Your Health Vol 1 No. 8

April 15, 2007

This newsletter is provided as a source of information, based on the most current scientific evidence known and or ignored.  To know is to ask the right questions; to make the right choice is to take control. Enjoy!



Spinal Manipulation

All About Soy

Update on Celiac Disease



DHA & Brain Development

Lead, Children & Brain

Gingko Doesn’t Help Ear Noise

Maintenance & Repair

The Risk of Spinal Manipulation

About Ph




Chiropractors are well trained in the use of physiotherapeutic aids such as ultrasound and various forms of electrotherapy.  Few chiropractors, however, use these aids because they are simply not effective whereas spinal manipulation is effective.


The Chiropractic Report July 2001 confirms these observations  in a recent study, “Is there increased benefit for back pain patients when physical modalities are added to other standard forms of chiropractic?”  The study concludes that in terms of reduced pain and disability

there is no increased benefit from electro therapy.  However cost is  higher.


This randomly controlled study was authored by E. Hurwitz, D.C., Ph.D. and H. Morgenstein, M.D.

et al at the University of Southern California Health Sciences.


The study consisted of 681 patients with acute or chronic low back pain randomly assigned to one of two groups.

(1) spinal manipulations, exercise and back care instructions.

(2) as above plus ultrasound, electrical muscle stimulations and heat/cold


Both groups favorably responded equally.  However, authors concluded that physical aids do not appear to be effective in the treatment of low back pain.



It is ironic that the current interest by many individuals in health have turned to soy products.  When you consider that approximately 30 billion dollars per year is spent by industry in advertising and promoting a low fat, high carbohydrate diet perhaps it is understandable.  This current diet fad is in direct conflict with human biology and genetics.  Unfortunately government guidelines support this inappropriate diet by promoting

carbohydrates as the basis of the food pyramid and soy as a healthy alternative to animal protein.


One of the main reasons for this low fat, high starch diet has been as M. Enig and S. Fellon  state “the phoney cholesterol theory.”  Cholesterol is absolutely essential for cell function.  If  we don’t eat it we make it.  If we eat the wrong food we make the wrong cholesterol, a damaged or oxidized form.  Cholesterol comes with animal fat which comes with animal protein.  It is the animal protein and fat that is essential for human biology.  And because of our genetic adaptation to animal fat and protein it is the easiest to digest.  You would think that in such a technologically advanced culture that appropriate foods for humans would be self evident.  However, as technically advanced as we are, we have a poor appreciation of our biological needs.  And perhaps, this is due to the illusion of better life with technology.  Our biology dictates that we have a species specific diet which is genetically determined.  As well, there is a genetic need for activity or exercise.  Technical manipulation of food and activity do not satisfy our genetic needs.  Wrong food and processed foods do not support our biology and the technological means of making activity easier – is a big problem.


Genetically, the human species has spent greater than 99% of its existence as a hunter. Its predominant food was and is animal protein with vegetables and fruit.  These are the foods our chemistry has most well adapted to digest and process.  Soy is simply a wrong and inappropriate food.


Soy could easily be classified as a paradox of various poisons.  Enzyme inhibitors, phytates, lectins , hormone disruptors and a poor protein and fat characterization are some of the inherent anti nutrients.  Remember, a poison is anything we can’t properly metabolize.  It may be due to genetic or acquired enzyme damage.  That is why arsenic is a poison – we lack the enzyme to process it.  Subsequently, the body will react to the poison with inflammation  as in allergy/ intolerance.  This is a protective mechanism  to liquify the toxin to get rid of it.  We don’t feel good when we have inflammation – it is the basis of all ill health.  Inflammation due to exposure to an irritant over time results in congestion and an increased risk of infection.  This leads to increased oxidative stress – cell damage, alteration in cell ph and if uncorrected expression of genetic weakness and degenerative disease.


Soy products can and do, like any other food we haven’t adapted to, initiate and promote this process.  Soy was never meant to be a food.  Initially soy, was used as a forage crop to improve soil fertility.  Fermentation which deactivates some of the anti-nutrients was discovered in the Chan Dynasty about 1146-246 B.C. and then soy was ingested in small amounts only as fermented products; miso, tamari and tempeh.  Even today in eastern cultures soy is a miner food with average consumption of about 2 tbsp. per day of which 90% is fermented.


