Applied Trophology, Vol. 4, Nos. 1–2 (January/February 1960)

Intelligence Test; Carcinogenicity of Heated Fat; Pit Cherries Against Arthritis; Tip of the Month (Achlorhydria); Ready-Mixed; Arginex

Contents in this issue:

  • “Intelligence Test to Detect How Much You Have Been Brainwashed,”
  • “Carcinogenicity of Heated Fat,”
  • “Pit Cherries Against Arthritis,”
  • “Tip of the Month (Achlorhydria),”
  • “Ready-Mixed,”
  • “High Points of Standard Process Nutritional Adjuncts (Arginex).”

The following is a transcription of the January/February 1960 issue of Dr. Royal Lee’s Applied Trophology newsletter, originally published by Standard Process Laboratories.


Intelligence Test to Detect How Much You Have Been Brainwashed

Insidious propaganda is being constantly fed to us by people who profit by our failure to rigidly screen information as to its truth and soundness. Unless we are alert to the process, we accept many palpably fictitious statements as fact and allow ourselves to be swindled right and left, both as to our pocketbooks and as to our very life, health, and existence.

Mark Twain so well expressed it when he said, “The trouble with most people is that they know too many things that ain’t so.”

Here is a questionnaire that will enable you to check on a few facts that are commonly misrepresented.

1. Is it true that we are the world’s best fed nation?

Our propaganda artists in our colleges and federal agencies tell us we are. If we are, why is it that we list heart disease as the major cause of death, while it is rare in China and India? It is so rare, in fact, that Dr. I. Snapper of Brooklyn, after ten years in China, wrote that heart disease was so uncommon in that country that the typical medical student never had the chance to observe a case. Why did autopsies of our soldiers in Korea show that 77 percent were afflicted with severe forms of coronary disease? Yet Korean soldiers had no signs of such a condition. Heart disease appears to be American beriberi, due to white flour, refined sugar, candy, and soft drinks.

2. Is it true that the cause of tooth decay has not yet been discovered?

By no means! Dr. Pickerill of New Zealand in 1911 wrote a book showing that “civilized” refined foods caused tooth decay and that proper diets produced perfect teeth. In India there is tooth decay in only one person in eighty—a thousandth as common as it is here, where the average draftee has twelve cavities. Dr. Harold Hawkins in his book Applied Nutrition showed that we remain immune to tooth decay unless our calcium-phosphorus balance is upset by malnutrition. Dr. Weston A. Price in his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration showed that tooth decay is only prevalent where refined foods are commonly used.

3. Is it true that the cause of arthritis is unknown?

That is what our medical authorities tell us, but the fact is that arthritis can invariably be caused in test animals by only one method: feeding them cooked food. The cooking destroys critical amino acids required by bone, without which bone repair and regeneration are impossible. Cooking feed for animals is seldom recommended. In feeding tests on cows, cooking the feed resulted in assimilation of only one-tenth the minerals and one-fifth the protein.1 Test animals put on cooked food or pasteurized milk soon lose their teeth from pyorrhea and die of arthritis, after becoming so crippled that they cannot even move to get food.

4. Is it true that the cause of cancer is unknown?

Cancer is caused by the use of the foods common to civilization, for cancer is unknown to peoples isolated from civilization.

Dr. McCarrison tells that cancer is unknown to the Hunzas of northern India, where only native foods are used.

Dr. Schweitzer tells us cancer was unknown to the African native when he first established his missionary colony there forty years ago, and it was found only after civilized foods followed him.

Steffansson tells us cancer was unknown among the Eskimos until civilized food penetrated the north.

Dr. Weston A. Price tells us that cancer was unknown in villages in the high valleys of the Alps until better highways brought in civilized foods. He tells of Pacific islands where cancer was unknown until sugar plantations were established and civilized foods were introduced.

Dr. Rowntree of Philadelphia showed in 1933 that stale cereal oil could cause cancer in test animals with a 100 percent degree of certainty. Other tests on animals showed that refined foods caused a 90 percent incidence of cancer from implants of malignant tissue, where zero incidence was found in similar implants to animals fed natural, unrefined foods.

Once any cereal food is prepared from the original grain, or the grain processed by any kind of milling, the oils proceed to oxidize and go rancid day by day; their perishability is greater than that of fresh milk. Every bakery should be required to grind their own flour at the time of baking for any product made from cereal sources. We know of no other way to protect the health of the consumer—unless the product is vacuum-packed or gas-packed to prevent the destructive effects of atmospheric oxygen.

