Health Notes 1

Why the government “just said no” to less sugar

People criticize me for saying the government is your enemy, not your friend. But their latest stunt proves my point once again: The U.S. government has rejected the April 2003 proposal by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which argued for a reduction in the national recommendation of sugar consumption from 25 percent to 10 percent. The report also recommends that governments should “take steps” to limit children’s exposure to the advertisement of junk food.

Are the WHO and FAO so dim-witted and forgetful that they don’t realize they’re the ones who endorsed the present calamitous diet they are now bashing? They, along with organized medicine (AMA, AHA, ADA), and those lackeys to the food industry-the university experts-have been the major forces in creating the diabetes epidemic, the hypertension crisis, and arthritis.

Putting aside the fact that the United Nations has no business telling us, or any nation, what to eat or how to treat our children, the concept of reducing sugar intake is a good one-even our detractors among the dietary elite grudgingly admit that excess sugar intake among Americans is a serious problem.

But the U.S. rejected the idea, not because the concept, i.e., reducing sugar in the American diet, is invalid, and not because what we eat is none of the UN’s business, but because the sugar industry will not hear of it. The Sugar Association wrote a letter to the WHO, threatening them by asking they show proof that sugar is linked to obesity, while a congressmen recruited by the food industry insisted that the secretary of health cut off the $406 million yearly contribution to the WHO.

So, once again, the government proves that it’s only interested in its own welfare and wallet, not the well-being of its citizens. Sure sounds like an enemy to me.

Actions to take:

If you really want to improve your health, you need only do a few easy things and the rest will follow.

(1) Ignore the food pyramid. It’s not even worth turning upside down, as some of the high-protein, low-carb plans suggest. The whole thing is bogus and should be tossed into the garbage heap of disproven health theories.

(2) Stay away from sugar and carbohydrates and base your diet on animal protein and fat. Fruits and vegetables are OK in moderation, if you like the taste of them.

(3) Read the classic nutrition book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Dr. Weston A. Price (available from the Price Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, 800-366-3748, or


“US government sides with junk food manufacturers,” The Omnivore (, 1/28/04

“US government rejects WHO’s attempts to improve diet” BMJ 2004; 328(7,433): 185

The REAL story behind all those “smoking-related” deaths 

A few years ago, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) shocked the world with a report claiming that smoking causes hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths a year.

The report, called the Smoking Attributable Mortality, Morbidity, and Economic Costs (SAMMEC), study said that “cigarette smoking is the greatest cause of preventable or premature deaths, causing 400,000 deaths a year, a number greater than auto accidents, homicide, suicide, and various other causes of death combined.” This horrendous news galvanized the American left, right, and middle into turning on their fellow Americans who smoked.

How could you not react to such a self-inflicted holocaust? Fanatics and neo-fanatics came swirling out of the offices, stores, restaurants, and ventilation systems of America, screaming and flailing their protests: “You are killing yourself! You are raising my health care costs!” And, finally (this was later when these pathetic morons gobbled up the side stream smoke hoax), “You are killing MY CHILDREN and ME!”

Never has the country been seized by such a mass psychosis.

But is it possible that this colossal claim is a big fat lie? It is not only possible; it is true. You might find this impossible to believe, but the 400,000 premature deaths never occurred.

Here is what you were not told:

(1) The smoking “victims” lived longer than their peers, by about two years-71.9 vs. 70 years.

(2) Over 70,000, or about 17 percent, died “prematurely” at ages greater than 85. But according to the technical definition used by SAMMEC, any “smoking related” death is considered premature-even if it occurs in an 85-year-old. Hardly sounds “premature” to me.

(3) Only 1,900, or fewer than 0.5 percent of the smoking “victims” died at ages less than 35, while 143, or 8 percent of the rest of the study subjects, died at ages less than 35.

So you see how statistics can be manipulated and twisted to suit the purposes of the people relating them. That’s the bad news. The good news is this is one more reason for you to enjoy yourself with that nice cigar I’m always urging you to puff away on. Who knows? It could just help you get to that 85 mark.


“Bulletin: Those 400,000 smoking ‘victims’ live longer than the rest of us!” Forces International (, accessed 3/30/04