April 2001 Newsletter

Preventing colds, flu, and infection: Plan ahead to fight off germs for this fall's season of sickness!

By Jonathan V. Wright, M.D.

It's finally springtime, and summer is just around the corner. So why would I be writing about preventing colds, flu, and infection now? Wouldn't it be a more appropriate subject for September or October? Years ago, I thought so too; however, 30 years of medical practice have taught me that it takes most of us several months to make the changes necessary to truly prevent infections. And with last year's cold season recently behind us, it's a perfect time to evaluate.

Were you sick a lot? Did you have sniffles? The stomach flu? A sore throat here and there? Over the course of the fall and winter, most people do. But, if you start now, chances are that over the next fall and winter you'll "catch" many fewer flu viruses and other infections, even when everyone else in the country is spreading germs and getting sick. So, what's your first line of defense? 

Sugar-It has to go

Just the thought of never eating sugar might make you feel as if you have the flu. It's a daunting thought to say the least. But it's absolutely essential. You're probably thinking, "Sugar...what does that have to do with catching or resisting infection? Certainly an occasional soda, cookie, or glass of fruit juice can't hurt that much!" But it certainly can!

Researchers have found that sugar, even just 1 teaspoon, impairs your immune system by 50 percent for up to a few hours after consumption. And if you eat a little bit of sugar now and then throughout the day, your immune system will be impaired by 50 percent ALL DAY LONG! So if a friend with a cold pays a visit within a few hours after you've had a sugary snack, you're much more likely to pick up the illness. And, although it can take months, switching over to a no-sugar diet is absolutely essential.

At lectures given back in the '70s and '80s, pioneering University of Alabama nutrition researcher Professor Emanuel Cheraskin, M.D., first explained sugar's hold on the immune system. Researchers determined, by analyzing white blood cells on microscope slides, that the average (fully functioning) "germ-eating" white blood cell could "eat" (and ultimately destroy) approximately 15 to 16 germs per minute. After an overnight fast, each research volunteer swallowed the equivalent of 3 1/3 ounces of a simple sugar, honey, orange juice, or starch and then had blood drawn at intervals of 30 minutes and 60 minutes for several hours. Each time blood was drawn, the white blood cells were separated and again placed on microscope slides for researchers to observe how many germs per minute they could "eat." The volunteers took (on different days) each of the trial substances. (See the box on page 2 for detailed results of the study.)

According to the results of  the study, the number of germs white blood cells are capable of destroying two hours after the consumption of any type of sugar except starch is, on the average, almost half the normal level. This seven-germ difference may not seem great, but remember: Each one of us has literally billions of white blood cells. For argument's sake, let's say you have 1 billion white blood cells, each capable of fending off 15 germs per minute, thus de-fending against a total of 15 billion germs per minute. That means that during these times of post-sugar immune function, up to 7.5 billion germs are not being attacked! Reducing your germ-combating capability by up to 50 percent can make a critical difference in whether an infection "catches hold" or not.

Consider a "typical" eating pattern. Breakfast: A bowl of  sugar-added cereal and a glass of orange juice. Lunch: A sandwich accompanied by a soda, juice, or coffee with sugar. Snack: A couple of cookies or a candy bar. Dinner: ice cream for dessert. A bedtime snack: Jello. Professor Cheraskin joked that with a diet like that, the only time we should ever expose ourselves to germs would be between 3 a.m. and an hour or two before breakfast the next morning!

Tips you'll need to ensure a healthy success

It's obvious to me from my practice that for many people eliminating sugar is an almost painful process. Very few are able to quit cold turkey, and most of us need to gradually cut down...to zero. And yes, zero sugar is necessary. That's why I'm urging you to start now and get it done by fall! Remember, as little as 1 teaspoonful can cut your body's germ-fighting capabilities for up to four to five hours!