Scientifically the problems with soy have been known for a long time and the following is a summary of the problems.  This summary has been paraphrased from Soy

–  Phytates found in grains and legumes are particularly high in soy and interfere with absorption of minerals in particular calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc.  These phytates are not neutralized by soaking, sprouting or heat.  High phytate diets, typical of grain and legume based diets have caused growth problems in children.

– Trypsin inhibitors in soy interfere with protein digestion, may cause pancreatic disorders and in animals caused stunted growth.

– Soy phytoestrogens, one of the main reasons for soy promotion, are really plant pesticides, which interfere with hormones in humans and have been associated with causing infertility and breast cancer.

– Soy phytoestrogens are potent anti thyroid agents that cause hypothyroidism and possibly thyroid cancer.  Soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid disease.

– Vitamin B12 added to soy products are not absorbed and actually increases the body’s need for B12.  Remember, any food that irritates the gut can potentially lead to poor absorption of nutrients, especially B12, iron and folic acid.  For example, grain protein in wheat, in particular, is one of the major causes of anemia.

– Soy increases our need for Vitamin D

– In order to make soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein, for use as an additive in many processed foods and as a protein drink or supplement, soy must be heated to high temperatures which denature the protein forming free radicals, toxic lysinoalaine and cancer causing nitrosamines.


The reason why soy is seen as a health product is due to industrial promotion.  At the turn of the century soy was a minor crop used not as a food but as an industrial product.  In fact, the GRAS rating for food products (generally recognized as safe) has been given for soy, not as a food, but as a cardboard binder.  Today 72 million acres are farmed in soy.  Much of this is used as animal feed – poultry, pigs, cows and salmon.  The rest as human food: soy oil, margarine, milk, flour, bean curd, yoghurt, miso, tamari (soy sauce) and tempeh.  Soy is as inappropriate for animal feed as it is for humans.


Dr. R. Gardener, author of Chemical Intolerance CRC press 1994 refers to his own research published in the Journal of Dairy Science 73, 1990 that calves fed soy milk suffered chronic  diarrhoea responsible for deaths and failure to grow.  S. Fellon and Dr. M. Enig, an internationally recognized fatty acid research biochemist in a review of the scientific literature published in Townsend Letter for Doctors Sept. 2000 – Tragedy and Hype – Soy, stated that when soy based feed was used, birds experienced decreased fertility, early maturation, deformed, stunted and still-born babies and premature deaths.  The birds suffered beak and bone deformities, thyroid damage, immune disorders, digestive problems, and aggressive behavior.  Interestingly, children being fed soy formula experience similar difficulties.


Dr. M. Fitzpatrick, a toxicologist and a researcher in the field of soy isoflavones states that the scientific literature is full of reports of adverse effects and toxicity of isoflavones at dietary levels causing endocrine disruption (hormonal problems):

reproductive problems, infertility, thyroid and liver disease in such animals as cheetah, quail, mice, rats, sturgeon and sheep.  In humans, Fitzpatrick notes the effect of soy isoflavones in promoting thyroid disease and breast cancer.  In fact, he quotes a paper by Dees et al titled “Dietary estrogens stimulate

human breast cells … from

Environmental Health Prospect

105 (supp 3) 633-636 1997 which concludes that women should not consume soy products to prevent breast cancer.


In males, Fellon and Enig suggest an effect on humans is similar to research on monkeys having a deficiency of male hormones.  Monkeys suffer from poor spatial perception and learning ability and visual discrimination; as well, future sexual orientation may be influenced by the early hormonal environment.  Male children exposed to soy-like estrogens had testes smaller than normal on maturation.


Girls are entering puberty earlier then normal.  Data such as environmental estrogens, PCB’s,and DDE may cause early sexual development.  However, a 1986 Puerto Rico study reported that female premature sexual development was associated with soy infant formula.  Early female development is associated with increased evidence of failure to menstruate, infertility and breast cancer.


