Real Health, Real Nutrition

[Guest guest]

http://www.acresusa.com/magazines/archives/0904AndersenInt.htm

 

Physician & Scientist Explains Why Natural Foods Are the Best Medicine

Interview: Arden Andersen, Ph.D., D.O.

September 2004, Acres U.S.A.

 

 

Arden Andersen was first a soil scientist and agricultural

consultant, then a physician. He specializes in nutritional

management, and advises farmers in " building biology " to

optimize the energy environment of buildings, homes and livestock

facilities. He has taught a variety of classes on such subjects as

soil and crop management and agricultural radionics. Acres U.S.A.

readers will recognize him as the author of the books The Anatomy of

Life and Energy in Agriculture and Science in Agriculture and the

producer of video courses in ecological soil and crop management and

agricultural radionics.

 

Now he has written a new book, Real Medicine, Real Health, drawing

on his wide-ranging expertise to share with readers a vision of

healing based on creating a sound body through solid nutrition and a

healthier environment, rather than expensive " magic bullet "

pharmaceuticals. As he explains, patients have many more options for

the treatment of disease than mainstream medicine would lead them to

believe.

 

ACRES U.S.A. The thing that strikes me looking over the table of

contents of your new book, which is called Real Medicine, Real Health,

is that there must be a common denominator for most of these

anomalies. Is there such a thing?

 

ARDEN ANDERSEN. Certainly. I think that across the board the

literature and clinical practice is showing that it's

environmental and nutritional. And of course, nutrition is part of our

environmental milieu, if you will. Unfortunately, more and more our

diets in the developed world are not only poor choices, but whatever

the choices are, the food itself is deficient in minerals and

nutrition — vitamins.

 

ACRES U.S.A. Isn't there an even greater danger lurking though?

In one of your chapters you mentioned genetically modified foods.

 

ANDERSEN. Absolutely. I think that the whole issue of trying to

circumvent nutrition by playing around with the gene really creates a

Frankenstein potential here. I certainly don't mean to be overly

dramatic about that, but the bottom line is that when you start

messing with the genes, the body's enzymes don't recognize

that as food. As the studies in Europe have already shown, these

altered, unusual genes can be taken up by other organisms and made a

part of them, so you end up with significant potential defects in the

genetic structure of whatever organism consumes those genes. Certainly

the research done at the Rowett Institute in England by Pusztai was

one of the first official studies to reveal that possibility.

 

ACRES U.S.A. It seems to us that this monkeying around with these

genes would have a cumulative effect over a period of time. What will

happen can't really be discerned, can it, for a generation or two

or three?

 

ANDERSEN. That's true. Certainly in the insect studies that have

been done, it happens in the first generation, but obviously

everything that happens to the human genome takes quite a bit of time

— one, two, three generations. And we know that by past

experiences of

those things that alter genetics. For example, with alcoholism, you

don't find fetal alcohol syndrome showing up until the second

generation or, worse, the third, even worse in the fourth, and so on

and so forth. So absolutely, there's a cumulative decline in that

genetic material and then subsequent physical manifestation of it.

 

ACRES U.S.A. Is this what we're seeing with the young people and

with obesity becoming a national problem and a few other things like

that, including cancer and strokes showing up in kids as young as 1

and 2 years old?

 

ANDERSEN. I think we definitely have to look at that as a contributing

factor. The obvious thing is that the nutrition simply is not there. I

hesitate to point to any one individual thing, because the pesticides

certainly have an adverse effect. The genetically modified foods have

an adverse effect. The lack of mineralization and vitamins and so

forth in the food has an adverse effect. When you add all of those

things up, each one adds to that negative outcome we're seeing as

far as obesity and diabetes and cancer and a number of other things.

 

ACRES U.S.A. You attempt to deal with all of these various syndromes

in the various chapters of your book.

