like a modern-day search for the Holy Grail, chip manufacturers keep searching for methods to improve the image of their health-harming but profitable snacks. For example, by the end of 2011, about half of Pepsi’s Frito-Lay brand snacks will be reformulated with all-natural ingredients. The switch is part of PepsiCo’s master plan to tap into the healthy foods market share. The Wall Street Journal recently reported the company hopes to boost their nutrition business from $10 billion to $30 billion by 2020.

The company will remove dietary hazards like monosodium glutamate (MSG), replacing it with natural seasonings, such as molasses and paprika. Artificial colors will be replaced with beet juice, purple cabbage and carrots. All in all, about different 60 snacks are scheduled to get an all-natural makeover.

This is certainly a good example of how consumer demand can alter the direction of food manufacturers in a positive way.

The reformulated chips may end up being less bad for you than the original formulations. However, chips will never be truly healthful. All-natural chips may be the lesser of two evils, but if consumed regularly, they will still push your health in the wrong direction… There’s no getting away from the fact that modern plagues such as cancer, heart disease, obesity, and diabetes have a dietary component, and potato chips and French fries will always be a losing bet if you want to avoid becoming another disease statistic

How to Avoid Heat-Induced Toxins in Your Diet

Ideally, you should consume foods that are raw or minimally processed to avoid these types of toxic byproducts—the more raw food, the better. My nutrition plan emphasizes the need for at least one-third of your foods to be consumed raw. Personally, I consume about 80 percent of my food raw, and I find it is one of the most important factors that help keep me healthy.

It may take you awhile to switch over to a less processed diet, but throwing out the most obvious culprits would be a great start.

These would include:

• French fries and potato chips
• All sodas (both regular and diet, as artificial sweeteners may be more problematic than fructose)
• Doughnuts

Healthy Eating Made Easy

Aside from creating potentially toxic byproducts, cooking and processing also depletes the food of valuable micronutrients, which is another reason for eating as much raw food as possible. This includes protein sources such as eggs. Raw whole eggs from organic, pastured chickens are an incredible source of high-quality nutrients that many are deficient in. Raw milk is another good example of a food that is beneficial in its raw state but becomes harmful after it is pasteurized.

By opting for foods that will benefit your health, such as raw, preferably organic and/or locally-grown vegetables, organic grass-fed meats, healthy oils, raw dairy, nuts and seeds, you can change your health for the better. These are the foods that are truly natural, and quite easy to prepare once you get the hang of it.

For a step-by-step guide to make the transition to a healthier diet as simple and smooth as possible, simply follow the advice in my optimized nutrition plan.

Remember, eating fresh whole foods is the “secret” to getting healthier, losing weight and really enjoying your food. It’s unfortunate that so many are under the mistaken belief that it’s “next to impossible” to create a meal without processed foods. Bruce Weinstein and Mark Scarbrough tackle this issue head-on in their book Real Food Has Curves, which is a great starting point to “relearn” the basics of how to enjoy and prepare real food.

Once you get used to it, you’ll find you can whip up a healthful meal from scratch in the same amount of time it would have taken you to drive down the street to pick up fast food. The main difference will be greater satisfaction, both physically and mentally, and perhaps even financially, as processed foods typically end up being more expensive than cooking from scratch.

Source: Mercola.com

- See more at: http://asheepnomore.net/2014/01/02/cancer-can-shocking-true-story-pringles-made/#sthash.pqGlT7Cm.dpuf