First, toss out the sugar in your home. Take all the bags of sucking candies and chocolate-chip cookies, fruit juices and vanilla yogurts, the maple syrup and strawberry jam...and throw them away! Make sure to read all labels, and eliminate anything that ends in "-ose": sucrose, fructose, glucose, and so on. "Corn syrup," "high-fructose corn syrup," "maltodextrin," and a few others are all just sugars in disguise.

Beware those "healthy" fruit juices!

In the study above, the researchers found that even orange juice (one of the "best" juices) interfered with the body's ability to fight germs. Unfortunately, most commercial fruit juices (even the "no sugar added" ones) are nothing but naturally fruit-flavored sugar solutions. So if you have to have your morning OJ, you'll have to juice your own and use the whole fruit-including the fiber. Whole fruit juices don't cause nearly as much of a sugar problem.

Now, go to the store and stock up on some snacks that do not have any refined sugar. Remember, the test showed that starches didn't have the same bad effect on the immune system. You'll find many crackers, pretzels, and other sugar-free munchies that will be good substitutes. Raw vegetables and fruits are also safe. Try to stick with foods that are whole-grain, low in fat, and high in nutrients. Just because you're giving your immune system a boost doesn't mean you can ignore your blood pressure, cholesterol, or weight! 

Give up sugar but not sweet tastes!                        Try an herbal alternative  

Please don't substitute non-food, chemical-laden diet drinks for sugary drinks or artificial sweeteners for sugar. These chemicals may or may not increase our odds of getting infections, but they can cause their own problems. If you're having trouble weaning yourself off of the sweet stuff, try an herbal sweetener. 

Stevia and Lo Han Kuo are two intensely sweet (but quite different tasting) liquid herbal concentrates that can be added to coffee, tea, or other drinks. For most of us, a drop or two per cup will be plenty. Neither increases our chances of infection as sugar does; in fact, both have positive health benefits. Stevia is also available as a powder and in other forms for cooking, baking, and other food uses.

Liquid Stevia is available as a dark liquid with a stronger taste (and an aftertaste) and in a clear form, which is just as sweet (but with little aftertaste). [This product is also available in very small, leak-proof, squeeze-bottle containers, ideal for traveling.] Lo Han Kuo (Herba Swee) is presently available only in liquid form. They are available in nearly all natural-food stores and at the Tahoma Clinic Dispensary; tel. (888)893-6878, website: www.tahoma-clinic.com.

 One step at a time is OK

It's really all about choice when it comes to giving up sugar. If you choose to buy foods that don't contain it and eat snacks that don't contain it, you shouldn't have a problem. Try to conquer one meal or one snack at a time. Start tomorrow and make your breakfast sugar-free. Next week, replace your afternoon snack. The following week, cut out dessert after dinner. Keep this up. You'll realize that it's not impossible. It's also a good feeling to know that with each sugary meal or snack you eliminate, you're automatically boosting your immune system...at least for the next few hours. And, next winter, when you're free from colds and flu, you'll see that good health is the sweetest treat of all!

SIDEBAR PG2

Amazing results show that sugar blocks white blood cell function over 40 percent!

According to the following information, which summarizes the outcome of the study discussed by Dr. Cheraskin and the researchers, when the volunteers ate any type of sugar, except starch, their white blood cells lost substantial functioning capability. The results are as follows:

Germs "eaten" per minute by white blood cells

 Fasting 1/2 hour 1 hour 2 hours 3 hours 5 hours

Sucrose 16.2 13.8 11.7 9.6 12.9 13.5 

Fructose 15.5 13.3 8.5 9.7 11.0 12.8

Glucose 15.2 12.1 8.6 9.3 12.5 15.0

Honey 15.9 15.9 9.7 9.7 12.4 12.7

Orange juice 16.6 12.6 10.1 9.6 13.2 11.7

Starch 15.7 17.1 14.4 14.1  14.6 13.6

Tired of taking "sick" days? Try these simple and effective immune boosters

Eliminating sugar is the most important factor in an immune-boosting program, but there are many other steps you can take and things to include that can help strengthen your immune system over the long term.

