Gary's new website

Saturday, January 05, 2013

Exclusive Report: The health effects of herbicide use on a Central North Island farm

There has been a lot of debate lately about the images promoting New Zealand to the rest of the world:

"Clean, Green New Zealand" and "100% Pure".

Many argue that while New Zealand sure is "Green", it is far from "Clean" or "100% Pure".

For the first time ever, this blog brings you the report by D N Dempsey of his experiences, over many years, with the use of hormone herbicides on his Central North Island.

In his report, Don describes the devastation to his health and the death of livestock that can only be the result of repeated exposure to hormone sprays that accumulated in pasture soil.  Page ten of his report has the blood tests of thyroid function of affected and unaffected cattle that finally solved the mystery of why his cattle were so unwell and why so many were dying.

Sadly, this report has gone nowhere, officially.  I guess it may be a case of being a health issue that nobody in New Zealand wants to know about!  Here it is, below, for you to read in full:


Don's report is further confirmation that we are not the "Clean" country we would like the rest of the World to believe we are.  

When I see the green, rolling pastures of New Zealand, I see millions of liters of herbicide.  When I was a student I used to work on the farms of the South Waikato.  One of my jobs involved grubbing thistle and ragwort.  Nowadays, hard labour has been replaced by herbicides.

Just how safe are these herbicides?  Essential they may be for modern farming practices; but are they ruining our health?

The evidence grows by the day that these herbicides are far from safe.  It was during the Vietnam War that we got our first glimpses of how harmful these chemicals may be.  Millions of gallons of Agent Orange were sprayed on the forests and paddy fields of the North and South, causing a surge in cancers and birth defects among those who were exposed to the herbicide. Second and third generations continue to suffer from the genetic damage.

Evidence grows stronger by the day that herbicide sprays damage endocrine systems, including the thyroid, as reported by Don Dempsey.

"In an alarming new study published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, researchers from The Committee for Research & Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) reported on the results of a 2 year feeding study in rats given either NK603 Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize, cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone, at levels permitted in drinking water and GM crops in the United States."

Please go here to read the complete article, including references.

Roundup is used by the millions of liters here in New Zealand to keep us "Green". Roundup (and generics)  is a glyphosate (not Phenoxy). It is not a hormonal spray but it is still far from benign.

I have completed a Hair Tissue Mineral Analysis for Don Dempsey (Don has given me permission to write about it here).  The laboratory reported the following for him:


** Sympathetic Dominance

** Tendency Toward Decreased Thyroid Function (decreased secretion of hormones)
** Tendency Toward Decreased Adrenal Activity (decreased secretion of hormones)

The current tissue mineral pattern is indicative of a fast metabolic rate (Fast Metabolism, Type #4). Even though the metabolic rate is considered fast, this patient may be experiencing adrenal and thyroid


This is consistent with the thyroid issues that Don has reported over the years.

My conclusions (Not Don's)

  • New Zealand may be "Green" but it is far from "Clean".
  • Hormone herbicides, including the crops that are bred to be resistant to them, GMO corn, for example, can have devastating effects on animals and humans, including cancer, birth defects endocrine disorders, such as those affecting thyroid.
  • More research needs to be done to determine the safety of these chemicals and associated GMO herbicide resistant crops.
  • We need to invest more into finding and introducing clean alternatives for pasture production.
  • In the meantime, there is sufficient evidence to warrant severely limiting the use of these herbicides.
Thanks, Don, for allowing me to publish your report.

In publishing Don's report, am I being a New Zealand Patriot or am I a Traitor?

About this website
The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation. Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.

Friday, January 04, 2013

Most women who have double mastectomy don't need it, U-M study finds

Most women who have double mastectomy don't need it, U-M study finds

Worry about recurrence was driving factor, but 70 percent had very low risk of developing cancer in healthy breast

ANN ARBOR, Mich. — About 70 percent of women who have both breasts removed following a breast cancer diagnosis do so despite a very low risk of facing cancer in the healthy breast, new research from the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center finds.
Full report here:

About this website

 The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation. Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.

A New Year message to my readers

Depressing the year may have been for many; but 2012 was a very good year for the Wellington Mollers.  The children are all well health-wise, study-wise and work-wise.  What better gift can parents receive than that!

It was also a wonderful year business-wise and professionally which explains why you have not received many of these email messages from me.  I have simply been overwhelmed by the demand for our services.

