Did you know that what you eat can force your own immune system to turn on you?

Standard

      

“Unfortunately, the gut is not like Las Vegas – what happens in the gut doesn’t necessarily stay in the gut.” 

My husband loves to give an example of the risk of eating junk food which our overly abused pancreas can’t always produce enough enzymes. The risk is our fatigued pancreas robs our immune system for the proteins to produce digestive enzymes.  One of our body’s greatest need is digestion.  Below are some simple facts:

  • 80 percent of our immune system resides in our gut.
  • The immune system is our security detail. It is hardwired to differentiate between what belongs in your body and what doesn’t.  When it spies harmful food, virus, bacterium, or parasite, it shoots to kill.
  • The immune system takes aim at itself.
  • Unfortunately, the immune system is not perfect. Sometimes it targets healthy tissues, a situation that, if it persists under certain circumstances, can lead to an autoimmune disease or autoimmune disorders.

Approximately 50 million Americans, 20 percent of the population or one in five people, suffer from autoimmune diseases. Women are more likely than men to be affected; some estimates say that 75 percent of those affected–some 30 million people–are women.

FROZEN POOP PILLS

Standard

poop-pills

How badly do you want to loose weight?  For those who do not want to exercise or change your diet it may be possible to ingest a slim person’s poop and recolonize your digestive tract.

The theory is simply transplanting a slim person poop in to an obese person’s digestive system.  Scientists are preparing to test if microbes taken from a lean person’s system can help an obese person lose weight – and they will do this by getting 20 obese volunteers to take a pill packed with freeze-dried poop. 

These treatments actually began three years ago for serious gut infections rather than fecal transplants.  Doctors have increasingly turned to a procedure called “fecal microbiotia transplantation” (FMT), which delivers fresh fecal material to the gut helping restore the normal balance of beneficial microbes.

These fecal transplants are about 90 percent successful, but they typically require invasive and uncomfortable colonoscopies or nasogastric tubes, which run from the nose down to the stomach. “Just getting the tube down is a problem,” says Elizabeth Hohmann MD of Massachusetts General Hospital.  And what if people gag and vomit? Would they inhale fecal matter? “That’s pretty scary,” she adds.

I remember asking my audience if they were a sinker or a floater?  The idea was to open up the discussion on the amount of poop we expel and how many times a day would indicate a healthy system.

I have always been interested in the different body types versus their diets.  Now accepted body typing is done by medical personnel using one’s feces to determine their specific fecal type.  Formulation begins by using another’s fecal-matter which contains microbes from poorly digested food debris, missing nutrients – freeze drying and capsulizing!

 

THE GRINCH, THE WHO, ROAST BEAST & YOU

Standard

8cfc9124-206c-42a0-a49d-906b3e49bf38Written by Georgia Ede MD.

Folks the world over liked red meat a lot

But the cancer committee in WHO-Ville did not.

“Those vouching for meat should be guilty of treason!”

(Please don’t ask why, no one quite knows the reason)

It may be the way that it’s processed or fried

Or the fact that it has so much iron inside

But I think that the most likely reason of all

May have been that WHO brains were two sizes too small

 

Staring down from their towers with judgmental frowns

At healthy meat-eaters below in their towns

Feasting on pork chops and luscious roast beast

(Roast beast is a feast WHO can’t stand in the least)

The WHO hated all meats–especially from cow

“We’ve got to stop red meat from coming, but how?”

 

Then they got an idea! An awful idea

The WHO got a wonderful, awful idea

“We know just what we’ll do!” the WHO snickered one day,

“We’ll shout meat causes cancer, and scare meat away!”

All we need is some data! The WHO looked around,

But good data is scarce, there was none to be found.

Did that stop the WHO? That did not trip them up

“We don’t need solid science; we’ll make some stuff up!”

 

They puzzled and puzzled till their puzzlers were sore

Then the WHO thought of something they thought we’d fall for

More than 800 studies they stuffed in a sack

“With numbers this big, they won’t dare to attack!”

But they based their conclusions on just twenty-nine

Fifteen of which showed that red meat was just fine!

But these studies weren’t studies at all, it turned out

They were basically guesses that weren’t tested out

They thought they could fool folks like you and like me

“Correlation’s causation!” WHO shouted with glee

 

Then three or four studies of rats they tossed in

(Rats pre-injected with carcinogen!!!)

They left out the ones showing red meat is good,

Hoping no one would notice (but you knew I would)

 

And three human studies they threw in there, too

But these studies were poorly designed (sad but true)

WHO dares condemn meat based on numbers so wee?

Three human studies—the audacity!

 

Maybe beef, pork and lamb are no cause for alarm

Maybe red meat, in fact, doesn’t cause any harm

It’s got protein and iron and vitamins too

The truth is that red meat is healthy for you!