Only the original seed can be stored without deterioration, and it must be intact. Hulling or removal of nut shells enhance rancidity and reduce the shelf life. Peanuts quickly go rancid if the red skin is lost. Even shelling corn has an effect. Mexican cooks prefer to shell their own corn to make tortillas; once it is removed from the cob, with the germ on the kernel tip, it has lost its protection and will begin to oxidize.

5. Is it true that depleted soils produce crops that undermine our health and create disease?

Yes, it is a fact as immutable as the axiom “you cannot make something out of nothing.”

Our federal Food and Drug Administration tells us that poor soils simply reduce the quantity of a crop without impairing the quality. There is no scintilla of scientific evidence to support this fraudulent misstatement. (We should have more honest personnel in such critical positions.) All plants absorb mineral elements in a degree proportional to the minerals’ presence. Even gold and silver can be obtained from plants growing in soil containing these elements, and prospectors now use this method to find paying deposits.2

“There are farmers in Illinois who refuse to buy corn from certain sections of their own state…These farmers could not tell you what elements are lacking in this poor corn, but they do know that the animals do not put on weight on such corn as fast as when fed corn grown on better soil.”3

Dr. William Albrecht of the University of Missouri has shown that the incidence of dental caries is patterned geographically with the condition of the soil, the greatest decay being where the soils have lost the most in nutritional minerals.4

In actual tests on vegetables from various sources, the amount of manganese in snap beans was found to vary from 2 to 60 parts per million, depending on the soil in which the beans were grown. Manganese activates bone and tooth growth and repair. In one high-manganese area in Texas, the local people were found to experience hip bone fractures at an average age twenty years greater than in the rest of the state. Spinach was found to have from 19 to 1584 parts per million of iron, depending on the soil producing it, and tomatoes vary from 1 to 1938 parts per million.5

6. Is it true that properly fed plants and people resist disease-causing germs and other parasitic organisms better than deficient plants and people?

Yes, very definitely. Dr. Albrecht showed that properly fertilized spinach resisted leaf-eating insects far better than deficient plants. Gyorgy found rats deficient in B vitamins were susceptible to lice. Well-fed rats were immune.6 Pellagra victims were found to harbor intestinal parasites far greater than the normal incidence.7

Where vitamin deficiency is present, lowered resistance to infection is of course characteristic. But where populations have been forced by war conditions to eat less refined food, the health has always improved. (Denmark in 1918 is a conspicuous example.)

7. Why is our own tax money being spent to keep these indisputable facts from us?

It was planned that way back in 1955, when Mr. G. Cullen Thomas, a vice president of General Mills, was chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee for establishment and enforcement of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.8 Could it have been a coincidence that at this same time Mr. Bradshaw Mintener, a vice president of Pillsbury, was executive director of the Food and Drug Administration in Washington?

These firms mill and sell bleached flour, contaminated with a proven poison and sold in violation of the pure food laws. See Dr. Harvey W. Wiley’s book The History of a Crime Against the Food Law for details. The state of North Dakota back in 1906 proved that bleached flour was adulterated and issued a report.

May we next introduce you to one of their projects: the elimination from the scene of competition those who tell the story of the refined foods and worn-out soils that precondition us to disease attacks and cause us to be the worse fed nation in the world. (We have one-thousand times the tooth decay that countries like India do, for instance.) Those who maintain the position that we are suffering from malnutrition are under attack.

Here is a report from the Drug Trade News, June 3, 1957, regarding this situation:

“Boston – Conviction of a ‘health food’ lecturer on charges of violating the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by selling misbranded vitamin and mineral products has been upheld in a unanimous decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals here.

“In an opinion by Chief Judge Calvert Magruder, the court said it found ‘no error’ in a finding of guilty by a district court jury after a three-week trial. The guilty verdict was turned in on all six counts of an information charging V.E. Irons, Inc., and V. Earl Irons with misbranding. The lower court fined the company $1,000 on each count, and Mr. Irons was sentenced to one year in jail on each count, with sentences to run concurrently…”

“The FDA contended that the products were misbranded because they failed to comply with its dietary food regulations requiring label statements of vitamin and mineral properties and because false claims were made in literature and in lectures by Mr. Irons.”

“As illustrative of the claims called false by the FDA, the court cited one statement that ‘nearly everyone is this country is suffering from malnutrition or in danger of such suffering because of demineralization and depletion of soils and the refining and processing of foods.’”

That is how it was planned by Thomas and Mintener. That is why you find it very difficult to get any facts connected with the frightful extent of disease created by synthetic, refined, adulterated, poisoned, deficient foods that kill at least one million of our good people every year.