2012 had the first invitation for me to lecture in Australia on the application of the ICL Hair Tissue Mineral Analysis for tired athletes (Aren't they all?) and this is leading into a six-city lecture tour of Australia and New Zealand for 2013 (more about these in a few months time).

Health-wise and sporting-wise, last year was the best I can ever recall with the Moller Brothers totally dominating the veteran categories of multi-sports racing in New Zealand and Australia.  I went well in mountain bike and cyclocross racing.  Everything still works.  And my partner, Alofa, is the picture-perfect representation of good health and fitness, giving the younger women a run for their money in Cross-fit.

2013 may be a little more subdued, sporting-wise, as we concentrate on exploring the amazing network of cycle tracks that now almost connect one end of New Zealand with the other.  Then, later in the year, I turn 60 and I am eyeing up all those 60+ age group mountain bike race records in New Zealand and Australia, which I am currently well under.  I am still getting faster.  Those records sure do look enticing.  

Work-wise, there are two things that we are going to work on:  The first is to have a four day working week so that we have three-day weekends during which we can relax and take frequent mini-holidays within New Zealand.  The second is to concentrate on developing our nutrient testing service (hair tissue analysis) which I am getting very good at.  It has been a huge success for my clients - so it is an obvious area to concentrate on.

Let's be nice to each other

Last year came across as one that was dominated by fear: Fear of strangers, fear of cancer, fear of getting old, fear of financial ruin, fear of the gun, fear of the end of the World.  The sad fact is that fear sells: even better than sex.  Fear is control.  The culmination of this was the December school massacre in the USA.  The response in the USA has been for people to be even more fearful of others with calls for armed guards in class rooms and elsewhere.  Hand gun sales in the USA have soured to greater heights than ever.  

I have wondered what would have happened if the audience were all packing heat when the Bat Man Movie killings happened?  It would have been absolute mayhem in the darkened theatre if every armed   theatre-goer let loose with their Uzi's, colts and rocket-launchers in response to the lone shooter!  More guns are not the solution.  Its an emotive, knee-jerk reaction that further accelerates the progressive destruction of the Caring Society.

What worries me is this: "Where America goes, we also go - eventually".  What a horrific thought!

The solution is not to retreat into gated suburbs and build bunkers and safe rooms.  It is not to arm ourselves to the teeth.  It is not to shun those who dress or think differently to us.   It is not to forbid children to play in the streets.  It is not to treat teenage misbehaviour with powerful psychotrophic drugs (Hardly a single mass killer, of recent times, was not on mind-numbing drugs).

The answer is to create a society that is open and welcoming for all and sundry; especially for those among us who are troubled.  If we shun others, we risk creating the "Screw You Society".  Nobody benefits from that other than the likes of the arms, surveilance and security industries.  Oh! - and the depression industry.  And politicians - of course.  Fear is control.

2013 is going to be a good year.  I am doing my bit already to change things for the better by smiling and greeting every person I pass, including motorists and dog owners while I am riding my bike (Both of us were bitten by dogs while out riding last year).   It was a little difficult first, to smile and greet a complete stranger who is marching your way with eyes sternly glued to the ground; but it is getting easier to do with each day and the usual response from the stranger is one of pleasant surprise.

My daughter, Mary Ann, is going a step further than me by volunteering to serve toast and tea once a week at a local drop-in centre for the homeless (Yes, there are lots of homeless, down-and-out people in Wellington).  

If we all simply got out from behind our steering wheels and computers a little more often and greeted and chatted with those about us, including strangers, wouldn't the World be a much better place for all? Its an infectious behaviour of the best kind.

My Blog

I have had a little spare time lately to write a few more articles about health topics.  Some are about issues that never seem to make it into mainstream media (I wonder why?).  Please take a few minutes of your time to read some of what I have written.  

I would like to conclude this monologue by extending our family's best wishes to you and all others.  Yes - We wish you all a healthy and prosperous year.

Gary, Alofa and family

About this website
The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation. Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.

Thursday, January 03, 2013

Tamiflu - You would have to be nuts to give this to your baby

Whereas the flu is self-limiting, the FDA's capacity for bad decisions is not...
The recent decision by the FDA to approve the use of the antiviral drug Tamiflu for treating influenza in infants as young as two weeks old, belies an underlying trajectory within our regulatory agencies towards sheer insanity.
Tamiflu, known generically as oseltamivir, has already drawn international concern over its link with suicide deaths in children given the drug 

Article here:

About this website
 The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation. Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.