Fellon & Enig elaborate further on the scientific literature in Townsend letter for Doctors April 2001 as follows:


– Cornell University study 1986 published in Journal of American College of Nutrition – children who develop diabetes were 2 times as likely to have been fed soy

– Acta Pediatric, July 1994 noted the decreased usability of trace minerals due to phytates in soy infant formula

– a 1996 report published in Klin Pediatr describing severe spasming  in an infant fed soy formula

– in Nutrition & Cancer 1997, two studies published; one found that phytoestrogens similar to levels found in humans stimulate cell changes leading to breast cancer, the other study found that soy protein stimulates cell growth in human breast tissue

– a 1998 study in Cancer Research found that genistein (soy isoflavone) enhances the development of mammary gland tumors in mice

-a 1998 study in Toxicology and Industrial Health indicated that phytoestrogens are potential endocrine disruptors in males

– a 1999 study at the |Clinical Research Center at MIT found that soy estrogens had no effect on menopausal symptoms such as hot flashes and night sweats.

– May 1999 and June 2000 studies in Brain Research indicating  phytoestrogens have adverse effects on the brain chemistry

– an  April 2000 study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science which found that flavonoids especially

genistein (in soy) can cross the placenta and induce cell changes that lead to infant leukemia.

-a Nutrition and Cancer 2000 article found lower testosterone levels and higher estrogen levels in Japanese men who consumed higher levels of soy.

– in the British Journal of Urology, January 2000 a study showed a five times greater risk of a birth defect of the penis from vegetarian pregnant mothers which was attributed to soy products.

– an April 2000 study in Carcinogenesis found that soy feeding stimulated the growth of

rat thyroid with iodine deficiency.

– American Journal of Cardiology June 2000 study found that soy had no impact on fat levels in healthy post menopausal women.


– During the 1994 approval process for genetically modified Roundup ready soy important research data was omitted which found that raw roundup soy contained 27% more trypsin inhibitor compared to non GM controls.


It is apparent from this scientific review by Enig & Fellon that there is legitimate concern regarding the safety of soy and its chemicals for human consumption.  However, a great deal of controversy exists by scientists who contend through research that soy is safe and has many healthful applications.  For example, a 1998 Nutrition Review article by K. O. Klein of du Pont Hospital for Children suggests that endocrine disruption for children fed soy is inconclusive.  This is very confusing for our culture until you realize that Dupont owner of Protein Technology International is the leading manufacturer of soy protein.  Also, the Klein’s review article was sponsored by the industry funded Infant Formula Council and published in the journal Nutrition Review which again is funded by such industry giants as Pillsbury, Hershey Foods, Kellogg, Roche, General Mills, Kraft, Campbell Soup, Monsanto, Coca Cola, Cargill, Heinz, Nabisco, Proctor and Gamble and Pepsi Cola.


As Dr. Alan Gaby, medical editor of Townsend Letter for Doctors, a professor at Bastyr University in Oregon comments in Townsend Letter for Doctors October 2001, “for more then 20 years there have been many reports related to conflict of interest in science and medicine.  However, it seems that in the last two years the number of such reports is more than the number in the previous 20 years combined.”


Yet, even more importantly is an article published in Science March 2001, Vol. 291, outlining the development of the current dietary recommendation of a low fat diet.  It is incredulous to realize that the foundation of these recommendations are the result of Nick Mottern a former labor reporter who was assigned by Senator George McGovern’s committee on Nutrition and Human needs in 1968 to eradicate malnutrition in America.  Mottern was assigned the task of researching and writing the first “Dietary Goals” for the United States.  He had no scientific background and subsequently he turned to Harvard School of Public Health Nutritionist, Mark Hegsted, for input on dietary fat.  Hegsted’s research was funded by Frito Lay – commercialism disguised as science to promote commercial interests.


Scientific truths are the most obvious victims of industrial funded research.  The current fad of low fat diet is a product of that deception.  As is the current fad and promotion of soy.