 

ANDERSEN. Yes, I do. Really, the theme or the reason I put the book

together was that every time I speak around the world to farmers, I

find that it's necessary to speak an hour or two just on medicine

as well, because farmers, unfortunately, are a very sick lot. Because

of the environmental exposures they experience, there's a lot of

cancer and diabetes and heart disease and allergies, etc.

 

ACRES U.S.A. And obesity.

 

ANDERSEN. Absolutely. Over 50 percent of the U.S. population is now

classified as obese. So what I saw and heard from farmers was —

they kept asking, do you have this written down? Where can we read

about these options? So I wrote the book with the intent of simply

letting people know that there are options out there for their medical

therapy. They don't have to just settle for whatever their

conventional or traditional doctor gives to them. There are many other

options. It doesn't matter to me what they choose, as long as they

know that there are options for them in that whole process. The other

thing I wanted to convey to people is that we definitely have the best

emergency medicine program in the world. Take the U.S. emergency

department along with the U.S. military's combat casualty-care

medicine — without question, we have the best in the world. But as

soon as that patient leaves the emergency department and now has to be

cared for, either chronically or follow-up, the system greatly fails

in taking care of people and getting them back to true health.

That's where I wanted this book to come in, to let people know

that

once you leave the emergency department, you then have other choices

to consider.

 

ACRES U.S.A. Is there something inherently wrong with this idea that

all medical remedies are to be seated in cold-tar-derivative drugs?

 

ANDERSEN. I think it really goes back to business. Certainly the

chemical industry and the drug industry is all one and same — the

same companies, just different departments. It's all business

decisions, and it seems to be human nature that any time you can

arrange for a monopoly to totally corner the market, some people are

going to do it. Certainly the chemical industry has very much put that

into their business plan — if not deliberately, then certainly in

practice.

By doing so — well, the best way you make sure that your business

continues is to discredit any of your competitors. In the chemical

industry today or the drug industry, your biggest competitors are

alternative medicines, so they simply do anything they can to

discredit the competitor.

 

ACRES U.S.A. Going back to the first thing that we asked about, the

common denominator. You said it was environmental and nutritional.

Where's the breakdown in nutrition?

 

ANDERSEN. That really starts in the soil, which was certainly

recognized as far back as 1936, when Charles Northern read into the

Congressional Record that the trace minerals, particularly in the

soils around the United States, were significantly depleted,

correlating directly to human disease. Dr. Northern was a

gastroenterologist, and he was dealing with problems of the digestive

system. He recognized that gastrointestinal disease was correlated to

lack of nutrition in the food, which was directly correlated to that

deficiency in the soil. Along came William Albrecht, who furthered

that understanding, particularly in dealing with animal health, where

he showed — as you're well aware — the correlation

between soil nutrition and animal health. Then Carey Reams took it

even further, as far as human health being directly correlated to soil

health. It's pretty much common sense that you're not going

to have

anything in a food commodity, minerally speaking, that doesn't

already

exist in the soil or in the fertility program growing that crop.

Unfortunately, a lot of people would like to assume that, well, gee,

since there's only 15 or 16 nutrients that the universities have

identified as necessary for plant growth, that's all that's

necessary

for us to live on. Well, we know that that simply isn't true.

Medical

literature knows it isn't true, and it's interesting how even

doctors

or people who are supposedly in-the-know will say, " Oh well, we

don't

have a problem with nutrition, it's simply eating a balanced

diet. "

Well, then, why is it that the medical industry years and years ago

started adding iodine to our diets through iodized salt? It's

because

they recognized that nutrition was directly related to disease —

in

this case, iodine deficiency and goiter. Unfortunately, they seem to

think that's the only one. What about selenium deficiency and

white

muscle disease? We could go on and on, with diseases caused by

deficiencies in vitamin C, he B vitamins, calcium and so on. Those

things have to be in the diet, and in order to be in the diet, they

have to be in the soil or the fertility program.

 

ACRES U.S.A. In addition to goiter, isn't iodine involved in this

pandemic of diabetes that we have?

 

ANDERSEN. It's not necessarily the absolute thing, but iodine is

very important in a number of enzymatic activities in the body.