The Guide to Candida

The Guide to Candida Infographic
Infographic created by

About this website
The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation. Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.

The 21 day rule for medical treatments

Not really relevant to the article;
but I do like it!

The 21 day rule

I often come across people including athletes who have been undergoing a form of medical treatment for months; sometimes longer.

It raises the question:

"How long should one undergo a course of medical treatment before calling it quits?" 

As a general rule of thumb, I recommend applying the

"21 day rule"

If you are undergoing any form of treatment or therapy, be it physical therapy or medicine, apply the 21 day rule.

If, after 21 days of consistent application of the therapy, there has not been a significant improvement in your condition and at a rate or level above what would normally be expected if things were left up to Mother Nature herself, then you need to review what is being done. 

Far too often, ineffective therapies are continued with long after when their use should have been critically reviewed, modified or ceased altogether. In addition, progress is often erroneously attributed to the treatment or medicine when it is really just the natural healing processes that should be getting the credit.

Many medications (unlike herbs, vitamins and minerals) cease to be effective after a month of regular use.  In many cases, the body "habituates" (another term for "addiction") to medicines such as steroids, anti-depressants and pain medications).

Simple methods of monitoring progress, such as using a personal heart rate monitor, are often overlooked, therefore causing a loss of objectivity when assessing progress.  Always ask:

"How is my progress being measured?"

Nutritional and lifestyle strategies, including exercise and deep tissue massage, can be extremely effective. These enhance and support, rather than replace or inhibit normal body physiology. Sometimes no obvious benefit is ever demonstrated by exercise, eating well and supplementing where the need exists, other than looking good and feeling great over the long term. Give these strategies at least 3 months to take effect.

Wednesday, January 02, 2013

Why ‘The Biggest Loser’ and ‘Boot Camp’ style workouts are a bad idea for the sedentary population

"Programmes such as The Biggest Loser show morbidly obese individuals undertaking painful boot camp style exercise programmes which glorify unhealthy and radical weight loss.  Putting these previously sedentary individuals under this type of training is doing them far more harm than good, to the point where it would be more advisable to continue with inactivity."
Read more:
The youtube video in Mary Ann's article is of physical and psychological torture masquerading as mass entertainment.

About this website The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation. Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.

30 Years of Breast Screening: 1.3 Million Wrongly Treated

You are showering and you feel an inconsistency in one of your breasts.  Given all the pink hoopla about the breast cancer epidemic, you worry yourself sick that you may have breast cancer.  You rush off to your doctor who orders a mamogram.  The mamogram results show what may be a tiny lump.  You are referred to a breast expert.  You are on the conveyor belt.  Once on, it may be next to impossible to get off.  You are in the "System".

Here's the problem: The latest research (Nov 2012) concludes that over 90% of early detection cases for breast cancer are false positives.  In other words, if left alone, over 90% of cases would never have come to anything!  The problem for  your doctor is this:

"If over 90% of positive mamograms are actually false positives, how do we detect and then treat the few remaining percent that may go on to be invasive cancer?"

The answer currently being employed is to treat just about every case that may actually be false positives as being positives.  In other words - treat these as one would an aggressive invasive cancer.  This is very bad news for women.  

Millions of women, worldwide, who may not have had a life threatening breast cancer have had their breasts removed and/or undergone debilitating chemotherapy, radiation therapy and hormone therapy - all for no benefit but for a whole lot of harm!

Why is breast cancer the feared epidemic it is today?  

Breast cancer may be on the increase.  But much less than one might think, given all the publicity and wall-to-wall fund-raising.  Most of the scary increase in breast cancer is actually due to early stage detection through mamograms of conditions, most of which never progress to being invasive cancer.  Plus, there is a ton and a half of media hype being generated by huge charitable and commercial industries that feed on the cancer epidemic - be it real or not - making the problem seem much worse than it really is.

Why does your doctor treat all these "positives" so aggressively?

Cancer is a terrible disease that I would not wish upon my worst enemy.  One of my aunties passed away a few years ago, some 15 years after discovering she had breast cancer (She opted for no "conventional" treatment at all, a decision I did not agree with at the time).  She enjoyed over a decade of good health before finally succumbing to its ravages.

The problem with breast cancer is it may be next to impossible to know which of these many false positives will go on to be invasive cancer.