The previous issue of Your Health Your Choice #7 suggested in an article on Celiac Disease that the incidence varied conservatively from 1 in 100 up to 60% of the population.  A recent article in American Family Physician Jan 15, 2000 by A. Walling comments that “Sometimes our understanding of specific conditions changes dramatically.  Celiac Disease is now considered a common under-diagnosed condition that affects adults as well as children.”  She further focuses on a study “Signs of Celiac Disease in Children and Adults” by C. Feighery, British Medical Journal, July 24, 1999 who states that “failure to implement a gluten free diet may lead to two major complications of Celiac Disease: osteoporosis and cancer of the small intestine (lymphoma) esophagus and pharynx.


However, the complications of grain protein intolerance, Celiac Disease are being discussed in many other scientific publications as follows:


(1) Lakartidmingen Aug. 2001, a Swedish journal “Celiac Disease can be associated with severe neurological symptoms”, i.e. cerebellar ataxia (loss of balance), neuromuscular manifestation (aches and pains, poor muscular development and co-ordination), epilepsy, and dementia

(2) Journal of Pediatrics, October 2001, “…effect of treatment on bone density in children with celiac disease,” concluded that bone mineral content, bone area and bone mineral density improve significantly with a gluten free diet.

(3) Neurology February 2001, “Headaches and CNS white matter abnormalities associated with gluten sensitivity” ten patients are described with headache, unsteadiness and loss of balance upon walking.

(4) Medical Science Monitor, July-Aug. 2000, “Estimation of antithyroid antibodies occurrence in children with celiac disease.  There is much discussion of autoimmune diseases and its association with celiac disease in the literature.  This study demonstrated elevated antithyroid antibodies in children with celiac disease.



Often I am asked whether commercial meats available in grocery stores are OK.  My response is consistently that grass- fed beef, lamb and free range poultry fed organically or at least GMO free grain with no animal by-products is best.  This type of animal protein is high in omega 3 fatty acids (pre cursor to anti inflammatory and immune enhancing metabolites, Refer to Newsletter #1 forfurther information.)  In other words the healthier the animal the better it is for our health.  And the health of an animal is similar in outcome as it is for a human.  The closer the species follows their genetic diet the better their health.  For our food source animals the cow and sheep, herbivores, it is grass.  For ducks and geese it is various water plants and grass.  For chickens and turkeys it is primarily plants, insects and small animals.


“In his most recent report, auditor general Denis Desautels concluded that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is so understaffed that it could not guarantee the safety of Canadian



“Under Canadian Law, it is now legal for cattle to be fed a diet derived from mammal blood, gelatin, rendered animal fat or their products.  It is also legal for pigs and chickens fed on rendered cattle materials, to be rendered and fed back to



“Despite the urgent World Health Organization and UN Food and Agriculture Organization for a ban on feeding cattle animal parts, no such ban has yet been imposed in Canada.  It is still common practice to send road kill to the rendering plant to be processed into animal food even though government regulators have discovered thousands of Canadian elk to be infected with TSE:  transmissible spongiform encephedopathy; the equivalent to mad cow disease in elk and CJD or Creutzfeldt Jacob disease in humans – a horrible terminal nervous system disease.


These points were taken from the September 2001 – p34,5, and 6 of the Canadian Coalition for Policy alternatives newsletter which in turn was taken from the Canadian Health Coalition



Thin bones, osteoporosis, afflicts about 25 million people in the United States (in Canada 1 in 4 women and 1 in 8 men).  Current opinion suggests that women after menopause are subject to accelerated bone loss due to decreased estrogen production.  Subsequently there has been a significant effort to use hormone replacement to ward off further bone loss.  However, controversy exists due to evidence of increased cancer risk with Hormone Replacement Therapy and some studies suggests Hormone Replacement Therapy is not effective for either bone loss or cardiovascular disease.  Questions also arise when one considers that North America has one of the highest per capita consumption of dairy products associated with a high incidence of osteoporosis.  Also that hunter gatherer archaeological human remains do not show evidence of bone loss.  What has been suggested  is that people are not consuming adequate levels of good quality animal protein and vegetables to maintain healthy bone.


It also appears that Vitamin E protects against bone loss.  Note that our best source of Vitamin E is animal protein especially organ meats, as well as, dark green vegetables.


A report in Science News 06/30/01V159P410 demonstrates that rats whose ovaries had been removed lose bone unless given Vitamin E or estrogen.  The report states that “Vitamin E soaks up free radicals that damage bone and other tissue….it gives great hope for a cost effective alternative to current medication” and ed. Note a non-toxic intervention.