Thyroid seems to be the most dominant one, but with diabetes as well,

we're looking at vanadium and chromium as being very important

relative to the proper utilization of carbohydrates, function of

insulin, and so on, just as zinc is very important relative to insulin

manufacturing. When you start looking at Carl Pfeiffer's work

— he is

a psychiatrist who started the Pfeiffer Center in Naperville, Illinois

— you realize that all of those minerals are interactive. If you

interfere with zinc, you automatically are going to interfere with

copper and manganese, iron and so on. In the same way, any of those

nutrients that you start removing from the healthy body are going to

affect other enzymatic processes, because all enzymes have metal

nutrients that are co-factors to activate them — if we don't

have

those minerals, those enzymes are idle.

 

ACRES U.S.A. If trace minerals are the key to enzymes, how does that

square with the use of radiomimetic chemicals or radiation or

irradiation for food?

 

ANDERSEN. It's interesting you asked that because, of course, the

USDA and FDA have approved irradiation of food commodities, saying

that it's absolutely safe. They said that about DDT, and they said

that about irradiating tonsils and all kinds of things that we find

out after a generation are absolutely false. What we currently see is

that the chemistry may not be significantly changed with the

microscopic view or the pigeon-hole view they're taking of

analyzing

food, but we know that when you irradiate food, you alter the metals

in those foods, just as you alter the physics — and physics really

creates these chemistries because it's ultimately the energy out

of

the food that we live on. What happens, then, with altering the

physics and altering the metals — as far as their energetics, we

alter

the ability of the enzymes to function, which then affects the ability

to digest that food and utilize that food for our energy. Any

literature that I have looked at and anywhere that I have seen work

done relative to irradiated food or microwaved food, the studies show

that the animals tested do not do well at all.

 

ACRES U.S.A. On microwaved food?

 

ANDERSEN. Microwaved food or irradiated food. Really, the bottom line

with food irradiation is simply that it covers up dirty food. It is an

excuse for the industry to continue providing the public with bad

food. Rather than cleaning up the nutrition on the farm, cleaning up

the system like it should be, they can put dirty food into the market

and just irradiate it. Another thing they don't want us to know is

that irradiation doesn't necessarily kill all the harmful

organisms — it kills most of them, but there's a few that it

doesn't

kill because they're resistant, they then become genetically

altered

as well, which is the nature of irradiation. So we end up with, over

time, some very resistant organisms.

 

ACRES U.S.A. This may a peripheral point, but since we're talking

about irradiation, do you have a fix on what's happening with all

these cell phones being held pointed right there at the brain?

 

ANDERSEN. That's an interesting question, and of course the

industry, because it's a business, openly denies that there's

any

correlation with health problems. I think you have to look at it with

a little bit of common sense. The brain is a very delicate

electromagnetic organ.

Anytime you put an electromagnetic field near it, you're going to

affect the way those cells operate. I think it still goes back to the

health of the individual and the amount of time they have that cell

phone essentially planted to their ear. It's like any other

environmental exposure, certain groups of people are going to react

adversely, and other people tolerate it much better. I don't think

there's any question — at least in my mind, from the physics

perspective — that there is going to be an adverse effect. That

adverse effect, though, is going to correlate to the overall health of

the individual and the amount of time they spend with that thing. I

personally recommend something other than having that phone glued to

your ear — use some type of earpiece or some mechanism like that.

 

ACRES U.S.A. Going back to these various syndromes that are troubling

America so much, like Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's

disease and so on, where do you fix the etiology of those kind of

things? Is it nutrition again?

 

ANDERSEN. Absolutely, nutrition's the issue. As we study nature

more and more, we find that the body's susceptibility to

environmental

impact is directly related to nutrient density in the body, because

the nutrient density in your body determines the strength of your

immune system, the ability to detoxify chemicals that come into the

body. It determines what's really going to happen to you, your

overall energy. It's sort of like whether you have a plastic bag

versus a paper bag for carrying your groceries, or a double paper bag

versus a thin paper bag. You still have the same load in the grocery

bag, but which one is going to hold that load? In our environment

today, without question, the latest research shows a correlation of

organophosphate pesticides to Parkinson's disease —

there's three or four articles that I know of, one out of the

University of Texas, and I list those in my book as well.