If there is an aggressive cancer present, then the sooner it is treated - aggressively - the better the chances of survival.  

If your doctor decides to take a "wait and see" approach and it consequently develops into an aggressive cancer, he/she has got a serious problem - a very unhappy patient who may complain to the authorities and even sue for negligence.  Better to play it safe, professionally, and order the full works for the patient with no expenses spared.  No doctor ever got sued for over-treating a breast lump (as far as I know anyway).  And no doctor ever wants to lose a patient through "under treatment".

If I found a breast lump, here is what I would do:

(this does apply to men as well as women):
Example of a thermogram
  • Do not fiddle with it - that means, leave it alone!  Do not poke and prod and do not crush it with a mamogram or allow a biopsy at this stage.  You do not want to break up any tumour tissue, causing cells to migrate to other parts of the body.  As an aside: a mamogram is ionising radiation which increases your lifetime risk of getting cancer, so I would be inclined to use less invasive and less potentially harmful assessment tools in the early stages of investigation.
  • Get a thermogram, or a repeat if you have had one in the past, for comparison (repeat thermograms are extremely valuable because they will show any changes that may have happened). A thermogram, is totally non-invasive and is valid for all, young and old.  This is best done directly via a thermogram screening service. A thermogram is totally non-invasive.  It will pick up the heat signature, in remarkable detail, of vascularisation associated with a growing tumour. A number of my clients have had this done and the results are most useful - and reassuring.  Go here for more information.
  • If the thermogram shows something suspicious then it is time to escalate and go see your doctor armed with your thermogram results.  Incidentally, the people providing the thermogram service are extremely helpful, reassuring and caring - listen to their advice.
  • Regardless of the results, also consult someone who can advise on nutrition,breast tissue effleurage and other strategies to promote breast health.  Again, the people who provide the thermogram service may be your first port of call for where to find this assistance.

Mamograms are early detection - not real prevention!

The mamogram is not true prevention.  There is a lot that can be done to prevent the development of cancer - well before there are any lumps to show on a mamogram.  Measures that put the odds more favourably in your camp.  Read on.

Have you ever wondered what comes before cancer?  

A cancer does not develop overnight out of thin air.  In most cases there must be conditions that stress the cells for years, if not decades, like a lifetime of smoking, or a bra strap that has been rubbing a mole for years, or repeated CT scans and x-rays that have zapped you many times with radiation.  There must almost always be chronic oxidative stress within the cellular environment, often due to the deficiency of a nutrient such as selenium, and/or the presence of a toxin such as lead or mercury.  

Oxidative stress is most commonly experienced as inflammation, such as with a swollen prostate gland.  In the case of the breast tissue, inflammation may develop into fibrocystic breast disease.  While the usual advice with a condition, like fibrocystic breast disease, is to treat it with anti-inflammatories and hormones, there is a lot more that can be done.  There are several practical natural health interventions that quell inflammation and return unhealthy tissue to a state of normality.  These may involve personalised nutrition and gentle effleurage massage guided by a suitably trained health professional.

Diets that reduce cancer risk

We can all do much better with our diets - even me!  When I take a diet recall of a client's foods, the most common issue is the lack of variety and lack of nutrient-dense foods. Here's a good website to help you get started quickly:

If breast screening has caused far more harm than good, why hasn't this been headline news?

The report that breast screening has done so much harm was published in not just any old journal, but in the New England Journal of Medicine.  This news is sensational!  I can only speculate why this report has not received the attention it so deserves:
  • Like Greece and Spain, or the US Big Banks, the breast screening industry is just far too big to fail.  There are many vested and powerful interests in continuing with the status quo.
  • Breast cancer is BIG money.  There is no money to be made from true prevention, like sunlight, good food and cheap, non-patented natural vitamins and minerals.
  • Mainstream media operates in sound bites.  It will take many sound bites to make sense of this confusing matter, especially since it goes completely against everything we have been told so far about breast cancer screening.  It will end up totally confusing the public and undermine a number of charitable fund-raising schemes, so better to remain quiet.  
  • Who goes first will be accused of causing widespread hysteria and confusion. It is  like telling the Emperor that he has no clothes, or accusing Lance Armstrong of being a drugs cheat!  Those who value their heads will remain silent.
  • If the report was about a million men being maimed - not women - then there would surely be an outcry.  Maybe.  By the way, similar issues surround excessive false-positives and consequent over-treatment with prostate screening (I can feel another article coming on!).
  • Breast cancer is war!  In order to win this war, we must be prepared to take collateral damage in the form of civilian casualties (in this case, women).  Of course this is the mis-applied logic of a mad-man (or woman).
  • Pressure from women for treatment to the point of over-kill.  This is happening because the war on cancer has been too effective in drumming up support on the home front.  Women are demanding the most aggressive and most expensive treatment available; even when the evidence of there being any benefit is scant that the treatment is worthwhile.  This was most apparent  about a year ago when a panel of cancer experts issued a report that mamogram screening of women less than 50 years old may cause more problems than they solve:  " The federal task force said that unless a woman has unusual risk factors for breast cancer, being screened so early could potentially lead to more harm than good because mammograms tend to spot cancers that grow slowly and might never prove lethal and could lead to unnecessary biopsies and other invasive tests and treatments.Source:  The response from many women has been surprising: They are demanding that they still have their mamograms, despite the evidence that there is no benefit other than for high risk younger women.