The Medical Post 06/12/01 reports that breast-fed infants whose mothers received DHA supplementation had significantly superior development at 30 months of age versus infants whose mothers did not receive DHA supplements.  This improvement in psychomotor development involved the ability to kick a ball, walk in a line, walk upstairs and balance on one foot with and without assistance.  The researchers of the study are going to evaluate these two groups of children at age six before determining whether DHA should be recommended for breast feeding mothers.



DHA or docosohexanoic acid is an omega 3 fatty acid metabolite necessary for proper brain and retina development and function.  It is found naturally in human milk with or without supplementation.  It is also found in high amounts in fish oil, heart, brain, liver, as well as, being present in grass fed beef, wild animal fat and probably free range poultry whose diet is rich in insects, worms and vegetation.  Omega 3 fatty acids are processed by the liver into active metabolites of EPA and DHA.  This process is dependent on the function of liver enzymes especially delta 6 desaturase..

This enzyme function is interfered with by diets low in protein and high in starches, by high insulin levels, by trans fatty acids (found in commercial vegetable oils and fake butters) by food reactions, by alcohol consumption, by stress, by excessive omega 6

fatty acids (refer to newsletter #1- We need fat – good fat,) Thereby, Mom’s who are eating genetic diets will easily produce enough DHA.

Note: Genetic diet is animal protein and vegetables with seasonal fresh fruit.



The text Advanced Nutrition and  Micro nutrients by C. Berdanier, 1998, Professor of Food & Nutrition at the University of Georgia states that the normal range of blood lead is 1-50  micrograms per deciliter (ug/dl).  As reported in Science News P.277 May 5, 2001″there is no threshold for the adverse effects of lead on cognition” i.e. no safe limit.  Mean IQ falls by 1.1 point for each extra ug/dl

J. Schwartz of  Harvard  Public School of Health states that if you lower the IQ of the United States population by one point you lower economic productivity by one point.


Although lead has recently been removed from gasoline and paints, potential sources are lead

smelters, storage batteries, porcelain enamel, lead pipes and solder, bullets, cigarettes, pottery glaze, lead pencils and lead weights on tires to name a few.  Tire weights can contribute 50 kg/km of highway which results in lead dust to be inhaled or tracked into carpets where babies crawl.


Foods high in sulfur including onion, garlic, cabbage, kale, broccoli, cauliflower kohlrabi and  brussel sprouts  will aid the elimination of heavy metals ,  Of greater importance is to inhibit the absorption of lead with fiber – best is vegetable at least 3 servings per meal (3 times per day).  Calcium is antagonistic to lead absorption, as well as, iron.  Therefore, inadequate calcium and iron in the diet or availability to the body  will encourage lead accumulation.  The primary reason for low calcium and iron is malabsorption.  Malabsorption results from an irritated gut wall due to wrong food.  One simple test to determine this is to electronically measure the electrical conductivity or resistivity of saliva.  The saliva should measure between 180-220 ohms.  If it exceeds 220 ohms it can be due to inadequate dietary minerals including

calcium or indicate gut irritants and malabsorption.  Iron, B12 and folic acid are selectively absorbed in the small gut and salivary resistivity is an effective screen for malabsorption of nutrients.


Further, consider that low iron can mean elevated lead.  For example, lead competes with iron for absorption through the gut cell.  If the gut cell doesn’t have enough iron because of malabsorption then lead absorption increases which damages not only the brain but also the red blood cell.  Again, the major reason for malabsorption and poor iron absorption is wrong food, in particular, the ingestion of grain protein – gluten –  resulting in iron deficiency anemia.  Look at all the pale children and adults – lack of iron.  Poor food  and especially wrong food results in increased heavy metal in our body.  Conversely, appropriate  food prevents its absorption.  Cut out the grains.



A study in the  British Medical Journal reports of a study of 1121 people with ear noise.  Each half of the group received a placebo or the  herb gingko biloba for 12 weeks.  The University of Birmingham researchers found no differences between the 2 groups.    Source Med Post 2-13-2001.