 

This holiday season I hope you won’t fear

What the WHO said about meat—the facts are not there!

May you all enjoy time with your families and feast

On healthy whole foods and delicious roast beast:)

 

For more information about how the WHO

Tried to hoodwink good folks just like me and like you

I’ll share the details in a blog post right here

In the first week or two of the coming New Year

To hear when it’s ready, to be in the know

 

Subscribe to Georgia Ede, MD. newsfeed by clicking below:

http://www.diagnosisdiet.com

Shared Questions From Readers & My Answers

Standard

What is the recommended daily intake of enzymes and which do you recommend? I have my degree in cellular and molecular biology. There are a ton of different enzymes. What regimen would you suggest?

First let’s make sure we are speaking about supplemental plant based digestive enzymes.  You are correct in saying there are many different enzymes.  There are those for laundry, oil spills and other commercial grade enzymes.  There are enzymes for human use such as animal enzymes from slaughterhouse animals pancreas, actual plant enzymes and various plant based enzymes.  I prefer and formulate the plant based enzymes.  The reason for my decision is animal enzymes only work in an alkaline pH and require coating which makes them unusable during digestion, plant enzymes such as bromelain or papain have a limited pH to work in that only make them useable after most of digestion is complete, and there are plant based enzymes that are grown off the food they are meant to breakdown and require no coating to protect them during the digestive system.

The common denominator is that all enzymes those we ingest (supplemental) and those our body makes (metabolic) requires the same things such as water to make them work and the proper pH of your body they are meant to work in.

Just as there are different enzymes everyone has different needs.  Ingesting supplemental digestive enzymes is not necessarily about the size of the person but their own personal need. Example: a newborn not fed breast milk will require supplemental digestive enzymes to assist in breaking down man-made formula.  The only metabolic digestive enzymes the baby will make until they are 18 months old is for their own Mothers breast milk.  That need might differ from a child given sugar and carbohydrates before they are able to break those foods down.  This comes after the growth of their 14 baby teeth and they are 36 months old.

Compare the above to a teenager who is still not complete until puberty and eats junk food and drinks sodas.  An adult that is suffering from a condition or disease and requires even more digestive enzymes because of their lifestyle or condition.  Now think of a senior citizen who is aging and part of the aging process is the lack of producing digestive enzymes.  How many might they require?

I do have some experience throughout the 30 some years I have been in practice:

  •  Supplemental Digestive Enzymes taken with meals to assist in the proper breakdown of food and the delivery of nutrients is important.  How many they need depends on their own need or health.  Normally I suggest at least two capsules with food.
  • First thing in the AM and last thing at PM I suggest Supplemental Systemic Protease Enzymes for inflammation, circulation and carrying away the waste.
  • With the Protease in the evening I suggest a good Probiotic to balance the pH of the system.

For me this is the basic elements for health.

I was wondering if you knew the answer to this Question? If we take enzyme supplements overtime will that decrease the enzyme production our body produces?
Good question and one I am asked often: Supplemental Enzymes are not hormones and are not stored. The need for enzymes is so great they are used up. If we were to take more than we need – the enzymes (which are proteins) are then used by the body to make metabolic enzymes, repair inflammation, improve circulation and various other needs the body has. It is called polymorphic.

HEALING POWER OF ENZYMES

Standard

NEW UPDATED INFORMATION AND ADDITIONAL CHAPTERS

The purpose of The Healing Power of Enzymes is to give a simple yet comprehensive explanation of enzymes starting from metabolic enzymes (those you produce), when they are produced, and how or when they are turned on or off by one’s own DNA. Something not done before in a book—I include enzyme labeling, a chart of the various supplemental enzymes, what they are produced from, and what foods they break down. It is pertinent information whether you are a first-time reader or a practitioner in Enzyme Therapy.

Measurements of enzymes are also attended to since there is a great deal of confusion. The Internet has brought to the forefront a great deal of information along with nutritional myths and dubious recommendations. I address many of these concerns using my clinical and scientific background. Most chapters will have detailed information on conditions and suggestions on the choices to bring you once again into the best balance you are equipped to maintain. Chapters will either have case studies, testimonials, or both.

WOMEN WHO HAVE CHANGED THE FACE OF MEDICINE

Standard

women-doctors1

Mother’s Day is near but before we honor our Mothers who loved us lets take time to recognize women who have given birth to changing the face of medicine. 

If you’ve received a blood transfusion, had lifesaving radiation therapy, experienced a natural birth or even been told that the reason you became ill was from your stressful lifestyle; you have used one of the many health innovations given to us by women in medicine. 