Further reading and further action

I have reproduced the New England Journal of Medicine study below with links to its source, so that you can judge for yourself whether or not I am being responsible or irresponsible.  I have also reproduced part of an article by Ji Sayer which I urge you to read in full by following the hyperlink below.  I have also taken some quotes from the website of the Caped Internet Crusader, Mike Adams.  On this issue, I agree with you, Mike (But I think your ideas on gun control are completely nuts).

Please leave your thoughts and comments using the "post a comment" tab at the end of this posting and please forward this article to others, thanks. 

"A disturbing new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine is bringing mainstream attention to the possibility that mammography has caused far more harm than good in the millions of women who have employed it over the past 30 years as their primary strategy in the fight against breast cancer"

"Breast cancer was overdiagnosed (i.e., tumors were detected on screening that would never have led to clinical symptoms) in 1.3 million U.S. women in the past 30 years."

"We found that there were only around 0.1 million fewer women with a diagnosis of late-stage breast cancer. This discrepancy means there was a lot of overdiagnosis: more than a million women who were told they had early stage cancer -- most of whom underwent surgery, chemotherapy or radiation -- for a "cancer" that was never going to make them sick. Although it's impossible to know which women these are, that's some pretty serious harm."
Dr Welch quoted from Natural News Website 

Mike Adams: "In fact, if you do the math and calculate 0.1 million fewer women with advanced-stage cancer out of 1.5 million who were diagnosed, 93% of the "early detection" cancer cases studied were false positives, meaning that they would never have gone on to cause advanced-stage cancer anyway.

Effect of Three Decades of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Incidence

Archie Bleyer, M.D., and H. Gilbert Welch, M.D., M.P.H.


To reduce mortality, screening must detect life-threatening disease at an earlier, more curable stage. Effective cancer-screening programs therefore both increase the incidence of cancer detected at an early stage and decrease the incidence of cancer presenting at a late stage.


We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data to examine trends from 1976 through 2008 in the incidence of early-stage breast cancer (ductal carcinoma in situ and localized disease) and late-stage breast cancer (regional and distant disease) among women 40 years of age or older.


The introduction of screening mammography in the United States has been associated with a doubling in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer that are detected each year, from 112 to 234 cases per 100,000 women — an absolute increase of 122 cases per 100,000 women. Concomitantly, the rate at which women present with late-stage cancer has decreased by 8%, from 102 to 94 cases per 100,000 women — an absolute decrease of 8 cases per 100,000 women. With the assumption of a constant underlying disease burden, only 8 of the 122 additional early-stage cancers diagnosed were expected to progress to advanced disease. After excluding the transient excess incidence associated with hormone-replacement therapy and adjusting for trends in the incidence of breast cancer among women younger than 40 years of age, we estimated that breast cancer was overdiagnosed (i.e., tumors were detected on screening that would never have led to clinical symptoms) in 1.3 million U.S. women in the past 30 years. We estimated that in 2008, breast cancer was overdiagnosed in more than 70,000 women; this accounted for 31% of all breast cancers diagnosed.


Despite substantial increases in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer detected, screening mammography has only marginally reduced the rate at which women present with advanced cancer. Although it is not certain which women have been affected, the imbalance suggests that there is substantial overdiagnosis, accounting for nearly a third of all newly diagnosed breast cancers, and that screening is having, at best, only a small effect on the rate of death from breast cancer.
About this website
The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation.  Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.