Other less well known causes of ear noise involve food intolerance and strained neck muscles and joints.  The foods most commonly involved are dairy and grain, avoidance is the correction.  A major neck muscle, the sternocleido mastoid, when strained as in whiplash can create not only neck pain and stiffness but also jaw pain, frontal headache, ear fullness and noise.  The neck muscle and joints when manipulated, to improve their motion, will stop the neurovascular irritation associated with the ear noise.


Perhaps the most common cause of ear noise is due to cardiovascular disease as in hypertension, causing a narrowing of the tiny blood vessels in the ear which creates a water-like  noise.  Again, the correction, the only correction is to improve one’s chemistry by avoiding inappropriate food.



When your back starts to ache don’t wait to have it corrected until it incapacitates you.  It is much easier to correct the mechanical problem early than later.  Better yet if your habits, occupation or history suggest a tendency to back pain then preventive maintenance, that is, having the joint and muscle mechanics checked on a regular basis is best.  It is always easier to maintain than repair.  Unless there’s direct trauma back pain like any other pain is a process.  Process is the development of the problem.  Our body always give us signals.  If we choose to ignore these signals we get the problem.  Be proactive, exercise and have regular check ups.



The Chiropractic Report, March 2001, V15#3

Too much of anything, even something good can be risky.  The probability of risk is decreased if proper procedures are followed by well trained individuals.  This is the reason for creating minimum standards of expertise.  However, even when recognized guidelines of safety are followed there is still risk.  For example, the proper prescriptive use of drugs is the 3rd-4th leading cause of death in North America.  Public awareness of the risk of medical procedures especially drugs is slowly becoming known.  However, it is perplexing that spinal manipulation of the neck, which is among the safest of therapeutic procedures, has developed the myth of being unsafe and questionable.  Often I will encounter patients who have been recommended by their friends or family physicians to see a Doctor of Chiropractic for help but have been advised not to have their neck manipulated.  Misinformation results in myths and this myth is no different.


Muscle and joints that don’t move properly create discomfort.  Manipulation of any joint or muscle that isn’t functioning properly can,  if done correctly,  give immediate relief.


Negligence is not the issue here.  Chiropractors have extensive expertise in spinal manipulation.  It is when everything is done properly and yet there is a harmful outcome.  Recall the proper, not negligent, prescriptive use of drugs causing death – this is an inherent risk.


The scientific literature demonstrates that spinal manipulation by chiropractors for neck and back pain is the most effective intervention.  This is the Chiropractor’s specialty.  No other form of treatment – drugs, surgery, acupuncture, massage or physiotherapy is as effective.  Certainly, drugs and surgery which are most often utilized as an alternative to spinal manipulative therapy carry significantly more risk.  This risk component is made abundantly clear by Professor Terret of RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, an internationally recognized expert for the risk of spinal manipulation.  His most recent book draws four main conclusions regarding the safety of neck manipulation and medical interventions for head and neck pain as follows:-

(1) a risk rate of 1 stroke per 2 million neck manipulations supported by U.S. insurance data.  Similarly Canadian data support 1 in 3.8 million procedures.

(2) Anti inflammatory drug treatment of neck pain results in 40,000 hospitalizations per million for gastric bleeding and 4,000 deaths per million.

(3) Surgery for neck pain carries an even greater risk of 15,600 cases of paralysis per 1 million and death for 6,500 per million

(4) Many different neck movements have been documented to result in stroke including sports activities, walking, kneeling at prayer, household chores, wallpapering, painting ceilings, archery, yoga, hair washed at hairdresser, backing the car, looking up, coughing, sneezing, medical procedures such as x-rays, anesthetic, dental work and emergency resuscitation.


Despite the many millions of sudden neck movements daily

such activities account for only 1.3 strokes per 1,000 strokes such that a major medical center can only expect to see .5 to 3 such cases per year.  This number is simply insufficient for a scientific analysis of risk factors and precipitating events.



Dr. Terret concludes that the scientific evidence documents spinal manipulation of the neck to be safe, effective and appropriate.  The question remains as to why there are so many reports of potential harm in the media.  Why do so many family doctors recommend against spinal manipulative therapy of the neck which is significantly safer than medications or surgical procedures they would prescribe with little or no warning and no signed consent?