Eliminate allergies. Natural-medicine doctors know that infection, especially recurrent infection, frequently has an allergic component. If you have a history of allergy (hay fever, asthma, eczema, and hives are among the most common) or if there are allergies in your family, it's wise to consider allergy elimination or desensitization. Milk and dairy products, wheat, corn, eggs, citrus, soy, and chocolate are some of the most common offenders. To test and possibly treat any type of allergy, consult a physician who's skilled and knowledgeable in nutritional and natural medicine.

Eat mushrooms! Mushrooms, including maitake and shiitake, are among the most researched immune-boosting, infection-preventing foods. Among their principal active ingredients are polysaccharides, which can improve the body's germ-fighting capabilities. If mushrooms aren't already part of your family's diet, start to include them. You can even find cookbooks devoted solely to mushroom information and recipes.

Aloe vera (whose active ingredients also contain polysaccharides). A dosage of 50 to 100 milligrams daily of aloe-leaf concentrate containing 1 percent or more acemannan is significant and useful.

Beta-glucan (a subunit of active polysaccharides found in mushrooms and aloe). A 50 to 100 milligram daily supplement for adults (less for children, although beta-glucan is generally safe) will usually do the job.

Eat more Garlic. My Italian grandma frequently wore a garlic clove around her neck to ward off evil spirits. Fortunately, she ate a lot of garlic, too, and (perhaps as a result) rarely got infections. Modern researchers have shown that garlic, particularly fresh raw garlic, has a broad spectrum of antifungal, antibacterial, and antiviral effects. One garlic clove (approximately 4 grams) eaten daily is a useful amount. If taken as a supplement, garlic should contain a daily dose of at least 10 milligrams of alliin.

Don't forget your multivitamin. Researchers have found that a basic multivitamin/mineral supplement can reduce overall illness, including infection, especially among the older population (age 60 and up). Make sure to take one every day.

You may want to supplement your multivitamin with more of the following: 

Vitamin A. For most adults (except pregnant mothers), 15,000 to 25,000 IU is an appropriate and safe level. For children, 5,000 to 10,000 IU is generally safe. Before using more for either children or adults, it's wisest to consult a physician skilled and knowledgeable in nutritional medicine.

Zinc. For adults and teen-agers, 30 milligrams of zinc (picolinate or citrate) daily; for smaller children above 2 years of age, 15 milligrams daily. Note: Zinc supplements should usually be offset by a small amount of copper, 1-2 milligrams daily.

Vitamin E. I recommend 400 IU (as "mixed tocopherols") daily for adults and 50-400 IU daily for children, depending on their size. (Vitamin E is generally very safe.)

Vitamin C. One gram (1,000 milligrams) two or three times daily for adults and a minimum of "20 milligrams per pound" for children. (The "vitamin C causes kidney stones" myth has been largely disproven.) But will vitamin C prevent infection? Results of research are decidedly mixed, but there's general consensus that, even if it doesn't actually prevent infection, it definitely reduces the length of time spent being ill and the severity of symptoms in cases of infection.

Echinacea. Some readers may be surprised to read that echinacea can be used daily to prevent infection as well as as a treatment once infection is present. (For a comprehensive discussion of regular echinacea use and an explosion of the "don't use echinacea every day" myth, see the November 1998 issue of Nutrition & Healing.) For daily use, 300 to 600 milligrams daily of an echinacea preparation containing 3.5 percent echinacoside is a useful and safe quantity.

Astragalus, Andrographus, and Picrorrhiza. If used as individual herbs, 2 to 6 grams of dried Astragalus root or dried Andrographus daily is appropriate and safe. For Picrorrhiza, daily amounts are 500 milligrams to 2 grams; higher doses can cause gas, diarrhea, and a skin rash. Note: A basic principle of effective nutritional and botanical treatment is to use a little of several effective items rather than a large amount of just one.