That is why we have campaigns to medicate our water with fluorides to reduce tooth decay. While we are fighting the unconstitutional medication of the water, we are diverted from thinking about the cause of the tooth decay, and every year of delay means a respite from law enforcement for the violators.

The political powers that be are so effective in suppressing the facts that no university dares to properly educate their students. No medical college dares to teach the facts of life as we here set them forth. The MD graduate thinks he is a superman armed with wonder drugs, with which he goes forth to fight malnutrition, not even knowing a starving patient when he sees one.

More complications and bureaucratic skullduggery have occurred in enforcing the food and drug laws than in any other field. In one case the Food and Drug Administration prosecutor had the effrontery to threaten to force the victimized defendant to pay back every cent he had received for his products to the buyers even though not one had filed a complaint of dissatisfaction. The big offense was that the seller had tried to make a product to compensate for the shortcomings of adulterated white bread.

With medical and dental college authorities and federal judges too timid to be honest, our only recourse is to get the facts left available to us and try to act on them to the best of our ability.

You wonder how the courts can be perverted to hand down crooked decisions—such as the one confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court that holds that the testimony of a government expert supersedes proven facts established by the defense, in a case where some victim was being crucified for telling the lifesaving truth where the shortcomings of bleached flour are involved (the Alberty case).

Water fluoridation is a prize example of such wholesale skullduggery. The FDA has ruled that fluorides cannot be added to a food supplement because, having no nutritional effect, it would be a drug and not permissible as a food additive (the Nutrilite decision).

This, of course, would rule fluoride out as a water additive too. So, to create a climate for its promotion as a water “enricher,” the old gag of citing expert opinions instead of facts is resorted to. Dr. Frederick Stare of Harvard recently referred to fluoride added to water as a trace mineral of nutritional effect. When we asked him to refer us to the scientific evidence establishing this new finding, he quoted another “expert” opinion, because of course no actual evidence is available. (Quite the contrary: in a recent, careful test, fluorides were found to be without a trace of nutritional effect.9)

Further, President Eisenhower’s doctor does not permit the use of fluoridated water in the White House because of the still unanswered questions as to harmful effects. (We can give you a copy of his statement if you want to see it.) That attitude is reasonable in view of the fact that natural fluoride in water (calcium fluoride) is one-seventieth as poisonous as the sodium fluoride commonly added.

And we must not overlook the gimmick of changing the definitions of foods and drugs to make it simpler to hook the unsuspecting victim who discovers a market for good food among the teeming millions whose lives are shortened by adulterated white bread.

In the 1938 revision of the federal pure food law, anything used to diagnose, prevent, relieve, or cure a disease became a “drug.” Textbooks always had defined drugs as anything other than food that is used as medicine and stressed the fact that most drugs were poisons. Dr. Harvey Wiley [father of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act] went went to great lengths in his book The History of a Crime Against the Pure Food Law to show how wonder drugs and poisons were opposite to foods. We cannot live without foods, and we cannot live with drugs—the lethal dose of one is the normal dose of the other.

Dr. Wiley opposed the addition of any drug or poison to food in any amount whatsoever on the premise that many poisons were harmful in proportion to the amount used, even in traces. Now, with all foods (except those with no food value that cannot prevent a deficiency disease) classified as drugs, if a claim is made that a food will prevent a deficiency disease, the seller is subject to prosecution and a year in jail. A maker of whole wheat bread received this sentence after being convicted of falsely labeling the bread “a drug” by claiming health-building qualities for it (a true claim).

When such a conviction is consummated, the newspapers are given detailed releases designed to do as much damage as possible to the reputation of the victim. Totalitarian skullduggery is always like this. No one has any sympathy for the crook found guilty of “false and fraudulent labeling.”

To improve the opportunity of framing the victim, FDA authorities succeeded in getting the U.S. Supreme Court to verify its dictum that all literature is labeling. Labels had been required by law to “conform to the consensus of medical opinion” (drug labels, we mean, twisted by the above “definition” to include all honest foods), for Congress recognized that the main characteristic of a label is the designated dosage, and how can dosage be established otherwise? The same law required simply that literature for doctors only be true and make no misrepresentation of fact.

Now, at the present time, without any change by Congress, all literature statements must conform to the consensus of medical opinion, including literature describing the health-building values of foods. No medical doctor is an expert on foods. He is a medical expert, medicines by time-honored definition being “substances other than foods” used to treat disease.