Dr. Rita Levi Montalcini who died December 31, 2012, at he age of 103 while serving as president of the European Brain Research Institute she founded in 2002.  Rita died just a matter of weeks before her 104th birthday.  She earned the 1986 Nobel Prize and the National Medal of Science in 1987 for her work in Nerve Growth Factor (NGF).  She has inspired my work on embryo, digestive enzymes and brain connection.

Dr. Candace Pert (1946-2013) breaking the gender barrier after years of research at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), Dr. Pert became Chief, Section on Brain Biochemistry of the Clinical Neuroscience Branch in 1983. Dr. Pert appeared in the feature film What the Bleep Do We Know!?? Was an on air contributor to Bill Moyer’s TV program Healing and the Mind. She is the author of the books Molecules of Emotion: The Scientific Basis Behind Mind-Body Medicine (Scribner, 1997) and Everything You Need to Know to Feel Go(o)d (Hay House, 2006). She also authored the musical guided imagery CD Psychosomatic Wellness: Healing your Body-Mind.  Her AIDS drug Peptide T was featured in the 2013 Oscar-winning movie “Dallas Buyers Club”. Her Company RAPID Pharmaceuticals continues developing her drugs for AIDS and neuro-diseases, like Alzheimer’s and neuropathies. Candace knew what we believe or feel controls our own health.

Antonia Novello, First Female US Surgeon General and was appointed to her groundbreaking position as the first female and first Hispanic Surgeon General in 1990 by George Bush. During her three years in office, she focused on health issues among women, minorities and children, as well as underage drinking, smoking and AIDS, according to the US Department of Health & Human Services. She is recognized for “changing the face of medicine.”

Nancy Dickey, MD  was elected President of the American Medical Association in 1997; became the first woman to hold the esteemed role. Her previous career as a physician centered on family practice medicine. She recently stepped down from her role as President of The Health Science Center at Texas A&M, where she was the first woman to hold that role as well.

Ina May Gaskin the “most famous midwife in the world,” Ina May Gaskin is held by many as the woman responsible for 1,200 births, started her own facility, the Farm Midwifery Center, and created the “Gaskin maneuver” the only widely accepted birthing maneuver named for a midwife. Ina is quoted as saying, “Remember this, for it is as true as true gets: Your body is not a lemon. You are not a machine. The Creator is not a careless mechanic. Human female bodies have the same potential to give birth well as aardvarks, lions, rhinoceros, elephants, moose, and water buffalo. Even if it has not been your habit throughout your life so far, I recommend that you learn to think positively about your body.” She will be inducted into the National Woman’s Hall of Fame in October of this year.

Barbara McClintock, Nobel Prize Winner in Phycology & Medicine whose work revolved around the study of maize, changed the world of genetics. McClintock, who died in 1992, has been called one of the most important figures in 20th Century Science. Her insights into genetics earned her worldwide recognition. But McClintock cared as much about the future of science and those who would become scientists as she did about her own work. “Young people have to be motivated to know what they’re doing,” she said. “We need to have people who know organisms can do fantastic things.” In her early breakthroughs, Barbara embodied this potential. She identified the 10 maize chromosomes and proved the theory of “crossing over,” the phenomenon of genetic material switching places between chromosomes. When she proved that genes aren’t static on chromosomes but can move about and control other genes, the press dubbed the finding as “Jumping genes”. Last but not least I want to end this short list with one woman who was not given the recognition due her. Most women in science have not received their recognition even though more than half the medical students are women. 

Rosalind Franklin, (1920-1958) Pioneer Molecular Biologist  There is probably no other woman scientist with as much controversy surrounding her life and work as Rosalind Franklin. Franklin was responsible for much of the research and discovery work that led to the understanding of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA. When James Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins received the Nobel Prize in 1962 for discovering the shape of our genetic material the double-helix model of DNA the stage was absent one woman; Rosalind Franklin, a colleague of Wilkins at King’s College, who died prematurely and in obscurity a few years earlier. Franklin died on April 16, 1958, of ovarian cancer, possibly caused by her extensive exposure to radiation while doing X-ray crystallography work. Because the Nobel Prize can only be shared among three living scientists, Franklin’s work was barely mentioned when it was awarded to Watson, Crick and Wilkins. By the time “The Double Helix” was written in 1968, Franklin was portrayed almost as a villain in the book. Watson describes her as a “belligerent, emotional woman unable to interpret her own data.” It is only in the past decade that Franklin’s contribution has been acknowledged and honored. Today there are many new facilities, scholarships and research grants especially those for women, being named in her honor.

There are so many wonderfully talented women besides the few I chose to honor today. Do you have a favorite woman you would like to honor in changing the face of beneficial therapeutic processes? Let me know and let’s make it happen.