If you have a weak thyroid, thyroid-hormone supplements may help prevent infection. However, there is a distinct difference of opinion between mainstream and natural approaches to both the diagnosis and treatment of a weak thyroid. It's best to consult with a physician if you suspect a thyroid problem.

Young people should not be using DHEA unless specific testing shows a need. However, as we pass 40 years of age, it becomes increasingly likely that DHEA supplementation will "modulate" the immune system and help prevent infection. Since DHEA is available in every supermarket, discount store, and natural-food store, as well as over the Internet, I'll note that maximum advisable doses (without consulting a know-ledgeable physician) are 25 to 30 milligrams daily for men and 10 to 15 milligrams daily for women.

Thymic hormones and thymus extracts. Although thymus preparations are generally safe, there's no standardization among the many brands available. It's best to consult a knowledgeable physician to select the most effective for any individual.

Your medical records may as well be published in your hometown newspaper!

Federal-government rules eliminate medical privacy

Last year, in one of Bill Clinton's final projects as President, he unveiled a new, proposed list of "medical-privacy rules" that were supposedly being developed to ensure that your medical records would be kept more private. This list of rules, and the controversy that surrounded them, had laypeople, doctors, and public officials up in arms. Some people were thrilled with the idea that the new rules would protect their rights to privacy. Others felt that the rules would make it much easier for a wide range of individuals and groups to access their medical information. Public officials were concerned that the rules were too strict, and that doctors would be afraid to access medical records without permission in times where emergency care was needed.

All along, Americans were being told, and still are told, that the rules, published in the Federal Register on Dec. 28, 2000, would provide new rights in regard to medical privacy. President Clinton proclaimed that the privacy regulations would "represent an unprecedented step toward putting Americans back in control of their own medical records." But if you've had the time to observe the difference between what los Federales say and what they actually do, you may already suspect that the meaning of the word "privacy," in this case, has been redefined. After examining the rules myself, I came to the following conclusions:

According to the federal government, "privacy" means the following:

• Your medical records must be shared, without your consent, with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

• Increased disclosure of your medical records without your consent to a variety of organizations.

• If your medical records are in an unauthorized electronic databank prior to Feb. 26, 2003, the new "privacy" rule specifically exempts that information from disclosure rules.

• Your doctor (or HMO) may refuse to treat you unless you agree to disclosure of your records as the doctor (or HMO) sees fit.

• In most cases, you won't even be told that your medical records have been released without your consent.

• You cannot sue if you think your medical privacy has been violated.

It's time to call, write, fax, and e-mail your U.S. Senators and Congress-person, and persuade them to change the "final rules." It's important to communicate with them now and regularly, before we haven't any medical privacy left at all. If we don't take care of this collectively, then what is the fate of our medical records? Let's just say...they may as well be published in our hometown newspapers!

For more information on the new rules and what they will mean for you, please read the following summary, reprinted with permission, from the Institute for Health Freedom's website: www.forhealthfreedom.org. It was originally published in the January/February 2001 issue of Health Freedom Watch.

The following is based on the analysis and conclusions of Sue Blevins, president of the Institute for Health Freedom (IHF) and Robin Kaigh, Esq., a private practicing attorney. It's presented in a "Myth vs. Fact," format and is based on information from 3 different sources: The Health and Human Services Fact Sheet (published Dec. 20, 2000), which announced the new rule; national newspaper articles; and a review of the final rule published in the Federal Register.2

Note: Citations to specific pages are provided to help the public, media, and policy makers understand the serious implications of the rule.

Myth #1: The final federal medical privacy rule provides Americans a new federal right to medical privacy.

Fact: The rule creates a massive federal mandate that requires every doctor and other health care practitioner to share patients' records with the federal government-specifically the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)-without patient consent.3 The federal government even has the right to access an individual's psychotherapy notes in order to monitor compliance with the new rule.4 Ironically, this federal mandate will be enforced by the HHS' Office for Civil Rights.5

Myth #2: Individuals are guaranteed the right to restrict others from accessing their medical records without their consent.