The orthodox medical man, at best, has little respect for foods. He has received little or no educational training in nutrition because medical schools in the main ignore the subject. Add to this the fact that in all prosecutions the Food and Drug Administration brings in its own hatchet men—specially trained, weasel-worded experts in double talk. Their top vitamin expert (Dr. Elmer Nelson in the Nutrilite case) once said malnutrition was not a cause of disease, causing the judge to call him a liar in effect. Yet Nelson’s opinion, as also confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Alberty case, superseded facts presented by the defense.

If you want to know how much honesty there is in Washington, just ask the Food and Drug Administration what you are to do in case you can prove that the consensus of opinion is wrong in a label or literature you desire to use. Are you to perpetuate a lie by using the consensus of opinion, or are you permitted to tell the truth?

I have for ten years been unable to get an answer to this important question. To give me an honest reply to this question would eliminate the weapon often used to put an unsuspecting victim in jail. It would clarify the ambiguous regulations now used to convict the offender whether he tells the truth or he repeats an untruth that may be the consensus of opinion. Many an “offender” has been found guilty of a “false and fraudulent” statement though the absolute truth had been set forth, simply because it did not conform to the consensus of opinion.

Another tidy trick used in food and drug “prosecutions” is to require the defendant to prove himself innocent, as opposed to requiring the prosecutor to prove him guilty.

This is done by saying, “You claim so-and-so on your label. Now prove it!” If you are selling a high-vitamin-B food concentrate to prevent or relieve heart disease—part of the “white bread beriberi” that kills approximately 750,000 people a year—you may submit cardiograms of patients made before and after the use of the concentrate.

The prosecutor may (and has) said: “Does not your literature advise a good diet to accompany your product while it is being used?” Answer: “Yes.” Comment to the jury (which they believed), “The better diet alone would cause the improvement here shown. Our experts say this product has no value.” Result—a $5,000 fine. However, where it served the FDA’s purpose, one of its “experts” claimed that no food deficiency has any relation to disease (Elmer Nelson in the Nutrilite case).

Or the prosecutor may say, “You claim your product helps cirrhosis of the liver. That is a degenerative disease, and our experts say no degenerative disease can be caused by deficiency. So your claim is obviously fraudulent.” He has not proved the defendant guilty, but the jury accepts his argument. Certainly, they cannot be expected to question government experts.

In one case the “experts” actually testified under oath that not even a functional disease could result from a [nutritional] deficiency. That, of course, means no disease at all. But it served to obfuscate the truth to an inexperienced jury.

Another trick to sharpen the axe for exterminating competition schemed up by these villains is the introduction of the unusual legal theory that a person can be convicted of a crime without proof that he was aware of its commission. This is an “assault on our legal traditions” and is “a long step in the direction of elimination of ethical and moral considerations from our system of criminal law.”10

Besides being unconstitutional, the flour millers themselves have admitted that their bleaching of flour was a fraudulent practice intended to deceive the buyer (see Lee Foundation Report No. 1). So the millers could be punished without the need for this new principle. But they go scot-free, naturally, while their own vice presidents run the Food and Drug Administration.

And a second offense is really to be a memorable occasion for a stiff penalty—at least for the opposers of adulterated bread.

The FDA has complete discretion as to whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute in a criminal proceeding. “The court enforcement authorized by this Act is seizure proceedings…criminal proceedings…in which the government does not have to prove a violation intent…but this Act also justly authorized an administrative warning against a minor violation…the FDA (has been)…alert to prevent an unjust criminal proceeding against a legitimate manufacturer for an inadvertent technical violation…”11

Obviously, there is a legal setup that gives crooked enforcement personnel full opportunity to use the federal laws in the promotion of their rackets, to jail their competitors on criminal charges totally unfounded in fact. Perfectly legal, if experts say their opinions justify the prosecution, even if no fact can be cited by the prosecution. (So said the U.S. Supreme Court in the Alberty case.)

Bleached flour appears to specifically cause lupus erythematosus. Every case clears up if flour bleach is removed from the diet. Yet according to medical experts, the cause and remedy of this disease are unknown to science, and it is always fatal in time. Slow poisoning is like that. The victim is totally unsuspecting if he gets his poison in water or food regularly.

We recall the Miami man who developed dermatitis and itch from the use of city water containing 1 part per million of fluoride. He was sent to Duke University for further diagnosis and there found to have one kidney destroyed by the fluoride as well. This man had diabetes insipidus and had to drink five gallons of water a day. (Free copy of case report upon request.)