Parkinson's

is part of the " big five " — if you look at David

Perlmutter's book,

Brainrecovery.com (yes, that's the title), he talks about the big

five, that is, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, MS, Lou Gehrig's

and stroke.

He says, essentially, that the basic chemistry and physics of these

diseases are all the same.

The area of the brain might be a little bit different, but the

essential etiology or cause of the disease, the breakdown in the brain

tissue, is still the same. And that, really, is free-radical damage to

the tissue.

 

ACRES U.S.A. What happens with these free radicals in the body?

 

ANDERSEN. Well, picture a farmer welding something and those sparks

flying off from the weld, those are like free radicals. If they drop

on the ground into the dirt, they are usually smothered out, so

there's no big deal. That's like antioxidants collecting free

radicals in your body and smothering them out. However, if you get a

few of those sparks down into your boot, they're going to burn

your

foot. That's what happens to free radicals when you don't have

adequate antioxidants to smother them out. Pesticides such as

organophosphates cause free-radical damage to nerve tissue, and

depending upon the susceptibility of the individual, a different part

of the brain is going to be damaged. Thus, damage to one part of the

brain might cause Alzheimer's, another part of the brain,

Parkinson's,

another part of that system would result in MS, and so on.

 

ACRES U.S.A. And maybe Mad Cow disease?

 

ANDERSEN. It could certainly be a part of that. It's interesting

to look at the government research on microtoxins — the exact same

symptoms from certain microtoxins appear in Mad Cow disease, as well

as some of the work out of England with organophosphates causing that

prion to develop that's associated with the Mad Cow disease

syndrome.

The bottom line still is, what is the integrity of the body, its

ability to withstand these organophosphates and whatever else might be

in the environment, pesticides, etc.?

 

ACRES U.S.A. Are you familiar with the Mark Purdey theory on bovine

spongiform encephalopathy?

 

ANDERSEN. Which one was that, the one about the cause being

organophosphates?

 

ACRES U.S.A. Yes, rather than the tainted meat being fed back to other

animals.

 

ANDERSEN. Right, that's the work from England that I mentioned.

Yes, I am familiar with his theory.

 

ACRES U.S.A. That would put Mad Cow pretty much in alignment with

these other five you're talking about, wouldn't it?

 

ANDERSEN. Yes, it would. It does anyway. It's still damage. The

bottom line is this: if we go into a room full of people, 100 people,

let's say, and one or two of those people have the flu virus or a

cold

virus, do 100 people in that room, 100 percent, get sick? Absolutely

not. You're going to have some people who are going to be

susceptible to those viruses. Even though everyone's exposed, that

doesn't mean everyone gets sick. It's all about the immune

system and

the integrity of that immune system in dealing with those things.

 

ACRES U.S.A. Something is certainly creating a pandemic of diabetes.

For instance, the theory has been advanced that you have the four

halogens: bromine, iodine, fluorine and chlorine. Fluorine bumps the

others, and this inhibits the uptake of iodine to create thyroxin,

which you need to metabolize sugar. How important do you think this

business of putting fluoride into drinking water and thus making it a

combination chemical with everything in the medicine cabinet, how

important do you think that is?

 

ANDERSEN. I think it's very important. At the same time, it's

just another straw on the camel's back. One thing we definitely

see

with fluoride is learning disabilities in children in some of these

areas where they've had way too much fluoride put into the water

system. I think what happens is that again it is another straw on the

camel's back adding to the susceptibility to diabetes and so on.

If we

have a fairly weak system, that may be all it takes to trigger the

diabetes. If we have a stronger system, it may take an additional

stressor in order to trigger the diabetes. It's interesting —

there

are a number of ideologies associated with it, because Agent Orange

was massively sprayed all over Asia during the Vietnam war. It took

the U.S. government 25 years to finally acknowledge that 50 percent of

Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange developed diabetes.