Fact: Under the rule, Americans' medical records can be disclosed for many broadly defined purposes without patient consent, including, but not limited to, the following:

• Oversight of the health care system

• FDA monitoring (including dietary supplements)

• Public health surveillance and activities

• Foreign governments collaborating with U.S. public health officials

• Research (if an institutional review board or privacy board waives consent)

• Law enforcement activities

• Judicial and administrative proceedings

• Licensure and disciplinary actions6

Moreover, once individuals' medical records are disclosed to a third party (other than a business associate), the final rule no longer protects that information. The rule specifically reads: ". . .[O]nce protected health information leaves a covered entity the Department [HHS] no longer has jurisdiction under the statute to apply protections to the information."7

Also, there is nothing in the rule that prohibits the federal government, state governments, or private parties from compiling large databases of patient information, for the purposes listed above, without patient consent. The rule does not apply to information that is collected or stored in databases without consent prior to February 26, 2003 (when most providers are required to comply with the rule). It states:

"We do not require covered entities with existing records or databases to destroy or remove the protected health information for which they do not have valid consents or authorizations. . ."8         [In other words, any of your records that exist prior to the date the rules go into effect, are exempt from any privacy!-Ed.]

Myth #3: The final rule ensures that consent is not coerced.

Fact: Health care providers and institutions may refuse to treat patients if they won't give consent to share their medical records.9 Patients are not guaranteed the right to restrict access to their records for treatment, payment or health care operations.10 Additionally, individuals medical records can be used by any doctor-without individuals' consent-to treat other patients. The rule states:

"A plan can disclose protected health information to any health care provider to assist the provider's treatment activities; and a health care provider may use protected health information about an individual to treat another individual."11

Myth #4: Americans will be able to get a full accounting of when and to whom their medical records have been disclosed.

Fact: Individuals will receive only a limited accounting of when and to whom their medical records were disclosed.12 They will not receive an accounting of when and to whom their records were disclosed for most health care activities, including activities related to treatment, payment, or health care operations (a broad definition encompassing many uses).13

Myth #5: The final rule provides serious penalties for breaches of medical privacy.

Fact: Patients have no guaranteed recourse other than the right to complain.14 They can complain to their health care providers or institutions about privacy breaches. They also can complain to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. However, the HHS Secretary does not have to investigate the complaint. The final rule reads that the Secretary "may," not "shall," investigate complaints.15

Individuals do not have a private right of action (they can't sue) if their privacy is breached under the final medical privacy rule.

Myth #6: All individually identifiable health information held or disclosed by health care organizations is covered by the final regulation.

Fact: The final rule does not cover the procurement or banking of blood, sperm, or body tissue. In fact, the final rule states:

". . .[T]he procurement or banking of organs, blood (including autologous blood), sperm, eyes, or any other tissue or human product is not considered to be health care under this rule and the organizations that perform such activities would not be considered health care providers when conducting these functions."16

Because blood, sperm, and body tissue includes genetic information, lack of privacy protections in these areas could have far-reaching effects.

Myth #7: The medical privacy rule provides consumers greater control over the flow of their electronic medical records.

Fact: The final federal medical privacy rule is part of the 1996 HIPAA law that fosters the development of a national health information network through standardized codes for all health care services nationwide.17 It requires health plans to use the national standardized codes for electronic transactions for payment of medical care. The law additionally requires that unique health identifiers be assigned to four groups, including every: (1) individual, (2) health care provider, (3) employer, and (4) health plan.18 Those identifiers will facilitate electronic transactions for all types of health care, whether services are paid by government or privately. (Note: the individual identifier has been put on hold temporarily for one year.19)

The result will be that each patient's visit to a doctor or hospital will be easily tracked. In the next few years, it is going to become increasingly easier to transfer electronic medical records over the Internet. With just a click of a mouse, it will be much easier to access and share individuals' records with many third parties.