Terret frankly discusses the reasons emphasizing two major reasons (1)  misrepresentation of facts; for example in 1992 an M.D., Winer, reported there were 430 strokes associated with spinal manipulation in the scientific literature.  A careful review of his references found only 78 cases – less than 1 per year worldwide, and, (2) anecdotal or unscientific evidence, for example, at a conference neurologists were asked to confirm, by recall, neck manipulation causing stroke by a show of hands.  This is then reported in the press as “chiropractic manipulation causing stroke not medical manipulation or manipulation in general.”


On the present status of spinal manipulation and its future, Terret concludes: “people are generally much more interested in a non-drug approach to neck and head pain which chiropractors have always provided will continue to do so and is the most effective way to do so in comparison to any other form of intervention”.



Ph is a measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions.

Ph is about acidity.  The more acid you are the more sick you are.  We all make acid.  It’s a normal by-product of consuming food – any food.  Some foods are more acid forming than others.  Generally, grains, nuts, seeds, legumes and animal products are most acid producing whereas fruits and vegetables are the opposite of acid – alkaline.


However, it is your digestive response to the food that is most important in determining whether the food results in an acid or alkaline effect.  If you are deficient in digestive enzyme activity, it doesn’t matter whether the food is acid or alkaline, you will produce acid.  Poorly digested food ferments.  Fermenting food creates not only various acids but also gas, bloating digestive upset and abnormal gut bacteria which then produces its various acids and toxic by-products.  This fermentation process is symptomatic in only about 1/3 of individuals.  However, in all of us it creates gut irritation which increases the leakiness of the gut to harmful chemicals from food and microbes which circulate and deposit in our body tissue.  These circulating chemicals alter the electrical conductivity of our urine, saliva and blood causing cell dysfunction.  Where these chemicals deposit inflammation occurs as a result of our immune system trying to get rid of the foreign material.  This inflammatory reaction releases acids which coupled with acids of poor digestion alter our ph.


As the ability of our kidneys to eliminate the acid is overloaded, our extracellular fluid, the matrix, becomes alkaline.  This is a compensatory shift reflected by measuring the ph of the saliva.  The optimal ph for saliva is between 6 and 7 or 6.5.  As the salivary ph drifts above its optimal ph the activity level of the salivary starch splitting enzyme amylase cannot work as well.  This reduces our ability to digest starches and a vicious cycle results.  Wrong food – incomplete digestion – more acid – gut irritation, inflammation – more acid – alkaline shift – poor starch digestion and the cycle progresses.



Organic Grass Fed Beef

Jerry Coburn, Millstream      433-4885

Certified Organic Grass Fed Beef

Maki Farms                          488-3095

Murray Bunnet                     756-8261

Grass Fed Beef:

David Chambers                   433-1200

Winterwood Natural Foods   433-4195

Healthy Start, Rothesay         849-0101

Doug Lounsbury                   756-3643

True Food Organics (Fred.)   459-4333

Bill Mulder                           357-8310

Aura Whole Foods (Fred.)    454-4240

Kevin/Beth Fullerton            763-2567

Ernie Gorham                       763-2825

Sabine Wieczorek                 488-3263

Free Range Poultry

Julie Drummond                   832-4855

Healthy Start, Rothesay         849-0101

Certified Organic Chicken

True Food Organic (Fred.)    459-4333

Larry Slip                             488-8904

Aura Whole Foods (Fred.)    454-4240  Certified Organic Vegetables

Clark Phillips/Susan Tyler    433-3935

Marc & Silvi Villeneuve       277-1987

Aura Whole Foods (Fred.)    454-4240

True Food Organics              459-4333

Organic Feed & Fertlizer

Pioneer Organics N.S.   902-538-1280


Atlantic Canadian Organic

Regional Network Conference & Trade Show – March 8-10, 2002

Delta Beausejour, Moncton

Info – 902-659-2790

“Growing Organically – From Beets to Beef!”







Please reload

2 Hampton Rd Rothesay, NB E2E 5K9

Look no further 
Get started today! 

(506) 847-7263

©2018, Forfitness & Athletics. Web Design by: Socialynx Creative