That's

not just an accident. There are a number of issues that seem to be

correlated to that. Scandinavia did a very good retrospective study

over four decades related to DPT immunizations, showing a correlation

between DPT immunization of the population and increased incidences of

Type I and Type II diabetes. So there are a number of things that are

associated. Thus, if you take the Agent Orange, you take the

immunizations, you add onto that fluoridation of the water, you add to

that additional pesticides, you add to that the mercury issue in the

environment, and you add to that the lack of minerals necessary for

the body to detoxify or throw off these things, and now you have soup,

or recipe, for disease.

 

ACRES U.S.A. You have medicines that are almost ubiquitously used,

willy-nilly almost. For instance, take Xanax. Reading the

physician's desk reference tells us that prolonged use of Xanax

will

result in failure of memory.

 

ANDERSEN. Right.

 

ACRES U.S.A. Are we not incubating some of these syndromes by the

overuse of prescription drugs?

 

ANDERSEN. I don't think there's any question about that. In

fact, in

my book I do mention that the third leading cause of death in the

United States is the medical system — 240,000 deaths are directly

attributed to the medical system every year. And that comes from the

AMA itself.

 

ACRES U.S.A. You're not talking just about leaving a sponge

inside a patient after an operation?

 

ANDERSEN. I'm not talking about leaving a sponge — 140,000 of

those deaths are caused by drugs.

 

ACRES U.S.A. Drugs?

 

ANDERSEN. Prescription medications

 

ACRES U.S.A. Incorrectly prescribed or incorrectly used?

 

ANDERSEN. They may be correctly used, but still the adverse side

effects cause death. So absolutely, we are incubating some very, very

significant problems in our population. It's gotten to the point

where doctors and the whole medical system don't want to treat

patients, all

they want to do is run the cash register. The quickest thing that you

can do, you spend five to seven minutes with a patient — because

of the HMO system. Oh, the patient is depressed? Their favorite

solution, of course, has to do with mood-altering drugs, whether they

be antidepressants or anxioletics like the Xanax that you talked

about, or the benzodiazepines, or some other drug associated with

mood-altering. Then other things that are very, very common: your

heart drugs, your acid-blockers for indigestion, as well as aspirin

—

unfortunately, aspirin causes a tremendous number of bleeding strokes

and bleeding gastrointestinal problems every year. Those things are

not considered in what people think of as far as disease and then

subsequent disease.

 

ACRES U.S.A. The common denominator for all of these chapters then

would be that it's up to the individual to start taking command

of his or her own health problems?

 

ANDERSEN. Absolutely — the power is in the individual themselves,

the patient. As I said before, that's exactly why I wrote the

book,

to let people know you have options. I don't try to force people

into

any particular option, that's not my choice. But, as a physician,

I

feel it is my obligation to let you, the patient, know you have a

number of options. I am supposed to inform you of all of those options

and then perhaps assist you in making the best choice for you —

whatever that choice might be. Unfortunately, today patients are not

educated that there are alternatives, that there are other ways of

solving everything from attention deficit syndrome and autism through

heart disease and cancer, diabetes, obesity, allergies, orthopedic

problems, all of those things. There are options. And I think people

simply need to know that.

 

ACRES U.S.A. Aren't some of these options related to identifying

the food that you're getting, the quality of it?

 

ANDERSEN. Without question. More and more as the foods have been

altered, we find that with many, many people, the majority of their

symptoms are due to the foods they eat. If we simply get them off of

those reactive foods, they improve. Particularly what I find in the

blood testing we do — we use a specific lab, Amino Labs, with

what's called an IGG delayed food sensitivity blood test —

we're

finding that corn, soybean and canola are three of the very, very

common reactants.