This is not a pleasant subject. But to keep it under my hat after I am aware of it is to become equally guilty as a fellow conspirator—in the eyes of the law and as a moral principle. So the subject will be dropped until new developments require a report.

—Royal Lee

References

  1. Morrison, F.B. Feeds and Feeding, 19th Edition.
  2. Scientific Monthly, Vol. LXXV, No. 1, p. 28, July 1952.
  3. Yerkes, A. Soil: A Foundation of Health. International Harvester Company Publication. (Copy free upon request from Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Reprint 23.)
  4. Our Teeth and Our Soils.” Annals of Dentistry, December 1947.
  5. Bear, F.E. Determinations. Rutgers University.
  6. American Medical Association Journal, 257, July 16, 1938.
  7. Seale, Harris. Clinical Pellagra, p. 317. C.V. Mosby Company, 1941.
  8. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law Journal, 452, August 1955.
  9. Journal of Nutrition, August 1958.
  10. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law Journal, pp. 369–370, June 1955.
  11. Dunner, C.W., President, Food Law Institute. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law Journal, p. 661, 1955.

Carcinogenicity of Heated Fat

“In an attempt to explain the high incidence of gastric carcinoma, Lane and associates investigated the possible carcinogenic action of a common item of diet, heated fat. Roffo of Buenos Aires had already obtained papillomas of the forestomach and malignant tumors of the glandular stomach by feeding rats with fat preheated to 350°C. The authors fed browned lard, preheated to 350°C for 30 minutes, to 54 rats from Roffo’s colony for 18 to 24 months. Papillomas of the forestomach and ulcers of the glandular stomach occurred in 37 percent of these animals and in 5.7 percent of a control group fed unheated lard. These lesions usually occurred after an animal was twelve months old. No malignant tumors of the glandular stomach were produced. This may have been due to the fact that gastric carcinoma, according to Roffo, requires twenty-two months to develop, and only twelve of Lane’s animals lived that long. Heated lard or vegetable oil was then injected subcutaneously in thirty-one rats, who were observed for 12 to 18 months. Three malignant sarcomas developed in this group, while none developed in a control group of 150 rats. Apparently lard heated to 350°C for 30 minutes contains a cancerogenic substance that acts subcutaneously in rats.”

J.A.M.A., p. 514, February 17, 1951


Pit Cherries Against Arthritis

A cherry note for sufferers from gout, gouty arthritis, and similar ailments is news that canned cherry juice apparently gives impressive relief in some cases.

First indications of possible medical value came in 1950, when Texas Medical Society published an article giving case histories in which cherry juice was used in treatment of gout. Since then, use of the Wisconsin beverage in Texas has increased substantially.

Last year, a number of Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin, residents afflicted with arthritis cooperated in an experiment by drinking the cherry juice daily. Resultant disappearance of stiffness and soreness in several instances was dramatic. A dentist found the juice helpful in treating pyorrhea.

To date, there is no definite scientific explanation as to how the juice helps relieve pain caused by diseases in which improper balance of calcium is evident. One strong theory pinpoints a pigment in cherries as the “relief mechanism.”

The juice, known as “CheRefresh,” has been canned since 1932 by Reynolds Bros., Inc., of Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. The process originally was developed with the help of the research department of the American Can Company.

Food Processing, April 1959


Tip of the Month (Achlorhydria)

Clinical results to date indicate the importance of Zypan in the treatment of achlorhydria. Hydrochloric acid deficiency is aggravated by antibiotics, penicillin, fluorides in drinking water, and protein putrefaction. Two tablets after each meal is a good initial dosage. Manganese Phytate-B12 [Manganese B12] and Ostogen (Biost) tablets are synergistic. Vermidase [Zymex II] capsules may also be added for immediate results to improve protein digestion.


Ready-Mixed

They tell me Betty Crocker is a trade name, and there are actually nineteen Betty Crockers. I can believe it. No one woman could have such an overpowering effect on the human race. She’s the perfect symbol of our ready-mixed-up civilization, where no one has time to do anything but save time.

And for what?

A northwest ruralite, Let’s Live magazine, October 1959


High Points of Standard Process Nutritional Adjuncts

Arginex: This is an enzyme complex made from rice polish and beet leaf biologically processed with special yeast strains. The arginase so produced in this product is a very important aid to the kidneys in overloaded conditions and as an adjunct in nephrosis and nephritis. Arginex has also been found to be of value in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. This no doubt is due to its enzyme action in aiding mineral metabolism. It also acts as a detoxifying agent in some ailments.

Heather Wilkinson

Heather Wilkinson is the Archives Editor for Selene River Press.

Leave a Reply