**********************

 The information summarized above shows clearly that this new rule provides less medical privacy, not more. It weakens an individual's ability to restrict access to their medical records, and it increases the federal government's power to access a patient's personal health records without consent.

"Nectar of the Gods" targets chronic illness                          and supports overall health

BY KERRY BONE

One of my former patients, Mary, was age 74 when she came to me for a consultation. She had a diagnosis of myeloblastic anemia, which is a very rare condition somewhat related to leukemia. In Mary's case, both her red and white-cell counts, as well as her platelet counts, were low and she was being maintained by regular blood transfusions. She was in a life-threatening situation.

In the time that I worked with Mary, using herbs like Astragalus and Withania, her white-blood-cell count doubled from its previous low levels. Unfortunately, this was still well below normal. During one of her many hospital stays, Mary succumbed to an infection and couldn't be saved.

I felt helpless...

Surely there was something more out there that could better help those with chronic immune suppression. There are so many patients with illnesses (or treatment programs) that produce a low white-blood-cell count, including liver disease, cancer, hepatitis, tuberculosis, and HIV. A stronger treatment could save millions of lives a year. 

An ancient herb                   acts as a modern-day   white-blood-cell booster

In my search over the next 10 months, I made a fascinating, albeit secondhand, discovery: an "Ayurvedic" herb called Tinospora cordifolia. "Ayurvedic medicine" is a medical philosophy from India that's been in existence for thousands of years. It revolves around holistic, natural therapies that include many different healing herbs.

Tinospora has been called "amrita" in Sanskrit, which means ambrosia-the nectar of the gods. It is widely used in India as a household medicine to fend off infections.

Traditional uses of Tinospora cordifolia include the treatment of dyspepsia, anorexia, liver disorders, dysentery, and worms.1 Uses related to its classification as a rasayana (an Ayurvedic herb used to enhance overall health and well-being) include treatment for chronic infections, diabetes, gout, anemia, inflammatory arthritis, emaciation, allergies, skin disease, and urinary-tract disorder.2,3

The active phytochemicals in Tinospora include ecdysones, lignans, and diterpenes and are not yet very well understood. Nevertheless, the herb has been well studied and has shown many promising results.

Boost the front lines of your defense

There is some evidence that Tinospora's positive effects on the immune system could be reliant on its influence on one class of white blood cells known as macrophages. Macrophages help the immune system recognize invading organisms and also act as front-line killers engulfing the invading organisms and killing them. This process is known as phagocytosis.  

Clinical studies in India offer the Western World the proof it's looking for

Clinical experiments have been conducted with Tinospora in India. Following are the promising results that have influenced me:

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 50 patients with tuberculosis, 23 were given Tinospora and 27 were given a placebo. All patients also received the usual anti-TB treatments. After two months of treatment, 75 percent of the patients with TB taking Tinospora showed improvement as compared to just 40 percent of those taking the placebo. Tinospora also reduced the side effects of the drugs from 40 percent to 15 percent.4

In cases of cirrhosis of the liver, depression of the macrophage cells (known as Kupffer cells) that reside in the liver is common. The effect of six months of treatment with Tinospora on the course of mild to moderate cirrhosis was evaluated in a single-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 12 patients. Treatment with Tinospora significantly improved Kupffer-cell function and enhanced the phagocytic and killing activity of white cells.5

The effect of Tinospora was also studied in a trial concerned with eliminating the virus in asymptomatic carriers of hepatitis B. This trial was placebo-controlled in 24 carriers. Loss of hepatitis B antigen was 37 percent in the Tinospora group as compared to only 11 percent for the placebo group.6

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted involving 38 women with breast cancer who were undergoing chemotherapy.7 The number of patients with white-blood-cell counts after the chemotherapy of less than 3.0 was lower in the Tinospora group (55 percent vs. 70 percent for placebo). Also, four patients in the placebo group had white-blood-cell counts below 0.5 as compared to only one in the Tinospora group. The author of this study considered the effects of Tinospora were modest, so the dose may need to be increased.