Well, over 70 percent of those three commodities are genetically

modified in this country, in North America. We also find a tremendous

amount of dairy, eggs and wheat. If you then look at today's

agricultural system, you can hardly find a true egg, or true dairy or

true grain because we're using Roundup Ready wheat, so they're

spraying Roundup all over this, which increases the level of Fusarium

growth, which in turn increases microtoxins. In addition, the dairy

industry is loading these animals with bovine growth hormone as well

as other hormones in a poor diet; the chicken industry, same thing.

They're loading these animals and birds with hormones and various

elements, including arsenic, in order to get them to gain weight, and

then they have to put a coloring, annatto, into chicken feed just to

get the egg yolks to be yellow.

 

ACRES U.S.A. What happens to that arsenic?

 

ANDERSEN. What it does is cause significant amounts of inflammation in

the body, causing the animal to gain weight much more rapidly.

 

ACRES U.S.A. How about passing it on to the consumer?

 

ANDERSEN. Without question, it's going to be passed on to the

consumer, and it is one of the reasons we have obesity problems in

this country. Those things that are put in the animals and the birds

to cause them to gain weight rapidly are then consumed by humans. And

what do we have? Obesity problems. Can't lose weight.

 

ACRES U.S.A. What else might readers expect to find in your book?

 

ANDERSEN. I talk about a number of things regarding conventional

therapies that are really considered alternative. For example,

hyperbaric oxygen therapy, I talk a little bit about that. We talk

about cancer, too, of course.

 

ACRES U.S.A. Let's just touch on a couple of these therapies that

may or may not be conventional, one of them being chelation therapy.

What's your fix on that?

 

ANDERSEN. I was reading about chelation therapy conducted by Dr. Evers

back in the late '60s and early '70s, so I was just a kid at

that time — kind of unusual for kids to be reading about chelation

therapy, but my father had information around on that, so I read it at

that time.

Chelation therapy was originally developed for lead poisoning of the

lead workers, so EDTA [ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid] was found to

be one of the most effective ways of pulling lead out of the body,

detoxifying the body. The problem — what the medical industry

likes to keep pointing back to — is that in their experimentation,

they put in huge quantities of EDTA in the range of 15 or more grams

in an IV push. When you put that much EDTA in, it grabs onto all of

that lead, and where is it filtered out? Through the kidneys, and so

it shut them down. Thus, the medical establishment likes to tell you

see how dangerous EDTA is, that it has a history of killing people.

No, no, no — it has a history of killing if you overdose it

extremely —

and even then it's not because of the EDTA, it's the lead in

these

people that kills them.

 

ACRES U.S.A. What's the solution to this problem?

 

ANDERSEN. What we've done over time is this: we recognized that

this is a good material, it's fairly safe, it's in a lot of

your

food because it is an anticoagulant, it's a strong antioxidant.

If we

put in low doses of EDTA, and the period of time and dose is

coordinated to the weight of the patient and the specific heavy metal

load, it is an excellent detoxifier for pulling out lead, cadmium,

arsenic, etc., in the body. Most of us are typically highly exposed to

these toxins through pesticides, through foods, through leaded

gasoline, and it's still in the pollution, leaded paint, all of

those

kinds of things that people are still exposed to. EDTA is an excellent

material to take that out. In fact, it's probably the most

effective

as far as getting those kinds of things out of the body. Primarily,

it's used via IV except for those patients who cannot tolerate

IVs,

although that really is the best way, in my opinion. There is some

work showing that there are also results with oral dosage. It's

just

that it's not absorbed very well through the gut.

 

ACRES U.S.A. Do you have anything in your work on hydrogen peroxide?

 

ANDERSEN. I discuss that a little bit. I mention that under the issue

of hyperbaric oxygen because of hyper-oxygenation of the body —

particularly in a lot of instances where we have infections or

diseases — hyper-oxygenation is very, very beneficial. Ideally, I

like to get a person into a hyperbaric-oxygen chamber. However, if

that's not available and I can't do that, then very acceptable

alternatives would be hydrogen peroxide or calcium peroxide and ozone

therapy. More and more people are using ozone therapy in the treatment

of viruses, particularly, and difficult infections.