Finally, one more clinical study shows promise for women with cervical dysplasia.8 This was an open controlled study conducted in Europe involving 39 women with mild, moderate, and severe dysplasia. It included 11 women with severe dysplasia (stage 3) who had refused surgery. Dosages of Tinospora were quite high: 12 to 24 grams per day of the whole powdered stem for three weeks, with a break of one week for menstruation. The treatment period was three to 15 months, depending on results. The levels of regression for mild and moderate dysplasia were substantially higher in the women taking Tinospora. While there was no difference in regression in the severe-dysplasia group as compared to the controls, progression and invasion of the cancer were down with Tinospora. Three women (8 percent) experienced a temporary hepatitis that went away when the Tinospora was discontinued.

Tinospora offers hope       for patients and help            for doctors  

Would Tinospora have helped Mary? We will never know. But cases like hers illustrate that we should never be content with the knowledge we have. Sometimes, our searches will take us "back in time." In this case, a 3,000-year-old practice offers the information we need.

Tinospora is not yet widely available in the United States, but I expect it to become more accessible within the next few months. Your best bet is to contact an herbalist or a holistic doctor for more information. 

NATURAL RESPONSE

Soy consumption: What to do while the controversy and debate continue

Q: I am enclosing a copy of an extensive article (originally published in Nexus magazine, www.nexus.icom/nexus/) about the dangers of soy that is very alarming. I have not found any information about soy in Nutrition & Healing. Most other holistic newsletters have been recommending soy enthusiastically. This seems to me very serious. Have we, except for you, been victims of hype on a grand scale? If this article is only half true, why has the bad news not been reported by all newsletters?

     ...What is the truth? Has it been covered up or ignored? I've been a subscriber since 1994 and think most highly of your newsletter. I hope you will write a definitive article on soy, the good and the bad, in the near future

----R.E.S., Branford, CT

A: Thank you for supporting N&H and for your very good and controversial question. The authors of the above-referenced article, Sally Fallon and Mary Enig, Ph.D., have done us all a service in bursting the "soy is wonderful" balloon with an exceptionally well-referenced article. Among their referenced data:

• Women consuming soy-protein isolates had an increased incidence of "epithelial hyperplasia," a condition that often precedes cancers.

• One ounce of soy a day for one month can result in a significant increase in "TSH" (the hormone that increases with hypothyroidism). The FDA subsequently found that diadzen and genistein (two of the most "hyped" soy isoflavones) are responsible for this hazard. 

• The daily exposure of infants to isoflavones in soy formula is six to 11 times higher (on a body-weight basis) than the dose that has hormonal effects in adults consuming soy foods.

     * Readers are referred to the original article for all of this and much more.

     One practical clue that tells us to be wary of soy promotion is that much of it has been backed by Monsanto, Cargill, and Dupont, all "agribusiness" giants. Another very strong indicator is that the FDA, acting contrary to law, is reported to have rewritten a "soy claim petition" submitted by a subsidiary of Dupont. (The FDA is authorized only to "make rulings" on claim petitions, not rewrite them.)

      A clue from an entirely different direction is the fact that, unlike most safer vegetable foods, soy cannot just be picked and eaten, or even picked, cooked, and eaten. Soy must be specially processed before it can be eaten; otherwise, it can create gastrointestinal symptoms in some of us.

      As with many other things, there's a "good side" and a "bad side" to soy and soy-derivative consumption. I'm not saying everyone should immediately stop using any soy products; given the present debate about the safety of daily soy use, however, I recommend a degree of caution. Eating soy products no more than three times weekly is advisable until the safety debate is better resolved.