 

ACRES U.S.A. Cell biologists tell us that once you have a virus in

your system, you have a virus in your system, and it'll be there

until the day you die. What is your opinion on that?

 

ANDERSEN. Well, you know, that's probably true. I don't know

that I'm enough of an authority on that subject to be able to

debate

that specifically.

 

ACRES U.S.A. But will the ozone therapy remedy it?

 

ANDERSEN. What I can say is that it's not what's there

that's so important, it's what is active that causes the

problems.

 

ACRES U.S.A. Whether it's under control?

 

ANDERSEN. Absolutely, and because the medical system would like you to

believe, for example, that if you have measles or something of that

nature, then once you're over it, it's no big deal and

you'll not have it again. Well, the appearance of AIDS in the

'80s

proved the medical system absolutely wrong in that theory — in

that

when the immune system gets depleted, a lot of these viruses wake back

up, so to speak — they become reactivated and cause open disease.

So,

yes, perhaps once you have a virus in the system it's always

there,

but that's really not important — it's what the virus is

doing

that's important. If it's just lying there dormant doing

nothing

because your immune system is keeping it in check, it's never a

problem.

 

ACRES U.S.A. You're familiar with treatment that a few people are

using where they take the blood out, much like in dialysis, treat it

with ozone, and then put it back in. Do you have any opinion or any

information on that in your book?

 

ANDERSEN. Absolutely, it's an excellent therapy, and I've

used that

therapy myself on patients, on AIDS patients, on people with

Cytomegalo virus, etc., with excellent results.

 

ACRES U.S.A. It performs well with the AIDS patients?

 

ANDERSEN. It performs well with the AIDS patients, but we do it in

combination with ultraviolet treatment of the blood. We pull the blood

out, run it through an ultraviolet light into a flask, add the ozone,

and run it back through the light and into the patient. It takes about

20 minutes to run a unit, and what it does is to deactivate the virus.

You're not going to kill a virus because it's not living

anyway,

technically speaking, but you can deactivate the virus and that allows

the immune system to react to it differently and to get it under

control and suppress it. It's an excellent therapy, and when we

track

viral counts, whether it be in hepatitis patients, AIDS patients,

Cytomegalo virus, whatever the virus, we track actual viral counts,

and they go down. In fact, we can get them to go to zero. It's a

comprehensive therapy — it's not just one thing. There are

really no

cure-alls or magic bullets, death being the big exception, but in

combination with good nutrition and appropriate augmentative

therapies, ozone or hydrogen peroxide therapy can be very, very

helpful.

 

ACRES U.S.A. It sounds to us like you've got a veritable

encyclopedia

here, and it's the kind of encyclopedia that's very much in

need

because it doesn't mince words or beat around the bush or

preserve a

cash cow for anybody.

 

ANDERSEN. That's right. I don't beat around the bush. I

don't think

that's fair to patients to beat around the bush and be politically

correct. I let them decide. I don't have everything in the book,

of

course. You can't put everything in a 275-page book. But I have

covered the major issues that people encounter today, and I hope

I've

shown them that they have options. They have other things that can

help them if they choose to use them. Some people choose not to, and

that's fine. That's what America should be about —

choice. But we need

to have freedom of choice as well for those people who choose an

alternative route to their medical therapy.

 

ACRES U.S.A. There certainly are deficits in the so-called accepted or

conventional system for treating illnesses.

 

ANDERSEN. Yes, there are some deficits. Like I said though, our

emergency medical system and technology is without question the best

in the world. If you are in a car wreck, if you have a near-drowning,

if you have a problem that requires emergency medical therapy, the

United States is the best place in the world to be for that to occur.

 

ACRES U.S.A. But they seem to be equally helpless when they're

dealing with degenerative metabolic problems.

 

ANDERSEN. That's correct. As I said, as soon as you leave the

emergency department, all bets are off. We have a terrible track

record.